The fruit of evolution model ?

[juvenissun]

This question just came to me:

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

 

[crawfish]

This question just came to me:

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

Before you get an actual answer, I want to ask: would this information make any difference to you?

 

[Siyha]

This question just came to me:

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

Lets trade back and forth. I'll give you something benefitial from the science of evolution, and you give me something benefitial from creationism.

Modern Medicine.

Your turn.

 

[sfs]

Some examples coming primarily from the study of humans:

The first evidence for large magnitude changes in recombination rate across the genome (i.e. recombination hot-spots), done by measuring the autocorrelation in genetic diversity. Interpreting the result required an estimate of the variation in mutation rate across the genome, which was obtained by measuring divergence between humans and chimpanzees.

Measurement of the mutation rate in humans, again done by comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes.

Realization that human chromosome 2 represents a relatively recent fusion of two previously existing chromosomes, leading to the subsequent discovery of the vestigial telomeric and centromeric sequences.

Measurement of the difference between mutation rates in males and females, done by comparing divergence within families of transposable elements that had been inserted into the X and Y chromosomes. (Strictly speaking, while this analysis was done in an evolutionary framework, I think it really only relied on the human genome being the result of many millions of years of genetic change.)

Estimation of the ancestral population size of humans and chimps, showing that it was substantially larger than the recent human population.

Determination of the ancestral base at sites that are variant in humans, done by comparing humans to chimps, gorillas and macaques. Knowledge of the ancestral base been very useful both for inferring historical demographic changes in the human population, and for detecting and localizing loci where natural selection has occurred recently in the human lineage.

A more general class of very important discoveries: Evolutionary conservation is used all the time for a range of inferences about human genetics and biology. The essential point is that any part of the genome that is nearly the same between a range of species must have a functional role of some sort. This has been used to identify protein-coding genes, regulatory RNAs, and many kinds of regulatory element.

 

[sfs]

More generally, I have no idea how we would make sense of genomic data except in an evolutionary framework. Even when that framework doesn't directly lead to specific scientific discoveries, it's essential to our ability to process the data (of which there is an enormous amount) mentally, to realize what's important and what isn't, what is surprising and what is expected, what aspects are worth pursuing and what aren't. The evolutionary framework has been extraordinarily fruitful in large-scale genetic studies.

 

[Mallon]

How about the fact of our own existence?

How about being able to make sense of biological diversity?

Those sound like benefits to me.

 

[shernren]

Estimation of the ancestral population size of humans and chimps, showing that it was substantially larger than the recent human population.

I'm guessing "recent human population" doesn't mean approaching seven billion in this case?

 

[philadiddle]

This question just came to me:

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

Paleontologists can predict where to find fossils and even what they will look like.

Studying core samples with the model of deep time and evolution allows oil companies to find oil more effectively.

Pharmaceutical companies can place newly evolved diseases into the tree of life so that they can start testing antidotes based on what works on the closest living relatives of the disease.

Now you go, how does creationism help us in the scientific field?

 

[Duckybill]

Paleontologists can predict where to find fossils and even what they will look like.

Studying core samples with the model of deep time and evolution allows oil companies to find oil more effectively.

Pharmaceutical companies can place newly evolved diseases into the tree of life so that they can start testing antidotes based on what works on the closest living relatives of the disease.

Now you go, how does creationism help us in the scientific field?

You sure have a lot of faith in 'science'.

 

[juvenissun]

Before you get an actual answer, I want to ask: would this information make any difference to you?

It would take my time to think about it.

 

[juvenissun]

Lets trade back and forth. I'll give you something benefitial from the science of evolution, and you give me something benefitial from creationism.

Modern Medicine.

Your turn.

How did modern medicine come based on evolution? I like to see specific example.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How did modern medicine come based on evolution? I like to see specific example.

Vaccine and anti-biotic theory are largely built on evolutionary theory, for one.

Also a more general understanding of anatomy, physiology and molecular biology come from it too.

Not to mention explanations of psychological and sociological phenomena.

So... any "fruits" of creationsim yet?

 

[juvenissun]

Vaccine and anti-biotic theory are largely built on evolutionary theory, for one.

