"You ask me for a source. For what? My assertion stands. Refute it on the merits if you can. Or do you have to have an "authority" for everything, because you are so unable to think for yourself?
Thinking. Try it, you'll like it."
Okay John. Let me walk you through this. A few years ago, I was working at a major university. My department sent sclolars overseas and brought visiting scholars to the US. At the time of the SARS epidemic, we were hosting about a dozen Chinese scholars. My wife and son also traveled to Toronto (a hot spot for SARS) at the height of the epidemic. I would much rather turn to real science to an idea how to deal with this disease.
You say evolutionary theory doesn't inform medicine. What about the studies of SARS:
"In the middle phase, which began with a so-called super-spreader event in a Guangzhou hospital, a strain missing 29 nucleotides became dominant. The scientists also found changes that caused alterations to amino acids of the virus spike protein, which allows the virus to adhere to host cells. "What we see is the virus fine-tuning itself to enhance its access to a new host: humans," study co-author Chung-I Wu of the University of Chicago explains. 'This is a disturbing process to watch, as the virus improves itself under selective pressure, learning to spread from person to person, then sticking with the version that is most effective.'"
Are you sure that you know what you are talking about when you refer to evolution as junk science?