Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?
Dierotao
Junior Member (Idle past 6095 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 04-03-2006


Message 91 of 104 (307453)
04-28-2006 3:44 PM


A couple comments on the "evidences" provided thus far:
1. We may test on animals which are biologically similar to us in order to determine whether or not the product tested will work on humans. Most would obviously agree with this. The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE (at least as evolutionists would interpret it). If evolutionary theory had never been presented by anyone, would we not still have presumed that animals and humans share a number of physical similarities. And would not the discovery of genetics have further allowed us to make the presumption that those animals with the closest genetic makup prove to be the best for testing purposes? As animal testing has been done for millennia, would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE?
2. It seems some things are taken to be exclusively under the umbrella of the general ToE, without any possible existence outside the ToE. Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? Natural Selection is used as an evidence for the theory that all life originated from a single organism, yes? So if creationism were true, if life could not evolve between species, could not Natural Selection still exist in some form? Would men not have studied Natural Selection and determined the same benefits had the ToE not been introduced?
This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? It seems the arguments then becomes more philosophical in nature; to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to. But then we would need to ask whether it was simply Darwin's theory which caused such a change, or if was the underlying philosophical currents of the day. But such questions are better left to the historians, of which I am not. I am simply pondering the possibilities.
*Disclaimers:
It now seems to me necessary to further define my every word, lest I be misunderstood, whether mistakenly or purposefully. I still am more a philosopher than a scientist. If I have made any gross scientific errors above, feel free to correct me. It is not my intent to mislead, I only speak from limited understanding. I am also asking more questions than answering to any. If I have used the term "Natural Selection", "ToE", or "evolution" improperly, feel free to inform me of it. I intended to use them only in the plainest manner from my simple understanding.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Wepwawet, posted 04-28-2006 8:29 PM Dierotao has not replied
 Message 95 by EZscience, posted 04-29-2006 7:12 AM Dierotao has not replied
 Message 101 by MarkAustin, posted 05-15-2006 3:43 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
Wepwawet
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 85
From: Texas
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 92 of 104 (307568)
04-28-2006 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dierotao
04-28-2006 3:44 PM


quote:
This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: The ToE is the result of the scientific process that, by definition, denies people the easy out of attributing any phenomenon to supernatural causes. The scientific process does not exist because it is a philosophical argument against supernatural causes, it exists for a much more pragmatic reason: it works.
For millenia people have believed and worshipped according to assorted holy books and teachings in the hope that such activities will make their lives better. But aside from a few scriptural nods towards good hygiene there is nothing at all in religion that is of practical use to the daily struggle for food-shelter-safety. While the goal of religion may be to raise us above the status of animals, the animal needs still remain and it can be argued that the level of human civilization is inversely proportional to our immediate animal wants...we are only three meals away from the jungle.
Science merely sets aside philosophy and works from a simple premise: we can learn about our environment by observing our environment and then challenging the conclusions we make. The ToE is just one of many practical results of that premise. Like other scientific theories it provides a practical framework for making predictions about what we will find as we continue to look.
The ToE did not spring fully-formed from the forehead of Darwin; it is a conclusion based on our observations of the real world that is tested again and again with each new discovery and has so far managed to remain generally sound.
In the world of belief-based-science (shudder) every theory must be weighed against not real observations, but against holy writ and the philosophers that are the self-appointed interpreters for God. If the observations don't match God then there is a problem with the observation or our interpretation...so the entire foundation of knowledge is presumed to issue from a source that can neither be seen, touched or heard. God says man was made in his present form 6,000 years ago, but we see an organism that has evolved from other organisms over a much longer time period.
There's an old saying: Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see...that's science in a nutshell. Science is not about someone preaching the truth to us, it is about enabling all of us to go look for the truth ourselves. Science takes our flawed perception of reality and turns it into a blessing by continuously challenging us and letting nothing stand as unassailable truth merely because the majority believe it to be so.

