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]

What does it mean? Do you mean in terms of existential truth, or on the ability to peddle books in the current market?

What does anything mean? What does life mean? Is there a beginning. Is there an end?

[b_sharp]

"There's some point of initial insertion, yet prior to that the chimps/cum humans had been doing just fine without them ~ they weren't part of the "package", nor were they necessary.

What does being necessary have to do with it? ERV insertions create definitive patterns in the genome whether they are part of a coding sequence, a highly conserved non-coding sequence or in non-conserved non-coding sequences. If they are part of th genome they are part of the inheritance path and therefore part of common descent.

""Common descent" meant one thing BEFORE that finding, and something else AFTER that finding.

Enlighten me.

After you've finished explaining the variance you can explain to me why that update to the theory is a problem.

[Jorge]

What did you learn, George?

That the theory of Evolution which I thought was so brilliant was really nothing but a crock to turn people away from God.

[Ichneumon]

Ichy had turned the sub-context of the thread into a polemic against me personally

Translation: I kept pointing out muawiyah's screwups, and he takes that personally.

Hey, here's a fresh idea -- if you don't like being shown to be a fool, improve your material.

[Ichneumon]

You are continuing to prove, that you can use the big words, but are completely ignorant of their true value or worth, or what they mean, for that matter. again, please stop, you are digging a hole that you are going to have a terrible time getting out of.

The sad part is, that needs to be hotkeyed for almost every discussion with an anti-evolutionist. They're *all* like that, all the time. And they never take the advice, either.

[muawiyah]

I'd suspect we will eventually find all sorts of "insertions" that involve total replacement, to rewriting, to "editing", both random and directed.

[ml1954]

Please, Dan, tell us all again about how the earth is the center of the universe. It's so fascinating.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

That the theory of Evolution which I thought was so brilliant was really nothing but a crock to turn people away from God.


Now we are to "It's a conspiracy".

OK, so if evolution is a conspiracy to turn people from god, then what is astronomy, or the Theory of relativity, or any number of other scientific theories.

Is all of science part of this conspiracy to turn people away from God?

Also, why is it, that a non belief in literal creationism, is turning away from god?

90% of Christians do not believe in a literal creations, does this also make them turned away from God?

[GourmetDan]

I was asking about head-to-head chromosome fusion as proposed by evos for 'solving' the gorilla-chimp/human chromosome number problem.

The observed type of chromosome fusion is not the *assumed* head-to-head fusion of the evos. That has never been observed.

The head-to-head issue presents a unique problem because of the 5' to 3' structure.

You don't seem to adequately understand the problem and merely propose generic 'chromosome fusions' as solving your inadequate understanding of the 5' to 3' problem.

They do not solve it because they are a different type of chromosome fusion that avoids the 5' to 3' problem. It is the proposed head-to-head joining that is the issue.

[muawiyah]

Ichy, you're a techie type, not a wordsmith.

[GourmetDan]

Yeah, squealing is right.

[Jorge]

I know from your history on this board that you are just furious with anybody who ignores your rantings.

I was where you're at 30 years ago as a foolish teen. Nothing you post can surprise me.

In fact you are way to predictable. And boring.

[GourmetDan]

Quite rich to think that Ichny 'solved' the problem. He didn't even understand it correctly.

This is an excellent example of how 'science' works, however.

You think someone else solved the problem when neither one of you even understood it in the first place.

Nice.

But, I see you're trying to drop this hot potato as quickly as possible.

Another nice example of how 'science' works.

[Ichneumon]

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

Now, what was that supposed to mean?

It means that he knows he can't support his position or refute my rebuttals, and given his level of emotional maturity, the only way he can think of to deal with it is to issue schoolyard taunts like any other sixth-grader.

Good thing I have a thick skin, or being called drunk by a dishonest crank might actually have more effect than to cause me to giggle at how completely pathetic that was.

[muawiyah]

The problem arises out of discussing "common descent" as that was understood for 150 years, and what it now means.

It's become quite complex and is no longer the simple, straightward mommy-daddy, huggy bear stuff it used to be.

That is, the discovery of science informed the language used.

My complaint has been with the continued use of the word, limited to its old meaning, in the current context.

The word "computer" used to mean someone who computed mathematical problems. The meaning changed.

[muawiyah]

Ichy, the problem is you have a bad attitude and are unwilling to "teach" or "discuss". Your approach to these threads reminds me of the old mullah who sits there in the masdrah and smacks kids with the whip on the long stick.

No doubt you have something to contribute, but I think I'd much prefer a modern, Western classroom setting.

[Coyoteman]

But, I see you're trying to drop this hot potato as quickly as possible.

Another nice example of how 'science' works.

Son, your ignorance is showing.

I spent a lot of time in grad school in a couple of very specific fields. Why should I shoot my mouth off in a field I know nothing about?

I see creationists do that all the time and it doesn't impress me.

[Jorge]

90% of Christians do not believe in a literal creations, does this also make them turned away from God?

I don't agree with your 90% number, but yes it is absolutely turning away from God.

If people don't believe God's Word then they can just make up any "truth" they want to replace it.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

OK

Thanks for the response.

[muawiyah]

There are numerous "creation" stories in the Bible. Which are true and which aren't?

And which are little more than a structure for the mind to absorb so that further lessons and information may be memorized?