Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 104 (301379)
04-05-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dierotao
04-05-2006 12:38 PM


Well, yes, actually...
Has knowledge gained through Evolutionary theory advanced technology? Saved or healed lives? Brought peace and prosperity? Has the Theory of Evolutions "discovery" practically benefited, or advanced, humanity.
About every year or so someone poses a similar question on EvC. Since the question is relatively common, I don't see any reason not to pull out the (as yet un-refuted) examples I use each time. For your edification:
1. Research into host selection in Striga hermonthica. The research has centered around geographic variability of Striga populations in an effort to determine selection effects by variously resistant strains of Sorghum asiatica with an eye toward developing long-term resistance stability. Striga parasitism costs an estimated $8 billion annually in Africa (1986 dollars) through destruction of vital cereal crops. Pure evolutionary biology in action.
2. Research into the lifecycle and evolutionary adaptation of the cassava mealy bug (Phenacoccus manihoti) lead to the discovery of a parasitic wasp (Apoanagyrus lopezi) from South America that was able to save an estimated 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa from starvation. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is the staple food crop of a large portion of Africa: the mealy bug threatened total destruction of the crop, with up to 80% average losses in every field effected. Introduction of the wasp brought the scourge under control. Again, pure evolutionary biology in action.
3. Research into the lifecycle and evolutionary biology of the European green crab (Carcinus maenas), a significant threat to US Pacific coast crab fisheries, determined that it was INAPPROPRIATE to introduce its natural parasite Sacculina carcini as a method of biological control because of its ability to jump species and be nearly as lethal to native crabs as it is to Carcinus. Once again, evolutionary biology triumphs: this time by preventing what could have been a serious error.
Of course, these are "macroevolutionary studies" (whatever those are). However, I fail to see how any of the above could have been accomplished without relying on evolutionary theory as an underpinning.
Now, if someone could postulate a nice, creationist/supernaturalist methodology to solve the above problems that was more, erm, elegant or parsimonious, then maybe the creos would have a case. Still waiting after all these years...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dierotao, posted 04-05-2006 12:38 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 47 of 104 (301407)
04-05-2006 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
04-05-2006 1:31 PM


Faith, You are a
where's your openmindedness? ToE only does harm? Creationism is the only answer? Come on, you can insult us better than that. Especially when you say ToE led to the erosion of absolutes. Ever hear of the Theory of Relativity. It was that one that really did it in for the absolutes and opened the possibility of a world in constant flux (at least in the philosophical sense).
Oh, and if you are going to criticize science for being purely "an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness", I suggest you stop powering your house with electricity, I suggest you stop going to the doctor and stop getting vaccinations, I suggest you start floating to the heavens, I suggest you stop driving your car, and I suggest you stop relying on any technology or science.
Live in your world of absolutes, in which society is founded upon, resist all and any change, and go right back to those lovely Dark Ages the Christians are responsible for (in their bid to maintain power).
If you want to play this game of insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you, I'll join in. Except for the fact that you will be on the recieving end, and I WILL TRASH YOUR RELIGION. Have a nice day.
edit: but hey, if you are willing to listen to others, I'm willing to listen to you. Becasue as far as I'm concerned, you can believe anything that you want. Yay doublethink
This message has been edited by kuresu, 04-05-2006 11:48 PM
This message has been edited by kuresu, 04-06-2006 04:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 1:40 AM kuresu has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 48 of 104 (301423)
04-06-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dierotao
04-05-2006 12:38 PM


Dierotao writes:
With such time and effort given to the scientific study of the origins of mankind, I wonder if mankind receives any benefit from these studies of origins?
As you're asking for subjective valuations, you need to specify the goals.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-06-2006 01:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dierotao, posted 04-05-2006 12:38 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 104 (301424)
04-06-2006 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by kuresu
04-05-2006 11:46 PM


Re: Faith, You are a Bigot
Oh, and if you are going to criticize science for being purely "an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness", I suggest you stop powering your house with electricity, I suggest you stop going to the doctor and stop getting vaccinations, I suggest you start floating to the heavens, I suggest you stop driving your car, and I suggest you stop relying on any technology or science.
I already answered all this on this very thread.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-06-2006 01:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by kuresu, posted 04-05-2006 11:46 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by kuresu, posted 04-06-2006 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 50 of 104 (301425)
04-06-2006 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
04-05-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Let's reverse the question...
Faith writes:
The fact that creationist science is not contributing to everyday science is actually confirmation of my point that the ToE has nothing to do with science per se,
No it doesn't.
Creation 'science', as pseudoscience (it's even legally defined as such), doesn't even enter into the picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 4:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5175 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 51 of 104 (301478)
04-06-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
04-05-2006 4:31 PM