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dierotao, posted 04-28-2006 3:44 PM Dierotao has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-29-2006 12:31 AM Wepwawet has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 93 of 104 (307630)
04-29-2006 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Wepwawet
04-28-2006 8:29 PM


There's an old saying: Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see...that's science in a nutshell. Science is not about someone preaching the truth to us, it is about enabling all of us to go look for the truth ourselves. Science takes our flawed perception of reality and turns it into a blessing by continuously challenging us and letting nothing stand as unassailable truth merely because the majority believe it to be so.
I would like you tuh 'splain sumpin to me as you see it. Exactly what is the nature of any truth science might have to offer? Exactly what do you mean by truth? I think a far better term to use with science is accuracy not truth. As big a follower as I am of the sciences in general I sometimes think that it is science that gives us a flawed or limited perception. Skewed if you will. Kinda like to much of a good thing does not a good thing make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Wepwawet, posted 04-28-2006 8:29 PM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Wepwawet, posted 04-29-2006 5:59 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Wepwawet
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 85
From: Texas
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 94 of 104 (307676)
04-29-2006 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-29-2006 12:31 AM


quote:
I would like you tuh 'splain sumpin to me as you see it. Exactly what is the nature of any truth science might have to offer? Exactly what do you mean by truth? I think a far better term to use with science is accuracy not truth. As big a follower as I am of the sciences in general I sometimes think that it is science that gives us a flawed or limited perception. Skewed if you will. Kinda like to much of a good thing does not a good thing make.
Oh no, I dropped the T word! I'll go ahead and qualify the word for you so you don't have to feel like science is stepping on sacred toes...
Science lets us look for the closest thing to truth we can know. There is no ultimate destination there, we will never discover the truth qua truth (henceforth known as The Truth(tm)) using the scientific or any other method. What we can do is make progress towards discovering practical understanding of our universe and ourselves. We do not have to know The Truth(tm) in order to make the world a better place. We just need to know something close enough to it to let us get the job done.
The search for The Truth(tm) does not have to actually succeed in discovering The Truth(tm) in order to benefit mankind. I do not speak for the institution of science and I make no claims that science will ultimately discover the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. What science will do is allow us to test and improve our current understanding and improve the quality of the truth (note the absence of the capitals, bold, italics and (tm)) that we can know.
I really hate having to write disclaimers...every time a disclaimer is written the universal average IQ drops a little.

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-29-2006 12:31 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-07-2006 1:27 PM Wepwawet has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 95 of 104 (307680)
04-29-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dierotao
04-28-2006 3:44 PM


Dierotao writes:
The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE
Both are true. Neither one excludes the other.
Dierotao writes:
...would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE
Yes. Why do you assume a motive for proving ToE? It just happens to be the only theory that is entirely consistent with all observed similarities.
The closer the relatedness, the greater the physiological similarities.
Dierotao writes:
Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true?
No. You cannot divorce NS from ToE. The idea that some kind of boundary to change can exist at species level or above is another fabricated illusion that has been debunked repeatedly on this board. See the 'define kind' thread - early on before it deteriorates.
Dierotao writes:
If the ToE had never been intoduced, ...would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today?
Your construct is both implausible and unreasonable. The Toe HAD to be introduced at some point based on what has been observed with the help of all forms of technological advance. It was inevitable. Technological advance and ToE have re-inforced each other every step of the way.
Dierotao writes:
... to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to
Now you are skirting logic, but still managing to avoid it.
The ToE gives us a framework for reasoning and determining how living things are related and how we should expect them to behave.
It doesn't just open up the mind to possibilities, it gives us a mechamism to determine which of many possibilities are most likely true, and which (the largest set) cannot be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dierotao, posted 04-28-2006 3:44 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 96 of 104 (309985)
05-07-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Wepwawet
04-29-2006 5:59 AM


The point is the nature of your intentions with respect to the words you use.
Science lets us look for the closest thing to truth we can know.
Exactly what truth are you reffering to? You need to be more specific.
There is no ultimate destination there, we will never discover the truth qua truth (henceforth known as The Truth(tm)) using the scientific or any other method. What we can do is make progress towards discovering practical understanding of our universe and ourselves. We do not have to know The Truth(tm) in order to make the world a better place. We just need to know something close enough to it to let us get the job done.
I am happy for you that your beliefs allow you all the confidence in science a good follower of faith typically exhibits when discussing thier beliefs. However, I do not share your view.
The search for The Truth(tm) does not have to actually succeed in discovering The Truth(tm) in order to benefit mankind. I do not speak for the institution of science and I make no claims that science will ultimately discover the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. What science will do is allow us to test and improve our current understanding and improve the quality of the truth (note the absence of the capitals, bold, italics and (tm)) that we can know.
1). Any observation of what is beneficial to mankind is purely subjective.
2.) Any quality of truth is a subjective observation of the objectively abstract idea "truth"
Science can never be apart from the subjective. It is where it originates from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Wepwawet, posted 04-29-2006 5:59 AM Wepwawet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ReverendDG, posted 05-07-2006 8:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 98 by EZscience, posted 05-07-2006 9:09 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 97 of 104 (310115)
05-07-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-07-2006 1:27 PM


