Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

Only in as much as they have been forced to accept what is scientifically observable.Let's not forget it wasn't long ago they rejected speciation as biologically possible. Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is happening all around us, they have retreated to some higher order taxa ('kind') that is completely undefinable and, ergo, unassailable with evidence. What a cop-out. They consider themselves on safe ground because divergence of higher order taxa can never be directly observed - but it can be safely inferred from the evidence. They just choose to reject these inferences.Unfortunately, most of the 'beneficial' contributions of evolutionary biology do not, as you and Percy have recognized, hinge on much more than inferences that can be termed 'microevolutionary' in nature (anitbiotic resistance, etc). Creationists can try and say that such processes are acceptable within their frame of thinking because they don't break the (invisible) barrier of 'kind', but that is just another cop out. All the rich detail of evolutionary change begins at the microEv level and then ultimately carries over into the larger differences evident between higher taxa. The barrier creationists want to erect between 'micro' and 'macro' is an artificial one that rests on no evidence or logic. MacroEv is simply a large scale consequence of many microEv events with some additional twists added by environmental stochasticity once gene pools are separate.So *mechanistic evolutionary reasoning* about how living things work has provided inferences instrumental to the realization of many benefits to mankind, whether the full extrapolation of evolutionary theory was essential for them or not.
For example, the recomendations we develop for insecticide rotation are based on our expectations of resistance evolution under a regime of constant directional selection (use of only one insecticide). Without an evolutionarily-derived strategy for resistance prevention, we wouldn't have pesticides that lasted very long to protect our crops and we would all pay a lot more for whatever food the insects left us.So I think the question needs to be reversed.
Ask not what evolutionary theory has done for mankind,
but rather what creationist thinking has managed to produce that is useful. Anything? I've got a big zero. Possibly not, but I would argue that evolutionary understanding has been greatly enhanced by our understanding of genetics, and everything we have discovered about genetics makes sense ONLY in the context of evolutionary thinking.(title changed by edit)This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-05-2006 01:55 PM

Perhaps we could depersonalize the discussion by refering to the relative usefulness of 'evolutionary reasoning' versus 'creationist reasoning'.That way we can avoid crediting 'creation science' for actual scientific advances made by 'creation scientists' using the scientific method that had nothing to do with 'creationist reasoning'. (edited for clarity)This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-05-2006 02:01 PM

OK Faith, I don't claim to be privy to all the things that Creo's do and don't accept about evolutionary theory, however... I think that is a pretty big rejection, and a major bone of contention, given the reasons I elaborated below.But please address the issue so we can bring this back on topic.There are plenty of examples of how evolutionary reasoning has led to valuable scientific insight and valuable practical applications for the benefit of humnaity. I am now reversing the original question.We would like to see some specific examples of how creationist reasoning has been used to advance scientific understanding for human benefit. Please explain how the creationist way of viewing things can be useful for elaborating biological mechanisms or processes.This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-05-2006 03:26 PM

So you accept that creationist reasoning is not useful to scientific thinking? Again, an actual example of its practicallity or usefulness would be welcome. 'Dealing with it' or 'accepting it' doesn't make it useful for advancing knowledge in the field.

Quetzal's examples are good ones, but I could fill pages with more of them.How about just one.
The expression of the genes for Baccillus thuringensis toxins in corn have revolutionized control of a key pest of corn, the European corn borer. However, both Monsanto and the EPA have insisted that farmers continue to plant a fraction of their land to conventional corn to serve as a 'genetic refuge', The rationale is based on understanding of the resistance evolution in insects and the recognition that planting *all* the corn with Bt expression would comprise strong directional selection for resistance that should be countered by ensuring some susceptible genotypes would be surviving in the refuges every year. These then mate with any resistant ones coming out of the BT corn and dilute the strength directional selection for resistance, assuming any gene for resistance will be recessive, which is most likely.Acreage planted to BT corn has increased every year for the past 5-6 years and is now in the 10's of millions. BT corn has saved farmers money and also reduced the usage of dangerous insecticides in corn significantly. And we have no significant resistance yet detected in the insect population because *evolutionary reasoning* was used to guide the application of this new technology and ensure its sustained viability.

The applications of evolutionary reasoning to predicting insect behavior for pest management purposes are myriad. In many cases, it enables us to predict how insects will respond to a particular management tactic BEFORE it is tested.A good example is management of the apple maggot fly in apple orchards pioneered by the recently deceased entomologist Ron Prokopy.Ron's group found that female flies mark a fruit after they lay an egg in it using a special 'oviposition marker pheromone' that all females recognize and respond to. This compund was next identified and then synthesized. The problem - how to use it to reduce damage to apples? Maybe spray the pheromone on trees to keep the flies from laying eggs? But not so fast...Brief backgound: Apple maggots are cannibals and only one larva will survive in a fruit - hence evolution of the marker pheromone so females can avoid laying in occupied fruit.Problem: theory of evolution (behavioral evolution, re: Maynard Smith's game theory) predicts that response to the pheromone will break down after a large number of fruit are encountered by a gravid female - if all fruit are occupied, the female can still gain SOME fitness by letting her larvae compete in occupied fruit. So the pheromone BY ITSELF is not going to work.With a good knowledge of how female flies forage for fruit (they like the biggest, best fruit -same as us - and they search visually)
Ron figured out a way to make it work.You place a single insecticide-impregnated trap in each tree that resembles the largest, reddest apple in the tree.
Then you spray the trees with the pheromone.
Now as flies arrive, the won;t lay on the first few fruit they land on because they detect the pheromone. Within on or two flights they die on the trap -BEFORE attenuation of their response to the pheromone.

I agree that evolutionary theory pretty much delineates our taxonomic status in the world, or 'how we got here'. (For some this is not enough - they also demand a 'why'. although I am not sure there is a 'why'). But my interpretation of the OP was a request for practical,tangible benefits that evolutionary thought has provided the human race.One example not yet touched on is plant breeding which has provided us with all the currently grown crop varieties we rely on for food. Plant breeding relies heavily on evolutionary biology both methodologically and theoretically. ToE also reminds us that in breeding plants that produce concentrations of resources desirable to us (large seeds, high yields, etc.), we are often forcing tradeoffs in plant physiology that can result in requirements for supplemental inputs from us (fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) if the plant is to reach its yield potential.

That's a rather subjective judgement on your part.
While I happen to agree that it also an important contribution of ToE, many have not reached the point of accepting that ToE tells us anything about human origins at all.I liked the concept of this thread because of it's potential to lure in doubters of evolution who still might be curious about how it has been used to assist human advancement in practical terms. The ultimate goal is education. If we can repeatedly demonstrate the utility and value of ToE reasoning in practical terms, its extrapolation to more 'religiously-charged' issues might eventually meet with less emotional resistance among the 'spiritually-inclined'.

I agree that ToE has served to unify other scientific enterprises. It provided biology with an essential temporal component, and so brought it into concert with other disciplines that had already incorporated temporal compenents.The laws of physics indicate that one dimension of reality is time. There exists an 'arrow of time', i.e. it has directionality. Events in the past cannot be undone, and other events are contingent on those that came beforehand.Evolutionary theory is really no more than an objective characterization of contingent biological events along the arrow of time. To deny evolution is, in one sense, to deny that all things must change over time, regardless of whether they are organic or inorganic.

Both are true. Neither one excludes the other. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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....