No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory, all practical biology would stand just as it is. No major corporation has a ‘Department of Evolution’ because scientists who have to produce results don’t use it.
In fact, I would like to challenge the readership of [The Scientist Magazine] to come up with one practical application of biology that would have been impossible were it not for the hypothesis of evolution.
- Avraham Sonenthal, The Scientist 11(14):10, 1997
All rants and hate mail should be direct to Avraham Sonenthal.
No rants or hate mail, but many easy examples in clinical medicine. We use principles of evolutionary biology in treating MRSA, in epidemiology in general, and specifically when we give annual flu shots. This has little to no bearing on religion. Evolutionary principles are deeply ingrained in our thinking about biology and therefore well worn, very much like Newtonian mechanics in physics.
Thanks for the comment, keithnoback.
Avraham Sonenthal has an MA in chemistry from John Hopkins. Not a small accomplishment and neither does it make him the know-it-all about science, but it at least shows he knows something about science and the limits of its explanatory power and application. So why do you think he would say what he said?
Do you have a reference for the claims that scientists use the principles of evolutionary biology for treating MRSA, in epidemiology, and annual flu shots? (I like to have it for reference for myself and readers.)
I trust you won’t fault me for asking. In my past experience, I’m often told to “Google” something. But given that scientists argue over a lot of things — even whether or not a virus, like the flu, is living or nonliving — I thought I might google onto something that supports the opposite of what you intended.
Joshua
keithnoback:
“We use principles of evolutionary biology in treating MRSA, in epidemiology in general, and specifically when we give annual flu shots. This has little to no bearing on religion.”
I share Josh’s curiosity. May I ask what “principles of evolutionary biology” are used in treating MSRA, epidemiology or annual flu shots?
You make a good point about it having no bearing on religion though, as one can be a theist and, at the same time, accept the tenets of evolutionary theory that are well-supported, while rejecting the unsubstantiated ones. Well said. =)
Thanks for pointing out that keithnoback’s comment about its bearing on religion being well said. It is. And even in the linked article, Avraham Sonenthal points this out, too.
Joshua
“So why do you think he would say what he said?”
Shouldn’t you be asking Avraham Sonenthal that?
As for your question, on a recent cartoon you castigated people for believing that giving a link to talkorigins was the end of discussion. Perhaps it isn’t, but it’s certainly a good START to one. And it remains an excellent resource for many questions about evolution, and Sonenthal’s question above is no exception. There’s a good page here: http://tinyurl.com/dnpas that directly addresses his question.
You’ll note there are 21 references at the end.
Here are a few benefits:
*Resistance management in antibiotics and crop pests.
(See also http://tinyurl.com/48gghc )
*DNA fingerprinting and bioinformatics.
*Improved fisheries management.
*Advances in animal and plant breeding.
*Advances in the conservation of endangered species.
*Prediction of gene functions.
*Advancements in pathogen discovery, tracking and response.
(See also http://tinyurl.com/2ddcmt http://tinyurl.com/3n3kow )
*Advancements in determining how a protein is folded,
(necessary to show how it works and how misfolded proteins
can cause diseases such as mad cow disease).
*Creation of new enzymes, pigments, antibiotics, flavors, etc.
*Establishement of genetic and evolutionary algorithms for engineering and computer science.
*Development of several important statistical tools.
*Advances in tracking the history and evolution of languages.
Jerry Coyne on the same subject: “As far as I know, there have been only two genuine commercial applications of evolutionary theory. One is the use of ‘directed evolution’ to produce commercial products (such as enzymes to protect crop plants from herbicides). The other is the clever use of insecticide-free ‘pest refuges’ to stop herbivorous insects evolving resistance to herbicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins, a strategy derived from principles of population genetics. There will certainly be more of these to come. And evolutionary algorithms are used in designing computer programs, and may have uses in engineering and economics.”
Then there’s also the benefits of our understanding of genetics and heredity, which arguably are off-shoots of evolutionary study, in the same way that the space race led to many scientific innovations not directly related to actually landing on the moon.
Andy, the point of my question was that maybe dismissing Avraham’s claim wasn’t so easy. As I pointed out, getting an MA in chemistry at John Hopkins isn’t an easy thing, I think. So, he (Avraham) obviously knows something about science.
It seems to me that the examples you gave involve intelligent input or manipulation of existing information by an intelligence. Intelligent input from an exterior source is a tenant of creationism.
Well, you probably don’t give two hoots about what I put that particular reference to talkorigins.org in that particular cartoon (since you didn’t even ask). But suffice it to say if I give a link to a web site, I would be told that if it isn’t in a peer-reviewed journal or book, it doesn’t mean much to a scientist.
