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

[Physicist]

Why would anyone believe that no bird today grows teeth?

Because today it requires tricks and mutations, whereas all archaeopteryx had them as a matter of course. Even creationists manage to learn that chickens have beaks and not teeth.

Moreover, the fact that it is at all possible to "trick" a chicken into growing teeth is another classic evidence of evolution. Chickens have teeth in their ancestry: it's written in their genes as well as in their fossil history. Stephen Jay Gould even titled one of his books Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

[DungeonMaster]

Evolution is irrelevant to physics and cosmology. They're separate subjects. You might as well argue that music theory is anathema to architecture.

Evolution is all about physics.

[Physicist]

Evolution is all about physics.

If that's the case, I give it my full endorsement.

[G Larry]

BTTT

[muawiyah]

It doesn't require "mutations" at all. The birds all have the genes to grow teeth. You remove the DNA methylation that prevents them from being expressed and you'll get a bird with a mouthful of teeth.

[Physicist]

Oh, and that just happened all the time back then. Right?

[muawiyah]

If we found an archaeopteryx skull WITHOUT TEETH we'd call it something else ~ maybe even a chicken ~

Still, could be the same critter and we'll never know unless we can compare a full genome of one with the other.

[muawiyah]

That birds had teeth? All birds expressed teeth at one time.

It simply does not require a change in genes to stop teeth from growing. DNA methylation, which does not itself change the genome ~ not even to transpose a basepair ~ can do the trick all by itself.

[js1138]

I question what it has to do with evolution.

You asked about macroevolution and I gave you a dozen or more examples in which chromosome duplications have produced macro changes.

Selective breeding takes advantage of mutations as well as alleles already existing in the gene pool. There is no physical or biological difference between natural and artificial selection.

Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles due to differential reproductive success. It matters not whether the success is determined with or without human intervention.

Evolution includes changes due to mutations, and polyploidy is a mutation.

You asked for examples where evolution has produced something useful, and I pointed out that most of what we eat -- all of our domesticated plants and animals are the result of applied evolution.

[RobRoy]

>>(Hint: A "theory" is not a grown-up "hypothesis.")<<

Yes, I notice it is quite common for discussions to end up being reduced to the definitions of words - and with things like dictionary.com so easily available.

That said, arguing definitions of words like "theory" are usualy diversions used by both sides in this thing.

[js1138]

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.

Really.

I believe what I said was that anyone applying evolution to humans would not kill the brightest, most talented and productive individuals, and encourage the reproduction of the dregs. Go back to my posts and see if that's not what I said.

[DungeonMaster]

Evolution is very useful as a religion.

[js1138]

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

Get a life. Applied evolution has produced all of our food crops and all of our domestic animals -- both our pets and the ones we eat. You would starve to death if evolution didn't exist.

[DungeonMaster]

Get a life. Applied evolution has produced all of our food crops and all of our domestic animals -- both our pets and the ones we eat. You would starve to death if evolution didn't exist.

LOL, reminds me of the unions saying they invented the weekend.

[Physicist]

All birds expressed teeth at one time.

It simply does not require a change in genes to stop teeth from growing. DNA methylation, which does not itself change the genome ~ not even to transpose a basepair ~ can do the trick all by itself.

That's fine, but why and how did the methylation change in actual birds? Are you saying it was not due to some other change in the DNA? I'm not talking about what goes on in the lab, but what went on in the wild.

But in any case, all this is beside the point. Darwinism (and indeed evolution) isn't tied to genetics, obviously: Darwin knew nothing of genetics. All that is required is an inherited change. As you say, all birds expressed teeth at one time. As you know, no birds express teeth today (except under extremely special conditions). That's an inherited change (genetic or not). Evolution by definition.

[RobRoy]

>>There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory.<<

HA, ha. Baloney. 911 was evidence supporting the theory of gravity. Our orbit of the sun is evidence that supports the theory of gravity. When I pour milk on my cereal there is yet more evidence supporting the theory of gravity.

And yet with that, we really cannot prove whether or not it pulls or pushes. Both sides can be argued.

Some evolution has been observed, like the evolution of the Corvette, while others have not, like speciation. And evolution is a "catch all" phrase anyway. Gravity is one of the four forces. Simple. Concise. Evolution is...what? That one type of fruit fly outnumbers another until the conditions favor the latter, at which point they reverse population percentages? Yeah, some call that evolution and I believe that sort of evolution happens all the time. It is observable.

But when someone says that dogs came from the primordial soup, I can explain the logical fallacies necessary to come to that belief. I can show them that all of the evidence for such a belief is based in faith, mostly in FUTURE discoveries. If they are a True Believer, there is nothing to do but smile and nod.

[muawiyah]

Since different species of birds express teeth every now and then it's pretty obvious that the tooth gene is still present (even if we haven't developed a full report on the genome), but it's been suppressed in some manner.

One process for suppressing a gene is called "DNA methylation". There may well be others, e.g. a demiurge from the quantum processor in each cell ~ something like that ~ we just don't know yet.

No change in the genome is required for birds to NOT express teeth, nor is a change in the genome required for birds to express teeth.

Mammals somehow suppress the growth of extra tooth sets ~ reptiles have no such problem. Neither do birds. There's work afoot to determine how we can remove the suppression ~ and thereby eliminate dentistry.

[RobRoy]

>>OK. I've had one every year it has been available. I guess I don't see the relevance of either statement.<<

Me neither. I was responding to this comment:

"Well I suppose then that all the creationsits can skip their annual influenza vaccinations and free up the limited supply to the evos."

My point was that I DO already skip it. I wouldn't even know where to get one, especially since I don't have TV, I don't listen to radio and I don't read newspapers. All my news is Pulled.

I suppose I could google it if I had to...

[Stultis]

True enough. Whig --> Republican was not a direct transformation, but rather a general defection from the failing Whig party to the new Republican one, e.g. Lincoln.

[muawiyah]

"Applied Evolution" sounds remarkably like "Intelligent Design".

Hmmmmmm ~ the "other problem" ~ where one side starts claiming the territory thought to have been carved out by the other.