Exactly what truth are you reffering to? You need to be more specific.
i would think he means observable truths, like during the day time blue wave lengths are absorbed by the molicules in the sky making it appear to be blue, this is a fact and true. just as at night it does not do so
I am happy for you that your beliefs allow you all the confidence in science a good follower of faith typically exhibits when discussing thier beliefs. However, I do not share your view.
i guess accepting science for the benefits of man and the world it has produced is meaningless to you? i mean i figure thats why he accepts it, not because of some faith in it. but that it works, which is why most people accept it
I do not share your view
what views do you have? you don't really show any beliefs at all, so far you just try to be counter to everything that is mainstream or common
1). Any observation of what is beneficial to mankind is purely subjective.
umm what?, that doesn't make any sense,if you observe a medicen that helps destroy a cancer or gives a person back the ability to walk, thats subjective? that is a benefite. i'm not sure you know what subjective means when you use it
2.) Any quality of truth is a subjective observation of the objectively abstract idea "truth"
umm what? that also makes no sense, a truth: rocks exist. stubbing your toe on said rock hurts, that is subjective. but also a truth. seeing someone break thier toe on a rock is objective and looks painful and can be observed, thus is a truth
Science can never be apart from the subjective. It is where it originates from.
i think you are just saying things without knowing what they mean, do you even know what the words mean?
science is by defintion objective, if it was subjective it would be useless since noone could understand apart from the person presenting it
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-07-2006 08:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-07-2006 1:27 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-18-2006 2:40 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 98 of 104 (310132)
05-07-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-07-2006 1:27 PM


Cost-benefit analysis
2BT writes:
). Any observation of what is beneficial to mankind is purely subjective.
I reacted strongly to this statement at first, but then I saw your angle. The term "beneficial" can be construed subjectively in many ways, this is true. But it can also be quantified objectively, in that some things are clearly not beneficial and others provide advantages to many. Any insight that helps humanity *on balance* is demonstrably beneficial to humanity, and evolution has definitely provided insights to help humanity advance its enterprise. So the question now becomes, has knowledge of evolutionary principles hurt us more than it has benefited us? A cost benefit analysis is called for.
Many benefits of ToE have already been demonstrated. Can anyone produce a demonstrable cost or disadvantage to humanity from use of ToE principles?
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-07-2006 08:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-07-2006 1:27 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 99 of 104 (311648)
05-12-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dierotao
04-05-2006 12:38 PM


