# Is medicine anti-evolutionary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915 "2002-11-08T19:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/41 "2002-11-12T05:52:12Z")
Nisroch isn’t talking about instinct. He’s saying the otters became more intelligent ( through evolution) and learned to open the clams. This changes which otters will survive ( maybe slower ones that can’t catch fish) but it is evolution in action. Just as is our ability to use medicine. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/42 "2002-11-12T06:04:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by x-ray vision \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > **Nope. But I am also aware that selection doesn’t work for the benefit of the species. Nor even the benefit of a population.** > > ``` > oh no? ** > > ``` No. Adaptation is a consequence of selection, not its goal. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/43 "2002-11-12T06:12:29Z")
I wasn’t alluding that adaptation could have goals. Just that natural selection does work for the benefit of the species. It’s what is meant by survival of the fittest. ---
**Author:** ![gportela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/82dd89/32.png) [@gportela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gportela)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/44 "2002-11-12T06:12:45Z")
Couldn’t be more wrong man. Selection’s main purpose is adaptation. Adaptation equals survival. ---
**Author:** ![gportela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/82dd89/32.png) [@gportela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gportela)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/45 "2002-11-12T06:15:32Z")
Did you ever read Darwin Finch? or do you just like the catchy login? ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/46 "2002-11-12T06:17:08Z")
To get down to a specific case: Juvenile Diabetes[sup]\*[/sup]. If not treated, the victim dies before being able to reproduce. With treatment, the victim can live long enough to reproduce. Many/most of his/her offspring will be afflicted with JD, thereby locking the genetic pool into dependence on synthetic drugs. - If there are no more drugs, a large segment of the population dies (in evoluntionary terms). Is this a good thing? - - assume the science is as stated, for the sake of clarity. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/47 "2002-11-12T06:18:42Z")
good thing-bad thing is not the question. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/48 "2002-11-12T06:20:46Z")
btw, a large segment of the population does not die in your scenario ---
**Author:** ![gportela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/82dd89/32.png) [@gportela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gportela)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/49 "2002-11-12T06:21:25Z")
Thank you happyheathen, The only one who gets the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![gportela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/82dd89/32.png) [@gportela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gportela)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/50 "2002-11-12T06:23:27Z")
Its been real, its been fun, but it hasen’t been real fun. Thanks for the amusment guys. Good night all ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/51 "2002-11-12T06:34:30Z")
**x-ray vision** : > [@](#): > > I wasn’t alluding that adaptation could have goals. Just that natural selection does work for the benefit of the species. It’s what is meant by survival of the fittest. Extinction (the eventual end for all species) is the most extreme form of natural selection: **all** individuals fail to pass through the filter. And extinction is hardly beneficial for the species, wouldn’t you agree? The results of natural selection can be beneficial to a population, but selection does not have the population (or species) “in mind” as it operates - each individual is scrutinized separately. Which is what I meant when I stated that it “doesn’t work for the benefit of the species.” **gportela** : > [@](#): > > Couldn’t be more wrong man. Selection’s main purpose is adaptation. Again, no: adaptation is the **result** of selection. Selection, however, has **no goal**. ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/52 "2002-11-12T06:40:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by x-ray vision \* > \*\*btw, a large segment of the population does not die in your scenario \*\* One projection suggested 50% of the US population US could be affected by JD by 2050. Scary enough? ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/53 "2002-11-12T11:05:07Z")
**happyheathen** , regarding your JD example: All you’re describing is a change in environment; whether you think it’s a likely one or not simply boils down to a matter of degree. How it’s any different from any other adaptation to environment you haven’t made clear. A population of mammals lives off red grass, but then green grass becomes more readily available. A large part of the population thrives by evolving and becoming dependent on both types of available food. If there’s no more green grass, lots of these mammals die. Is this a good thing? Perhaps not, but it’s evolution. ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/54 "2002-11-12T21:39:14Z")
You are comparing synthesized drugs to naturally-occurring vegetation? Seems like a bit of a stretch… ---
**Author:** ![jawdirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jawdirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jawdirk)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/55 "2002-11-13T00:23:41Z")
happyheathen, gportela, Medicine is actually pro-evolutionary, even if you take “evolutionary” to mean advancement. Medicine makes it easier for humans with weak physical bodies to survive. This removes a large constraint on the human organism – before medicine, all human bodies had to be strong or they would be eliminated. After medicine, human bodies can be strong or weak and still survive. This means that genetic configurations that result in weak bodies, but other strengths, such as mental strength, are possible. It is likely that the greater freedom in viable genetic configurations (the greater flexibility) will result in better maximization of other strengths. Sacrificing the body’s ability to fight off infection might be worth it if it lead to being able to construct a light-speed spacecraft and survive within it. Look at it this way. If we were still so evolutionarily constrained that we were all forced to be able to climb faster than a lion and beat off a jackal with our bare hands, then we would be chimpanzees, not humans. Yes, chimpanzees are much stronger and healthier, but I like to think I have a large advantage over chimpanzees in this modern environment. If I ever have to fight a lion, I will buy a gun, and if I ever catch small pox I’ll go the doctor and get some medicine. And if I want a banana, I’ll go the super market. ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/56 "2002-11-13T01:46:24Z")
Weakness = Strength! Orwell is beaming… You seem to posit that superior intellect requires physical weakness, or, at the very least, it is desirable to artificially prolong life in the hope that an overriding “good” trait will evolve within the selected population. I’m not too comfty with humans overriding natural selection - in the case of a genetic trait which, if untreated, results in death prior to puberty, it seems that natural selection is voting that individual out of the proverbial pool. By enabling that trait to be propagated to new generations, aren’t we countermanding nature? I don’t think the folks who invented the various things which resulted in the manufacture of firearms were afflicted with “dead-before-you’re-13” genetic traits - such technologies have only been around about 50 years (remember iron lungs?). The Polio vaccine is not the issue - polio is NOT genetic. JD is - therein lies the distinction. Many years ago, I knew a woman who was severely allergic to the usual springtime-in-the-midwest stuff. One day, while gulping her anti-histamines, she asked (rhetorically) “How did people survive before these medicines were invented”? I replied “Maybe they didn’t”. The expression on her face was quite interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915/57 "2002-11-13T05:41:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by happyheathen \* > You are comparing synthesized drugs to naturally-occurring vegetation? > > Seems like a bit of a stretch… Show me where in the definition of evolution it is required that the changes in environment occur naturally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-medicine-anti-evolutionary/135915.md?page=2)