I don't know if you would call archaeology a science exactly, but it is one field where there's an increasing overlap with biology. Things such as pollen and seed samples taken from archaeological sites can reveal a great deal about the world in which peopled once lived. The distribution of ancient flora is clearly linked to natural selection.Mutate and Survive
Population genetics is based entirely upon Evolutionary concepts and is used extensively in plant and animal breeding. Genetic engineering would not be possible without knowledge of the ToE.
The Evolutionary concept of common decent allows us to make paternity and relatedness determinations using DNA testing, and this is used in medicine for genetic counselling, in law enforcement in detective work, and in civil legal court to determine paternity of children. The actual testing techniques used, incidentally, are the same ones research scientists use in their Evolutionary Biology work.
Of course, machines, floor plans, and computer programs are being designed using genetic algorithms these days. This, literally, uses evolution to make stuff better than we can design it.
I just want to be able to drop an mountain of real world applications that have the same techniques and sciences that are used in evolution. I'm sick and tired of creationists claiming that evolution isn't supported by other science.
By showing examples of the same methods used in practical real world applications and in evolution, it's lights out for them.
Water, Radioactivity, Diseases, and the Environment
obvious Child writes:
Can anyone name any particular examples of where sciences that support evolution are used in an practical way?
I already have the geology for finding natural gas and oil and its relation to ancient flora, but I need more examples.
Hope I don't state anything her too obvious, obvious.
Evolution is primarily and most directly supported by biology and that branch of geology concerning fossils, namely paleontology. Therefore any science which is uses evolution such as certain branches of medicine or environmental science, or to date fossils, such as the concept of radioactive decay would seem to be fair game to me.
OK, let's give it a go.
First, geology is not only used to find deposits of oil and natural gas, it is also used to evaluate the extent and recharge rates of confined aquifers. Now if it would be difficult to live without oil and gas, as we might have to under the principles of creationist geology, imagine what it would be like to live without fresh water. That is what would happen to all arid and semi-arid places on earth without groundwater resources.
The link between the current understanding of subsurface hydrology and evolution concerns the age of the water at a given point in a confined aquifer. The water in some confined aquifers is in the order of millions of years old, which is known due to the fact that gravity can only pull so much water from the exposed part of the formation for a given length through rocks of varying transmissivity. This means that technically any fossils in such a rock with water at a given age must be older than the water in the rock, which would provide a minimum age for the fossil.
Now if we were to abandon hydrology as a scientific branch of geology and replace it with YEC hydrology, the inability to understand how much water is available in a confined aquifer, and more importantly, how long it takes to replenish that water, may lead to disastrous and unforeseen consequences when the well runs dry.
I figured I would bring that one up as I don't think anyone else would.
Now as to nuclear power and nuclear bombs, it is obvious that they are made of radioactive materials. It is just as obvious that radioactive materials are used in radiometric dating. Therefore, the same scientific understanding of radioactivity present in chemistry and physics that is used to make nuclear power is the one used to date the strata around fossils and help make sense of geologic time along with evolution as per paleontology.
I guess to a YEC, radioactivity is good when it is used to kill people who may be Shinto, Muslim, or Athiest as in thermonuclear bombs, but is bad when it is used to learn something about the age of the earth or to determine the age of a fossil as in radiometric dating. Or maybe even to treat disease as in nuclear medicine.
The physics and chemistry pros around here may have more on this subject than I do.
As to biology, it appears to me that one must understand evolution to trace how fast that influenza virus is mutating or to see how a given species is adapting to various environmental pressures. Who was that guy who said nothing can be understood in biology except in light of evolution? Dobhansky or something? Well, I will defer further explanation to the biology experts.
Hope that helps.
Edited by anglagard, : Title and double phrase removal
Edited by anglagard, : use better word
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza