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]

Not true.

True, actually.

Not all DNA changes are evolutionary.

Actually, they are, in the sense in which the word is used within biology. If you meant they aren't "evolutionary" in the layman's sense of the word that is similar to "revolutionary", then you have a point (i.e. not all genetic change produces big dramatic differences), but within biology and genetics any change of the genome across generations is, by definition, evolutionary change -- it's evolution. But not all evolution is big and splashy and dramatic.

Although my DNA and my mothers DNA are almost 100% identical, there are slight differences. These have no attribution to evolution.

They do, actually. There are three kinds of differences between your DNA and that of your mother's: First, the novel mutations which occurred during the process of making your genome (i.e., the mutations which are new in you, of which there are roughly 10-30 according to various studies). Second, the recombination (sort of a "shuffling") which your mother's DNA underwent as it produced the egg which eventually became you -- this causes even the chromosomes you got from your mother's side to be "mixed-and-matched" differently than any of your mother's own chromosomes. And third, the half of your DNA you got from your father, which is obviously going to be different than the DNA you got from your mother.

All of this results in changed DNA in you relative to that of your parents. And this too is evolutionary change, since it produces genomes in the next generation which differ from those of the prior generation.

Mendelson's experiments on genetics did not prove evolution, it only proved variation.

Variation itself produces evolution, albeit a slow and aimless kind unless selection (natural or otherwise) is also involved in the mix.

Life, on a genetic level has great variety, a trait in no way connected to evolution.

Actually, it is very much connected to it. There is no evolution of any degree (large or small) without variation.

Therefore my DNA differences from my ancestors is not evolutionary but diversionary.

Again, your DNA differences are a component of the "big genepool picture" by which evolutionary change is assessed.

Evolution comes when a species changes genetically on a grand scale.

You sort of have it backwards -- genetic change on a grand scale produces speciation, but that doesn't mean that non-grand evolutionary change is not evolution at all.

People tend to *think* of speciation and other more dramatic examples of evolutionary change when they think of "evolution", but that's the accumulated "end product" of large amounts of "little evolution" over long periods of time.

Such as that fish that crawled out of the ocean to become a reptile.

Well, amphibian, anyway -- reptiles came later, from the amphibians, not from fish.

Or When small ancient horses grew into the large beasts they currently are. That is evolution.

So were the smaller genetic steps by which the small ancient horses worked their way up to being large beats eventually.

So, in conclusion, you are incorrect. Small changes in DNA are in no way evolutionary.

*cough*

You should probably read this: What is evolution?. Here's a quote from it, taken from one of the leading textbooks in evolutionary biology:

"The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

Here's a longer but more comprehensive introduction to the topic: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology.

[Ichneumon]

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

Cool! I look forward to your questions. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

(Now, how do you buy a guy a beer around here, hmm...)

[ReignOfError]

Evolution is anathema to physics and cosmology. If the laws of physics were evolving we could hardly do physics at all.

Huh?

That's a huge non-sequitur. Evolution does not suggest that the mechanisms of physics change over time, only that species and populations change in response to those mechanisms.

The same is true in physics and cosmology. Objects, both earthly and celestial, come into existence, change or cease to exist all the time, just like species and populations do. (to be more precise, many small objects accrete into larger ones or large objects disintegrate into smaller ones, because of the whole conservation of mass/energy deal).

[ReignOfError]

Try and find your evidence that the Cambrian explosion was predicted by Darwin...

Try and find your evidence that quantum mechanics was predicted by Newton. Science doesn't work like that -- it doesn't all come at once from a stone tablet or a burning bush. Science strives to find ways to understand the available evidence, and as new evidence comes to light, the explanations change to fit the new discoveries.

That's why "Darwminism" is such a fatuous slur; Darwin had an insight, but no one, least of all Darwin, believed that it would be the last insight. Darwin was not the end of evolutionary biology any more than Pasteur was the end of medicine.

[Virginia-American]

Try and find your evidence that the Cambrian explosion was predicted by Darwin

That wasn't what I said, and isn't true.

What I was alluding to was that since the existence of Precambrian life is a necessary part of the theory, and it was unknown in Darwin's time, he thought that the "Cambrian explosion" was potentially a problem:

Of his newly minted theory, Darwin wrote:

There is another . . . difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known [Cambrian-age] fossiliferous rocks . . . If the theory [of evolution] be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed . . . and that during these vast periods, the world swarmed with living creatures . . . . [However], to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.

Source.

[Cambrian explosion] remains one of the evolutionists biggest problems ...

How so, now that Ediacarian and Vendian multicellulars are known, and the prokaryote record goes back 3.8 or so billion years? The caricature of all the phyla appearing "fully formed" in a "short" period of time in the Cambrian has been replaced by research into the early evolution and differentiation of the phyla. Here's an interesting essay on the subject by Glenn Morton, a former young-Earth creationist whose work in oil prospecting, combined with his honesty, straightened him out.

[Junior]

Biology was one of my TOP classes.

Your abyssmal ignorance on the subject then indicates your having forgotten everything you were taught, or your having gone to a school that failed to teach you anything (Patriot University comes to mind), or — and this is the most likely — you're basically lying.

