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

[GourmetDan]

Another, "I have no answer but I'm going to pretend that I do" answer.

Must be an evo standard off the checklist.

[Ichneumon]

I disagree. Evolution is totally useless. Except maybe to deceive people away from believing God

Oh good, Jorge's back -- hey, Jorge, when are you going to have that debate with me about the evidence for evolution that you keep running away from after you blustered about how you could run rings around any of us evos and boasted about how much you knew about biology? And yet when I challenged you to share your pearls of wisdom about that evidence with us (I gave you a big post of evidence to critique), you ran away like a frightened schoolgirl, spewing panicked excuses.

Have you managed to gather together the courage to try to support your loudmouthed bluffs, or are you going to just run away again?

The astute reader will note how afraid the anti-evolutionists are of actually having a straight-up debate with someone who actually knows what they're talking about. The either run away spewing excuses when challenged, or keep babbling all day long without ever actually daring to deal with the refutations of their nonsense (they keep engaging in personal attacks, diversions, red herrings, subject changes, etc. etc.)

Buh bye, Jorge, see you next time you feel the need to drop into a thread, spew a vitriolic attack on modern science, then head for the hills again...

[Jaguarbhzrd]

I'm sorry, when it comes to obvious ignorance, it is the only response that I feel is necassary.

The ignorance in that post was so telling, that it was all that was needed, because no amount of explaining is going to change your mind, but perhaps such a response will change your argument.

[wireman]

The level of willful (and blissful) contempt for science exhibited by some of the religious zealots on these pages would be funny if it weren't so disturbingly sad.

I'm thankful they will remain a decided minority in the real world. The old "if I can't explain it, god must have done it" routine is indicative of a lack of imagination at best or a very small mind at worst.

[Ichneumon]

This gives the Creos even more targets, about which they understand less and less, and they too get to peddle new pamphlets and new books.

Wow, what an admission. yes, the creos *do* "understand less and less", and keep trying to sell their ignorance in new pamphlets and books.

The "evos", on the other hand, keep doing real science and publishing in journals.

[Coyoteman]

Take the gorilla-chimp/human 'chromosome fusion' argument as an example. One problem that I've never seen answered is how scientists explain away the 5' to 3' problem of joining 2 chromosomes head-to-head? It would seem to be critical to the claim, yet I have never seen that addressed.

Whaddaya think, Mr. Beta?

How should I know? I never studied genetics. I'm sure somebody else can help you out there.

[GourmetDan]

Yes, ERVs are indeed observed, they actually exist, they have been observed inserting themselves into the genome, recent ERV insertions have been traced within the past generations of families and the individual who had the original insertion has been identified, the genetic markers around ERVs clearly indicate that they originated as retrovial insertion events and they're not just coincidental matches with viral DNA sequences, etc. etc. etc.

You are conflating retroviruses and ERV's. Retroviruses are observed, ERV's are assumed.

...as well as by unmistakable tell-tale markers of viral insertion splicing. Sort of "forgot" to tell that when you were lying by omission, eh?

Um, that was from the EvoWiki site. So if any lying is going on, it is evos doing it.

And no, substitution cost doesn't only apply to so-called 'positive' substitutions. It applies to all substitutions. For *any* gene to move to fixation, *all* of the offspring of organisms *not* carrying that gene must fail to replace themselves.

The 'vast mountains' are really little molehills made large by people who ignore real problems, like substitution cost.

[b_sharp]

"You'd have spent a bit of time explaining viruses to Darwin. He didn't know any of this stuff."

And this means what to the modern SToE?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

As I said before, please stop.

I am amazed that you can say the things you say with a straight face.

Please, just stop.

You are continuing to prove, that you can use the big words, but are completely ignorant of their true value or worth, or what they mean, for that matter.

again, please stop, you are digging a hole that you are going to have a terrible time getting out of.

Just a freindly bit of advice.

[muawiyah]

Few weeks back there was an article indicating the break with the chimps wasn't all that abrupt and took up to 2 million years ~ with the human line moving in and out of chimp territory and breeding hybrids successfully, etc.

Last I saw on that one was this could result in some serious reconsideration of ancient hominids.

We'll have to pick up on that one in a thread sure to frighten everybody next time there's a comprehensive article about it.

No doubt it will include some more stuff on "insertions".

[Jorge]

I know you're desperate for attention, but I learned a long time ago not to waste too much time.

You will learn one day. Just as I did.

[Ichneumon]

Take the gorilla-chimp/human 'chromosome fusion' argument as an example. One problem that I've never seen answered is how scientists explain away the 5' to 3' problem of joining 2 chromosomes head-to-head? It would seem to be critical to the claim, yet I have never seen that addressed.

