Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 08/30/06 | Creation Evolution Headlines

[DannyTN]

Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist    08/30/2006  
Supporters of evolution often tout its many benefits.  They claim it helps research in agriculture, conservation and medicine (e.g., 01/13/2003, 06/25/2003).  A new book by David Mindell, The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life (Harvard, 2006) emphasizes these practical benefits in hopes of making evolution more palatable to a skeptical society.  Jerry Coyne, a staunch evolutionist and anti-creationist, enjoyed the book in his review in Nature,¹ but thought that Mindell went overboard on “Selling Darwin” with appeals to pragmatics:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits.  Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.  Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably.  But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding?  Not very much.  Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’.  Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties.  Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

Coyne further describes how the goods and services advertised by Mindell are irrelevant for potential customers, anyway:

One reason why Mindell might fail to sell Darwin to the critics is that his examples all involve microevolution, which most modern creationists (including advocates of intelligent design) accept.  It is macroevolution – the evolutionary transitions between very different kinds of organism – that creationists claim does not occur.  But in any case, few people actually oppose evolution because of its lack of practical use.... they oppose it because they see it as undercutting moral values.

Coyne fails to offer a salve for that wound.  Instead, to explain why macroevolution has not been observed, he presents an analogy .  For critics out to debunk macroevolution because no one has seen a new species appear, he compares the origin of species with the origin of language: “We haven’t seen one language change into another either, but any reasonable creationist (an oxymoron?) must accept the clear historical evidence for linguistic evolution,” he says, adding a jab for effect. “And we have far more fossil species than we have fossil languages” (but see 04/23/2006).  It seems to escape his notice that language is a tool manipulated by intelligent agents, not random mutations.  In any case, his main point is that evolution shines not because of any hyped commercial value, but because of its explanatory power:

In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory.  It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: “How did we get here?”  It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth.  It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes.  And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment.

See also Evolution News analysis of this book review, focusing on Coyne’s stereotyping of creationists.  Compare also our 02/10/2006 and 12/21/2005 stories on marketing Darwinism to the masses.

---

¹Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin,” Nature 442, 983-984(31 August 2006) | doi:10.1038/442983a; Published online 30 August 2006.

You heard it right here.  We didn’t have to say it.  One of Darwin’s own bulldogs said it for us: evolutionary theory is useless.  Oh, this is rich.  Don’t let anyone tell you that evolution is the key to biology, and without it we would fall behind in science and technology and lose our lead in the world.  He just said that most real progress in biology was done before evolutionary theory arrived, and that modern-day advances owe little or nothing to the Grand Materialist Myth.  Darwin is dead, and except for providing plot lines for storytellers, the theory that took root out of Charlie’s grave bears no fruit (but a lot of poisonous thorns: see 08/27/2006).
    To be sure, many things in science do not have practical value.  Black holes are useless, too, and so is the cosmic microwave background.  It is the Darwin Party itself, however, that has hyped evolution for its value to society.  With this selling point gone, what’s left?  The only thing Coyne believes evolution can advertise now is a substitute theology to answer the big questions.  Instead of an omniscient, omnipotent God, he offers the cult of Tinker Bell and her mutation wand as an explanation for endless forms most beautiful.  Evolution allows us to play connect-the-dot games between frogs and fleas.  It allows us to water down a complex world into simplistic, “easily grasped” generalities.  Such things are priceless, he thinks.  He’s right.  It costs nothing to produce speculation about things that cannot be observed, and nobody should consider such products worth a dime.
    We can get along just fine in life without the Darwin Party catalog.  Thanks to Jerry Coyne for providing inside information on the negative earnings in the Darwin & Co. financial report.  Sell your evolution stock now before the bottom falls out.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary Theory

[Coyoteman]

In common usage, gravity is interchangeable as both hypothesis and observation. There's no denying that variation exists within species, just as there's no denying that if I hold my hand out and drop a penny, it will accelerate downward. Both observations are true and self evident.

The hypothesis of common descent, like the many hypotheses of gravity, have yet to be demonstrated.

We are not talking about common usage. We are talking about how terms are used in science. There is often a substantial difference between the two.

The fact that a penny drops is a...fact. This is matched on the evolution side by the observation that genetic change occurs between one generation and the next. Both are examples of "fact" or "data."

The theory part comes in as an explanation for the many facts (or many thousands of facts). This is done according to the following definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

From our past conversations I gather that you do not accept the theory of evolution for religious reasons.

That's fine. But your religious belief does not constitute scientific data, nor does it negate scientific theory.

[DannyTN]

"With the constant derision of modern science I see on these threads, it's no wonder we are manufacturing more and more overseas."

I think you are confusing modern science with cheap labor. We aren't manufacturing overseas because China has more advanced technology that we do. We are manufacturing overseas because they will work for $1 a day.

It would seem any creationist who cross-posts on one of the "evil foreign importers" threads, is a complete hypocrite and fool.

Most Bizaare Conclusion Award.

[Elsie]

Man isn't coming from the apes, he's going to them.

My aunt used to say that my cousin and I were going to the dogs!

