Studying evolution a waste of money?

A point I hear among some people is that evolutionary research is a waste of money that can be better spent elsewhere. Instead, we should fund research with more direct benefits, such as disease research.I am against this view because I believe that evolutionary research can have many indirect benefits. For example, by studying how the celluar pathways arose, we might be able understand how to better block the pathways. However, someone might counter that it would be better to just study directly on how to block the pathways.Is studying evolution a waste of money? Would it be better to spend that money elsewhere?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

Is studying evolution a waste of money? Would it be better to spend that money elsewhere?

---

No.Chinese medicine and Western medicine start from very different premises. Chinese medicie examines symptoms, and how symptyoms relate to one another, and treats those symptoms. From the Western perspective, it is surprisingly efficient in prodcing actual treatments. On the other hand, Western medicne started from the premise of finding out what caused the disease and stopping it. The result is that for all the antiquity of chinese medicine it never developed a germ theory, and has been trapped ONLY treating symptoms - and sometimes that is not enough.Western medical science has moved farther faster than Chinese medicine despite starting from further back. This is becuase it invesitgaes underlying causes properly. Fundamental research is extremely important for expanding our knowledge base as a whole and making connections we never would have reached by just treating symptoms.

quote:

---

Fundamental research is extremely important for expanding our knowledge base as a whole and making connections we never would have reached by just treating symptoms.

---

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but people could argue that you do not need to know how the disease came into existence to treat it. For example, instead of studying how the receptors came into being, study what blocks the receptors.

quote:

---

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but people could argue that you do not need to know how the disease came into existence to treat it. For example, instead of studying how the receptors came into being, study what blocks the receptors.

---

And as I said, chinese medicine is quite good at actually prescribing medicines or palliatives. It is EFFECTIVE simply due to the sheer size of the body of experience and praxis that has been compiled and passed on. You and I talk about a head cold or a chest cold, and trad. chinese medicine talks about a pollution of the upper air or the lower air, and that is quite sufficient to prescribe a suitable remedy. But what the western methodology was able to achieve, by developing a germ theory, was antibiotics, applicable to many more ailments than just a cold.My argument is that "abstract" knowledge, in which cause and effect can be truly discerned rather than merely correlated, leads to a substantially superior technology.

quote:

---

Instead, we should fund research with more direct benefits, such as disease research.

---

Why should instant gratification be a criteria for research?
Is there any reason to research the origins of the universe or how gravity works, we are obviously here and stick to the planet so they are working, why research them?

quote:

---

Why should instant gratification be a criteria for research?
Is there any reason to research the origins of the universe or how gravity works, we are obviously here and stick to the planet so they are working, why research them?.

---

I definitely agree. We will never know what benefits research will bring until we actually spend time researching it. For example, at BYU, there was a study on how insects lost their legs. By knocking out 2 genes in a beetle, the beetle ended up with a bunch of legs.Here's a quote of the implications of his research:

For instance, gene therapy holds the prospect of blocking or otherwise changing a human gene to prevent a disease before it occurs. But Bennett's beetle study and others show that it's not single genes, but networks of genes, that control life's functions.Source:
http://bioagnews.byu.edu/newsrelease.asp?id=19I was also interested in hearing arguments from the anti-Evolution side. on this topic. Even though they may not believe in the ToE, do they consider funding it a waste of money?

Actually, to truly be able to treat a disease, its causes and development are very important. And evolution does factor into this.

Basic science v. applied scienceWho will win?Basic science is the study of mechanisms to understand how something works. Applied science is using knowledge to solve a problem. If you don't understand the science then you will never be able to apply it.I could not even imagine what people would be doing to combate bacterial resistance to antibiotics without some understanding of evolution.

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

First of all, I'm back from vacay and everything is different. I turn my back and you guys totally redecorate the place. Anyway, hope everyone had a great time over the Holidays.Being the resident infectious disease "expert" I thought I should chime in. Evolution, both macro-evolution and short-term adaptations, play a large role in how infectious diseases are studied. For instance, let's take a look at Group A strep, aka "the flesh eating bacteria". Over the last 100 years this bug has changed signifigantly, both in it's mode of infection and in it's epidemiologly. Throughout the last 100 years it has caused uncomplicated pharyngitis, or strep throat. Even without antibiotics this infection only lasted for 2-3 days, 5 at most. Up until about 1985, the worst types of Group A strep infection besides strep throat were scarlet fever and rheumatic fever. Scarlet fever included a high fever, reddened skin, and in sever cases sloughing of the outer epidermis. Rheumatic fever is actually an autoimmune disease brought on by antibodies that your body produces to fight off strep throat. What happens, according to the most recent research, is that strep proteins have some resemblence to proteins found in human heart valves. This causes the immune system to attack the host's heart valves, which, as you can guess, is not a good thing.However, starting in the mid-1980's strep infections took a radical turn for the worse. Suddenly, within a span of say 3-5 years, Group A strep was increasingly linked to much more sever and life threatening diseases such as toxic shock and necrotizing fasciitis (aka flesh eating disease). Also, serotypes that were far less common in the past were now strongly correlated with these very serious diseases. Without evolution, how are we to understand this switch in causation of disease? Without evolution, how is this switch even possible? The majority of research still ongoing dealing with Group A strep infections is still trying to answer this question, and most of the questions have been answered. The development of pathogenicity islands, horizontal transfer of superantigens, and upregulation of other toxins seems to be the root cause behind this new type of disease. When looking at how these changes occured researchers look for (gasp) mutations that could have lead to this switch.Needless to say, evolution is not useless, nor is it a waste of time. Beyond infectious disease research there is also human genetic diseases. These can be detected through comparative genomics. For example, by comparing human, mouse, and chimp genomes we can judge which genes have been under heavy selection. If a human gene shows signs of mutation greater than that found in chimps when comparing to the mouse genome, it is very possible that that gene may be involved in a genetic disorder. The ironic twist, as another thread has pointed out, is that creationists as well as evolutionists benefit from this research. Oh well, it just gives them more time to come over to EvC in order for the evil atheist evos to convert them.

quote:

---

Basic science is the study of mechanisms to understand how something works. Applied science is using knowledge to solve a problem. If you don't understand the science then you will never be able to apply it.

---

Exactly. In the world of infectious disease research one can hear the first grumblings against basic science research. The new buzz word in ID research is "clinical relevance" which means that research should be focused on cures instead of causes. This new "focus" has been lauded by a few, but criticized heavily by the majority. The problem is that the governing bodies that control funding for ID research are starting to listen to the "clinical relevance" camp. I'm not too worried, however. Things often go out of style only to become vogue once again at a later time.