Ah, yes, the old "if I the creationist am totally ignorant of the research on this topic, scientists must not have a good answer for it!" technique.

Son, I regret to inform you, but chromosome fusions have been found to have occurred within captive populations of of domestic animals, and been traced back to the animal in which the fusion first originated.

So despite your hand-waving attempts to try to mislead readers into thinking that maybe this kind of thing might be Just Not Possible, it has been OBSERVED occurring and the individual with the fusion has then gone on to produce viable offspring. But then if you had bothered to go EDUCATE yourself on this topic before you attempted to try to sow unfounded doubt about it in a sick attempt to attack and undermine anything, no matter how well established, which you feel you can't deal with on an actua examination of the evidence, you'd know that already and wouldn't have just made a fool of yourself again and exposed your complete ignorance and incompetence again.

Score another one for the scientists, and score a big fat zero for the creationist who just fell on his ignorant face again while trying to pretend that he wasn't just frantically making it up as he went along because he came unarmed to a battle of wits.

Creationists are *so* funny when they attempt to discuss topics that require actual knowledge.

[GourmetDan]

That's what I thought.

You don't understand the 5' to 3' problem, but you're sure that 'someone' out there has solved it. And you aren't going to spend any time looking because you 'know' that evolution is true.

That's a common problem with evolution. All these 'scientists' think someone else has 'solved the problem'.

Kinda like conflating ERVs/retroviral infections and hand-waving the substitution cost problem away.

But... at least you got to ignore the problems and keep on truckin.

[wireman]

What did you learn, George?

[Just mythoughts]

Follow the money, nobody squeals this loud and this long if is is not about MONEY. Welfare intellectuals.

[muawiyah]

You only think they know more and more. As you have demonstrated numerous times they frequently keep saying the same old things in order to fend off incorporating recent findings in their litany ~ until, of course, it's time for a new edition in a bio book.

You know very well that new paradigms tend not to be adopted until all the true believers in the old paradigm die off, or retire.

What I want is the development of that artificial lifeform into which we may insert some of the millions of wild genes floating free in the sea to see what they do.

Then we'll get an idea of whether or not we are playing with a complete and only deck, or, as I suspect, just a hand in a far larger deck.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

That would be an interesting read, the reason that I do not like the word insertions with people that know nothing to little about the actual science, is because the virus has actually removed genetic material, and substituted it's own, the amount of genetic material has not changed. So editing, is the word that I think should be used with scientific illiterate types.

In other words, the DNA is still the same length, but it has been edited, or changed by the virus. The virus has removed genetic material for it's own use, and inserted, an edited version of it's own in it's place.

At least that is the way that I visualize it.

[Ichneumon]

I know you're desperate for attention, but I learned a long time ago not to waste too much time.

There, see!! Just as I predicted, Jorge runs away from an invitation to support his claims, spewing excuses as he heads for the door.

Insert chicken "buk buk buk" noises here. Anti-evolutionists are scared to death of having to actually reveal how little they really know, how little they can actually support, how empty is their bluster.

You will learn one day. Just as I did.

No, son, I've *already* learned, by dint of actually bothering to take the time to educate myself on these subjects. Maybe someday you'll bother to do the same, instead of just taking the easy way of parroting whatever you've read in a Jack Chick comic while not bothering to come up to speed on the subject enough to be able to actually support your claims when asked to do so.

Typical...

Anti-evolutionists are grossly ignorant of the science they attack. I have yet to see an exception in over thirty years of dismantling their lies and nonsense. They get by on bluster and "attitude", but their act doesn't stand up to two minutes of actual "show us what you've got".

[Ichneumon]

"Common descent" meant one thing BEFORE that finding, and something else AFTER that finding.

Wow, you're not even *bothering* to make sense any more, are you?

[Coyoteman]

That's what I thought.

You don't understand the 5' to 3' problem, but you're sure that 'someone' out there has solved it. And you aren't going to spend any time looking because you 'know' that evolution is true.

That's a common problem with evolution. All these 'scientists' think someone else has 'solved the problem'.

Kinda like conflating ERVs/retroviral infections and hand-waving the substitution cost problem away.

But... at least you got to ignore the problems and keep on truckin.

Nice diatribe. Means nothing.

I do not like to do my research on the fly, with quick visits to websites, in order to answer questions such as yours.

I try to respond in areas where I have some knowledge. Then I know most of the data, and can evaluate any additional material I might find on websites.

So, I declined your invitation to debate the "5' to 3' problem" -- only to be harassed for not debating something I know nothing about.

I guess I am unlike most creationists in this regard.

I see Ichny has filled in quite well.

Thanks Ichny!