The White Paper
Hi,
Just as some general information here is a quote from the "White Paper" (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html) which pretty much answers the opening post. I know it's not really a done thing to post such long quotes without comment, but I guess this speaks for itself. The quote is part of a description of the future role of evolutionary biology in the applied arena; the document also contains a similar section of previous accomplishments, which you can look up if you are interested.
quote:
1. Health science
Advances in applying evolutionary disciplines to human health fall into several categories.
· Human genetic diversity. Research on human genetic diversity will complement the Human Genome Project, which ultimately will sequence the entire human genome. Such research will provide data, at the molecular level, on the immense genetic diversity that exists within and among human populations. The techniques of population genetics and phylogenetic analysis will be applied to the exploding information on human genetic variation to determine the history of populations (e.g., their past sizes, movements, and interchanges), and will continue to provide tools for identifying the genetic lesions associated with inherited diseases and defects (as in the case of cystic fibrosis, breast cancer, and others). Evolutionary comparisons of human DNA sequences with those of other species will provide insight into gene functions. Population geneticists will analyze the genetic bases of interesting variable traits, such as reactions to allergens. Genes that provide adaptations to environmental factors such as pathogens and diet will be identified by studying genetic differences among and within populations. The methods used by evolutionary geneticists will be applied to human diversity in order to elucidate cases of complex inheritance of disease (e.g., those due to interactions among multiple genes) and to study genotype/environment interactions”the differential expression of traits such as disease resistance under different environmental conditions.
· Genetic identification. Population genetics has developed, and is continuing to improve, analytical methods for identifying individuals and relationships among individuals from a profile of genetically variable markers. This methodology also uses linked genetic markers to determine the likelihood that an individual carries genes of particular interest (e.g., those causing a genetic disease). As evolutionary geneticists improve these methods and apply them to data on human genetic diversity, it will be possible to use molecular markers more confidently and accurately for such purposes as counseling individuals on the likelihood that they or their children will carry a genetic disease , determining paternity, and forensic analysis.
· Evolutionary developmental genetics. Comparative data on the genetic and mechanical bases of development in diverse vertebrates and other organisms will shed much light on the mechanisms of human development. Such studies will contribute to our understanding of the bases of hereditary and other congenital defects in humans, and may ultimately be useful in developing gene therapies.
· Mechanisms and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Genetic, phylogenetic, and comparative biochemical studies of bacteria, protists, fungi, helminths, and other parasites will help to identify targets for antibiotics. The rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in previously susceptible pathogens presents a critical need for evolutionary study, aimed at understanding the mechanisms of resistance, its rate of evolution, factors that may limit such evolution, and ways of preventing or counteracting it.
· Parasite virulence and host resistance. Evolutionary studies of parasite/host interactions, using both model systems and human parasites and pathogens, are only beginning to determine the conditions that lead parasites to become more virulent or more benign. Evolutionary geneticists and evolutionary ecologists need to develop a general, predictive theory of the evolution and population dynamics of pathogens and their hosts, especially for rapidly evolving organisms such as HIV and for rapidly migrating host species like modern humans. Analyses of genetic variation in resistance to pathogens in humans and other hosts are also needed.
· Epidemiology and evolutionary ecology of pathogens and parasites. New and resurgent diseases have emerged as major threats to public health, and more will probably do so in the future. Evolutionary biologists can aid in the effort to counter these threats in several ways. Screening for and studying the phylogeny of organisms related to known pathogens (e.g., viruses of other primates and vertebrates) may allow researchers to identify pathogens with the potential to enter the human population. Genetic, ecological, and phylogenetic studies of new and emergent pathogens (e.g., hantavirus and the Lyme disease spirochaete) can elucidate their origins, their rates and modes of transmission, and the ecological circumstances leading to outbreaks or to the evolution of greater virulence. Experimental studies of model systems, including organisms related to known pathogens, can identify mechanisms of virulence and the genetic and environmental factors that influence drug resistance. (Such studies will also have relevance, of course, to crops and domestic animals as well as economically important wild populations, such as fish.)
2. Agriculture and biological resources
We noted above the many ways in which evolutionary biology has had an intimate relationship with agriculture and the management of biological resources such as forests and fisheries. The scope for further contributions in these areas is enormous. We highlight only a few of the most important topics to be pursued.
· Pesticide resistance. Despite new alternative methods of pest management, judicious use of pesticides will undoubtedly remain indispensable. The evolution of pesticide resistance in insects, nematodes, fungi, and weeds is a serious economic problem that should receive major attention. This will require studies of the genetics and physiological mechanisms of resistance, population dynamic studies, and modeling of methods to limit or delay the evolution of resistance.
