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]

All very nice, but when Rockefeller ripped off my cousin Hovis and walked off with his wells, pumps, wall safes and office furniture, he'd used his lawyers to find Hovis' oil.

Lawyers still work.

[andysandmikesmom]

I like that phrase as well..therefore, this is my...

'Lone Rangers of Science' placemarker...

[muawiyah]

Els, 1138 thought the debate was being carried over from a different thread. I assured him the statements had been made in this thread and since 1138 is much lazier than his larger relative, 1140, and can't look stuff up, and found him one of several references.

I think he's at peace now, but he really should start reading the threads.

[Virginia-American]

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

So how come it makes true predictions about what will be found in the lab and the field? Where to dig to find Tiktaalik, what pseudogenes to expect in a genome, the fact that fossil marsupials are found in Antarctica, and on and on. Each of these predictions is a test that the theory is right - and it's passed all of them.

Maybe, someday, ID or creationism will be able to do the same sort of thing - but that day isn't here yet.

Yes, mine, and countless scientists.

Countless? Maybe a couple of hundred, world wide, using a very generoous definition of "scientist"; but less than 1 in 300 biologists, paleontologists, etc.

[muawiyah]

BTW, you flipped over to "geology" and out of "evolution". KNowing something about "evolution" probably illuminates thinking about "reefs". However, "geology" is on a different thread at a different time. Presumably "geology" helps folks find oil. Lawyers, though, help you keep it.

[js1138]

The rules against thread jumping are right here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm

If you read this thread further you will find this was settled a while back. It wasn't thread jumping. I was directed to the post in question.

[Virginia-American]

Back when I was a Primate...

Whatever you imagine yourself to be now, you can't make vitamin C for the exact same reason that a chimp or gorilla can't.

[muawiyah]

Not compared to "red". You can estimate intensity only if you have the equipment to pick up the frequencies involved with cones. If you are seeing "blue" because your brain is computing the difference between the signal your rods are getting and your red or green cones, "blue" won't be very bright. Same with "yellow".

Fortunately for me in this particular little discussion as you get holder and your "blue" cones begin failing you, (or you start using Viagra or other substance that shuts them down), you will get to see what it's about.

[muawiyah]

Yes, it doesn't. End of discussion. Lots of stuff downstream but the external environment doesn't reach in there and diddle the genome.

[muawiyah]

One of the first little tidbits reported out at the conclusion of the human genome project (where they were mapping the genome) was that, lo and behold, they found VIRUS genes.

Yup, it happened.

The same folks who thought we had MILLIONS of genes were flabbergasted. Of coure we don't have millions of genes, and not all of them came from mommy and daddy (all the way back).

Some folks continue to be flabbergasted and aghast at this discovery.

[stands2reason]

Evolution is not a philosophy one "subscribes" to. There's no reason to "help" it along, as there is no goal. It's a process, not a plan. It's the way the diversity of species came about on this planet.

But yes, civilization has changed the evolution of humans. But civilization is worth keeping anyway.

[RobRoy]

Is it not possible that the magnetic force is not a force pulling, but a force neutralizing or amplifying another force that normally is pushing? I think you probably see where I am going here. It is sort of a relative force thing. There is just so much we don't know that often we find our position is based on what appear to be obvious assumptions, but end up being incorrect.

All we can do is posit a theory and trust it until evidence proves otherwise. Often 1 can go a long ways before 1 discovers an hypothesis or theory is dead wrong. Ptolomy's theory actually got him quite a ways before he realized he was dead wrong.

[Suzy Quzy]

riiiiight...

[Quark2005]

True; but ScienTISTS usually do!

Not if they're doing their job right; at least not in their professional decisions. That's why scientists constantly cross-check each other's work for signs of subjectivity.

I've said it many times before, I'll say it again - I have no problem with a personal belief in creationism (and neither do most people around here, IMO). I only have a problem with non-science being passed off as science, and vice versa. If the Earth isn't billions of years old and life didn't evolve on it, it was created with the definite appearance of having done so; and that's a position anyone can scientifically validate OR falsify. Either way, the scientific predictions still work, hence the value of the geological theories, evolution, cosmology, etc., no matter what it is that one believes.

[Suzy Quzy]

Just SHOW me the crumb of evidence Without the name calling...if you can....my guess is that you can't do either. So PUT up or SHUT up!!

[Suzy Quzy]

Thank you!!!!!

[Suzy Quzy]

WOW!!! What info../sarcasm

You spoke of oil....I believe that oil doesn't come from dead animals but from pressure put on SAND to make it liquid....and the sand DOES have fossils init. I can't prove this, it;s just my OPINION, but evolutionists say that evoluntion is a FACT!!

[Suzy Quzy]

What about wevolution do you understand?? I can see God everywhere....where do you see evolution...as a FACT??

[Suzy Quzy]

I asked YOU and a bunch of other evolutionists last night to show me a CRUMB of PROOF and you post a PICTURE???? that's is sad and laughable at the same time!!

You have NO proof because there isn't any, but you cannot bring yourself to say that God CREATED everything just as he wanted it.

[js1138]

Just SHOW me the crumb of evidence Without the name calling...if you can....my guess is that you can't do either. So PUT up or SHUT up!!

I posted a fairly extensive list of things -- most of the things you eat -- that we would not have without evolution. Not just evolution, but applied evolution. These new crops and animals would not exist without evolution.