Re: Let's reverse the question...
Faith writes:
Creationist reasoning is involved elsewhere than the science labs,
So you accept that creationist reasoning is not useful to scientific thinking? Again, an actual example of its practicallity or usefulness would be welcome.
Faith writes:
creationist biologists have no problem dealing with the everyday science involving genetics and DNA
'Dealing with it' or 'accepting it' doesn't make it useful for advancing knowledge in the field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 4:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5929 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 52 of 104 (301620)
04-06-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
04-05-2006 3:49 PM


Faith
For the umpteenth time, the ToE has absolutely nothing to do with such practical science
Well Now I just stand in awe of your penetrating insight.
From The Center for Disease Control website.
Types, Subtypes, and Strains
There are three types of influenza viruses: A, B, and C. Only influenza A viruses are further classified by subtype on the basis of the two main surface glycoproteins hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA). Influenza A subtypes and B viruses are further classified by strains.
Human Influenza Viruses and Avian Influenza A Viruses
Humans can be infected with influenza types A, B, and C viruses. Subtypes of influenza A that are currently circulating among people worldwide include H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 viruses.
Wild birds are the natural host for all known subtypes of influenza A viruses. Typically, wild birds do not become sick when they are infected with avian influenza A viruses. However, domestic poultry, such as turkeys and chickens, can become very sick and die from avian influenza, and some avian influenza A viruses also can cause serious disease and death in wild birds.
Low Pathogenic versus Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A Viruses
Avian influenza A virus strains are further classified as low pathogenic (LPAI) or highly pathogenic (HPAI) on the basis of specific molecular genetic and pathogenesis criteria that require specific testing. Most avian influenza A viruses are LPAI viruses that are usually associated with mild disease in poultry. In contrast, HPAI viruses can cause severe illness and high mortality in poultry. More recently, some HPAI viruses (e.g., H5N1) have been found to cause no illness in some poultry, such as ducks. LPAI viruses have the potential to evolve into HPAI viruses and this has been documented in some poultry outbreaks. Avian influenza A viruses of the subtypes H5 and H7,including H5N1, H7N7, and H7N3 viruses, have been associated with HPAI, and human infection with these viruses have ranged from mild (H7N3, H7N7) to severe and fatal disease (H7N7, H5N1). Human illness due to infection with LPAI viruses has been documented, including very mild symptoms (e.g., conjunctivitis) to influenza-like illness. Examples of LPAI viruses that have infected humans include H7N7, H9N2, and H7N2.
In general, direct human infection with avian influenza viruses occurs very infrequently, and has been associated with direct contact (e.g., touching) infected sick or dead infected birds (domestic poultry).
How Influenza Viruses Change: Drift and Shift
Influenza viruses are dynamic and are continuously evolving. Influenza viruses can change in two different ways: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Influenza viruses are changing by antigenic drift all the time, but antigenic shift happens only occasionally. Influenza type A viruses undergo both kinds of changes; influenza type B viruses change only by the more gradual process of antigenic drift.
Antigenic drift refers to small, gradual changes that occur through point mutations in the two genes that contain the genetic material to produce the main surface proteins, hemagglutinin, and neuraminidase. These point mutations occur unpredictably and result in minor changes to these surface proteins. Antigenic drift produces new virus strains that may not be recognized by antibodies to earlier influenza strains. This process works as follows: a person infected with a particular influenza virus strain develops antibody against that strain. As newer virus strains appear, the antibodies against the older strains might not recognize the "newer" virus, and infection with a new strain can occur. This is one of the main reasons why people can become infected with influenza viruses more than one time and why global surveillance is critical in order to monitor the evolution of human influenza virus stains for selection of which strains should be included in the annual production of influenza vaccine. In most years, one or two of the three virus strains in the influenza vaccine are updated to keep up with the changes in the circulating influenza viruses. For this reason, people who want to be immunized against influenza need to be vaccinated every year.
Antigenic shift refers to an abrupt, major change to produce a novel influenza A virus subtype in humans that was not currently circulating among people (see more information below under Influenza Type A and Its Subtypes). Antigenic shift can occur either through direct animal (poultry)-to-human transmission or through mixing of human influenza A and animal influenza A virus genes to create a new human influenza A subtype virus through a process called genetic reassortment. Antigenic shift results in a new human influenza A subtype. A global influenza pandemic (worldwide spread) may occur if three conditions are met:
