Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of New York’s foremost brain surgeons, Dr. Michael Egnor, has repeatedly pointed out why Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine. See: Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?.

And it turns out, Michael Egnor’s claims are being supported by an uncomfortable admission by Catriona J. MacCallum, the Senior Editor at PLoS Biology. In the recent editorial Does Medicine without Evolution Make Sense? MacCallum writes:

Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution “antibiotic resistance” is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals. Despite potentially valid reasons for this oversight (e.g., that authors of papers in medical journals would regard the term as too general), it propagates into the popular press when those papers are reported on, feeding the wider perception of evolution’s irrelevance in general, and to medicine in particular

Darwinists claim how important Darwinism is to science, but MacCallum’s editorial makes an embarrassing admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance to medicine. She also reports on the protests from medical students who find themselves forced to study Darwinism for no good reason. In reading the excerpt below, ask yourself, “why is it that a campaign has to be waged to teach Darwinism in science classes.” Do we need campaigns to teach the theory of gravitation or the periodic table?:

Randolph Nesse (University of Michigan) and colleagues think otherwise [2], and have been campaigning for evolution to be recognized and taught as a basic science to all medical students (see also the Evolution and Medicine Network, http://www.evolutionandmedicine.org). It has been more than 10 years since he and George Williams published their classic book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine [3]. Other landmark texts linking evolution to health have been written since then, with new editions on the way [4], and the research field is blossoming. Still, as Nesse mentioned at the start of the York meeting, there are only a handful of medical schools in the United States and in the United Kingdom with an evolutionary biologist listed as such on the faculty.

the hardest task in adding evolutionary/Darwinian medicine to medical curricula may well be soliciting support from medical students. Although Paul O’Higgins thought a comparison of the brachial plexus to the pentadactyl limb was helpful, not all his students agreed…complaints were lodged that he was forcing evolution on them

[MacCallum, by the way, was the Editor of Trends in Ecology & Evolution for more than four years, from 1999 to 2003.]

Because Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine, Darwinists have to use sleight of hand propaganda to justify Darwinism’s relevance to modern medicine. (see: Blythian evolution explains antibiotic resistance, not Darwinism.)

But Darwinism isn’t just irrelevant to medicine, it’s irrelevant to most anything practical. Even Jerry Coyne admits Darwinism’s lack of utility. See: if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits and “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom”.

In contrast, the design paradigm moves forward at one of America’s most prestigious universities. In Wanted: Biologists who can speak ‘math,’ engineers fluent in genetics [1] we learn:

One-third of the engineers at MIT now work on biological problems, according to Graham C. Walker, MIT biology professor.

This demographic development has great significance to the ID movement because the design mentality is inherent to the engineering discipline. The two scientific disciplines most noted for sympathy toward ID are medicine and engineering. Individuals from these two disciplines have been actively involved in challenging Darwinism. The increasing prominence of these two disciplines bodes well for the design revolution.

Engineers, those who make a living studying the science of design are now invading biology in larger and larger numbers. The emerging discipline of Systems Biology, a design-friendly discipline which investigates biology from a design perspective, will eventually dominate the way biology is done from now on. In contrast, the discipline of Evolutionary Biology (with the exception of fine fields like Population Genetics) will possibly decline in prominence.

Also, an engineering specialty, computer science will play a major role [2]:

March 26, 2006
The Reading File

Bytes and Biology
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

The impact of computer science on science as a whole was considered by a group of leading researchers, led by Stephen Emmott of Microsoft Research, who debated the future of computing in summer 2005. Their report, “Towards 2020 Science,” is at research.microsoft.com.

We believe computer science is poised to become as fundamental to biology as mathematics has become to physics. We postulate this because there is a growing awareness among biologists that to understand cells and cellular systems requires viewing them as information processing systems, as evidenced by the fundamental
similarity between molecular machines of the living cell and
computational automata, and by the natural fit between computer process algebras and biological signaling and between computational logical circuits and regulatory systems in the cell”

These developments have been so undeniable, even Richard Dawkins, the self-appointed “Winston Churchill”[3] of atheism, had to admit:

Biology has become a sort of branch of computer science

Richard Dawkins

NOTES:

[1] (HT: Dr. Scott L. Page at KCFS for the MIT Article)

[2] (HT: stunney at telicthoughts.com for the NY Time article )

[3] Richard Dawkins likens himself to the courageous Winston Churchill who was Prime Minister of the UK during World War II. Given Dawkins’ disdain for Christianity, it’s ironic he likens himself to Churchill. Churchill committed himself and Britain to the defense of Christian civilization. When the Battle of France was over run in World War II, Churchill encouraged his nation by saying:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to
begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.

