News: You don't have to believe in evolution to reap the benefits.
Ye Old One
research which relies on it
July 10, 4:14 PM · Asta Gindulyte - Popular Science Examiner
According to a recent Gallup poll taken on 200th anniversary of
Charles Darwin's birth, only 39% of Americans believe in evolution.
And then there is the ongoing debate about whether it's appropriate to
teach the theory evolution in schools.
Yet in the science world, the theory of evolution is widely accepted.
The focus is rather on understanding it further, and making a good use
of it. For instance, molecular evolution is routinely utilized in gene
discovery.
Given that human genome contains about 3 billion DNA base pairs, and
the vast majority of them are so called "junk", a task of finding a
gene of interest is like looking for a needle in a haystack. In fact,
only about 1.5% of human DNA contains the "interesting" code that
translates into proteins.
That's where molecular evolution comes in. By comparing DNA sequences
from different species, scientists look for similar segments. The DNA
sequence segments that code for genes, tend to be fairly similar among
different species, while the junk DNA varies widely. The fact that
different species have similar genes suggest, of course, that at one
point in time they were one and the same, but have since evolved.
Discovering a gene is no small achievement, and it's no wonder, that
such research is often announced on the news. Once a gene responsible
for a particular function in the human body is discovered, it becomes
a lot easier to design drugs that treat diseases associated with that
particular function. Still not a walk in the park, but it does open a
lot of leads for further research.
Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic, however, that people who do not
believe in evolution, may have been or will be treated by drugs
discovered with the help of this remarkable theory? Would they refuse
the treatment if they knew how the drugs were discovered or would they
become believers?
--
Bob.
Nashton
Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
Ye Old One
Just about all in current use.
--
Bob.
Nashton
LOL
JPG
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
> > group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> Ye Old One wrote:
> >>> You don't have to believe in evolution to reap the benefits of
> >>> research which relies on it
> >>> July 10, 4:14 PM · Asta Gindulyte - Popular Science Examiner
>
I'm assuming you will not be using any meds derived from the ToE?
Whilst you're about it, how about not using some other products
derived from the scientific enterprise, such as your computer?
Nashton
Be specific. Let's test your knowledge of pharmacology.
> Whilst you're about it, how about not using some other products
> derived from the scientific enterprise, such as your computer?
Non sequitur.
>
>
r norman
It seems you have not, or cannot, answer Nashton's simple question:
specifically what drugs in modern medical use are derived using
knowledge of the Theory of Evolution as an essential part of their
discovery? The problem is that you probably cannot think of even one.
Important note: There is an immense difference between saying that
modern scientific methods and knowledge are important in drug
discovery and testing and saying that the Theory of Evolution, as one
small part of science, is important.
Another important note: It is most definitely NOT sufficient to say
that drug testing depends on evolution. We know for an observed fact
that all mammals have somewhat similar body form and function and that
all animals and all life share many cellular biochemical and
biophysical properties. For whatever reason that may be, and
evolution is just one possibility, you don't have to know why to take
advantage of that fact to do drug development and testing for safety
and efficacy. (In case you are interested, another reason is that God
created life that way -- end of story).
Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
The discovery of drugs like aspirin and digitalis and many other
botanicals was not dependent on the Theory of Evolution. The
discovery of bacteria was not dependent on the Theory of Evolution.
The development of public health measures to assure clean water
supplies separated from sewage disposal and safe food sources and
control of insect vectors of disease was not dependent on the Theory
of Evolution. The analysis of the human genome and the development of
medical intervention tailored to an individual's genetics even can be
stated all without the Theory of Evolution, although that can be a bit
strained. Still we do not yet really have medicines developed on that
basis.
In short, you can be an effective, caring, and successful drug
developer or surgical technique developer or diagnostician or
physician or surgeon without having to believe in the Theory of
Evolution. All you have to do is understand the science of
biochemistry and biophysics as they apply to human cells,
understanding that other cells work similarly for whatever reason and
be knowledgeable in the best current practices of medicine.
Please don't start flaming about the important of science -- that is
not the issue. The question is: point out a single medical treatment
of disease that depends specifically on the Theory of Evolution for
its discovery and development.
el cid
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
> >Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
>
> Just about all in current use.
That is an exceptionally ignorant statement. I suggest you
quickly retract before your post gets hauled out regularly as
the evolutionist equivalent of "lying for Jesus".
But I'll help you out. Which of these pharms was directly
derived from ToE
Lipitor, Plavix, Enbrel, Epogen, Aranesp, Prevacid, Singular,
Viagra, Advair, Nexium, Ibuprofen, Acetometaphin, Aspirin
JazzCat
Yup, those and just about every other drug in use.
RS
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d3fdea98-640d-4a26...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>):
Given that aspirin, for one, was first prepared in 1853 and Darwin didn't
publish _Origin_ until 1859, there would appear to be a slight problem with
your statement. Acetaminophen, possibly better known as paracetamol, was
discovered by accident. It was first synthesized in 1877, but as a result of
work which went back for several decades... that is, to before 1859.
Aspirin rather famously would never be allowed on the market today because of
its side-effects, which include gastrointestinal bleeding, and, in some
cases, death. Paracetamol was kept off the market for 80 years due to errors
with the original testing which made its side-effects seem worse than they
were.
Just because creationist cretins make obviously false, and completely
imbecilic, statements, is no reason why those who have right on their side
should also make such statements... particularly when 10 seconds worth of
checking would reveal the truth. I only looked up two of the list, and both
of the drugs I looked up simply were not derived using the ToE. Making this
particular argument about these particular drugs is almost as silly as a
creationist cretin insisting on the Flood.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ye Old One
<elcid...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 11, 12:42 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
>
>
>> >Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
>>
>> Just about all in current use.
>
>That is an exceptionally ignorant statement.
Nope.
>I suggest you
>quickly retract before your post gets hauled out regularly as
>the evolutionist equivalent of "lying for Jesus".
Hohohohoho!
>
>But I'll help you out. Which of these pharms was directly
>derived from ToE
>
>Lipitor, Plavix, Enbrel, Epogen, Aranesp, Prevacid, Singular,
>Viagra, Advair, Nexium, Ibuprofen, Acetometaphin, Aspirin
All of them.
No biological science can be done without respect to the ToE. It
underpins ALL biology.
All modern drugs are tested on animals, those results would be invalid
without a knowledge of the ToE.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Far from it. It does not matter when and how the drugs were first
invented. The manufacture, application and testing today is based on
the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pgsj5590bbrjh59g4...@4ax.com>):
This is true TODAY. It was not true in 1853 or 1877. Aspirin and paracetamol
were grandfathered in. Hell, _penicilin_ was grandfathered in. It also would
never get past modern testing... which is based on the ToE.
