Evolution (huh!) What is it good for?

[Bradk3]

Okay, let me state clearly that I'm a big believer and supporter in the Theory of Evolution.

However, I'm also Christian and that, obviously, puts me in contact with *alot* of people who aren't so fond of the idea. Although it hasn't come up in conversation yet, I want to be ready. However, there are still a few things I'm unclear on.

For now, I'll just stick with one topic:

I've seen Creationists (Intelligent Design or whatever they're calling themselves these days) claim that Evolution isn't scientific because it makes no predictions that can be proved or disproved and it serves no useful purpose.

What is the best way to respond to this? Are there predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that can/have been verified or falsified? I suppose the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria could be an example. Any others? Also, (and this is what I'm most interested in) does our knowledge of the Theory of Evolution provide any scientific, medical or other benefits? In other words: is it useful?

Enlighten me, please.

[HeavyAaron]

Okay, let me state clearly that I'm a big believer and supporter in the Theory of Evolution.

However, I'm also Christian and that, obviously, puts me in contact with *alot* of people who aren't so fond of the idea. Although it hasn't come up in conversation yet, I want to be ready. However, there are still a few things I'm unclear on.

For now, I'll just stick with one topic:

I've seen Creationists (Intelligent Design or whatever they're calling themselves these days) claim that Evolution isn't scientific because it makes no predictions that can be proved or disproved and it serves no useful purpose.

What is the best way to respond to this? Are there predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that can/have been verified or falsified? I suppose the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria could be an example. Any others? Also, (and this is what I'm most interested in) does our knowledge of the Theory of Evolution provide any scientific, medical or other benefits? In other words: is it useful?

Enlighten me, please.

Actually, I've always thought of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a BAD example. Just simple (un)natural selection at work... not the creation of something new. Of course I'm no expert and could be mistaken.

Aaron

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, I've always thought of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a BAD example. Just simple (un)natural selection at work... not the creation of something new. Of course I'm no expert and could be mistaken.

Aaron

I think artificial selection is more a case of selective breeding for specific traits. I'm pretty sure that humans trying to kill bacteria is as natural as tigers trying to kill deer.

Steven

[HeavyAaron]

I think artificial selection is more a case of selective breeding for specific traits. I'm pretty sure that humans trying to kill bacteria is as natural as tigers trying to kill deer.

Steven

Well, since I have always found the distinction "natural" vs. "artificial", ummm, well artificial, it would depend on your working definitions of the two.

Aaron

[Rasmus]

Okay, let me state clearly that I'm a big believer and supporter in the Theory of Evolution.

However, I'm also Christian and that, obviously, puts me in contact with *alot* of people who aren't so fond of the idea. Although it hasn't come up in conversation yet, I want to be ready. However, there are still a few things I'm unclear on.

For now, I'll just stick with one topic:

I've seen Creationists (Intelligent Design or whatever they're calling themselves these days) claim that Evolution isn't scientific because it makes no predictions that can be proved or disproved and it serves no useful purpose.

What is the best way to respond to this?

So what? Even if this was true, and it wasn't a science, it wouldn't suddenly stop to be the best explanation we have for the variety of life on this rock. You might ask them if they think history is a science, e.g.

Are there predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that can/have been verified or falsified? I suppose the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria could be an example. Any others?

Evolution is slow, and it depends on changes in the environment, chance and other factors. So, any prediction made will take a drastically different from than anything like "e=m*c*c" etc.

The prediction that a change in the environment will result in a changed species has been shown to be true many times.

Also, (and this is what I'm most interested in) does our knowledge of the Theory of Evolution provide any scientific, medical or other benefits? In other words: is it useful?

That isn't the point. The point is: Is it accurate? Is it right? Do we have sufficient reason to believe that it's true?

But if you must ask: Understanding that bacteria can develop immunity to antibiotics allows us to see the dangers in overly generous treatments using the antibiotics. I think it is useful that we can actively do something to prolong out chance of using them, and that we can anticipate the rise of stronger and more harmful bacteria.

[Bradk3]

Actually, I've always thought of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a BAD example. Just simple (un)natural selection at work... not the creation of something new. Of course I'm no expert and could be mistaken.

Aaron
I've always thought of it as a rather good example of survival of the fittest.

While antibiotics will kill most bacteria, there exist some with mutations allowing them to survive. Those genes are passed on when the bacteria multiply. As time goes by, the bacteria with the mutated genes survive in greater numbers, resulting more bacteria with the mutated genes which survive in greater numbers... etc.

Pretty much Natural Selection at work.

[jimlintott]

I found something interesting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html).

"What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions," Lander said. "You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence."

Lander's experiment tested a quirky prediction of evolutionary theory: that a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual's odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species.

The rule proved true not only for mice and chimps, Lander said. A new and still unpublished analysis of the canine genome has found that dogs, whose numbers have historically been greater than those of apes but smaller than for mice, have an intermediate number of harmful mutations -- again, just as evolution predicts.

Helpful?

[Bradk3]

So what? Even if this was true, and it wasn't a science, it wouldn't suddenly stop to be the best explanation we have for the variety of life on this rock. You might ask them if they think history is a science, e.g.
That's a very good point and is probably the best response. The claim that Evolution is unscientific is a non-starter because, as you say, it is the best explanation we have so far.

Evolution is slow, and it depends on changes in the environment, chance and other factors. So, any prediction made will take a drastically different from than anything like "e=m*c*c" etc.

