What Has Understanding Evolution

[Whalstib]

done for mankind?

I was in a debate recently and the subject came up of just what good is understanding evolution? Many will make the claim it is the single greatest scientific achievement of mankind but what has it done to further mankind or science? Yea it's pretty cool and answers lots of questions and gives a framework to paleontology but what else? What specific advances does it allow?

I don't mean the theory evolution itself I'm much happier being a whole bunch of organized cells than some lowly prokaryotic thank you very much but what advantages do we have using it as a tool in research etc? If the changes are so slow and drawn out what good does it do in a human life span or even 100 or 1000?

I'm asking here because I have a basic understanding of the evolution of viruses and bacteria to antibiotics but is there more to just understanding adaptive immunity?

Funny I can think of any number of bad things that have arisen due to understanding evolution but can't come up with a whole lot of good ones!

Thanks,

Warren

 

[Fra]

I'm asking here because I have a basic understanding of the evolution of viruses and bacteria to antibiotics but is there more to just understanding adaptive immunity?

As I see it the big boost is the mere understanding of the mechanisms of evolution is a key to making better and more efficient models in many fields in particular for complex systems in general.

Complex systems meaning systems so complex that a first principle modelling and reductionist approaches simply fails due to

- deterministic chaos
- overflowing requirements for computational and memeory capacity to perform even the most elementary calculation from first principles.

Here new understanding of organisation and evolution of complex systems is a huge boost.

I don't see the evolution just as the understanding of the genes, it's a more general picture where adaptions and regulatory mechanism at different levels just are the way complex systems work and survive.

For example, it's impossible due to the above reasons to make first principle modelling of how a cell in depth responds to say a medicine. Even though you might argue that it's possible "in principle" to write the down equations, it just won't work due to a range of reasons.

But understanding the objectives and response logic of a living cell, gives huge shortcuts. Although it's not mutations, I think a very common way is to simulated the complete gene regulatory chain by means of metabolic network simulations, where you just define the metabolic network and the main regulatory points, and they see by optimation algorithms the optimal expression.

Then the assumption is that the response of the cell; given an an inferering substance; will given some equilibriation/evolution time, find the new optimal regulatory state.

Thise has also been confirmed for real mutating bacterial cultures where the organisms converges to the predicted point. Such a prediction would be impossible from first principles.

So evolutionary perspectives and think is I think indispensable for understanding and predicting complex systems.

/Fredrik

 

[Ken Natton]

I do anticipate the possibility that my answer might be unsatisfactory to you Warren, but it is, I believe, the right response to the premise you offer. You might get a whole range of responses to your question that supply purely utilitarian advantages of evolutionary knowledge. I certainly do not dismiss the importance of those utilitarian advantages, and it is clear to me that they are so broad and varied that some might see your question as excessively naïve. But my point is that, whatever the utilitarian advantages, the knowledge and understanding is, of itself, all the justification required.

And I know of no ‘bad things that have arisen due to understanding evolution’. There may be plenty that have arisen due to people’s illogical responses to that knowledge, but that is not actually the fault of evolutionary science.

 

[jambaugh]

I think you'll find many of the "good ones" have been subtle. Understanding evolution incorporates with and augments our understanding of ecological systems and how component species may achieve an equilibrium niche or upset the equilibrium of an ecology. This applies directly to e.g. agriculture and aquaculture.

Simply finding likely locations to drill for oil, or mine coal require we incorporate evolution and its subsidiary implications into our world view.

Little things like understanding the sickle cell trait, how it arose from a mutation (multiple times in our ancestral history) and why it didn't die out is important to understanding its genetic and physiological roll and thus adapting treatments. Take this example times a number of other genetically based illnesses. Also take it in the social context of understanding its presence in the context of evolution vs some superstitious bigoted view e.g. as the mark of Cain or other divine punishment, "sins of the father..." and all that.

As to "bad things" I can't think of any stemming from knowledge of evolution itself, rather only from ignorant reactions to the idea or its use (no different from the use of its alternatives) to rationalize horrific behavior of tyrants.

From the fact of evolution, I don't think you can paint it in "good" vs "bad" since you don't have a proper alternative to which to compare "better" and "worse".
One can blame gravity for the pain of landing on the pavement when one falls but it isn't the moral obligation of gravity to apply itself only for our benefit. The good or bad of it lies in why we fall given our lifetime of experience with gravity doing what gravity does regardless of our wishes.

Good vs Bad is best left to qualify human choices and behavior. I don't blame gravity because I neglected my shoelaces and tripped.

I don't blame evolution because over-use of antibiotics in agriculture has provided bacteria the genetic incentive to adapt any more than I thank evolution for providing the original difference in physiology between bacterial cell walls and animal cell walls so that a substance can inhibit one without affecting the other to any great extent.

 

[Whalstib]

Thanks,

As to the bad things consider how fast one is jump on say the Catholic Church for it's "bad things" when it was not the doctrine but how people interpreted and abused the power of it.

Interestingly many champions of evolution would prefer we don't connect the dots to eugenics, racism and genocide that used evolution for the extremists ideas. Seriously time to admit science sort of went off the rails back there. Darwin himself made volumes of racists remarks that in modern times would have him exiled from science...

" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man (1871) p.201"

So we have the horses mouth THE Word on evolution using such terms...

Once again I agree that the theory is sound and bears no repsonsibility for human actions. It just is.

Oops I have to run to school and I look like a YEC'er! Sorry! I'm a serious geoscience student with no issues with the theory of evolution!

The theory is so polarizing I find myself for apologizing fro discussing it...what it the deal with that?

More to come...
W

 

[mishrashubham]

I perfectly agree with Ken Natton. Sometimes the only reason one needs to study something is the satisfaction of gaining knowledge about it. A lot of science (and other things) is studied for its own sake and not so that some practical application can be taken out.

 

[Ken Natton]

Sometimes the only reason one needs to study something is the satisfaction of gaining knowledge about it. A lot of science (and other things) is studied for its own sake and not so that some practical application can be taken out.

Yes, actually thinking about it, one can expand outwards about scientific knowledge generally in response to Warren’s / Whalstib’s mistaken blaming of evolutionary science for eugenics, racism and genocide. Scientific knowledge can be misused when it is available to some and withheld from others. That, I suppose is the central reason why science is generally so open about what it knows and makes its discoveries so freely available to anyone willing to make the effort to actually understand them. I know of no genuine adverse effect of any openly shared knowledge. The misinterpretations of evolutionary science used to justify eugenics is no reflection whatever on an accurate understanding of evolutionary science. And no open minded and thoughtful reader really believes that Darwin was, in the least bit racist.

 

[Mkorr]

Interestingly many champions of evolution would prefer we don't connect the dots to eugenics, racism and genocide that used evolution for the extremists ideas.

