Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist
Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 08/30/06 | Creation Evolution Headlines

Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevo; crevolist; dontfeedthetrolls; evoboors; evolution; evoswalkonfours; fairytaleforadults; finches; fruitflies; genesis1; keywordwars; makeitstop; pepperedmoth; religion; skullpixproveit; thebibleistruth; tis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
To: My2Cents

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

Evolution, 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

Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

Phylogenetics introduction

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

  1. Unity of life
  2. Nested hierarchies
  3. Convergence of independent phylogenies
  4. Transitional forms
  5. Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history

  1. Anatomical vestiges
  2. Atavisms
  3. Molecular vestiges
  4. Ontogeny and developmental biology
  5. Present biogeography
  6. Past biogeography

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

  1. Anatomical parahomology
  2. Molecular parahomology
  3. Anatomical convergence
  4. Molecular convergence
  5. Anatomical suboptimal function
  6. Molecular suboptimal function

Part 4. Molecular evidence

  1. Protein functional redundancy
  2. DNA functional redundancy
  3. Transposons
  4. Redundant pseudogenes
  5. Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change

  1. Genetic
  2. Morphological
  3. Functional
  4. The strange past
  5. Stages of speciation
  6. Speciation events
  7. Morphological rates
  8. Genetic rates

Closing remarks


61 posted on 09/13/2006 4:37:22 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The state board will meet in closed session to discuss whether it violated an open meetings law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: therut
"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.

62 posted on 09/13/2006 4:37:27 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

"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.


63 posted on 09/13/2006 4:37:28 PM PDT by CapnBarbosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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


64 posted on 09/13/2006 4:38:37 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

You have to appreciate the humor.

"Tinfoil on Parade" sort of.


65 posted on 09/13/2006 4:38:37 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The state board will meet in closed session to discuss whether it violated an open meetings law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jude24
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?

66 posted on 09/13/2006 4:38:51 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Bump


67 posted on 09/13/2006 4:39:22 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
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.

68 posted on 09/13/2006 4:39:26 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

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

Permit me to return the favor: Time Cube.

69 posted on 09/13/2006 4:39:37 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Where are the anachronistic fossils? Where are the moderate creationists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

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?


70 posted on 09/13/2006 4:40:37 PM PDT by sportutegrl (A person is a person, no matter how small. (Dr. Seuss))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
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.

71 posted on 09/13/2006 4:41:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
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.")

72 posted on 09/13/2006 4:41:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The state board will meet in closed session to discuss whether it violated an open meetings law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
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.

73 posted on 09/13/2006 4:41:46 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

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


74 posted on 09/13/2006 4:41:55 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: therut
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”

75 posted on 09/13/2006 4:42:09 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
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.

76 posted on 09/13/2006 4:43:00 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

So what?


77 posted on 09/13/2006 4:43:06 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; freedumb2003; RadioAstronomer

Do you guys run in packs?


78 posted on 09/13/2006 4:43:38 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Suzy Quzy
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.

79 posted on 09/13/2006 4:44:49 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

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


80 posted on 09/13/2006 4:45:04 PM PDT by indcons (Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,061-1,070 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson