Clutch

Yep, agreed. But some things are more important than others; there are diminishing marginal gains to learning extra stuff. Moreover, I was talking about being a *good* doctor. Of course many good doctors, or good anythings, could be better. There's no tension between what you've said and what I've said.

Probably 80% of doctors or more fail to have a very comprehensive grasp of evolutionary theory. And most of these are good GP's, kinesthesiologists, sports injury surgeons, podiatrists, dermatologists... whatever. I'd be much, much happier to see them actually understanding the biology that informs so much of their practice, but then, I'd be much happier to see everyone understand a bit of evolutionary theory and scientific methodology.

Baloo

Clutch,

I think the point is that learning the foundations, first, makes it easier to learn the "important stuff". Any other approach is just brute force memorization of facts, perhaps the least effective method for learning...

Oolon Colluphid

Which makes it odd that every biology textbook below degree level I've seen (which is several, though obviously British ones) brings in evolution, not at the beginning, but in the final chapter or two. I suppose it may act like a conclusion, rounding up everything and making it all make sense, but you could also take it to mean that textbook authors disagree with you.

Oolon

Baloo

I think the latter conclusion is the valid one... and maybe I'm just a nutcase who thinks that biology, on the whole, would be much easier to understand if it was taught in the context of evolutionary theory. I liken the current approach to writing a man's biography, starting with his college years, on to his early studies, on to his lifetime achievements, and then tying it all together by detailing the way his parents raised him.

pseudobug

Look, DNAUnion I know perfectly well what bandwidth is. You made eleven consecutive meaningless posts in the space of two hours last night. Most of them are quotes of other peoples statements followed by lamebrained one-liner replies from yourself that add [b}nothing[/b] to the original discussion.

Those posts are useless bytes of information as you added nothing to the original discussion. Web hosting services charge a fee based on the number of gigabytes of data transmitted on a site per month. Your useless drivel adds to that monthly total everytime someone downlaods it when they view a thread.

Result? A waste of bandwidth as people download your pointless, mundane posts.

Clutch

Baloo, I don't agree. And it's not because I'm not in favour of -- even consumed by! -- the idea of teaching evolutionary theory better and more widely. But for my money, the first thing you should teach med students is CPR! They probably don't, in most schools, so I guess they don't like my idea any more than they like yours.

MrDarwin

Pseudobug, you're not helping matters much. Either address the issues DNAUnion raises--effective rebuttals would be most helpful--or ignore them and him and address the issues being raised by others here. But please don't start (or contribute to) a flame war.

Dr Rick

OT, but IMHO it should be a requirement at the high school or junior high level.

Dr. Rick

pseudobug

My point, MR. Darwin, is the fact that DNAUnion has not made a point and drones on incessantly about nothing.

He has essentially hijacked a thread with excellent potential--the fact that science in general fails to communicate (in some instances)one of the core concepts of all biology--to the very people who put it into practice.

The issue at hand is wheter or not academia is going to train "technicians" who simply follow directions in their "jobs"-if that job is fixing a dog's broken leg or a human's damaged eye--or prepare them with the foundation of the disciplines related to biological sciences and prepare them to think and push the edge's of the field forward.

I get the impression from DNAUnion--between his incessant "quoting" and witless one-liners--that he thinks it is a bunch of trained automatons turned out as doctors, vets, etc.

One of the keys to scientific advancement is being able to notice the unusual and unexpected result. People that do "cookbbok" science because the don't have the conceptual framework provided by at least a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory and how it can impact their discipline have been ill-trained IMO.

Defend him if you want, but after wading through eleven consecutive posts on the previous page, I see no reason to do so or tolerate more of his shenanigans without comment.

DNAunion

DNAunion: Okay moderators, can you tell me how Pangloss's direct personal attack on me is not an example of his being a jerk?

What was that rule you plastered here for me to read again? Gee, does it apply to me only?