Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

For your education:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...
Phylum Level Evolution
Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life
Cuffey: Transitional Fossils
What Is A Transitional Fossil?
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Transitional Forms of Whales
Fossil Horses FAQs
PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth
Mammaliformes: Docodonta
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird
Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant

More are being found all the time. For one example, not long ago there were no major transitional fossils between whales and their land-based ancestors. In the time since, however, *many* have been found, mapping out an unmistakable sequence transitioning between land mammals and fully aquatic whales, including this fine fellow:

For details, see:

The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Links on whale evolution
SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales
Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales
Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls
Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade
A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans
A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales
Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1
The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates
Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss
Eocene evolution of whale hearing
Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised
Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals
Subordinal artiodactyl relationships in the light of phylogenetic analysis of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes
New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae
Cetacean Systematics
LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF THE TIME OF ORIGIN OF CETACEA AND THE TIME OF DIVERGENCE OF CETACEA AND ARTIODACTYLA
Phylogenetic Relationships of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans as Deduced from the Comparison of Cytochrome b and 12s rRNA Mitochondrial Sequences
Molecular evolution of mammalian ribonucleases

How many more would you like?

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Also:
[From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.85

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: April 15, 2005]
Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

Introduction

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Outline

Introduction

Universal Common Descent Defined
Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
What Counts as Scientific Evidence
Other Explanations for the Biology
How to Cite This Document

Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method
Phylogenetics introduction

Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction

Maximum parsimony
Maximum likelihood
Distance matrix methods

Statistical support for phylogenies
Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

Unity of life
Nested hierarchies
Convergence of independent phylogenies

Statistics of incongruent phylogenies

Transitional forms

Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows

Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history

Anatomical vestiges
Atavisms

Whales with hindlimbs
Humans tails

Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology

Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
Snake embryos with legs
Embryonic human tail
Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

Present biogeography
Past biogeography

Marsupials
Horses
Apes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

Anatomical parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Anatomical convergence
Molecular convergence
Anatomical suboptimal function
Molecular suboptimal function

Part 4. Molecular evidence

Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change

Genetic
Morphological
Functional
The strange past
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates

Closing remarks

"I am a physician and Darwin has absolutely nothing to add to my scientific thought or practice. I have never and did never really even think about it much. I is not something I use."

Oh I think evolution has added a lot. It taught physicians that tonsils and appendixes were useless. It even taught physicians that there should be no harm to removing tailbones to the unfortunate chagrine of those who had their's removed. It taught us to focus only on protein coding aspect of DNA and to ignore the rest as "junk", "evolutionary leftovers". It's added a lot that just wasn't true.

You are lucky if you've managed to avoid the influence of evolution.

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

Do you deny that gravity exists?"

Not to get off subject, but our lack of knowledge concerning gravity (and time for that matter) has always irked me. Shouldn't we know the MOST about the simpler things, and worry about the more complex later?

I mean, I have yet to hear a good explanation for particle/wave duality and if we don't even know what we're made of- sheeesh Why worry about DNA if you can't even agree on a good definition for light/energy or something "simple" like a dimension.

Sorry to rant, but it seems to me the universe is WAY more complex than anyone gives credit. Space is complex. Time is complex. Energy is a mystery. We are like children who have just enough smarts to take the safety off our dad's gun.

Saturn is Father Time himself, the supreme deity in the pantheon. Most people could not see the rings until Galileo and his toy telescope.

You have to appreciate the humor.

"Tinfoil on Parade" sort of.

Every change in DNA is not "evolutionary" in nature. However, when it comes to viruses they're more like loose code ~ like the old JCL IBM kept under continuous development ~ you could use the stuff, or not, to make jobs run. In fact, there were so many pathways to making stuff happen a certain way, the meaning of the word "language" was strained.

It's like this ~ sometimes change is effectuated by putting in a new part ~ like a new carburetor in your '57 Chevy. Sometimes you get a Corvette off the same line.

See the difference?

Bump

And their vaccination production is tied to these existing strains with NO ANTICIPATION OF MUTATIONS.

Their vaccination porduction is tied to existing strains because that is what they can produce. Public health officials anticipate mutation and worry that vaccines for last years strains will be ineffective against what appears this year. They do the best they can. Unfortunately anticipating that something will mutate is different than being able to develop a vaccine to protect against what the virus will mutate into.

Wanted to ping you to this latest bit of pseudo-science from a website ...

Permit me to return the favor: Time Cube.

If evolution predicts that the strong survive, then doesn't that imply that the weak die off? If so, then why do the enviros get so bent out of shape when some species die off, i.e. become extinct?

The overwhelming majority of the different types of viruses (and we are probably speaking of tens of millions, if not billions, of different viruses) have absolutely no impact one way or the other on human beings ~ in terms of disease.

They are what they are and we don't even know if all of them do anything in particular.

It's been proposed we develop an artificial lifeform into which we'd plug viruses to see what they do.

You use the phrase "scientific theory" rather loosely. I always thought of science as being fairly exact. The word "evolution" is anything but.

One thing I can guarantee you is that the Old Guard on these threads use the term "scientific theory" with great precision.

It is the uneducated who use the term "loosely."

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

Every change in DNA is not "evolutionary" in nature. H

that is your error. Every change in DNA is evolutionary in nature. The question is whether what the change means is significant, and whether the resulting organism is more or less fit to survive in the current environment. Some mutations are insignificant. Some are devastating.

I wouldn't call it "useless." It's always good for a few laughs.

It is useless in any practical sense. That is one reason that I get a big kick out of the secular Darwinists when they scream unbelief in Darwin is going to ruin Science. Hogwash. I am a physician and Darwin has absolutely nothing to add to my scientific thought or practice. I have never and did never really even think about it much. I is not something I use.

From you own AMA:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/15765.html

In times like these, as inundated as we are by technical wizardry, one might conclude that American technological supremacy and know-how would lead, inevitably, to a deeper understanding or trust of science. Well, it doesn’t. Perhaps just the opposite is true. Technology and gee whiz gadgetry has led to more suspicion rather than less. And a typical American’s understanding of science is limited at best. As far as evolution is concerned, if you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is even more depressing. A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time

~Snip~

The medical community as a whole has been largely absent from today’s public debates on science. Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has taken a formal stand on the issue of evolution versus creationism. When physicians use their power of political persuasion in state legislatures and the US Congress, it’s generally on questions more pertinent to their daily survival—Medicare reimbursement, managed care reform, and funding for medical research. Northwestern’s Miller believes that the scientific community can’t fight the battle alone and that, as the attacks against science accelerate, the medical community will have to use its privileged perch in society to make the case for science. “You have to join your friends, so when someone attacks the Big Bang, when someone attacks evolution, when someone attacks stem cell research, all of us rally to the front. You can’t say it’s their problem because the scientific community is not so big that we can splinter 4 or more ways and ever still succeed doing anything”

~Snip~

So what does one do? How can a medical student, a resident, or a physician just beginning to build a career become active in these larger public battles? Burt Humburg, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center, is one role model. He’s been manning the evolutionary ramparts since his medical school days in Kansas in the late 1990s when he became active in Kansas Citizens for Science. On a brief vacation from his residency volunteering as a citizen advocate for the federal trial in Pennsylvania, he said education is the key role for the physician. While he realizes that medical students, residents and physicians might not view themselves as scientists, per se, he sees himself and his colleagues as part of the larger scientific collective that can’t afford to shirk its duty. “The town scientist is the town doctor, so whether we want it or not, we have the mantle—the trappings—of a scientist”

If evolution predicts that the strong survive

That's one of those social progressive paraphrases. It has little to do with the theory of biological evolution.

So what?

Do you guys run in packs?

After re-reading your post, you sound a little anti-Christian there Physicist. Sure you want to leave that impression??

My point was that your statement is anti-religious to anyone who accepts evolution.

Religious people should not want to set up religion as the enemy of science. It's a guaranteed loser in the long run.

WOW!! I do see many parallels between arguments used by creationists and the ones on this bizarre website.