Does evolution have any practical implications? (This is NOT Creation vs Evolution)

[Souron]

So Souron, by the graph you show that we need a theory to explain global warming, not just observation. This in turn has practical application so we don't all become pirates, but that we close polluting plants instead. So what would be an example where we need the evolution theory to explain something that will in turn have practical applications.

All I was saying there is that theory is necessary to back up statistics and observations. You seem to agree, so I won't drill the point further.

That's all evolution is, in that case I'm an evolutionist too. I thought evolution had to encompass more than natural selection.

Evolution does encompass a little bit more.

Evolution is not just natural selection, but rather natural selection resulting in species creation and extinction. Species creation occurs when an animal experiences sufficient "selection" that it would not be able to mate with its ancestors. Extinction is when a species is wiped out by another, more fit, species.

Evolution further states that not only do we have natural selection today, but that we also had it millions of years ago. Evolution states that for as long as there was life, there was natural selection. Furthermore it states that that natural selection resulted in the world we have today (which is fairly strait forward if you believe in cause and effect).

Discoveries in paleontology go on to explain what exactly the various harsh conditions are, and how animals evolved because of them. But in order to understand paleontology, an understanding of geology is required.

OK, after reading you guys' replies I believe I can come up with a more clear claim, communicating what I mean without infringing on the idea of what science is. Realizing that there is THEORETICAL SCIENCE (Philosophy?) and PRACTICAL SCIENCE (Applicable), I claim that we do not need to believe in evolution (or creationism or buddha) to conduct PRACTICAL SCIENCE.

Well certainly a nurse does not need to have any knowledge of science to give out medications. However, for doctor it is very useful to have an understanding of why certain medications don't work when applied over long periods of time. Because of evolution, a doctor needs to regularly change an AIDS patient’s medication so that it continues to be effective.(AIDS patients are an example of where antibiotic resistance plays a huge part)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

One obvious practical application is epidemology...
Less obvious is the application of the "evolutionary model" in computer science like genetic and evolutionary algorithm for optimization.

 

[Perfection]

The Theory of Evolution is a product of science, like the steam engine or periodic table. Because of the TOE we have discovered other things of value and interest. Knowledge is a product of science. The TOE has continued to expand our knowledge. A direct extension of it is the dinosaur-bird connection that was put forth in the 1970s and has been solidly confirmed in the last 20 years. Oh and all those dinosaur toys that little boys buy; they are all products of that new knowledge that is founded on TOE.

Birdjag really hits the nail on this one. While the TOE certianly has practical applications, it's not about the practical applications. Judging a theory based on this metric is an act of ignorance about how science and scientists operate.

 

[carlosMM]

[snipped and edited by me] does it matter practically ?

So when making a drug or curing a disease, it [/quote]Does matter. there's your answer, posted by yourself.

 

[blargh]

So I challenge you, if you disagree, to show one example of how evolution has practical implications in science by showing one product that couldn't be possible without the belief in evolution.

... it's one of if not THE underlying theory of modern biology.... pure rubbish.

 

[carlosMM]

How are any of those end results of science: namely products?

Homie, please do not take this wrong, but you seem singularily non-informed about how new 'products' in the fields of medicine, nutrition, engineering etc. are developed.
Aside from that, many non-product 'things' - e.g. disease control management plans - exist and have important practical implications. Thus, reducing the issue to 'products' in a physical, 'I can buy it in a store' sense is ridiculous.

 

[Corlindale]

Did Galileos investigations of the laws of physics have any immediate practical implications? No.
Did the theory of relativity have any immediate practical implications? No.
Did the discovery of radiation have any immediate practical implications? No.
Did the theory of Quantum physics have any immediate practical implications? No.
Did the atomic theory have any immediate practical implications? No.

Would most of technology developed today still exist if these theories hadn't been developed? No.

Does a field of science need to have practical implications to be justified? No

As has already been stated, there is theoretical science and practically applicable science, but the former almost always precedes the latter in a given field.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Did the discovery of radiation have any immediate practical implications? No.

I don't know what standard of "immediate" you are using, but the first medical x-rays where taken within three months of Röntgen's discovery of the rays. Few discoveries in the applied sciences get utilized in the field that fast.

 

[Corlindale]

I don't know what standard of "immediate" you are using, but the first medical x-rays where taken within three months of Röntgen's discovery of the rays. Few discoveries in the applied sciences get utilized in the field that fast.

Ok, wasn't aware of that. Good things "immediate" is such a wonderfully flexible word, then

 

[Dr Tiny]

An example of how evolution at the molecular level can be used to generate ribozymes - RNA sequences that can catalyze a reaction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov//entrez...eve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=9874791

There are examples of real world products such as water sprinklers being developed via an evolutionary process by selection from randomly generated changes to the product. Alas if I do a google search with design and evolution I tend to get lots of 'intelligent' design pages.

 

[Samson]

Much of the annotation of genomes that goes on requires an understanding of the prosses of evolution, both by the phenomonon of synteny and homologues. Annotation allows us to add usefull information to genome data, alowing us to understand what any one gene does.

Once we understand what a gene does it is possible to develop products that make use of this knowledge. This is a new field, but products that have been developed are gene therapy and the use of siRNA [1] molecules to alter genome expresion.

The process of genetic screening also requires a knowledge of the function of genes.

[1] Neither of these mention the products that have been released. I know there is a gene therapy that has been licenced in china, and there are trials on using siRNA in treatment.

