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]

Concerning your faux issue of "Observe the rejection of modern oil exploration techniques", no one rejected any techniques at all. That's mostly because you never described any or gave any references to anything in particular.

I, at least, proposed that with sufficient lawyers you could probably jump a claim, and that would certainly suffice in anybody's book as a modern oil exploration technique.

So far you have not addressed my assertion.

[Liberal Classic]

Please m, tell us again what the unique evidence is that proves that the earth orbits the sun...

This thread is getting better all the time.

Evolution has no pratical applications. Oil comes from nowhere. The earth is the center of the universe.

[Quix]

It's very hard to be very lofty when one starts with

chance plus time and never gets beyond that.

The only plausible result is that man is nothing more important than a rat, a pigeon, a radish or a rock--as B.F.Skinner was wont to pontificate about.

[Jorge]

You remind me so much of myself when I was evolutionist.

The long overstated responses to ANY disagreement of any kind..the obvious dissatisfaction and restlessness and inability to tolerate the existence of Christian belief in Creation ANYWHERE...as if it has to be stomped out.

I know all to well where you are coming from.

And I pray for you, that you will find the truth and the incredible peace that comes with it.

You can curse and insult me all you want. I really do wish the best for you.

[ml1954]

Please elaborate. Inquiring and eager minds want to know. BTW, I'm planning to send your response to people who might be very, very interested in your hypothesis. You may be on to something they haven't thought of. Though I'm of a skeptical mind, you may be on to something here, so by this post I legally claim a 40% share (I'm not greedy) of all revenues you realize from promoting Postmodern EarthCentrism. I've already copyrighted this term. But, please don't tell your neighbors before you (I mean we) get on Oprah.

[GourmetDan]

Send them what I already posted.

I thought you would have some unique evidence but, sadly, no.

Perhaps your friends will have some unique evidence that you don't know about.

Let me know.

[ml1954]

I guess this means we don't have a deal yet. Please reconsider. Think of all the money we could make.

[Liberal Classic]

I, at least, proposed that with sufficient lawyers you could probably jump a claim, and that would certainly suffice in anybody's book as a modern oil exploration technique.

That would seem to square with your (mis)conceptions of oil exploration:

Then there are the petroleum engineers who argue that the existence of any biological fosils in petroleum deposits is coincidental ~ that the petroleum was there since the beginning of the Earth.

The challenge was about how oil companies really go about finding oil ~ and, the answer is, they rely on somebody else's discoveries.

So far you have not addressed my assertion.

Your assertions have already been addressed, and exposed as being midly nutty.

[Ichneumon]

And how would the fact that the distance varies uniquely support heliocentrism over geocentrism? Surely you know.

Indeed I do. If you don't, on the other hand, you've just revealed that you haven't a clue about even the most elementary principles of physics. Why not just admit that your question is a bluff in an attempt to get me to help you make heads or tails of a topic you can't even begin to understand, but are attempting to "debate" anyway?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Wow, to turn your brain off like that, must be absolutely liberating.

To be objective and a free thinker, and want to think and gain knowledge, and then convert and be born again, and just be able to shut it all down.

What an incredible experience that must have been.

I just can't bring myself to do it.

[muawiyah]

Sorry, you didn't provide a reference to back up your "opinion". Remember, it's always good to do that when you describe one of the alternative theories as so much BS.

[Ichneumon]

You remind me so much of myself when I was evolutionist. The long overstated responses to ANY disagreement of any kind..the obvious dissatisfaction and restlessness and inability to tolerate the existence of Christian belief in Creation ANYWHERE...as if it has to be stomped out. I know all to well where you are coming from. And I pray for you, that you will find the truth and the incredible peace that comes with it. You can curse and insult me all you want. I really do wish the best for you.

Yes indeed... Mr. "I don't have time to provide support for my allegations" Jorge turns out to have all the time in the world to play over and over again the "I feel sad for you, really I do" game in a pathetic attempt to try to distract attention from his inability to stand by his nonsense.

Ironically, that only highlights just how disingenuous his initial excuses were, *and* how hollow his claims of "gosh, I'm not concerned what you think" are. He seems concerned enough to keep ramping up and repeating his posturing each time I make clear I'm not buying it.

[ml1954]

Hubris is not an argument.

[Jorge]

Wow, to turn your brain off like that, must be absolutely liberating.

Actually I went on to graduate first in my college class with a perfect 4.0 GPA.

As a Christian I didn't believe a word my pro-evolution college professors were saying, but I aced their classes just the same.

[b_sharp]

"Right, heat alone ~ and it helps to sift the stuff around so you can break up the little pockets ~ kind of like getting juice from oranges on an industrial scale.

FWIW, most of the Alberta and so far all of the Sask oil sands oil has been extracted through steam. The lower the Bitumen level the more steam is used as an extraction method.

The OP made an unsubstantiated claim based on a low knowledge level and presented it in such a way as to imply her information was as valid as any other.

"...so maybe you might want to readdress the ABRUPT answer you gave"

What was ABRUPT about my post?

The OP has been more than a little shrill in her rejection of anything evolutionary and has shown little to no desire to temper her posts based on her obvious knowledge level. If she wants to learn I would be happy to contribute what I little I can but she needs to recognize her ignorance for what it is and not pretend to a certainty of knowledge she doesn't have.

I have no problem with people with a lower level of knowledge in a given area than I have just as I have no problem with people with a higher level of knowledge.

[Liberal Classic]

The evidence indicates oil comes from fossil marine life in sedimentary deposits. There's no compelling evidence oil comes from deep within the earth. When they start pumping oil from volcanoes, call me. Until then, your "alternative theory" is nonsense.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

As a Christian I didn't believe a word my pro-evolution college professors were saying, but I aced their classes just the same.


So, not only were you able to turn your brain off, you were also able to turn off your new found principles as well.

God must be pleased with you.

[wyattearp]

One problem that I've never seen answered is how scientists explain away the 5' to 3' problem of joining 2 chromosomes head-to-head?

What are you talking about, joining head-to-head? You are aware that chromosomes have two strands of DNA, right? Like this:

5'--------------3'
3'--------------5'
I think that what you are suggesting is that this happened:

5'--------------3'3'----------------5'
3'--------------5'5'----------------3'
Instead of the proper:

5'--------------3'5'----------------3'
3'--------------5'3'----------------5'
If that is what you are suggesting happened, I am curious as to why you think that. It wont happen that way. Why do you think that the first chromosome wouldn't just twist a very little so it would match up and fuse? That is exactly how they form chiasmata.

[Jorge]

Thanks for reposting my comments.

We will continue to pray for you.

[muawiyah]

You did check that ref I gave you though ~ the language is strikingly similar to hers. Apparantly the stuff in Africa has a different fosil layer above it.

I think your correspondent there is younger than you imagine.