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

[b_sharp]

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

How do we differentiate between directed and non-directed?

Edited by whom?

Is the director intelligent?

How do we determine the director's intelligence?

Is the director a result of evolution? Or of some other natural process?

[phoenix0468]

Not true. Not all DNA changes are evolutionary. Although my DNA and my mothers DNA are almost 100% identical, there are slight differences. These have no attribution to evolution. Mendelson's experiments on genetics did not prove evolution, it only proved variation. Life, on a genetic level has great variety, a trait in no way connected to evolution. Therefore my DNA differences from my ancestors is not evolutionary but diversionary. Evolution comes when a species changes genetically on a grand scale. Such as that fish that crawled out of the ocean to become a reptile. Or When small ancient horses grew into the large beasts they currently are. That is evolution. So, in conclusion, you are incorrect. Small changes in DNA are in no way evolutionary.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

What?

That post made no sense to me.

Adaptation is one of the hallmarks of evolution, when a species adapts, it survives, and is able to pass that survival adaptation on to it's progeny.

So to say that adaptation is not part of evolution is, well, ridiculous.

[wyattearp]

Thank you!

You're welcome. One thing though: you're picturing yourself on the wrong side of the Proverbs that I posted.

[Quark2005]

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

I am acutely aware of my own mortality, thank you.

I'm also scientifically literate enough to know that the pro-science side of this argument is not the one espousing nonsense.

[phoenix0468]

Coyoteman, an example of genetic evolution is the change of a species into another completely different species. I.E. Cromagon Man evolving into Homo Sapien. What you are attributing to genetic variety cannot be attributed to evolution. Now, to expand on this, those samples of a species that, due to the benefit of variety, develop a superior genetic makeup may eventual evolve into a new species. But in the case of Humans this has not been proven.

[b_sharp]

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

It wasn't Ichny who made a bald assertion about the value of science and claimed a world wide conspiracy, it was you.

Now that you have made those claims, back them up with more than unfounded assertions.

[Ichneumon]

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

You sir know NOTHING about me,

On the contrary, I know that you "know NOTHING" about many of the topics you claim to be a whiz at, because you keep screwing up when you try to comment on them.

yet want to come on these boards and deny what I've posted about my personal life.

...because it is contradicted by your performance here. Look, if I said that I had been a Navy Seal, but I kept revealing by my posts that I was grossly ignorant of the most basic military fundamentals, you'd have every right to call "BS" on my chest-beating. Just as we have every right to point out that you have revealed that you know less about evolutionary biology than the average wino on the street, much less someone who allegedly "aced" his college biology classes.

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

Actually, I have posted my proof, many times. And I have repeatedly challenged you to prove me wrong by answering any of a number of easy biology questions, yet somehow you always manage to "forget" to tackle them. Curioser and curioser. What is the astute reader to conclude, if not that you're one big ball of bluff and bluster?

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

Hey, *I'm* not the one pretending to have special knowledge of a field without actually knowing crap about it.

Biology was one of my TOP classes.

The more you keep screaming this, over and over again, while running away from every possible opportunity to demonstrate any competence at all on the subject, the more it's apparent that you're just making up in BS and a big mouth what you can't provide for real.

[b_sharp]

I'd be interested in learning about the head to head 5' to 3' problem. I've not heard of it.

Could you explain it to me in terms I could easily understand?

[b_sharp]

OK, share with me why it no longer means sharing an ancestor with another species? Or could you describe a new more inclusive definition.

[Ichneumon]

Coyoteman, an example of genetic evolution is the change of a species into another completely different species. I.E. Cromagon Man evolving into Homo Sapien. What you are attributing to genetic variety cannot be attributed to evolution.

Oh, look, yet *another* person who hasn't any clue whatsoever what actually is and isn't evolutionary change, but feels compelled to "correct" us on it just the same. Next up, my dog will attempt to correct my cryptographic hash algorithm...

Sorry kid, but Coyoteman was right, and you're dead wrong in your attempt to "correct" him.

Now, to expand on this, those samples of a species that, due to the benefit of variety, develop a superior genetic makeup may eventual evolve into a new species. But in the case of Humans this has not been proven.

Sure it has. It's not our fault you're just entirely ignorant of the overwhelming evidence of that proposition.

[wyattearp]

Coyoteman, an example of genetic evolution is the change of a species into another completely different species. I.E. Cromagon Man evolving into Homo Sapien.

