pangloss

Unlike creationists, 'Intelligent Design' proponants, and other egomaniacal zealots, I have never claimed, implied, or even hinted at being 'eminent.' That Rick Pierson/DNAunion cannot address any of my publications is a function of his narrow abilities, nothing else.

But, like I said - I have better things to do than engage what is most likely a seriously deranged, homophobic megalomaniac.

Oolon Colluphid

If so, I took it to be at me, for teasing Dr Rick with a running joke about instincts:

Pangloss, I guess that anyone who understands evolutionary biology is ‘eminent’ compared to folks like DNAunion...

DNAunion: earlier here you queried the hominid skulls I posted. Did you want to discuss the matter further? I’d be happy to oblige and start a new thread...? Would you care to hazard as to which are ‘human’ and which are ‘ape’?

Oh, and what, if any, sort of creation do you believe? If you are not a creationist, then what the hell are you on about?

Oolon

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Clutch

I don't see what the remaining debate is about. DNA is clearly correct that one can be a good doctor, for most kinds of doctor, without grasping evolutionary theory. He also clearly concedes in the above quote that, ceteris paribus, knowing evolutionary theory is better than not knowing it. What matters primarily is that a doctor know the medically relevant *implications* of common ancestry, mutation, and so forth. The overwhelming majority of doctors can be pig-ignorant of the fact that these are indeed implications of evolutionary theory, so long as they apply them correctly. And this shows what anyone who knows doctors has known all along: they're guts mechanics, and not scientists.

I agree that there's something socio-intellectually unsettling about someone who wears a white lab coat, and who is regarded as generally biologically informed, thinking (say) that the Earth is 6000 years old. The lesson is that this public regard for medical doctors as scientists is misplaced (and has always been so). In a few highly specialized circumstances it will be especially important for the doctor to know evolutionary theory; the Baby Fae case was a nice example. But the correctness of DNA-U's point lies mostly in the rote nature of most medical practice. His being a troll is entirely tangential.

Dr Rick

Evolution offers a scientific explanation of why some species survive better than others. It does not provide a moral system for humans to judge what should live and what should die.

Dr. Rick, always instinctively looking for more ways to tease Simon (Oolon).

Oolon Colluphid

&lt;neat reversal&gt;
But that's not an instinct...

Although... laughter / humour... No, don't go there...

Oolon

MrDarwin

I asked:

To which DNAUnion replied:

I would consider it a logical supposition that an animal closely related to a skunk, e.g., a ferret, might give me some clues as. The more closely the animals are related, the more similar both diagnosis and treatment are likely to be.

Now, from your replies to me and to others I'm getting the impression you have decided that evolution is all about natural selection and nothing else. I would venture that most biologists consider common descent to be at least as important a component of evolution, yet judging from your comments you seem not to consider it to be. So do you agree that knowledge about common descent and phylogenetic relationships are important and useful to veterinarians and doctors, and if so, how would one teach about such without reference to evolution?

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Dr Rick

Someone who is ignorant of the foundations of an applied field will not understand it as well as someone who is knowledgeable about it. As a general rule, the more one understands what one is doing and why, the better he can do it.

Dr. Rick

MrDarwin

And you do know that evolutionary ideas also predate Darwin? You seem to think that all of evolutionary theory can be distilled to the Darwinian idea of natural selection, but that's a gross oversimplification--in reality, evolutionary theory incorporates many ideas (some of which was completely unknown to Darwin, like Mendelian genetics). So when you tell us that doctors and vets don't need to know anything about evolution, maybe you should clarify just what you mean by "evolution" as you seem to be using it in a different sense than most of us understand.

(BTW I would quibble here that I don't believe early classifications, including those of Linnaeus upon which our modern taxonomic classifications are still based, were based on "inferred relationships"-- certainly not in the phylogenetic sense. For example, Linnaeus did not propose that all mammals were descended from a single ancestral mammal.)

