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

[Alamo-Girl]

In philosophy, there is a technical word for this sort of operation: MYTH. I've got nothing against myth, mind you. But myth has nothing to do with science or the scientific method.

So very true. Thank you for your insights!

[phoenix0468]

Yeah, that's what I have been reading, and seeing on those Discovery and History Channel programmes that I catch every once in a while. But I have also read and heard that there may have been cross breading of the species, could this have attributed to the evolution of Sapien Sapien. BTW, I thought the Sapien Sapien thing was a joke, sorry.

[Ichneumon]

LOL. That's pretty funny. Sapien Sapien. Rich.

Why are you cackling like a loon for no particular reason. Are you somehow childishly amused by a standard taxonomic designation? (Okay, who let all the four-year-olds in?)

Ok, then I guess a better example would be from Neanderthal to Cromagnon then?

No, it wouldn't.

Except that theories purport that these two species existed at the same time.

It's not the "theories" that "purport" this, you goof, it's an established fact.

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

Right, actually, but I'll bet you can't figure out that one either without a great deal of assistance. (Hint: My mother and I are both alive at the same time, does that mean she can't possibly be my ancestor?)

In this particular case, though, the evidence is extremely strong that both species of human evolved from a common ancestor, and not one from the other.

[phoenix0468]

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.

You obviously need to quite taking my statements out of context because I have not made any dispute of the theory of evolution at all. I have been making statements concerning what my understanding of evolution is. Big difference.

[Coyoteman]

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.

No, actually I am happy to share what I have learned with anyone who is interested.

What annoys me are those who are close-minded and cannot/won't learn, no matter what the evidence may be. To me it is sad that some people wake up each morning fearing what the morning papers or internet may bring from the world of science--findings that they will have to deny no matter what they are.

Any honest questions are always treated fairly.

[phoenix0468]

Thanks for the banal and completely uncalled for negative criticism there Ichneumon.

[phoenix0468]

Next time, read all of my posts before attacking, thanks.

[wyattearp]

But I have also read and heard that there may have been cross breading of the species, could this have attributed to the evolution of Sapien Sapien.

I think that the source of this is that people don't want to believe that such a successful species could have become extinct. Nobody has found a definitive reason for it yet. To date, their extinction makes no sense. There is a fossil that shows traits that appear to be from both species, but that is highly disputed. All evidence that we have shows that the Neandertal line stopped, and their DNA went nowhere but into the ground.

BTW, I thought the Sapien Sapien thing was a joke, sorry.

's'ok :-)

First time I saw it I thought, "what the heck is this? Couldn't they think up a new name or something?" ;-)

[Coyoteman]

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.

You obviously need to quite taking my statements out of context because I have not made any dispute of the theory of evolution at all. I have been making statements concerning what my understanding of evolution is. Big difference.

Sorry. But you have entered a charged environment, and many of us are somewhat tired of explaining things over and over to those who do not want to learn.

If you are willing to enter into an honest discussion I am sure you will find all of us eager to help.

I saw Ichny's post above. He is one of the brightest folks around, but he sometimes gets impatient. Approach him with honest questions and he will purr like a puppy (its late and I haven't shaved--literary critics can take a hike).

[phoenix0468]

You have refreshed my recolection of the facts, or evidence that I was shown in the program. That was exactly what it stated. Hey, did you write that show!! LOL.

[phoenix0468]

Well, you and wyattearp are giving me the informal education that can, in some cases, be more valuable than any classroom ever attended. It's refreshing to be presented with information on a more lay level, thanks.

[Ichneumon]

Bacteria obviously have an "immune system"

Only in a really loose manner of speaking.

~ we have "immune systems". Getting over a cold is not a case of "evolution in action".

Ironically, it actually is, although it's true that this is not an example of *humans* evolving.

Same with the bacteria.

Dead freaking false. Hey, I have a novel idea -- why don't you stop spewing complete nonsense? When bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, it very much *IS* achieved as a result of genetic evolutionary change.

Stop mistaking your random wild guesses for reality, and especially stop posting them to mislead your fellow Freepers.

Look, folks, we really do have to get a handle on word usage or we'll lose the words.

That's good advice -- and you really, really should start following it someday. Case in point:

I know there are some who argue that any genetic change at all constitutes "evolution",

...because it is...

but such changes sometimes bring about no change in function ~ so it's not sufficient to say that "change", per se, constitutes evolution.

Congratulations, you're an ignoramus. Nothing in evolutionary biology requires that something "change function" in order for evolution to be taking place. You just made that up. Look, kid, leave the definition of evolution to the biologists who actually have a clue, 'k?

Else, we might tell young children "evolve into your pajamas". Capice?

Is it really your contention that putting on one's pajamas involves changes in one's genetic code? Because if so, you're an even bigger fool than you had previously appeared.

[Liberal Classic]

That's what's good about the net in general and this site in particular. There are people from every possible field and discipline that you can imagine, from military/aviation to science/technology. It's a great resource. Better yet, they're willing and able to chat, talk about their careers and experiences and the like. It's really an amazing thing, if you think about it. Past generations had nothing like it.

[Alamo-Girl]

And even more importantly for us, the Rock of Ages.

[dread78645]

Parade of delusional H. sapien sapien placemark

[phoenix0468]

Past generations had nothing like it.

Well, except for the local tavern, inviting their friends and neighbors to their homes, and other physical social interactions that the internet has pretty much made obsolete. But hey, I won't say I don't like it, HEHE.

[Ichneumon]

If you are willing to enter into an honest discussion I am sure you will find all of us eager to help.

Indeed, as will I.

Phoenix0468, if you're really interesting learning, I'll be more than glad to help as well as I can. If I took your prior post the wrong way, I apologize -- I've been dealing all day with people making similar posts for the purpose of spreading disinformation. Plus, of course, I had previously encountered you on other threads making disparaging remarks on the topic of evolutionary biology, so of course I had to consider that you were here to do more of the same:

I think the poster is more freaked out at the arrogance of a scientist saying that evolution is "more than fact", which is a huge load of crap.
-- phoenix0468, on 01/27/2005

(Note: The biologist hadn't actually said that.)

Also:

No, I understood quite well. He said evolution explains facts. This is crap.
-- phoenix0468, on 01/27/2005

And:

Before the scientific method most science was bunk; based on conjecture, coincidence, and papal decrees. And what do you know, this article pretty much covers the gamut with evolution. ROFLMFAO!!!
-- phoenix0468, on 01/27/2005

And the first post of yours to which I responded on this thread didn't ask any questions at all, it just made a number of flat-out claims that were made in an attempt to "correct" someone who was himself correct -- your "corrections" were erroneous. This is the way that the anti-evolution cranks post. So perhaps you'll understand the nature of my response.

But if you're actually interested in learning, and willing to tone down your penchant for lecturing and "correcting" people on topics they know much better than you do, I really am glad to help out if I can.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Local internet tavern placemarker.

Hey, this is fun!

[phoenix0468]

I will. Be prepared for questioning. No lecturing or correcting included, scouts honor.

[wyattearp]

This is one of Ichneumon's posts to FR from a while back. It's friggin' awesome. It is a very well written, very long read that has enough information about the evidence for evolution to keep you busy for a very long while.

Believe it or not, this is just scratching the surface. Bookmark it, and read it when you have some time. It is absolutely fascinating.

(Post 52)