Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[orogenicman]

What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:

I’m going to have to disagree with you strongly here, Harriet. Until pretty recently, evolutionary thinking has never been an “integral part of medicine,” except in distorted forms like eugenics and nonsense like the “paleo diet.” In particular, I would take issue that doctors “regularly think about evolution.” Practicing doctors, in my experience, rarely, if ever, think about evolution with respect to medicine. Although evolutionary considerations have been (and continue to be) important in some areas of research, before the last few years, there were really only two areas in medicine where evolutionary thinking has played a significant role in actual clinical practice. That’s in infectious diseases (the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in medical oncology, where, as I’ve discussed before, the evolution of different subclones in cancer is one of the major hurdles—if not the single most insurmountable hurdle—in designing systemic cancer therapies. I note that the latter of these has only come to the fore in a big way over the last few years. So, while it’s true that evolution undergirds virtually every aspect of the genomics revolution, because evolutionary theory is the very basis we use to compare genes, identify mutations, and infer function, that thinking, sadly, has not filtered down to actual clinical practice very much yet, even now.

I also have to echo Emil’s comment. Nesse’s book is old. It’s practically ancient. 18 years is an eternity in biomedical research. Back when that book was written, we did not know the sequence of the human genome because the Human Genome Project was in its infancy. Its final results were six years away. In 1994, it was not possible to do whole genome expression profiling, thus analyzing the expression of every gene in the genome simultaneously. Our most recent techniques, next generation sequencing sequencing techniques that allow us to sequence entire genomes and transcriptomes and identify every transcribed sequence, non-coding sequence, and chromosomal alteration were well over a decade away. The sophisticated computer algorithms and bioinformatics approaches that allow us to infer these evolutionary relationships from sequence and proteome data did not exist.

In other word, Nesse’s book, while prescient, was probably premature. I’d be much more interested in a discussion of much more recent work. In fact, I’d even argue that 2008 is a bit long in the tooth for this discussion, particularly when it’s a textbook we’re talking about given that most textbooks are a couple of years behind the times when they are published. Even four years ago, next generation sequencing techniques were only just starting to become available outside of huge genomics research institutes. These days, this is more what evolutionary medicine looks like:

Evolutionary medicine. Darwin applies to medical sch... [Science. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary medicine and chronic inflammat... [J Mol Med (Berl). 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary biology within medicine: a perspective of growing value | BMJ

And here’s a 2012 article by Nesse himself:

Evolutionary molecular medicine - Springer

 

[orogenicman]

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

Recreating in the laboratory the natural conditions that existed when life first appeared does take intelligence, human intelligence. Since they were the natural conditions that exited 4 billion years ago, when there was no life on the planet, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a magic sky daddy waved his magic wand and sparked into existence the first life forms into existence. Particularly when we prove that it can be done naturally. And most particularly since you have no evidence that said magic sky daddy even exists.

Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?

It has to be directed because we have no evidence for a magic sky daddy? Seriously? That's the argument you want to present?

We know because those conditions are preserved in the sediments that were deposited 2.7 billion years ago.

You know repeating lies and strawman arguments (i.e., Seriously? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer?) has never made them true no matter how many times you repeat them.

 

[orogenicman]

All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed Homo sapiens sapiens. That just doesn't happen. Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals. It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species. Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species. DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not. This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today. We certainly are. We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you. From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response? Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. He doesn't have to rely on correction. The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Man kept adapting his equations on flight till he found one that worked. They used physics. They didn't invent physics in order to fly. They discovered what was already in existence and worked with it.

Theories might explain facts. If they did explain the facts of flight or evolution they would be the Law of flight, the Law of evolution.
A theory is a belief that hasn't been proven or established as law. Law however has been established by science as immutable. Until now, we never questioned the 1st and 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. Turns out now they've decided something can possibly, come from nothing, maybe.

Newton knew who's law's he was discovering. Einstein bumbled along with help from the past and his present. And our present thinkers say maybe Einstein was wrong, not only about dimensions, but also the belief that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. < On that he was immutable. And we bought it because we had nothing better to oppose the idea. We've thought our way clear to seeing things differently in our age.

Adaption happens to populations to survive their habitat. They don't switch species. You proved my point by claiming it is not clear, at all, that we are direct descendants of Neanderthal. Because what I was taught in science class was that they were sure of it. Sure enough to replace Creationism with their monkeys.
That their monkey chart no longer applies shows how fragile our science is. In fact, if what they taught me was true, we should all have traces of Neanderthal DNA. The fact that they have found it in some individuals, but not all makes science think that a few modern women had sex with some Neanderthals in a camp nearby. In other words, she was slumming, not evolving.

Not only does my argument assume that we are no longer evolving, but some notables in the science field believe we are now, devolving. Where in the evolutionary ladder do we recognize a turning point in evolution? Darwin never mentioned one. The concept is contrary to the theory of evolution itself, and yet, here we are.

We live longer due to technological advancements. We haven't evolved into healthier human beings. We fix hearts now, control the pressure of our blood, take vitamins. And yes, we certainly have grown larger. Our utensils have evolved into shovels.

The Europeans thought for sure that the children of the people that migrated to America were being poisoned by the food and sea life they were consuming here and that they would evolve into savages like the ones that were here when the immigrants arrived. The immigrants offspring were much bigger and stronger than the Europeans. Turns out it was rich soil.

And finally, I study to show myself approved. If you think there is a web sight out there that I stole my response from, charge me before the powers that be and bring your proof. I'll give them a list of books that developed my beliefs and my response.

_______________________________________________

In the game of energy, and thermodynamics, you can't even break even.~ plagiarized from Isaac Asimov.

Wow, that was the longest bit of word salad I've seen in a very long time. The only question that comes to mind is how you managed to keep a straight face while typing it, because, damn.

 

[eots]

Recreating in the laboratory the natural conditions that existed when life first appeared does take intelligence, human intelligence. Since they were the natural conditions that exited 4 billion years ago, when there was no life on the planet, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a magic sky daddy waved his magic wand and sparked into existence the first life forms into existence. Particularly when we prove that it can be done naturally. And most particularly since you have no evidence that said magic sky daddy even exists.

Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?

It has to be directed because we have no evidence for a magic sky daddy? Seriously? That's the argument you want to present?

We know because those conditions are preserved in the sediments that were deposited 2.7 billion years ago.

You know repeating lies and strawman arguments (i.e., Seriously? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer?) has never made them true no matter how many times you repeat them.

I find in amusing that someone that would use terms like magic sky daddy to characterize the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation would accuse someone of using strawmen

 

[orogenicman]

Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?

It has to be directed because we have no evidence for a magic sky daddy? Seriously? That's the argument you want to present?

We know because those conditions are preserved in the sediments that were deposited 2.7 billion years ago.

You know repeating lies and strawman arguments (i.e., Seriously? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer?) has never made them true no matter how many times you repeat them.

I find in amusing that someone that would use terms like magic sky daddy to characterize the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation would accuse someone of using strawmen

Do you also find it amusing when so many of your fellow Christians pray to their magic sky daddy and not only expect a response, but expect that their prayers will be magically answered?

 

[eots]

It has to be directed because we have no evidence for a magic sky daddy? Seriously? That's the argument you want to present?

We know because those conditions are preserved in the sediments that were deposited 2.7 billion years ago.

You know repeating lies and strawman arguments (i.e., Seriously? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer?) has never made them true no matter how many times you repeat them.

I find in amusing that someone that would use terms like magic sky daddy to characterize the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation would accuse someone of using strawmen

Do you also find it amusing when so many of your fellow Christians pray to their magic sky daddy and not only expect a response, but expect that their prayers will be magically answered?

Yes the power of intention and the effect of the observer an interesting phenomenon not yet understood by science however.. I do not think there is anything magical about any of it..I have little doubt that all of creation and the intelligence behind it operates of principals that ultimately could be measured and calculated with enough understanding...like with primitive people the only thing that makes us think its somehow magical is our lack of understanding of the principals at work

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFCwN5uqSS4]Can group meditation bring World Peace Quantum Physicist, John Hagelin explains - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
Feb. 27, 1998 &#8212; REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

 

[Bumberclyde]

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

I can make the same claim. It's this simple, everyone is affected in how they interpret evidence by our presuppositions. I know I was once on your side then came to this side. Anyone who says they are not affected by their presuppositions are not being honest.

There is evidence to support design, enough for it to be a theory.It just gets rejected because there is no direct evidence of God himself but wait there is no evidence of a mechanism for how everything just arose without direction.

That's why I'm an agnostic, there's no real proof one way or the other to prove or disprove a god. If someone ever comes up with real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Atheists and theists are delusional.

 

[Hollie]

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. He doesn't have to rely on correction. The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Actually, it just isn't true that the gods are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The number of religions and gods that have come and gone are evidence of that.

What is comical is your insistence that your gods are the " real" gods for no other reasons than parentage and place of birth. For you, the gods are the Christian gods. Had you been born in India to Hindu parents, you would, almost certainly be worshipping (and imposing) very different gods. It's just a fact that for the majority of religious people, their religion has nothing to do with faith but rather, is nothing more than a function of adopting the biases and traditions of their cultural norms.

 

[orogenicman]

I find in amusing that someone that would use terms like magic sky daddy to characterize the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation would accuse someone of using strawmen

Do you also find it amusing when so many of your fellow Christians pray to their magic sky daddy and not only expect a response, but expect that their prayers will be magically answered?

Yes the power of intention and the effect of the observer an interesting phenomenon not yet understood by science however.. I do not think there is anything magical about any of it..I have little doubt that all of creation and the intelligence behind it operates of principals that ultimately could be measured and calculated with enough understanding...like with primitive people the only thing that makes us think its somehow magical is our lack of understanding of the principals at work

So that would be a yes you do find it amusing. Got it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:

I’m going to have to disagree with you strongly here, Harriet. Until pretty recently, evolutionary thinking has never been an “integral part of medicine,” except in distorted forms like eugenics and nonsense like the “paleo diet.” In particular, I would take issue that doctors “regularly think about evolution.” Practicing doctors, in my experience, rarely, if ever, think about evolution with respect to medicine. Although evolutionary considerations have been (and continue to be) important in some areas of research, before the last few years, there were really only two areas in medicine where evolutionary thinking has played a significant role in actual clinical practice. That’s in infectious diseases (the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in medical oncology, where, as I’ve discussed before, the evolution of different subclones in cancer is one of the major hurdles—if not the single most insurmountable hurdle—in designing systemic cancer therapies. I note that the latter of these has only come to the fore in a big way over the last few years. So, while it’s true that evolution undergirds virtually every aspect of the genomics revolution, because evolutionary theory is the very basis we use to compare genes, identify mutations, and infer function, that thinking, sadly, has not filtered down to actual clinical practice very much yet, even now.

I also have to echo Emil’s comment. Nesse’s book is old. It’s practically ancient. 18 years is an eternity in biomedical research. Back when that book was written, we did not know the sequence of the human genome because the Human Genome Project was in its infancy. Its final results were six years away. In 1994, it was not possible to do whole genome expression profiling, thus analyzing the expression of every gene in the genome simultaneously. Our most recent techniques, next generation sequencing sequencing techniques that allow us to sequence entire genomes and transcriptomes and identify every transcribed sequence, non-coding sequence, and chromosomal alteration were well over a decade away. The sophisticated computer algorithms and bioinformatics approaches that allow us to infer these evolutionary relationships from sequence and proteome data did not exist.

In other word, Nesse’s book, while prescient, was probably premature. I’d be much more interested in a discussion of much more recent work. In fact, I’d even argue that 2008 is a bit long in the tooth for this discussion, particularly when it’s a textbook we’re talking about given that most textbooks are a couple of years behind the times when they are published. Even four years ago, next generation sequencing techniques were only just starting to become available outside of huge genomics research institutes. These days, this is more what evolutionary medicine looks like:

Evolutionary medicine. Darwin applies to medical sch... [Science. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary medicine and chronic inflammat... [J Mol Med (Berl). 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary biology within medicine: a perspective of growing value | BMJ

