> >On Apr 26, 9:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 26, 12:41 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:41:27 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix

> >> >> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 26, 2:58 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> > This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.

> >> >> >> Are you joking?  Other than asserting that serotonin was created by
> >> >> >> evolution, whatever that means, this interview provides no evidence
> >> >> >> that understanding evolution is important to doing practical
> >> >> >> research.  The man being interviewed could have just as easily stated
> >> >> >> that it's not a good idea to manipulate depressed people's serotonin
> >> >> >> levels because it leads to decreased longevity, and left his personal
> >> >> >> metaphysics out of the discussion.  It would be just as strange and
> >> >> >> pointless had he warned against manipulating serotonin levels because
> >> >> >> God don't make no junk.

> >> >> >I do not often agree with you. But this time I have to. The origins of
> >> >> >serotonin have nothing to do with its usage in multiple unrelated
> >> >> >biological systems within the body. I think that evolution is a very
> >> >> >satisfactory explanation of how a molecule such as serotonin came to
> >> >> >be, and how it was marshaled into useful divergent roles throughout
> >> >> >the body. But if I am wrong, and some god-type entity (whatever that
> >> >> >might mean) created it ex nihilo and set it into motion within all
> >> >> >those roles, that would change nothing regarding the risk/benefit
> >> >> >analysis of the use of antidepressants that target serotonin in some
> >> >> >way.

> >> >> IIUC you're saying if we start with what we know right now, and wanted
> >> >> to test if depression is adaptive (that is the question he said he was
> >> >> looking into), then it wouldn't make a difference whether we started
> >> >> with an assumption of evolution or an assumption of Goddidit.  ISTM if
> >> >> we started with the premise that Goddidit, we wouldn't even bother
> >> >> asking that question in the first place.  More to the point, it's
> >> >> unlikely we would know anything about serotonin or its multiple uses
> >> >> in the body or its association with depression.  We know these things
> >> >> right now because scientists study how our bodies works.  And they do
> >> >> that in part because they don't settle for Goddidit as an answer.

> >> >Do you know that those who settle for Goddidit believe our bodies do
> >> >not work?

> >> No, but if you hum a few bars, I might pick it up.

> >> More seriously, I don't recognize what you're referring to.  Would you
> >> elaborate?

> >No, but thanks for asking.

> Your welcome.  I'll just accept that you make no distinction between
> "how it works" and "that it works".