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

[muawiyah]

They do? Creationists believe evolution can do everything?

Might try that statement over.

[caffe]

Perhaps you should question these so-called facts once in a while. Even Gould had to admit that the fossil record shows no trend toward increased complexity. "Most structural complexity entered in a grand burst at the Cambrian explosion, and the history of Phanerozoic life since then has largely been a tale of endless variation upon a set of basic body plans...So was'nt Darwin's theory based upon a clear progression from simple to complex? Try and find your evidence that the Cambrian explosion was predicted by Darwin....it remains one of the evolutionists biggest problems ...alas until we're now able to study biochemistry and see so much disturbing complexity. LOL

[onedoug]

"Evolution is a scientific theory...."

Though it doesn't unify as well with other scientifc diciplines. I wouldn't want to use it to drive my car.

It's like abortion is held as a Constitutional right: to be used rarely???

[stormer]

"Every now and then, in ancient times, when conditions were right, one of these guys would look at Saturn and notice that it had associated elements."

While it is true that there are variations in visual acuity between individuals, the likelihood that an individual with extraordinary eyesight (think Chuck Yeager) would see the occasional (at best) phenomena as anything other than an aberration is, I believe, low. Even after this rare event had taken place, that person is then tasked with explaining to his contemporaneous that he can see thing that others cannot, no small undertaking.

"That didn't keep him from describing the rings as 'horns'."

Here is Galileo's description of his observation of the rings of Saturn:

"I have observed the highest planet [Saturn] to be tripled-bodied. This is to say that to my very great amazement Saturn was seen to me to be not a single star, but three together, which almost touch each other".

From: Historical background of Saturn's rings http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/saturn/back.html

[Quark2005]

They do? Creationists believe evolution can do everything?

Might try that statement over.

Um, no. No one in their right mind believes. Anyone who knows anything about evolution knows it has definite constraints. If it didn't, physical data would be useless in our research into the subject.

My statement is accurate. Creationists seem to think that data is open to any 'interpretation' they can dream up, and that reading a few websites or pop science books gives them more insight into the subject than the teams of PhD's and technical researchers specifically trained to deal with the subject.

It's not just creationists that do this. There's all sorts of loons and cranks out there. None of it should try to seriously pass itself off as science.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I am a bit ignorant, so please answer as possible:

a) When you speak of these flu microbes "mutating", are you saying they actually change DNA/# of chromosomes?

b) How did the Darwin idea help this flu process? Seems to me flu scientists are merely observing what's been happening "NOW" (i.e., within the last century) with microbes, in the interest of controlling flu. I doubt they approached the flu as "evolutionists" interested in proving evolution. And then 1 could argue if anything, their current activities are back-proving ancient evolution, which was not their intention. How did ancient fossils LEAD to doctors/pharma controlling the flu? Seems to me the cart is before the horse here, and evolution really didn't play into it; again, more that "EVOs" are using the pharma industry to prove their macro theory.

[Coyoteman]

It can't be any better than archaeology of primitive tribal camps.

Hey, don't be knockin' archaeology. Some of us around here do that for a living!

[RobRoy]

>>Then what exactly did you mean by we don't know whether gravity is a "push or a pull"??<<

I meant exactly - EXACTLY - what I said. We do not KNOW.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the ability to detect "red" with above average accuity gives you an edge in hunting game. That sort of thing makes you very, very valuable, and they'll believe you quite readily.

BTW, being familiar with the phenomenon, I will assure you I can find a red-head at distances virtually unheard of. (when given the choice) I purchase only red cars, and red is the only truly "bright" color.

[muawiyah]

I thought you were talking about evolution for a moment ~ could have fooled me ~ but you were talking about creationists.

Rules of grammar help us get through the obfuscation.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I'm not knocking it, and actually it's a poor analogy - the only really "useless" arch I can think of has to do with remote ancient tribes who (appear to) have no link with anything well-known.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Um.....wouldn't gravity tend to be a pull? Who is arguing this?

[the OlLine Rebel]

Yellow isn't?

[muawiyah]

Look, without blue cones, and an excess of red cones, yellow is white when illuminated by blue light. In full spectrum light, it's just yellow. Nothing bright about it at all ~ no strong signal.

[Quark2005]

I meant exactly - EXACTLY - what I said. We do not KNOW.

Actually, we have a very good description about the nature of gravity on all but the quantum level. It's called the Theory of General Relativity. Speaking strictly of the classical Newtonian Theory (which I believe you are), it's a moot point whether it's a 'push' or a 'pull' so long as Newton's 3rd Law holds. It's a force, and that's all that matters - the sign ambiguity cancels.

[null and void]

I bet you thought I didn't know about the "water sphere" concept.

On he contrary. I expected you to believe in it.

BBL

[Quark2005]

Rules of grammar help us get through the obfuscation.

Ok. I take it by the distracting change of subject, here, that my comment about evolution following specific constraints that are best understood by those specifically trained to study them is a correct one.

[RobRoy]

>>Um.....wouldn't gravity tend to be a pull?<<

That would seem to be the case. But it is just a theory. We are not really sure how it works. I actually read a "serious" article that posited the concept that it is a much stronger force "leaking" from another dimension.

And people think the Bible sounds goofy.

[csense]

What I object to is this notion that the apple falls from the tree, therefore, evolution must be true

Maybe such people should contact the ad agency for guinness beer:

character 1: "I've just found a way to prove the theory of evolution using only a coin and the force of gravity."
character 2: "...prove the existence of evolution at the drop of a dime! BRILLIANT!!"

[RobRoy]

>>it's a moot point whether it's a 'push' or a 'pull' so long as Newton's 3rd Law holds.<<

True, if one is not curious. But KNOWING which it is could greatly impact our understanding of the physical universe and how it works. And the more we know about it, the more we can manipulate it.