> is based on
> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>
Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
years before Darwin published is simply absurd. Facts are facts, and
distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
el cid
> All of them.
That is meaningless tripe.
The utility of animal testing, limited though it is, is dependent
on similar biochemistry. The theory of evolution explains why
biochemistry is similar at a gross level but is irrelevant to the
application. The application would be as valid if animals had
been independently created to be similar or had been intelligently
designed to be similar. The utility of animal testing does not
closely follow evolutionary relationships. As the theory of
evolution does not predict the best animal models, it is rather
irrelevant to drug testing.
Further, the whole of pharmaceutical development is mostly
empirical. People attempt to do science to gain predictive
advantages regarding which lead compounds will perform
best but it almost never works as anticipated. The FDA
does not ask you to justify your drug based on evolution.
It isn't even part of new initiatives like The Critical Path.
Why the insistence on taking a solid and successful theory
and pretending it is more than it is? It makes you look
hopelessly foolish and ignorant. Gravity is a wonder and
successful theory but it does not drive drug development.
Neither does evolution.
Andrew Cunningham
> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
Ye Old One
Drug tests, which still have to be carried out on existing drugs at
regular intervals, could not be carried out today without relating to
the ToE.
>
>> is based on
>> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>>
>
>Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
>years before Darwin published is simply absurd.
It is available TODAY because of modern tests.
>Facts are facts, and
>distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
I do.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Nope.
>
>The utility of animal testing, limited though it is, is dependent
>on similar biochemistry. The theory of evolution explains why
>biochemistry is similar at a gross level but is irrelevant to the
>application.
Nope.
>The application would be as valid if animals had
>been independently created to be similar or had been intelligently
>designed to be similar. The utility of animal testing does not
>closely follow evolutionary relationships.
Yes it does. Different animals are selected for testing based on
evolved traits.
> As the theory of
>evolution does not predict the best animal models, it is rather
>irrelevant to drug testing.
But it does make the predictions, when you know enough about it.
>
>Further, the whole of pharmaceutical development is mostly
>empirical. People attempt to do science to gain predictive
>advantages regarding which lead compounds will perform
>best but it almost never works as anticipated. The FDA
>does not ask you to justify your drug based on evolution.
It doesn't need to. Biological science stand firm on the foundation of
the ToE.
>It isn't even part of new initiatives like The Critical Path.
>
>Why the insistence on taking a solid and successful theory
>and pretending it is more than it is? It makes you look
>hopelessly foolish and ignorant.
I'm just working with the facts.
> Gravity is a wonder and
>successful theory but it does not drive drug development.
True, because it has nothing to do with it. Evolution on the other
hand has a lot to do with drugs.
>Neither does evolution.
Wrong.
--
Bob.
el cid
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:02:09 -0700 (PDT), el cid
Absolutely false. If it were true, you could provide the FDA
guidelines on this selection. They don't exist. Have you
ever designed a toxicity or efficacy trial? I doubt it. Evolution
does not enter the conversation. Have you read FDA filings?
Apparently not but your ignorance has not slowed your
opinion, ill informed as they are.
> > As the theory of
> >evolution does not predict the best animal models, it is rather
> >irrelevant to drug testing.
> But it does make the predictions, when you know enough about it.
Citations? You can know a lot about evolution without being
able to predict from theory which P450s will be relevant in
humans and how similar the orthologues in rats or mice
will behave. Moreso for which ones are induced and how
their induction affects the rest of the animal. A drug that
induces a P450 involved in arachidonic acid metabolism
in rats can deplete reserves and dampen inflammatory responses
to reactive oxidative species but you might not see the same
effect in mice, or exactly the reverse. There's no telling
what studies in dogs will do. You will never test enough
primates to find out and frankly primate responses have
not shown to be more effective in predicting human tox
or efficacy than testing in guinea pigs.
Attend a drug development conference or a toxicology
conference and you will find very little talk or evolution.
Evolutionary theory follows behind drug development
and tries to rationalize observations, it does not lead.
> >Further, the whole of pharmaceutical development is mostly
> >empirical. People attempt to do science to gain predictive
> >advantages regarding which lead compounds will perform
> >best but it almost never works as anticipated. The FDA
> >does not ask you to justify your drug based on evolution.
>
> It doesn't need to. Biological science stand firm on the foundation of
> the ToE.
>
> >It isn't even part of new initiatives like The Critical Path.
>
> >Why the insistence on taking a solid and successful theory
> >and pretending it is more than it is? It makes you look
> >hopelessly foolish and ignorant.
>
> I'm just working with the facts.
Cite them. You've show zero understanding of the drug
development process and sound exactly like some
parrottish version of a creationists making claims
with zero support.
I can't prove a negative so it is up to you to show
the specifics of where the theory of evolution
is used to support pharmaceutical development.
You can't though, you are just lying for what you
think is your team but you are an embarrassment
to informed scientists.
> > Gravity is a wonder and
> >successful theory but it does not drive drug development.
> True, because it has nothing to do with it. Evolution on the other
> hand has a lot to do with drugs.
Citations, please. And not some pubmed dump based
on key words of papers you've never read much less
comprehended the abstracts. A career in the drug
development industry tells me you are wrong. That evolution
is a valid and elegant theory underlying biology does
not mean it plays a role in drug development except
in the most vacuous and worthless of perspectives.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <qv5k55tvep5a28qjt...@4ax.com>):
Not on items of the age of aspirin are NOT run through such tests. If they
were, they'd be kicked out. No drug which goes past modern testing has the
number and severity of known problems that aspirin does. It would fail at the
first stage of animal testing; at high doses it can cause extremely serious
problems, including but not limited to birth defects, gastrointestinal
bleeding, and death... and these side effects are, if anything, more
pronounced in humans. Penicillin is lethal to a substantial fraction of the
animals commonly used in testing... and to lots of humans _at a normal dose_.
If standard testing were applied to either of those drugs they would not be
allowed for use.
>>
>>> is based on
>>> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>>>
>>
>> Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
>> years before Darwin published is simply absurd.
>
> It is available TODAY because of modern tests.
This is not so. They were grandfathered in.
>
>> Facts are facts, and
>> distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>> behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
>
> I do.
>
Not in this case.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<29c0ac71-08fc-4053...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>):
>> True, because it has nothing to do with it. Evolution on the other
>> hand has a lot to do with drugs.
>
> Citations, please. And not some pubmed dump based
> on key words of papers you've never read much less
> comprehended the abstracts. A career in the drug
> development industry tells me you are wrong. That evolution
> is a valid and elegant theory underlying biology does
> not mean it plays a role in drug development except
> in the most vacuous and worthless of perspectives.
Exactly. The ToE simply has very little to do with multiple drugs, including
virtually all of those on that list. And if animal testing were followed on
some, they'd be banned... and for good and sufficient reason: they are
_lethal to a percentage of the popluation_.
