Is evolution useful?

[JohnR7]

A common arguement on this board is that if you reject evolution, then you also have to reject science and computers. There is really no comparison though. Science and computers have a function and a use for me, evolution does not.

Today I was loading a new program onto the computer. I went through the menu to figure out how to use the program and to configure it for what I intended to use it for. Just as I was finished working on this new program, my wife asked me about another program that people use on the computer. I told her I did not know anything about that program because I did not use it. IT does not have enough usefulness to me, for me to bother with it to learn how to use it. It is the same thing with evolution. I do not reject computers because there are programs I have no use for. Nor do I reject science, just because I have no use for the theory of evolution.

Of course for someone else, the theory maybe useful for them. Or they may think it is useful enough so that they try to learn it and apply it in some way. So, if they feel they benifit from it in some way, then I suppose it is worth while to them, to study and learn the theory to try and apply it.

 

[Big Rob]

Except evolution's truth or falsity doesn't hinge on your acceptance of it. The only possible purpose I can gleam from this post is that you're telling us you don't accept evolution because it won't photoshop your pictures or browse the internet for you.

 

[notto]

Of course for someone else, the theory maybe useful for them. Or they may think it is useful enough so that they try to learn it and apply it in some way. So, if they feel they benifit from it in some way, then I suppose it is worth while to them, to study and learn the theory to try and apply it.

So, is this an admission that you haven't studied and learned the theory?

I guess that puts to rest the idea that you know enough about it to claim it is falsified as often as you do. No real surprise but it is nice to see you admit it in an open forum.

 

[Dannager]

Did you reject the existence of this program your wife says other people use? You deny elovution because it has no use for you. Are you denying the other program? If not, your analogy is broken. Surprise, surprise.

 

[Oonna]

For someone who dosent find evolution usefull or important, you sure have alot of negitive things to say about it. And when you dont care about something, you tend not to spend time on it, but John, you spend tons of time on this subject, so whats your point?

 

[Battie]

I think that that particular argument is brought up only when someone implies that science, all science, is useless.

 

[Grengor]

Is evolution usefull? Hasn't it already helped in the study of diseases and medicines?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is indirectly useful in that research into evolutionary biology has resulted in things that are useful for the general population (i.e. areas of medicine, agriculture, and so on).

It's the same with other branches of science. For example, atomic theory may not be directly useful for me, but a computer wouldn't exist without someone, somewhere researching that first.

This is why it makes no sense why creationists want to shut down evolution in schools. Even if they can't see any immediate benefit from knowing evolutionary theory, it has its uses within specific fields of biology.

 

[grmorton]

A common arguement on this board is that if you reject evolution, then you also have to reject science and computers. There is really no comparison though. Science and computers have a function and a use for me, evolution does not.

Today I was loading a new program onto the computer. I went through the menu to figure out how to use the program and to configure it for what I intended to use it for. Just as I was finished working on this new program, my wife asked me about another program that people use on the computer. I told her I did not know anything about that program because I did not use it. IT does not have enough usefulness to me, for me to bother with it to learn how to use it. It is the same thing with evolution. I do not reject computers because there are programs I have no use for. Nor do I reject science, just because I have no use for the theory of evolution.

Of course for someone else, the theory maybe useful for them. Or they may think it is useful enough so that they try to learn it and apply it in some way. So, if they feel they benifit from it in some way, then I suppose it is worth while to them, to study and learn the theory to try and apply it.

Well, JohnR7, you seem ignorant of how evolution is used to better your life. THere is a thing called a genetic algorithm. In such a computer program, things are designed via an evolutionary mechanism. A trial device is mutated, then tested. If the new device is better than the old, it is kept and then mutated again and tested again. Over and over this process can be carried out eventually leading to new and novel designs for mechanical objects.

"Randomly stringing together a handful of resistors, capacitors, and transistors seems hardly the way to design and build a radio, but a random configuration is the starting point for a group of computer-based methods known as genetic algorithms. Whereas the simulated-annealing approach was suggested by statistical mechanics, genetic algorithms are rooted in the mechanics of natural selection and evolution. They represent a sophisticated kind of search that combines blind groping with precise bookkeeping.

"The idea is to start with several random arrangements of componenets that each prepresent a complete but unorganized system. Most of these chance designs would fare very poorly, but some are bound to be better than others. The superior designs are then 'mated' by combining parts of different arrangements to produce 'offspring' with characteristics derived from both their 'parents' From this second generation, the computer again selects the best or most efficient designs for further breeding, and rejects the rest. The process continues in this fashion until an acceptable design or solution to a specific problem emerges. Once the goal is clearly defined and the criteria for success are in hand, the computer itself picks its way in a trial-and-error fashion, recording and building on its best guesses and eventually producing a good answer.

"Pioneered more than 25 years ago by computer scientist John Holland, genetic algorithms consititute a field of computer science inspired by biological models and strewn with biological terms. In essence, Holland links the question of how biological systems adapt to their environnments with the problem of programming computers so they can learn and solve prpoblems.