There are no dots to connect. Evolutionary biology concerns such as common descent and biological diversity. It is not a moral philosophy, but a set of descriptive statements about the world around us. Therefore, it cannot be used to support any given moral philosophy, good or bad.

Darwin himself made volumes of racists remarks that in modern times would have him exiled from science...

" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man (1871) p.201"

So we have the horses mouth THE Word on evolution using such terms...

Actually, that quote is taken out of context. When Darwin spoke of "race" he meant "varieties", not human ethnic groups. This makes sense considering that Darwin did not know about modern genetics. Today, we would use the term "ecotype" or "allele".

Darwin did not want other ethnic groups to be eradicated, he simply made a descriptive claim that this was the likely outcome of the European imperialism and colonialism during his own lifetime.

The quote in full reads

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

It is clear from the passage in context that Darwin was not a racist.

Oops I have to run to school and I look like a YEC'er! Sorry! I'm a serious geoscience student with no issues with the theory of evolution!

When you use creationist arguments and tactics, it is very difficult not to draw the tempting conclusion that you are.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

An understanding that all life arose from a common ancestor is crucial to allowing biologists to translate their findings from work on other organisms to understanding human disease. Simpler organisms such as fruit flies, worms, and mice are much easier to work with in a laboratory setting and study with the tools of genetics than humans. The fact that the basic cellular machinery in these organisms evolved from a common ancestor means that scientists are justified in thinking that studying these organisms can help understand human disease. When we study a certain gene in one of these organisms, we can easily find the related genes in humans and the work on these simpler organisms can then help us infer the function of that gene in humans.

Here's a good example. HIV reverse transcriptase (RT) is an enzyme that performs a very different function than any enzyme that had been studied before; it converts RNA into DNA. However, if you look at the sequence of RT, you can see that the enzyme looks a lot like a regular DNA polymerase, a class of enzymes that had been widely studied beforehand. Knowing that RT and the family of DNA polymerases evolved from a common ancestor has allowed us to use some of the tools developed for DNA polymerases to study RT and to translate our knowledge about DNA polymerases to the study of RT. This evolutionary connection is one reason why we have been so successful in developing very potent anti-HIV drugs that target RT and, in the course of ~20 years, converted HIV infection from a death sentence to a manageable disease.

 

[bobze]

Zooblots!

 

[Whalstib]

Hi again,

Huh? No dots to connect? You are living in a world of neo-Darwinism and when the heat comes you retreat to simple evolution; change in population over time...who can argue with that? Read about Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo and an example of "human evolution" True enough it's not the theory but doesn't denying the fact it has been used to fuel atrocities bug anyone besides me?

At my level of education I have not the experience to refute of defend evolution. Sure I understand the basic change in population over time and perhaps more of my confusion comes from neo-Darwinism and it's implications as I outline above.

I think I get suspicious when I see the rabid defense of Darwin and his many racists remarks that are not dismissed as from an age but actually defended and defined in PC terms to make palatable as if the theory of evolution depends on Darwins legacy..which it does not! it is clearly just a law of nature and any issues in my mind only arise when we get the single cell kingdom and frankly I don't get the inorganic to organic leap Miller-Urey accepted, RNA is NOT DNA. Once again I feel I have to apologize for questioning the status quo. I have been reading several university level biology texts and am learning so I do not have a closed mind which I'm afraid a few of you do.

Mkorr I'm sorry you think I'm lying. I was off to class and had to wrap it up. it seems any questioning leads to this conclusion and frankly I have NEVER seen such a wholesale utter defense that leaps to extremes on the mere presentation of a question! Face it to question evolution will use terms that are used by extremist. They are simple questions with little room to edit so if you find some similarities between I and a more extreme point of view that's fine.

Mkorr states: "It is clear from the passage in context that Darwin was not a racist." It is NOT clear! You are merely denying the black and white facts in front of you. I see nothing you added that changes the context!

FRA. Thanks! Excellent explanation! This is what I am looking for!

Folks I think the issues is most of academia as I have been exposed takes Dawkins view that if you don't believe evolution/neo-Darwinism you are ignorant or and idiot which slams the door shut on any discussion.

Off to another class!

Thanks again Fra...I will use that as a thoughtful definition of the good things evolution has done for mankind in future discussions.

W

 

[Whalstib]

Fra,

Sorry I got caught up in the rhetoric and didn’t reply directly to your thoughtful post. I see what you are saying and you put it most eloquently but are we at the point with the modeling where the change can be predicted to a greater or lesser degree? Is this the ultimate goal? Are we still dealing with rolls of the dice and only recognize that there will be change without fully comprehending the mechanisms?

I don’t mean to detract (see I feel I have apologize for asking a question! No where else in science!) but isn’t it rather hollow until concrete change can be used for the benefit? Perhaps that is where we are. I don’t know and am here to learn.

I think this is what bugs me about evolution is so simple but doesn’t on face value explain enough. I see it as just a jumping off point and in fact most of the advances go to more modern sciences.

Thanks again,

Warren

 

[Mkorr]

Huh? No dots to connect? You are living in a world of neo-Darwinism and when the heat comes you retreat to simple evolution; change in population over time...who can argue with that?

You clearly do not even know what Neo-Darwinism even means; it was mainly the synthesis of common descent and Darwinian adaptation on the one hand and population- and statistical genetics, on the other. Modern evolutionary biology, or post-synthetic evolutionary biology, also incorporates things like genetic networks, evolutionary developmental biology, genomics, plasticity, epigenetics etc.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how society ought to work.

Read about Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo and an example of "human evolution" True enough it's not the theory but doesn't denying the fact it has been used to fuel atrocities bug anyone besides me?

Both modern and Darwin's evolutionary theory argues that all humans share a common ancestor with other primates. No currently existing species of primates is the direct ancestor to any other currently existing species. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.

Sure I understand the basic change in population over time and perhaps more of my confusion comes from neo-Darwinism and it's implications as I outline above.

Those are not implications of neo-Darwinism.

it is clearly just a law of nature and any issues in my mind only arise when we get the single cell kingdom and frankly I don't get the inorganic to organic leap Miller-Urey accepted, RNA is NOT DNA.

The origin of life (abiogenesis) is not evolution. Common descent stands regardless of the status of various models for the origin of life.

The Miller-Urey experiment did not even produce RNA, but amino acids and certain bases. We now know that the atmospheric conditions postulated by Miller and Urey are not completely accurate, but experiments have be redone with more adequate models of atmospheric conditions that also produce many building blocks of life. Abiogenesis is a relatively new field of research.

Once again I feel I have to apologize for questioning the status quo. I have been reading several university level biology texts and am learning so I do not have a closed mind which I'm afraid a few of you do.

Debunking the same old creationist canards is not the same as being close minded. Now, presenting such arguments on the other hand...

It is NOT clear! You are merely denying the black and white facts in front of you. I see nothing you added that changes the context!

