Scientific Uses of Evolutionary Theory (Really, they're Zero): Medicine

Just saw this and am sleepy so I'm going to put up a post on it impulsively, maybe correct some things tomorrow.

OH NONSENSE, DR. A!

At EvC Dr. A is answering the question what impact evolutionary theory has on medicine:

So what are these fields of science it does impact? Does it have any effect on medical sciences? Are there any other practical uses for evolution other than showing how life diversifies?

Yes, it has medical uses; for example, it would be hard to study and circumvent the evolution of bacterial resistance to medicine without knowing about evolution.

THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION, THIS IS NORMAL BUILT-IN VARIATION, OTHERWISE SOMETIMES IRRITATINGLY KNOWN AS "MICROEVOLUTION." MICROEVOLUTION SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!

Another medical application, in preventative medicine, would be the Ames test. This tests to see how mutagenic (and therefore how carcinogenic) a substance is by quantifying the amount of beneficial evolution it causes. (Remember that mutation is random, so the harmful somatic mutations the substance produces will be proportional to the beneficial germ-line mutations.)

This will take some pondering later.

A third medical application is in epidemiology: finding the molecular phylogeny of a disease helps epidemiologists to reconstruct its history.

I'm tired so I'll have to come back and ponder this one later too but here's a website on Molecular Phylogeny. My guess is that basically what you are talking about is genetic similarities, no need for any evolutionistic hooha in that case, in fact it would probably just complicate what would be simpler without it.

A fourth medical application is the creation of live vaccines. A virus or bacterium which has evolved to adapt to one environment is less fit for another: so, for example, a strain of polio which has been cultured in monkey kidney cells will no longer be any good at preying on human nerve cells but will still trigger an immune response. This is how the oral polio vaccine works.

THIS IS ALSO "MICROEVOLUTION" OR NORMAL BUILT-IN INTRASPECIES VARIATION.

There are a number of other practical applications both within and outside medicine, but I hope that this is enough to be going on with.

Oh I doubt it seriously. All the sciences have certainly absorbed the fantasy of evolution into their systems but it does nothing useful for them.

Evolutionist bias lurches on

I suppose Coyote might be offended that I'm going to call his example of skulls arranged in a subjectively graded series supposedly representing various types of human beings an abuse of intelligence, but that's what I'm going to call it.

To know whether some of the less human-looking skulls really are human or not I'd have to see their possessors walking around. Human beings come with quite a wide range of skull shapes and sizes but I don't trust paleontologists to be able to distinguish a human skull from a "hominid" or an ape skull. There is no such thing as a hominid, so it's either an ape or a human and since they have that fantasy category mixed in there I don't trust any of it.

So his question to ICANT is meaningless:

OK, if changes at the species level are "still mice" then what do you make of the six figures in the upper left half of the figure below? They are a similar level of change to the "mice" you are so fond of.

And how exactly have you determined that they represent this similar level of change? These are SKULLs, not living creatures. You can't look at their DNA, you can't decide anything really. Some of the flatter skulls don't look very human to me, you just put them in a series that fits your belief that human beings evolved from something apish and got yourself convinced that you can treat this as evidence. You are blowing smoke. Those who arranged those skulls are blowing smoke.

Do you agree that they are all the same?

By which I have to suppose he means Are they all human beings? Well, the answer is that IF they are all human beings, then yes they ARE "all the same" in the sense ICANT meant that the mice are still mice. But again, I don't know if those are all human skulls or not. Sorry.

Then Theodoric accuses creationist Dawn Bertot:

ICANT has ignored this question from frako. It seems you are too. Is this part of your vaunted debating skills? Ignoring the difficult questions.

Frako writes:
How much of a difference in your mind must 2 species have to be called 2 species and not the same species? The minimum difference please

How is a creationist supposed to answer such a question since we don't think in terms of differences the way evolutionists do? Nobody's evading anything, it's just that the question is meaningless. It's an artifact of the evolution fantasy.

However, I did answer in an earlier post today that perhaps Macroevolution should be defined as occurring WHEN SANE PEOPLE (INTUITIVELY AND SPONTANEOUSLY) RECOGNIZE THAT A NEW "SPECIES"/VARIETY NEEDS TO BE CALLED BY A NEW NAME. If it's still a mouse or a horse or a fruitfly then it's a mouse or a horse or a fruitfly no matter how many Latin subtitles you string after it -- and that's microevolution, not macroevolution (which of course doesn't exist).

