Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology

Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Agahnim -> Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/17/2008 8:44:35 AM)
I saw someone claiming in another thread here recently that evolutionary biology hasn’t made any contributions to society, so I thought I should point out some of the benefits there have been from it. This paper from the journal Nature describes some of the ways in which the predictions made by the theory of evolution have been useful in the medical industry. There is an entire field devoted to this, which has a specific name: Pharmacophylogenomics. These benefits are summarized in the abstract I’ve linked to, which is accessible to anyone. This paper was posted at Christian Forums last year, so here are a few excerpts from it for people who don’t have access to the full text: quote: By contrast, it will be seen that a phylogenomic view of orthologues extends beyond the usual model organisms to embrace a wider swath of evolutionary history using full PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTIONS and related techniques, all of which are better suited to the determination of function and, most significantly, of changes in function over time (Fig. 1). Similarly, the study of paralogues and pathways in an evolutionary context can provide insights into broader issues of PLEIOTROPY and functional REDUNDANCY that are of particular concern for drug discovery. quote: A strong motivation for the further study of orthology of drug targets is the fact that species differences of various kinds — for instance, in pathophysiology or drug metabolism — frequently hamper the progression of targets and compounds, often after quite significant investment. This indicates that even a marginally improved understanding of species differences could have a major impact on the cost of developing medicines. quote: A full phylogenetic reconstruction, incorporating as many homologues and intervening species as possible, can provide a much more reliable and informative orthologue call with appropriate statistical support. A second paper, about the applications of evolutionary biology in general (not just for medicine) can be found here. A little over 10 years ago, a number of major scientific organizations also prepared a white paper overviewing the real-world contributions made by evolutionary biology. These organizations include the American Society of Naturalists, the Animal Behavior Society, the Ecological Society of America, the Genetics Society of America, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the National Science Foundation. This paper can be accessed by anyone at http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html , and covers applications of evolutionary biology in the fields of medicine, agriculture, natural technology, ecology, and several other fields. It can be argued pretty convincingly that the reason most fields of science exist at all is because of their ability to bring about these types of benefits. With this in mind, if creationism or intelligent design is just as valid scientifically as evolution, it should have at least as many applications to other areas of study as evolution does. Note that I’m not asking for contributions to other fields which were made by scientists who happened to be creationists or ID proponents; I’m asking for contributions made by creationism or ID itself. Can anyone provide any?

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/18/2008 11:03:59 PM)
Well I think ID has demonstrated it's applicable worth to biology as long as intelligence has been utilized to modify biology; and to our knowledge this has been going on for several thousand years.

Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 12:10:31 AM)
quote: Well I think ID has demonstrated it's applicable worth to biology as long as intelligence has been utilized to modify biology; and to our knowledge this has been going on for several thousand years. What do you mean by intelligence being “utilized to modify biology”? Do you just mean that the scientific method itself, as applied to biology, is the result of intelligence? If that’s what you mean, it isn’t a meaningful comparison, since I was asking for benefits of ID specifically—that is, the hypothesis that certain biological functions must have been the result of intelligence. Since the scientific method, and the way in which it was designed, is the same for almost all areas of science, this doesn’t demonstrate anything about ID in particular. Or are you saying that other fields of biology has been modified as a result of ID itself? If so, how?

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 10:52:27 AM)
quote: What do you mean by intelligence being “utilized to modify biology”? Do you just mean that the scientific method itself, as applied to biology, is the result of intelligence? If that’s what you mean, it isn’t a meaningful comparison, since I was asking for benefits of ID specifically—that is, the hypothesis that certain biological functions must have been the result of intelligence. Since the scientific method, and the way in which it was designed, is the same for almost all areas of science, this doesn’t demonstrate anything about ID in particular. Or are you saying that other fields of biology has been modified as a result of ID itself? If so, how? No, I mean the modification of biological organisms through intelligence, something that has been occuring for thousands of years.

drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 12:28:17 PM)
Agahnim, I will not bother wasting my time on pointing out your references' sloppy use of terminology. The indisputable occurrence of natural selection and adaptation has zero corroborative power for molecules-to-man evolution. Indeed, young earth creation science actually predicts a much more rapid rate of adaptation/speciation than neo-Darwinian theory ever dreamed of. Good thing for applied genetic technology or none of us would be around to reap the benefits! Now, regarding contributions made by creationism, I would reinforce Jack's mention of the intelligent modification of organisms. The scientific discipline of animal husbandry is firmly rooted in creationism, not evolutionary nonsense!

drj11 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 1:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Now, regarding contributions made by creationism, I would reinforce Jack's mention of the intelligent modification of organisms. The scientific discipline of animal husbandry is firmly rooted in creationism, not evolutionary nonsense! I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 1:42:19 PM)
quote: I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology. What can be more pro-creative than animal husbandry? That would seem to be the point of the endeavor...

drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 1:52:38 PM)
quote: I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology. Not to mention the confidence a breeder has that the offspring will be the same kind as the parent stock and not some "hopeful monster" of the punctuated equilibrium debacle. BTW, it's science we're discussing here, not theology! Unless you've changed your mind about evolution being theology. [;)] .

swan42 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 2:09:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology. What can be more pro-creative than animal husbandry? That would seem to be the point of the endeavor... Jhud, animal husbandry does not use any prediction of creation theology as tool for performing animal husbandry. I'm fairly sure there are no predictions from creation theology that we can use in this world in biological fields.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 2:37:26 PM)
quote: Jhud, animal husbandry does not use any prediction of creation theology as tool for performing animal husbandry. I'm fairly sure there are no predictions from creation theology that we can use in this world in biological fields. Sure there are: God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. Seems like a pretty basic, and verified prediction, confirmed more times than can be counted - and not to mention, depended on those who raise livestock worldwide.

swan42 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 3:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Jhud, animal husbandry does not use any prediction of creation theology as tool for performing animal husbandry. I'm fairly sure there are no predictions from creation theology that we can use in this world in biological fields. Sure there are: God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. Seems like a pretty basic, and verified prediction, confirmed more times than can be counted - and not to mention, depended on those who raise livestock worldwide. non-sequitur.

Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 3:03:19 PM)
DrMark, you don’t appear to have looked carefully at the ways these papers describe evolutionary biology as being useful. One of the ways is by predicting the structure and function of certain proteins based on the phylogenic relationships to other animals. These are not just useful predictions made by our understanding of adaptation and natural selection; they’re useful predictions made by common descent. There’s also a pretty glaring inconsistency in the argument you and Jhud are using: The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them. According to your argument, something doesn’t count as a useful application of evolutionary biology if it’s something that doesn’t specifically contradict creationism. Yet on the other hand you make the argument that since animal husbandry can be said to incorporate predictions made by creationism, it does count as a useful application of creationism, even though this particular example is completely consistent with both evolution and creationism also. So which is it? Does animal husbandry count as an application of creationism when it’s completely consistent with the predictions made by evolution, and do the results of our understanding of adaptation count as applications of evolution when this idea doesn’t contradict creationism? You can’t have it both ways.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 3:37:49 PM)
quote: non-sequitur. I am not sure how a direct application asked for can be a 'non-sequitur', unless you are unfamiliar with the term.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 3:44:23 PM)
quote: The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them. According to your argument, something doesn’t count as a useful application of evolutionary biology if it’s something that doesn’t specifically contradict creationism. Yet on the other hand you make the argument that since animal husbandry can be said to incorporate predictions made by creationism, it does count as a useful application of creationism, even though this particular example is completely consistent with both evolution and creationism also. So which is it? Does animal husbandry count as an application of creationism when it’s completely consistent with the predictions made by evolution, and do the results of our understanding of adaptation count as applications of evolution when this idea doesn’t contradict creationism? You can’t have it both ways. Your very odd point here (which incidentally supports the notion that 'creation science' in it's rawest form is useful to animal husbandry) seems to be that because 'micro-evolution' and creationism don't disagree here, evolution is therefore true. Which would rather be like saying that because Newton's view of gravity is consistent with Einsteins at certain points, Newton's view must be true! And I say this as an amused observer who has neither a stake in in creationism per se, nor evolution.

drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 3:52:58 PM)
quote: These are not just useful predictions made by our understanding of adaptation and natural selection; they’re useful predictions made by common descent. No, they're just as valid and useful as predictions made by common design. Nothing unique there at all! quote: The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) Nice try, Agahnim, but anyone who knows anything about "creationist lingo" knows that the terms macro- and micro-evolution are widely discouraged by the spokespeople of YEC. quote: The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them. Nonsense! Jacob understood them perfectly well in 1600 BC when he selected for the fittest goats to ensure the quality of his herds (Genesis 30). Do you honestly think Jacob expected to see baby oxen born from his goat breeding procedures? quote: You can’t have it both ways. Nor can you, Agahnim! The "fixity of species" over time is NOT a cardinal feature of evolution or nothing is evolving! YEC clearly predicts "rapid speciation" related to front-loading of genetic diversity and this is born out by thousands of years of scientific observations of biologic reproduction.

Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 3:54:14 PM)
quote: Your very odd point here (which incidentally supports the notion that 'creation science' in it's rawest form is useful to animal husbandry) seems to be that because 'micro-evolution' and creationism don't disagree here, evolution is therefore true. Which would rather be like saying that because Newton's view of gravity is consistent with Einsteins at certain points, Newton's view must be true! And I say this as an amused observer who has neither a stake in in creationism per se, nor evolution. No, that isn’t my point. And I’m not sure how to make my point any clearer. Read my post again, especially the last paragraph. Do you not understand how there’s a logical contradiction between the argument you’re using and the one DrMark is using? If you don’t, perhaps one of the other posters can explain it. It’s not a very difficult point, and most people other than you probably won’t have trouble understanding it.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 4:07:38 PM)
quote: No, that isn’t my point. And I’m not sure how to make my point any clearer. Read my post again, especially the last paragraph. Do you not understand how there’s a logical contradiction between the argument you’re using and the one DrMark is using? If you don’t, perhaps one of the other posters can explain it. It’s not a very difficult point, and most people other than you probably won’t have trouble understanding it. My simple point is that taken plainly, obviously Genesis supports the basic notions of animal husbandry. I am not sure how that contradicts what drmark is saying. Perhaps he can explain it to me.

drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 4:35:01 PM)
quote: I am not sure how that contradicts what drmark is saying. Perhaps he can explain it to me. There's really not much to explain, Jack. Agahnim asked for contributions made by creationism or ID. You offered the intelligent modification of organisms. I clarified that answer by providing a specific subset we call animal husbandry. Agahnim, taken aback by the rapidity of our cogent responses, hemmed and hawed his way through irrelevant attacks on logic and terminology to save face. You and I realize that hasn't worked!

swan42 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them. According to your argument, something doesn’t count as a useful application of evolutionary biology if it’s something that doesn’t specifically contradict creationism. Yet on the other hand you make the argument that since animal husbandry can be said to incorporate predictions made by creationism, it does count as a useful application of creationism, even though this particular example is completely consistent with both evolution and creationism also. So which is it? Does animal husbandry count as an application of creationism when it’s completely consistent with the predictions made by evolution, and do the results of our understanding of adaptation count as applications of evolution when this idea doesn’t contradict creationism? You can’t have it both ways. Your very odd point here (which incidentally supports the notion that 'creation science' in it's rawest form is useful to animal husbandry) seems to be that because 'micro-evolution' and creationism don't disagree here, evolution is therefore true. Which would rather be like saying that because Newton's view of gravity is consistent with Einsteins at certain points, Newton's view must be true! And I say this as an amused observer who has neither a stake in in creationism per se, nor evolution. Great point Jhud! Physics is a great example of how "truth" can be "relative". The "relative" variable in Physics is mass and velocity. Einstein is more true when mass and velocity are very large. Both theories described by Newton and Einstein are inaccurate, but Einstein's theory is definitely more accurate and neither is described by the Bible. The claim most Christians that also subscribe to the theory of evolution is that evolution is so more accurate than any other proposed explanation.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:06:59 PM)
quote: Great point Jhud! Physics is a great example of how "truth" can be "relative". The "relative" variable in Physics is mass and velocity. Einstein is more true when mass and velocity are very large. Both theories described by Newton and Einstein are inaccurate, but Einstein's theory is definitely more accurate and neither is described by the Bible. The claim most Christians that also subscribe to the theory of evolution is that evolution is so more accurate than any other proposed explanation. Wow, I don't think I have seen a greater conflation of terms and ideas into a more confusing mass of nonsense than this post. It's impossible to repond to in any intelligible way.

swan42 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Great point Jhud! Physics is a great example of how "truth" can be "relative". The "relative" variable in Physics is mass and velocity. Einstein is more true when mass and velocity are very large. Both theories described by Newton and Einstein are inaccurate, but Einstein's theory is definitely more accurate and neither is described by the Bible. The claim most Christians that also subscribe to the theory of evolution is that evolution is so more accurate than any other proposed explanation. Wow, I don't think I have seen a greater conflation of terms and ideas into a more confusing mass of nonsense than this post. It's impossible to repond to in any intelligible way. Yes I understand science is a confusing topic for you.

Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:10:15 PM)
I’m taken aback by the fact that I apparently have to explain this as though I were explaining it to an elementary-school student. But I’ll try anyway: Your argument is that animal husbandry is an application of creationism, because it’s based on the same understanding of animal reproduction that’s described in the Bible. It so happens that this particular aspect of creationism is consistent with evolution also. But your point is apparently that when an idea was introduced as part of the creationist worldview, even if it’s part of the evolutionary worldview also, it’s still a useful application of creationism. Now, on the other hand, I’ve demonstrated some useful applications of our understanding of adaptation. Your argument about Jacob isn’t relevant to this, since did not have an understanding of how species could actually change. As you mentioned, this is an aspect of evolution that doesn’t contradict creationism, but in this case you say that because of that it can’t be considered a useful application of evolution. So according to you, when something in the Bible is also consistent with evolution, it should still be considered an application of creationism. But when something introduced as part of evolution is consistent with the creationist worldview, because of that it should not be considered an application of evolution. See the inconsistency? This is a pretty obvious double standard. As for your “common designer” claim, I notice that you still haven’t addressed the explanation in my ERV thread of how the pattern of similarities between organisms can’t be explained in that manner, despite my having specifically asked you to do so at least once. Until you do, this point remains refuted.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:14:29 PM)
quote: Yes I understand science is a confusing topic for you. Only your odd articulation of it.

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:15:47 PM)
Posting to anyone in particular Agahnim?

Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:36:04 PM)
quote: Posting to anyone in particular Agahnim? Mostly to DrMark, but since you seemed to agree with the argument he was using, you can reply if you have anything to say about my response.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI