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

[muawiyah]

And your problem is you can't remember who you are debating or what positions your opponent has taken.

You've got a one track mind ~ not all the folks who criticize your heroes are part of the hated unsermenschen out there waving the pitchforks.

[ReignOfError]

your mixing real science with philosophical BS

My "mixing" [...] "with philosophical BS" ... is what?

I was responding to a post in which someone said that evolution is antithetical to physics, because the laws of physics don't evolve. That statement involved enough twists to send a Chinese circus contortionist to a chiropractor for months.

No philosophical BS there. Physics did not stop with Newton; others built on, corrected, and sometimes contradicted Newton as new and more sophisticated methods gleaned new evidence.

Ditto Pasteur.

Ditto Darwin.

[js1138]

Your friends in Wikipedia provide sufficient information...

Yes they do, but no part of my quote is from Wikipedia. The quote concerning evolution is from Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986.

But Wiki does provide a partial bibliography for Futuyma.

Books

• Futuyma, D.J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology. 1st ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-87893-199-6 Futuyma, D.J. 1983. Science on Trial: the Case for Evolution. 1st ed. Pantheon Books, New York. ISBN 0-394-52371-7
• Futuyma, D.J. & M. Slatkin, eds. 1983. Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-87893-228-3
• Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-87893-188-0 Futuyma, D.J. 1995. Science on Trial: the Case for Evolution. 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-87893-184-8
• Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. (dated 1998, published 1997) ISBN 0-87893-189-9
• Futuyma, D.J. 2005. Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-87893-187-2

Papers

• 1996: with C. Mitter. "Insect-plant interactions: The evolution of component communities" (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 351:1361–1366)
• 1995: "The uses of evolutionary biology" (Science 267: 41–42)
• 1995: with M.C. Keese and D.J. Funk. "Genetic constraints on macroevolution: The evolution of host affiliation in the leaf beetle genus Ophraella" (Evolution 49:797–809)
• 1992: with M. C. Keese. "Evolution and coevolution of plants and phytophagous arthropods" (in G.A. Rosenthal and M.R. Berenbaum (edd) Herbivores: Their Interactions with Secondary Plant Metabolites (2nd ed.) Academic Press, NY. pp 439–475)
• 1987: "On the role of species in anagenesis" (Amer. Natur. 130: 465–473)

But compared to you, he knows nothing about evolution.

[muawiyah]

Regarding "laws of physics" recent research suggests the speed of light has changed over the life of the Universe, as has the rate of expansion, and maybe even the force of gravity.

Physics, as our knowledge in that area expands, always seems to get more and more strange (just like math). Could be the strangeness arises out of our efforts to describe that area of knowledge ~ like laying tile out on the prairie ~

[ml1954]

No deal?

[muawiyah]

I didn't say he didn't know anything about evolution. I merely pointed out that your friends at Wiki decided to explain the man by first identifying his anti-creationism book.

That's what he's really known for now. Whatever science he's done, that's obviously in the past. Now he's one of us.

[js1138]

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

Not a damn thing, from outward appearances. Certainly nothing about the necessity of content or the use of periods and question marks.

[muawiyah]

You haven't been paying close attention.

[js1138]

And your credentials?

He knows something, and frequently demonstrates it.

[wireman]

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

Very little?

[BillyBoy]

>> Marx, Stalin, and Hitler found a lot of usefulness for the theory of evolution. Especially Marx, in fact he wanted to dedicate the 2nd volume of Das Capital (one of the pillars of world communism) to Charles Darwin. Darwin refused this dubious honor though. <<

Socialist William Jennings Bryan found a lot of usefulness for the theory of creationism. Especially in his political campaigns, he went from being a nobody to being thrice nominated for President of the United States. He also turned the Democrat party economic beliefs from just mildly leftist to pure Marxist, in fact he was the leader of the movement to abolish the gold standard and have the government regulate all buisnesses. (one of the pillars of world socialism). He was the father of modern creationism and created all your talking points about "Darwinists". Creationists ignore this dubious honor though.

[muawiyah]

Actually, wireman, I simply follow my instincts. Any time I'm reading stuff and get the feeling I'm suffering from Early Onset Alzheimers, I'm almost certain it's not me.

On the other hand, when I write I try to make the sentences just long enough that some readers (debate opponents for example) lose their attention and fail to track the idea just expressed.

The guys in the biological sciences are particularly difficult to trick because their attention span extends only to words ending in "-eiogious", after which they just puke out and begin reciting their mantras.

[muawiyah]

Yes, let us not forget Bryan (by focusing endlessly on his involvement in the Scopes Trial). The guy was the first of the modern "political scientists" ~ the folks who trash/use science for political ends.

[js1138]

Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biologial species.

Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is,

[js1138]

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

[ReignOfError]

Any science becomes more weird, and more subtle, as we come to know more about it. Look at physics from Galileo dropping balls in Pisa to Newton to Einstein to Hawking. If you look hard enough at any question, you find new answers.

[muawiyah]

That's a logic trick to lead you to believe the words have a meaning not previously recognized. Simply use "can be" and there you have it.

For example, a Giant Panda can be viewed as a large white bear with black patches. Or, a Giant Panda can be viewed as a large black bear with white patches. OR, a Giant Panda can be evaluated as just another carnivore, essentilly no different than a Lion or Weasel.

And so on.

Just say "can be" in front of whatever story you want to talk about, and there you have it.

Think of "can be" as an expression where you should prick up your ears and check to see if your wallet is still there.

[BillyBoy]

William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was an American lawyer, statesman, and politician. As one of the most prominent leaders of the Progressive Movement, he became the dominant figure in the Democratic Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was a three-time Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, in 1896, 1900, and 1908. One of the most popular speakers in American history, he was noted for his deep, commanding voice. The content of his speeches led in a direct line to the progressive reforms adopted by modern Democrats.

Bryan was homeschooled until age 10, finding in the Bible and McGuffey Readers the “great truths” he adhered to all his life, such as that gambling and liquor were evil and sinful.

Bryan, a devout Presbyterian, was an opponent of Darwinists, an outspoken critic of banks and railroads, a peace activist, a supporter of the league of nations, a strong proponent of “popular democracy”, and a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s.

In his three failed presidential bids, Bryan promoted Free Silver in 1896, “anti-imperialism” in 1900, and antitrust in 1908, calling on all Democrats to “renounce conservatism, fight the trusts and big banks, and embrace progressive ideas”. Republicans nominated William McKinley on a program of prosperity through reduced immigration, industrial growth and sound money (that is, gold.) They counter-crusaded against Bryan, warning that he was a madman--a socialist fanatic surrounded by anarchists--who would wreck the economy. Bryan lost, but President Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of State in 1913. Bryan resigned in protest against Wilson's anti-German policies in 1915.

In the 1920s he was a strong supporter of Prohibition, but is probably best known today for his crusade against “Darwinism”, which culminated in the Scopes Trial in 1925. As early as 1905, Bryan was warning Chautauquans of the “dangers of Darwinism” In 1920, Bryan told the World Brotherhood Congress that Darwinism was "the most paralyzing influence with which civilization has had to deal in the last century" and that Nietzsche, in carrying Darwinism to its logical conclusion, had "promulgated a philosophy that condemned democracy...denounced Christianity...denied the existence of God, overturned all concepts of morality...and endeavored to substitute the worship of the superhuman for the worship of Jehovah."

[Jaguarbhzrd]

In the first nanoseconds of the universe, right after the big bang, that has been theorized. Other then that, the laws of physics have remained constant, as have the speed of light, the rate of expansion, and the force of gravity.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

And you correct people on their english and understanding of English?

Too funny.

Please stop.