* A new subtype of influenza A virus is introduced into the human population.
* The virus causes serious illness in humans.
* The virus can spread easily from person to person in a sustained manner.
Types, Subtypes, and Strains
Influenza Type A and Its Subtypes
Influenza type A viruses can infect people, birds, pigs, horses, and other animals, but wild birds are the natural hosts for these viruses. Influenza type A viruses are divided into subtypes and named on the basis of two proteins on the surface of the virus: hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA). For example, an “H7N2 virus” designates an influenza A subtype that has an HA 7 protein and an NA 2 protein. Similarly an “H5N1” virus has an HA 5 protein and an NA 1 protein. There are 16 known HA subtypes and 9 known NA subtypes. Many different combinations of HA and NA proteins are possible. Only some influenza A subtypes (i.e., H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2) are currently in general circulation among people. Other subtypes are found most commonly in other animal species. For example, H7N7 and H3N8 viruses cause illness in horses, and H3N8 also has recently been shown to cause illness in dogs.
Only influenza A viruses infect birds, and all known subtypes of influenza A viruses can infect birds. However, there are substantial genetic differences between the influenza A subtypes that typically infect birds and those that infect both people and birds. Three prominent subtypes of the avian influenza A viruses that are known to infect both birds and people are:
Influenza A H5
Nine potential subtypes of H5 are known. H5 infections, such as HPAI H5N1 viruses currently circulating in Asia and Europe, have been documented among humans and sometimes cause severe illness or death.
Influenza A H7
Nine potential subtypes of H7 are known. H7 infection in humans is rare but can occur among persons who have direct contact with infected birds. Symptoms may include conjunctivitis and/or upper respiratory symptoms. H7 viruses have been associated with both LPAI (e.g., H7N2, H7N7) and HPAI (e.g., H7N3, H7N7), and have caused mild to severe and fatal illness in humans.
Influenza A H9
Nine potential subtypes of H9 are known; influenza A H9 has rarely been reported to infect humans. However, this subtype has been documented only in a low pathogenic form.
Influenza Type B
Influenza B viruses are usually found only in humans. Unlike influenza A viruses, these viruses are not classified according to subtype. Influenza B viruses can cause morbidity and mortality among humans, but in general are associated with less severe epidemics than influenza A viruses. Although influenza type B viruses can cause human epidemics, they have not caused pandemics.
Influenza Type C
Influenza type C viruses cause mild illness in humans and do not cause epidemics or pandemics. These viruses are not classified according to subtype.
Strains
Influenza B viruses and subtypes of influenza A virus are further characterized into strains. There are many different strains of influenza B viruses and of influenza A subtypes. New strains of influenza viruses appear and replace older strains. This process occurs through antigenic drift. When a new strain of human influenza virus emerges, antibody protection that may have developed after infection or vaccination with an older strain may not provide protection against the new strain. Therefore, the influenza vaccine is updated on a yearly basis to keep up with the changes in influenza viruses
Perhaps you should go to the Center for Disease Control and have them stop their silly impractical scientific application of the theory of evolution as concerns disease and show them how they are wrong and that the vacination program cannot possibly work because it is based on bad science eh?
Of course you would have to show them how they are wrong and show them a better way.As a test perhaps you can give a method of predicting and preventing the emergence of arboviruses based on your understanding of how the viruses are able to attack humans .
Waiting patiently on your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 3:49 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 04-06-2006 2:49 PM sidelined has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 53 of 104 (301625)
04-06-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by sidelined
04-06-2006 2:36 PM


I believe Faith was speaking in shorthand. She means that the part of the ToE not accepted by creationists, namely macroevolution, has no practical scientific application.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by sidelined, posted 04-06-2006 2:36 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by sidelined, posted 04-06-2006 2:56 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 55 by kuresu, posted 04-06-2006 3:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 04-08-2006 10:40 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 04-10-2006 2:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5929 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 54 of 104 (301631)
04-06-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
04-06-2006 2:49 PM


