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

[b_sharp]

"You have substitution cost no matter what the mechanism, selection or genetic drift. You can't escape it. Haldane noted that the 'piggyback' hypothesis doesn't reduce the substitution cost.

Haldane's dilemma is a concern only when populations fall in number rapidly. If the drop in number of organisms without the selected for allele is matched by the increase in number of organisms with the selected for allele the population never experiences a bottleneck. The dilemma is real, we have evidence of many populations going extinct but it does not apply in all situations. Many selection types reduce the number of offspring of the more poorly adapted slowly so that the reduction in population size is barely felt. Do the math.

"Do not conflate ERVs and retroviruses. One is assumed, the other observed.

Yes that is true. But it is true because an ERV occurs in the second and later generations and the retrovirus occurs in the first generation. We can observe a retrovirus occur in a parent organism. We can then observe that it is conserved in the second generation and then we call it an ERV. However, we did not observe the retrovirus occur in the second generation.

The fact that we observe retroviruses and do not observe ERVs is because of their definitions, not because we have no evidence that the ERV was once a retrovirus.

"Adaptation is consistent with a created biology.

If that is true then you should be able to make some predictions that will hold if creation is correct but not hold if evolution is correct. Care to put some forward, along with examples?

"The many types of selection merely mean that you have nothing more than random movement around a mean. You know, statis, as observed.

No, what it means is that the mean moves rather more slowly than it would otherwise. Sexual selection is such a selection force, those with a specific desirable trait have more, sometimes by only a couple of percent, offspring than those that do not. This gives every bit as much a direction as severe directional selection but at a much slower rate.

"Substitution cost applies in every situation where a genetic sequence must move to fixation. Thousands of severe drops in population means thousands of bottlenecks and founder effects. Not all result in founder effect, but you've got thousands of proposed bottlenecks just for assumed ERV's alone, never mind supposed 'positive' selections.

Selection costs apply to most situations but the costs are not always high. Sometimes the costs are quite low. In some instances, such as genetic drift selection costs do not apply.

"So explain how Joe Felsenstein has 'solved' Haldanes Dilemma and I will explain how he has not.

I have no idea how he has solved the problem. You are the one that considers selection cost to be unsurmountable, I don't. I supplied his name to you so you could investigate the solution to your problem.

"The difference between retroviruses and ERVs is that retroviruses are observed, ERV's are assumed.

As mentioned in a prior post and earlier in this post, ERV's are not observable by definition, whereas retroviruses are observable, again by definition.

"Big difference except in evoland.

You seem to have misunderstood the consequences of their definitions.

[ml1954]

Is it scary here for evolutionists? I hadn't noticed.

Apparently he thinks FR is on the leading edge of the biological sciences. Apparently he thinks PhD scientists should fear analysis of their field by retired postal workers. Apparently he doesn't realize that the only leading edge that has anything to do with biology that FR represents is that of the anti-science nut jobs, fruitcakes, loony bin residents, religious fanatics, etc....with the exception of the scientists who with decreasing frequency choose to post here and deal with the lunatics - those that haven't been banned, that is.

[muawiyah]

You missed my subtle dig at the guy ~ citing the "text book"(?) he's best known for ~ he's no longer a biologist, he's a "POLITICAL SCIENTIST".

Old buddy of mine over at Department of Energy used to differentiate between legitimate researchers and "political scientists".

Of course, he was from East Germany so he knew what they were.

[muawiyah]

A "mutation" of what? Of the DNA ~ that is, it's base-pairs, or the DNA strand, or the chromosomal DNA, or do you really mean "genome" ~ the entire structure ~ some of those "insertions" (as another Freeper noted earlier) can actually be exactly the same as existing DNA they displace (which is interesting as heck but to be discussed another day).

So, what is it that is being "mutated", and how does that control the subsequent processes?

No doubt you can answer that in 20 words or less.

I know none of you guys like editors, but this is what they get paid for ~ to get you to describe your work such that the next guy down the line can hope to begin to figure out where it was you got lost.

