What has evolution theory produced?

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.

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.

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

It is probably good manners to suggest that someone you disagree with has made a mistake rather than conclude they are lying. At least, until you have further evidence.If you think that "creationists" have supported speciation for 200 years you may be mixing up two different meanings of the word "creationist".I think I have pointed out elsewhere that, by your definition, Darwin was a creationist.Rather than lead this off topic even further I have opened a new thread What is a Creationist?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003]