How does this one work? We found a chemical which can kill bacteria. How is this discovery rooted in evolution?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How does this one work? We found a chemical which can kill bacteria. How is this discovery rooted in evolution?

Because without an understanding of evolution, you'll keep using that chemical for ever, even after every strain of pathogenic bacteria has long since developed resistance to it.

Tell you what, you manage your hospital's VRE/MRSA preparedness program based on Creationism's understanding of biology, and I'll manage my hospital's program based on the evolutionary understanding of biology, and lets see which one gets investigated for avoidable post operative sepsis related complications first, shall we?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As for vaccines, you can't even make the vaccines necessary for next year's virulence season without evolution.

Conversely, understanding evolution allows us to avoid costly mistakes, like developing a vaccine to treat HIV, since although a vaccine may well provide immunity against that particular viral sample, anyone with a basic understanding of evolution knows that that viral sample will have evolved into something quite different, to which the immunity doesn't provide any protection, in a mere matter of months.

 

[juvenissun]

More generally, I have no idea how we would make sense of genomic data except in an evolutionary framework. Even when that framework doesn't directly lead to specific scientific discoveries, it's essential to our ability to process the data (of which there is an enormous amount) mentally, to realize what's important and what isn't, what is surprising and what is expected, what aspects are worth pursuing and what aren't. The evolutionary framework has been extraordinarily fruitful in large-scale genetic studies.

Thanks. Like others, you gave too many examples. But none of them are specific enough. So I pick this one to explore:

We classify genetic data and we reason by logic on the classification. Are you saying that if we were not guided by an evolution framework, then the same classification can not be done or is not like to be done? If so, I like to see an example. My assumption is that if a person knew nothing about evolution, he still could make the same, or a similar classification on all genetic data. May be you can tell me a specific way of classification which is based on the idea of evolution, and is much better than any other way of classification.

(I know that I might ask for trouble since I know nothing about genetics. However, nobody else replied the OP to a degree like you do. So, I would take the chance. )

 

[juvenissun]

Because without an understanding of evolution, you'll keep using that chemical for ever, even after every strain of pathogenic bacteria has long since developed resistance to it.

Tell you what, you manage your hospital's VRE/MRSA preparedness program based on Creationism's understanding of biology, and I'll manage my hospital's program based on the evolutionary understanding of biology, and lets see which one gets investigated for avoidable post operative sepsis related complications first, shall we?

Not really. A person knows nothing about evolution can still see the change happened to the bacteria. The concept of evolution does not help in this case. We can not predict the change based on what we know about evolution, right?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not really. A person knows nothing about evolution can still see the change happened to the bacteria. The concept of evolution does not help in this case. We can not predict the change based on what we know about evolution, right?

Um... actually we CAN predict the change, in both bacteria and viruses, based on what we know about evolution.

Now, according to Creationsim, there shouldn't be a change at all, right? Not without God's direct intervention anyway. So, there've been a couple of people make bonafide attempts to show you examples of evolution making a concrete contribution to science.

Your turn to do the same for Creationism now...

 

[juvenissun]

As for vaccines, you can't even make the vaccines necessary for next year's virulence season without evolution.

Conversely, understanding evolution allows us to avoid costly mistakes, like developing a vaccine to treat HIV, since although a vaccine may well provide immunity against that particular viral sample, anyone with a basic understanding of evolution knows that that viral sample will have evolved into something quite different, to which the immunity doesn't provide any protection, in a mere matter of months.

We know virus will change based on experience (observation), not by theory. You call the change evolve, but I don't really need that term and concept and can still do everything the same as you do.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Thanks. Like others, you gave too many examples. But none of them are specific enough. So I pick this one to explore:

We classify genetic data and we reason by logic on the classification. Are you saying that if we were not guided by an evolution framework, then the same classification can not be done or is not like to be done? If so, I like to see an example. My assumption is that if a person knew nothing about evolution, he still could make the same, or a similar classification on all genetic data. May be you can tell me a specific way of classification which is based on the idea of evolution, and is much better than any other way of classification.

(I know that I might ask for trouble since I know nothing about genetics. However, nobody else replied the OP to a degree like you do. So, I would take the chance. )

Maybe... it might be an idea to, you know... learn a thing or two about genetics before making assumptions about evolution playing no role in science?