Defenders of Darwinian medicine assert that understanding the evolutionary cause of a disease process, beyond the understanding of the proximate cause (i.e. the scientific cause, traditionally understood) is of significant value in medicine.
I believe that the evolutionary cause is a matter of speculation, and of no real value to medicine. It may be of value to evolutionary biology, but that's a different matter.
Here's my challenge:
Please provide examples of evolutionary speculation offered for any disease that has provided medical scientists with information valuable for management of the disease that was not already available from the proximate evidence.
Simple assertion of a hypothetical evolutionary cause-- the best example is probably the protection from malaria conferred by the heterozygote sickle cell trait-- is not sufficient to be of value in medical research and treatment. It is of value to evolutionary biology if true, but malaria treatment does just fine without it.
In my view, Darwinian medicine is all hat, no cattle. Show me the cattle.
That's easy: genetic disorders, which are generally discovered by DNA sequences comparisons between species that you don't accept as sharing common ancestry.ReplyDelete
Examples available upon request, if you're too lazy to look for yourself.
The inference to common ancestry is inferred from the genetic similarities, so your inference that the genetic similarities are inferences from common ancestry is circular reasoning.
Story-telling ("Darwinian medicine") adds nothing to medical research or practice.
Provide the examples, and I'll blog in them.
Isn't it just astounding that the mutation banks have now 100,000 known mutations - and most if not all of them are associated with some disorder, syndrome, disease etc. - but Darwinists still insist that mutations are the elementary particles, so to speak, of evolution itself.ReplyDelete
Question: How many mutations are there in the beneficial mutations bank?
(Do any exist? I could find none on the web.)
A: Seeing as I found none, and seeing most DB's on mutations contain mostly info on neutral or harmful ones, this answer alone ought to disturb Darwinists immensely.
But it doesn't because, no matter the evidence against, "evolution is a fact".
It is religion, not science.
@Gary: what do you think about this one:ReplyDelete
These "short sleepers" have a mutation on a gene known as hDEC2, that regulates their sleep-wake cycle. This mutation allows them to function on less sleep, researchers say.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
@Gary: what do you think about this one:
That all you got?
From the article: It's unclear whether natural short sleepers risk health problems associated with sleep deprivation.
i.e. How much you wanna bet that the "beneficial" mutation (is it really?) ends up costing too much to the organism in the end?
Such mutations almost always do.
You might also mention E.Coli ? lactose (Lenski) and the nylonase bug.
No bug deal there either, but that would make 100,000 bad ones to 3 allegedly good ones.
I wouldn't make any bets if I were you.