Dr. Leroy Hood: Pitching "Systems Approach" to Medical School Curriculum

[funkymunkytoes]

Dr. Leroy Hood is a physician scientist who graduated from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in an accelerated three year program, has cofounded 14 biotechnology companies, has published over 600 refereed papers, and has invented many tools used in laboratories across the globe (namely the automated DNA sequencer which allowed the Human Genome Project to exist).

Anyways, he came to my school to give a presentation as part of Darwinfest, and has been pitching his innovative "systems approach" to many medical schools to include it into their curriculum. Of course, it has been a hard sell because many top medical schools are very conservative and like to think what they have going works.

What does everyone think about it. It basically recognizes that life exists in an epistatic network, and that by being able to understand -- in a stepwise manner -- the processes that lead to disease, we can stifle it head on. He also is a HUGE advocate of P4 medicine (Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, and Participatory Medicine).

Here is a website about his systems approach to disease:
http://www.systemsbiology.org/Intro_to_ISB_and_Systems_Biology/Disease

So what does everything think? Is it wishful thinking? Can this approach really democratize healthcare in America and abroad? Is it even feasible to be taught in medical school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[funkymunkytoes]

Anybody?

 

[iduwanna]

...Darwinfest...

Darwinfest?

WTF?

Many of Darwin's contemporaries actually benefit modern science, while darwin's laughable papers get praised by politically-motivated d-bags and their minions.

Pasteur, for instance, the "Father of modern Medicine," made discoveries that are actually relevant.

Darwin's conclusions remain unsubstantiated and irrelevant. It's a damn shame that so many scientists made huge impacts during that period, but are forgotten while derwin (who produced nothing replicable) is praised.

 

[funkymunkytoes]

...anyways...

 

[iduwanna]

...anyways...

... so how is derwin relevant to modern science? Seriously.

 

[DrWookie]

... so how is derwin relevant to modern science? Seriously.

I think he meant anyways as in a bash on darwin wasn't the point of his topic. If you actually read his post the speaker didn't even talked about darwin...it just happened to be "darwinfest" because it was his birthday last week.

In addition, I really don't think other scientists of his time are forgotten. Darwin may be the one that the lay person thinks of when they are asked for a scientist of the 19th century but that doesn't mean the rest are forgotten, they just aren't as commonly known OUTSIDE the scientific community. But really...who cares what scientists are known OUTSIDE the scientific community? Anyone who is posting here is inside, and we all know there were other scientists at the time.



As for the REAL discussion of the thread.

I think the approach is really interesting and will probably be the "wave" of the future. As we have a more complete picture of all the mechanisms for how cells/organs function it will become more practical.

I see it as basically falling in line with the whole "omics" approach to scientific research which has recently gained prominence. (Genomics is obviously the most famous, but transcriptomics, proteomics and the like are all gaining ground). We have accumulated so much knowledge that hasn't adequately been pieced together yet. I believe we actually "know" more than we think we know, we just need to step back and rethink everything.

EDIT:

As for the whole "predictive and preventative" medicine...I kind of have mixed feelings about that. I remember seeing a page in just a normal magazine (Time or something) about how groups are developing relatively inexpensive "sequencing" kits to give you a readout of your "percent chance" for a number of different things (From a purely genetic standpoint). I'm just not sure we are at the point right now where we can really feel comfortable with making medical decisions based on that kind of data (For the vast majority of diseases/disorders etc... I don't think we have a complete genetic picture of what is going on and what sorts the risks are due to various genetic changes).

I am totally pro the whole "personalized" focus though. Even if predictive medicine isn't 100% practical right now (I'm not saying we can't predict anything and we should ONLY be reactionary), a more personalized approach to medicine is something we can start now and I think will be something that is developed in the future.

 

[Lokhtar]

Darwinfest?

WTF?

Many of Darwin's contemporaries actually benefit modern science, while darwin's laughable papers get praised by politically-motivated d-bags and their minions.

