[asking]

Originally Posted by N0help4u
All I am saying is that I would think that a good scientist would go by things that debunk the claims as well as things that support the claim such as

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3440/evorel.html

This material is the reason that children need to learn real science, and not pseudoscientific hokum like this. First, this person makes up a series of arbitrary rules about how he thinks the universe operates and calls them "natural laws" (that's not to say he didn't get them from somewhere, but they aren't science), then he says evolutionary theory doesn't agree with these "laws"/opinions (and argues with facts that are not facts--ie. he's simply wrong about what he says evolution says). This is the least accurate discussion of evolution I've seen to date.

How ironic that this person also posts the following, even as he personally attempts to subvert science:

"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein

[pimp_mah_alpaka]

Personally, I think people should believe what ever they wish to believe. Some people take it in and others don't. But that's just my point of view.

[asking]

In immunology, there is an alternative theory to the standard understanding of how the immune system works. Most biologists accept that the immune system responds to foreign cells and proteins and this model is called "self/nonself." But an alternate theory says that the body responds not to foreign material per se, but to proteins that the body has identified as being dangerous or destructive in the past. This is called the "danger model." It's controversial, not widely accepted.

A lot of biology instructors don't even teach beginning students any immunology because they think students find it too difficult, or they don't have "time" because they spend more time on topics like genetics that they feel are more important. They certainly don't introduce this controversy because it's not accepted wisdom and they don't want to confuse students even more--even though the self-nonself model may eventually turn out to be wrong and the danger model may turn out to be right.

BUT there's NO comparable controversy about whether evolution happened and continues to happen. There are minor squabbles about which mechanisms have been the most important in different situations, but biologists DON'T argue about whether evolution has occurred. This is not some vast conspiracy, as biologists are not united or organized enough to have vast conspiracies.

Even something as well documented as the theory that AIDS is caused by HIV (virus) has a tiny group of established biologists objecting (Peter Deusberg, a virologist at UC Berkeley, and friends). If there's a hint of doubt, biologists will talk about it.

But not so for the Theory of Evolution. Just like the Cell Theory (all organisms are made of cells), the Germ Theory (diseases are caused by germs), Harvey's "Figure 8" model of blood circulation, and a long list of other well-established biological ideas, Evolutionary Biology is accepted as fact. No one disputes it within biology.

So when people here say there are no alternate theories to evolution within science, they mean that quite literally. It's not just rhetoric. Evolutionary biology has no alternate theory comparable to the danger model of immunology.

The only people who argue that evolution didn't happen (and continues to happen) are amateurs. And even they have no alternate theory that explains everything we know. Their alleged objections are based on "gut feelings," "common sense", "intuition," and other euphemisms for believing what you want to believe about something--i.e. not science.

[asking]

Personally, i think people should believe what ever they wish to believe. Some people take it in and others dont. But thats just my point of view.

People do believe what they want to believe. But that's (usually) religion, not science. Live and let live is a fine philosophy for getting to work on the bus without getting into an argument.

But it's not a good way to find out how to send rockets to the moon, cure disease, figure out whether the Sun goes around the Earth or the Earth around the Sun. Live and let live is not how science works. Science asks questions and figures out the answers.

I can choose to believe that my kidney is in my big toe. I could even persuade a thousand other people that that's true. But that doesn't make it so and if I go into surgery, I hope my surgeon has it straight!

[pimp_mah_alpaka]

People do believe what they want to believe. But that's (usually) religion, not science. Live and let live is a fine philosophy for getting to work on the bus without getting into an argument.

But it's not a good way to find out how to send rockets to the moon, cure disease, figure out whether the Sun goes around the Earth or the Earth around the Sun. Live and let live is not how science works. Science asks questions and figures out the answers.

I can choose to believe that my kidney is in my big toe. I could even persuade a thousand other people that that's true. But that doesn't make it so and if I go into surgery, I hope my surgeon has it straight!

As I said before that's MY point of view. If you think differently keep it cute or keep it mute.. you can't change my point of view. We all think differently

[asking]

So it's your point of view that there is no such thing as truth and everything is a matter of opinion? I'm not trying to change you or your point of view, I'm arguing with a statement you made to the effect that science is a matter of opinion.

