Kramer writes:
Being unable to make
specific predictions does not invalidate the theory... but is still does not make it any more useful than the paper it is printed on...
Bolding mine to emphasize a point. If you said that the ToE cannot make
any predictions, then I would agree with you. But, simply if the ToE isn't useful in the design of a flu vaccine, I don't think it becomes useless any more than atomic physics does in that situation.
Kramer writes:
It can not predict what, where, or when a mutation will occur.
Quite right. It is the field of molecular genetics that can make some predictions as to what will mutate, given the presence of certain mutagens. For example, I know that UV light will cause G-A and T-C substitutions, but I don't know where.
Evolution hasn't got much to do with where mutations are. As long as they happen mostly everywhere, every now and again, evolution is valid.
Kramer writes:
It does none of the above... so it therefore is useless as it pertains to vaccines.
Now, to address this (which underlies your main point), I just typed the words "evolution" "virus" and "vaccine" into
PubMed and got 55 pages of hits. Evidently, your initial assumption that the ToE is useless in the study of viruses and the creation of vaccines is not completely sound. Perhaps you should reformulate your argument to show
why, if the theory of evolution cannot tell you what mutation will occur nor where, does it becomes useless in vaccinology?
Edited by Doddy, : fixed quote
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
™ Version 4.2