[RegulatorCountry]

"Now you can quibble about the naturalness of this, but the fact is that until recent decades, all such mutations were natural, and humans simply changed the rules for selecting which variants got to produce the most offspring. The principles of evolution can be useful without being written down in books ..."

Well, my goodness. Are you actually saying that selective breeding is applied evolutionary theory? You've certainly changed your tune from those interminable Hitler-Darwin threads, where you would scarcely admit that there was even such a thing as applied science at all.

[DannyTN]

That would the "debunking" where (among other things) you claim a 100,000+ year old skull was the result of a death by an "8mm gunshot wound"?

I see you conveniently overlooked the biggest problem with that particular skull. That the skull was badly diseased, a fact that even the Smithsonian admits for which I provided a link in the debunking.

Whether it was a recent skull with a bullet wound, a 100,000 years old or 400,000 years old as the various claims are made, is not as important as why evolutionists feel the need to include a badly diseased human skull as an example of a traditional.

[Mamzelle]

spam placemarker

[csense]

We are not talking about common usage.

Neither am I, which should be obvious from the content of my post. I expected more from you than a conditioned response.

Save your list for some one who needs it.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Wow, that's cool..

Placemarker for me, it's not 3 days old, but it will have to do.

[csense]

From our past conversations I gather that you do not accept the theory of evolution for religious reasons.

That's fine. But your religious belief does not constitute scientific data, nor does it negate scientific theory.

My religious beliefs are irrelevant to what I posted, and if you judged my post based upon the merits of my argument, you would have concluded the same.

Again, I'm very disappointed....but thank you for the response anyway.

[caffe]

"One reason why Mindell might fail to sell Darwin to the critics is that his examples all involve microevolution, which most modern creationists (including advocates of intelligent design) accept"


Now this quote is really kind of amusing.......i'm a creationist.....but i've never heard the term "modern creationist" Can someone define it? Creationists have never rejected the classic definition of microevolution. God said "he created kinds" and thus we obviously know that there is plenty of variation within a "kind".

[fabian]

of course evolution is accepted by many scientists...I was just making the point that there are also many scientists that are very bright that are teaching about the falsness of the theory. And I was rebutting your point of believers in God not being smart, or to that effect...in that many of the most famous scientists of history were believers. The belief in a creator makes learning alot more fun because one can see more of a good purpose to everything.

[Coyoteman]

So man conducts breeding experiments and practices artificial selection to produce plants and animals with specific traits. That's selection, but it's not evolution. That's simply selecting the already existing gene pool to heighten certain traits. And man was doing this thousands of years before evolutionary theory was dreamed up.

See how easy it is? Even early agriculturalists, and even hunter-gatherers could do it.

And how did they learn this?

By observing nature. Just as, many years later, Darwin did. But he figured out the details and wrote it down.

But you say, "That's selection, but it's not evolution." When you select for certain traits (or nature selects for certain traits), other traits are less common. These small changes add up over time.

Fast forward a hundred thousand years and we'll see what we have. That's tough to do. Fortunately, with evolutionary theory, we can look backwards a hundred thousand years, or a million years, and see what we have.

Evolution is often slow, but paleontology and genetics provide a good look at the past and can see the changes that occurred. And, what to you know, these two different approaches support each other.

You say, "Evolutionary theory didn't have squat to do with it."

Sure, evolutionary theory didn't have anything to do with the changes in the past, as Darwin proposed his theory in 1859. But his theory (as modified and improved for 150 years) accounts for those changes and explains those changes.

Early folks through observation came up with a lot of the details, but it took the genius of Darwin to bring it all together and write it all down. And what he wrote down is the beginning of evolutionary theory--and it has everything to do with it!

[csense]

[Suzy Quzy]

...you obviously have no evidence or you would be PROUD to show it to the world. Just as I thought.

[DannyTN]

"Evolution does not predict that the strong survive."

Which is why we have 800+ inheritable human genetic diseases and maybe 1 known positive human mutation (2 if you count sickle cell anemia for malaria protection, and 3 if you count being born without legs for gangrene of the toes protection).

Because some weak mutations will survive and spread their degraded genes among the gene pool until the species is completely degraded.

Apparently, if you degrade a bacteria enough, you get a human.

[Suzy Quzy]

Ladies and Gentlemen: These people have been calling me all kinds of names for not believing in evolution. I asked them to show me ONE crumb of evidence of evolution amf they can't produce one!!

[Suzy Quzy]

Come on!! DRAWINGS??? you can do better right???

[Virginia-American]

...There is NO science behind evolution!! ...

Then why is it able to make true predictions about lab and field results? EG the Tiktaalik find, or the verification of Darwin's prediction of pre-Cambrian fossils?ToE claimed that mammals evolved from reptiles, and that birds evolved from dinosaurs; after these claims were made, many fossils of just such intermediate forms were found, and none that link birds more directly to mammals, or mammals to dinos.

Are yuo seriously claiming this is just luck? fraud? Why can't ID or creationism make predictions like these, predictions that turn out to be true?

[Suzy Quzy]

geesh...DRAWINGS???? You call that evidence???

[DannyTN]

Skull Chart Debunking is Post 440

FYI.