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

[js1138]

Posted by muawiyah to js1138
On News/Activism 09/15/2006 4:00:24 PM EDT 893 of 938

Look, I can read as well as you can. NOWHERE is anyone, not even biologists, using the word "evolve" to mean the word "change".

Heretofore it has been used exclusively to mean a conceptual process of a very special kind.

When you elect to change a word you'd best be careful to try to escape the notice of the nomenclatura. 

Posted by js1138 to muawiyah
On News/Activism 09/15/2006 4:08:06 PM EDT 895 of 938

Look, I can read as well as you can. NOWHERE is anyone, not even biologists, using the word "evolve" to mean the word "change".

No?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 

Posted by js1138
On News/Activism 09/15/2006 7:44:44 PM EDT 934 of 938

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

Posted by js1138
On News/Activism 09/15/2006 7:46:04 PM EDT 935 of 938
"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

[balrog666]

I see PostOfficeBoy won't give up trolling.

Too bad.

[humblegunner]

Evolution is good stuff.

It gave me my status over meat-critters in the field.

It gave me thought and reason.

Yup, I can't fault that evolution.

How old do you reckon the Earth is, by the way?

[muawiyah]

Nicht zo.

There are changes or "adjustments" that must be inferred to make sense of obervations back to 3 billion years, and so forth.

[muawiyah]

English is always capitalized.

[muawiyah]

Douglas J. Futuyma is readily demonstrated to be a "political scientist" with a quick reference to his feature book at Wikipedia.

He probably used to be a fair biologist, but you can make more money in the book racket writing about the nasty ol' fundies.

[muawiyah]

Newbie, who let you in here.

[balrog666]

Newbie, who let you in here.

Gosh, Mr. Troll, why haven't you been banned yet?

[wyattearp]

If you twist the chromosome, you join the anti-sense strand to the sense strand and the anti-sense strand does not code.

"sense strand" and "anti-sense strand"? One strand codes and the other doesn't? Good grief dude, you know absolutely nothing about this subject. You can't even get the terminology right, and you are so far off on the details it's pathetic.

[muawiyah]

Dan, did you read that article on the higher level code I referenced?

There's a new finding out there that makes both sides of this dispute you and wyattearp are in irrelevant.

And wyattearp, you probably ought to check out the science page of the July 25, New York Times ~ muy interesante.

[caffe]

i believe physics is a science but evolutionary biology or whatever their calling it is BS Of course our knowledge of science continues to expand but it has nothing to do with anything useful coming from evolutionists.

[b_sharp]

"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.

You really do like playing with words...

The category of 'mutation' contains the subcategory of transposons.

The term mutation does not replace the term transposon. At least nowhere but in your mind.

[muawiyah]

Morgan Fairchild and Trailer Park in the same paragraph?

I was just noting that some of the "class consciousness" exhibited by the Evo side in these debates is not becoming.

Next you guys are going to start telling us that you're really just like David Hasselhof and could have slept with Princess Diane (due, of course, to your superior social status and intellect).

[b_sharp]

"your mixing real science with philosophical BS "

According to whom, a lawyer?

[balrog666]

I'm not James Hewitt, nor would I care to be. But I can't speak for the other evos.

So, was it "Post Office geek" and "Mobile Home Winner" that stuck a chord with you?

[muawiyah]

Look, "Post Office Geek" is hardly an interesting, or even disturbin, sobriquet. In fact, all those "Post Office Geeks" you think can be so readily dismissed do, in fact, know where you live.

Capice?

[b_sharp]

"i believe physics is a science but evolutionary biology or whatever their calling it is BS Of course our knowledge of science continues to expand but it has nothing to do with anything useful coming from evolutionists."

I take it then that you do not disagree with a ~4.3 billion year old Earth? Or the dating of the fossils we find? Or the relative sequence of those same fossils?

If you consider Physics to be a true science I suspect you also consider chemistry to be a true science. Is this correct?

[ReignOfError]

At this point, the length of this conversation has far outstripped both my interest in it and your contributions to it. If you want the last word, it's all yours.

[js1138]

Douglas J. Futuyma is readily demonstrated to be a "political scientist" with a quick reference to his feature book at Wikipedia.

Well Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur are dead, but they frequently get cited on these threads as authorities on evolution.

Now let me ask you a few yes or no questions:

1. Futuyma is considered an authority on evolution by the community of biologists: yes or no.
2. Ernst Mayr is considered an authority on evolution by the community of biologists: yes or no.
3. Both of these people have used the word "change" as a rough synonym for evolution (for example: In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change... or Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations...): yes or no.
4. Muawiyah knows more about evolution than Futuyma: yes or no.
5. Muawiyah knows more about evolution than Ernst Mayr: yes or no.

[andysandmikesmom]

I am curious about what your post is supposed to mean.....my hubby is retired from the post office...I am sure that he knows where many people live...So?...big deal, he knows, in fact, where many people live...