If evolution is true why isn’t the Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine used in the study of medicine? Wouldn’t that make sense? If man evolved from animals, then there should be lots of insights from the study of lower forms of life, at least mammals. And the one right before man should be a gold mine. O that’s right; we have no idea which animal that was or it is so far in our distant past that we have no access to it.
If evolution is true why aren’t giraffes getting taller? Darwin claimed that the longer necked giraffe were favored by natural selection because they could browse higher. So wouldn’t giraffes continue to get ever longer necks? Wouldn’t that continue till they got so long they couldn’t be held upright?
Most evolutionists today distance themselves from classical Darwinism. But many scientists do with Darwin what psychologists do with Freud. They deny they hold to his theories, methodology, or conclusions, but they start uncritically from his assumptions. With Freud they start with the assumptions that there is an unconscious, repression is bad, and that talking makes everything better. With Darwin, they start with his assumptions that the geological record proves his theory, the created world is immensely old, and that things are getting better.
This linking of evolution to psychology is not my doing. Psychology (and sociology and anthropology too) does more with evolution than medicine. Name one medical breakthrough that has come about as a result of a discovery by an evolutionist? Has the “fact” that man descended – why they don’t say ascended because that is what they teach I don’t know – from lower life forms led to one breakthrough?
Darwin believed at most man had 4 or 5 progenitors (Origin, 523), so that’s even less than the six degrees of separation sociology, psychology, and anthropology likes to bandy about. Shouldn’t this “fact” have yielded something of note over the last 150 years? It should have at least made veterinarian medicine a prerequisite for human medicine.