The prediction that a change in the environment will result in a changed species has been shown to be true many times.
Like the London moth's adapting to air polution?

That isn't the point. The point is: Is it accurate? Is it right? Do we have sufficient reason to believe that it's true?

But if you must ask: Understanding that bacteria can develop immunity to antibiotics allows us to see the dangers in overly generous treatments using the antibiotics. I think it is useful that we can actively do something to prolong out chance of using them, and that we can anticipate the rise of stronger and more harmful bacteria.
True again, the applicability probably isn't the point. I've just seen the argument made and wanted a good response.

However, I tend to look for answers to questions without questioning the questions themselves. In this case, I think you're right - the questions of whether Evolution is scientific or applicable are really missing the point.

Thanks for the insight.

[Bradk3]

I found something interesting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html).


Helpful?
Beautiful! Absolutely beautiful!

Thank you, sir.

[HappyCat]

I think it would be good for you to read from http://www.talkorigins.org. In this case, there are several things you are asking, such as whether or not evolution is observable (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html), whether evolution makes testable predictions (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html), and whether evolution has a use (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html). Here is a list of claims you are likely to hear, and responses to them: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Edit: fixed links

[Bradk3]

I think it would be good for you to read from http://www.talkorigins.org. In this case, there are several things you are asking, such as whether or not evolution is observable (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html), whether evolution makes testable predictions (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html), and whether evolution has a use (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html). Here is a list of claims you are likely to hear, and responses to them: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Edit: fixed links
Oh man, now you've done it. There's enough content in that site to keep me busy for quite a while. I think you've successfully deflected most of the other questions I might have asked. I'll read through that site a couple of times and come back here if there's anything else I need help with.

Thanks, HappyCat!

[Rasmus]

That's a very good point and is probably the best response. The claim that Evolution is unscientific is a non-starter because, as you say, it is the best explanation we have so far.

Oh, it is scientific alright. The question is if it is a "science" in it's own right. It might well not be, depending on the definition if "science" that one uses, but that doesn't change the value of the theory of evolution.

Moot point now, though, since there has been a much better reply.

Like the London moth's adapting to air polution?

And elephants with small tuskers that make them unattractive for poachers.

the questions of whether Evolution is scientific or applicable are really missing the point.

They are, of course, important points - just not in a fight between evolution and creationism.

[Buckaroo]

HappyCat beat me to the punch! The talk origins site is AMAZING. When you're done there, though, be sure to come back here! :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

The entire field of genetic science is based on evolution theory.

The claim, "that Evolution isn't scientific because it makes no predictions that can be proved or disproved and it serves no useful purpose", is a naive claim that is unfortunately repeated over and over.

Here's one prediction of billions:

If you expose a colony of organisms to a toxin, and if the organisms reproduce quickly enough for you to observe the outcome, and the toxin does not kill the entire colony, eventually the colony will be resistant to the toxin.

Not only has this been demonstrated time and time again, scientists have actually bred organisms to devour toxins as food and thus clean up the environment.

The vast majority of medical breakthroughs are now coming from genetic science. Genetic science is the basis of evolution.

[CapelDodger]

I found something interesting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html).


Helpful?
An excellent exposition. I'm generally appalled at the way journalism handles anything with a science slant, but this piece is just right.

I'm intrigued by this notion of turning the ID claim of evolution not being scientific back on them. Show that even by their own definition evolution theory is following the scientific path - observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, observation, ad infinitum - while ID is sat on a bench. Science is by nature moving, like electricity or sharks. ID doesn't move, it defines a position not a path, and is thus not science.

[AWPrime]

I also see non-fundies disagree with evolution, mainly because they either don't get it or it makes them uncomfortable.

[Wowbagger]

Modern medicine relies on the Theory of Evolution. It is hardly "useless". It is, in fact, saving lives! And, it has been for more decades than I was born in!

AIDS research would have gone absolutely nowhere without it!

Cancer researchers take Evolution for granted: they see it every day in their microscopes! Did you know that, as cancer cells multiply, their survival takes on the same characteristics as other life forms? Not all cancer cells can survive all the selection pressures they are put under. Unfortunately, the ones that do survive thrive (and yes, even evolve!), which is one reason why cancer is such a deadly infliction.

The Theory of Evolution is even being utilized to save endangered species. If you want to save an animal, you better dang well know all you can about it, including what sorts of selection pressures it evolved to survive in, in the past, to better assess how to preserve it for the future!

Even when without practical purposes, Evolution just is flat-out able to explain stuff, to precision details. We know, for example, how the flagellum of the paramecium evolved. We can deduce evolutionary reasons for all the various animal behaviors and survival strategies that we witness.

And, that is just the tip of the ice burg!

So, tell that to the Creationists! Ask them how useful their "theory" is.

[The Mad Hatter]

In addition to what HappyCat gave, I'd suggest this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) too (Also from TalkOrigins). This is a huge collection of evidence for evolution, and it's given in the form of verified predictions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think looking at the big picture can be helpful.

The Theory of Evolution made some clear predictions that had to be correct for the theory to exist:

That variability within the population of a species affected the ability to produce offspring;

That the features that gave rise to such variability in the population were capable of being inherited by those offspring;

That a mechanism existed by which the "preferred" features could increase in variability or that new variations could arise.

All of these have been proven to be true.

[H3LL]

Deleted.

My stupid.