Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

then you have to answer the question in your own words- why would you suspect cheating when somebody plays 5 royal flushes in a row

but only chance, when they play any particular losing sequence of 25 cards, which are all exactly as improbable?

 

[Deeje]

Evolution only concerns itself with how life evolved.

...yeah, I noticed. But the elephant in the room remains...even if he is ignored.

 

[Deeje]

What is the reason for the existence of this Intelligent Life-form in the first place? Did it evolve?

What is the reason for matter to exist? Why are there black holes? Did gravity evolve? What is "life" exactly, so that we can quantify it on its many levels? Please explain ArtieE. When you have done that perhaps we can then begin to understand what kind of life-form the Creator is. All we know for sure is that something needs to be "alive" to be intelligent. Purpose demonstrates planning and planning requires intelligence....you never seem to address this point. All the systems that operate naturally on this earth demonstrate planning. The odds of them all forming by chance are ridiculous....unless you have an underlying reason to deny them.....a kind of selective blindness if you will...?

(Google pic)

Using Guy's illustration of the rocks on the beach spelling out the word "HELP"....what are the chances that they could have arrived at that spot on that beach and spell out that particular word and not have someone in a plane spotting it from above assume that they were put there by intelligent humans who needed rescuing? What are the odds that the rescuers would assume it was just a chance meeting of rocks on a sandy beach on an isolated island in the middle of the ocean, not known for having any inhabitants, and continue on their way? What idiot would jump to that conclusion? Seriously?

 

[Profound Realization]

But we don't conclude chance. Nor do we need to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Furthermore, this isn't the standard you used to conclude that an intelligent designer exists, so how do you justify attempting to impose it on others? If your argument is valid, it also argues against an intelligent designer.



A god is the least likely thing imaginable to exist undesigned and uncreated.



Show me "Help" written with stars, and we can revisit this argument.

Have you thrown in the towel like Deeje apparently has on the request to provide a reason for throwing out a scientific theory that works a religious hypothesis that generates no useful ideas even were it true? Don't you think that at least one of you should try given how intensely you advocate for intelligent design? Until you do, your arguments are as unpersuasive as a salesman who asks the owner of a running car to trade it in for one that doesn't run, can't be restored, and isn't even useful for parts.

This person sums it up well:

"Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?"

 

[Sapiens]

This person sums it up well:

"Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?"

Profound

Ah, the quote miners are at it again, but in the grossest and most obvious of ways:

This is the same Dr. Marc Kirschner who works on evolutionary systems and who pointed out that the lack of understanding of evolution has caused the spread of multiple resistant strains of bacteria. Kirschner works for Harvard Medicine, he is an evolutionist. His COMPLAINT is that a lot of biology has been conducted with insufficient attention being paid to evolutionary theory. Kirschner feels, in fact, that progress would be a lot faster if evolutionary theory was taken into account. Kirschner saying we need to do more, and the resistance of creationists like Skell (yes ... Dr. Skell) are, in point of fact, preventing medical advancements.

Notice how it is not revealed whom Skell works for, he's just part of a run-0n paragraph without even a line break, hoping you'd not notice.

Did you know that Skell's a chemist who works for an anti-evolution organization making unfounded claims about a field that he doesn't even study (he's very popular with anti-evolution crowds). It is a complete lie that evolution hinders medical discovery. I've never heard a more ridiculous claim. If you've ever heard your doctor say, “Take all your antibiotics,” it is because of what doctors know about evolution. If you don’t take all of them, then there will be remaining bacteria that are resistant to that antibiotic. They will grow, you will get another infection, and this time, those antibiotics will not be as effective. This is why penicillin is no longer a “miracle drug.” We've over-used it, and the bacteria are resistant. This is a major concern in disease control; many bacterial infections are adapting to our drugs. Evolution is occurring right now, and doctors are fighting to keep up with it. It is vital for doctors to understand how evolution occurs if we want to survive.

