Sorry Evolution Again

[edwest2]

To Namesake -

Comparative anatomy deals with living things that med students will be dealing with throughout their careers. Not dead things that supposedly lived millions of years ago.

The funny thing about Embryology, expecially human Embryology, is that an embryo, which is a unique human being, is relabeled a glob of tissue for the purpose of abortion. If Embryology teaches that the human embryo is a unique individual, and that all human beings started life as a human embryo, how can anyone in the healing professions allow it to be relabeled and disposed of as “medical waste”?

With all due respect to you, your education included an institutionalized bias and orientation.

Histology means learning to use a microscope to study things not visible to the eye. No waste there.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

To Namesake -

Comparative anatomy deals with living things that med students will be dealing with throughout their careers. Not dead things that supposedly lived millions of years ago.

That isn’t true at all. Comparative anatomy deals with evolutionary development of analogous morphology.

The funny thing about Embryology, expecially human Embryology, is that an embryo, which is a unique human being, is relabeled a glob of tissue for the purpose of abortion.

Embryology isn’t all about human embryos. Human embryology begins with much more primitive organisms and, as in comparative anatomy, analogous morphology can be followed in an evolutionary pattern. It isn’t about abortion in any way.

 

[edwest2]

Analogous morphology teaches the med student what? It certainly doesn’t teach him or her anything about what he or she will be dealing with on a daily basis - living humans.

How is it connected to evolution aside from speculation?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Analogous morphology teaches the med student what? It certainly doesn’t teach him or her anything about what he or she will be dealing with on a daily basis - living humans.

How is it connected to evolution aside from speculation?

It teaches how a human came to be and that teaches much more about what a human is than rote memorization of anatomical structure. They become doctors instead of technicians. They have a deep understanding of what a human being actually is. Without evolution theory that understanding is not possible.

 

[edwest2]

“what a human being actually is”?

When you’ve got plenty of human beings running around and those donating their bodies to science, there’s no need to look into the past, just the present. Evolution has what to do with this?

Peace,
Ed

 

[cpayne]

Okay, here’s a good example of morphology being applied on a contemporary medical problem: Which heart transplant would be more likely to work in a human, that of a chimpanzee or a baboon?

And why?

 

[The_Barbarian]

What? Evolution has zero application to this.

One could only say so from a position of ignorance of evolution and medicine.

Studying anatomical structures from simple to complex tells me nothing about evolution.

You, perhaps. But in fact, the evolution of human anatomy is a key part of training for physicians.

Embryological studies have led to no treatments for anything.

You are quite wrong about that. It has, for example, taught us to do surgery in utero, saving the lives of countless unborn.

And have nothing to do with evolution.

That’s wrong, too. Understanding the program by which a human develops (which is constrained by evolutionary history) is a key part of such medical progress.

It’s time to learn a little about biology, Ed. It’s not what your creationists have told you.

 

[edwest2]

Okay, here’s a good example of morphology being applied on a contemporary medical problem: Which heart transplant would be more likely to work in a human, that of a chimpanzee or a baboon?

And why?

And this has what to do with things that died millions of years ago? This is comparative functional biology, which can be tested in the open, in real time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

And this has what to do with things that died millions of years ago?

By knowing how many millions of years ago two particular extinct species lived we can answer the question without having to remove the hearts of either a chimpanzee or a baboon.

This is comparative functional biology, which can be tested in the open, in real time.

Science includes making predictions. Evolution allows us to make a prediction in this case. What is the creationist prediction, and what is the reasoning behind the prediction?

rossum

 

[Deconi]

Other than producing a virus of death (AIDS) what is the scientific prediction of an offspring from a human and a chimp?

Would it be closer to, or genetically progress towards, the ‘common ancestor’ or away from it?

Since we know the genome of both species, enabling calculation, how many ‘generations’ would it take to return to the common ancestor ?

Since we have a common ancestor, any reported cases of the “touched” chimps producing er…kids?

 

[rossum]

Other than producing a virus of death (AIDS) what is the scientific prediction of an offspring from a human and a chimp?

You are making errors here. Rhetoric is all very fine but if it leads you into making factual errors then, in a scientific discussion, it makes your case weaker.

• AIDS is a disease, not a virus. HIV is the virus which causes AIDS.
• A mating between two species of mammal will not produce a virus, and it is an indication of a severe lack of knowledge about biology for anyone to seriously entertain such an idea. HIV appears to have derived from SIV in Chimps because of humans either eating undercooked chimp meat or getting chimp blood into an open wound when butchering a chimp.

Would it be closer to, or genetically progress towards, the ‘common ancestor’ or away from it?

Neither. Both ourselves and chimps are that same ‘distance’ from our common ancestor, so any hybrid, assuming it was viable, would be at the same distance. Three different points on a circle are all at the same distance from the centre.

Since we know the genome of both species, enabling calculation, how many ‘generations’ would it take to return to the common ancestor?

Infinite. The common ancestor evolved in a specific environment and was adapted to that environment. That environment no longer exists so any new hybrid would evolve to fit the current environment and not a vanished past environment.

Since we have a common ancestor, any reported cases of the “touched” chimps producing er…kids?

Less rhetoric and more accuracy will make for a better argument.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

And this has what to do with things that died millions of years ago?

We know that the genetic and immunological distance between two species is a measure of how long it’s been since their last common ancestor. We know this works, because we can test it on human and animal individuals of known ancestry.

This is comparative functional biology, which can be tested in the open, in real time.

Right. And you thought there was no way to test evolutionary theory. There are many other ways. Would you like to hear about some more?

 

[Namesake]

“what a human being actually is”?

When you’ve got plenty of human beings running around and those donating their bodies to science, there’s no need to look into the past, just the present. Evolution has what to do with this?

Evolution theory teaches us where we came from. The reason that’s important is similar to the reason we study subjects like inorganic chemistry before pharmacology.

Students could be given a sort of cookbook method of prescribing medications and that would work in many cases. But to more completely understand how drugs work it is necessary to understand covalent bonding and electron shell theories and ions and isotopes. Progressing through different branches of chemistry gives students a broad foundation from which comes understanding, not just rote memorization.

Evolution is the basis of biology because it tells us how we got to be what we are. Through evolution theory we begin to understand biology instead of memorize.

The key word in all of this is understand. Actually that’s the amazing thing about Darwin’s idea, that it provides a way to understand a very complex science and so far it is the correct way.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution theory teaches us where we came from. The reason that’s important is similar to the reason we study subjects like inorganic chemistry before pharmacology.

Students could be given a sort of cookbook method of prescribing medications and that would work in many cases. But to more completely understand how drugs work it is necessary to understand covalent bonding and electron shell theories and ions and isotopes. Progressing through different branches of chemistry gives students a broad foundation from which comes understanding, not just rote memorization.

Evolution is the basis of biology because it tells us how we got to be what we are. Through evolution theory we begin to understand biology instead of memorize.

The key word in all of this is understand. Actually that’s the amazing thing about Darwin’s idea, that it provides a way to understand a very complex science and so far it is the correct way.

Covalent bonding and electron shell theories, and ions and isotopes, have nothing to do with evolution.

“how we got to be what we are”? How so? Currently, it simply teaches that man is the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have him in mind.

After nearly ten years in health care, I saw other, very valuable things, that have nothing to do with science. Talk to a hospital chaplain sometime.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Covalent bonding and electron shell theories, and ions and isotopes, have nothing to do with evolution.

Once again you prove how little you know about evolution theory, and in fact science in general. Inorganic chemistry is very much a part of evolution theory. Just for starters, we can’t understand much about sediment layers unless we have a firm grasp of inorganic chemistry. But moreover, we can’t understand organic chemistry and biochemistry unless we understand inorganic chemistry. And we can’t even begin to hypothesize how the first replicator molecules formed if we don’t understand inorganic chemistry. And radiometric dating requires a very deep understanding of inorganic chemistry.

It’s just like we can’t do calculus until we can do basic algebra.

I betcha don’t think quantum mechanics has anything to do with evolution theory either.

 

[Namesake]

“how we got to be what we are”? How so? Currently, it simply teaches that man is the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have him in mind.