It does. The context of the quote makes it clear that Darwin is engaging in a descriptive prediction of probable outcomes if western imperialism continues as it did at the time.

You probably just copy/pasted the butchered quote from a creationist website without trying to check if it was taken out of context. We caught you with your pants down and your hand in the cookie jar. Game over.

 

[Mkorr]

The "evolution does not have any practical application, therefore not valid science" argument has been around since at least the 1980s and refuted thousands of times since. Here is a short list of practical applications.

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA215: The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application.

1. Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.

This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.

2. Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
* Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
* Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
* Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
* Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
* Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
* Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

3. Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
* Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
* Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
* Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
* Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
* Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

4. Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
* enzymes (Arnold 2001)
* pigments (Arnold 2001)
* antibiotics
* flavors
* biopolymers
* bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

5. The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

6. Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
* Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
* The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).

7. Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

8. Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.

9. Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.

I don’t mean to detract (see I feel I have apologize for asking a question! No where else in science!) but isn’t it rather hollow until concrete change can be used for the benefit? Perhaps that is where we are. I don’t know and am here to learn.

The "I'm just asking questions" and "I'm a martyr for questioning the orthodoxy" routine is getting pretty old.

 

[Fra]

Fra,

Sorry I got caught up in the rhetoric and didn’t reply directly to your thoughtful post. I see what you are saying and you put it most eloquently but are we at the point with the modeling where the change can be predicted to a greater or lesser degree? Is this the ultimate goal? Are we still dealing with rolls of the dice and only recognize that there will be change without fully comprehending the mechanisms?

I don’t mean to detract (see I feel I have apologize for asking a question! No where else in science!) but isn’t it rather hollow until concrete change can be used for the benefit? Perhaps that is where we are. I don’t know and am here to learn.

I think this is what bugs me about evolution is so simple but doesn’t on face value explain enough. I see it as just a jumping off point and in fact most of the advances go to more modern sciences.

No need to excuse yourself in any way.

I don't know you it's hard to see from which context your questions are fired so to speak. I can only guess.

But I think I see one of your concerns. You may wonder, what does evolution actually explain? You may ask, "ok we are the result of evolution" but so what? How does that help us here and now? What VALUE does this "insight" add?

There ARE good answers to that! But I'm not sure how to put it, to best convey it to you in a brief way.

Like in tried to say in my point, evolution is not just biological evolution. Evolution is much deeper and reflects all the way down to physical law.

Any discussion that focues only about evolution on earth, borderlining to almost religious discussions are missing a deeper point on evolution. Science itself is evolving, as it is a learning process. Life is very much similar.

As to what's the ultimate goal? That's up to say, what questions do You ask? Are the laws and rules of the world eternally true? Then one may ask, why exactly these laws?

Two nice quotes from Charles Sanders Peirce

"To suppose universal laws of nature capable of being apprehended by the mind and yet having no reason for their special forms, but standing inexplicable and irrational, is hardly a justifiable position. Uniformities are precisely the sort of facts that need to be accounted for."

"The only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and for uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This supposes them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely."

So except for the examples alread mentioned, what deeper does the evoluiontary insight add? and how does this improve our predictive capabilities of the future?

"On the reality of time and the evolution of laws"
http://pirsa.org/08100049

That is a philosophy of physics discussion but it's quite relevant to the questions you ask in a broader perspective.

The key predictive advantage is that once you understand that the other systems in your environment you are trying to predict, does EVOLVE in it's environment and that these systems are selected by their survival and reproduction skills, it's easier for you to predict these systems.

This is analogous to that it's easier to predict another human beeing, simply becase we understand how fellow humans think and feel. Predictions of human behavour from first principles are impossible due to previously mentioned reasons.

Science is an inference process; it's about learning. Learning to understand how other systems in our environment are behaving. But if the systems in our environment are ALSO merely trying to make inferences about their environment (including us) clearly we have here a situation where learning about how other systems act; is the same as learning about how learning works!

There are plenty of deep insights here... In some sense I think some of these things is what makes a different in intelligence between humans and some less clever animals. There are different levels of awareness and layers of reflections here.

Beeing able to "picture" how other individuals think and feel; and thus predict their behaviour to an extend otherwiser not possible - and thus increase your own advantage, is an insight to understanding that the behaviour of any system is adaptive and is evolving! This can be understood in terms of an abstract infernce or learning perspective. The genes, dna, and gene regulatory mechanism of molecular biology are just the concrete situation when it comes to life... but I see this as a special case of something even deeper.

Even the laws of physics can be seen as evolved. This has nothing to do with genes or Earth at all.

But still this is controversial and non any established consensus among physicists. The talk from Smoling just indicates a trend existing among some people. To take this idea to a concrete falsifiable predictive framework is still under construction. SMoling made some attempts with his CNS; but this is still far from the deepest realisation IMO.

I suspect this may not have been understandable though. that's what I meant with not knowing your background. It's easier to try to convey a possible answer if the reason for your question is known. I'm just guessing here...

/Fredrik

 

[Whalstib]

Fra


So would a simple analogy be like a chess match where one move/change doesn't 100% predict a resulting change but it narrows down a logical counter move? Like chess pieces certain mechanisms have certain limits and provoke certain responses...Just brain storming here.

My level is in my 3rd year of college science as a geology major so biology is on the other side of campus. I studied paleontology and have an appreciation for "deep time" and can see how the physical Earth changes over time-evolves and can actually clearly see how noting mechanisms allows modeling that predict a variety situations or results.

Thanks,

Warren

 

[thorium1010]

Hi again,
I don't get the inorganic to organic leap Miller-Urey accepted, RNA is NOT DNA. Once again I feel I have to apologize for questioning the status quo. I have been reading several university level biology texts and am learning so I do not have a closed mind which I'm afraid a few of you do.

The experiment produced amino acids and organic molecules. As Ygggdrasil mentioned RNA is used as a template to produce Dna by reverse transcriptase enzymes in viruses such as HIV viruses to be incorporated in the host DNA.

And there is TRNA , MRNA etc that work to translate the genetic code to make protiens inside the cell. ITs not like RNA and DNA work in isolation. IN fact RNA and DNA differ by a oxygen atom and a nucleotide.

while DNA contains deoxyribose, RNA contains ribose (in deoxyribose there is no hydroxyl group attached to the pentose ring in the 2' position). These hydroxyl groups make RNA less stable than DNA because it is more prone to hydrolysis. , The complementary base to adenine is not thymine, as it is in DNA, but rather uracil, which is an unmethylated form of thymine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA"

 

[Whalstib]

Yep...I'm a year removed from chemistry and forgot it was amino acids...a far cry from even RNA...Sorry

W

 

[bobze]

Hi again,

Huh? No dots to connect? You are living in a world of neo-Darwinism and when the heat comes you retreat to simple evolution; change in population over time...who can argue with that? Read about Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo and an example of "human evolution" True enough it's not the theory but doesn't denying the fact it has been used to fuel atrocities bug anyone besides me?