And here’s a 2012 article by Nesse himself:

Evolutionary molecular medicine - Springer

Evolutionary medicine

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. The goal of evolutionary medicine is to understand why people get sick, not simply how they get sick. Modern medical research and practice has focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy.[4] Medical schools have been slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula.[5]

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[orogenicman]

What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:

I’m going to have to disagree with you strongly here, Harriet. Until pretty recently, evolutionary thinking has never been an “integral part of medicine,” except in distorted forms like eugenics and nonsense like the “paleo diet.” In particular, I would take issue that doctors “regularly think about evolution.” Practicing doctors, in my experience, rarely, if ever, think about evolution with respect to medicine. Although evolutionary considerations have been (and continue to be) important in some areas of research, before the last few years, there were really only two areas in medicine where evolutionary thinking has played a significant role in actual clinical practice. That’s in infectious diseases (the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in medical oncology, where, as I’ve discussed before, the evolution of different subclones in cancer is one of the major hurdles—if not the single most insurmountable hurdle—in designing systemic cancer therapies. I note that the latter of these has only come to the fore in a big way over the last few years. So, while it’s true that evolution undergirds virtually every aspect of the genomics revolution, because evolutionary theory is the very basis we use to compare genes, identify mutations, and infer function, that thinking, sadly, has not filtered down to actual clinical practice very much yet, even now.

I also have to echo Emil’s comment. Nesse’s book is old. It’s practically ancient. 18 years is an eternity in biomedical research. Back when that book was written, we did not know the sequence of the human genome because the Human Genome Project was in its infancy. Its final results were six years away. In 1994, it was not possible to do whole genome expression profiling, thus analyzing the expression of every gene in the genome simultaneously. Our most recent techniques, next generation sequencing sequencing techniques that allow us to sequence entire genomes and transcriptomes and identify every transcribed sequence, non-coding sequence, and chromosomal alteration were well over a decade away. The sophisticated computer algorithms and bioinformatics approaches that allow us to infer these evolutionary relationships from sequence and proteome data did not exist.

In other word, Nesse’s book, while prescient, was probably premature. I’d be much more interested in a discussion of much more recent work. In fact, I’d even argue that 2008 is a bit long in the tooth for this discussion, particularly when it’s a textbook we’re talking about given that most textbooks are a couple of years behind the times when they are published. Even four years ago, next generation sequencing techniques were only just starting to become available outside of huge genomics research institutes. These days, this is more what evolutionary medicine looks like:

Evolutionary medicine. Darwin applies to medical sch... [Science. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary medicine and chronic inflammat... [J Mol Med (Berl). 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary biology within medicine: a perspective of growing value | BMJ

And here’s a 2012 article by Nesse himself:

Evolutionary molecular medicine - Springer

Evolutionary medicine

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. The goal of evolutionary medicine is to understand why people get sick, not simply how they get sick. Modern medical research and practice has focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy.[4] Medical schools have been slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula.[5]

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which proves my point, and confirms what David Gorski has said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Counterexamples to Evolution


The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.

Counterexamples to Evolution - Conservapedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:

Evolutionary medicine

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. The goal of evolutionary medicine is to understand why people get sick, not simply how they get sick. Modern medical research and practice has focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy.[4] Medical schools have been slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula.[5]

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which proves my point, and confirms what David Gorski has said.

You were making the claim to the opposite of how evolutionary medicine plays such an important role in medicine.

 

[orogenicman]

Evolutionary medicine

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. The goal of evolutionary medicine is to understand why people get sick, not simply how they get sick. Modern medical research and practice has focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy.[4] Medical schools have been slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula.[5]

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which proves my point, and confirms what David Gorski has said.

You were making the claim to the opposite of how evolutionary medicine plays such an important role in medicine.

I was not making a claim. I was pointing out the fact that the theory of evolution has advanced medical science far beyond where it would be without it. And that is true. "The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy". And while it is true that medical schools have been "slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula" that has not diminished medical research using evolutionary approaches.

