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

[Ichneumon]

Regarding your "that is an outright lie", you are not a good debater at all.

Odd, then why is he nailing your hide to the wall and exposing a great many of your screwups and misrepresentations? He looks to be doing quite well form my seat in the audience.

If you expect any more grant money you will definitely need an attorney or a word-smith and I'm going to make sure you are on the $h|+ list, OK.

Ooh, a threat of vindictive retaliation *and* an example of your weird fixation on "grant money" -- I've lost count of the number of times I've seen you leap to wild conclusions about how nearly everyone who disagrees with you must be applying for some sort of research grant. It's really bizarre, and bespeaks a strange mental obsession on your part.

[null and void]

How absolutely "strange" of you. Obviously you did not read all the posts on this thread.

No, not this time. I try to, but don't always succeed due to time pressures.

You and I have probably not gone over this material before ~ this time I didn't attack the evolutionists for being nice little true believers who posit the existence of a supernatural being called Natural Selection.

I don't believe we have. Neither your screen name nor you posts set off alarm bells. I did note that in the post and pages I did read that this was a remarkably civil Crevo thread.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Well, my apologies for offending you, but the fact is, what you stated is an untruth. The proper definition of an untruth, is a lie.

The way you stated it, made it an outright lie, because you stated it as fact, when you most likely know, because if you had taken a cursory glance at the subject, it would have been obvious that what you stated was not at all factual.

It is impossible not to know the actual truth, if you had just done a small objective, cursory examination of the subject.

Are you saying that you are unable to be objective?

If you are unable to be objective, then OK, it is not a lie, it is your personal fantasy, and you have my apologies, but a personal fantasy on your part, does not make it a fact on sciences part. Sorry.

[Coyoteman]

I googled dinosaur to bird transitions, and then on images, on the 2nd page, it actually gave me a link to FR, and wow, what a link.

Here is a direct link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1437264/posts?page=52#52

[b_sharp]

The discussion seems to be centered around Newton's concepts and the OP, in my opinion, is confusing the sign reversibility of the functions with the words push/pull.

I'm just trying to straighten out and separate the language from the math.

[muawiyah]

Ichy my boy, it's too early to drink and get all surly.

So why don't you get off your high horse and pay attention to what folks are actually saying some times.

You know very well that until recently (a mere handful of years) the idea of common descent didn't include viruses. You also know that "evolution" didn't mean merely "change" in the genome.

Even non-technical types can understand that detailed research of our genome raised questions without easy answers, and the language used in the good old days (1980s, tops) is no longer adequate to the task of assisting everyone to understand what's going on.

This board and the discussions of the Creo/Evo crowd has been going on long enough that we all remember when the most learned of our body were denouncing the idea that the centriole in each cell had anything at all to do with anything more advanced than holding chromosomes in place!

Certainly you remember those days like they were yesterday. I recall them ~ you were laughing at Dr. Penrose and his associates for having proposed the centriole as some sort of device that communicated something meaningful to chromosomes.

Then, what was it, just 2 months ago (July 25) we had a thread about the discovery of a higher level code involved in directing which genes are used for various purposes ~ this was the article in Nature by Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute in Israel and Jonathan Widom of Northwestern University in Illinois and their colleagues.

It's pretty obvious to the non-technicians that knowledge on this matter is evolving, and the truths you knew yesterday, are just so much irrelevant mishmash on the cutting floor today.

It's barely a year since it was found that DNA will carry an electric current ~

We could go on and on with these advances in knowledge that put the sword to certainty behind all that has gone before. Even DNA Methylation, an easy enough concept for any computer programer to understand, and with no more than highschool chemistry and an ability to spell, he or she could probably add to the understanding of how that affects cellular information flow, has as it's earliest reference on the net 10 pages in a reference book published in 1987. (See: Freiefelder, D., (1987). Molecular Biology. Jones and Bartlett: Boston, pgs 550-559). Today it is recognized as a process that may account for more differences in the expression of the genome than any other factor ~

Anyway, Ichy, people can read. People can study. And with the internet, your job as high priest of biology has been downgraded to biological engineer.

So, be nice ~ there are a few more rungs to slide down.

[jwalsh07]

For the next fiendishly alchemical trick, lead into gold, no doubt.Physics can do it, evolution in the Darwinian sense can not which actually gets the topic back to ground zero. Applied science and evolution. :-}

[muawiyah]

Hmmm ~ ever stop by the Coast and Geodetic Survey building out in Reston? Great exhibit there on formation of hydrocarbons and the competing theories of their formations.

It's all simple enough even a layman can understand.

Actually, that's who it's designed for, and by folks who know what they're talking about.

[Liberal Classic]

Else, you are saying you can't get oil from tar sands, and the Province of Alberta, which is shortly going to be the wealthiest spot on Earth, will simply have to go out of business (based on your word, and your word alone).

With all due respect to our northern neighbor, the wealthiest spot on earth at the moment may be Keathley Canyon offshore area, 250 miles southwest of New Orleans.

[muawiyah]

Your it ~ you're the ONLY poster who turns surly and nasty when grant money is mentioned. Must be a reason for that eh?

[Senator Bedfellow]

Another sand-into-oiler, I see >:^)

[muawiyah]

Almost too quiet this time.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Why would Darwin have been aghast?

It was another notch in the theory of evolutions belt, the evidence left behind by the virus changing the genetic markers in our genome has helped us timedate the transitions.

Far from being hurtful to the theory of evolution, it was an incredible piece of evidence that has helped confirm the theory.

[muawiyah]

Obviously you do not have much facility with words. Saying that another Senator told a lie would, for example, entitle him or her to murder you on the floor of the Senate, so they simply never say that.

The biggest problem with the word "lie" is that it carries with it a meaning far beyond "misstatement" ~ to "intent to deceive".

Since I have no intention to "deceive" you or anyone else, it's simply not possible for me to utter a "lie". In any case, in a discussion/debate situation, the illumination of the primary questions may require assertions that can be, in fact, wide of the mark. Those are not "lies", and to call them that means that you are not willing to debate or argue ~ that you will be a decent person on the thread if and only if we all bow down to your Stalinesque principles of decorum.

Obviously we'd rather toss you from an airplane in flight than to do that ~ capice?

My advice to you is to simply avoid the word "lie" or "misrepresentation" and satisfy yourself with the myriad of polite terms we've come up with so we don't needlessly anger others.

[Liberal Classic]

Ichy my boy, it's too early to drink and get all surly.

...

And with the internet, your job as high priest of biology has been downgraded to biological engineer.

So, be nice ~ there are a few more rungs to slide down.

What a miserable post.

What I find amazing is that with modern communications technology we have experts from every field virtually at our fingertips. In previous generations, such contact would require lengthy written correspondence or expensive tuition. For the layman in previous generations, access was limited by economic and social factors.

Today, though, the story is very different. On this very website we have highly trained experts in nearly every field imaginable. Not only are they here reading our questions, but they are willing and able to answer questions, correct people's misconceptions. Truly, the information age is upon us when anyone may ask a rocket scientist or a geneticist a question and have it answered in near real time.

What do you do with this marvelous technology?

Call people drunks.

[null and void]

Almost.

;^)

[muawiyah]

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

[b_sharp]

"I want to see step-by-step pictures of the Gradual Changes from say, a bird to a dinosuar or vice versa that eolutionsts is always talking about.

OK, we've gotten past step 1.

How refined are these steps to be? It took several million years for that transition to take place which of course means millions of potential steps.

How much of an impact on the fossil record are you willing to accept for the difficulty in producing fossils? How often do you believe a fossil forms? How likely do you feel it is that we find a specific fossil?

[muawiyah]

Rudeness interferes with communication.

BTW, there are technical experts in the use of language, and no one was called a drunk. You're reading that into a very clear statement that wasn't pointed at anybody.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, but of course!