Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

where's your openmindedness? ToE only does harm? Creationism is the only answer? Come on, you can insult us better than that. Especially when you say ToE led to the erosion of absolutes. Ever hear of the Theory of Relativity. It was that one that really did it in for the absolutes and opened the possibility of a world in constant flux (at least in the philosophical sense).Oh, and if you are going to criticize science for being purely "an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness", I suggest you stop powering your house with electricity, I suggest you stop going to the doctor and stop getting vaccinations, I suggest you start floating to the heavens, I suggest you stop driving your car, and I suggest you stop relying on any technology or science.Live in your world of absolutes, in which society is founded upon, resist all and any change, and go right back to those lovely Dark Ages the Christians are responsible for (in their bid to maintain power).If you want to play this game of insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you, I'll join in. Except for the fact that you will be on the recieving end, and I WILL TRASH YOUR RELIGION. Have a nice day.edit: but hey, if you are willing to listen to others, I'm willing to listen to you. Becasue as far as I'm concerned, you can believe anything that you want. Yay doublethinkThis message has been edited by kuresu, 04-05-2006 11:48 PMThis message has been edited by kuresu, 04-06-2006 04:53 PM

never mind what that one person said about colon cancer. you know, the study of the cell lining of fruit fly eggs leading to a better understanding of colon cancer, or that we experiment with mice to predict how humans will react to certain things. If macroevolution was not real, then why the heck do we do these studies?These studies are of practical purpose because of the common descent of all living organisms. Otherwise, it would be stupid to test how mice react to drugs to predict how we would react to those drugs.If Faith wants to believe that macroevolution has no practical application to medicine and biology, she can go ahead and do that.If Faith wants to make her belief a fact, then she has to disprove how the studies are practical becasue of macroevolution.I have a feeling she wants to do the latter.

no, you didn't. You only said that genetics does not require ToE for it's practicability. But we have shown you, time and time again, that genetics play a major role in evolution, and evolution allows us to better understand genetics and its applications.You never answered whether you would actually still use the vaccine from earlier. If evolution is true, then we had better start trying to make a vaccine to protect us. The ability to easily infect humans would be a major morpholigical change, if you understood viruses. If only microevolution is true, then we still have nothing to worry about. But when 60 million people die in the next few years because of this avian flu virus, what will you say about macro-evolution? You will still probably be espousing the bs that there is no such thing.This message has been edited by kuresu, 04-06-2006 04:52 PM

And that's your problem. You never going to destroy ToE if you don't fight it on science's basis. Science considers microevolution as a part of ToE. If you don't consider microevolution as part of ToE, then what is it? Would you not then need a new term to get rid of the allusion to evolution? How can you argure effectively against ToE if you only attempt to breach but one part of it. It's like destroying a single leg on a chair. It does no good, because the chair is still standing. In effect, you make yourself look like a fool for choosing that strategy. If you really want to get rid of the ToE, then do this.Attack all branches of what biologist's consider to be a part of ToE.
Accept their definitions and limits
Do not change your definitions and limits just to avoid losing.In regards to that last one, it would be like the church changing the definition of geocentric in the light of the solar system being heliocentric, just so that they can so the solar system is still geocentric. Sort of when you all (creo's that is) refuse to accept what science considers transitional fossils by defining them in such a way as to make them not be transitional fossils (Archeoptryx, anyone?).