Winston Churchill

Comments
[…] most US doctors don’t “accept” evolution (Darwinism). Should they lose their […]Dr. No on evolution | Uncommon Descent
September 29, 2015
September
09
Sep
29
29
2015
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
bi polar disorders... bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression...bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression
January 10, 2008
January
01
Jan
10
10
2008
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
bi polar disorder... bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression...bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression
January 10, 2008
January
01
Jan
10
10
2008
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
bi polar... bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression...bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
bi polar dis orders... bi polar, bi polar disorder, bi polar dis orders, manic depression...bi polar, bi polar disorder, bi polar dis orders, manic depression
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
"Anyone can read can see that you aren’t simply misunderstanding it a lttle, you are representing it as saying the opposite of what the article says by omitting statements that would expose your 180 degree misrepresentation. This is disgraceful. You should remove this post or correct it." First time through I thought that as well, but look over it again, as it is completely missing the point. Sal did not quote the conclusion of the text because it was not relevant to his argument, if you look at what is bolded, you will realize that Sal was using the reluctant admissions in MacCallum's article to demonstrate that Doctors were dissing Darwinism. Not that MacCallum was doing it.Lord Timothy
May 16, 2007
May
05
May
16
16
2007
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
"New Theory for Introns: Mutation Sponges" new evolution theory looks like ID theoryMatthewTan
May 8, 2007
May
05
May
8
08
2007
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
drx: Anyone can read can see that you aren’t simply misunderstanding it a lttle, you are representing it as saying the opposite of what the article says by omitting statements that would expose your 180 degree misrepresentation. This is disgraceful. You should remove this post or correct it.
Consider the fictional statement:
"Phlgiston is essential for chemistry. It's dissappointment it's not being taught in chemistry as it's the most central theory of chemistry"
Would such a statement, in your mind, be embarrasing admission of phlogiston's irrelevance to chemistry. You fail to see the there is a comparable situation with MacCallum's statement. The very existence of her editorial refutes the point she was arguing for. It was an unwitting admission of Darwinism's irrelevance.scordova
May 8, 2007
May
05
May
8
08
2007
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
borne writes with genius: I’m afraid you did not understand in the least what Salvador’s post here is about. Perhaps you’re Darwinist prejudice is blinding your discernment of content and purpose? You sadly mistake drawing logical conclusions from a pro Darwinist article for mere quote-mining. Salvador is not “falsely interpreting” but drawing logical conclusions from the articles implications - indeed from it’s very existence. It is clear that Salvador uses MacCallum’s article to demonstrate exactly what the article implies;(why do Darwinists always fail to see logical implications?) i.e. Darwinism is useless in medicine.
Indeed borne, you understood what my post was about. Compare that to Ed Brayton's reading. Brayton fails to see the subtlety in what I wrote, you were able to correctly understand what I said. Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonestyscordova
May 8, 2007
May
05
May
8
08
2007
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
(cont'd) An after-thought. "In these hypothetical cases will the said sequences still be inherited? If no, then the probability of inheritance is very small, because it is very unlikely the said sequences were inserted into the sperm and egg at the same loci." Actually, if the said sequences are inserted at different chromosonal loci in the sperm and the egg, then we should expect to see half the descendants having the "egg" DNA pattern, and half the descendants having the "sperm" DNA pattern. If this half-half pattern are not observed in living primates, then it is unlikely that retroviral insertion had taken place. Even then, before reproduction even took place, cancer would have taken place to wreck havoc.MatthewTan
May 8, 2007
May
05
May
8
08
2007
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Jerry,Dave At least a dozen of researchers have discovered that introns have regulatory roles - failure of which will cause cancer. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm It remains to be proved whether some or all the introns (and other junk DNA) are functional. I am betting that most introns are functional. I see the following possible explanations for the DNA sequences seemed to be "inserted" by retroviruses: 1. the said sequences are extracted from a host genome into the virus rather than inserted into it by the virus; 2. the said sequences are neither inserted into nor extracted out of host genomes. Rather, some viruses happen to have the same sequences as their hosts. 3. the said sequences were inserted by viruses into particular loci for a reason - maybe it is at these loci that the viruses will survive and replicate in the host because of "software compatibility" By the way, if a virus inserted the said sequences, am I right that the viruses have to replicate into every contiguous cell until the said sequences are also inserted into the germ cells (sperms AND eggs) in order for them to be inherited? What if the sperm contain the said sequences but not the egg, and vice versa, or both sperm and egg contain the said sequences at different loci? In these hypothetical cases will the said sequences still be inherited? If no, then the probability of inheritance is very small, because it is very unlikely the said sequences were inserted into the sperm and egg at the same loci. Generally speaking, evolution has to overcome the "sexual compatibility" barrier - both male and female must co-evolve at the same time and same place in a sexually compatible manner.MatthewTan