Not only is it important in fighting diseases, but it's also important to understand the evolutionary history of an organism in order to understand why it behaves a particular way. If an organism evolved where it needed close contact with its mother for the first year of its life, and we didn't know that, then when we have a specimen suffering biochemically due to hormone disruption, we may not know that the cause is because it is separated from its mother. These are important things to consider, and evolutionary biology is vital to understanding them.

Not only is evolution itself a huge breakthrough, but there are lots of current scientific breakthroughs occurring due to evolution – even in the field of evolution. We use evolutionary principles in computer programming, genetics, antibiotics, agriculture, wildlife management, neuroscience, psychology, sociology... In 1970, Normal Borlaugh won the Nobel Peace Prize because his understanding of evolution and genetics allowed him to produce crops that fed millions of people.

And finally, evolutionary biology *is* a type of experimental biology. Evolution is the foundation of all biology, and nothing in biology makes sense without it.

(thanks to A Believing Scientist)

 

[Deeje]

Ah, the quote miners are at it again, but in the grossest and most obvious of ways:

This is the same Dr. Marc Kirschner who works on evolutionary systems and who pointed out that the lack of understanding of evolution has caused the spread of multiple resistant strains of bacteria.

Apparently yes.....but it wasn't "the lack of understanding of evolution" that "has caused the spread of multiple resistant strains of bacteria" was it? It was it more truthfully, the lack of understanding of how "adaptation" works that caused the problem. He wasn't talking about macro-evolution, but the adaptive capability of one family of organisms...which are all still bacteria down to this very day..

Kirschner works for Harvard Medicine, he is an evolutionist.

Yes he is...this is Wiki's profile on him....

"Marc W. Kirschner (born February 28, 1945) is an American cell biologist and biochemist and the founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. His research involves problems in cell and developmental biology, such as the dynamics and function of the cytoskeleton, the regulation of the cell cycle, and the process of signaling in embryos, as well as the evolution of the vertebrate body plan, and applying mathematical approaches to biology."

So Kirschner's credentials are impressive as we can see....but do his stated credentials negate a single word in the statement attributed to him?

Let me just re-quote him....

"Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

So the only field of study that benefited from the study of evolutionary biology was evolutionary biology. How amazing!

And this quote from Dr Philip Skell....

Who is this man?

"Philip S. Skell, sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry," is widely known for the "Skell Rule," which was first applied to carbenes, the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries." (Wiki)

Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”
Again highlighting the real benefits of evolutionary science.

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”

Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”

So if you don't know how "a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell", why are you arguing over something as trivial as how it changed? What did it change into that you have actual proof for.....and what earth shattering difference has macro-evolution contributed to anything useful to any of us?

His COMPLAINT is that a lot of biology has been conducted with insufficient attention being paid to evolutionary theory. Kirschner feels, in fact, that progress would be a lot faster if evolutionary theory was taken into account.

I'm sure he thanks you for interpreting his statement for him.

 

[Deeje]

And finally, evolutionary biology *is* a type of experimental biology. Evolution is the foundation of all biology, and nothing in biology makes sense without it.

Yeah, I think we figured out that the foundation of evolution is very shaky.....and if nothing in biology makes sense without it, heaven help all those biologists who support ID. They must all be complete morons in your learned eyes....working for evil anti-evolution organizations, hell bent on proving that there must be intelligence behind creation because we're not seeing much of it from the evolutionists or from the interpretation of their mountains of evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

Y'all are quote mining or copying someone else's quote mine. Quote mining is a form of lying. You are willfully misunderstanding what Kirschner was saying by taking his words out of context and you are pretending Skell's an expert in a field that he has no more expertise in than you do, maybe less.

 

[Deeje]

You are willfully misunderstanding what Kirschner was saying by taking his words out of context

I would love to see the original quote in context myself if anyone can provide it. I have tried, but can't seem to pin it down to see what else he was saying.
The reason why is because of how it begins...“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all" What preceded his words here? And how does one take such a comment out of context and make it say the opposite?