 

[daws101]

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

Recreating in the laboratory the natural conditions that existed when life first appeared does take intelligence, human intelligence. Since they were the natural conditions that exited 4 billion years ago, when there was no life on the planet, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a magic sky daddy waved his magic wand and sparked into existence the first life forms into existence. Particularly when we prove that it can be done naturally. And most particularly since you have no evidence that said magic sky daddy even exists.

Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?

there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
there is no evidence of an intelligently guided process. where's god's barcode or copyright?
your use of the word randomness is an intentionally false depiction of processes and conditions you don't believe occurred.
in other words shut the fuck up...till you have a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:

I’m going to have to disagree with you strongly here, Harriet. Until pretty recently, evolutionary thinking has never been an “integral part of medicine,” except in distorted forms like eugenics and nonsense like the “paleo diet.” In particular, I would take issue that doctors “regularly think about evolution.” Practicing doctors, in my experience, rarely, if ever, think about evolution with respect to medicine. Although evolutionary considerations have been (and continue to be) important in some areas of research, before the last few years, there were really only two areas in medicine where evolutionary thinking has played a significant role in actual clinical practice. That’s in infectious diseases (the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in medical oncology, where, as I’ve discussed before, the evolution of different subclones in cancer is one of the major hurdles—if not the single most insurmountable hurdle—in designing systemic cancer therapies. I note that the latter of these has only come to the fore in a big way over the last few years. So, while it’s true that evolution undergirds virtually every aspect of the genomics revolution, because evolutionary theory is the very basis we use to compare genes, identify mutations, and infer function, that thinking, sadly, has not filtered down to actual clinical practice very much yet, even now.

I also have to echo Emil’s comment. Nesse’s book is old. It’s practically ancient. 18 years is an eternity in biomedical research. Back when that book was written, we did not know the sequence of the human genome because the Human Genome Project was in its infancy. Its final results were six years away. In 1994, it was not possible to do whole genome expression profiling, thus analyzing the expression of every gene in the genome simultaneously. Our most recent techniques, next generation sequencing sequencing techniques that allow us to sequence entire genomes and transcriptomes and identify every transcribed sequence, non-coding sequence, and chromosomal alteration were well over a decade away. The sophisticated computer algorithms and bioinformatics approaches that allow us to infer these evolutionary relationships from sequence and proteome data did not exist.

In other word, Nesse’s book, while prescient, was probably premature. I’d be much more interested in a discussion of much more recent work. In fact, I’d even argue that 2008 is a bit long in the tooth for this discussion, particularly when it’s a textbook we’re talking about given that most textbooks are a couple of years behind the times when they are published. Even four years ago, next generation sequencing techniques were only just starting to become available outside of huge genomics research institutes. These days, this is more what evolutionary medicine looks like:

Evolutionary medicine. Darwin applies to medical sch... [Science. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary medicine and chronic inflammat... [J Mol Med (Berl). 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Evolutionary biology within medicine: a perspective of growing value | BMJ

And here’s a 2012 article by Nesse himself:

Evolutionary molecular medicine - Springer

Evolutionary medicine

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. The goal of evolutionary medicine is to understand why people get sick, not simply how they get sick. Modern medical research and practice has focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy.[4] Medical schools have been slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula.[5]

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell us again how the 2nd Law makes evolution on Earth impossible, because it's a closed system.

 

[daws101]

Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?

It has to be directed because we have no evidence for a magic sky daddy? Seriously? That's the argument you want to present?

We know because those conditions are preserved in the sediments that were deposited 2.7 billion years ago.

You know repeating lies and strawman arguments (i.e., Seriously? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer?) has never made them true no matter how many times you repeat them.

I find in amusing that someone that would use terms like magic sky daddy to characterize the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation would accuse someone of using strawmen

what I find amusing is this:" the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation".. is meaningless gobbledygook..trying and failing epically to appear profound.
it's right up there with the shit Jack Van Impe Jack Van Impe - Royal Baby Prince George the Antichrist
spews every sunday.

 

[daws101]

Counterexamples to Evolution


The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.

Counterexamples to Evolution - Conservapedia

the Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.[1] The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found HERE.


so much for scientific objectivity and credibility.