At my level of education I have not the experience to refute of defend evolution. Sure I understand the basic change in population over time and perhaps more of my confusion comes from neo-Darwinism and it's implications as I outline above.

I think I get suspicious when I see the rabid defense of Darwin and his many racists remarks that are not dismissed as from an age but actually defended and defined in PC terms to make palatable as if the theory of evolution depends on Darwins legacy..which it does not! it is clearly just a law of nature and any issues in my mind only arise when we get the single cell kingdom and frankly I don't get the inorganic to organic leap Miller-Urey accepted, RNA is NOT DNA. Once again I feel I have to apologize for questioning the status quo. I have been reading several university level biology texts and am learning so I do not have a closed mind which I'm afraid a few of you do.

Mkorr I'm sorry you think I'm lying. I was off to class and had to wrap it up. it seems any questioning leads to this conclusion and frankly I have NEVER seen such a wholesale utter defense that leaps to extremes on the mere presentation of a question! Face it to question evolution will use terms that are used by extremist. They are simple questions with little room to edit so if you find some similarities between I and a more extreme point of view that's fine.

Mkorr states: "It is clear from the passage in context that Darwin was not a racist." It is NOT clear! You are merely denying the black and white facts in front of you. I see nothing you added that changes the context!

FRA. Thanks! Excellent explanation! This is what I am looking for!

Folks I think the issues is most of academia as I have been exposed takes Dawkins view that if you don't believe evolution/neo-Darwinism you are ignorant or and idiot which slams the door shut on any discussion.

Off to another class!

Thanks again Fra...I will use that as a thoughtful definition of the good things evolution has done for mankind in future discussions.

W

You're over looking something simple. Words and their usage changes over time. When is the last time you heard someone say "thou" in everyday speech?

The full title to Darwin's works;


On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

By "races" he is referring to variety, or forms, or flavors etc. This is patently clear to anyone who reads the book or understands his "4 postulates" of natural selection. Those are; that "varieties" exists within species, some of that variation is passed on, there is a finite amount of resources in a environment and there is differential survival and reproduction.

Here you can substitute the word we use nowadays--"varieties", with the word used in Darwin's day; "races".

 

[Fra]

So would a simple analogy be like a chess match where one move/change doesn't 100% predict a resulting change but it narrows down a logical counter move? Like chess pieces certain mechanisms have certain limits and provoke certain responses...Just brain storming here.

A "game/player" analogy can be very good!

Indeed the evolutionary picture does not come with a deterministic prediction from the past to an arbitrary future. Thole point with evolutionary thinking is than any inside observer (observer,organism,material) only "sees" a certain window of history and this is to what it responds, and the development is INCREMENTAL.

In the physics analogy of smolin in the link the case is this: In the normal view, there are eternally true laws, and govern evolution in a fixed state space. In an evolutionary picture, there is no eternal laws and no fixed statespace. Even the LAWS are changing and so does the STATESPACE measured relative to the inside observer.

In the game analogy, one can consider the world to be composed of an undefined set of interacting players, playing some kind of game against all other players in their environemnt. But the point is that there is no objective outside or descirption view of this "game", because even scientists are merely players in this game!

It means each player merely has their own "expectations of what the rules of the game are", and the RULE are constnatly subject to negotiation! (This is NOT the case in chess, which is a static classical game; this is why the simple chess analogy doesn't do).

The STAKE here is that each player is betting with their life or persistance, when competing with all other players. The whole game is played so to take advantage of your environment, to benefiy yourself. To do that you need to PREDICT your competitors! (ie the entire environment!) and in order to try to do this and to survive, the understanding and behaviour of each player is evolving! WE do not have a MECHANISM to the VARIATION, the variation is simply due to uncertainty and undecidability. But this VARIATION is small and controlled by the in-place effective local rules each player sees.

In this game... some players simply make the wrong movesw and get controlled the environment and thus dies. The evolution then will select for players that have acquired the traits of flexibility, fitness and means of "reproduction"... but reproduction in the physics-sense does not mean sexual or asecual reproduction; one cna picture other ways like induction... a given environment simply be selection "prefers" certain "consistent" opponents that are in minimal conflict with them... and of course each single player does contribute to each own environment and therefor defined the breeding ground. This is what MIGHT (again this is not consensus in an way) replace the "reproduction" part in evolution in more general perspective... the biological cellular reproduction cycles are of course merely a much for efficient and evolved means... but obviously some kind of "reproduction" must have taken place before these structures where in place... before the first dna/rma and the first copying machinert... This is why the deepest view of this has nothing at all in principle to do with DNA or RNA. Because there were certainly no DNA or RNA or first cells during big bang.

In a sense I see each player as doing a random walk, but a random walk guided by the contraints and effective laws... but these laws change in response to each step...

So yes evolution does contains elements of undecidability! But this is not to be seen as something missing. On the contrary is it an important point. It is exactly what allows for the small, but controlled variation we need to make we get constructive learning/evolution and selection and not just random variation and chaos.

The key is that the ACTION of each observe gets CONSTRAINED by what it can decided. The action is invariant with respect to what's beyond decidability.

Analogy: look at social interactions; people that due to various reasons have imparied ability to understand other people and feel compassion, sometimes take actions other people would not. But these people do receive backreactions and this is why this hasn't been selected as normality.

This is why also the RESPONSE pattern, or level of sophistication of responses drops with the complexity of the system, mainly because a very simple system can't encode or afford the complex information processing required for complex responses.

In biology even a single cell is complex of course, but not near as complex as an organism with a brain, like a human. Understanding a cell is in fact EASY in principle one you see that pretty much everything a cell does, is a rational response into the environment, given the current status of development depending also on it's history.

We know that all cells has both long term and short terms responses, so the current response pattern of a cell is not just a function of the environment now, but a function of it's history too!

So the focus is NOT to predict the future perfect; the focus should be on survival and LEARNING about the environment... this is why he predictions are constanly evolving for several reasons... we have learned to konw better, BUT also that the subject is also changing... the environment we are "predicting" is also different tomorrow than it was to day and this is impossible to predict... thisi is why flexible learning is the only route to survivlal.

/Fredrik

 

[jambaugh]

As to the bad things consider how fast one is jump on say the Catholic Church for it's "bad things" when it was not the doctrine but how people interpreted and abused the power of it.

That's because it is so easy. The CC has held power for centuries in the west. Plenty of examples. But how can you say persecution for heresy is not related to doctrine? The belief that an individual has an immortal soul and that whatever violence one inflicts on the body it is justified by the benefit to that soul is completely doctrine based...and repeated enumerable times in history.

Interestingly many champions of evolution would prefer we don't connect the dots to eugenics, racism and genocide that used evolution for the extremists ideas.