<http://www.webmd.com/allergies/tc/penicillin-allergy-topic-overview>
<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-happens-in-an-aspirin-allergy-attack.htm>
Nashton
You must be talking about viruses. But what does a clueless
"creationist" know, eh?
Bacteria are not evolving, they are naturally selected to produce
so-called superbugs in specific conditions.
Which bacteria are evolving, in your view?
Nashton
Of course, this applies to all medical knowledge and fields.
>
> Please don't start flaming about the important of science -- that is
> not the issue. The question is: point out a single medical treatment
> of disease that depends specifically on the Theory of Evolution for
> its discovery and development.
OTOH, I do remember one poster having posted about a specific treatment
based on knowledge in nested hierarchy but to claim that every single
pharmacological treatment is based on the ToE is degrading to the
scientific process, which is the best means, along with a hefty dose of
empiricism, in creating and developing new treatments and therapies.
>
Nashton
Keep on making a colossal fool of yourself, P.O.O.
Please demonstrate how a drug is discovered, developed and tested using
the ToE.
Aren't you tired of being such a fasking idiot?
Nashton
Specifics, please.
Which pharmacological treatment (you claimed that *every* med in current
use is derived from the TOE) did you have in mind?
You are so clueless, it's almost scary. Go back to lurking, ignoramus.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<09671e00-59e0-4ad5...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):
Playing patty-cake.
Nashton
You're asking P.O.O. to prove an assertion? Perhaps if you asked him to
copy and paste a passage, that would be within his intellectual abilities.
Good luck!
Nashton
It's pretty obvious that your knowledge of pharmacology is restricted to
pain relievers and antipyretics.
Do you have any clue, oh clueless ignoramus, how many classes of
medication exist in use today? Do you and your ideological chums have to
demonstrate how stupid you really are on a daily basis?
ROTF
Nashton
Can you be more specific? Where does the ToE apply? In which phase of
testing? Be specific.
>>> is based on
>>> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>>>
>> Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
>> years before Darwin published is simply absurd.
>
> It is available TODAY because of modern tests.
>
>> Facts are facts, and
>> distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>> behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
>
> I do.
Stupid. You're just as thick as a brick, aren't you?
>
Nashton
> On Jul 11, 12:42 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
>
>
>>> Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
>> Just about all in current use.
>
> That is an exceptionally ignorant statement. I suggest you
> quickly retract before your post gets hauled out regularly as
> the evolutionist equivalent of "lying for Jesus".
Creationists will never stoop to the low seen by the likes of this
individual. We will not pigeonhole or generalize as a group, I certainly
won't.
Is YOO stupid and thick? You bet. Is he a goon? Yes. Is anybody that
supports the ToE an idiot? Of course not.
>
> But I'll help you out. Which of these pharms was directly
> derived from ToE
>
> Lipitor, Plavix, Enbrel, Epogen, Aranesp, Prevacid, Singular,
> Viagra, Advair, Nexium, Ibuprofen, Acetometaphin, Aspirin
You are wasting your time. He has no idea what the term pharmacology
means nor does he have any clue about anything scientific. Knowing about
the specific actions of these agents on the human body requires training
and knowledge in the medical field or at least a very good foundation in
biochemistry and human metabolism, not to mention pathology.
>
Nashton
I can assure you that if a drug was found to be dangerous to the health
of the population, it would not be grand-fathered.
It's pretty nice to see you and Poo fight it out. The more you post, the
more your profound ignorance shines through. Keep it up:)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h3ddsf$vm5$2...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Oh, you mean like penicillin, eh?
<http://www.webmd.com/allergies/tc/penicillin-allergy-topic-overview>
Idiot.
> It's pretty nice to see you and Poo fight it out. The more you post, the
> more your profound ignorance shines through. Keep it up:)
Oh, the irony.
>
>>
>>>> Facts are facts, and
>>>> distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>>>> behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
>>> I do.
>>>
>>
>> Not in this case.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Desertphile
wrote:
> The fact that
> different species have similar genes suggest, of course, that at one
> point in time they were one and the same, but have since evolved.
No! Evolution does not work that way. Good bloody gods.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> >> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
> >> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
> >> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
> >> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
> >> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
> > If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
Eating sugar and shitting alcohol and CO2?
> You must be talking about viruses. But what does a clueless
> "creationist" know, eh?
Both, clueless Creationist.
> Bacteria are not evolving, they are naturally selected to produce
> so-called superbugs in specific conditions.
Oh, you mean they are evolving. Yeah, we knew that already.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:56:01 -0700 (PDT), el cid
> <elcid...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Jul 11, 12:42 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
> >
> >
> >> >Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
> >>
> >> Just about all in current use.
> >
> >That is an exceptionally ignorant statement.
>
> Nope.
>
> >I suggest you
> >quickly retract before your post gets hauled out regularly as
> >the evolutionist equivalent of "lying for Jesus".
>
> Hohohohoho!
> >
> >But I'll help you out. Which of these pharms was directly
> >derived from ToE
> >
> >Lipitor, Plavix, Enbrel, Epogen, Aranesp, Prevacid, Singular,
> >Viagra, Advair, Nexium, Ibuprofen, Acetometaphin, Aspirin
> All of them.
>
> No biological science can be done without respect to the ToE. It
> underpins ALL biology.
>
> All modern drugs are tested on animals, those results would be invalid
> without a knowledge of the ToE.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that modern pharmacology is
part of evolutionary theory.
Andrew Cunningham
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
> >> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
> >> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
> >> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
> >> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
>
> > If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
>
> You must be talking about viruses. But what does a clueless
> "creationist" know, eh?
You mean to tell me that antibiotics are meant to target viruses and
not bacteria? If not, what is the point you're trying to make here?
> Bacteria are not evolving,
Would you care to prove this?
> they are naturally selected to produce
> so-called superbugs in specific conditions.
Sounds like evolution. Check this link out, it's a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
> Which bacteria are evolving, in your view?
"In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a
population of organisms from one generation to the next."
Based on that definition, I'd have to say all of them. Which ones
aren't evolving, in your view? Moreover, what evidence do you base
your view on?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <e5mk55dj3ncbe4cb3...@4ax.com>):
_Modern_ pharmacology, yes. And there's a whole lot more to it than animal
testing.
Ye Old One
And few have the proven benefits.
And yes, like ALL drugs, aspirin is tested.
>It would fail at the
>first stage of animal testing; at high doses it can cause extremely serious
>problems, including but not limited to birth defects, gastrointestinal
>bleeding, and death... and these side effects are, if anything, more
>pronounced in humans.
True, one reason why it is tested, particularly as part of cocktails
of drugs used in modern treatments.