Pasteur, for instance, the "Father of modern Medicine," made discoveries that are actually relevant.

Darwin's conclusions remain unsubstantiated and irrelevant. It's a damn shame that so many scientists made huge impacts during that period, but are forgotten while derwin (who produced nothing replicable) is praised.

I hope, for the sake of everyone, that you end up as far away from modern science as possible.

 

[dr zaius]

Darwinfest?

WTF?

Many of Darwin's contemporaries actually benefit modern science, while darwin's laughable papers get praised by politically-motivated d-bags and their minions.

Pasteur, for instance, the "Father of modern Medicine," made discoveries that are actually relevant.

Darwin's conclusions remain unsubstantiated and irrelevant. It's a damn shame that so many scientists made huge impacts during that period, but are forgotten while derwin (who produced nothing replicable) is praised.

Is your avatar a drawing of Sarah Palin playing the violin? It all makes sense now....

 

[funkymunkytoes]

Is your avatar a drawing of Sarah Palin playing the violin? It all makes sense now....

Ha. That's priceless!

 

[AdmiralChz]

I think he meant anyways as in a bash on darwin wasn't the point of his topic. If you actually read his post the speaker didn't even talked about darwin...it just happened to be "darwinfest" because it was his birthday last week.

In addition, I really don't think other scientists of his time are forgotten. Darwin may be the one that the lay person thinks of when they are asked for a scientist of the 19th century but that doesn't mean the rest are forgotten, they just aren't as commonly known OUTSIDE the scientific community. But really...who cares what scientists are known OUTSIDE the scientific community? Anyone who is posting here is inside, and we all know there were other scientists at the time.



As for the REAL discussion of the thread.

I think the approach is really interesting and will probably be the "wave" of the future. As we have a more complete picture of all the mechanisms for how cells/organs function it will become more practical.

I see it as basically falling in line with the whole "omics" approach to scientific research which has recently gained prominence. (Genomics is obviously the most famous, but transcriptomics, proteomics and the like are all gaining ground). We have accumulated so much knowledge that hasn't adequately been pieced together yet. I believe we actually "know" more than we think we know, we just need to step back and rethink everything.

EDIT:

As for the whole "predictive and preventative" medicine...I kind of have mixed feelings about that. I remember seeing a page in just a normal magazine (Time or something) about how groups are developing relatively inexpensive "sequencing" kits to give you a readout of your "percent chance" for a number of different things (From a purely genetic standpoint). I'm just not sure we are at the point right now where we can really feel comfortable with making medical decisions based on that kind of data (For the vast majority of diseases/disorders etc... I don't think we have a complete genetic picture of what is going on and what sorts the risks are due to various genetic changes).

I am totally pro the whole "personalized" focus though. Even if predictive medicine isn't 100% practical right now (I'm not saying we can't predict anything and we should ONLY be reactionary), a more personalized approach to medicine is something we can start now and I think will be something that is developed in the future.

 

[mbe36]

Wow, this guy sounds amazing.

I am currently at a biotech firm and we are in the first few years. I could not imagine starting over a dozen of these badboys---especiallty with FDA accredidation.

Thanks for sharing. Do you know where else this guy is speaking? I would love to listen to his story.

 

[Kaustikos]

Wow, this guy sounds amazing.

I am currently at a biotech firm and we are in the first few years. I could not imagine starting over a dozen of these badboys---especiallty with FDA accredidation.

Thanks for sharing. Do you know where else this guy is speaking? I would love to listen to his story.

Well, it had to be a lot easier to start a company back then. The various protocols/mandates they have now were just starting to get implemented and the fields were small so getting started wasn't as annoying as it would be now.

But I'm in no way belittling his achievements. They are extraordinary.

 

[boggvir]

The normal response in situation where you find the material uninteresting, and/or have nothing to contribute would just be to ignore or not read it if you're not interested.

