Evolution giving practical results in many fields today

[Papias]

I know that us TE's (/EvCs) often mention the many ways that evolution is used everyday to produce practical science that saves millions of lives and makes our lives better, but I didn't realize there was a whole Journal devoted to this constrant stream of advances.

It's here:
Evolutionary Applications: Evolutionary approaches to environmental, Biomedical and Socio-economic Issues - Journal Information

Even though the YECs will no doubt plug their ears and hum to this as they have done with our previous examples, it is interesting nonetheless. The last year is free to read.

Maybe bring up some of the cooler examples for discussion?

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I know that us TE's (/EvCs) often mention the many ways that evolution is used everyday to produce practical science that saves millions of lives and makes our lives better, but I didn't realize there was a whole Journal devoted to this constrant stream of advances.

It's here:
Evolutionary Applications: Evolutionary approaches to environmental, Biomedical and Socio-economic Issues - Journal Information

Even though the YECs will no doubt plug their ears and hum to this as they have done with our previous examples, it is interesting nonetheless. The last year is free to read.

Maybe bring up some of the cooler examples for discussion?

Papias

There is a lot of great examples in there of microevolution! Thanks!

 

[laconicstudent]

There is a lot of great examples in there of microevolution! Thanks!

Just curious, since Creationists have a strangely hard time answering this simple question, but can you tell me how micro and macro evolution differ in mechanism?

 

[Papias]

Iconic Student wrote:

Just curious, since Creationists have a strangely hard time answering this simple question, but can you tell me how micro and macro evolution differ in mechanism?

This should be good.

AIH, first, you did read them, right? Making a blanket statement like that implies that you have read the examples from the past year that are are available. Because of course, a YEC would never talk about something that they are ignorant of, right?

Secondly, even though Iconic Student's point is first and foremost, in addition to that we do have plenty of examples of practical application of macroevolution, such as the example in the journal there of the food crop "kind" evolving into the weed "kind" (this should be clear because the "kind" classification is such a clear and definitive classification system). There are other examples too, such as the medical treatment of pharygeal cysts, which are due to our fish ancestry, and occur when our gill pouches fail to completely reabsorb. My neice has this condition.

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Just curious, since Creationists have a strangely hard time answering this simple question, but can you tell me how micro and macro evolution differ in mechanism?

micro evolution is simly step to step in the process. Lets assume that dinosaurs turned into birds:
micro evolution is the millions of small steps taken that move the dinosaur forward
macro evolution is the overall change. I might not be wording this well but it makes sense in my head. Its like solving a complex math problem. Micro is each step of the solution, and macro is a comparative view of the beginning and end result

 

[JagDragon]

micro evolution is simly step to step in the process. Lets assume that dinosaurs turned into birds:
micro evolution is the millions of small steps taken that move the dinosaur forward
macro evolution is the overall change. I might not be wording this well but it makes sense in my head. Its like solving a complex math problem. Micro is each step of the solution, and macro is a comparative view of the beginning and end result

So they are the same thing, just describing different bits of the process. Of Evolution.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Iconic Student wrote:



This should be good.

AIH, first, you did read them, right? Making a blanket statement like that implies that you have read the examples from the past year that are are available. Because of course, a YEC would never talk about something that they are ignorant of, right?

Wow! Way to open up to a conversation! Misunderstanding how blanket statements work followed by a sarcastic remark. I can tell this thread is going places!

Secondly, even though Iconic Student's point is first and foremost, in addition to that we do have plenty of examples of practical application of macroevolution, such as the example in the journal there of the food crop "kind" evolving into the weed "kind" (this should be clear because the "kind" classification is such a clear and definitive classification system). There are other examples too, such as the medical treatment of pharygeal cysts, which are due to our fish ancestry, and occur when our gill pouches fail to completely reabsorb. My neice has this condition.

Papias

Wow! A plant turned from something in a crop to something that grows where it doesn't belong! What incredible change! This obviously validates cross species evolution. Thanks. I submit to theistic evolution!