Anyone can claim anything on the internet. The truth bears out in the end, though. If you are going to bluff, do it on a subject you know something about. I haven't set foot in a biology class in 21 years, but I still retain enough to know you're prevaricating.

[muawiyah]

Ichy, it's pretty obvious you grew up speaking a language other than English. Else you wouldn't be so sensitive about criticisms of your misuse of it. So, let's start with this lesson ~ English does not have "aspect" AND, really important, correctly using active and passive forms is of vital importance to the understanding of what is being said.

[wireman]

It's all an evil plot???

[GourmetDan]

You're the one who's bluffing. The fact that the distance between the earth and sun varies means absolutely nothing in terms of the heliocentric/geocentric models.

It's a metaphysical choice which system you believe. The unique evidence is exactly what you have presented... nothing.

"In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with their origin in the center of Earth's mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar system are frequently selected. The adjectives geocentric or heliocentric may be used in this context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical or physical implications."

Fred Hoyle wrote:

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. (Hoyle, 1973, p. 78) "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

[GourmetDan]

Here's your link.

The hypothesis is that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of 2 primate chromosomes joined head-to-head.

The 5' to 3' structure makes this impossible, yet the problem is glossed over in favor of 'banding pattern' similarities (which mean nothing).

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

If you twist the chromosome, you join the anti-sense strand to the sense strand and the anti-sense strand does not code.

[GourmetDan]

You have substitution cost no matter what the mechanism, selection or genetic drift. You can't escape it. Haldane noted that the 'piggyback' hypothesis doesn't reduce the substitution cost.

Do not conflate ERVs and retroviruses. One is assumed, the other observed.

Adaptation is consistent with a created biology.

The many types of selection merely mean that you have nothing more than random movement around a mean. You know, statis, as observed.

Substitution cost applies in every situation where a genetic sequence must move to fixation. Thousands of severe drops in population means thousands of bottlenecks and founder effects. Not all result in founder effect, but you've got thousands of proposed bottlenecks just for assumed ERV's alone, never mind supposed 'positive' selections.

So explain how Joe Felsenstein has 'solved' Haldanes Dilemma and I will explain how he has not.

The difference between retroviruses and ERVs is that retroviruses are observed, ERV's are assumed.

Big difference except in evoland.

[js1138]

Ichy, it's pretty obvious you grew up speaking a language other than English.

I find it amusing that you are giving English lessons.

Conversing with you is like communicating through Babelfish.

[muawiyah]

You need instruction in "commas" yourself.

BTW, ol' Ichy there has this thing going where he is literally substituting the word "evolve" for the word "change". He's even found isolated and obscure misuses of the word to support his argument.

In general, however, you don't find biologists doing this. For one thing their editors would be smacking their fingers with stainless steel rulers.

[GourmetDan]

See post #870.

[Elsie]

Me thinks this article struck a nerve.

INDEED!

I go away for a few hours and there's over 300 more entries!!!

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Lighten up, V.A. Resampling techniques are notoriously unreliable. My own profession (economics) used them early on amidst much-deserved criticism. Punctuated equilibrium is exactly what I mean. You can't expect the public to accept evidence that cannot be explained by a layman. Economists have learned that the hard way.

I think that scientists have been sabotaged by their own arrogance regarding evolution. Frankly, the movement declared open war on Christian fundamentalists a long time ago. If you don't know of any science professors who openly treat Christians with contempt, I'll be glad to introduce you to one. He's a very nice man, but don't ever tell him you're a old-fashioned Christian unless you want to risk his public scorn. I'm sure I could find more if I had the time to spend on it (which I don't).

Why can't we let science be science and faith be faith? Why can't I consider evolution as a scientific model and still believe Genesis? No model is perfect. If you think it is, then you need some CEUs in Philosophy of Science. After all, most economic models are devoid of God, but we believe anyway.

[Elsie]

Got it.

Thanks!

[Elsie]

[GourmetDan]

Ichny tries to equate ERVs with neutral substitions in order to have a point. He fails.

What he fails to admit are the assumptions are required for his position and the fact that ERVs must perform just like a beneficial substitution in order for phylogenetic mapping to have any real evolutionary value.

First the structures must actually *be* ERVs and not serve some other purpose (an argument from ignorance), in which case they would merely be evidence of common design.

Second, they must mimic 'neutral' mutation, which means that they could occur multiple times in the same spot in DNA (which is not what is proposed, BTW, and would destroy the whole phylogenetic mapping premise in the first place).

The basis for ERVs is that they occurred once in one individual and progressed to fixation in the entire population. While ERVs *may* not serve any purpose (an argument from ignorance) and be neutral, they still must perform like a 'beneficial' mutation in that all population members not possessing this DNA must be replaced by those that do.

And this is supposed to occur without any selective value and without multiple occurences at the same place in the DNA (which would destroy the assumed phylogenetic 'map' in and of itself).

ERVs simply don't work as phylogenetic markers on multiple levels.

You won't get an evo to admit such, however.

[Elsie]

666!