Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists benefit directly from the Theory of Evolution
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 1 of 29 (192179)
03-17-2005 6:53 PM


Creationists benefit in a real, direct way from the Theory of Evolution.
My intent in starting this thread is to help dispel the idea that the Theory of Evolution is simply an abstract theoretical construct that has had no positive impact on human society. I’m sure many creationists bristle at the thought of their tax dollars funding evolution research - perhaps comments here will ease their minds a bit.
The first direct benefit that comes to mind is the enhancement of medical research by the theory of evolution. Evolution serves as foundational principle of biology, including medical research. In the simplest sense, human relatedness to rodents allows medical research to use lab rats to accelerate research findings that would take much longer done only directly (and thus far more cautiously) in humans.
Since March is officially Colon Cancer Awareness Month (everybody get scoped!), I will use the following example - which supports both the importance of evolution to medical research, as well as the funding of basic research (research without obvious direct human benefit):
__________________________________________
About fifteen years ago, human tumor research in Bert Vogelstein’s lab group discovered that mutation of a gene called APC essentially causes colon cancer.
Even though cancer researchers only had a single gene, they immediately had understanding of the entire molecular pathway in which APC is involved, and immediately understood how loss of APC function resulted in uncontrolled growth of cancer cells.
How did they know this? Not from human studies, but rather from studies done on the lowly fruit-fly, years before.
Eric F. Wieschaus and Christiane Nuesslein-Volhard had done mutational studies to understand developmental pathways - these studies have had a tremendous impact on medicine, thus the two won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their basic research. Part of their research elucidated the APC pathway, its molecular members, and how they interact to form a functional pathway.
The knowledge from fly research helped cancer researchers understand human colon cancer, and develop methods to study, screen for, and treat it.
One way research progressed was by creating mice that get colon cancer through the manipulation of the genes known from fly research. These mice do indeed get colon cancer, and have served to greatly advance understanding of colon cancer as well as to test new treatments.
If you check out the mouse reference above, you’ll see that they mention other genes involved in colon cancer, including the mismatch repair genes MSH and MLH. While it might seem outlandish to many non-scientists, the organism that has helped cancer researchers best understand the role of mismatch repair genes is yeast.
__________________________________________
My point: Cancer researchers have been able to better understand and treat colon cancer by using knowledge and experiments done in other organisms, including such seemingly different organisms as flies and yeast. Without the theory of evolution, science would not have utilized the relatedness of organisms and their genetic/molecular pathways to reach this understanding. I see no way Creation Science thought would have followed the same research path I describe above.
Thus, if you are a Creationist, and you or someone you know has been treated for colon cancer in the past decade or two, you have benefited from the Theory of Evolution in a direct and meaningful way.
This is only one, quite specific example. Countless advances to medicine have relied upon the use of human relatedness to other organisms. I’m sure other, non-medical benefits of evolutionary theory are out there as well, such as improvements in agriculture.
Perhaps others can add their own direct benefits in this thread; and feel free to criticize my argument if you think I’m overstating the influence of evolutionary theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 03-19-2005 6:46 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 4 by mick, posted 03-19-2005 7:02 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 04-12-2005 4:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 29 (192185)
03-17-2005 7:13 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 3 of 29 (192586)
03-19-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
03-17-2005 6:53 PM


