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

[Quark2005]

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

Please don't tell me you think this or this or this is a valid 'argument'. Where do you guys get this stuff???

[Physicist]

The trick is you or I could pick up genes from a virus (through some as yet unknown mechanism) that get inserted into our genome, which we could pass on to our descendants, but your genes would NOT have a common origin with mine in that case, nor would those of our descendants.

That's true, but it's in perfect keeping with common descent AND Darwinism.

Remember: Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. All he knew was that there is some mechanism of variation, and that some of those variations are passed to offspring. From Darwin's perspective, it doesn't matter whether a variation came from a single point copying error or a wholesale insertion from a virus, just so long as the change is inherited. For all he knew, the latter was the only source of variation; it wouldn't have changed the theory.

And the fact that YOU might have picked up a virus from somewhere--not that there's anything wrong with that--and acquired a gene that I lack in no way changes the fact that we share common ancestors.

But if you want to update your GEDCOM files at Ancestry.com to include your newly acquired parent, I'll understand. :-)

[muawiyah]

See what happens when you pack "change" with more words. Still, allele frequency does not address the place of DNA methylation ~ since there allele frequency can remain constant and you still get apparant revisions in the critters.

[muawiyah]

Both slaughter the innocent as we speak. So?

I'd put a stop to it if they'd not stick me in prison for it.

[stultorum]

"In fact, the only thing ToE contributes to is the government grant industry.

And right you are.

They're ultimate goal is the killing of God from the hearts and minds of man. It's a struggle for man's and children's mind, a battle that will determine whether our Christian heritage and culture will survive or be driven to extinction. A struggle to turn man into automatons and machines that act like man. Their hope is a Godless society in which all men will lose every bit of individuality, of love and critical thought without their being aware of it.

All of this they do through our own resources in the form of state/federal grants.

Thanks for all your posts. I enjoy reading them tremendously.

[Quix]

Much agree as usual.

Thanks.

[RightWhale]

Evolution is anathema to physics and cosmology. If the laws of physics were evolving we could hardly do physics at all.

[muawiyah]

You're overlooking the fact that Darwin was obsessed with "sex" as the mechanism for passing along characteristics.

[Physicist]

I'd put a stop to it if they'd not stick me in prison for it.

As long as you think that'll fly on Judgment Day.

[muawiyah]

Alas, the laws of physics do seem to change with time ~ lots of it of course, but they change nonetheless.

[muawiyah]

Oh, yeah, Judgment Day ~ but first a very long ride on the Great Mandala eh!@

[js1138]

See what happens when you pack "change" with more words. Still, allele frequency does not address the place of DNA methylation ~ since there allele frequency can remain constant and you still get apparent revisions in the critters.

Not all DNA is in the main package of chromosomes, and the egg cell components, including mitochondria, are inherited without sexual blending. The range of variation that can be accounted for outside of DNA is going to be severely limited, however. Cell machinery is highly conserved.

Feel free to win a Nobel prize for demonstrating that a significant part of evolution occurs outside DNA.

[RightWhale]

If the laws of physics are changing how can we possibly do physics? We're not talking about something elementary such as the possibly changing speed of light in a vacuum since a higher law can be found to explain how that works, nor with enhancements to Newtonian mechanics. We're concerned with Lorentz invariance and isotropy of space. If that is no good we will lose our Theory of Relativity and all the other high power explanations including quantum mechanics. If that is happening, we have lost the game.

[microgood]

Tell that to the Darwin caused Hitler crowd.

I have. Apologies in that I misconstrued your statement about religious prejudice to mean religion was the source of the prejudice when in fact the Jews were targeted because of their religion, and not for religious reasons.

[stultorum]

"...the fact that we share common ancestors."

Could those ancestors be monkeys, by any chance?

I notice you conveniently did not say we "descend" from monkeys, but used instead the common Darwinist ready-made phrase, "share common ancestors." But we all know what you meant by that phrase -- ie, that humans descend from monkeys, whic is not true, btw.