· Alternatives in pest management. Evolutionary considerations will be important in evaluating many alternative methods of pest management, such as mixing different crops or crop varieties (intercropping), or developing transgenic crops that carry resistance factors protecting them against insects or other pests. Experiments have shown, for example, that tobacco pests can adapt to transgenic tobacco carrying a bacterial toxin, highlighting the need for studies of genetic variation in insect responses to transgenic crops. There is enormous potential for transgenic use of the innumerable secondary compounds and other properties of wild plants that protect them against insects and pathogens. Experimental and phylogenetic screening of these natural resistance factors should prove rewarding. The large field of evolutionary ecology concerned with secondary plant compounds and the interactions between plants and their insect and fungal enemies is relevant to this effort. It will be important to analyze the physiological effects of natural resistance factors on pest organisms, the mechanisms by which some insects and fungi overcome their effects, and genetic variation in the responses of target species to natural resistance factors.
· Genetic diversity in economically important organisms. Production of food, fiber, and forest products has historically been greatly improved by exploiting genetic variation, and the methods for doing so have been deeply informed by evolutionary biology. Evolutionary and agricultural scientists together will use QTL (quantitative trait loci) mapping and other methods to locate the genes for, and elucidate the mechanistic bases of, important plant traits, such as resistance to pathogens and to environmental stresses. Such studies will also serve the interests of basic scientists interested in the adaptations of plants to environmental factors. Similar studies on wild plants will locate genes for useful traits that can be genetically engineered into crops. Research programs of this kind will use principles and information from studies of plant phylogeny and adaptation. The critically important task of developing and maintaining germ plasm banks (i.e., storing genetic diversity of crop plants and their relatives for future needs) will continue to depend on studies of variation within and among populations.
· Fisheries. Several kinds of evolutionary studies have been and will continue to be important in managing commercial and sport fisheries. Molecular genetic markers will aid researchers in distinguishing breeding populations and migration routes of species such as cod and salmon. Studying the evolution of life history characteristics such as growth rate and age at maturity will enable managers to evaluate the genetic and demographic effects of harvesting on fish populations. For certain fish species that are widely stocked, genetic and physiological studies of adaptation to and fitness in different environments will be useful. Stocking plans will also include the use of transgenic fish, which are in the early stages of development.
3. Natural products and processes
Pharmaceutical and other industries are actively searching for novel products and processes by screening plants, animals, and microorganisms (33). Because of its commercial implications, the search for and development of novel products and processes raises serious issues in patent law, international law, and the publication of scientific data that are beyond the scope of this report, but which will affect the engagement and activities of research scientists. Evolutionary studies will greatly contribute to research and development, resulting in many novel products and processes.
· Systematics and phylogeny. Documenting the diversity of potentially useful organisms is the foundation for all further work. This has been recognized, for example, by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (48) and by the pharmaceutical companies that have funded biodiversity inventories in Costa Rica and elsewhere. The phylogenetic aspect of systematics is crucial for pointing researchers toward species that are related to those in which potentially useful compounds or metabolic pathways have been found, since related species may have similar, perhaps even more efficacious, properties. The systematics of bacteria, protists, fungi, and other inconspicuous organisms are very poorly known and require extensive investigation.
· Studies of adaptation. Antibiotics, resistance factors for use in transgenic crops, and other useful natural products are likely to be found by studying the chemical mechanisms of competition among fungi and microorganisms, the defenses of plants against their natural enemies, and the waxes, steroids, terpenes, hormones, and innumerable other compounds that organisms use for diverse adaptive ends.
· Genetic and physiological studies. Bacteria, yeasts, and other microorganisms have exceedingly diverse metabolic capacities. They have been the source of penicillin, of the polymerase enzyme used in DNA sequencing, and of important industrial processes of fermentation, biosynthesis, and biodegradation. Industry anticipates that “great advances in bio-processing can be expected from future exploration of the yet unexplored biodiversity of the land and sea” (30). Yet most microorganisms have not yet been described and characterized, the physiological capacities of most of them are unknown, and there is little information available on their genetic diversity, or on what kinds of novel metabolic capacities can arise by mutation. Researchers trained in evolutionary genetics, physiology, and systematics will make important contributions to this area.
4. Environment and conservation
Evolutionary principles are immediately applicable to the conservation of rare and endangered species and ecosystems; in fact, many leading conservation biologists have done research in basic evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology can also shed light on environmental management issues that bear directly on human health and welfare. Here we highlight only a few of the needs for evolutionary study in the fields of environmental management and conservation.
