A cool study demonstrating evolution in real-time

@kazetnagorra said
Noting that you aren't an expert in biology is not a "personal attack."

The "evolutionist position" doesn't need "enhancing," it just needs to be taught, which is what high schools are supposed to do. Sadly, yours appears not to have been up to the task.

Wow, you really are full of yourself. Evolution was taught in both middle school and high school, and this was in the 60s.
(1960 - 1970)

Not that I needed to be taught, because I read anything I could get my hands on about evolution since the mid 60s. Your presumptions about what I know or don't know are so way out of whack I can't be offended by them, even if I wanted to.

https://evolutionnews.org/2007/03/why_would_i_want_my_doctor_to/

https://evolutionnews.org/2007/03/why_would_i_want_my_doctor_to/

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.
If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors–nearly two-thirds according to national polls–don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame–not advance–to the medical field.
So ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’ I wouldn’t. Evolutionary biology isn’t important to modern medicine. That answer won’t win the ‘Alliance for Science’ prize. It’s just the truth.
Michael Egnor, M.D.

@lemon-lime said
Wow, you really are full of yourself. Evolution was taught in both middle school and high school, and this was in the 60s.
(1960 - 1970)

Not that I needed to be taught, because I read anything I could get my hands on about evolution since the mid 60s. Your presumptions about what I know or don't know are so way out of whack I can't be offended by them, even if I wanted to.

I didn't claim it wasn't taught at some level to you. I claimed that, for whatever reason, they failed to explain evolution to you at even the most basic level.

@lemon-lime said

I actually like good analogies, but yours are all purposefully omitting more than a hundred years of gathered evidence

I like good analogies too. Richard Dawkins description of climbing Mount Improbable is a good analogy.
However, if you take into account the past 40 or 50 years of gathered evidence it becomes increasingly clear that the thousands of (pr ...[text shortened]... point of considering more than a hundred years of gathered evidence if you ignore the last 40 years?

Each of your analogies (the guy convicted of murder without evidence and the nonexistent homework assignment) were based on the false premise that there is no evidence for evolution.

Your first analogy would have worked if you'd said "Despite overwhelming direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and motive suggesting guilt, several jurors remained unconvinced as there was no video evidence of the crime being committed."

@lemon-lime said
https://evolutionnews.org/2007/03/why_would_i_want_my_doctor_to/

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical sch ...[text shortened]... e. That answer won’t win the ‘Alliance for Science’ prize. It’s just the truth.
Michael Egnor, M.D.

I've never met someone who understands molecular genetics but rejects the theory of evolution.

As all living things are similar, sharing complex molecular structures at the sequence level, that evidence suggests a common ancestor. DNA can be used to accurately map differences among/within species, from size and shape of organs to skin color to intelligence. Evolution is the simplest and most likely explanation.