And white supremacists use patriotism to justify their actions. This doesn't make patriotism nor evolution wrong and neither are they the cause of the positions. Racism, genocide, and eugenics are older than history and certainly older than the theory of evolution.

Those policies themselves were not deduced from the theory of evolution but rather existent. Incorporating the new theory was an act of sophistry to legitimize their views. This is not the case in e.g. a man being tortured on the rack for "being an instrument of satan". Although I am sure many in power used their authority, granted to suppress heresy, to actually suppress power rivals or people they just did not like. However there were sincere and pious agents of the inquisition who believed they were instruments of god when they flayed the flesh off some poor fool who questioned some doctrine of the church.

Now I know this is not the doctrine of today's churches and most will argue it is not the doctrine taught by the founders of the church... but here is the point. It was the doctrine of the church of that time and there is no empirical means nor objective test to determine which faith is correct and which is not. The epistemological foundation does not allow this.

Science IS an epistemological discipline and one which insists on objectivity and testability. Evolution as a scientific theory may be utilized to justify some act but that utilization can be tested for validity within the scope of science. And that utilization cannot be without additional interjected values. Evolution is a model of how things behave not what they are worth. Worth and thus justification of actions is a social and personal issue, not a law of nature... that is unless you subscribe to some Church's doctrine.

Now let me ask you... what do you find specifically wrong with: eugenics, racism and genocide? Argue the case by means I can accept and test. If you invoke scripture it is lost on me unless you invoke scripture to which I already subscribe. If you invoke science you invoke a discipline which by its nature I can verify on my own if I wish.

Here is an example: According to the theory of evolution, dark skin is not a mark of inferiority but rather a specific genetic adaptation to equatorial climates just a light skin is an adaptation to temperate climates. Wearing clothing in colder climates prevents production of vitamin D from sunlight. Lighter skin compensates. Sunlight also causes damage to unprotected skin which is offset by higher pigment levels in warmer climates. Evolution explains how people in different regions developed locally beneficial traits and that the superiority of one race over another is specific to their environment.

If anything, evolution as a scientific theory has given us a better understanding of our differences and thus undercut the prejudices which existed prior to its discovery.

 

[kennychelsea]

I perfectly agree with Ken Natton. Sometimes the only reason one needs to study something is the satisfaction of gaining knowledge about it. A lot of science (and other things) is studied for its own sake and not so that some practical application can be taken out.

I agree... Such result are not really aimed for what they really looking forward from the result. They tend to be stray and then just continue to research because they are getting pleasures in researching. (I feel it sometimes) This is because of the curiosity of oneself towards the unknown.

 

[Mkorr]

That's because it is so easy. The CC has held power for centuries in the west. Plenty of examples. But how can you say persecution for heresy is not related to doctrine? The belief that an individual has an immortal soul and that whatever violence one inflicts on the body it is justified by the benefit to that soul is completely doctrine based...and repeated enumerable times in history.

The OP is (or ought to be) referring to the lack of historical merit for the Draper-White thesis (a thesis which is largely discredited as far as modern historians are concerned), rather than persecution for heresy. There are plenty of times where individual religious authorities or groups of religious authorities have been anti-scientific, but many of the examples provided by Draper and White where generalizations and exaggerations. For instance, it was never an official position of the Catholic Church that the Earth was flat, they never tortured Galileo for advocating Copernicanism, they never prohibited human dissection nor did the denounce anesthesia in childbirth on biblical grounds.

Numbers, R. L., editor (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England.

 

[Whalstib]

Jambaugh states:

"The CC has held power for centuries in the west."

Not even close! In fact I counter with the idea the CC never held power but existed at the graces of prevailing political powers. This is evidenced by the high incidence of nepotism that cut through ranks of royalty and clergy. One of the reasons for unmarried priests was to separate any lineages and transfer of power within families.

Even with atrocities like the "Spanish Inquisition" most don't seem to notice the term "Spanish" and learn the history of Spain at the time.

BTW I am Catholic and don't excuse any of this behavior neither do I deny it. I think that's why the "Darwin Apologist League" disgusts me so much. I think until you can admit there were abuses and atrocities in the name of evolution and Darwin was known to have some at least in modern eyes racists ideas you will still be attacked by the radical right as denying what appears so clear cut illustrates a dishonest core.

Although it hasn't stopped the Catholic bashing so what do I know...

W

 

[bobze]

Jambaugh states:

"The CC has held power for centuries in the west."

Not even close! In fact I counter with the idea the CC never held power but existed at the graces of prevailing political powers. This is evidenced by the high incidence of nepotism that cut through ranks of royalty and clergy. One of the reasons for unmarried priests was to separate any lineages and transfer of power within families.

Even with atrocities like the "Spanish Inquisition" most don't seem to notice the term "Spanish" and learn the history of Spain at the time.

BTW I am Catholic and don't excuse any of this behavior neither do I deny it. I think that's why the "Darwin Apologist League" disgusts me so much. I think until you can admit there were abuses and atrocities in the name of evolution and Darwin was known to have some at least in modern eyes racists ideas you will still be attacked by the radical right as denying what appears so clear cut illustrates a dishonest core.

Although it hasn't stopped the Catholic bashing so what do I know...

W

This is your misunderstanding, someone explained it back on the first page--Darwin and the word "races". I explained it again on the second page;

You're over looking something simple. Words and their usage changes over time. When is the last time you heard someone say "thou" in everyday speech?

The full title to Darwin's works;


On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

By "races" he is referring to variety, or forms, or flavors etc. This is patently clear to anyone who reads the book or understands his "4 postulates" of natural selection. Those are; that "varieties" exists within species, some of that variation is passed on, there is a finite amount of resources in a environment and there is differential survival and reproduction.

Here you can substitute the word we use nowadays--"varieties", with the word used in Darwin's day; "races".

 

[Whalstib]

For some reason you are solving a problem only you have. The quote I had issue with does not use the term "race" so please read more carefully.

This over zealous defense is what raises my suspicions. There isn't even a seed of "investigate" it's simply "you are wrong because I see it this way".

Who knows if Darwin was a racist. There is evidence both ways. But to try to untangle such loaded phrases and suggest they mean the opposite of what they say on face value is ridiculous. To become concerned with what I think... well... I wouldn't suggest that.

W

 

[thorium1010]

For some reason you are solving a problem only you have. The quote I had issue with does not use the term "race" so please read more carefully.

This over zealous defense is what raises my suspicions. There isn't even a seed of "investigate" it's simply "you are wrong because I see it this way".

Who knows if Darwin was a racist. There is evidence both ways. But to try to untangle such loaded phrases and suggest they mean the opposite of what they say on face value is ridiculous. To become concerned with what I think... well... I wouldn't suggest that.