· Bioremediation. Bioremediation refers primarily to the use of organisms (especially bacteria and plants) in cleaning up spills and toxins, treating sludge, and restoring degraded soils. Evolutionary biology can contribute to bioremediation by identifying species or genetic strains with desirable properties, by understanding the agents of natural selection that give rise to such properties, and by identifying the conditions that favor the persistence of useful organisms. Bacteria that can degrade polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent contaminants are known, but it is not known whether this capability is characteristic of certain species or evolves in situ due to selection of new mutations. The community of bacteria involved in wastewater treatment undergoes a change in composition during the process, but the roles of turnover of species versus genetic change in the metabolism of persistent species are not known. Evolutionary genetics and systematics, together with microbial ecology and physiology, should continue to make important contributions to these and other questions in bioremediation.
· Unplanned introductions. Many of our most serious pests, including weeds, insects, red-tide dinoflagellates, and zebra mussels, do the most damage in regions to which they are not native. Quarantine procedures instituted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are intended to prevent such introductions. The advent of genetic engineering has caused concern about the escape of vigorous, genetically novel microorganisms, plants, fishes, or other organisms, and about the possibility that genes for novel capacities could spread by hybridization from transgenic organisms into wild ones, transforming benign species into novel pests. Evolutionary biologists have been active in assessing such risks (60). Studies of gene flow between and within species and evaluations of the fitness effects of genes must complement ecological studies of the relevant organisms if we are to predict the possible unintended effects of transgenic releases. The traditional role of systematics in identifying introduced organisms will continue to be important.
· Predicting effects of environmental change. Of the many effects human activities have on the environment, the most universal posssible effect is global warming. Many other environmental alterations, such as desertification, salinization of fresh water, and acid rain, have more local, but still profound, effects on both wild species and biological resources. Predicting and possibly forestalling the effects of such changes is an important goal for ecological studies, but evolutionary biology also faces major challenges. In particular, we need to understand far better the conditions under which populations adapt to environmental changes versus migrating or becoming extinct, and what kinds of species will follow these courses. We also need to understand the conditions favoring “breakouts,” in which new species adapt to and disperse rapidly into novel environments. Agriculture and urbanization have produced many novel environments, and such breakout species may not be benign. Evolutionary biologists have documented many examples of species that have adapted rapidly, and many that have not, but a fuller theory of vulnerability versus potential for rapid adaptation is needed (28). Paleobiological studies can complement genetic and ecological studies by providing detailed histories of changes in the composition of communities and the distributions of species under past environmental changes. Paleobiology can also help us to develop generalizations about the kinds of species and communities that are most vulnerable.
· Conservation of biodiversity. Alteration of habitats, intentional and unintentional harvesting of natural populations, and other human activities constitute a grave threat to the persistence of many species. Inevitably, difficult choices will be necessary in the allocation of resources, and not all threatened species and ecosystems will be safeguarded.
Evolutionary biology and ecology work hand-in-hand in addressing these issues (34). There is a need for intense efforts to describe the diversity, distribution, and ecological requirements of organisms, especially those in regions where natural habitats are most rapidly being lost. Evolutionary systematics, biogeography, and ecological genetics provide the information needed in order to develop guidelines for conserving the greatest genetic diversity.
Previous crises in biodiversity can be seen in the fossil record, and evolutionary paleontologists can use these records as natural experiments on the consequences of biodiversity loss, the characteristics of species most at risk, and the nature and time scale of biotic recovery. For example, many extinction events in the geologic past were followed immediately by outbreaks of weedy “disaster species.” Much more needs to be learned about this process, since there is no guarantee that disaster species that might arise in modern regions that have suffered extensive losses of biodiversity would be benign (55). Similarly, past biodiversity crises are associated with marked declines in primary productivity. This fact is relevant to future human welfare, in that humans now consume an estimated 25% of global primary productivity.
Evolutionary biologists are also studying such relevant problems as the minimal population sizes necessary for species to retain sufficient genetic variation to avoid inbreeding depression and to adapt to diseases, climate change, and other perturbations; the factors that cause extinction; the role of multiple populations in the long-term genetic and ecological dynamics of species; the role of interactions among species in maintaining viable populations; and the effects of coevolution among interacting species on dynamic processes in ecosystems. Conservation biology will be strengthened by further research on these poorly understood problems.
Some conservation efforts rely on germ plasm banks (for plants) and captive propagation (for animals). Population genetic theory plays a crucial role in these efforts. For example, inbreeding depression in small captive populations can be avoided by applying population genetic principles (59).
This message has been edited by mick, 05-12-2006 10:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dierotao, posted 04-05-2006 12:38 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 100 of 104 (311651)
05-12-2006 10:03 PM