 

[DrAnteater]

Is your avatar a drawing of Sarah Palin playing the violin? It all makes sense now....

rofl so true

 

[majahops]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you are a religious person, no? Perhaps a little conservative, eh?

Darwin was so important not so much because he was able to offer a high quality synthesis of the basic principles of evolution, but because he was able to sufficiently, and most important preemptively counter the majority of attacks that religious wackos would have otherwise used to drown-out his propositions.

Religiosity has, in my mind, been an enemy of truth-seeking and truth-revelation for a mighty long time. Darwin's victory wasn't just for the scientific community, but for the broader community of human beings interested in how the world ACTUALLY operates, rather than how some ancient group of men claim God "told them" it operates.

Darwinfest?

WTF?

Many of Darwin's contemporaries actually benefit modern science, while darwin's laughable papers get praised by politically-motivated d-bags and their minions.

Pasteur, for instance, the "Father of modern Medicine," made discoveries that are actually relevant.

Darwin's conclusions remain unsubstantiated and irrelevant. It's a damn shame that so many scientists made huge impacts during that period, but are forgotten while derwin (who produced nothing replicable) is praised.

 

[AdmiralChz]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you are a religious person, no? Perhaps a little conservative, eh?

Darwin was so important not so much because he was able to offer a high quality synthesis of the basic principles of evolution, but because he was able to sufficiently, and most important pre-preemptively counter the majority of attacks that religious wackos would have otherwise used to drown-out his propositions.

Religiosity has, in my mind, been an enemy of truth-seeking and truth-revelation for a mighty long time. Darwin's victory wasn't just for the scientific community, but for the broader community of human beings interested in how the world ACTUALLY operates, rather than how some ancient group of men claim God "told them" it operates.

I'm offended by this post . Being religious makes us no less human (liberal or conservative has no place in this discussion!) than you, I am sorry that you do not agree with our viewpoints. I am not forcing my views on you, so please do not push your beliefs on others - thanks.

 

[IceCastle]

... so how is derwin relevant to modern science? Seriously.

I seriously recommend that you read Why We Get Sick so you can quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[CremasterFlash]

[rant]

 

[majahops]

You know, I'm sorry that my post offended you. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people who subscribe to organized religions are less human. They are certainly not less human.

In fact, I believe that at the core people turn to religion for either or both of two very "human" reasons:

1) they want answers to the questions that we, as humans, simply cannot ever answer with any comforting degree of certainty

2) they want moral guidence and an explicit value system that they can follow or aspire to follow​

I'm tempted to try to list the reasons why, in spite of these perfectly understandable reasons for individual human beings turning to religion or a spiritual schema, organized religions as institutions of human society have collectively been a severe hinderance to the well-being, let alone scientific progress, of mankind overall. However, plenty of volumes arguing these reasons have already been written over time... And while they have emboldened the recognition of the woes of organized religion for those who already appreciated them, they have for the most part fallen on deaf (and many times defensive) ears among the religious...

So I won't be another to waste my [digital] breath trying to document them here.

But it is important that you understand that I (and I assume most of the people who agree with me in principle on this) most certainly do NOT consider religious individuals to be any less human.

I'm offended by this post . Being religious makes us no less human (liberal or conservative has no place in this discussion!) than you, I am sorry that you do not agree with our viewpoints. I am not forcing my views on you, so please do not push your beliefs on others - thanks.

 

[DrJD]

I'm going to avoid the religious discussion...

However, I heard a presentation by one of the creators of Systems medicine a few months ago and I was fascinated. The dean of affairs or something at Georgetown University Hospital is on the leading edge for the transition to Systems Medicine. He intends to have Georgetown converted in the next 10 years or so.

That being said if you are into systems medicine, Georgetown may very well be the place to go. In the next year or two they are going to start offering a masters in systems medicine that you will be able to get along side your MD.

 

[melanoleuca]

... He also is a HUGE advocate of P4 medicine (Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, and Participatory Medicine)...