 

[warpus]

Modern Biology doesn't make sense at all unless viewed in the context of the Theory of Evolution - The Theory of Evolution is the base on which all of Modern Biology is founded.

So if you're a physicist or chemist, you could (usually) care less about the implications of the Theory of Evolution.. but if you're a biologist, you sure as hell better accept that the Theory of Evolution is true - because doing research in your own field depends on it.

 

[croxis]

Darn it I lost my post.

Like others have mentioned all of modern biology rests on the theory of evolution.

Here is another example. Einstein discovered the photo electric effect almost a century ago. At the time there seemed no real application for it, but the KNOWLEDGE of that theory is part of the backing of every single electronic device in the world today.

There are two parts to a theory: The man made explanation, which is an approximation of The Real Thing (tm). While our man made explanation is only a couple hundred years old, humans have been making products through evolutions for tens and hundred thousands of years - the breeding of crops and animals.

Now that our explanation gets closer and closer to what really is going on, we are able to use evolution to guide further research. Many, many new drugs and treatments on the market were discovered and made with processes that used the evolutionary model. Genetic diseases rely on heredity which is a component of evolution. Evolution, just like Atomic Theory or Germ theory, doesn't have any direct products. These theories are the basis, the machine, for which products are made.

We need evolution, we need atomic theory, we need the theory of gravity to explain what is going on. We need it to develop the framework for which other things can be discovered.

 

[Perfection]

Here is another example. Einstein discovered the photo electric effect almost a century ago.

Just to nitpick a bit, Einstein didn't discover the photoelectric effect. He explained the results.

 

[Sidhe]

Name for me one practical application of [Black hole Physics]! Do you think one couldn't have invented the car, the aeroplane, penicillin, raw oil destillation, nuclear power etc.. without the belief in [Black Hole Physics]?

I predict that a vast majority will vote that we need it to conduct science, but not one will be able to show how.
Yet another proof that [Black hole physics] are faith-based only, and religious in nature.


Theories need not have immediate and direct effects on invention and day to day life to be a part of the grander picture of the universe formed by use of the scientific method.

Believe it or not not everyone is convinced black holes exist, although those elements are pushed to the fringe these days.

There are far to many examples of modern societies reliance on seemingly uselss technology.

Here's an anceint one Wheat, functionless if eaten it's inedible and can make you sick , gruel made for wheat also inedible, bread and beer both of which came from wheat probably by accidental fermentaion, extroadinarily useful. The gap between discovery for farming and exploitation, thousands of years. Why You might ask? I think the answer is fairly obvious, many techs are somewhat uselss when discovered but later became mainstays of advancement.

I'm not sure how much longer it would of taken us do develope genetics if evolution had not been understood, or if in fact we ever could? Evolution not useful? It's probably the single most significant advance in biology in human history, to say otherwise suggests that the OP has a lack of understanding of where evolution has lead us.

 

[Yuri2356]

Believe it or not not everyone is convinced black holes exist, although those elements are pushed to the fringe these days.

And, believe it or not, not everyone today is convinced that evolution occurs. Although those elements are pushed to the fringe these days. Hence, my annalogy.

 

[Sidhe]

Ah I see not a good one, the fringe I'm talking about with black holes are scientists, those that disbelieve evolution are most certainly not when it comes to pushing creationism and ID. It's not the hypotheticals of creationism that scientists are ignoring, it's the pseudo-science ,the flawed arguments against evolution. Black holes may or may not exist but at least there is visible indirect evidence for them just as there is for the counter science, science marginalises the counter balck hole theories but it certainly does not ignore them as it does with ID and creationism. Philosophy, sophistry and poorly thought out counterarguments of science have never recieved good grace from the establishment, nor should they. A good example is string theory it also is philosophy and amongst mainstream thinkers it is slowly being ignored, is it scientific bias, not really just lack of evidence, and thus lack of credability. As someone once pointed out to me there is a distinct difference though between proto science and pseudo science.

 

[blackheart]

OK, after reading you guys' replies I believe I can come up with a more clear claim, communicating what I mean without infringing on the idea of what science is. Realizing that there is THEORETICAL SCIENCE (Philosophy?) and PRACTICAL SCIENCE (Applicable), I claim that we do not need to believe in evolution (or creationism or buddha) to conduct PRACTICAL SCIENCE.

Wrong again. Your lack of understanding of the English language is getting you in trouble here. Theoretical science sometimes coincides with philosophy, but most of the time not at all.

And for the last time, I will say it again. EVOLUTION IS MAINLY FOR BIOLOGY. Math, Physics, etc. don't need evolution.

 

[Yuri2356]

Ah I see not a good one...

Never said it was perfect, but it is an example of a theory which has yet to find practical application here on Earth, but is most definately not "faith-based only, and religious in nature" as Homie has described Evolution.

 

[Souron]

Wrong again. Your lack of understanding of the English language is getting you in trouble here. Theoretical science sometimes coincides with philosophy, but most of the time not at all.

And for the last time, I will say it again. EVOLUTION IS MAINLY FOR BIOLOGY. Math, Physics, etc. don't need evolution.

Although evolution itself does not relate to the other sciences, many sciences still claim that the univerce was created a long time ago, thereby in contradiction with ID and strict interpretation of Genisis.

Astrophysics is the most obvious example because it deals with how the world came to be the way it is today on a cosmic scale.

Geology is another example of where science contradics the 6000 year old earth claim.