Joshua
“Andy, the point of my question was that maybe dismissing Avraham’s claim wasn’t so easy.”
Didn’t seem that hard to me!
“So, he (Avraham) obviously knows something about science.”
Sure, but evolution is about biology, not chemistry. Ask a biologist and they have clear answers on the subject.
“It seems to me that the examples you gave involve intelligent input or manipulation of existing information by an intelligence.”
So? They still required the understanding of evolution to achieve, thus fulfilling the terms of Avraham’s request. What kinds of examples would you expect if you wanted to know how we’ve benefited from understanding evolution, such that they did NOT require intelligent action?
I’ve read elsewhere that evolutionary science has given us clear ideas about where we’d expect to find petroleum sources, but I’ve not been able to google my way to a link for you, but that would be another example (sorry for lack of sources).
Well, you’re not a scientist. I’m not a scientist, either. I figured that a scientist making science-related claims deserved a science-related response from a scientist. Besides, if his claim was so easily dismissed, why would a scientific magazine geared towards scientists publish it?
RE: Chemistry & Evolution
If you don’t have chemical evolution, do you have any subsequent evolution? As I understand it, natural selection doesn’t operate without the first living cell (so it can reproduce). And how that cell come alive? Isn’t it a matter of chemistry? So surely chemistry has something to say?
Besides, if I ask a creationist biologist (they do exist), then you’d disagree with their answers, wouldn’t you?
Joshua
When we treat microbes with antibiotics, we are guided by the principles of natural selection. We know that bugs which are more genetically malleable will be more likely to develop resistance, because they are more likely to have small groups within the population which naturally (by chance in regard to antibiotic tolerance) are less susceptible to a given antibiotic than the majority of the population. So we are more mindful of resistance when treating infections due to those particular bugs. In all cases, when the drug kills the vulnerable majority, the sub-group has a reproductive advantage and expands to become the dominant type. If the process is repeated, more and more resistant groups will be selected. Mind you, nobody ‘sees’ this happen. It began as a hypothesis based on evolutionary theory; all we could see was the input (antibiotic treatment) and the output (antibiotic resistant bacteria). However, the model has proven itself. It’s predictions – creating a bug apocalypse (high dose antibiotic for shortest possible time)is good, creating a survivable catastrophe (low doses for long time) is bad, for example – have allowed us to modify our practices to reduce the prevalence of resistance. For influenza, common descent and natural selection help the folks at WHO and CDC to know where to look and what to look for when predicting the place of origin and types of virus in annual ‘flu. In epidemiology: Say a man named Mr. Tutu from Botswana comes into my office and complains of bloating and diarrhea. He says it started several weeks ago. Around that time, he started a job at Kraft foods and went on a hunting/camping trip with his new co- workers. Say another man, this time a Mr. Josephson from Norway, comes in with the same story. What about the same story from a man named Gill whose great- great grandfather was from Norway? Here’s what I will say to each: “Mr. Tutu, it is quite likely you have lactase deficiency. Stop eating all that cheese from work and your symptoms should get better. You don’t need a test for giardia right now.”, “Mr Josephson, you ought to be tested for giardia.”, “Mr. Gill, you should stop eating the cheese from work and just to be sure, we should test you for giardia.” Again, I’ll base my decisions on what we know from natural selection. All this is bound to look less significant to the biochem./cell bio. folks. They are basically anatomists after all, and this stuff is about populations of organisms. Moreover, it is so basic that it is easy to overlook it’s effects on our thinking about biology – something to beware of, surely, but something to be aware of as well.
Thank you for an articulate, reasonable response.
I was a bit curious why natural selection, which we creationists have no problem with, is seen as “evolution”. As I’ve seen from evolutionist literature, evolution, as a theory, seems to have become an all-encompassing, all-inclusive title for the composite of many, many different theories. This seems to give it the appearance of being the explanation of nearly everything, natural selection being just one of the many theories under its umbrella.
In the case of the appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the antibiotic resistant group is already part of the existing population, no? So, what is killed is bacteria and what survives is bacteria. Is there an increase or decrease in information? Are there not examples of frozen bacteria which, after being thawed, contain the same antibiotic resistance? How can that be accounted for?
I understand that you could be doing a million other things in a million other places, so I genuinely appreciate any time you spend commenting and replying.
Joshua
“In the case of the appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the antibiotic resistant group is already part of the existing population, no?”
If you mean it was always there, then no. At one point it isn’t there in the population, and then at some point later it is.
“Is there an increase or decrease in information?”
What do you mean by information?
“I was a bit curious why natural selection, which we creationists have no problem with, is seen as “evolution””
I can’t keep up with what creationists do and do not have a problem with, to be honest. I’ve had some creationists deny all sorts of stuff that other self-identifying creationists claim is obviously true. I think it just comes down to what they particular strand of Islam or Christianity they follow, then they fit in or deny the evidence to fit in with that.
Natural selection was Darwin’s theory to explain the observed facts. It pretty much remains the best explanation we have for the fact of evolution.
“I understand that you could be doing a million other things in a million other places, so I genuinely appreciate any time you spend commenting and replying.”
Glad you say that. I’ve noticed that if someone posts a couple of times, then fails to hang around to answer a half dozen other question from you, sypatic, and Getic, you all get quite shirty about it. People do have lives, you know! Perhaps that ‘teh gay’ guy just had other things to do. Sometimes I’ll post somewhere, make my point as best I can, then figure that’s it – I’ve made my point.
I am pretty busy right now, just moved house.
Congratulations on getting a new house, Andy! I just got a new car myself. (Nearly got killed in our old one.)
Please see the article in the previous comment regarding the frozen and thawed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It was already there.
And what creationist literature are you reading? The point is: If you’re not reading any of it, of course you’re not going to know. Your last sentence is just an silly, unsubstantiated insult.
People have lives?! Are you serious?
I know people have lives. (I spent nearly seven hours on my feet teaching today. I think that qualifies as me having a life.) I just object to a virtual hit-and-runs.
Take care and get some rest,
Joshua
Ah, the more things to do, the greater the incentive to procrastinate. The antibiotic resistance in the frozen bacteria was to natural antibiotics – substances we borrowed from fungi. Nevertheless, finding frozen bacteria resistant to synthetic antibiotics wouldn’t be counter to the expectations we have from evolutionary theory ( though such bugs ought to be rare). Natural selection acts on variability, it doesn’t create it. Organisms vary within certain bounds, though the bounds, too, may change over time. I’ve had this conversation before and it eventually comes down to the question of teleology’s place in science. Teleology has no place in science, it is a subject for philosophy and theology. Even though we say “because, because, because” in scientific explanations, we really mean “this is how, this is how, this is how”. There is a subtle but very important difference. You don’t want scientific inquiry filling in the details of philosophical/theological conclusions about ‘what’ and ‘why’, any more than you want your philosophy/theology dependent on the arrangement of objects in the solar system. In that case, the former is no longer science, any more than astrology is a philosophy or theology.
Andrew Ryan:
“I’ve noticed that if someone posts a couple of times, then fails to hang around to answer a half dozen other question from you, sypatic, and Getic, you all get quite shirty about it. People do have lives, you know! Perhaps that ‘teh gay’ guy just had other things to do.”
Honestly now, your comments are very uninformed. During the week or so that the person you call “that ‘teh gay’ guy” flew from synapticcohesion’s question, he had all the time in the world to post numerous, LENGTHY diatribes on another thread(https://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/qwerky-quotes-for-the-inquisitive-bill-nye/#comments), during which time I even reminded him of the question he evaded. And yet we’re to believe that he couldn’t post 2 or 3 short sentences in response to synapticcohesion.
On the weight of the evidence, it’s definitely not the case that Cedric Katesby “just had other things to do.”
I’m willing to put that down to ignorance on your part, as I don’t believe you were aware of Cedric Katesby’s ongoing activities on the other thread. Cheers.
“Honestly now, your comments are very uninformed.”
Coming from you? Ha ha ha ha.
Right. So I highlight your ignorance and your response is nothing more than the usual sarcasm and personal incredulity? Noted. =D
“So I highlight your ignorance”
No, you mindlessly assert. You’ve long passed the point where you can be taken seriously. That you still think you’ve got any credibility left after your failed hatchet job on me – where you were left castigating me for not having debated long-deceased apologists, and were reduced to quoting ggodat to bolster your argument – is laughable, which is why the only response I have for you is laughter and derision. And yes, you calling someone else ignorant is hilarious.
That someone moves on to another thread after a certain number of posts is neither here nor there. If one was obligated to remain on one thread indefinitely before moving onto another, then one never would have the time to move on. So yes, time can still be a factor. Posting on the other thread may have been one of ‘the other things’ the person had to do.
Andrew Ryan:
It’s clear that – for the simple fact that I boldly chose to speak up about your dishonest online behaviour once – I seem to have gotten under your skin. For I sense a lot of anger, sarcasm and bias in your comments, comments that, sadly, aren’t at all representative of the many respectful atheists and agnostics I’ve met in discussions, and are, unfortunately, all too typical of a select group of Internet atheists.