Evolution has been killed dead a zillion times but they keep following its ghost around pretending it's alive

Oh BROTHER. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Now they are accusing ICANT and other creationists on the thread "Can I disprove Macro-evolution" of being off topic. Hoo boy, what will they think of next? But then it turns out it's not that they're off topic, it's that they haven't disproved Macroevolution, which is what the title of the thread supposedly demands of them, which of course the evos wouldn't recognize if it bit them, and they have teeth marks all over them but don't seem to notice. Case of genetic entropy perhaps -- nerve degeneration radiating out from the gluteus maximus?

The problem is that Dawn Bertot and JRTjr and ICANT are happily leading you and others down those oh so attractive rabbit holes.

The topic is NOT whether Macro-Evolution happened, it is an assertion that they can disprove Macro-evolution.

It is their assertion that it did not happen, and until they provide a model that better explains what is seen than the current model, they have failed.

Stop letting them change the subject and lead you guys astray.

It is up to them to provide convincing evidence that Macro-Evolution did not happen.

Nothing would qualify as convincing evidence for them, obviously. They are just wilfully blind to the good evidence that HAS been provided. There's nothing wrong with ICANT's evidence.

And the latest in this string of nonsense posts on that thread:

i know i would poste the latin name of that new mouse and the house mouse but he would still say they are still mice

Of course he would because that IS the evidence against Macroevolution and he has fulfilled the requirement of the title of the thread with a resounding Yes he CAN disprove Macroevolution and he did. Because you can't just redefine reality and call it science, folks, if mice are still mice no matter what new Latinized characteristics a particular strain of them may have you have not achieved Macroevolution. AND again, they will have reduced genetic diversity TOO, which is THE real-world actual-fact killer of evolution.

========
I guess this is a place to tack on a reaction to a later post by ICANT: This is a post where he and I disagree:

I also understand that there will be sub-species that will arise due to malfunctions in errors in DNA information resulting in mutations.

Sub-species arise from the simple shuffling of the genetic possibilities that God built into the DNA, a very abundant array of possible variations, far MORE abundant in past generations and extravagantly abundant in the pre-Flood world, losing diversity over time thanks to the Fall and the Flood.

The reason offspring are different from parents is not mutations, it's the shuffling of the alleles for the various characteristics in the parents' DNA and this is how new varieties get formed too, as limited populations become isolated from the greater population and their smaller gene pool is the source of their own characteristics.

I'm sure science is right that we do all have mutations, even our own unique mutations, but I can't think that is a good thing since there are thousands of genetic diseases in the human genome, no doubt caused by mutations, and I'm also convinced that "junk DNA" is -- mostly -- the result of mutations, basically a killing off of formerly functioning genes.

Evolutionsts ASSUME that all the DNA was the result of mutations but that's just an article of faith; there is no evidence that that is so. Mutations are errors in the DNA and must be a consequence of the Fall. Of course evolutionists aren't going to do the necessary tests to really pin it down and I don't know how many creationists are looking in this direction either.

Mutations are not necessary, and I personally doubt that they ever contribute anything positive to the development of varieties or sub-species.

Mulling the genome and rapid speciation

Thought:

Variation through change in gene frequency as populations are isolated from other populations is such a common event in nature, occurring within observable time periods and not requiring millions of years, even on out to actual "speciation" as defined by evolutionists, not to mention that it's the way new domestic breeds are intentionally developed, it seems to me the question could be raised:

In all this shuffling and shifting of alleles and development of new phenotypes therefrom has any gene for anything other than variations on the basic structure of the Kind been observed to change? If macroevolution ever occurred wouldn't you expect that in all that shifting of alleles you'd see some alleles shift that pertain to the very dogness of dogs, the very catness of cats, the very horseness of horses? But we have huge dogs and tiny dogs and an enormous range of types in between and there is no doubt they are all dogs; same with cats.

Can they even distinguish genes that pertain to these things from others in the genome? Superficial traits such as eye color, skin color, hair and fur color and type, overall body size and musculature, these things are easily and rapidly changed over comparatively few generations. But has anyone ever seen a dog eye change in the direction of a cat eye or vice versa, or the yapping or barking of dogs change into something else etc. Or work with what evolutionism believes: could you breed a reptile of your choice into something that is even somewhat birdlike? (Since there were once apparently flying reptiles (in the pre-Flood world) I would expect you MIGHT be able to tap into that genetic possibility in a reptilian genome (maybe it's all gone to junk DNA now though) but could you get a scale to evolve into a feather?)

That is, has anything that is DEFINITIVE of a Kind ever shown the slightest change into something else from all this alteration in the genes and alleles over observable generations? Could it? It doesn't happen, does it?

I'm thinking the genome must obey some laws that haven't yet been discovered, that keep the basic blueprint of the Kind from changing while a large variety of secondary characteristics may change freely.