Thanks Mick
Mick provides more ammunition to load onto the cart.
We are still waiting for anyone to demonstrate a 'cost' to the human race of applying evolutionary theory that could possibly counter some of its innumerable benefits, let alone demonstrate a single useful insight derived from creationsist or ID reasoning.
I guess we'll be waiting for a while....

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 101 of 104 (312055)
05-15-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dierotao
04-28-2006 3:44 PM


A couple comments on the "evidences" provided thus far:
1. We may test on animals which are biologically similar to us in order to determine whether or not the product tested will work on humans. Most would obviously agree with this. The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE (at least as evolutionists would interpret it). If evolutionary theory had never been presented by anyone, would we not still have presumed that animals and humans share a number of physical similarities. And would not the discovery of genetics have further allowed us to make the presumption that those animals with the closest genetic makup prove to be the best for testing purposes? As animal testing has been done for millennia, would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE?
The TOE predicts not just similarities between animals, but systematic similarities: in otherwords the creation of hierarchies of similarities. Without the TOE, there would be no reason to expect such similarities, and thus no reason to look for them. Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said in 1973 "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution", in the sense of meaning that there would be no reason to expect patterns in nature. Without these patterns, there would, in effect, be no biology, except that accidently discovered. Yes, Flemming might have discovered penicillin after the accidental contamination of the sample, but there would have been no reason to look at other, similar organisms.
2. It seems some things are taken to be exclusively under the umbrella of the general ToE, without any possible existence outside the ToE. Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? Natural Selection is used as an evidence for the theory that all life originated from a single organism, yes? So if creationism were true, if life could not evolve between species, could not Natural Selection still exist in some form? Would men not have studied Natural Selection and determined the same benefits had the ToE not been introduced?
Why would there have been any concept of Natural Selection without a TOE? Darwin's insight was that Natural Selection was the engine that drove evolution. If yiou have one, you have the other: if you are missing one, yu are missing the other.
This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? It seems the arguments then becomes more philosophical in nature; to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to. But then we would need to ask whether it was simply Darwin's theory which caused such a change, or if was the underlying philosophical currents of the day. But such questions are better left to the historians, of which I am not. I am simply pondering the possibilities.
Without evolutionary theory we would have no rational basis for determining closeness. Yes, a similarity of body plans would allow an assumption that chimps are more similar than canaries, but only evolutionary theory would allow us to state that we are more closely related to pigs than sheep.
We would have no reason to systematically investigate DNA, for example, or, indeed, any of the other proteins etc, since there would be no reason to expect patterns.
Without evolution, and the TOE to provide a framework, biology would have remained a neo-science of observation and collection - stamp collecting of species and molecules.
Finally, let's separate evolution from the Theory of Evolution. By Darwin's time most educated people accepted some form of evolution. Erasmus Darwin had come up with a theory a generation earlier, and Lamark's theories were current before "The Origin of the Species". Darwins theory was an attempt to explain Evolution using a naturalistic methodology rather than the then current saltationist (sudden emergence of large changes) viewpoint, which was considered compatible with divine guidance.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dierotao, posted 04-28-2006 3:44 PM Dierotao has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 102 of 104 (322791)
06-18-2006 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by ReverendDG
05-07-2006 8:40 PM


i think you are just saying things without knowing what they mean, do you even know what the words mean?
I will ignore this comment other than to comment on it's childishness.
science is by defintion objective, if it was subjective it would be useless since no one could understand apart from the person presenting it
People by definition are not objective.
The idealistic view of science may in theory be objective. In practice subjective views are allways the source. This is a no brainer. All people can to at best is find answers within the current limit of our subjectively scewed understanding. This makes the philosophy of science as inherently falible as it's weakest link.
i guess accepting science for the benefits of man and the world it has produced is meaningless to you? i mean i figure thats why he accepts it, not because of some faith in it. but that it works, which is why most people accept it
No, on the contrary. Exactly what is beneficial and what is not is subjective as the motivations for what is discovered. A cure for a disease increases the population. Now there are fools that wish to cure death. Many things that are seen as "benefits" have concequences.
We as a whole always leap before we look. It is a reoccuring human trait. A Fact or Truth if you will. The earth is a system that we are a part of. We seem as a whole to continually miss that fact or truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ReverendDG, posted 05-07-2006 8:40 PM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RickJB, posted 06-18-2006 2:53 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 103 of 104 (322792)
06-18-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-18-2006 2:40 AM


2ice writes:
People by definition are not objective.
That's why science operates with a combination of physical evidence and peer review. Consensus is achieved by the testing of hypotheses by many individuals.
This is also why science has no relation to faith.
In any case I see you have started playing the "well, what is truth/reality/objectivity anyway" trick to derail any closer examination of your ideas.
Whatever "reality" constitutes, science can be seen to operate within it. If you get a life-threatening disease in this "reality" then medicine might just save your life in this "reality".
Arguing about the ultimate nature of reality doesn't change this!!
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-18-2006 2:40 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-22-2006 6:06 AM RickJB has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 104 of 104 (324746)
06-22-2006 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RickJB
06-18-2006 2:53 AM


My simple point is this.
The observation of the development of systematic biological chemical reactions on this planet is interesting. To assume knowledge of the function of imagined behaviours and thier effects is simply that. Imagination. Fossil evidence shows little of behaviour.
EVO works when it sticks to the biological mechanics.Outside that it becomes conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RickJB, posted 06-18-2006 2:53 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024