If he is saying that "over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all".....Tell me how those admissions can mean anything else?

and you are pretending Skell's an expert in a field that he has no more expertise in than you do, maybe less.

Wiki gives us Skell's bio as I already posted....
Here is another link.....
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk/

It seems that your criticism is unjustifiably harsh.......why? Because Skell dared to be objective?

 

[Profound Realization]

Ah, the quote miners are at it again, but in the grossest and most obvious of ways:

This is the same Dr. Marc Kirschner who works on evolutionary systems and who pointed out that the lack of understanding of evolution has caused the spread of multiple resistant strains of bacteria. Kirschner works for Harvard Medicine, he is an evolutionist. His COMPLAINT is that a lot of biology has been conducted with insufficient attention being paid to evolutionary theory. Kirschner feels, in fact, that progress would be a lot faster if evolutionary theory was taken into account. Kirschner saying we need to do more, and the resistance of creationists like Skell (yes ... Dr. Skell) are, in point of fact, preventing medical advancements.

Notice how it is not revealed whom Skell works for, he's just part of a run-0n paragraph without even a line break, hoping you'd not notice.

Did you know that Skell's a chemist who works for an anti-evolution organization making unfounded claims about a field that he doesn't even study (he's very popular with anti-evolution crowds). It is a complete lie that evolution hinders medical discovery. I've never heard a more ridiculous claim. If you've ever heard your doctor say, “Take all your antibiotics,” it is because of what doctors know about evolution. If you don’t take all of them, then there will be remaining bacteria that are resistant to that antibiotic. They will grow, you will get another infection, and this time, those antibiotics will not be as effective. This is why penicillin is no longer a “miracle drug.” We've over-used it, and the bacteria are resistant. This is a major concern in disease control; many bacterial infections are adapting to our drugs. Evolution is occurring right now, and doctors are fighting to keep up with it. It is vital for doctors to understand how evolution occurs if we want to survive.

Not only is it important in fighting diseases, but it's also important to understand the evolutionary history of an organism in order to understand why it behaves a particular way. If an organism evolved where it needed close contact with its mother for the first year of its life, and we didn't know that, then when we have a specimen suffering biochemically due to hormone disruption, we may not know that the cause is because it is separated from its mother. These are important things to consider, and evolutionary biology is vital to understanding them.

Not only is evolution itself a huge breakthrough, but there are lots of current scientific breakthroughs occurring due to evolution – even in the field of evolution. We use evolutionary principles in computer programming, genetics, antibiotics, agriculture, wildlife management, neuroscience, psychology, sociology... In 1970, Normal Borlaugh won the Nobel Peace Prize because his understanding of evolution and genetics allowed him to produce crops that fed millions of people.

And finally, evolutionary biology *is* a type of experimental biology. Evolution is the foundation of all biology, and nothing in biology makes sense without it.

(thanks to A Believing Scientist)

I am aware. I agree with Kirschner. Reading further, you'll see why.

Everyone is an evolutionist but not an evolution theorist. There are also major differences between evolution and evolution "theory." One is useful and observed intelligently by the species experiencing evolution of life. One is useless.

Skell was a brave one, and the criticism appears heavily biased and unjust.
Evolution "theory" and the speculations of what may or could have happened millions and billions of years ago does hinder actual sound research in medical discovery. It can and has also created disasters and undesired consequences using false dictonomy of different species and have used too many assumptions.

Speaking of bacteria, taking all of your antiobiotics is not a wise idea. Children and people of today are suffering immensely due to this error. Well yes, bacteria are intelligent, alive species that are trying to survive as well. They have been trying to survive in communities from disaster by adjusting. Adaption is intelligence. They've done it from the start. A misunderstanding of evolution and evolution "theory" indeed regarding bacteria in that they are accidental and stupid. A wise human being(s) in my opinion, would question and discern where these problems/infections arose in the first place and address the problem, not put a bandaid over it and overprescribe antibiotics, coupled with overprescribing antibiotics in other products and foods. But, the cash cow is already in too deep, and many place their trust in the wrong things. As you said regarding Kirschner, not understanding how bacteria evolves has lead to a disaster of resistant, mutant strains of evil bacteria for one example. I'm sure that there are plenty of other mutant strains of evil artificially and unconsciously created by humans that have festered through many, in the name of good science, if not most of our bacteria and cells due to lack of understanding of evolution. Where I disagree is that by using more of a theory full of errors, and assumptions, and expecting different results... society will also suffer and will continue to suffer. I have to question why someone as potentially bright as Kirschner were talking about evolution "theory" as you said rather than evolution.