[ahayes]

I'm afraid your dig was not just subtle, it was irrelevant. How is he no longer a biologist? Does that mean any biologists who take interest in any type of politics immediately forget all the science they ever knew? That's silly.

[muawiyah]

There's been no appreciable decline in the number of scientists who post here. On the other hand, I have noticed there is a reduction in the number of scientists who can post here in clear, understandable, jargonless, non-politically tinged language.

But, that's just me ~ what do I know about writing.

[ahayes]

So, what is it that is being "mutated", and how does that control the subsequent processes?

No doubt you can answer that in 20 words or less.

"DNA sequence" and "what in the world are you talking about?"

[muawiyah]

You're the guy who wants to refer to "transposons" as "mutations".

You're the scientist ~ explain why the other word is no longer of any utility.

[muawiyah]

Gag ~ don't try to justify "political scientists".

[ahayes]

You are oh so lucky because I've made a vow to be more patient lately.

If you draw a Venn diagram, transposon insertions fall into the classification of mutations, but there are also many other types of mutation.

[muawiyah]

Yes, there are "other types", at a minimum, then half our genome is composed of transposons.

[ahayes]

I swear for all of the poking at others you do regarding English, your posts almost require an interpreter. Was there a point to that post?

[caffe]

Go back and read your posts; you said Darwin as"science" predicted many future discoveries and that creationists or ID'ers could not. I asked you for an example and you simply typed "Cambrian explosion" and now your , as is typical with evolutionists, attempting to deny what you said and come up with another approach.

To: caffe
LOL ..show me where Darwin predicted the pre cambrian fossils.....
IIRC, it's in the "Origin", I don't have the precise reference handy
I RESPONDED:
...this discovery is major evidence against Darwin!
THEN YOU SAID:
Huh? In what way? Sometimes you see anti-evolutionists attempt to use the "Cambrian explosion" as evidence against standard biology - now you're saying preCambrian life is!


366 posted on 09/13/2006 11:53:42 PM PDT by Virginia-American

[gitmo]

Can someone tell me when we're going to stop having continual waves of people with absolutely no knowledge of this subject, but every confidence in the world that they know all the answers? It gets really old really fast.

And your credentials?

[muawiyah]

Through adroit use of commas and other devices I am able to create lengthy sentences.

Did you ever notice the "style" the Scientific American editors used to make nifty titles for their articles?

Even more interesting was the very next thing they did ~ the lead-in paragraph. It was always quite artful.

Now, think about those titles and paragraphs as you read anything I say.

[caffe]

"That's why "Darwminism" is such a fatuous slur; Darwin had an insight, but no one, least of all Darwin, believed that it would be the last insight. Darwin was not the end of evolutionary biology any more than Pasteur was the end of medicine.:

your mixing real science with philosophical BS

[muawiyah]

That guy, Ken Miller, pointed out to you as an "actual biologist" seems to have many more political tracts than you'd otherwise expect for someone in his field.

I'd suggest that he, too, is a "political scientist" ~ much like the other one I tagged just a couple of posts previously.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with the utility of evolution in the marketplace (outside of book sales of course), but I think it explains a lot about the attitude the Evo antagonists in this thread have exhibited regarding their "inferiors" in the debate.

We'll need to watch these people closely if Hillary is ever elected. She likes such men.

[ahayes]

He's published in Cell and Molecular Biology. What have you published lately?

[muawiyah]

There's a certain type who publish in all sorts of things and then move on to making a few bucks, sometimes in politics.

Certainly you know the type ~ your boss perhaps!

I was a major percentage of the Federal Register one year ~ and I'll tell you, once is enough!

[ml1954]

He's published in Cell and Molecular Biology. What have you published lately?

I'm eagerly awaiting in unrestrained anticipation the cataclysmic paradigm shifting anti-evo paper that must surely be in the works. We may have here in our midst another Einstein. In this case, instead of toiling away in a patent office before changing the world, he toiled away in the post office until retirement, all the while working on this world shattering masterpiece of unequaled scientific significance. What a story. I hope to get the movie and book rights to his life's story. Wanna make a deal muawiyah?