Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine
richardal...@googlemail.com
New applications of evolutionary biology in medicine are being
discovered at an accelerating rate, but few physicians have sufficient
educational background to use them fully. This article summarizes
suggestions from several groups that have considered how evolutionary
biology can be useful in medicine, what physicians should learn about
it, and when and how they should learn it. Our general conclusion is
that evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. In
addition to looking at established evolutionary methods and topics,
such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, we highlight
questions about why natural selection leaves bodies vulnerable to
disease. Knowledge about evolution provides physicians with an
integrative framework that links otherwise disparate bits of
knowledge. It replaces the prevalent view of bodies as machines with a
biological view of bodies shaped by evolutionary processes. Like other
basic sciences, evolutionary biology needs to be taught both before
and during medical school. Most introductory biology courses are
insufficient to establish competency in evolutionary biology.
Premedical students need evolution courses, possibly ones that
emphasize medically relevant aspects. In medical school, evolutionary
biology should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences. This
will require a course that reviews basic principles and specific
medical applications, followed by an integrated presentation of
evolutionary aspects that apply to each disease and organ system.
Evolutionary biology is not just another topic vying for inclusion in
the curriculum; it is an essential foundation for a biological
understanding of health and disease.
Nashton
it is an essential foundation for a biological
> understanding of health and disease.
>
Bwahahahaahaahahahahaha
richardal...@googlemail.com
...which as as good an admission that you have no counterargument to
offer as anyone could expect.
If you disagree with the conclusions reached by the authors of this
paper, what evidence and argument can you offer to support any
alternative conclusion?
Of course, we all know that you can't. But then, as a creationist, all
you can do it to post infantile responses.
RF
chris thompson
Translation: "There's too many big words for me!"
Chris
All-seeing-I
Why mess with success.
All of you at one time or another have claimed that medical science is
brilliant the way it is. Why would you want to change a successful
curriculum?
I'll tell you why. You want evolution elevated to the status of real
science. You need to be included in the MD curriculum in order to do
that.
Boikat
To improve it, 'tard-boy.
>
> I'll tell you why. You want evolution elevated to the status of real
> science.
Evolution is a real science, you stupid schmuck.
> You need to be included in the MD curriculum in order to do
> that.
Oh? Is Geology a real science? How about Astronomy? Physics? Where
are they required to be tught in Med School? Damn, you're stupid!
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
Because science is always trying to find better explanations.
>
> All of you at one time or another have claimed that medical science is
> brilliant the way it is.
I haven't.
> Why would you want to change a successful
> curriculum?
So that the treatments can be improved.
>
> I'll tell you why. You want evolution elevated to the status of real
> science.
Well, it's taught as "real science" in every university in which
biology is taught, it's accepted as "real science" by virtually every
biologists, and the only one who reject it do so for religious rather
than scientific reasons, it's accepted as "real science" by the
adminstrators of all the universities in which it is taught, it's
accepted as "real science" by the bodies which fund those
universities, it's accepted as "real science" by the corporations
which make billions from research informed by evolutionary theory, and
it's accepted as "real science" by most of the world's Christians.
What do you know that all those people don't?
> You need to be included in the MD curriculum in order to do
> that.
Actually, evolutionary theory is science regardless of whether or not
it is taught in the "MD curriculum". However, as the authors of this
paper are pointing out, the MD curriculum could be improved by a more
thorough grounding in evolutionary theory.
RF
heekster
Put down the hookah, and step away from the computer, hashish for
brains.
heekster
Straw moron argument.
>I'll tell you why. You want evolution elevated to the status of real
>science.
It is already there, ament.
> You need to be included in the MD curriculum in order to do
>that.
You need to get an education.
Idiot. It is already included as a recommended pre-requisite for med
school. It is also part of most introductory biology courses, which
are not being taught by cretins.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/pre-med/prepapply_prereq.htm
Even for veterinarians.
http://www.tufts.edu/vet/dvm/prerequisite_courses.html
What else ya got, moron?
bpuharic
yeah. creationists prefer that we go back to sacrificing goats to cure
disease. that worked out well for the goat trade
chris thompson
Don't know much about science or medicine do you?
Here's a clue: medical doctors, as a rule, are not scientists. They
might (and usually do) do some research in medical school, but the
situation is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The inclusion of
evolution in the medical curriculum would strengthen the science
portion of their education. As it stands, MDs are memorizing
machines.
Chris
Boikat
wrote:
I like the term "Organic Mechanic". :D
Boikat