I don't personally find much empathy in industries tied to the brutality of what they do to species and how they test on species, the greed and ego behind much of it, and the damage and destruction caused to species and the environment. Empathy for the species and environment, of course. This also isn't to poke at the human beings who genuinely do good and do sound science without harm or conscious harm. I am being just and not biased.

Norman Borlaugh's ideas have evolved into disasters as well, around the world. Is the good, talents, and intelligence within human beings of themselves?

We've used intelligence for breakthrough's and alleged breakthrough's.

Intelligent life is the founder of all evolution. Nothing in anything makes sense without intelligence and life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are also major differences between evolution and evolution "theory." One is useful and observed intelligently by the species experiencing evolution of life. One is useless.

Evolutionary theory is used to produce antibiotics, cultivate food and even optimize computer processes.

Evolution "theory" and the speculations of what may or could have happened millions and billions of years ago does hinder actual sound research in medical discovery.

Can you give clear examples where this has occurred?

It can and has also created disasters and undesired consequences using false dictonomy of different species and have used too many assumptions.

Could you give examples of this as well?

Speaking of bacteria, taking all of your antiobiotics is not a wise idea. Children and people of today are suffering immensely due to this error. Well yes, bacteria are intelligent, alive species that are trying to survive as well. They have been trying to survive in communities from disaster by adjusting. Adaption is intelligence. They've done it from the start. A misunderstanding of evolution and evolution "theory" indeed regarding bacteria in that they are accidental and stupid.

What on earth are you talking about? In what way has evolutionary theory hindered our understanding of bacteria?

A wise human being(s) in my opinion, would question and discern where these problems/infections arose in the first place and address the problem, not put a bandaid over it and overprescribe antibiotics, coupled with overprescribing antibiotics in other products and foods. But, the cash cow is already in too deep, and many place their trust in the wrong things.

So you think the cause of bacterial infections isn't bacteria?

As you said regarding Kirschner, not understanding how bacteria evolves has lead to a disaster of resistant, mutant strains of evil bacteria for one example. I'm sure that there are plenty of other mutant strains of evil artificially and unconsciously created by humans that have festered through many, in the name of good science, if not most of our bacteria and cells due to lack of understanding of evolution.

You do realize that, were it not for antibiotics, billions of humans would have died of otherwise easily preventable diseases over the last century, right?

I don't personally find much empathy in industries tied to the brutality of what they do to species and how they test on species, the greed and ego behind much of it, and the damage and destruction caused to species and the environment. Empathy for the species and environment, of course. This also isn't to poke at the human beings who genuinely do good and do sound science without harm or conscious harm. I am being just and not biased.

In my experience, the people who assert their own lack of bias the most tend to be the ones who are overcompensating because they have a bias.

Norman Borlaugh's ideas have evolved into disasters as well, around the world. Is the good, talents, and intelligence within human beings of themselves?

We've used intelligence for breakthrough's and alleged breakthrough's.

Intelligent life is the founder of all evolution. Nothing in anything makes sense without intelligence and life.

Nothing you've written here even begins to make sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, we should always trust astrologers, above anyone, to tell us how astrology works, nobody else's findings are valid

Oops, you missed the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This person sums it up well:

"Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?"

Ah, I see we've come back full circle to just outright quote mining. This is one of the most dishonest methods of argumentation I can think of.