Cromagnon Man and Homo Sapien are the same thing. Just two different ways of saying it. Modern man is Homo Sapien Sapien.

Thanks, I needed that. :-)

[phoenix0468]

LOL. That's pretty funny. Sapien Sapien. Rich. Ok, then I guess a better example would be from Neanderthal to Cromagnon then? Except that theories purport that these two species existed at the same time. Not necessarily evidence that one didn't evolve from the other, though, right?

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman, an example of genetic evolution is the change of a species into another completely different species. I.E. Cromagon Man evolving into Homo Sapien. What you are attributing to genetic variety cannot be attributed to evolution. Now, to expand on this, those samples of a species that, due to the benefit of variety, develop a superior genetic makeup may eventual evolve into a new species. But in the case of Humans this has not been proven.

The change from Cro to Homo sapiens is not an example of speciation. Cro is a completely modern human. Our ancestors some 100,000-160,000 years ago are called archaic humans, but they are extremely close and do not represent speciation either.

You apparently are doing the microevolution vs. macroevolution dichotomy. Its not a dichotomy at all. Its a matter of degree. From one generation to the next, differences develop in a population that is isolated. Over time these differences can add up. This is especially true with selection pressure and with complete isolation. But evolution does not require speciation. It requires change from one generation to the next.

No theory in science has ever been proved, nor can one be--by definition. They can be disproved.

But theories can only be considered theories when they have withstood a number of tests and been confirmed at each test.

The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of testing. There were virtually no hominid fossils extant when Darwin published in 1859. The hominid fossils have confirmed, rather than disproved, the theory ever since. And, there are a lot of species going back millions of years, that appear to have evolved one into the other. At present there is no scientific evidence that this is not the case (religious belief, or rather disbelief, does not constitute scientific evidence).

The new field of genetics could have disproved the theory also, but it only supported it.

In all of these cases, the new data has supported the theory of evolution.

[YHAOS]

"It's very hard to be very lofty when one starts with chance plus time and never gets beyond that."

Yeah. And I'm not even looking to be very lofty (except I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'lofty'). No kidding, Skinner mentioned rocks in this context? I'll be darned.{ 8 ^ )

But, instead of rocks maybe it should be stardust. We all enjoy common descent from stardust. Hoagy would be fascinated.

[Ichneumon]

I disagree with the author on the value of evolution. It provides the only practical framework for a taxonomic structure, allowing a systematic study or a confusing collection of species. But that's about it.

Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Don Pardo will tell you what lovely consolation prizes you can take home with you.

Let's see what an actual biologist has to say, shall we?

"In reality, evolution is a powerful and hard-working theory used at the cutting edge of scientific inquiry in developmental biology, genome analysis, drug discovery and scientific medicine. To pretend otherwise is to shield students from the reality of how science is done today."
-- Kenneth Miller

Hell, kid, even computer science makes heavy use of evolutionary processes these days, as do aeronautic engineers, weapons contractors, mathematicians, and more.

Can someone tell me when we're going to stop having continual waves of people with absolutely no knowledge of this subject, but every confidence in the world that they know all the answers? It gets really old really fast.

[wyattearp]

Not necessarily evidence that one didn't evolve from the other, though, right?

Wrong. Homo Sapien Sapien evolved from Homo Sapien. Neither evolved from Neandertal, according to DNA evidence. Unless somebody comes up with evidence to counter it, it stands. Neandertals are extinct, for whatever reason.

[phoenix0468]

I don't dispute the theory of evolution at all. I agree with your explanation and appreciate the clarification. I was unaware that species variation could also be considered a form of evolution, honestly.

And in this nation of deviation if I use another -ation, you'll probably want to end my chance for evolution, LOL.

[Coyoteman]

Ok, then I guess a better example would be from Neanderthal to Cromagnon then? Except that theories purport that these two species existed at the same time. Not necessarily evidence that one didn't evolve from the other, though, right?

While the two species existed at the same time, Neanderthal did not evolve into Homo sapiens. This is well documented by DNA evidence.

You obviously need to study the theory of evolution a little more before you can adequately dispute it. Right now you are just looking silly.

The following chart shows what one expert thinks of the process of hominid evolution:

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Quix]

I think Skinner limited it to "a rock, pigeon or a radish" or some such--3 items. I wouldn't swear as to specifically which 3 but I think I'm right.