 

[Mallon]

What incredible change! This obviously validates cross species evolution.

Wait... so you're saying that you don't believe one species can give rise to another? Let's just be clear.

 

[JagDragon]

Wow! A plant turned from something in a crop to something that grows where it doesn't belong! What incredible change! This obviously validates cross species evolution. Thanks. I submit to theistic evolution!

I don't think you quite appreciate how important this detail is - recognising that something can change, and then change again. Have you heard of the principle of mathematical induction? Basically, you assume a piece of information (let's say that small mutations can alter the characteristics of an organism), ask a question (is cross-species evolution possible), then explain it by the domino effect. Eg

We start with a plant.
From what we assume, this plant mutates to some degree to produce a mostly-similar, but a little bit different plant.
This new plant then mutates again, then the next, then the next, and onwards ad infinitum.

Provided this is a very loose explanation, but if you could be open-minded and fill in the gaps for yourself, you would see it holds. And the only thing we assumed there was that organisms can mutate.

Which they can.

 

[laconicstudent]

micro evolution is simly step to step in the process. Lets assume that dinosaurs turned into birds:
micro evolution is the millions of small steps taken that move the dinosaur forward
macro evolution is the overall change. I might not be wording this well but it makes sense in my head. Its like solving a complex math problem. Micro is each step of the solution, and macro is a comparative view of the beginning and end result

Ok..... So since they are identical in mechanism, what is the physical mechanism that creates a dichotomy and magically makes "macroevolution" impossible?

 

[juvenissun]

I know that us TE's (/EvCs) often mention the many ways that evolution is used everyday to produce practical science that saves millions of lives and makes our lives better, but I didn't realize there was a whole Journal devoted to this constrant stream of advances.

It's here:
Evolutionary Applications: Evolutionary approaches to environmental, Biomedical and Socio-economic Issues - Journal Information

Even though the YECs will no doubt plug their ears and hum to this as they have done with our previous examples, it is interesting nonetheless. The last year is free to read.

Maybe bring up some of the cooler examples for discussion?

Papias

In the abst of the most read article, it said:
"The canyon between evolutionary biology and medicine is wide. ..."

This article was written in 2008. You tell me why does this "canyon" still exist after the idea of evolution was brought up a few hundreds of years ago.

I tell you why: Medicine have already used all methods of study known to science. But it does not need to mention the very word of evolution even for a single time. Evolution is an idea, not a scientific method. There is not ONE scientific method (based on logic) needs the idea of evolution.

This journal is simply a redundant one.

 

[Smidlee]

Ok..... So since they are identical in mechanism, what is the physical mechanism that creates a dichotomy and magically makes "macroevolution" impossible?

In a computer program you have code and then you have data. By looking at the numbers there is no difference in code vs data. So in evolutionist way of thinking if data can change why not the code. Even a computer can't tell the difference which hackers can used it to their advantage with foreknowledge of where the code and data are mapped.

Life is so amazing and complex we haven't been able to determine exactly what make a fly a fly and a cat a cat. So far there seems to be limits to how much a creature can change. We have done everything possible to the poor fruit-fly to see how much it will change. Who knows maybe there is a switch to turn a fruit fly into a cow (micro) or maybe it require a totally different code (macro).

Evolutionary programming are shown to be helpful to solve problems when engineers have trouble finding the answer. You have the code for the program then you have the data which can changed during the program. Another name for evolutionary programing is "trial and error" programming. "Evolutionary" sounds a lot better than "trial and error" which is exactly what they are.