And no citation so it can be checked either. Awesome!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

intelligent agency must be ruled out altogether before unintelligent mechanisms can be concluded as 'most likely'

Intelligent agencies do not need to be ruled out. Look at how much progress science has made without involving that idea. Like the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, quantum theory, the Big Bang theory, plate tectonics, relativity theory, and multiple other scientific and technological achievements such as space travel, the polio and smallpox vaccines, automobiles, and real-time global telecommunications, evolutionary theory needs no god and has no god in it.

Once again, that doesn't rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer or designers existing. It just means that to date, such information would be interesting, but superfluous. It wouldn't help us a bit to know or to posit.

Just look at the intelligent design research program, which assumes the existence of an intelligent. What has it profited them (scientifically)? What have they done that they couldn't have done without that idea?

I don't rule out spontaneous mechanisms, like the waves spelling help, it's possible, just not the most probable.

And I don't rule out the existence of an undesigned, uncreated god. It's possible, but not probable. In fact, I suggested that a god is the least likely thing imaginable to exist undesigned and uncreated, not a living cell, and not a universe comprising a handful of different types of particles and laws governing their interactions.

The rational skeptic rejects special pleading fallacies. Whatever reasons the theist proposes for his god existing is an equal if not stronger reason against it existing. Do you find a living cell too complex to exist without an intelligent designer? Then a god is even less likely to exist without one. You say that nothing can exist without a cause? The gods cannot exist without a cause. You say that a god can exist uncreated? Then so can a multiverse or a universe.

All such arguments are special pleading. The rule applies here but not there, and for no given reason. Just is.

Yet according to the tenets of atheist belief, our creative intelligence exists entirely undesigned

Nothing at all is true according to atheism unless you want to include that the atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods.

And we also don't assume the existence of creative intelligence prior to it evolving on earth.

If you want to revisit the argument using the entire list of universal constants instead... we can do that, but it's not going to help your case!

Actually, the fine tuning argument is more powerful support for a multiverse hypothesis than for a god hypothesis.

For starters, a multiverse that can generate countless copies of every type of possible universe would inevitably lead to universes like ours capable of generating stable galaxies of solar systems, life, and consciousness, and it would do so without requiring a conscious agent, making the hypothesis more parsimonious, i.e., preferred according to Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation that accounts for all observations is the preferred explanation.

Moreover, why would a god need to finely tune the physical constants in order for the universe to work unless that god was being restricted by laws that transcended it? How could such an entity be called a omnipotent if its choices were constrained to very narrow limits?

For that matter, what does a universe ruled by a creator god need laws at all? Planets could orbit their stars according to its will. Light could travel only so fast because this omnipotent god was propelling it that fast and no faster. It's a godless universe that requires laws in order to run unmonitored.

But "why throw out my true theory for your false one' is not up to your usual standards!

"True theory" is your phrase. I referred to an idea that works - is useful.

Nor did I call creationism false. That is also your language, not mine. I called it an idea that cannot be used for anything.

And you once again dodged answering why anybody should toss out an idea that works in favor of one that can't be used to inform choices. I assume that's because you have no answer. If that is not correct in this case, you probably ought to say why you don't offer a reason to replace what works with what doesn't.

Do you ever do that in your life - say divorce a wife with whom you are happy to replace her with someone that you will fight with, or quit a good paying job that is secure and makes you happy for a low paying one that is mind-numbing and soul-crushing and from which you are likely to be downsized out of?

If your answer is that you don't do such things, then perhaps you can understand why creationism is such a tough sell.

I like to see what actually works now- adaptation, and the strict limitations thereof, models that require outcomes to be predetermined, chemistry, physics, a reality that requires deeper instructions at the quantum level to operate, not merely a handful of 'immutable' Victorian age laws

You're misstating my position. What works is the theory, not evolution, or as you call it, adaptation. The theory directs us in ways that have improved the human condition.

 

[ArtieE]

then you have to answer the question in your own words- why would you suspect cheating when somebody plays 5 royal flushes in a row

but only chance, when they play any particular losing sequence of 25 cards, which are all exactly as improbable?

Still don't understand what you mean. If somebody plays 5 royal flushes in a row it could be chance and if somebody plays any other combination 5 times in a row it could be chance. And they could both be the result of cheating. Maybe on some other planet the rules are different and 5 royal flushes in a row means no prize and the other combination would mean you won the whole card game. But no cheating, just chance.

 

[ArtieE]

What is the reason for matter to exist?

Natural causes. Just like the reason why you exist. Unless you claim you were personally created by a god for some particular reason?

Why are there black holes?

I don't know. Ask your god. He should know. If he could provide some answers at least he would be of some use.

Did gravity evolve?

Don't know. Ask your god. He should know. If he could provide some answers at least he would be of some use.

What is "life" exactly, so that we can quantify it on its many levels?

The 7 Characteristics of Life

All the systems that operate naturally on this earth demonstrate planning. The odds of them all forming by chance are ridiculous....

When there's an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe claiming that not a single one of them could be like earth by chance is ridiculous.

 

[savagewind]

The 7 Characteristics of Life.

I have heard that every living thing needs water. I think that would make eight characteristics of life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Y'all are quote mining or copying someone else's quote mine. Quote mining is a form of lying. You are willfully misunderstanding what Kirschner was saying by taking his words out of context and you are pretending Skell's an expert in a field that he has no more expertise in than you do, maybe less.

I've said it before and I'll say it again......it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly. It's such an inherently dishonest viewpoint, it's advocates have no choice but to do things like quote mine, ignore direct questions, and lie while arguing for it.

Case in point, the creationists here are trying to argue that evolutionary theory isn't used in biology, even though just recently they were shown how it is the basis for an entire field of science (comparative genomics) that is used to figure out the functions of genetic sequences.

But that's the weakness of this forum. Creationists are permitted to come in here and lie as much as they want, but no one is allowed to call them on it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This person sums it up well:

"Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?"

Advances to society because of the Theory of Evolution

1. Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.

2. 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).

3. Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).

4. Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.

5. Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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).

11. Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).​

Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:

12. enzymes (Arnold 2001)

13. pigments (Arnold 2001)

14. antibiotics

15. flavors

16. biopolymers

17. bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.

18. Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).​

It looks as though much of the above was taken from CA215: Practical uses of evolution.

Added by GenesForLife;

19.The use of model systems including Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, Danio rerio and even good old Saccharomyces cerevisiae to understand the function of genes and the application of the knowledge derived therefrom to human systems and understanding human diseases.

20. The identification of potential oncogenes in amplified regions of cancer cell genomes and the identification of tumour suppressors in segments that are prone to deletion and Loss of heterozygosity, both of which are based upon the selective advantages associated with overexpressing or losing certain genes.

21. The application of evolutionary algorithms to designing aircraft wings (Obayashi)​

Added by Delvo (with commentary by Calilasseia);

22. Algorithms mimicking natural selection have yielded "designs" that have been used to build some bits of technology. [See for example, the paper on spacecraft antennae designed using evolutionary algorithms].

23. Shifting from science to society: it provides alternate explanations for physical and some cultural differences between peoples native to different regions of the world, thus debunking moralistic or otherwise judgemental explanations that have caused conflict between them or been used by one against another. It also helps our understanding of the kinds of mistakes our own minds can make without realizing it, which helps us develop ways to work around them, which makes us better at science research in general, technological development of all kinds, criminal justice, and social policy.​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you've ever heard your doctor say, “Take all your antibiotics,” it is because of what doctors know about evolution. If you don’t take all of them, then there will be remaining bacteria that are resistant to that antibiotic. They will grow, you will get another infection, and this time, those antibiotics will not be as effective. This is why penicillin is no longer a “miracle drug.” We've over-used it, and the bacteria are resistant. This is a major concern in disease control; many bacterial infections are adapting to our drugs. Evolution is occurring right now, and doctors are fighting to keep up with it. It is vital for doctors to understand how evolution occurs if we want to survive.