[null and void]

Since the telescope was invented in Middleburg Nederland some time in the 1400s, we know the ancients did not, in fact, have telescopes.

Nonsense. We know no such thing.

How much of our technology would survive an Ice Age and/or a full scale war with our wonderful nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?

If our distant descendant remnants figured out the wheel, would you spiritual descendant deny any wheel prior art?

On the other hand, your belief in the total uniformity of human visual acuity is highly disturbing. There is and has been substantial variation.

I hold no such belief. Even in the highly unlikely (Given the angular resolution required and the maximum density of rods and cones) event that one in a million could see that Saturn doesn't look round, who would believe him when he says that the perfect celestial spheres aren't?

I also note that you side stepped the issue of the preflood water sphere above the earth. Chicken...

[Quark2005]

They're ultimate goal is the killing of God from the hearts and minds of man. It's a struggle for man's and children's mind, a battle that will determine whether our Christian heritage and culture will survive or be driven to extinction. A struggle to turn man into automatons and machines that act like man. Their hope is a Godless society in which all men will lose every bit of individuality, of love and critical thought without their being aware of it.

Um, no. The ultimate goal of science is discovering the truth as revealed by physical evidence, wherever it leads. Science just happens not to care about political correctness, religious correctness, or anybody's personal feelings, for that matter.

[MeanWestTexan]

Dave:

I came across this wonderful insight on these issues from the Orthodox/Conservative Jewish perspective.

"How does Judaism's claim that the world is roughly 5,700 years old coincide with science?"

by Mrs. Sarah Levi

Torah and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the two, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what one is saying.
Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.

The Torah tells us how old the universe is.

Science tells us how old the universe seems to be.

The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be To give a simple example: how old was Adam when he was first created? Was he a baby? Young man? Old man?

Our sages tell us that he had the body and maturity of a 20-year-old man. Now, let us imagine Adam going for a medical exam a day after he was created. The receptionist asks for his age and he answers: “one day”. “You must be kidding me,” she would reply. “You seem to be at least 20 years old!”

They are both right. Adam is saying how old he really is, while the receptionist is estimating his age based on “scientific proof.”

The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be. The one who believes in G-d, however, can perfectly accept the fact that the world was created in a mature state and therefore does not contradict the fact that it is really younger than it seems to be.

[stormer]

"The fact that it had "other" characteristics out to the side was known since ancient times."

Source please.

The maximum theoretical resolving power of the human eye given a 5mm aperture and a light wavelength of 500nm (the wavelength to which the human eye is most sensitive) is 20 arc seconds; 1 arc second = 1/3600 of a degree. The maximum width of Saturn from earth is 40 arc seconds. It is conceivable that under perfect viewing conditions (i.e. no atmosphere) a person with flawless vision may be able to perceive something other than a disc, however those stringent conditions (esp. no atmosphere) most likely preclude anyone from having observed the rings of Saturn with the naked eye (even as "horns").

[Physicist]

You're overlooking the fact that Darwin was obsessed with "sex" as the mechanism for passing along characteristics.

Not at all. How else do you intend to pass along your virus genes?

(Note added in proof: pass them along to your descendants, I mean. Boy, the gaffes I catch as my pointer hovers over the "post" button...)

I see what you're attempting to say, though: that your acquisition of a gene from a virus counts as a sorta-kinda form of inheritance. That's as may be, but that interpretation is predicated upon a technical knowledge of genetics. From Darwin's perspective, or even from the perspective of the human genome, it's just another means of acquiring a new variation. Darwin (again, ignorant of genetics) asserted that a mechanism like that had to exist, so this really falls more into the category of "another successful prediction of Darwinism" rather than "refutation of the concept of common descent".

What really strikes me as odd is that evolution posters have been pointing to such mechanisms (including also transposons) for years on FR, whenever a creationist would claim that "there exists no way to add base pairs to a chromosome" or even "there's mathematically no way to add information to a genome".

For you now to be acknowleding it but saying it somehow refutes evolution is a sort of progress, I guess. At the very least, the next time a creationist makes such an argument, we can call you in to set them straight.