Welcome to...
yawn, I’ve taught physics for premeds. for the most part, doctors are smart in that they can learn from experience.
theoretical physics is beyond them and actually theoretical anything is beyond them.
They pull an intellectual three card monte and the..................rubes buy it.
algore, gungrabbers, SCOTUS, etc, have learned this same game well.
It appears that one must be seriously insecure in one's faith in order to post such drivel.
What sad drivel.
The Real Question Is Would You Want Egnor As Your Doctor?
Our esteemed creationist M.D., Michael Egnor, continues distorting evolutionary theory and its relationship to medicine. In a Evolution News and Views piece yesterday, Egnor makes fun of an Alliance for Science essay contest for high school students where they are asked to answer the follwoing question: "Why would I have wanted my doctor to have studied evolution?". PZ (several times) and Orac (again, several times) demonstrate Egnor's ignorance on the topic of evolution as well as the relationship between evolutionary biology and medicine.
“Perhaps Dr. Novella has data that show real evolutionary improvements in the brain caused by brain tumors. If he has, he should show us.”
If evolutionary theory predicted that brain tumors would lead to improvements in the brain, he might have a point.
Sort of a long screed to set up such a pathetic strawman.
The neurosurgeon quoted in the article supports Darwin. Although, the way you have removed the formatting of the blockquotes, it may be hard to see that.
Uh, excuse me, but it's the "Intelligent Design" crowd who claim that they can measure that. Take it up with them.
Some people are so beguiled by the obvious—the flux of things—that they ignore how fixed things generally are. Books that are copied down a thousand different times remain subantially the same. We know how Aristotle thought, even though that thought came, not from him buty from his students. Thought has a certain fixity, because the “structure” of it must be respected, and too many changes simply destroy it, make it meaningless. A cancer is meaningless life.
Actually, all I did was ask a question: how much biologically relevant information can Darwin’s mechanism of chance and necessity actually generate? I didn’t settle for hand-waving or for reassurances that "Darwin’s theory is a fact." I wanted a measurement of biological complexity, with empirical verification, in a way that was meaningful to biology. I never got an answer to my question.
Hey, Doc -- Calculate the total entropy generated since the beginning of time, or stop all the hand-waving and reassurances that "the second law of thermodynamics is a fact."
It's interesting that both sides of this debate quote Yockey. He says we cannot learn the origin of life, but he also demolishes the concept of irreducible complexity and argues that common descent is proved beyond doubt.
The true test is whether one thinks Artificial Intelligence is possible.
Huh?
Cancer is cancer. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Non-Sequitur.
You are only allowed to have an opinion if....