"P4" is the latest fad and similar to all of those management fads that come and go in the business community (e.g. the "One Minute Manager.") Dr. Hood is a brilliant man but he is so smart that he probably doesn't realize most of us are mere mortals and will not operate in his perfectly constructed, entirely rational world of his. You will follow this particular messiah at your folly.

I repeat: P4 is just more gobbledygook spewing out of the primary care lunacracy as they struggle to make themselves relevant, doing everything but what is necessary, that is, to provide traditional high quality medical care to their patients.

 

[xanthomondo]

You know, I'm sorry that my post offended you. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people who subscribe to organized religions are less human. They are certainly not less human.

In fact, I believe that at the core people turn to religion for either or both of two very "human" reasons:

1) they want answers to the questions that we, as humans, simply cannot ever answer with any comforting degree of certainty

2) they want moral guidence and an explicit value system that they can follow or aspire to follow
​

I'm tempted to try to list the reasons why, in spite of these perfectly understandable reasons for individual human beings turning to religion or a spiritual schema, organized religions as institutions of human society have collectively been a severe hinderance to the well-being, let alone scientific progress, of mankind overall. However, plenty of volumes arguing these reasons have already been written over time... And while they have emboldened the recognition of the woes of organized religion for those who already appreciated them, they have for the most part fallen on deaf (and many times defensive) ears among the religious...

So I won't be another to waste my [digital] breath trying to document them here.

But it is important that you understand that I (and I assume most of the people who agree with me in principle on this) most certainly do NOT consider religious individuals to be any less human.

I disagree with you there. I think religion was (and still is) crucial for a functional society. I would even argue that most of our morals have a religious root.

What's to stop the poor, jealous people from simply killing the rich successful ones in our society? Because they believe they're going to have to answer someone in the afterlife.

If there was no hope (false or not) for anyone in this world it would be a hell of a lot uglier than it is now.

 

[majahops]

Each of your statements are > 80% true, but < 50% relevant.

Let's break each statement down:

I disagree with you there. I think religion was (and still is) crucial for a functional society.

I would argue that religion serves a crucial function for society, but certainly NOT that it is itself crucial for a functional society. Indeed there is a roll for a morally-guiding (but by no means ever "dictating") social institution, but to include as a contigency that you must listen to nonsensical manmade stories about the Gods and creation or purpose of man, as religion does, is perverse.

I would even argue that most of our morals have a religious root.

I would argue that the more relevant statement is that most religions preach generally held human morals - NOT that most humans preach generally held religious morals. Humans came before religion. Humans made religion. Let's not forget this.

What's to stop the poor, jealous people from simply killing the rich successful ones in our society? Because they believe they're going to have to answer someone in the afterlife.

If there was no hope (false or not) for anyone in this world it would be a hell of a lot uglier than it is now.

A religion I might willingly subscribe to wouldn't promote a hope outside of this life, but inside of this life. There is an undeniable satisfaction that [at least the majority of] human beings feel when they do what they feel to be the RIGHT thing. Embracing and cultivating this key human truth is what we should be concerned with doing for one another. Nothing more.

 

[2Fic]

I saw this man speak at my University during a Biochemistry colloquium.
He's a wonderful speaker, isn't he?
However, he never mentioned this point at my talk.

 

[DrWookie]

What's to stop the poor, jealous people from simply killing the rich successful ones in our society? Because they believe they're going to have to answer someone in the afterlife.

A social contract.

You don't need religion to stop people from killing people...most people will not hurt others if they know that it means they won't get hurt in return. That is how society functions. You don't need religion for that, you just need people who are educated and understand that going out and killing someone means that probably at some point someone will just do the same to you. You might as well BOTH live.

 

[majahops]

Yep. The greatest articulation that religion has ever offered is that of the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

However, it is simply that - an articulation of an already shared sentiment.

A social contract.
You don't need religion to stop people from killing people...most people will not hurt others if they know that it means they won't get hurt in return. That is how society functions. You don't need religion for that, you just need people who are educated and understand that going out and killing someone means that probably at some point someone will just do the same to you. You might as well BOTH live.

 

[Bradstein]

Isn't the only meaningful difference between this idea and the current approach to medical education the emphasis on the interconnection between things. IE if you were thinking about how all the stuff fit together you'd come to the same conclusion.

 

[funkymunkytoes]

I really didn't intend on this to be a Darwin vs. Religion thread, but hey man, we all got important words to say and we need ears to hear them. Keep up the wonderful debate.

 

[shindotp]

I'm offended by this post . Being religious makes us no less human (liberal or conservative has no place in this discussion!) than you, I am sorry that you do not agree with our viewpoints. I am not forcing my views on you, so please do not push your beliefs on others - thanks.

What he says is nothing but truth.

Religion has never done anything but oppose science.

 

[Lokhtar]

I disagree with you there. I think religion was (and still is) crucial for a functional society. I would even argue that most of our morals have a religious root.

That's not really true. People used religion to justify slavery, and then when it wasn't fashionable, used it to oppose it. Same thing with interracial marriage, burning witches, inquisitions, and all that stuff that we've grown out of (or I'd hope we have). Morals are not defined by religion, but you can use religion to justify whatever morals you or your society has. It's not a cause.

 

[tdittyx2x3]

I really didn't intend on this to be a Darwin vs. Religion thread, but hey man, we all got important words to say and we need ears to hear them. Keep up the wonderful debate.

1. I like these words.

2. I really hope this thread doesn't spiral out of control. Let's try to be respectful of each other.

My opinion. The history behind organized religion is a bit bothersome for me. It seems a bit too much about power, money, and as a result of the first two.. war. When it comes to any kind of philosophy of life, I would rather leave these entities out. Now I understand that going to church on Sundays doesn't mean you subscribe to power, money, and war, but I can't help but think about the history of the church when I enter one.

What do you guys think about this idea? Individualized religion. Set your own values based on what you think is right.

 

[Lokhtar]

That's not a religion then. It's just personal character.

 

[chief illiniwek]

In fact, I believe that at the core people turn to religion for either or both of two very "human" reasons:

1) they want answers to the questions that we, as humans, simply cannot ever answer with any comforting degree of certainty

2) they want moral guidence and an explicit value system that they can follow or aspire to follow​

3) they want to think that we are not alone in this universe and there is a higher power watching over us.

4) they want to believe in some type of afterlife.

as an atheist and an opponent of traditional religion, i believe that science is all we have. however, i also think that without religion, the world we live in today would be considerably worse. sometimes i sit and think about how alone people are and how pointless our actions are (no, im not depressed), and if every human in history was like me, functional societies never would have formed.

so, in my mind, there is a balance between science and religion that our world could not exist without. yes, religion hinders science (and vice versa) and, right now, science seems to be gaining ground, but unless someone can prove/disprove the existence of a god, this is a battle that will rage until the end of man.

 

[funkymunkytoes]

...as an atheist and an opponent of traditional religion, i believe that science is all we have.

That, my friend, is dogmatic. If you are willing to say ALL we have is science, then you are selling yourself short in this life. We have more than science, we have love, companionship, and each other. Science isn't going to cure loneliness any time soon -- you can be sure of that.

however, i also think that without religion, the world we live in today would be considerably worse.

Really? The world would be worse??? The only positive thing I hear people say about religion is that it give us our morals, and if we behave according to our religions we will be a much safer, compassionate society. The question then becomes, do we NEED religion to have morals? If everything Jesus did was so amazing and great, does it really matter if he was the son of god? Where are our values? Why do we have to tie anything good to the divine -- it's ridiculous.

 

[majahops]

Totally not disagreeing with you, but these are components of #1. I just didn't break them down. Thanks for elaborating.

3) they want to think that we are not alone in this universe and there is a higher power watching over us.