Baloo

DNAunion - thanks for the response. Let me see if I can be a little more direct (I'll address my analogy later on). I think an understanding of evolutionary theory would have several benefits to a physician (or physician-to-be), based on the following assumptions:

1) Putting isolated facts into an explanatory framework serves as a highly effective mnemonic device. Quite simply, if you understand the "why" behind a fact, it becomes much easier to recall the fact.

2) Putting isolated facts into an explanatory framework serves as a error-correction system. There is no level of intelligence at which a person's ability to recall memorized facts is perfect. Having a theoretical framework that gives the "why" of a fact makes it possible to quickly and easily "double check" that your recollection at least fits the explanatory framework, minimizing the overall chance of error significantly.

3) An explanatory framework makes for more rapid and efficient memorization of facts not yet learned. This is subtly different from #1, as memorization and memory recall are different processes. Furthermore, many facts are derivable from other facts, using the framework, and do not even need to be directly memorized by "brute force".
As an example, ask yourself the following: If you were to teach a trigonometry class, and wanted your students, by the end of the class, to memorize the 4 trig identities, do you think they would learn them faster and more accurately if you wrote them on the board, and had the class recite them over, and over, and over again? Or
do you think that teaching the first identity, explaining why it is true and consistent with their current understanding of trig fucntions, and showing how to derive the other 3 from it, would be more effective? Which class do you think would do better on a quiz a week later?

4) An explanatory framework has predictive value. A set of isolated facts will not grow on its own: the set is generally expounded by prediction of new facts, which are verified by experimentation. Obviously, this process is most efficient when the number of incorrect predictions is minimized; and the number of correct predictions maximized (good predictions tend to be synonomous with "well-educated guesses"). An example: certain treatments, through the slow, tedious course of trial-and-error, were developed with limitted success in treating certain sicknesses. With the development of germ-theory, the set of semi-successful treatments was greatly expounded (as germ theory greatly limited the scope of possible observations; leading medical practioners to test the verocity of chemicals which kill germs, and not the effectiveness of using varying numbers of leeches to purge the "bad blood", or testing a variety of incantations to drive out "bad spirits").

Quick sidenote: the unstated conclusion of my analogy was that Jack, after first leaning the Latin roots of the languages, the historical devlopment of the languages, and after gaining an understanding of the cultures in which the languages developed would be able to
1) Recall vocabulary more easily,
2) Recall vocabulary more accurately,
3) Memorize new vocabulary, particularly the minute idiosyncrasies and exceptions to rules, common sayings, etc., associated with all languages, more easily and...
4) Take a much more educated "guess" the meaning of a word or phrase that simply "was not in the books",
and would ultimately become a much more proficient translator than Jill could ever hope to be.

And back to the main thrust of the thread...

5) The theory of evolution serves as an explanatory framework for a large number of medical facts (that is, it gives the "why" of many stand-alone observations of physiology, both human and non-human).

6) From 1 and 5, medical professionals with an understanding of the Th. of Ev. will be better equipped to recall memorized facts than their evolution-ignorant counterparts.

7) From 2 and 5, medical profeesionals will an understanding of Th. of Ev will recall facts more accurately.

8) From 3 and 5, the student who is first given an understanding of the Th. of Ev., and then taught medical facts in an evolutionary context will be able to more rapidly and efficiently memorize facts, and will not waste time memorizing "redundant" facts (i.e. facts that are derivable from other facts coupled with Ev. Th.).

9) From 4 and 5, medical professionals with an understanding of the Th. of Ev. will be more likely to expound on the existing set of medical knowledge (possibly helping to resolve such issues as overcoming bacterial resistance to antibiotics, ridding hospitals of "super germs" which are beginning to flourish in the supposedly "sterile" environments, combatting or preventing inherittable genetic disorders, etc.).

On 6, 7, 8, and 9, I rest my argument that an understanding of the Theory of Evolution ought to be a fundamental part of an education in the medical field.

Looking forward to your comments.

-Baloo

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Principia

Lest we forget, a mainstay of medical research is the use of animal models. How can physician scientists justify interpreting results from such experiments without any appreciation of evolutionary relationships? Oh, but no, research is too far removed from clinical work to have any practical human use, right?

SC