Percy
Then I would expect her to change her sweeping statement here
Faith writes:
For the umpteenth time, the ToE has absolutely nothing to do with such practical science
{ Bold type mine}
As it stands this is an incorrect and misleading statement as I showed through the CDC website.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 04-06-2006 2:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 55 of 104 (301637)
04-06-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
04-06-2006 2:49 PM


never mind what that one person said about colon cancer. you know, the study of the cell lining of fruit fly eggs leading to a better understanding of colon cancer, or that we experiment with mice to predict how humans will react to certain things. If macroevolution was not real, then why the heck do we do these studies?
These studies are of practical purpose because of the common descent of all living organisms. Otherwise, it would be stupid to test how mice react to drugs to predict how we would react to those drugs.
If Faith wants to believe that macroevolution has no practical application to medicine and biology, she can go ahead and do that.
If Faith wants to make her belief a fact, then she has to disprove how the studies are practical becasue of macroevolution.
I have a feeling she wants to do the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 04-06-2006 2:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 56 of 104 (301648)
04-06-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
04-06-2006 1:40 AM


Re: Faith, You are a
no, you didn't. You only said that genetics does not require ToE for it's practicability. But we have shown you, time and time again, that genetics play a major role in evolution, and evolution allows us to better understand genetics and its applications.
You never answered whether you would actually still use the vaccine from earlier. If evolution is true, then we had better start trying to make a vaccine to protect us. The ability to easily infect humans would be a major morpholigical change, if you understood viruses. If only microevolution is true, then we still have nothing to worry about. But when 60 million people die in the next few years because of this avian flu virus, what will you say about macro-evolution? You will still probably be espousing the bs that there is no such thing.
This message has been edited by kuresu, 04-06-2006 04:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 04-06-2006 1:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13017
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 57 of 104 (301677)
04-06-2006 3:53 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
To everyone,
Please make sure your posts are informative and on-topic. Do not let the thread degenerate into rants about how unreasonable others are being. In particular, the Forum Guidelines specifically prohibit name-calling, so the recent sub-heading that includes name-calling should be edited to something else by anyone replying to these posts.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2466 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 58 of 104 (302338)
04-08-2006 10:35 AM


Modeling recombination’s role in the evolution of
Hi,
The article revolves around the understanding of the evolution of HIV drug resistance.
http://www-cogsci.ucsd.edu/~rik/papers/hivPop-alifeX.pdf
"HIV is obviously one of the most deadly diseases currently facing our species, but it also provides an extraordinary, well-documented example of a “successful” evolutionary system. We present a simple model that is capable of exploring interactions among several key features of this system that push the limits of traditional evolutionary theory."
This type of evolution conforms to macro- and not micro-evolution because:"Within these “refugia,” HIV is capable of evolving at a prodigious rate, producing on the order of 1010 virions daily. Worse, the reverse transcription process exploited by HIV as it introduces its DNA into host cells creates extremely
high mutation rates, affecting as many as one of every 2000 nucleotides. Once infected by a wild-type variant of the disease, drug-resistant mutants can be transmitted to newly infected individuals."
In short, the rate at which these viruses evolve is much faster, and so the time needed to pass from just micro- (a slightly better virus) to macro- (an entirly new virus, one that can deal with our drugs) evolution, is thus proportionaly shorter.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AdminJar, posted 04-08-2006 10:43 AM kalimero has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 104 (302340)
04-08-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
04-06-2006 2:49 PM


I believe Faith was speaking in shorthand. She means that the part of the ToE not accepted by creationists, namely macroevolution, has no practical scientific application.
That is correct. Thank you.
But of course I don't regard microevolution as the ToE at all.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2006 10:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 04-06-2006 2:49 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2006 10:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 04-09-2006 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 104 (302343)
04-08-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by kalimero
04-08-2006 10:35 AM


Welcome to EvC
We're glad you stopped by the campfire. Pull up a stump and set a spell. Keep your feet to the fire and the smoke never gets in your eyes.
At the end of this message you'll find some links to several threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by kalimero, posted 04-08-2006 10:35 AM kalimero has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by kalimero, posted 04-08-2006 11:31 AM AdminJar 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