W

why is it that darwin bashing is more interesting than evolutionary science. Is it to find out that he had a hidden agenda (if he really had one ) to try to discredit evolutionary science ?
Evolutionary science has progressed since Darwinian era. Some of what darwin had proposed, he would't have known where to find evidence and some fields of science had yet to develop . (genetics, epigenetics etc )

 

[bobze]

For some reason you are solving a problem only you have. The quote I had issue with does not use the term "race" so please read more carefully.

This over zealous defense is what raises my suspicions. There isn't even a seed of "investigate" it's simply "you are wrong because I see it this way".

Who knows if Darwin was a racist. There is evidence both ways. But to try to untangle such loaded phrases and suggest they mean the opposite of what they say on face value is ridiculous. To become concerned with what I think... well... I wouldn't suggest that.

W

The neat thing about message boards, is they keep a precise record of what was said. You supplied the quote;

" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man (1871) p.201"

Why did you supply this quote? Let's again use that neat function of message boards;

Darwin himself made volumes of racists remarks that in modern times would have him exiled from science...

Also of note, it is pretty common for creationists (either those out of the closet or those who just "use their arguments") to take issue with the words race or imply that evolutionary theory is somehow "racist" (why I provided another example using the full title of Origins).

Had you bothered to have the hubris to do a little research on your own (read, not being academically lazy/inept) http://www.google.com/search?q=At+s...=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a"

As both Mkorr and myself explained, the quote is not "racist"--Nor when Charlie and his contemporaries used the word "race" did they mean it as we mean today.

 

[Whalstib]

Wow!
You ARE obsessed with what I think! Sorry, I still disagree with you. There are plenty of other of questionable quotes by Darwin I have issue with. Those are not the point and one was used for illustrative purposes. It was not a misquote. It is verbatim and reading paragraphs and pages before and after do not convince me otherwise. You best learn to live with it.

As the being "academically lazy/inept" I suggest you read the forum rules. I was cited with an infraction for less of a remark.

I'm relatively new to science debates. Is this vociferous defense of an historical figure normal? Is there similar debate on the math forum concerning Newton and calculus since recent revelations of his toying with alchemy? That would be funnier!

Although this behavior is quite amusing as well!

Bobze I disagree with you. I don't think you are wrong or inept in fact I'm just not convinced by your argument. Not even close. Once again I suggest you not be so concerned with what I think, as flattering as that is!Warren

 

[bobze]

Wow!
You ARE obsessed with what I think! Sorry, I still disagree with you. There are plenty of other of questionable quotes by Darwin I have issue with. Those are not the point and one was used for illustrative purposes. It was not a misquote.

Uh, yes...it was. Hence the whole "pulled-out of context". Did you bother to read the link "the fallacy of quoting out of context"?

It is verbatim and reading paragraphs and pages before and after do not convince me otherwise. You best learn to live with it.

So, you'd prefer to disregard context of a quote--Such that you can assign your own meaning to, regardless of what the author was discussing...You know, there is a name for that too...

As the being "academically lazy/inept" I suggest you read the forum rules. I was cited with an infraction for less of a remark.

Sorry if that offended you, I don't know what else to call it. The "Darwin was a racist" or "evolution is immoral" or "'belief' in evolution leads to terrible things", etc, has been hashed out by creationists and neo-creationists (ID'ers) many hundreds of times--Their "arguments" have been so thoroughly and completely refuted there are even wiki websites that keep track of them; with such creatively named titles as "Notable Charles Darwin Misquotes" .

A clue perhaps then? That you've failed to find these answers, despite such well known, and common explanations for them indicates either laziness or ineptitude--Its really one or the other. It would have taken you all of 30 seconds to look and see what Darwin was actually talking about, instead of assuming what he was talking about, or worse yet not caring what he was talking (as you indicate above) and presenting the "argument" anyway.

I'm relatively new to science debates. Is this vociferous defense of an historical figure normal? Is there similar debate on the math forum concerning Newton and calculus since recent revelations of his toying with alchemy? That would be funnier!


Although this behavior is quite amusing as well!

There isn't a 'science debate' about evolution. That train left the building over a century ago--Time to catch up methinks. I think you have mistaken "vociferous defense" with annoyance. Were there a large, multimillion dollar industry of history deniers who's sole purpose was to mischaracterize, promote anti-intellectualism and misinform the public about Newton then I'm sure mathematicians and physicists would take the annoyed approach as well. Especially when people (such as yourself) come around basically saying they don't care about things like "context" (who needs something so silly?) or evidence, or what someone really meant--They are going to believe regardless. Again, we have a name for this, can you guess what it is?

Bobze I disagree with you. I don't think you are wrong or inept in fact I'm just not convinced by your argument. Not even close. Once again I suggest you not be so concerned with what I think, as flattering as that is!

Warren

I really don't care what you think Warren...Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion--Facts it turns out, care little for our opinions, however. I don't think you are wrong-I know you are. How do I know? Because, rather than just assume what Darwin was talking about, I've actually read what he was talking about.

You could of course do this for yourself as well. http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html" are both available, for your reading pleasure, at those links for free. Isn't vertically transmissible knowledge great? Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Whalstib]

Sir

I disagree with your assessment

W

 

[jambaugh]

Jambaugh states:

...BTW I am Catholic and don't excuse any of this behavior neither do I deny it. I think that's why the "Darwin Apologist League" disgusts me so much. I think until you can admit there were abuses and atrocities in the name of evolution and Darwin was known to have some at least in modern eyes racists ideas you will still be attacked by the radical right as denying what appears so clear cut illustrates a dishonest core.

Although it hasn't stopped the Catholic bashing so what do I know...

W

The point I would make, and it is not specific to Catholicism, (one can as easily refer to the Salam witch trials) is the following.

While one may commit acts of violence or discrimination in the name of a scientific doctrine as well as a religious doctrine, the justification of either case is different in nature and the validity of the logic in the justification can in both cases be valid. IF --hypothetically-- one group of human beings is the chosen people of God or IF hypothetically one group of human being is by virtue of their ancestry significantly superior to others in intelligence and temperament then it is valid to favor that group.

The logical deduction is straight forward. It is the premise which must be tested. In the case of a religious belief the premise is a matter of faith and the resolution of it a matter of bashing those of a different faith in the head until only your own faith prevails. In the case of a scientific belief the premise is a matter of empirically testable hypotheses. Any one can test the scientific premise both in degree and quality.

One can formulate either a religious or a scientific premise which logically justifies any action. The test of the premises is where they differ. Creationism or intelligent design is not science and has no business being taught as such. The divine right of kings is not science and cannot be questioned in and of itself. Darwin's theory IS science and further has stood up to the empirical tests science demands... whether it has been misapplied or not, whether the founder was an SOB or not, and whether it invalidates the beliefs (of whatever type) of millions of people or not.

BTW One virtue of Roman Catholicism is its strong hierarchy of authority. Questions of doctrine can be appealed to higher and higher authority and ultimately settled by the head man based on his faith, interpretation of scripture, church history, and whatever divine guidance he may obtain.

The alternative virtue of science is that any child on the street may point out that the emperor has no cloths, which is to say, no matter what any scientific authority might say, anyone may carry out the experiments, or observations to test the existing doctrine. It is quite democratic in this sense.

 

[mishrashubham]

Alright, I have read the entire thread again. It started with the OP asking a simple question "What are the practical applications of studying evolution?"... But what I am not able to understand is why he got himself involved in a debate about the Catholic church, neo-Darwinism and what not, beginning with post #5. Now I would suggest that that the OP forget about this fight as the issue that is being so hotly debated about is irrelevant today. How does it even matter today whether Darwin was racist or not? That does not change how evolution works. I hope the OP got the answer to his original question.

Case Closed

 

[Fra]

what I am not able to understand is why he got himself involved in a debate about the Catholic church, neo-Darwinism and what...

I agree. I'm lost too.

I tried to make some sincere contributions but I think I must have missed something.

/Fredrik

 

[Whalstib]

Hi again,

I very much appreciate Fra's contribution and have used his explanation to restart as it were my biological readings with those concepts in mind.

As I said on the out set this was in response to a debate. Some would prefer to proclaim "case closed" as they are satisfied with the process so far. Others are unconvinced on one level or another and prefer to have deeper questions answered or at least addressed. I did not bring up the Catholic Church and only remarked it was used out of historical context as I was accused of using Darwin. Note I did not attack the original posted about CC but presented an optional point of view that if considered may direct their further research on the matter. No right or wrong.

It must be noted if you just begin to investigate a deeper level you find characters like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and films like Exposed attempting to shape public opinion as the debate is about academia and public schools.

I think the limitation of time lag in forums is abused and any accusations or assumptions about others withheld and given benefit of the doubt. I was guilty of responding to one set of comments about me emotionally and learned my lesson and can note this in the future. Others may do well to reread their posts and reconsider for the future if they are a bit pompous on the subject and not convincing anyone of anything with their cleaver choice of words.

W

 

[Yanick]

Your question was answered before this thread got de-railed and turned into some kind of Evolution vs Religion debate.

In a very practical aspect evolution allows us to use animal models in researching biological phenomena because we share common cellular components and metabolic pathways which were conserved throughout the millenia due to their value in allowing organisms/species etc to survive and reproduce. Although mouse models are not perfect and don't correlate 100% to humans, it allows a very nice starting point to in vivo trials.

On the deepest level (and this starts to get into the realm of philosophy and not science), knowledge should be gained for purely knowledge's sake. What practical applications were there to Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Who cares what happens when things travel at the speed of light? We will never travel at the speed of light, so why study it? In fact, in Einstein's time, we did not even have the precision of instrumentation to measure his predictions about the bending of light due to gravity. Not all research has to have a direct practical application. In fact if you look at the history of science it is riddled with lots of little discoveries and ideas which culminate in that one big idea that actually changes the world. We only learn about that one big idea and that one big name scientist but a deeper study of the history of that field shows us that the big name guy built his idea around lots of little guys who figured out the little things.

Shoulders of giants and all that jazz.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What practical applications were there to Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Global Positioning, for one.

 

[Yanick]

Global Positioning, for one.

GPS did not exist in the early 1900's (when Einstein did his work on GR).

EDIT: Okay I re-read my post and I guess I was unclear in my point. My point is/was that just because some research or idea will not lead to a machine/invention/pharmaceutical/what-have-you right away does not mean that it is useless and it definitely does not mean that the idea/research should not be pursued. At the time of Einstein's publishing of GR there were NO practical applications. It was just a bunch of guys with really complicated equations and very interesting minds/imaginations 'daydreaming' about being on trains traveling near the speed of light. Low and behold 100 years later we are using those things in GPS.

 

[russ_watters]

But what I am not able to understand is why he got himself involved in a debate about the Catholic church, neo-Darwinism and what not, beginning with post #5. Now I would suggest that that the OP forget about this fight as the issue that is being so hotly debated about is irrelevant today. How does it even matter today whether Darwin was racist or not? That does not change how evolution works. I hope the OP got the answer to his original question.

It appears to me that that argument was the intent from the start:

Funny I can think of any number of bad things that have arisen due to understanding evolution but can't come up with a whole lot of good ones!

The OP wanted to discuss those "bad things" and appears to still not understand that those "bad things" don't actually have anything to do with understanding evolution. For the most part, they are based on misunderstanding/misuse of evolution. Odd, considering he jumped to the defense of the Catholic Church (against a nonexistent attack) using the same logic:

As to the bad things consider how fast one is jump on say the Catholic Church for it's "bad things" when it was not the doctrine but how people interpreted and abused the power of it.

...and then attacked evolution using the tactics he had just pointed out were flawed!

 

[Whalstib]

I NEVER Attacked evolution! I "believe" in it to use a simple term!
Argument was not my intention. Discussion was. I have no interest of evaluating this entire thread again but perhaps my choice of words was poor.

In preliminary investigations I was being presented with overwhelming examples of "bad things". Do a few internet searches and perhaps you will come to same conclusion. While attempting to find more beneficial and practical aspects of evolution and the evolution of evolution <G?> I was then introduced the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins both let's say a little pompous and add little facts to the discussion but are at the forefront of the "debate".

I then turned here to get a more unemotional definition as I knew as a science student there is more to this but was having difficulty finding concise answers and frankly don't have the background to fathom some of the higher theories in the biology book I have been studying. Oddly I can count one or two posters out of the many who had the class to concisely and eloquently get to the point. The remainder appeared driven by emotion and hence a debate has ensued.

Along the way I must say I have been misinterpreted and as I said I bear some of the responsibility for my poor choice of words and tone. But many jumped to great conclusions and accused me of being what I am not. Whatever...

This last post follows that pattern accusing me of attacking evolution by posing questions. I see that as a real problem in a scientific environment. You could just as easily ask me pointed questions that i would be pleased to answer if I am unclear or if you prefer to level accusations based on ambivalent remarks I have posted.

Opinions are fine but if you want to know the truth about what and how I feel just ask...

W

 

[russ_watters]

I NEVER Attacked evolution! I "believe" in it to use a simple term!
Argument was not my intention. Discussion was. I have no interest of evaluating this entire thread again but perhaps my choice of words was poor.

In preliminary investigations I was being presented with overwhelming examples of "bad things". Do a few internet searches and perhaps you will come to same conclusion.

Yes, there are a lot of crackpots on the internet who attack evolution using crackpot tactics. But so what? Crackpots should be ignored, not humored. You bringing those arguments here is a proxy attack on evolution: whether you believe those arguments or not, you force people to respond to them.

