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

[Elsie]

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

HMMmmm...

Judges 16:30
Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.

[Elsie]

Could those ancestors be monkeys, by any chance?

Proto-monkey/human base stock, I think is the standard 'wisdom'.

[Elsie]

Science just happens not to care about political correctness, religious correctness, or anybody's personal feelings, for that matter.

True; but ScienTISTS usually do!

[Physicist]

Seems to me that the two above declarative statements, We descend from monkeys and We descended to monkeys. contradict each others.

Think harder.

If we descended TO monkeys, it follows that we must have been something other than monkeys.

Of course. Our ancestors were once fish. Fish are not monkeys. A fur piece down the family tree, our ancestors were monkeys. "We" (meaning our chain of descent, not necessarily we as individuals) became monkeys. We descended to monkeys, from fish (with many intervening steps, of course).

Iow, we did not descend FROM monkeys to begin with since we were other than monkeys, but through passage of time descended TO monkeys.

Whether or not we descended from monkeys depends on how you define monkeys. Most people would define monkeys in such a way that humans are excluded for want of a tail, or some other feature. If that's your take, then we definitely descended from monkeys, because we aren't monkeys, but have monkey ancestors.

Some people take the view that humans are a type of monkey. Such people might not want to say that we descended FROM monkeys, any more than we might say we descended from Americans.

Since I am an American, I wouldn't say I descended from Americans, but that my family descended TO Americans. Did we descend from Europeans? That's certainly true for most of us. Did we descend from Africans? If you go back far enough, apparently the answer is also yes. Did my family descend to being Europeans, from Africans? Yes, that's also true. We've moved on since then, but certainly we did in fact descend to Europeans, sometime in the past.

So it is perfectly true to say that my family descended FROM Europeans. It is equally true to say that my family descended TO Europeans (at some earlier time). No contradiction at all.

[Elsie]

 

God created evolution.

 

The CHRISTIAN veiw of this 'creator' is quite different than the one Evolution allows one to believe in.

 

 

---

---

 

Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came to pass.

 

---

Indeed!!

---

Genesis 1

 

 1.  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 2.  Now the earth was  formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
 3.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

 

 

This is a GOD who creates by speaking; but; how LONG did it take?

 

Now Jesus was a man who had God-like powers.  Was HE God?   The Book says so.......

 

 

 

 

NIV Colossians 1:13-17
 13.  For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
 14.  in whom we have redemption,  the forgiveness of sins. 
 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
 16.  For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
 17.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

 

NIV Revelation 4:11
   "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

 

 

NIV Revelation 10:6
   And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!

---

---

 

Notice that when this man speaks, things happen RIGHT NOW!   Not after some times passes and the body heals itself.

 

 

 

NIV Matthew 8:2-3

 2.  A man with leprosy  came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
 3.  Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured  of his leprosy.

 

 

NIV Matthew 21:19
   Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

 

 

NIV Mark 1:41-42
 41.  Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
 42.  Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.

 

 

NIV Mark 5:41-42

 41.  He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
 42.  Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.

 

 

NIV Mark 10:51-52

 51.  "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.   The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
 52.  "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

 

 

NIV Luke 5:13

  Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And Immediately the leprosy left him.

 

 

NIV Luke 5:24-25

 24.  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."
 25.  Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.

 

 

NIV Luke 8:44

  She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and Immediately her bleeding stopped.

 

 

NIV Luke 13:12-13

 12.  When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity."
 13.  Then he put his hands on her, and Immediately she straightened up and praised God.

 

 

NIV Luke 18:42-43

 42.  Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."
 43.  Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

 

 

NIV Acts 9:33-35

 33.  There he found a man named Aeneas, a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years.
 34.  "Aeneas," Peter said to him, "Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and take care of your mat." Immediately Aeneas got up.
 35.  All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

 

 

NIV Matthew 8:13
 13.  Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

 

 

NIV Matthew 15:28
 28.  Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

---

---

 

Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant;  how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

[muawiyah]

Once again the Yin/Yang imagery of the Bible strikes home.

[muawiyah]

You pick up a monkey that's used to human handling, and he grips your finger with his little hand, and you feel the powerful intelligence and emotions behind it and you know this critter is some kind of relative.

Now if he had feathers and was called a cockatou you'd get that same feeling, but you'd know there's some sort of "gulf" somewhere ~ but it doesn't matter. I love those birds.

[Ichneumon]

Here's one thing I know ~ other than finding buried reefs, under which heavy hydrocarbons can get trapped, I fail to see where any understanding of biological processes would be needed to find oil.

Yes, we know that you fail to see why such understanding would be useful. This is no different than your lack of knowledge in other fields causing you to fail to see things on a wide variety of topics.

Rest assured, though, that the professionals in those fields are in no way limited by your personal level of ignorance.