conservation genetics
Hi Pink Sasquatch,
I appreciate your point but think you may be overstating the case somewhat. After all, "natural philosophers" in the middle ages were using knowledge gained from dissection to understand human anatomy. William Harvey was drawing general conclusions about the circulation of the blood in the seventeenth century by dissecting pigs and dogs, for example, without any clear understanding of evolutionary relationships between pigs, dogs, and other vertebrates.
However you are definitely correct to say that the theory of evolution has directly benefited creationists. One of the most important offshoots of evolutionary theory is poulation genetics (or, you might say that evolutionary theory is one of the offshoots of population genetics, of course). Without a theory of evolution, population genetics not only makes no sense, but it is a completely pointless enterprise.
If you want a nice cuddly example of how evolution and population genetics have benefitted creationists, you might look at conservation genetics. Understanding the way that genetic diversity is subdivided within populations of species that are of conservation or economic importance is a vital component of modern wildlife management. The Canadian government, for example, carries out widespread sampling of salmon DNA in order to monitor population genetic processes and prevent overfishing of at-risk populations. So if you enjoy eating seafood, you can definitely thank evolutionary theory.
Another example is the grizzly bear. Creationist or not, we all want to prevent our grizzlies going extinct. Population genetic analysis of reproductive patterns in such populations is central to working out a useful conservation strategy (see Grizzlybear.org). These approaches are widely used in conservation of wild animals like dingoes, wildcats, the red wolf, etc., which are all at risk because of hybridization with domesticated sister species.
If it wasn't for evolutionary theory, we simply wouldn't have the understanding of population genetic processes that will be necessary to maintain these species in the wild. We would be left just praying that animals like these don't go extinct.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-17-2005 6:53 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-26-2005 10:22 AM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 4 of 29 (192592)
03-19-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
03-17-2005 6:53 PM


medical phylogenetics
I thought of another example. As I see it, if you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in phylogenies (for those who don't know, these are the "trees" we use to describe evolutionary relationships between species).
Evolutionary phylogenetics was directly responsible for our knowledge that the human HIV virus arose by evolutionary processes from the Simian Immunodeficieny Virus, and this knowledge is central to our strategy not only in finding a vaccine but preventing the emergence of new diseases by animal-human infection. If you don't believe in phylogenetics, you might end up thinking all sorts of crazy things about HIV (i.e. it's a punishment from God) that don't help at all in finding a cure.
Phylogenetics also proved that the US anthrax attacks in 2001/2 originated from a lab strain developed by US scientists rather than from a lab populated by dark-skinned folk as the media initially (and predictably) claimed. This knowledge played a part in mobilising millions of people against a recent war.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-17-2005 6:53 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 5 of 29 (194648)
03-26-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by mick
03-19-2005 6:46 PM


fly eggs and human polyps
I appreciate your point but think you may be overstating the case somewhat. After all, "natural philosophers" in the middle ages were using knowledge gained from dissection to understand human anatomy. William Harvey was drawing general conclusions about the circulation of the blood in the seventeenth century by dissecting pigs and dogs, for example, without any clear understanding of evolutionary relationships between pigs, dogs, and other vertebrates.
mick - Thanks for the comments.
I think you have something of a point, but I'm not sure that it entirely correlates to the example I presented. If my example had solely been the use of colon tumors in mice to understand colon tumors in humans, your example would ring true.
However, the research progression I described relied on the use of fruit fly egg development and yeast reproduction to understand human colon cancer. I think these sorts of non-intuitive models rely strongly on the interrelatedness revealed by the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 03-19-2005 6:46 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2005 8:37 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

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


Message 6 of 29 (194740)
03-26-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by pink sasquatch
03-26-2005 10:22 AM


My three favorite examples of the use of evo bio to solve real world problems:
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.
For more info, see this site.
Note that the first two saved literally millions of people - the vast majority of whom couldn't even spell "evolution".
edited to fix ubb code
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-26-2005 08:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-26-2005 10:22 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Godfearingatheist, posted 04-03-2005 2:08 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 29 (196461)
04-03-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
03-26-2005 8:37 PM


Creationists benefit directly from the Theory of Evolution
Professional e t h i c s may actually have benefited, too. I was expecting an interrogation or at least somebody would question your assertions Odd as it is, h. floresiensis should not be excluded due-to the subject's popularity Right Mike ?
This message has been edited by Godfearingatheist, 04-03-2005 01:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2005 8:37 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 04-13-2005 8:32 PM Godfearingatheist has not replied

  
Raelian1
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 29 (198545)
04-12-2005 10:35 AM