While attempting to find more beneficial and practical aspects of evolution and the evolution of evolution <G?> I was then introduced the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins both let's say a little pompous and add little facts to the discussion but are at the forefront of the "debate".

As said before, there is no debate in scientific circles regarding the validity of evolution. It's been well accepted for a hundred years. The "debate" that Dawkins has thrust himself into is the debate against religious crackpots against evolution. That's what you are taking up (and arguing on behalf of the crackpots, whether you actually agree with them or not). That's the basic issue here. Whether you really believe those crackpot things or just fell into a trap the crackpots set for you, you presented crackpot positions as if they had scientific validity and that's why you got the reaction you did.

Where it goes from here is up to you (it's your thread). If your original question has been sufficiently answered, there's nothing left to discuss. If you want more info about the real scientific benefits already listed, people can provide them. If you want to discuss more of the "bad things" that crackpots say about evolution, be prepared for more responses with irritated tones.

 

[Fra]

I confess my naivety here: I live in Europe and my impression is that this mixup of creation of the universe, evolution etc with religion tend to be very american. Maybe that's unfair, but for whatever reason it's an impression I have.

It took be a couple of readings before I realized that CC didn't stand for cosmological constant but rather Catholic Church

I interpreted the questioning of evolution Whalstib as what I rephrased in post 15

"ok we are the result of evolution" but so what? How does that help us here and now?"

I think that's a good question, that may be deeper than first appreciated. And asking it doesn't in any way (at least how I see it) imply religion. I tried to answer it.

I did interpret that not too unlike the questioning of the antrophic principle. There is some confusion also in scientific circuits about the distinction between evolution and anthrophic principles. There is a difference.

Edit: Somehow the possible conflict between scientific rationals, and relgious beliefs is a different discussion, although I can see how it's related. I figure it's something that religious scientists must face. I am not religious but I can imagine, that if I were, I could easily think that whatever clever mechanisms nature seem to have, you could say that "god put it there". That's fine. But I'm not sure how it helps me here and now, except possibly giving a way to accept our ignorance.

/Fredrik

 

[Whalstib]

Russ who are the "crack pots"? Dawkins and Myers or the religious right? Or Both-which is my choice!

The simple fact I offered to answer any direct questions to clarify where I am coming from and it was ignored and an alternative (and wrong!) theory of my motives and beliefs presented illustrates a very low level of scientific understanding and even worse journalistic inquiry. The majority of you here cannot seem to separate fact from emotion.

Could it be we are not at exactly the same level of expertise on the subject? That some of us have just broached the topic and are amazed and fascinated with the polarizing rhetoric?

The bottom line is most of you fit the mold perfectly of pompous, arrogant, sophomoric academics put forth by the "crack-pot" opposition! You have met a series of inquiries with contempt and THIS I find staggering and would not have predicted this response at PF!

But it's quite enlightening and I am enjoying my time here immensely!

Thank you Fra for yet another very thoughtful post to make the rest of feel a bit ashamed for delving into rhetoric!

W

 

[mishrashubham]

OK...fine...what is your question then? Please state that again in clear terms.

 

[DanP]

Could it be we are not at exactly the same level of expertise on the subject? That some of us have just broached the topic and are amazed and fascinated with the polarizing rhetoric?

The bottom line is most of you fit the mold perfectly of pompous, arrogant, sophomoric academics put forth by the "crack-pot" opposition! You have met a series of inquiries with contempt and THIS I find staggering and would not have predicted this response at PF!

Sue us, sue Dawkins, sue Darwin and sue the evolution.

 

[DanP]

Thank you Fra for yet another very thoughtful post to make the rest of feel a bit ashamed for delving into rhetoric!

W

Nobody is here to cater to your sensibilities.

 

[Whalstib]

Nobody is here to cater to your sensibilities.

Yea I know especially when those sensibilities are accuracy and a sense of inquiry that goes against dogmatic paradigm!

 

[thorium1010]

Yea I know especially when those sensibilities are accuracy and a sense of inquiry that goes against dogmatic paradigm!

If You want to study evolutionary science, many posts have been made by in order answer OP, most of the contributions were quite good . And then somewhere along the way you posted that Darwin had written stuff that you said were quite racist . Well bobze and mkorr showed you the passage that should be understood in the context of that time and when he meant races he was referring to variety.
Evolutionary science is not a belief and like any other field science relies on observation, hypothesis and evidence.

 

[Whalstib]

OK...fine...what is your question then? Please state that again in clear terms.

Thanks for asking!

My basic question has been answered by Fra. No argument with the basic idea of evolution from me.

It's a difficult subject because the term "evolution" can apply to simply "change in population over time" to "all life is descendant from one common single cell ancestor". It can be used in the present alone by devout religious types or demanded it be an over arching theory which takes God and Mans soul away and atheism the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn.

Unfortunately the debaters generally pick and choose a little of both and retreat to safer realms when pressed about bigger questions. Even Dawkin's will bounce back and forth if the burdon of proof is beyond his expertise. Others simply attempt to be cleaver and berate those who question refusing to address the issue at hand.

With this in mind it makes it difficult to formulate a question because as has been demonstrated there is a significant vocal and dishonest core of evolutionists who will change the definition mid-discussion to suit their needs of having to always be right.

This is the first discussion I have had with a group of people concerning evolution and upon reflection I can only compare it to my "sunday school" experiences. Overbearing dogmatic unqualified teachers unable to comprehend basic questions or articulate adequate responses resorting to rhetoric and marginalizing the questioner and hence the questions.

Once again my basic question has been answered. If I thought this was a group of people who could leave emotions at the door we could continue on but for all practical purposes most of you are beyond doubt think too highly of your own opinions to engage in civilized intelligent conversation.

W

 

[Whalstib]

If You want to study evolutionary science, many posts have been made by in order answer OP. And most of the contributions were quite good . And then somewhere along the way you posted that Darwin had written stuff that you said were quite racist and some of us were not willing to accept it . well bobze and mkorr exactly showed you the passage that should be understood in the context of that time and when meant races he was referring to variety.
Evolutionary science is not a belief and like any other field science relies on observation, hypothesis and evidence.

Once again you are dealing with opinion and interpretation.

Most people of the 19th century were racists to our way of thinking. This doesn't imply genocide or KKK but certainly noting there are cultural as well as genetic differences. the gap was much wider that it is today between cultures and there were still many quite primitive peoples and cultures. Darwin expressed concern and compassion for many of the issues and was against slavery.

I know a few racists and they are not pro-genocide, nor pro-slavery but make distinctions between cultures and are convinced theirs is superior. This is the form of racism I believe Darwin "may" have been judging by his writing I have been exposed to. I can not make a claim he was a racist only some of the writings appear so. Neither can I make the claim he was not.

Any absolutes in the matter are difficult.

W