The anthropic principle (observation) can be stated in a way that says the entire universe had human life “in mind”.

Stephen Hawking, an avowed atheist, makes statements similar to Einstein, another atheist, about the mind of God. They don’t mean the same thing as you do when you speak of God. What they say is that the universe is following laws that they view to be God, basically. I think that might be where this is all going, toward an understanding of the natural laws that describe the universe and therein we will find God. That allows for theistic evolution and even theistic cosmology.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think so. Pope Benedict has written that neither nature or evolution are active forces. Nature has no will or intelligence.

Currently, science excludes all supernatural events and explanations. To postulate that it might arrive at some sort of unifying principle in the future is one thing, to relate it to the Christian God in any way does not follow.

No. The problem most Christians in the United States have with evolution is that it is clearly atheistic; i.e. everything happened on its own driven by mutation and natural selection. That doesn’t wash, at all, with the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. Most leading scientists reject God according to Nature magazine.

And with the “New Atheism” (as written up in Wired magazine among other places), the goal is clear: get God out of the lives of everyday people.

Richard Dawkins: “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

Comparative anatomy and comparative functional anatomy as it relates to current living things has zero to do with evolution, Nothing. Evolution is the study of things that died millions of years ago.

I watched the residents with their groups of new interns go from patient to patient: “Mr, So and so is exhibiting the following symptoms. His tests show such and such. What is your diagnosis and recommended course of treatment?” Never once was the word evolution uttered. Never.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Covalent bonding and electron shell theories, and ions and isotopes, have nothing to do with evolution.

That’s another place you’re wrong. The understanding of these things unlocked the secret to the way evolution happens at the molecular level.

“how we got to be what we are”? How so? Currently, it simply teaches that man is the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have him in mind.

Our bodies. But it can’t talk about our souls. And the universe is cold and uncaring. So is a hammer. But in the hands of the right One, it can produce things like us.

After nearly ten years in health care, I saw other, very valuable things, that have nothing to do with science. Talk to a hospital chaplain sometime.

Those things have nothing to do with evolution, either. It’s OK. Evolution is just part of God’s creation. There’s a lot more than that.

You need to be willing to accept all of God’s creation, not just the parts you like.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t think so. Pope Benedict has written that neither nature or evolution are active forces. Nature has no will or intelligence.

Doesn’t need it. What we see happening, is happening, because nature can bring these things about without design or intelligence. But it was created by a Being with perfect intelligence.

Currently, science excludes all supernatural events and explanations.

But it doesn’t rule them out. It merely seeks natural causes for natural events, without saying whether or not nature was created.

No. The problem most Christians in the United States have with evolution is that it is clearly atheistic; i.e. everything happened on its own driven by mutation and natural selection.

You’ve confused science with atheism. Atheism denies God. Science merely notes that nature works without miracles or magic. God made it that way.

Comparative anatomy and comparative functional anatomy as it relates to current living things has zero to do with evolution,

I’ve taken comparative anatomy, the same course physicians had to take. And it’s deeply involved in evolution, and the textbooks frequently mention it.

Evolution is the study of things that died millions of years ago.

You probably would be more effective at fighting evolution, if you knew what it was. It’s also the study of the way populations change. And so antibiotic protocols are written according to evolutionary theory. Animal and plant breeding are done according to evolutionary theory.

I watched the residents with their groups of new interns go from patient to patient: “Mr, So and so is exhibiting the following symptoms. His tests show such and such. What is your diagnosis and recommended course of treatment?” Never once was the word evolution uttered. Never.

How often was bond resonance metioned? And yet that too is critical to medicine. You’ve confused the practice of medicine with the theories on which it depends.

 

[edwest2]

To say “God made it that way” is your statement. No, science is mostly concerned about atheism today. Pope Benedict has written that both scientific and popular texts say evolution or nature has done this or that. But what is this nature or evolution as [an active] force? It doesn’t exist at all!

thetablet.co.uk/article/9640

That is what I believe. Textbook evolution is grossly incomplete. To further complicate that issue, the atheists are busy using the “mountains of evidence” to promote their cause. It’s really too bad that science can’t be just about science anymore.

Peace,
Ed