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

Does evolution have practical implications in science? (Read OP)

  • Yes, we need it to conduct science

    Votes: 73 88.0%
  • No, it is of philosophical importance only

    Votes: 10 12.0%

  • Total voters
    83
FredLC said:
Selective breeding indeed existed before evolution, and even before genetics, for that matter. Those techs, however, brought it to a degree of efficacy that is unparalelled by any standards existing before them - finally there were viable explanations as to why sometimes two poor specimens raised a champion, and why sometimes two champions did not raise another of the kin - and, above it all, they have shown what to do to prevent bad results.

Regards :).


Exactly. It just added the logical explanation for the observed data.

Many scientific advances do the same thing. We gather the data and then seek a way to explain why.
 
Homie said:
But croxis, you can't say that X is based on Y if X was before Y.

I never did say that, be cautious of accusing others of putting words in your mouth when you do the same.

What I said was that artificial selection is evolution, even though no one understood evolution at the time. You need to separate the theory from what really goes on. Like I said before, any theory is only an approximation of what really goes on. Just because we don't have the theory doesn't mean reality doesn't exist. Objects of mass attracted each other long long long before man developed a theory of gravity. The atoms that formed the sun and earth were drawn together by something we model as gravity. Rice and corn were bred from grasses by a process we now know as evolution and genetics even though no one knew it existed at the time.
 
Homie said:
Regardless wheter evolution or Creationism or something completely different is the true theory of how the world came about, does it matter practically or is it purely a philosophical question to help us understand the world and its origins?

I say it is philosophical, one does not need to believe in evolution to produce advances in science, to produce the end results of science; which is products. Do you think one couldn't have invented the car, the aeroplane, penicillin, raw oil destillation, nuclear power etc.. without the belief in evolution?

Ok, science is here to be useful for us, right? We use it to make pharmaceuticals (biology), machines (physics), substances used in products (chemistry) etc...

So when making a drug or curing a disease, it doesn't matter one tid bit if the scientist believes the Bible or Darwin. Evolution or creationism has no practical implication, so why is evolution even taught in science class when it is of philosophical importance only?

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.
Amen brother, Amen:goodjob:
 
Let's not argue for the sake of argueing.

I think FredLC gave a good explanation of Evolution's role in selective breeding.

Artificial selection(Selective Breeding) is often given as a model for natural selection. It can be used as support for evolution, because it demonstrates how evolution can happen.
 
Homie,

Your question has been answered several times, notably by FredLC. Stop trying to wiggle out by pretending that people claimed something they never did and read Post 67.

I hate people who set up a challenge, have it answered, and then try to change the rules.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
Name them, and quote the post.
Stop picking an arguement. Who cares if Homie made arguement against a point nobody brought up? :mad:

Many of the arguements that were brought up were very much nonsensical, even though we both know (or think we know) that the point they were trying to argue is valid.
 
Evolution explains many things on Genetics, Natural Selection, etc.

So, it also explains why those pesky bacteria are becomming more and more resistant to our drugs.
 
Homie said:
But croxis, you can't say that X is based on Y if X was before Y.
But you can say that modern artificial selections systems have gained much efficiency from an evolutionary perspective.
 
carlosMM said:
btw, Homie, here's eom reading for you.....
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Grrr, I was going to post that link. ;)

Nobody made the assertion that evolution is "required" for science except you Homie, as that's the false dichotomy presented in your poll. In the OP you even made reference to cars and what not, as if they are relevant to what is a biological subject.

As the link above shows, evolution has proven itself quite useful in science. To date, I'm not aware of a single scientific advance that owes its existence to any "alternative theory" *giggle* of the origins of species.

I will note that selective breeding is certainly a practical application of evolution. Just because it was put into use thousands of years ago and nobody knew that evolution was the underlying principle involved doesn't mean it isn't an example of how evolution (which is a reality that transcends human knowledge of it) can be utilized to our benefit.
 
Boris said:
Nobody made the assertion that evolution is "required" for science except you Homie
What are you talking about? That is the whole point of the poll/thread. To see if people think "that evolution is "required" for science". And many have voted that it is, and a few have said that it is. So that is not a false ducch-wha-cha-ma-call-it in my poll, that IS my poll.
 
But it is a poorly formulated pool question, Homie.

Rather than "needed" by science, evolution is an undeniable aspect of it. It is in this sense alone that it is necessary to conduct scientific endeavours, while your post seens to suggest that there is an option of conducting the later without the former, but we just choose not to due to some utility.
 
Homie said:
What are you talking about? That is the whole point of the poll/thread. To see if people think "that evolution is "required" for science". And many have voted that it is, and a few have said that it is. So that is not a false ducch-wha-cha-ma-call-it in my poll, that IS my poll.

As Frank said, it's a poorly-formulated question. Contrary to what you said here, I can't find ANYONE assering that "evolution is required for science." Please provide a quote of someone here saying that.

I suspect that, like myself, people voted for option #1 assuming you meant it to apply to what you wrote in the OP, that evolution has practical scientific applications. Given the lack of better options, people probably voted so you wouldn't get to falsely claim that most people didn't think evolution was practical science.

Will you at least concede that your "challenge" to provide examples of the practicality of evolutionary study has been met?

And "dichotomy" is hardly a difficult word to grasp...you do have a dictionary, right?
 
Evolution does not make any sense scientifically because it is all lies based on darwins big hoax to dupe people into becoming atheists. If you translate darwin into egyptian hieroglyphics it makes the face of..SATAN.

Moderator Action: Warned. Whether it's a spam that's a troll or a troll that's spam, either way, this post does not belong here. You're very close to a ban. I'd watch it if I were you. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Pyrite said:
Evolution does not make any sense scientifically because it is all lies based on darwins big hoax to dupe people into becoming atheists. If you translate darwin into egyptian hieroglyphics it makes the face of..SATAN.
I'm confused whether I should laugh at you, pity you, or report you for making that post. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom