Medicine Needs Evolution

Science ^ | 2/24/2006 | Randolph M. Nesse and two others

[js1138]

Of course I've seen the articles that proclaim Evolution to be a fact AND a theory.

They would be correct.

Even the ID proponents accept common descent as a fact. The details of how it happens are under constant scrutiny.

But regardless of how and why variation occurs, different individuals have different rates of reproductive success. This is not a theory. It is an observable fact.

[Right Wing Professor]

I've countered this point from others, notably connectthedots.

Briefly, and one more time, evolutionary medicine is producing results, most notably in genomics; but a major impediment is that most doctors have an extremely poor education in evolutionary concepts, and therefore simply aren't using the opportunities that have arisen.

Is that too complicated for you? Probably, but it's as simple as I can make it.

[js1138]

The pharmaceutical companies that advertise via email are not particularly in need of evolutionary concepts, although they benefit from differential fitness.

[Dark Knight]

As much as I appreciate your simplemindedness, you have failed in basic debate. What major application of ToE has been done in medicine? What medical technique was based in ToE?

It underpines EVERYTHING in biology, but is without major application.

Still clueless perfessor?

This article is political not scientific. What technique in medicine requires a doctor to study ToE? Since the answer is none, requiring a doctor to be educated in ToEs is a waste of time. Would you require evolutionary dentistry too? Sorry, you probably would, just to waste more time.

DK

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

There are some new ones in there.

[metmom]

I just came across this article while doing another thread and thought I would send it to you. It's from a Science News article concerning allegies and the immune system. Here's a quote from the article:

"The antibiotics that thwart infectious diseases may also be spurring some immune disorders by killing off beneficial bacteria (SN: 11/22/97, p. 332). In the November 1998 Thorax, Hopkin and his colleague Sadaf Farooqi, now of Adenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge, England, reported that children who received oral antibiotics by age 2 were more susceptible to allergies than children who had no antibiotics, a finding that Beasley's group in New Zealand recently replicated."

and here's the link: http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/8_14_99/bob2.htm

This is certainly true for my kids.

[From many - one.]

Thanks. The link isn't working, though.

The theory is reasonable but the description quoted omits a possible common cause: kids with defective immune systems over-react to some things and under react to others.

Do you know if this was addressed in the rest of the article?

[metmom]

Here's the link to Science News: http://www.sciencenews.org/

The article is entitled "Germs of Endearment" 8-14-99

Here's another try to the article:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/8_14_99/index.htm

I tried it and it worked for me but if that doesn't work for you, you can go to the home page, there is a link to their archives at the bottom on the left and it's pretty easy to find.

I don't think it addressed the idea of a defective immune system. There are other things in the article that address the role of antibiotics and the immune system.

[From many - one.]

Thanks for your effort.

Now that I've read the whole article I continue with my first impression. They were not considering hereditary factors. Quite justifiably because the focus was in a different area. So it's possible that some folk are more likely to suffer the effects of an overclean environment than others. That would account for both the "runs in families" and the "increasing incidence" phenomena.

[Creationist]

Evolution is useless to medicine.

A variation of a disease is no different than a variation of a chicken.