> Penicillin is lethal to a substantial fraction of the
>animals commonly used in testing...
One example of why its modern testing is based on the understanding of
evolution.
>and to lots of humans _at a normal dose_.
True, some humans are allergic to it. I know a couple myself.
>If standard testing were applied to either of those drugs they would not be
>allowed for use.
Of course they would, and are. Their benefits far outweigh their
disadvantages. Take the new aspirin/statin mix that so many people now
take.
>
>>>
>>>> is based on
>>>> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
>>> years before Darwin published is simply absurd.
>>
>> It is available TODAY because of modern tests.
>
>This is not so.
Yes, it is.
> They were grandfathered in.
But stay today because of the modern testing.
>
>>
>>> Facts are facts, and
>>> distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>>> behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>
>Not in this case.
In this case you are wrong.
--
Bob.
wf3h
which, of course, is evolution.
seems the massage therapist lacks a dictionary.
el cid
wrote:
Which textbook on evolution has the most to say about
pharmacology?
I suggest the following exercise. Look up this classic pharmacology
book at the following reference and first browse through the ToC
to look for where you think it will talk about evolution. Then search
for all points where the word evolution is used in the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Goodman-Gilmans-Pharmacological-Basis-Therapeutics/dp/0071422803/ref=dp_ob_image_bk#reader
Feel welcome to do something similar with your favorite
textbook on evolution to point out its references to
pharmacology.
And if you really care, go here:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Sackler_evolution_health_medicine_program
and listen to at least the introductory talk.
el cid
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:48:48 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:09:26 -0400, Ye Old One wrote
>
> >> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:53:43 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >> <try.not...@but.see.sig> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:27:44 -0400, Ye Old One wrote
>
> >>>>>>> That is an exceptionally ignorant statement. I suggest you
Here is a significant result on the interaction of aspirin
and ibuprofen.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/345/25/1809
No preliminary animal testing. Strike 1 for you.
No mention of evolution. Strike 2 for you.
We'll give you a free pitch, explain why they don't
use an animal model in this test and explain how
evolutionary theory guided their work.
Then consider the following in light of your
many unsupported assertions about evolution,
animal testing, and drug development.
From an FDA FAQ.
********
Animal Drug Safety Frequently Asked Questions
Animal Testing
In animal testing, drug companies make every effort
to use as few animals as possible and to ensure their
humane and proper care. Generally, two or more species
(one rodent, one non-rodent) are tested because a
drug may affect one species differently from another.
Animal testing is used to measure how much of a
drug is absorbed into the blood, how it is broken
down chemically in the body, the toxicity of the
drug and its breakdown products (metabolites), and
how quickly the drug and its metabolites are excreted
from the body.
*******
No mention of evolution. No push for the non-rodent
species to be a primate or to pick it based on
evolution. So please, stop making the rest of
us who understand evolution look bad by
association with you. Evolution is a grand
theory and its beauty is in it's truth. It does
not need some ignorant clod trying to gussy
it up to make it look more useful that it
already is.
Ye Old One
Stop being a moron. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Last time
I looked medicine was a biological science.
>
>
>>>> is based on
>>>> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>>>>
>>> Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
>>> years before Darwin published is simply absurd.
>
>>
>> It is available TODAY because of modern tests.
>>
>>> Facts are facts, and
>>> distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>>> behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
>>
>> I do.
>
>Stupid. You're just as thick as a brick, aren't you?
Back toy the hand jobs NashtOff, leave intelligent people to debate
science.
--
Bob.
Nashton
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that you're one of the most ignorant
people to ever walk the face of this Earth.
Do yourself a favor and stop posting in science ngs, you're embarrassing
yourself.
Nashton
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:11:33 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-16324-Popular-Science-Examiner~y2009m7d10-You-dont-have-to-believe-in-evolution-to-reap-the-benefits-of-research-which-relies-on-it
>
>> The fact that
>> different species have similar genes suggest, of course, that at one
>> point in time they were one and the same, but have since evolved.
>
> No! Evolution does not work that way. Good bloody gods.
>
>
>
ROTF
You people literally live in an ng dedicated to evolution and you
*still* can't agree as to what exactly evolution really is.
Can you just post in some other ng where you won't be consistently
embarrassing yourselves?
Nashton
>
> Stop being a moron. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Last time
> I looked medicine was a biological science.
>>
>>>>> is based on
>>>>> the ToE which underpins ALL biological science.
>>>>>
>>>> Saying that aspirin is available due to the ToE when it was developed six
>>>> years before Darwin published is simply absurd.
>>> It is available TODAY because of modern tests.
>>>
>>>> Facts are facts, and
>>>> distorting facts serves no-one. This is the way that creationist cretins
>>>> behave. Try to avoid emulating them.
>>> I do.
>> Stupid. You're just as thick as a brick, aren't you?
>
> Back toy the hand jobs NashtOff, leave intelligent people to debate
> science.
Oh my sweet Lord.
ROTFLMAO
>
Ye Old One
<elcid...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 12, 1:14 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:02:09 -0700 (PDT), el cid
>> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 12, 10:24 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:56:01 -0700 (PDT), el cid
>> >> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jul 11, 12:42 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
>>
>> >> >> >Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
>>
>> >> >> Just about all in current use.
>>
>> >> >That is an exceptionally ignorant statement.
>>
>> >> Nope.
>>
>> >> >I suggest you
>> >> >quickly retract before your post gets hauled out regularly as
>> >> >the evolutionist equivalent of "lying for Jesus".
>>
>> >> Hohohohoho!
>>
>> >> >But I'll help you out. Which of these pharms was directly
>> >> >derived from ToE
>>
>> >> >Lipitor, Plavix, Enbrel, Epogen, Aranesp, Prevacid, Singular,
>> >> >Viagra, Advair, Nexium, Ibuprofen, Acetometaphin, Aspirin
>>
>> >> All of them.
>>
>> >> No biological science can be done without respect to the ToE. It
>> >> underpins ALL biology.
>>
>> >> All modern drugs are tested on animals, those results would be invalid
>> >> without a knowledge of the ToE.
>>
>> >That is meaningless tripe.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>
>>
>> >The utility of animal testing, limited though it is, is dependent
>> >on similar biochemistry. The theory of evolution explains why
>> >biochemistry is similar at a gross level but is irrelevant to the
>> >application.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >The application would be as valid if animals had
>> >been independently created to be similar or had been intelligently
>> >designed to be similar. The utility of animal testing does not
>> >closely follow evolutionary relationships.
>>
>> Yes it does. Different animals are selected for testing based on
>> evolved traits.
>
>Absolutely false. If it were true, you could provide the FDA
>guidelines on this selection. They don't exist. Have you
>ever designed a toxicity or efficacy trial?
