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

[Suzy Quzy]

is that a threat?

[Virginia-American]

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.

some of these are called Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs). The way that they are distributed in the human, chimp, and other ape and monkey genomes is yet another compelling piece of evidence supporting common descent.

Source: One of the 29+ evidences at Talk Origins.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Was that supposed to be an answer?

I asked, why do you believe that people that understand the scientific theory of evolution, are atheistic or do not believe in god?

I thought it was a simple question, would you be so kind as to answer it?

[Virginia-American]

WOW!!! What info../sarcasm

could you be a little more specific please?

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

Res Ipsa Loquitur

[Jaguarbhzrd]

OK, hang on a second, you are saying that the rhetro virus genes, that have helped us date where different breakoffs in the evolutionary tree have happened, are not genes that we get from mom and dad? or are somehow extra genes that were popped in there?

If that is what you are saying, you could not be further from the truth, and geneticists were not at all surprised to find those genetic markers, they were expected, because we know that a virus will attach their DNA signature to cells that they infect. A Virus cannot reproduce by itself, it needs help from it's host, and with that help it changes the genetic signature of that host in undeniable ways.

As I said, the genetic signatures of various virus throughout the DNA was expected, BTW, it is still the DNA you got from your parents, and the DNA they got from theirs etc, there is just a small signature from where the virus stole it's genetic material in order to reproduce.

The gene sequence numerically remains the same, but some have been switched, or changed by the virus. Most are nulls and have no effect on the progeny, and therefore are passed on generation to generation. It changes the sequence nothing more, and to say it was unexpected, well, sorry, that is an outright lie.

[Coyoteman]

I want to see step-by-step pictures of the Gradual Changes from say, a bird to a dinosuar or vice versa that eolutionsts is always talking about.

First is a modern chimp for comparison, and last is modern human:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Liberal Classic]

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.

Your opinion is incorrect. There are no companies which prospect for crude oil by applying that "theory." Furthermore, oil does not come from dead dinosaurs, as commonly believed. Oil deposits come from vast fields of microscopic marine life, such as plankton and diatoms.

As an aside, I wonder about the convergance of anti-evolutionism and the idea that oil comes from nowhere.

[muawiyah]

But only for the putative parents ~ the viruses are the big news here ~ and what else have they melded with?

Until we wrap up a complete genome series for all the mammals we won't know will we?

[muawiyah]

I'm speaking of the putative parents all the way back to the point of insertion of those virus genes.

The virus line is not part of what had been the concept of "common descent".

Darwin would have been aghast of course. I'm not sure he even knew about the germ theory of disease to say nothing of retroviruses.

[Liberal Classic]

Back when I was a Primate, before I evolved(born again), I believed in evolution as taught in the schools(nonsense).. Now I believe in evolution taught in the Bible.. Primates do indeed need to evolve.. into different creatures d;-)~',',.....

If there are Protestants, why are there still Catholics?

[muawiyah]

Regarding your "that is an outright lie", you are not a good debater at all. If you expect any more grant money you will definitely need an attorney or a word-smith and I'm going to make sure you are on the $h|+ list, OK.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I have nothing to add here. I merely want to marvel at the "oil from squeezing sand" theory a bit. Silica to hydrocarbons. For the next fiendishly alchemical trick, lead into gold, no doubt. Just squeeze.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Putting pressure on sand makes glass.

Hence a co-worker who, after 9/11, declared the US would soon be conducting "Operation Sea of Glass".

[Ichneumon]

I asked YOU and a bunch of other evolutionists last night to show me a CRUMB of PROOF and you post a PICTURE????

...among many other things, including a vast amount of research and multiple lines of evidence, posted in replies to you on this very thread. So why are you now pretending that we haven't shown you any? That's not very honest of you, is it?

that's is sad and laughable at the same time!!

No, what's "sad and laughable at the same time" is your ability to tell blatant falsehoods about what we have and have not presented you with. Don't you know that there's a commandment against bearing false witness?

You have NO proof because there isn't any,

...she said, with her hands clasped tightly over her eyes and ears as she sings "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...

Just open your eyes and look at the evidence that has already been spoonfed to you on this thread. Or don't and continue to look like a fool who dearly loves her self-imposed blinders. But don't try to slander *us* by telling falsehoods about us just because you can't bear to have a peek at reality.

but you cannot bring yourself to say that God CREATED everything just as he wanted it.

According to vast overwhelming amounts of multiply independent cross-confirming lines of evidence, He created it to evolve from humbler beginnings, and that's the way He wanted it. Now, please explain to us why *you* cannot bring yourself to look honestly at God's methods, and why you feel compelled to deny them, and why you feel it necessary to lie about those who are trying to show you the things you refuse to have a look at?

Read my tagline.

[muawiyah]

Uhh, I think your opponent there thinks oil gets squeezed out of tarsands under great pressure and heat, not that it's simply an hydrocarbon residue from billions of years ago.

So, you should counsel your answer in terms of what the statement is focused on.

Else, you are saying you can't get oil from tar sands, and the Province of Alberta, which is shortly going to be the wealthiest spot on Earth, will simply have to go out of business (based on your word, and your word alone).

They will be POed.

[Ichneumon]

I'm speaking of the putative parents all the way back to the point of insertion of those virus genes. The virus line is not part of what had been the concept of "common descent". Darwin would have been aghast of course. I'm not sure he even knew about the germ theory of disease to say nothing of retroviruses.

Wow, that's one of your lamest evasions yet, and given your track record, that's really saying something.

Why don't you attempt to actually answer the questions for a change, instead of rambling about how gosh, modern science has progressed beyond what was known in 1859? Were you really under the delusion that everyone wouldn't notice how childishly was your attempt to try to avoid dealing with the actual material and the actual questions? If so, I regret to inform you that you were quite mistaken.

Look, if this is the best you can do, why do you even bother? You're only making both yourself and your attempted argument look remarkably foolish.

[Ichneumon]

Uhh, I think your opponent there thinks oil gets squeezed out of tarsands under great pressure and heat, not that it's simply an hydrocarbon residue from billions of years ago.

Uhh, I think you just shot yourself in the foot, son. The "tar" in "tarsands" are themselves "simply an hydrocarbon residue" from long ago. Not "billions" of years, though, you just made up that part.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

I googled dinosaur to bird transitions, and then on images, on the 2nd page, it actually gave me a link to FR, and wow, what a link.

I have no idea how to create a proper link on this forum, so just cut and paste, it is the 2nd post, it is a long post, but if you are actually interested in learning about evolution, and the dinosaur to bird transitionals, and other things, you have to read it. Incredible information there.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1437264/posts?page=62

[Liberal Classic]

You basically have confirmed the distinction between micro and macro evolution. It is obvious that viruses mutate, dog breeds change over time (both random and selectively), animals go extinct or increase/change based on conditions. Creationists don't deny that.

What creationists do debate evolutionists about is in your last paragraph - was man made specifically and for a higher purpose than animals, is our life here random chance, how did such vast, complex and intricately related environment of earth come to be.

This is where the disconnect occurs, and why these threads tend to meaninglessness. Scientists, as a general rule, are not debating the purpose of life. Instead, scientists are debating the fixity of species. They will debate how the earth and life may have come about, but in order to limit the scope of their arguments they will avoid trying to question of why. Such questions of purpose are better left to philosophy and religion. That scientists avoid arguments of purpose has led to them being wrongly pilloried as atheists or worse on these threads.

[Liberal Classic]

For the record, I heartily support our national capacity to conduct Operation Sea of Glass.