Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What has evolution theory produced?
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 32 (72507)
12-12-2003 11:04 AM


I've been reading threads on this forum for a few months now but have only posted a couple times. I have a question for those of you on the evolution side of the debate (I'm on that side myself, btw, but I don't have the extensive knowledge of this topic that most of you have): what major scientific and/or technological advancements have been made in whole or in part thanks to Darwin's theory? More specifically, what aspects of modern life would we be different if science had rejected evolution and accepted the creation arguments? I realize that such a thing could never have happened because it would run counter to the scientific method, but assuming that it could have happened what aspects of the human experience today would be drastically different?
If there is another thread where this question has already been asked please direct me to it. I've looked around but I haven't seen one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 12-12-2003 11:17 AM berberry has not replied
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 11:21 AM berberry has not replied
 Message 4 by docpotato, posted 12-12-2003 11:29 AM berberry has replied
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 12-12-2003 12:06 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 12-17-2003 4:37 PM berberry has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2 of 32 (72509)
12-12-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
12-12-2003 11:04 AM


Without evolutionary principles in biology, we wouldn't have working flu vaccines, ways to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or any sort of useful treatment for AIDS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 11:04 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 5:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 32 (72512)
12-12-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
12-12-2003 11:04 AM


Differences
I'm not knowledgeable enough to be very precise either. One difficulty is that we are asking to rerun history and see what the differences would be. There is a lot of contingency there.
I will, however, speculate.
If we were convinced that "kinds" were immutable would be have worked to hard to uncover the nature of the genome? Why would we? There is, of course, a great deal of medical work that is developing from our knowledge of genetics. The sequencing of the SARS virus as a step in getting to a vacine (which is now in testing) in record time is an example.
If we had no idea of adaptation to changing environments we could only blame God for suddenly turning off the effectiveness of insecticides and antibiotics. Would we continue to use them carelessly and make them even less useful. There are proposals for antibiotic use that specfically uses evolutionary theory. (personal discussion with my doc brother).
Would we understand the rise of HIV if we didn't recognize the closeness of our cousin primates?
It is hard to answer these questions when you are both a layman and trying to guess at how history would have unfolded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 11:04 AM berberry has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 4 of 32 (72514)
12-12-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
12-12-2003 11:04 AM


Well, we wouldn't have the play Inherit the Wind, which is a pretty cool play.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 11:04 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 1:18 PM docpotato has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 32 (72522)
12-12-2003 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
12-12-2003 11:04 AM


Well, I posted three "challenges" to Martin in this post that are from my field where evo biology was used to save some 300 million Africans from starvation. That's not a bad accomplishment. Conservation biology and ecology probably couldn't exist without evo bio. A lot of medicine rests on an evo bio foundation, especially studies of immunity, parasite control, epidemiology, etc. Even cancer research. I won't say we'd be still using leeches and discussing humors, but the foundation of evo bio has allowed medicine, agriculture, pest management, etc etc to grow exponentially.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 11:04 AM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 32 (72538)
12-12-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by docpotato
12-12-2003 11:29 AM


Inherit the Wind
Nor the film, for that matter, which is pretty cool also in spite of the cop-out at the end.
Thanks for the great responses, everyone. One counter-argument I can anticipate from creationists is that they accept microscopic but not macroscopic evolution. I don't see how one can be separated from the other myself, but as I say I'm not an expert.
I have heard that computer technology can at least in part be traced to the new ways of thinking that resulted from Darwin's theory. Does anyone know if this is true and, if so, can you suggest a possible chain of thought that leads from Darwin to the ENIAC?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by docpotato, posted 12-12-2003 11:29 AM docpotato has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by :æ:, posted 12-12-2003 2:05 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 3:20 PM berberry has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 7 of 32 (72549)
12-12-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by berberry
12-12-2003 1:18 PM


Re: Inherit the Wind
berberry writes:
One counter-argument I can anticipate from creationists is that they accept microscopic but not macroscopic evolution. I don't see how one can be separated from the other myself, but as I say I'm not an expert.
The only difference between micro and macro is degree, and there are no inherent barriers between them. Basically the classification is arbitrary. I could just as easily and arbitrarily define "micro-walking" as walking to the end of my driveway, and "macro-walking" as walking to the end of the block. Alternatively, I could define "micro-walking" as walking to the end of the block, and "macro-walking" as walking across the state. The processes to accomplish either are identical, and there are no inherent barriers between them, though the condition of the environment may affect the paths taken en route to the destination, and even which destinations are reachable vs. unreachable.
Macroevolution - proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Microevolution - proven even beyond creationists' doubts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 1:18 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 12-12-2003 3:03 PM :æ: has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 32 (72558)
12-12-2003 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by :æ:
12-12-2003 2:05 PM