I know people who have, and several others that have carried them out.
> I doubt it. Evolution
>does not enter the conversation.
Of course it does. You can't do modern biology without reference to
it.
> Have you read FDA filings?
>Apparently not but your ignorance has not slowed your
>opinion, ill informed as they are.
Mine are not ill informed.
>
>> > As the theory of
>> >evolution does not predict the best animal models, it is rather
>> >irrelevant to drug testing.
>
>> But it does make the predictions, when you know enough about it.
>
>Citations? You can know a lot about evolution without being
>able to predict from theory which P450s will be relevant in
>humans and how similar the orthologues in rats or mice
>will behave. Moreso for which ones are induced and how
>their induction affects the rest of the animal. A drug that
>induces a P450 involved in arachidonic acid metabolism
>in rats can deplete reserves and dampen inflammatory responses
>to reactive oxidative species but you might not see the same
>effect in mice, or exactly the reverse. There's no telling
>what studies in dogs will do. You will never test enough
>primates to find out and frankly primate responses have
>not shown to be more effective in predicting human tox
>or efficacy than testing in guinea pigs.
>
>Attend a drug development conference or a toxicology
>conference and you will find very little talk or evolution.
Maybe, attend a cosmology conference and you don't find them talking
about gravity very much, but it sill underpins a lot of what goes on.
>Evolutionary theory follows behind drug development
>and tries to rationalize observations, it does not lead.
It leads in the choice of animals for testing. The testing of drugs on
the wrong animals led to problem like thalidomide.
>
>
>> >Further, the whole of pharmaceutical development is mostly
>> >empirical. People attempt to do science to gain predictive
>> >advantages regarding which lead compounds will perform
>> >best but it almost never works as anticipated. The FDA
>> >does not ask you to justify your drug based on evolution.
>>
>> It doesn't need to. Biological science stand firm on the foundation of
>> the ToE.
>>
>> >It isn't even part of new initiatives like The Critical Path.
>>
>> >Why the insistence on taking a solid and successful theory
>> >and pretending it is more than it is? It makes you look
>> >hopelessly foolish and ignorant.
>>
>> I'm just working with the facts.
>
>Cite them. You've show zero understanding of the drug
>development process and sound exactly like some
>parrottish version of a creationists making claims
>with zero support.
So you claim.
>
>I can't prove a negative so it is up to you to show
>the specifics of where the theory of evolution
>is used to support pharmaceutical development.
You can't do biology without it.
>You can't though, you are just lying for what you
>think is your team but you are an embarrassment
>to informed scientists.
>
>> > Gravity is a wonder and
>> >successful theory but it does not drive drug development.
>
>> True, because it has nothing to do with it. Evolution on the other
>> hand has a lot to do with drugs.
>
>Citations, please. And not some pubmed dump based
>on key words of papers you've never read much less
>comprehended the abstracts. A career in the drug
>development industry tells me you are wrong.
And I know I'm not - based on long friendships with people who
actually do work in universities on drug development and testing.
> That evolution
>is a valid and elegant theory underlying biology does
>not mean it plays a role in drug development except
>in the most vacuous and worthless of perspectives.
It is a cornerstone of all biology - and that includes medical
science.
--
Bob.
Nashton
> On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
>> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
>> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
>> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
>> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
>
> If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
>
They are adapting to the environment using genes that are already
present in their gene pool, unless you believe that evolution, as is
understood today, can account for the type of evolution you're to which
you're referring, as in the apparition of antibiotic-resistance strains
of specific pathogens.
mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/51/2/221.pdf
The gene needs to be present in order for the resistance to occur.
Do I have to explain *EVERYTHING* to you?
Andrew Cunningham
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
> >> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
> >> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
> >> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
> >> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
>
> > If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
>
> They are adapting to the environment using genes that are already
> present in their gene pool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
So, according to you, this species of bacteria, which is capable of
consuming nylon, already had the genes needed to allow it to consume
nylon? Nylon, the material that wasn't in existence until 1935?
>, unless you believe that evolution, as is
> understood today, can account for the type of evolution you're to which
> you're referring, as in the apparition of antibiotic-resistance strains
> of specific pathogens.
It seems to account for everything just fine.
> mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/51/2/221.pdf
Neat link. Can't see how it relates to the point you're trying to
make. Could you quote me the specific lines I should be reading?
> The gene needs to be present in order for the resistance to occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance#Causes_and_risk_factors
"Antibiotic resistance can be a result of horizontal gene transfer[1],
and also of unlinked point mutations in the pathogen genome and a rate
of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication."
Sounds like evolution to me.
> Do I have to explain *EVERYTHING* to you?
I think you're going to have to, since you haven't been making much
sense so far.
Desertphile
> Desertphile wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:11:33 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-16324-Popular-Science-Examiner~y2009m7d10-You-dont-have-to-believe-in-evolution-to-reap-the-benefits-of-research-which-relies-on-it
> >
> >> The fact that
> >> different species have similar genes suggest, of course, that at one
> >> point in time they were one and the same, but have since evolved.
> >
> > No! Evolution does not work that way. Good bloody gods.
> ROTF
>
> You people literally live in an ng dedicated to evolution and you
> *still* can't agree as to what exactly evolution really is.
Nobody in this newsgroup, except perhaps Creationist, think that
it is a "... fact that different species have similar genes
suggest, of course, that at one point in time they were one and
the same, but have since evolved." That is not how evolution
works, and no scientistsays it is.
wf3h
> > On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
> >> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
> >> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
> >> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
> >> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
>
> > If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
>
> They are adapting to the environment using genes that are already
> present in their gene pool, unless you believe that evolution, as is
> understood today, can account for the type of evolution you're to which
> you're referring, as in the apparition of antibiotic-resistance strains
> of specific pathogens.
? since the genes were not always present in the gene pool (otherwise
they would not have been susceptible to antibiotics), the fact is
mutations caused their resistance. and they reproduced with these
mutations
that's called 'evolution'. it's THE classic definition.
nash can't even discuss the rudiments of evolution, is completely
ignorant of what they are, and tries to admit evolution happens
without admitting it happens
that's what you get when your profession is giving happy endings.
wf3h
this is like watching a streetwalker lecture a nun on virtue
(apologies to any streetwalkers)
[M]adman
> On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
>> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever
>> other property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution.
>> That is simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We
>> know that organisms can adapt within species. That does not require
>> ToE.
>
> If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
Adapting
r norman
Sorry to be so long answering but I am visiting family. That is, I
have a real life outside of t.o.
Since we define evolution as any change in the genetic composition of
a population, we define changes in bacterial genomes to be evolution.
But the sense of saying that medicine is based on ToE is not based on
that simplistic notion of evolution -- it involves the full scope of
evolution, especially evolution above the species level
(macroevolution) and especially that humans evolved from non-human
precursors. None of that applies to bacterial adaptations which are
virtually all intraspecific (microevolution). Many creationists
accept microevolution or change within "kind".
People for millenia have been busy domesticating plants and animals
and even microorganisms (fermentation bacteria and yeasts) without
knowing of the theory of evolution. People have long known about
hereditary transmission of traits without knowing of the theory of
evolution. We see bacteria change and explain the change in terms of
evolution. It is quite possible to see the change and simply say,
"hmm, that's quite interesting. Perhaps overuse of antibiotics is not
a good idea." That doesn't require ToE, only common sense and careful
observation.
While I have the floor, let me expand on the non-relation of much of
biological knowledge, especially about the functioning of the human
body necessary for medical practice, and evolution. In particular
Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood without knowing
evolution. Beaumont discovered the principles of digestion without
knowing evolution. Bernard, often called 'the father of modern
physiology' discovered the importance of the regulation of the
internal environment (later called homeostasis) without evolution.
Pasteur's and Koch's work on microorganisms (1860's to 1880's) was
done independently of evolution.
Although Darwin published in 1859, his work was not based on any known
possible mechanism of heredity and so could not really be the basis of
all of biology, as some people here claim, for a very long time. It
really wasn't until, first, the chromosomal basis of heredity was
established and, then, population genetics developed and the 'modern
synthesis' formulation that Dobzhansky could really proclaim "nothing
in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." That statement
didn't happen until 1964. That means that all of what we know about
how nerve cells function (Pavlov, Sherrington, Adrian, Hodgkin &
Huxley, Katz and Eccles) or about Kreb's cycle in metabolism or the
double helix (Watson & Crick) were all done before that, just to name
a few Nobelists in Physiology and Medicine.
What evolution does is tie everything together into one neat,
self-consistent package. Each separate part has long existed
separately and neatly compartmentalized prior to evolution and can
easily continue to exist in the minds of those who for whatever reason
now fail to accept evolution. In other words, people can reject
evolution and still accept chemistry and physics, biochemistry and
biophysics, physiology, neurobiology, endocrinology, histology, etc.
It may require a fairly complex mental juggling act, but there is no
logical reason why an evolution denyer could not publish perfectly
good science in all these areas. The simple fact is that very few
modern researchers in biochemistry or biophysics have even actually
taken a course in evolution and many biology graduates even get
through a good quality program without a course in evolution beyond
first year introductory biology. So much for the notion that, without
evolution, there is no biology.
Andrew Cunningham
Through evolution:
"In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a
population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the
changes produced in any one generation are small, differences
accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial
changes in the organisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Of course, I'd be glad to hear how they're adapting through something
other than genetic change, if you mean to imply otherwise.
Nashton
> On Jul 12, 7:58 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
>>>> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever other
>>>> property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
>>>> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We know that
>>>> organisms can adapt within species. That does not require ToE.
>>> If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
>> They are adapting to the environment using genes that are already
>> present in their gene pool
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
"A series of recent studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the
University of Hyogo, Japan, suggest that in fact no frameshift mutation
was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase."
You were saying?
>
> So, according to you, this species of bacteria, which is capable of
> consuming nylon, already had the genes needed to allow it to consume
> nylon? Nylon, the material that wasn't in existence until 1935?
>
>> , unless you believe that evolution, as is
>> understood today, can account for the type of evolution you're to which
>> you're referring, as in the apparition of antibiotic-resistance strains
>> of specific pathogens.
>
> It seems to account for everything just fine.
That would depend on your standards for scientific rigor.
Yours seem to be quite low, when you cite an article in wikipedia (try
posting a real article, or even an abstract from a few papers next time)
and when that article serves to refute what you were asserting.
LOL
>
>> mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/51/2/221.pdf
>
> Neat link. Can't see how it relates to the point you're trying to
> make. Could you quote me the specific lines I should be reading?
Actually, it serves to substantiate what I was saying, i.e. that the
gene needs to be present in the gene pool. Therefore, no evolution, as
is understood by the ToE needs take place.
I'm sure you're more than capable of reading the article. The quote is
in the first few lines.
>
>> The gene needs to be present in order for the resistance to occur.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance#Causes_and_risk_factors
> "Antibiotic resistance can be a result of horizontal gene transfer[1],
> and also of unlinked point mutations in the pathogen genome and a rate
> of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication."
>
> Sounds like evolution to me.
Sounds like a bacteria incorporated a few new genes to me. Any cases of
speciation you would like to share?
>
>> Do I have to explain *EVERYTHING* to you?
>
> I think you're going to have to, since you haven't been making much
> sense so far.
That's because you have a hard time to focus on what I've been saying.
Perhaps if you had someone read it to *slowly* you a few times?
>
Nashton
Learn to capitalize.
Nashton
Your knowledge of evolution is cursory at best, abominable at worst.
This has been discussed ad nauseam. Please refer to macro vs
microevolution and study the differences between temporal adaptations
and true speciation.
And stop continually quoting wikis.
Nashton
Learn to capitalize.
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> > nash can't even discuss the rudiments of evolution, is completely
> > ignorant of what they are, and tries to admit evolution happens
> > without admitting it happens
>
> > that's what you get when your profession is giving happy endings.
>
> Learn to capitalize.-
learn to think.
wf3h
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 12:55 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> >> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 12:04 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
> >>>> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever
> >>>> other property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution.
> >>>> That is simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We
> >>>> know that organisms can adapt within species. That does not require
> >>>> ToE.
> >>> If the bacteria aren't evolving, what are they doing?
> >> Adapting
>
> > Through evolution:
>
> > "In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a
> > population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the
> > changes produced in any one generation are small, differences
> > accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial
> > changes in the organisms."
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>
> > Of course, I'd be glad to hear how they're adapting through something
> > other than genetic change, if you mean to imply otherwise.
>
> Your knowledge of evolution is cursory at best, abominable at worst.
well, then, you and he have something in common!
>
> This has been discussed ad nauseam. Please refer to macro vs
> microevolution and study the differences between temporal adaptations
> and true speciation.
irrelevant. 'temporal adaptations'...changes in populations with
time...are evolution.
and you lecture OTHERS on ignorance? like a hooker lecturing mother
theresa on chastity...
go back to your happy endings, massage therapist...
wf3h
>
> > (apologies to any streetwalkers)
>
can't handle the truth, eh?
learn to think.
wf3h
>
> What evolution does is tie everything together into one neat,
> self-consistent package.
reminds me of what einstein said of quantum mechanics...'it explains
all of chemistry and much of physics'...to a chemist that makes sense,
as does your characterization of evolution...both quantum chemistry
and evolutionary biology are sciences
[M]adman
haha! you are an amusing one. You must be new here. You are going to post to
ME a Wiki on evolution?