May 8, 2007
May
05
May
8
08
2007
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
dacook Exactly. There's already at least one intelligent agency using viral vectors to modify genomes for their own purposes too! The possibility is thus confirmed beyond any doubt. The $64,000 question is whether or not there is more than one such intelligent agency. Call me old fashioned but I still believe in the idea that launched The Enlightenment - Copernican Mediocrity. Critics might point to Fermi's Paradox as evidence that the Copernican Principle has failed. I suspect however that the answer to Fermi's Paradox lies in the length of time that civilizations use radio communications. Once an intelligent species gets to the point of using radio communication then in very short order it either: a) destroys itself through its own technology or b) evolves so far beyond radio communications that they have no more reason for communicating with us than we have reason to communicate with plankton. The pace of technological evolution is not linear. It's exponential. The more technology progresses the faster it progresses even more. Proposed is a technological singularity. If it's good enough for Ray Kurzweil it's good enough for me!DaveScot
May 8, 2007
May
05
May
8
08
2007
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
"Given that, then the real story is either saltational evolution, or progressive creation, or six-day creation..."
Or sequential seeding of the earth with organisms, or at least new DNA programs. (To be inserted by retroviruses...which would probably leave signs of themselves in the genome...;)) Panspermia :)dacook
May 7, 2007
May
05
May
7
07
2007
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Matthew, I have never seen a complete and clear explanation of the retro viruses but apparently they exist at the same places on similar chromosomes in the various species. And are deteriorating in a marked fashion but still recognizable. Maybe someone here could provide a more complete explanation. So supposedly they are not functional and the odds are so small that identical sequences would show up at identical positions by chance that it would be absurd to hold it. If somehow the virus was inserted at multiple times, the odds of it showing up at the same place is very small. There are apparently lots of these retro viruses. There are other sequences besides retro viruses that supposedly are also present called short interspersed nuclear elements or SINE's which appear at identical spots in the genomes of various animals. Both the retro viruses and SINE's appear in the introns of the species and are cut out when a protein is being made. Whether they have function or not will have to wait for the future as science is not even as far as kindergarten yet in understanding how the genome works. They are at the block playing stage. These sequences are strong support for common descent. However, nothing exists from what I understand to indicate a mechanism for the cause of the origin of the individual species. Maybe someone else has a clearer description of this or can point to a source that explains it better.jerry
May 7, 2007
May
05
May
7
07
2007
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Given that, then the real story is either saltational evolution, or progressive creation, or six-day creation - if all the dating of fossils are wrong. So, I have to be extra-cautious about the retrovirus theory in the DNA. Could it be that the viruses took the DNA sequences from the primates, instead of the reverse? How do they know the viruses inserted those DNAs? They assumed that those are junk DNA, so must have been inserted by the viruses? More and more junk DNA have been shown to be functional.MatthewTan
May 7, 2007
May
05
May
7
07
2007
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
matthew Several hundred pieces for each of the following human species Sure. All tiny fragments that together won't fill a coffin. Lucy was one of the most complete fossilized hominids available and they were certain she walked erect and was a human ancestor. For decades this was a given with utter assurance. Now it's been brought into serious question. They aren't even sure if Neandertal is in our line of descent or not and he's almost contemporary. I'm well aware that the fossil record speaks to saltation. I'm a saltationist. The fossil record is the only real evidence we have since DNA is destroyed in just thousands of years. There are a few short proteins found in bone like osteocalcin that can survive for millions of years and have been recently sequenced but a 50 monomer protein doesn't tell much of a story. Any story of molecular evolution must agree with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record. Back in Darwin's time it was reasonable to think that the fossil record was largely unexplored and that it would eventually tell a story of continuous small changes leading from one species to another but that's not the case today. There is no story of continuous small change in the fossil record and it isn't because we haven't looked hard enough - it's because you can't find what isn't there. DaveScot