Not This Again
I think Darwin's theory, contrary to creationist lore, has given us a notion of our place in the world. Jesus told his disciples they are in this world but not of this world. Unfortunately for the literalists, we're both.
What's so horrifying to the creationists about sharing encyclopedia-length genetic script with every other living thing on this planet? Our origins in the biosphere are nothing to be ashamed of. The fact that life developed over billions of years to the point where we have the intelligence to decipher history's patterns simply staggers me. I know my sense of wonder is shared with everyone else here, except maybe Dan.
Maybe the real opposition to Darwin's theory comes through the specter of natural selection, the cruel creator. Science doesn't show us as the product of a purposeful developmental plan by a being with foresight and intelligence. It shows us as the late arrivals into a world where biological complexity and beautiful design come at the price of a mind-boggling amount of death, waste, extinction, competition and cruelty. Darwin made us realize that the great creator of all the wonders of nature is indeed God the Destroyer in the form of natural selection.
P.S. I still like this analogy to explain the correct way to look at the micro-macro debate: the creationist says that macroeveolution doesn't happen because only microeveolution has ever been observed.
By that logic, heat waves don't happen because you can't measure them with a thermometer. All we can empirically test, says the creationist, is a really hot day. Therefore a lot of really hot days in a row don't constitute a heat wave, just a lot of really hot days.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by :æ:, posted 12-12-2003 2:05 PM :æ: has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 5:29 PM MrHambre has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 32 (72563)
12-12-2003 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by berberry
12-12-2003 1:18 PM


micro, macro again?
Thanks for the great responses, everyone. One counter-argument I can anticipate from creationists is that they accept microscopic but not macroscopic evolution. I don't see how one can be separated from the other myself, but as I say I'm not an expert.
But they only gave in to the idea of so-called "micro"evolution after it was forced on them. They wouldn't have gotten to it if the idea hadn't been understood beforehand. So this, too, is an example of what the ToE has produced - a partial reinterpretation of the Bible. And geology will, or is starting to, produce other reinterpretations too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 1:18 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 10:18 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 5:27 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 32 (72668)
12-13-2003 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
12-12-2003 3:20 PM


Fittest Molecule
The recent "American Scientist" just happens to be a little gold mine of relevant or semi-relevant topics to our discussions.
Another article in the Nov-Dec 2003 issue is: "Survival of the Fittest Molecule"
They are using evolutionary theory and mechanisms as a way to produce proteins useful in disease fighting. A vacine for dengue fever is one such project.
As an aside there was one bit that made me think a bit about something I didn't have clear.
"Becuase preserving a low mutation rate is important for complex organisms, the principle source of functional genetic diverisy is recombination between sister chromosomes from existing point mutations." ... "Indeed, recombination followed by natural selection is the foremost mechanism of organic evolution."
When discussing how evolution could get from one point to another I have often been a bit too focused on mutations. It is important to remember that a few mutations can be used to create a lot of genetic change through the recombination mechanism.
The method described forces muations, recombination and a selection process to get to useful protein products. Any medically useful products produced will be a direct consequence of evolutionary theory.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 3:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 32 (73820)
12-17-2003 4:09 PM


Evolutionary biology is very valuable in genomics. An enormous number of genes and other functional regions have been identified by doing cross-comparison across genomes. Making this inference is justified by experience from molecular-evolution studies -- the more functionally-constrained molecules evolve more slowly, because there are fewer possible "good" configurations.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 32 (73822)
12-17-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
12-12-2003 11:04 AM


Another benefit of the theory of evolution, and all of the geologic and paleontologic evidence for it:
it gives us one more piece of ammunition against a particularly virulent minority sect with a disproportionate share of political power who want to institute a theocracy in the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 12-12-2003 11:04 AM berberry has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 32 (73833)
12-17-2003 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coragyps
12-12-2003 11:17 AM


Coragyps:
Without evolutionary principles in biology, we wouldn't have working flu vaccines, ways to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or any sort of useful treatment for AIDS.
John Paul:
That's plain nonsense. Not one of the above mentioned has anything to do with believing all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celkled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. All of the firmly fit into the Creation theory of biological evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 12-12-2003 11:17 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 32 (73835)
12-17-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
12-12-2003 3:20 PM


Re: micro, macro again?
That's a lie NosyNed. Educated Creationists have known about speciation for over 200 years. The reference has been provided. This was BEFORE Darwin. Please stop misrepresenting Creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 3:20 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 6:38 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 6:43 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 32 (73838)
12-17-2003 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by MrHambre
12-12-2003 3:03 PM


Re: Not This Again
Actually MrHambre, is we Creationists say the alleged great transformations aren't science- they were never observed and can't be objectively tested, repeated or verified. The alleged great transformations are a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 12-12-2003 3:03 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by MrHambre, posted 12-18-2003 6:14 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024