(so funny)
Here is the scoop:
You get slight changes. True.
But not enough to achieve a complete re-write of the gnome into a species
that is clearly nothing like the original
You can call this type of adaptation a type of evolution if you wish. But it
is just an organism adapting.
There is no such thing as a complete divergence. Divergence has never been
witnessed
OTOH we have witnessed adapting; which you could call micro-evolution I
suppose.
We have witnessed adaptation. We can even manipulate it. Dogs would be an
example. Genetically Modified Foods are another. Grafting plants yet
another.
But there has been no one anywhere that has ever seen a chimp like creature
diverge into both chimps and humans. Nor is there any evidence of such
things taking place in nature.
In addition to your Wiki-Article... Here is what you got:
You have some wishful thinking and a made up story by a man that never grew
up... I.E. : Darwin. When you add up all three you do not have enough for a
cup of coffee at Mc D's
---it really is THAT simple.
[M]adman
Pay attention people. THIS is a POTM
[M]adman
> r norman wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:50:43 -0700 (PDT), JPG
>> <j_peasemold_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 July, 21:34, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>>>> research which relies on it
>>>>>>> July 10, 4:14 PM � Asta Gindulyte - Popular Science Examiner
>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-16324-Popular-Science-Examiner~y2009m7d10-Y...
>>>>>>> According to a recent Gallup poll taken on 200th anniversary of
>>>>>>> Charles Darwin's birth, only 39% of Americans believe in
>>>>>>> evolution. And then there is the ongoing debate about whether
>>>>>>> it's appropriate to teach the theory evolution in schools.
>>>>>>> Yet in the science world, the theory of evolution is widely
>>>>>>> accepted. The focus is rather on understanding it further, and
>>>>>>> making a good use of it. For instance, molecular evolution is
>>>>>>> routinely utilized in gene discovery.
>>>>>>> Given that human genome contains about 3 billion DNA base
>>>>>>> pairs, and the vast majority of them are so called "junk", a
>>>>>>> task of finding a gene of interest is like looking for a needle
>>>>>>> in a haystack. In fact, only about 1.5% of human DNA contains
>>>>>>> the "interesting" code that translates into proteins.
>>>>>>> That's where molecular evolution comes in. By comparing DNA
>>>>>>> sequences from different species, scientists look for similar
>>>>>>> segments. The DNA sequence segments that code for genes, tend
>>>>>>> to be fairly similar among different species, while the junk
>>>>>>> DNA varies widely. The fact that different species have similar
>>>>>>> genes suggest, of course, that at one point in time they were
>>>>>>> no small achievement, and it's no wonder, that such research is
>>>>>>> often announced on the news. Once a gene responsible for a
>>>>>>> particular function in the human body is discovered, it becomes
>>>>>>> a lot easier to design drugs that treat diseases associated
>>>>>>> with that particular function. Still not a walk in the park,
>>>>>>> but it does open a lot of leads for further research. Doesn't it
>>>>>>> seem somewhat ironic, however, that people who do not
>>>>>>> believe in evolution, may have been or will be treated by drugs
>>>>>>> discovered with the help of this remarkable theory? Would they
>>>>>>> refuse the treatment if they knew how the drugs were discovered
>>>>>>> or would they become believers?
>>>>>> Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
>>>>> Just about all in current use.
>>> I'm assuming you will not be using any meds derived from the ToE?
>>> Whilst you're about it, how about not using some other products
>>> derived from the scientific enterprise, such as your computer?
>>>
>>
>> It seems you have not, or cannot, answer Nashton's simple question:
>> specifically what drugs in modern medical use are derived using
>> knowledge of the Theory of Evolution as an essential part of their
>> discovery? The problem is that you probably cannot think of even
>> one. Important note: There is an immense difference between saying that
>> modern scientific methods and knowledge are important in drug
>> discovery and testing and saying that the Theory of Evolution, as one
>> small part of science, is important.
>>
>> Another important note: It is most definitely NOT sufficient to say
>> that drug testing depends on evolution. We know for an observed fact
>> that all mammals have somewhat similar body form and function and
>> that all animals and all life share many cellular biochemical and
>> biophysical properties. For whatever reason that may be, and
>> evolution is just one possibility, you don't have to know why to take
>> advantage of that fact to do drug development and testing for safety
>> and efficacy. (In case you are interested, another reason is that
>> God created life that way -- end of story).
>>
>> Knowing that bacteria can change and become resistant to antibiotics
>> and even transmit antibiotic resistance or virulence or whatever
>> other property you wish does not require the Theory of Evolution. That is
>> simply a property of bacteria that we must deal with. We
>> know that organisms can adapt within species. That does not require
>> botanicals was not dependent on the Theory of Evolution. The
>> discovery of bacteria was not dependent on the Theory of Evolution.
>> The development of public health measures to assure clean water
>> supplies separated from sewage disposal and safe food sources and
>> control of insect vectors of disease was not dependent on the Theory
>> of Evolution. The analysis of the human genome and the development
>> of medical intervention tailored to an individual's genetics even
>> can be stated all without the Theory of Evolution, although that can
>> be a bit strained. Still we do not yet really have medicines
>> developed on that basis.
>
>>
>> In short, you can be an effective, caring, and successful drug
>> developer or surgical technique developer or diagnostician or
>> physician or surgeon without having to believe in the Theory of
>> Evolution. All you have to do is understand the science of
>> biochemistry and biophysics as they apply to human cells,
>> understanding that other cells work similarly for whatever reason and
>> be knowledgeable in the best current practices of medicine.
>
> Of course, this applies to all medical knowledge and fields.
>
>>
>> Please don't start flaming about the important of science -- that is
>> not the issue. The question is: point out a single medical
>> treatment of disease that depends specifically on the Theory of
>> Evolution for its discovery and development.
>
> OTOH, I do remember one poster having posted about a specific
> treatment based on knowledge in nested hierarchy but to claim that
> every single pharmacological treatment is based on the ToE is
> degrading to the scientific process, which is the best means, along
> with a hefty dose of empiricism, in creating and developing new
> treatments and therapies.
They forget just a few short decades ago all medicine was based on plant
extracts while trying to duplicate, even strengthen, what mother nature has
already done with herbs/plants/roots etc.
.
Aspirin being the most common example.
Boikat
Since a new species branching off of the parent species does not
involve a complete re-write of the genome, your argument is a faulty.
It's a strawman argument, logical fallacy, and typical of your
ignorance, and you've made that same stupid claim before, and it's
been explained to you before that it was a stupid claim. Also, it's
g*e*nome, not "gnome". "Gnomes" are short mythical beings, sort of
like trolls. You know what trolls are, don't you? Why, yes your do,
since you is one. And you is what you is! Yes, you are!