May 6, 2007
May
05
May
6
06
2007
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
(cont'd) The big picture is the fossil record is good enough for evolutionist paleotologists to insist that organisms appeared in the fossil record abruptly and underwent stasis for millions of years, and then became extinct or survive till present era with no evolution. Stasis is real and pervasive. Abrupt appearance of life is real. This is not what one would expect if step-by-step gradualistic evolution happened. Unless we are all prepared to accept fast-paced big-leap evolution. That is as good as creation unless there is a plausible mechanism. Sudden large change systemic mutations - saltationist evolution - is heresy for genetics biologists.MatthewTan
May 6, 2007
May
05
May
6
06
2007
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
Dave, Several hundred pieces for each of the following human species: homo neanderthalensis, homo sapiens, homo erectus. That is telling a story.MatthewTan
May 6, 2007
May
05
May
6
06
2007
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Matthew All the hominid fossils we have wouldn't fill a single coffin.DaveScot
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Matthew Tan, I actually have no beliefs in this area since the data is so confused and does not point to any specific mechanism. I did not delineate the possible mechanisms but I know of at least four categories of mechanisms and others may have additional thoughts. 1. pre loaded evolutionary information put into one or more genomes at some deep distant time and over the course of time the information in these genomes were triggered and produced the various species. I am certainly not very knowledgeable on this so others may have better insight. 2. sudden large changes in the genome cause by natural means. In the last year there have been discussion about various authors who have pronounced neo-Darwinism dead and that changes happened this way. Some specific mechanisms for these sudden and rather large changes to the genome are proposed but essentially they are only hypothesized to exist. Others may have better insight on this. 3. gradual changes over time which is the standard fare taught in all the textbooks and universities as neo-Darwinism. However, there is almost no proof at all for this position. Darwin proposed it and nearly everybody has followed his lead and accepted it but with little proof and lots of contradictory information. It is an amazing intellectual positon for so many to defend without any backup. 4. agency interfered at various times to change the genome. This is again only inference from available information and the small probabilities of the changes that occurred could happen by natural means. The last is the ID position that this mechanism happened at least once in the past and probably more. Under each common descent would be a reality but each provides very different implications. There is no conclusive evidence for any of them but in some instances, #4 looks very persuasive. Just what these instances are, is open to debate but I will go with OOL as one definite one. In other areas some naturalistic mechanism looks persuasive such as what best explains the geo disparity of life. By the way none of my religious beliefs is affected by whatever combination of mechanisms actually explain what happened. Which is why I like to keep religion out of the discussions.jerry
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Dave, "an awfully compelling case that all primates had a common ancestor." But we have enough hominid fossils to tell a story, I believe. And now given that "Lucy" and KNM-ER 1470 is out of the human ancestral tree, the several human species do not seem to have any more evolutionary ancestor.MatthewTan
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Dave, Thanks for this info. Let me think about it. Jerry, so you are now more inclined to believe that man evolves from ape? You wrote something about this somewhere else, right?MatthewTan
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
MatthewTan, “My article argues that homology in genomes can be explained by software engineering design.” All you have done is illustrate that the object-oriented paradigm can be used to model biological systems. This is not amazing; OO has been successfully used to model very many domains.Freelurker
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
As Dave has said "When any two primate species have homologous HERVs then it was because the retrovirus infected their common ancestor and the remnants remained with both species when they split from that common ancestor." An important part of evolution theory is not that both species split off but how did they split from the common ancestor. As far as I know there is nothing pointing to any specific mechanism causing the split. So this is one part of the big debate (but not the only part). If I have stated it wrong, please feel free to correct it.jerry