Bacteria multiplies in great number in such a short of time that they benefit the most from evolution ... that is "trial and error". This is why bacteria is used a lot as evidence for evolution. Mammals (man) does not multiply as fast as bacteria or even plants so trial and error is a lot more limited.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Ok..... So since they are identical in mechanism, what is the physical mechanism that creates a dichotomy and magically makes "macroevolution" impossible?

time

 

[Mallon]

time

So you're saying that, given even enough time, it is conceivable that the process of natural selection could bring about macroevolutionary change, and that the only reason why you don't accept macroevolution is because you believe there is simply not enough time for it to occur in?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Wait... so you're saying that you don't believe one species can give rise to another? Let's just be clear.

Theoretically yes. But it doesn't.
But that isn't what this thread is about. its about basking in the way evolution makes our lives better. Maybe we should compare the benefits of evolutionary science with creation science.

 

[Mallon]

Theoretically yes. But it doesn't.

Actually, speciation happens all the time. We can observe it in the wild and we can observe it in the lab. Here's a list of some observed instance of speciation:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the real world obviously contradicts your beliefs on the subject of speciation. What do you make of that?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Actually, speciation happens all the time. We can observe it in the wild and we can observe it in the lab. Here's a list of some observed instance of speciation:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the real world obviously contradicts your beliefs on the subject of speciation. What do you make of that?

I guess there is a big difference in the definition of species between myself and those articles. The first one goes into great length to make a definition, and I understand why. When dealing with something like gradual change, the line between one "species" and another can be indistinguishable. That said, the way I use it is on a much larger scale than them. I think of a dinosaur turning into a bird, or a fish turning into a land creature.

Dawkin's newer book on evolution gives an example of dogs being all derived from one species about 7,000 years ago. I understand that technically a bulldog and chiwawa are different "species", but they are both still dogs. After all those generations of artifical selection, we never got anything other than a dog. Perhaps another 7,000 years would give rise to one, but scripture shows us there just hasn't been time for those massive changes to occur.

 

[Mallon]

I guess there is a big difference in the definition of species between myself and those articles.

Those articles use the biological species concept, which is the most widely used definition among biologists.

I think of a dinosaur turning into a bird, or a fish turning into a land creature.

A "dinosaur" isn't a species, though. There are tens of thousands of species of dinosaurs (e.g., Tyrannosaurus rex or Corythosaurus casuarius). Nor is a bird a species. There are tens of thousands of species of birds. Nor is a fish a species. There are tens of thousands of species of fish. Nor are tetrapods a species. There are tens of thousands of species of tetrapods. The groups you are referring are at a much higher level than species. They're Linnean classes or orders.

Dawkin's newer book on evolution gives an example of dogs being all derived from one species about 7,000 years ago. I understand that technically a bulldog and chiwawa are different "species", but they are both still dogs.

They're also still mammals and vertebrates. So let's extend your own reasoning a little: Can one mammal give rise to another mammal, so long as they both remain mammals? Or can one vertebrate give rise to another vertebrate, so long as they both remain vertebrates?

After all those generations of artifical selection, we never got anything other than a dog.

But how do you know? What definition of dog are you using? If the first dog looked like this:

and you bred something that looked like this:

is the latter still a dog? It looks very different from the first dog.

If you haven't figured it out by now, biological groupings are very plastic concepts with no definite borders. The borders we create by trying to give names to different groups of organisms are completely subjective. Just look at ring species. This is why biologists overwhelming accept the transmutation of species.

Perhaps another 7,000 years would give rise to one, but scripture shows us there just hasn't been time for those massive changes to occur.

Right. So you're using the Bible as a science textbook. I won't ask you about your thoughts on astronomy then.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

ONOS! You have defeated my vocabulary (without really addressing my point)!


I don't use the Bible as a science book. I use it as a history book.

Perhaps ont he topic of the OP, we should compare Evolution benefits to creation science benefits.

 

[Mallon]

ONOS! You have defeated my vocabulary (without really addressing my point)!

Your point was that speciation doesn't happen. I showed that not only does speciation happen, but you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to biology and so probably shouldn't be trusted on such matters.

Perhaps ont he topic of the OP, we should compare Evolution benefits to creation science benefits.

Sure. You start.