"The genetic-algorithm approach to problem solving has developed slowly. ONly in recent years have researchers begun to appreciate and exploit the method's flexibility and versatility, especially for designing complex systems or finding near-optimal solutions to problems. Engineers are beginning to use genetic algorithms for such applications as designing integrated-circuit chips, scheduling work in a busy machine shop, operating gas-pipeline pumping stations, and recognizing patterns."Ivars Peterson, Islands of Truth, (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1990), p. 209-211

Scientists have used evolutionary processes to find chemicals which will remove dyes from your clothes. This will help keep your shirts starchy white.

Andrew Ellington and Jack W. Szostak "used small organic dyes as the target. They screened 10 13 random-sequence RNAs and found molecules that bound tightly and specifically to each of the dyes.

"Recently they repeated this experiment using random-sequence DNAs and arrived at an entirely different set of dye-binding molecules.

...

"That observation reveals an important truth about directed evolution (and indeed, about evolution in general): the forms selected are not necessarily the best answers to a problem in some ideal sense, only the best answers to arise in the evolutionary history of a particular macromolecule." Gerald F. Joyce, "Directed Evolution," Scientific America, Dec. 1992, p. 94-95.

And this is a partial account of a talk Bill Dembski gave at the Nature of Nature Conference in Baylor in 2000. Dembski had given a talk which denigrated genetic algorithms. He said you couldn't use them to design anything. This is extracted from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/wacoday3.htm :

In the Q&A I raised the issue of biomolecular companies who use genetic
algorithms to search for novel functionality. He claimed that it wasn't
important and that such programs could
never be used to design anything. Then much to my amazement, John
Baumgardner said "'Glenn's point was exactly correct.' I nearly fell on the
floor. He told Dembski that they were using genetic algorithms at Los Alamos
to design lots of things. Two or three other people said the same thing.
[One of these, a man named Eide Trotter, I later learned is a well
connected Southern Baptist who goes to First Baptist in Dallas. He sat next
to me and the next table on Thursday morning when I had breakfast with Paul
Nelson, Mark Kalthoff and Tom Judson(?). After breakfast he said that he
liked much of what I had said. Gerald Eichoefer, of Greenville College
(don't know where that is) tried to come to Dembski's defense. He said that
genetic algorithms were terrible inefficient search methods. He was shot
down by a guy in the back who said that genetic algorithms vastly outperform
a random search. and indeed a genetic algorithm isn't a random search.
Later that day in the last session, Frank turned to me and said that
Eichoefer claims to be a prophet of God. I must admit he looked like one
which may explain why I took his name down off of his name tag.--grm]Hands
were upraised all over the room. Dembski had the deer in headlights look.
He turned it over to the next speaker.

I will add one final thing. We use mutational algorithms to perform seismic inversion, which allows us to find more oil to fuel your hummer. We mutate an acoustic impedance (AI) trace, convert it to seismic, then compare it with the real seismic. If it matches better, we keep the AI trace. If it doesn't we drop it and mutate the AI and try again.

So, JohnR7 while you may be ignorant of what evolutionary processes are used for and how they help your life, your statement that evolution is irrelevant to your life is simply wrong and displays an ignorance of what is being done by evolutionary processes to help your lifestyle .

 

[tocis]

Well John, I'll take this as admission on your part that you never actually tried to learn anything about evolutionary theory. In other words, by your own admission you are not qualified to criticize it.

Dismissed.

 

[invisible trousers]

no, evolution isn't that useful. modern biology is highly over-rated

 

[Dr.GH]

What creationists try to deny is the entire existance of science. This is just as true of "Intelligent Design Creationists" as the garden variaty young earth creationists.

 

[truth above all else]

The Christian is not against science, but they expect from science only that knowledge which it is capable of giving-not a philosophy of life.

 

[Dal M.]

The Christian is not against science...

That's right. Creationists are.

One does not equal the other.

 

[Sarcopt]

Not only has he admitted to not trying to understand evolution, but he's also admitted to the logical fallacy of begging the question.

my wife asked me about another program that people use on the computer. I told her I did not know anything about that program because I did not use it. IT does not have enough usefulness to me, for me to bother with it to learn how to use it. It is the same thing with evolution. I do not reject computers because there are programs I have no use for. Nor do I reject science, just because I have no use for the theory of evolution.

Not using a program because you think it is uselss presupposes that you haven't a need for it. While it may be true that you have no need for it, you cannot understand what it does if you don't bother to learn about what it does -- even if that means reading the back of the box. Most of us can conclude from your posts that you haven't "read the back of the box" about evolution.

Instead, we get statements that sound like "Microsoft Excel is a bad program because it won't alter contrast levels on my family photos". Every time JohnR7 says something about evolution, it makes as much sense as that. This is not supposed to be a personal attack on you JohnR7, but an illustration of how your arguments actually sound to us and why people are so adamant that you don't understand evolution. If you could demonstrate understanding of the theory (or at least express your ideas in terms of concepts employed in evolutionary biology) it would lend your ideas much, much more credibility.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

i start to question the usefulness of evolution in the development of our brains...

can the development of imagination and the capability of abstract thought REALLY be that great when it can lead to YECs?