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Matthew Evolution theory will be proven if there is vast proportion of non-functional “junk DNA”, and the “junk DNA” in human genome has the same sequence as that in lower organisms. It is unlikely that an intelligent designer will create large amount of “junk DNA”, and even more unlikely that he will “inherit” or re-use “junk DNA” from other (ancestral) organisms and repeat the same to all “descendant” organisms. Retroviruses make copies of themselves by inserting viral genes into the normal DNA of a host cell. The host cell's machinery then does the rest. The retrovirus genes in the host DNA are called a provirus. If the host cell is a reproductive cell the provirus is called an endogenous retrovirus. If it's a human it's called a human endogenous retrovirus (HERV). There may be preferred insertion points but a provirus can insert its viral DNA just about anywhere in the host DNA. About 8% of our DNA is made up of HERV remnants that have one way or another become deactivated. There are matching HERVs in other primates inserted at the same location in their DNA. They don't match exactly but close enough to know they are the same virus. The mismatches correlate with the background rate of random point mutations in DNA that serves no purpose (the HERV serves no purpose for the organism so it will eventually be corrupted until it's no longer recognizable). The only reasonable explanation for this is common descent. When any two primate species have homologous HERVs then it was because the retrovirus infected their common ancestor and the remnants remained with both species when they split from that common ancestor. This doesn't prove primates descended from bacteria but it makes an awfully compelling case that all primates had a common ancestor.DaveScot
May 5, 2007
May
05
May
5
05
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
dacook, you're very welcome. These tags also work: <b>bold</b> <i>italic</i>Apollos
May 4, 2007
May
05
May
4
04
2007
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs, When Darwinists see homology in the genomes, they think of evolution. My article argues that homology in genomes can be explained by software engineering design. Read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicact/message/7638 All homologies - the structure of vertebrate limbs, protein sequences, DNA sequences - can be explained by engineering design. Homologies are no big deal. It is compatible with both world views: blind evolution by common descent, and special creation by common designer. DNA homology is easily explained by object-oriented software engineering design. I will accept evolutionary theory if it is proven that the human genome contains vast proportion of non-functional "junk DNA" relative to "good DNA". But we ID advocates (creationists and evolutionists) are betting that the human genome contains overwhelming proportion of functional "good DNA". Evolution theory will be proven if there is vast proportion of non-functional "junk DNA", and the "junk DNA" in human genome has the same sequence as that in lower organisms. It is unlikely that an intelligent designer will create large amount of "junk DNA", and even more unlikely that he will "inherit" or re-use "junk DNA" from other (ancestral) organisms and repeat the same to all "descendant" organisms. Not only I am betting that the human genome consists of overwhelming proportion of functional "good DNA", I am also betting some kind of "fine-tuning" in Biology, particularly the human genome. It is like "fine-tuning" in the physical universe. Perhaps 3 billion DNA bases, and 25000 (whatever the correct number) genes. Small deviations from this in the human genome and we will have genetic diseases, deformities, and death. Now, say 90% of the genome is really non-functional, then you can eliminate this 90% and the organism will still survive and reproduce. Any Darwinists want to be volunteer themselves as guinea pigs in DNA-elimination experiments? My thoughts about "fine-tuning" is an immature one, because I am not a biologist. I hope some ID biologists can do research and develop a good theory on this. The fine-tuning hypothesis must take into account back-up copies of genes and DNA sequences DESIGNED for contingency events and other vital functions such as DNA error-check and self-repair mechanisms. Note: in computer, there is such a thing called error-check-sum-number which appears to be redundant but it is not, and it is vital for damaged-code repair. Fine-tuning in biology is probably found in many bio-systems. One example is discussed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicact/message/7667 I believe the emerging discipline called Systems Biology will proved to be fruitful in telling us a lot more about fine-tuning in Biology.MatthewTan
May 4, 2007
May
05
May
4
04
2007
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Apollos:
Thanks.
dacook
May 4, 2007
May
05
May
4
04
2007
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
DaveScot: "Living tissue is machine-like and genetics is information based. Machines driven by information processing systems are things that engineers excel at as well as excelling at the design and use of test and diagnostic equipment." I'm not at all surprised to hear that engineers are contributing to the study of biology. I'm disputing the idea that this is somehow good news to the ID movement.Freelurker
May 4, 2007
May
05
May
4
04
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
"Sanford’s idea of “genetic entropy” is inconsistent with common descent" In what way exactly? Maybe inconsistent with a long timeline, but non-Darwinian common descent doesn't necessarily require one.Atom
May 4, 2007
May
05
May
4
04
2007
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply