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]

You realize, of course, that people may have different opinions than you do on theological issues, and not be insane?

No, of course he doesn't realize that. He's operating on pure arrogance and dogma, not knowledge and analysis.

[Coyoteman]

However, many on these threads would do well to observe the warning of the good saint.

What garbage.

Learn to tell the truth and then lecture me on what does or doesn't make a good saint.

So I'm a liar and St. Augustine's, The Literal Meaning of Genesis is garbage.

OK.

I think that about does it for the night.

I will check back later to see if this thread evolves or continues to degenerate (I may answer any worthy pings for a few minutes, but they better be good). Night all!

[Quark2005]

The parts that were meant to be taken allegorically are obviuous enough.

You mean like the parts about the Tree of Knowledge, the talking snake, the Great Flood and the Tower of Babel. Those are pretty obvious, I agree.

[Jorge]

Ichneumon, you haven't the first clue whatsoever on this topic, yet you keep beating your chest trying to convince us all that you've been intimately familiar with it from all sides.

[andysandmikesmom]

St Augustine placemarker...

[b_sharp]

Alleles can fix though genetic drift.

Alleles and non-coding sequences can 'piggyback' on other alleles.

ERVs/Retroviruses can be inserted into non-coding sequences as well as coding sequences.

Adaptation to a changing environment is seldom an all or nothing situation. At any given time there are more than two available alleles at a given loci.

Many phenotypes are changed through selection types other than directional selection. There is also disruptive selection, and stabilizing selection. All three are components of natural selection. There are other selection forces such as sexual selection which do not place the population into a dilemma.

Substitution cost applies primarily where a changed environment puts extreme pressure on the population resulting in a severe drop in population. In the cases where pressures are less intense, or there is a gradation of efficacy in available alleles, the drop in population is nowhere near as precipitous.

Even if the population is dramatically reduced in number, population bottlenecks need not be fatal for the population. Not all bottlenecks result in a founder effect and not all founder effects produce deleterious homozygous alleles.

To seriously contend that substitution cost is a severe problem for evolution you have to ignore a large number of different paths which lead to fixation of an allele. You also have to assume that all changes in environment will be severe enough to quickly reduce the population size.

Just as a note, according to Joe Felsenstein he has solved Haldane's dilemma.

BTW, retroviruses are only considered different from ERVs in the generation in which they first occur. Once a retrovirus gets passed to a new generation it becomes an ERV. This refutes your claim that there is a significant difference between the two.

[Jorge]

So I'm a liar and St. Augustine's, The Literal Meaning of Genesis is garbage.

You say so.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

It doesn't matter what you or I say. The above applies without our "help." This quote from Augustine has been trotted out many a time by those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts. Like you said, "Learn to tell the truth and then lecture . . . ."

[Ichneumon]

[Ahh, I thought you were taking a class in biology, not physics, my apologies.]

Don't apologize, I also aced my biology classes.

Gee, is that where you "learned" that one has to "reject God" to see the validity of evolutionary biology? Where did you take this biology class, the same trailer park where Kent Hovind got his "degree"?

If someone as ignorant of biology as you are "aced" biology, then my wife is Morgan Fairchild.

[Jorge]

You mean like the parts about the Tree of Knowledge, the talking snake, the Great Flood and the Tower of Babel. Those are pretty obvious, I agree.

This explains a lot about your posts.

[js1138]

You're merely defining 'evolution' to be consistent with observations without admitting that the observations can also be explained in a creation model.

OK. the observations can be explained by a creation model. I admit it.

[js1138]

No, it's a Crumb.

[Jorge]

If someone as ignorant of biology as you are "aced" biology, then my wife is Morgan Fairchild.

You sir know NOTHING about me, yet want to come on these boards and deny what I've posted about my personal life.

This proves you will post ANY accusation, with NO proof whatsoever against those who disagree with you.

You are showing what a shameful person you really are with this kind of nonsense.

Biology was one of my TOP classes.

[Quark2005]

This explains a lot about your posts.

Those seem obvious to me. Tell me, what standard do you use to delineate which parts of Scripture are "obviously" allegorical? If a strong contradiction to everything we know about the physical world isn't a good defining factor, I have to honestly wonder what is.

[phoenix0468]

...bacteria evolve drug resistance...

Oh, really? I was always taught that it's not an evolutionary process but an adaptatory one. I.E. humans adapted to the varying climates throughout the world without any evolutionary changes whatsoever. Humans in Norhtern climates adapted with the change in skin and eye pigmintation. There is no evidence of a genetic evolution in this process, and unless someone can correct me bacteria develop a resistence to drugs through adaptation (not evolution) as well. BTW, I am not anti-evolution. It just strikes me as odd when evolutionist attribute every little change in an organism to the evolutionary process when the facts indicate there is none.

[b_sharp]

"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?

No. Why do you keep bringing up what Darwin did or did not know when the focus of these threads is the discussion of modern theories?

What Darwin did or did not know 150 years ago has been supplanted by modern knowledge which has been incorporated into the SToE. When we argue the veracity of evolution (and science) we are arguing modern knowledge levels, yet you keep bringing up points about Darwin that have no relevance.

[Jorge]

It doesn't matter what you or I say. The above applies without our "help." This quote from Augustine has been trotted out many a time by those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts. Like you said, "Learn to tell the truth and then lecture . . . ."

Thank you! A TRUE believer.

These people don't realize how short a time they have before facing God with the nonsense they post.

[balrog666]

Gee, is that where you "learned" that one has to "reject God" to see the validity of evolutionary biology? Where did you take this biology class, the same trailer park where Kent Hovind got his "degree"?

Ooooh, I think you hit a nerve with the trailer park reference. Must have hit close to home.

[Ichneumon]

To seriously contend that substitution cost is a severe problem for evolution you have to ignore a large number of different paths which lead to fixation of an allele. You also have to assume that all changes in environment will be severe enough to quickly reduce the population size.

No, you give him too much credit -- in order to make such a false assertion as he has you don't have to ignore some things and assume others at all, you just have to be a clueless anti-evolutionist who strings buzzphrases together without the first clue what they mean or if they're applicable to the topic under discussion.

Substitution cost doesn't apply to neutral ERVs, period. But I'd just love to see GourmetDan attempt to make a case that it does (as opposed to his habit of simply asserting it and declaring, 'so there!') That would be one of the funniest things ever on these threads, like watching a pigeon try to prove the Pythagorean theorem.

Come on, GourmetDan, show us just how competent you anti-evolutionists are! Show us your work! Heck, man, even just try something ridiculously elementary, like telling us whether the rate at which ERVs fix in the population depends on population size, and why (and in which direction)... Go for it, son!

Jorge, feel free to pitch in on that question too, because since you "aced" biology, in your own words, this should be a *really* trivial question for you to answer, if you can spare any time away from your important job of beating your chest, declaring people who disagree with you insane, and telling us for the 45th time that you "aced" your college courses...

[Coyoteman]

Humans in Norhtern climates adapted with the change in skin and eye pigmintation. There is no evidence of a genetic evolution in this process

If these people pass the changes on to their descendants, how can you deny a genetic change?

And this is what evolution is, a change in the genomes of a population from one generation to the next. Evidence for these changes is everywhere.

Then add a few thousand, hundred thousand, or million years, stir well, and presto: macroevolution!

Its not rocket science!