<snip remaining idiocy and squinkage>
Boikat
wf3h
well, not quite acetylsalicilic acid is a modification, by chemists,
of the material found in nature. the natural product is much too harsh
to be used straight.
wf3h
> Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > Of course, I'd be glad to hear how they're adapting through something
> > other than genetic change, if you mean to imply otherwise.
>
> haha! you are an amusing one. You must be new here. You are going to post to
> ME a Wiki on evolution?
> (so funny)
>
> Here is the scoop:
> You get slight changes. True.
> But not enough to achieve a complete re-write of the gnome into a species
> that is clearly nothing like the original
uh...it's 'genome'. a gnome is the little guy on travelocity.
>
> You can call this type of adaptation a type of evolution if you wish. But it
> is just an organism adapting.
AKA evolution.
>
> There is no such thing as a complete divergence. Divergence has never been
> witnessed
>
sure it has. the fossil record contains a fairly complete record.
> OTOH we have witnessed adapting; which you could call micro-evolution I
> suppose.
>
> We have witnessed adaptation. We can even manipulate it. Dogs would be an
> example. Genetically Modified Foods are another. Grafting plants yet
> another.
>
> But there has been no one anywhere that has ever seen a chimp like creature
> diverge into both chimps and humans. Nor is there any evidence of such
> things taking place in nature.
sure there is. the fossil record. it's right there in the fossils.
haven't you heard of fossils?
you creationists are worse than i thought
>
> In addition to your Wiki-Article... Here is what you got:
>
> You have some wishful thinking and a made up story by a man that never grew
> up... I.E. : Darwin. When you add up all three you do not have enough for a
> cup of coffee at Mc D's
and in 2000 years creationism has explained precisely nothing. nothing
at all. it's useless
Boikat
And before that, it was blood letting and exorcisisms, and when that
didn't work, confinement in a mental hospital.
> .
>
> Aspirin being the most common example.
Brought to you by science, not by shamen.
Boikat
John Harshman
How unfortunate that you didn't read it. You might have learned a bit.
But I have a quibble or two. While it's true that the necessity of
evolution in biology and medicine has been overstated a bit (perhaps
through a misunderstanding of Dobzhansky's famous statement), I think
Norman understates the case. Some of the most fruitful current research
in biochemistry and medicine involve comparative study of gene and
protein sequences and function, genome organization, and gene
expression. And comparative studies require both the assumption of
macroevolution and an idea of the phylogenetic tree. Bioinformatics and
genomics are more hot topics that are steeped in macroevolution.
Researchers in these fields may or may not take courses in evolution,
but they sure have to learn something about it in order to do their work.
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:15:27 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Cunningham
>
Objective as it gets.
> While I have the floor, let me expand on the non-relation of much of
> biological knowledge, especially about the functioning of the human
> body necessary for medical practice, and evolution. In particular
> Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood without knowing
> evolution. Beaumont discovered the principles of digestion without
> knowing evolution. Bernard, often called 'the father of modern
> physiology' discovered the importance of the regulation of the
> internal environment (later called homeostasis) without evolution.
> Pasteur's and Koch's work on microorganisms (1860's to 1880's) was
> done independently of evolution.
>
Objective as it gets.
> Although Darwin published in 1859, his work was not based on any known
> possible mechanism of heredity and so could not really be the basis of
> all of biology, as some people here claim, for a very long time.
I know of no one who has made this particular claim in behalf of
Darwin 1859. Contrary to assumption, Darwin didn't even offer an
explanation as to how speciation occurs----even after critics demanded
one. Darwin 1859 explained facts attempting to show that species
possessed the *potential* to change. This change, he argued, was
accomplished by gradual modification or natural selection. Inheritance
and speciation were advanced concepts, way beyond the pale of Darwin
1859, explained decades after potential was established. (It is
important to note that 'potential' presupposes the unanimous
acceptance of fixism.)
> It really wasn't until, first, the chromosomal basis of heredity was
> established and, then, population genetics developed and the 'modern
> synthesis' formulation that Dobzhansky could really proclaim "nothing
> in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." That statement
> didn't happen until 1964. That means that all of what we know about
> how nerve cells function (Pavlov, Sherrington, Adrian, Hodgkin &
> Huxley, Katz and Eccles) or about Kreb's cycle in metabolism or the
> double helix (Watson & Crick) were all done before that, just to name
> a few Nobelists in Physiology and Medicine.
>
> What evolution does is tie everything together into one neat,
> self-consistent package. Each separate part has long existed
> separately and neatly compartmentalized prior to evolution and can
> easily continue to exist in the minds of those who for whatever reason
> now fail to accept evolution. In other words, people can reject
> evolution and still accept chemistry and physics, biochemistry and
> biophysics, physiology, neurobiology, endocrinology, histology, etc.
> It may require a fairly complex mental juggling act, but there is no
> logical reason why an evolution denyer could not publish perfectly
> good science in all these areas. The simple fact is that very few
> modern researchers in biochemistry or biophysics have even actually
> taken a course in evolution and many biology graduates even get
> through a good quality program without a course in evolution beyond
> first year introductory biology. So much for the notion that, without
> evolution, there is no biology.
Objective as it gets.
Ray
r norman
I certainly agree that bioinformatics and genomics and related work is
heavily grounded in evolutionary thinking and much fruitful current
research in biochemistry and cell biology works this way. It is just
that I don't really think it has yet permeated into medical practice
and there are no current drugs or treatments on the market based on
these ideas. To be frank, I really expected someone to immediately
pipe up and say, "Hey wait a minute! You forgot about (or never knew
about) xxx!!!" But that has not happened strengthening my belief that
there is today no such xxx. But I really expect that tomorrow or the
next day (or in a decade or so) this situation will be completely
reversed.
So, as someone has already pointed out, my argument is purely
pedantic. I still think it to be true, temporarily. And I really
really believe that one must NEVER answer even the most ridiculous
creationist statements with invalid information.
r norman
As I have so frequently pointed out and as you so pointedly ignore,
the question is not whether medicine is based on science but whether
there exist medical drugs or treatments based on evolution.
Sapient Fridge
"[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> writes
<snip>
>You get slight changes. True.
> But not enough to achieve a complete re-write of the gnome into a species
>that is clearly nothing like the original
>
>You can call this type of adaptation a type of evolution if you wish. But it
>is just an organism adapting.
>
>There is no such thing as a complete divergence. Divergence has never been
>witnessed
Here's a nice example for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
HeLa cells are a cell lines which contaminate tissue cultures in a
similar same way to bacteria. They are actually heavily mutated human
cells with 82 chromosomes (humans cells normally have 46).
So is that just a "slight change"?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org