Evolution is a myth. All life on Earth wasn't created by a supernatural god (there is no god) but by scientists from another planet. To read more, go to rael.org and check out the free e-books.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by gnojek, posted 04-12-2005 4:58 PM Raelian1 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 29 (198746)
04-12-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
03-17-2005 6:53 PM


Thus, if you are a Creationist, and you or someone you know has been treated for colon cancer in the past decade or two, you have benefited from the Theory of Evolution in a direct and meaningful way
Thanks theory of evolution. Well, thanks for the creative skills of Mr Darwin anyway.
I'm not so fond of the whole "well it's benefited you" approach anyway. It's fallacious.
Hitler might cook me dinner but he's still a murdering bastard. Thus my own selfish benefits don't negate the validity of Hitler being a murderer. I suppose we benefit from the investigative and keen minds of scientists despite the ToE. It's likely that the ToE can help indirectly yet still be untrue. Anyway, I'd still be grateful to the scientists anyway.
I mean what does this mean anyway? "Hey - you don't believe in evolution yet it helps you".
"Hey, you don't believe in God but he lets you live, and provides the air you breathe every day".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-17-2005 6:53 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2005 5:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 29 (198754)
04-12-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Raelian1
04-12-2005 10:35 AM


That website is hilarious!
Really, everyone should check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Raelian1, posted 04-12-2005 10:35 AM Raelian1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 5:08 PM gnojek has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 29 (198757)
04-12-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
04-12-2005 4:44 PM


The difference is that the research relied on the theory of evolution being true - if evolution was false it is unlikely to have worked.
So when Pink Sasquatch says that evolutionary theory helped work on colon cancer he is pointing to a dependency that is definitely real.
WHen you say "Hey, you don't believe in God but he lets you live, and provides the air you breathe every day" the dependency is only assumed. If you could show that God killed people who sufficiently annoyed him then you'd have an equivalent point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 04-12-2005 4:44 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2005 8:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 29 (198759)
04-12-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by gnojek
04-12-2005 4:58 PM


Reminds me of ZetaTalk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gnojek, posted 04-12-2005 4:58 PM gnojek has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 29 (198898)
04-13-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
04-12-2005 5:01 PM


The difference is that the research relied on the theory of evolution being true - if evolution was false it is unlikely to have worked.
What kind of evolution though? Does colon cancer depend on macro-evolution? Does it mean humans are but a recent transitional? I have my doubts.
What if the actual biological factors involved are true, but not evolution? For example, speciation could be "evolution" yet creationists aregue speciations within a kind are possible.
Does the treatment actually depend on long term, millions of years, cell to critter activity?
[qs]
PS writes:
About fifteen years ago, human tumor research in Bert Vogelstein’s lab group discovered that mutation of a gene called APC essentially causes colon cancer.
Even though cancer researchers only had a single gene, they immediately had understanding of the entire molecular pathway in which APC is involved, and immediately understood how loss of APC function resulted in uncontrolled growth of cancer cells
This sounds like benefiting from knowledge of derogatory mutations to me.
Forcing a mouse to get cancer is just knowledge pertaining to mutations. Okay - it's a big "maybe" that if the ToE wasn't in existence they wouldn't have done this, but is it likely in this dilligent age?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 07:24 AM
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 07:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2005 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2005 8:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 29 (198902)
04-13-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
04-13-2005 8:19 AM


1) Speciation is evolution, even if most creationists are prepared to accept it to some degree.
2) According to the OP, the research relied on humans, mice and even fruit flies sharing genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2005 8:19 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 04-13-2005 10:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 29 (198930)
04-13-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
04-13-2005 8:36 AM


1. I am aware that speciation is regarded as evolution from your perspective. Though personally in this instance we aren't working with a beneficial mutation.
2. Isn't it possible that infact the three species are sharing derogatory mutations because of a deteriorating world? (Just suggesting some possibilities here, not arguing.)
Isn't it just that the particular APC is a common mutational factor in living organisms? Or where you suggesting a common ancestor answers for the shared genes? Or something else? (I'm just interested, if you were just suggesting a possibility thaat's also fine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2005 8:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2005 10:46 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024