Afarensis

In his latest response to Burt Humburg Egnor says:

These fine scientists do not, however, contribute to medicine by studying or teaching evolutionary biology. They contribute to medicine by their work in anatomy, or physiology, or microbiology, or molecular biology.

I mentioned Joan Richtsmeier in a previous post. Dr. Richtsmeier's interests are:

...the study of craniofacial form, change in form due to growth, and the relationship between ontogenetic mechanisms and phylogenetic change. In collaboration with Dr. Subhash Lele, we developed a quantitative method for the statistical analysis of form and growth comparison, Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA). Using EDMA, 3D growth patterns quantified for the craniofacial skeleton of one species can be applied to the juvenile morphology of another species, essentially "growing" a species according to an alternate growth trajectory using the computer. This enables us to delimit the role of postnatal growth pattern in the production of species-specific facial morphologies. The clinical portion of my research focuses on the relationship between phenotype and genotype in craniosynostosis and growth in craniosynostosis. In a collaborative effort with physicians and scientists from Washington University, we are characterizing the craniofacial phenotype associated with various forms of craniosynostosis and studying the association of the genes that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of these diseases to determine the role of various factors in the production of the phenotype and the variability of the phenotype in different diagnostic categories.

My laboratory is also studying mouse models for human disease. In particular we are studying mouse models for Down syndrome and Del 22q11. Our quantitative observations regarding how the mouse skull is affected in these models enables us to test specific hypotheses about the human phenotype.

Sounds like she is using evolutionary theory to guide clinical research to me. But let's look at one of her project on Genotypic and Phenotypic Variability in Craniosynostosis just to be on the safe side:

Abstract: Premature closure of the neurocranial sutures, craniosynostosis, is a relatively common bir6th defect that results in increased intracranial pressure and abnormal head shape. The condition necessitates reconstructive surgery during the first months of life and therefore represents a significant public health problem. Craniosynostosis is one of a number of clinical features in over 100 syndromes. Some of these syndromes, specifically Crouzon, Apert, Jackson-Weiss, Pfeiffer, and Saethre-Chotzen, exhibit similarities in craniofacial phenotypes. Craniosynostosis can also occur as an apparently isolated phenomenon. Recent reviews note that over 64 different mutations of seven genes are responsible for craniosynostosis syndromes and that a single, but highly variable mutation is responsible for a large proportion of non-syndromic coronal synostosis. As of this writing, no specific mutations have been found to be associated with isolated sagittal or isolated metopic synostosis. The long-term goal of the proposed project is to determine the role of genes associated with craniosynostosis in producing craniofacial phenotypes. This will be done by obtaining objective, quantitative measures of the craniofacial phenotypes of the craniosynostosis syndromes named above and for isolated cases for metopic, sagittal, and coronal synostosis, and by identifying the genetic mutations present in this population. Individual phenotypic characterizations will be based on three-dimensional craniofacial image data. The quantitative, three-dimensional, craniofacial characterizations will be analyzed to determine groups of individuals defined solely on the basis of cutaneous, skeletal, and/or CNS craniofacial morphology. Any correspondence between the morphological groups and the genetic mutations present in these individuals will provide an unbiased genotype-phenotype correlation. Explanations of the craniofacial phenotypic variability within our morphological groups will be sought using additional clinical data. These data include standard demographic data, epidemiological factors implicated in the occurrence of some craniosynostosis conditions, and clinical evaluations of neuropsychological function.

Sounds like clinical research guided by an evolutionary paradigm to me.

Another anthropologist, who also works at the CCDD is Michael Siegel. His title is "Professor of Anthropology & Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics". One of Dr. Siegel's more interesting contributions to the literature is Evolutionary changes in the cranial vault and base: establishing the primate form. Which appeared in the edited volume Understanding Craniofacial Anomalies: The Etiopathogenesis of Craniosynostoses and Facial Clefting edited by M. Mooney and M. Siegel (which contains several other entries from an evolutionary standpoint). So one has to ask what possible relevance the evolution of cranial-facial anatomy has to Craniosynostoses and Facial Clefting? Why would such a contribution be included if no insight into the subject were to be gained by analyzing it from an evolutionary perspective?

Update: I think, at this point, my problem with Egnor is the blatant intellectual dishonesty he is displaying. In his first post, to refresh your memories, he says:

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.

Now he is saying:

Many, even most, scientists whose work includes evolutionary biology are fine scientists. They have been my teachers, and many are now my colleagues and friends. They contribute to medical education in major ways. They contribute as anatomists, or as physiologists, or as microbiologists, or as molecular biologists. I hold them in high regard, and I am indebted to them for much of my own education.

If it is the case that:

They contribute to medical education in major ways. They contribute as anatomists, or as physiologists, or as microbiologists, or as molecular biologists. I hold them in high regard, and I am indebted to them for much of my own education. [emphasis mine - afarensis]

There are no 'professors of evolution' in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.

When he knew that to be wrong?

At any rate Mike Dunford has more at The Questionable Authority.

Update 2: Egnor has Orac's lights blinking so quickly, I fear he may need to reboot.