If that's true, why have schools teach chemistry or biology, etc at all? By your reasoning, shouldn't we just let students decide whether they want to believe Boyle's law or not? Shouldn't we let students decide whether Columbus sailed to America across the Pacific or the went the other way around pass Africa (as one my kids' teachers taught her 3rd graders). Does anything really matter?

Neither cute nor mute

[ordinaryguy]

Here's one teacher who's doing his job. I thank him for having the courage and integrity to do that.

A Teacher on the Front Line

[asking]

Speaking of "cute".. .

This is what I was trying to say. Good article. I haven't finished it yet.

Yet their abiding mistrust in evolution, he feared, jeopardized their belief in the basic power of science to explain the natural world — and their ability to make sense of it themselves.

Exactly.

[inthebox]

Why can't they actually present the scientific facts

First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of description

Is evolution required in medical school. NO

Because the actual science of biology can stand on its own without evolution

And I’m not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.

For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)

Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.

No proof of speciation. Only "micro evolution"

Is behavior 100 percent genetically predetermined? NO

Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them

This is contradictory. :eek: If we are ultimate naturally selected predator why should we preserve those that cannot survive?

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, “The Republican War on Science,” the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.

This is politics and an agenda that exposes the authors's true intent - a desire for indoctrination. - this is precisely what does not belong in the classroom. ;)

If this is true, then evolution should be taught as philosophy. And this is probably the truest place in a class room it belongs.

[Capuchin]

Is evolution required in medical school. NO

Because the actual science of biology can stand on its own without evolution

But you're not talking about biology (which I think is itself a dubious point). You're talking about modern medicine, for which an understanding of evolution is crucial. Especially now that we're recognizing drug resistant strains of bacteria.

[asking]

Doctors, and especially medical researchers, SHOULD learn about evolution.
Read this article making that point in Stanford Medical School's magazine.

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine

As for the assertion that biology can stand on its own without evolution, that's simply wrong. There isn't any area of modern biology that would make full sense absent an understanding of evolution. Name an area and I can explain why. Alas, I am leaving on a camping trip today and won't be back for a week, so I will either resume next week or leave this in the capable hands of Cred, Capuchin, MichaelB, et al. :)

[inthebox]

“Medicine needs evolution,” sets out a call to action. The three authors — Nesse; Stephen Stearns, PhD, an evolutionary biologist from Yale; and Gil Omenn, MD, PhD, a geneticist and current president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science —

Conflict of interest and bias from an evolutionary biologist.

“It is impossible to be a good physician without understanding the evolutionary process,” says Julie Parsonnet, MD,

So all the doctors that have come, gone and are present are not good physicians?

It is the art of medicine that makes the difference to most people:

Compassion, kindness, time spent, thoroughness, communication----not to discount the intelletual componenets, but what exactly does the knowledge of evolution contribute to the former?

If anything, most doctors need further emphasis on pyschology -
does it really add to patient care or medical knowledge to know that anxiety serves a real survival function but in excess causes panic attacks?

Does it really help the SLE patient to tell them that "evolution developed" the immune system, just that your attacks your own body?

what is a doctor to think of birth control or abortion?
these are contradictory to evolutions mandate to adapt, survive, and pass on your genes yet here humanity is doing the opposite.

These cases disturbed Yun, then a Stanford radiology resident. But they also intrigued him.

Having studied evolutionary biology in college, Yun tried fitting these medical failuresinto that framework.

Science is based on facts;

Doctors ask for the proof - the data - too.

Look up evidenced based medicine.

In research the gold standard is randomized controlled trial:

Let knowledge of evidence "prove" itself as helpful in healthcare.

Follow a control group of physicians, taught standard, and another group taught the same plus evolution, and say another taught the same plus theology. Try to control for as many confounding factors and follow them for 30 years and collect data [ mortality/ morbidity rate of their patients, patient satisfation scores / dollars spent on health care ] and do a statistical analysis if the hypothesis that evolution actual adds anything to healthcare.


Remember - correlation is not causation. And not every "good " idea turns out that way.

EG Airbags - theoretically makes sense till the reality that it kills small people hit.



Radiology - important but not involved in actual day to day bedside patient care.
Also a very competitive field because as amedical subspecialty it pays better than primary care and the hours are better. Yes, natural selection involved in choosing his path.

Maybe he should also consider non reductionist non - material causes for heart disease, like smoking or eating improperly, or being a type a perrrsonality, or not exercising or not maintaing an ideal weight... in addition to the standard risk factors.