4) they want to believe in some type of afterlife.

as an atheist and an opponent of traditional religion, i believe that science is all we have. however, i also think that without religion, the world we live in today would be considerably worse. sometimes i sit and think about how alone people are and how pointless our actions are (no, im not depressed), and if every human in history was like me, functional societies never would have formed.

so, in my mind, there is a balance between science and religion that our world could not exist without. yes, religion hinders science (and vice versa) and, right now, science seems to be gaining ground, but unless someone can prove/disprove the existence of a god, this is a battle that will rage until the end of man.

 

[Lokhtar]

That, my friend, is dogmatic. If you are willing to say ALL we have is science, then you are selling yourself short in this life. We have more than science, we have love, companionship, and each other. Science isn't going to cure loneliness any time soon -- you can be sure of that.

What? I didn't realize science precluded you from any of those things.

 

[majahops]

You're missing the point. He's just critiquing the use of the word "ALL," that's all. Science is essential as a means of systematic truth seeking into natural phenomena, of course!

But he was saying that to say it's "all we have" is probably getting a little carried away, and technically does preclude one (if true) from having anything else.

Not a substantive disagreement from him, I'm confident. Just his techincal critique.

I'm sure he knows the poster didn't mean it's "ALL" we have LITERALLY. He's prolly just bustin chops.

What? I didn't realize science precluded you from any of those things.

 

[Lokhtar]

I still don't understand. Science is the systematic understanding of natural phenomena. What else is there?

 

[chief illiniwek]

Really? The world would be worse??? The only positive thing I hear people say about religion is that it give us our morals, and if we behave according to our religions we will be a much safer, compassionate society. The question then becomes, do we NEED religion to have morals? If everything Jesus did was so amazing and great, does it really matter if he was the son of god? Where are our values? Why do we have to tie anything good to the divine -- it's ridiculous.

im not saying that we need religion for the morals that it may/may not impart on us. personally, i think people naturally have those morals built into them. what i was meaning to say is that religion helps keep us sane.

That, my friend, is dogmatic. If you are willing to say ALL we have is science, then you are selling yourself short in this life. We have more than science, we have love, companionship, and each other. Science isn't going to cure loneliness any time soon -- you can be sure of that.

i did mean exactly what i said here - i think the meaning i gave to the word science is a little different than how you read it. by science, i was making a reference to the laws of the universe (chemical, physical, etc) and teeny-tiny particles that would sensibly never amount to anything. im pretty extreme in this view, i know, but i really do believe that all these phenomena you are speaking of are results of these laws. others might say i am selling myself short with this line of thinking (and sometimes i even think the same), but i would argue that people as a whole think far too highly of themselves and this existence.

NOTE: i love this kind of conversation, and i really miss the time when i could take philosophy classes. even though i could discuss systems medicine for hours, im glad the thread went in this direction.

 

[shindotp]

im not saying that we need religion for the morals that it may/may not impart on us. personally, i think people naturally have those morals built into them. what i was meaning to say is that religion helps keep us sane.

i did mean exactly what i said here - i think the meaning i gave to the word science is a little different than how you read it. by science, i was making a reference to the laws of the universe (chemical, physical, etc) and teeny-tiny particles that would sensibly never amount to anything. im pretty extreme in this view, i know, but i really do believe that all these phenomena you are speaking of are results of these laws. others might say i am selling myself short with this line of thinking (and sometimes i even think the same), but i would argue that people as a whole think far too highly of themselves and this existence.

NOTE: i love this kind of conversation, and i really miss the time when i could take philosophy classes. even though i could discuss systems medicine for hours, im glad the thread went in this direction.

No! Moral are programmed into our genes. Altruism, to some extent, is necessary for our survival as a population --> we evolved to have morals.

 

[majahops]

Again, what I think you mean to say is what else is there other than natural phenomena... and the answer is nothing...

So to summarize...

TRUE: science = study of natural phenomena employing scientific method

NOT TRUE: science = natural phenomena

TRUE: natural phenomena = everything

NOT TRUE: science = everything

I still don't understand. Science is the systematic understanding of natural phenomena. What else is there?

 

[iduwanna]

I still don't understand. Science is the systematic understanding of natural phenomena. What else is there?

Well, if you buy the neodarwinist version of evolution (judging from other posts, you do), "science" goes WELL beyond any "systematic understanding" of anything you've could ever imagine

But you're dead wrong, so it's all good.

 

[funkymunkytoes]

That, my friend, is dogmatic. If you are willing to say ALL we have is science, then you are selling yourself short in this life. We have more than science, we have love, companionship, and each other. Science isn't going to cure loneliness any time soon -- you can be sure of that.

Sorry for that guys, I was in the midst of a crazy weed over when I wrote it. Commense debate!

 

[boggvir]

Well, if you buy the neodarwinist version of evolution (judging from other posts, you do),

What does that mean? What other version is there?

"science" goes WELL beyond any "systematic understanding" of anything you've could ever imagine

How so?

But you're dead wrong, so it's all good.

Haha, ok.

 

[dr zaius]

Well, if you buy the neodarwinist version of evolution (judging from other posts, you do), "science" goes WELL beyond any "systematic understanding" of anything you've could ever imagine

But you're dead wrong, so it's all good.

Why don't you provide a basis for your comments? You're making some pretty serious accusations here.

 

[iduwanna]

Why don't you provide a basis for your comments? You're making some pretty serious accusations here.

My basis: There is no evidence that a species has ever become a more complex species.

Changes in DNA have only led to a loss in function. People that ride Derwin's salty balls should be able to cite a case in which a mutation has resulted in increased complexity.

Otherwise we're forced to judge, by the replicable data, that mutations can only cause a loss of functionality, and any mutation that we observe represents a loss of functional information.

EDIT: I'd also be silenced if you could cite any relevant contribution to modern science that Derwin made.

Many of his contemporaries shaped modern science/ medicine in very relevant ways, yet they're ignored. It's a political and religious issue; anyone who really thinks that Derwin did anything relevant is a) ignorant, or b) a belligerent atheist/ denialist.

 

[Lokhtar]

My basis: There is no evidence that a species has ever become a more complex species.

Changes in DNA have only led to a loss in function. People that ride Derwin's salty balls should be able to cite a case in which a mutation has resulted in increased complexity.

Huh? Any time a gene duplicates and the total size of DNA increases, you have an increase in 'complexity'. What are you talking about?

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

The four I mentioned above - that's pretty much evolution.

EDIT: I'd also be silenced if you could cite any relevant contribution to modern science that Derwin made.

Well clearly, to you, a theory that explains the diversity of every species on the planet into a coherent process is not a contribution.

 

[iduwanna]

Huh? Any time a gene duplicates and the total size of DNA increases, you have an increase in 'complexity'. What are you talking about?

It was obvious what I was talking about. That you even hit "submit reply" is sad.

I'm talking about an increase in number or complexity of genes. Doubling the copies of the same genes can't explain the evolution of one species to another.

 

[iduwanna]

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

The four I mentioned above - that's pretty much evolution.

Here, I'll try to spell it out for you.

The neo'derwin'est theories of evolution demand that additive mutations lead to new functional genes -- hundreds of millions of them.

According to the neo'derwin'est stance, organisms become more advanced through additive spontaneous mutation, yet mutations have only been observed to decrease the functionality of genes (and most often, suffering and death).

So rather than name-calling, cite a single mutation that leads to a productive mutation!

There aren't any.

Now, before you claim we evolved from "primordial soup," name a few of the necessary billions of examples of genetic mutations that randomly lead to new functions.

 

[Lokhtar]

According to the neo'derwin'est stance, organisms become more advanced through additive spontaneous mutation, yet mutations have only been observed to decrease the functionality of genes (and most often, suffering and death).


So rather than name-calling, cite a single mutation that leads to a productive mutation!

I just showed you! Read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

That is increasing the functionality of genes, and its a productive mutation.