Besides, the first guys into drilling knew none of those things and found oil anyway.

As I was saying...

Look, son, "the first guys into drilling" managed to get along without more advanced knowledge for the same reason that the Wright brothers managed to get along without knowledge of jet engine technology, trans-Mach aerodynamics, and high-tech composite materials science -- they weren't shooting very high, and even modest results are an advancement in a field that is at its barest beginnings.

But that doesn't mean that modern aeronautics can get by with just fabric-covered cloth and 19th-century gasoline engines, nor can modern petroleum engineers get by with just Drake's methods.

And speaking of which, Drake managed to find oil in the world's first attempt at drilling for oil because a) he was drilling in an area where oil was so plentiful that it often seeped right out of the ground, and b) he was drilling where other people had already hit shallow oil by accident while drilling for water wells. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to think that maybe you can hit oil on purpose drilling in an area where people had long been hitting it by accident. But that won't pay the bills if you're looking for oil today.

The easy, too-obvious-to-miss, close-to-the-surface oil deposits have long since been tapped, and today it takes the expert application of many kinds of specialized knowledge to locate deep oil with a success rate sufficient to cover the cost of the many inevitable failed exploration attempts. I'm astounded that this was somehow too complicated for you to figure out for yourself, because it's really freaking obvious.

Furthermore, even "the first guys into drilling" crapped out in the long run due to their insufficient understanding of oil geology. Drake, the man famous for drilling the first planned oil well, lost all of his savings in oil speculation in 1863, and ended up a broke old man.

[atlaw]

Evolution is more of a phylosophy, a faith or belief. More akin to pseudo science, but definitively not a science.

Aw, c'mon. Fess up. You really don't have a clue what biologists, botanists, medical researchers, etc., actually do. You really have no idea how the theory of evolution is applied, corroborated, critiqued, or expanded on, do you?

Tell you what, go to this site:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

Just for the heck of it, plug the words "evolution mitochondria" into the search block. After reading the approximately 130 papers that pop up, you can then authoritatively point out to us all the philosophy, faith, belief, and pseudo-science you've unearthed.

And when you're done with that, plug the word "evolution" into the search block followed by the name of just about any old critter or plant you can imagine. Read the several thousand papers that pop up. Rinse, repeat.

[Binghamton_native]

Me thinks this article struck a nerve.

[1000 silverlings]

Our ancestors were once fish. Fish are not monkeys. A fur piece down the family tree, our ancestors were monkeys

Which little monkey are you related to? An African green monkey? Maybe you have green hair. An Indian macaque? Maybe you have a short little tail. A South American howler? I think that's the one -- you made me laugh.

[balrog666]

I'm astounded that this was somehow too complicated for you to figure out for yourself, because it's really freaking obvious.

Really freaking obvious placemarker!

[Quark2005]

Yes, mine, and countless scientists.

Yours, yes. Countless scientists, no. Truth is, the number of biological scientists that doubt the veracity of evolutionary theory is tiny, probably less than 1% in relevant fields (i.e. biology and geology). (e.g. survey of Ohio scientists

If evolution is a faith, it is the only 'faith' that produces hard predictions and evidence, like those mentioned in the link in my last post; it is a core part of any basic biology classroom curriculum. Audit a class at any local state university, if you don't believe me.

Like I said, creationists need to spend time in the audience of science before they can become speakers to the audience about what is 'good' and 'bad' science.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Yellow, white.....aren't they "bright"? No attitude, please. It just seems a logical question.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Curious. Because if 1 hangs over the floor, 1 does not feel something pushing them.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Environmental pressure DOES NOT CAUSE changes in the genome.


Not specifically no, it does not cause the changes, but it allows the individuals with mutations that exist that are better able to survive that environmental change, to survive and pass on that trait to their progeny. The individuals that do not have the trait that allows their fellows to survive the climactic change will not survive, and therefore their traits will not be passed on.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

We now know you didn't get all your genes from your ancestors ~ or even from mutations.

Please, enlighten me on this discovery, I have not heard of it.

Please post a link to such a discovery, because it would be very important, to say the least.

[RobRoy]

>>Curious. Because if 1 hangs over the floor, 1 does not feel something pushing them.<<

Nor pulling. The pulling feeling is merely inference based on what you have lived with since you were born, and had explained to you since you were old enough to understand language.

When I ride my bike up a hill, I simply feel force. I honestly cannot feel whether it is pushing or pulling. One thing is for sure though: The harder I peddle, the more ALIVE I feel.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Pretty strange, though, when 1 considers that bodies of mass are said to generate "MAGNETIC" forces. Which means things are being PULLED TO them. I.e., the mass is the 1 generating the force toward itself, not some other body - unseen - pushing away from itself, from who knows how far away!

[js1138]

Lone Rangers of Science

Now that's a memorable phrase.