You know, to be honest, I had actually written a very strongly worded reply to you. But guess what? I actually prayed about it (and you) last night. And in that short period of quiet time, God instilled in my heart the kind of calm that only He could, and I found myself tossing my old reply aside and drafting an entirely new one, with a totally new approach.
You see Andrew Ryan, there are many ways I could respond to your comments. But the question God put in my heart is this: is my response going to honour Him?
For instance, could I respond to your claims by re-addressing the many points I brought up previously and drag you into the mud over and over with charges of dishonesty? Of course I could, but that wouldn’t be God-honouring.
Could I respond to your mockery and condescending remarks with mockery and condescension of my own? Of course, I could, but that wouldn’t be God-honouring.
Could I list out the numerous, insurmountable challenges your worldview faces in terms of explanatory scope and power, and laugh at any subsequent point or argument you raise without an ounce of respect for your beliefs? Of course I could, but that wouldn’t be God-honouring.
And so, with that God-honouring filter in place, I shall respond to your post, because I feel it is worth my time. But note that this will be my last exchange on that episode, an episode that I had long put behind me (if you’d noticed, I kept my promise and NEVER took it up with you again ever since that thread, and yet, you seem to be harping on it enough to be constantly bringing it up). Let’s run through your response.
“You’ve long passed the point where you can be taken seriously. That you still think you’ve got any credibility left after your failed hatchet job on me…”
Of course, I recognise that it’s your frustration that’s clouding your thinking. I’d respectfully point out that Josh, synapticcohesion and many others whom I have interacted with online (atheists and agnostics alike) take me very seriously, and would flat out disagree with your ad hominem. And my world certainly isn’t made or broken on your opinion. So I’ll just sit back and let my arguments and points speak for themselves.
“… you were left castigating me for not having debated long-deceased apologists…
You’re conveniently omitting, though, the plain facts. For your information, I just took the trouble to personally look through the list I provided (I’ll put it up here again for your benefit – http://www.apologetics315.com/2009/06/100-christian-apologists.html) and to do a headcount on your behalf. And guess what? There are only 15 apologists who are no longer with us. Which means an OVERWHELMING majority – 85 out of that list of 100 great Christian apologists – are living (with over 40 of them philosophers by profession). And common sense would dictate I was referring to the LIVING ones in asking you to back up your till-now unsubstantiated claim that you have “debated several well-known apologists” without “a decent response”, on a philosophical topic that you yourself seemed to have trouble with. Oh well…
“… and were reduced to quoting ggodat to bolster your argument…”
You keep going back to ggodat, when the fact is, even leaving him aside, you have J. W. Wartick, Josh, Rhology, amongst others, calling you dishonest based on your arguments WELL BEFORE I ever did. And I’m sure you have a defence for that as well, don’t you?
“… is laughable, which is why the only response I have for you is laughter and derision. And yes, you calling someone else ignorant is hilarious.”
Actually, the above comment says more about you than it does about me. And here comes the interesting bit. I am not going to laugh at you. Not one bit. You certainly do not faze me, for I have nothing to fear, and yet, I will withhold from according you the same disrespect, because that certainly wouldn’t bring glory to God.
“That someone moves on to another thread after a certain number of posts is neither here nor there. If one was obligated to remain on one thread indefinitely before moving onto another, then one never would have the time to move on. So yes, time can still be a factor. Posting on the other thread may have been one of ‘the other things’ the person had to do.”
Again, it seems your frustration with me isn’t allowing you to look at the situation objectively. The thread in question (https://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/when-bad-excuses-go-bad/#comments) started on 5th September and Cedric Katesby disappeared after synapticcohesion’s question on the 6th, ONE DAY LATER. That hardly qualifies as having been on the thread “indefinitely”! And yet, in the 2 weeks that followed, he wrote something like 15 posts – numerous, LENGTHY diatribes – on another thread (https://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/qwerky-quotes-for-the-inquisitive-bill-nye/#comments), during which time I even reminded him of the question he evaded. And yet we’re to believe that he couldn’t post 2 or 3 short lines in response to synapticcohesion’s question, when he could afford over 500 lines on the other thread.
I am sorry, but on the weight of the evidence, it’s definitely not the case that Cedric Katesby “just had other things to do.” Since we’re deadlocked on this, how about we leave your suggestion and mine on the table, for any neutrals out there to compare and decide which is more plausible, and makes sense in light of the evidence?
I hope that I have given you plenty to think about. And as mentioned, this is the last time I am going to address that episode with you. The past does not in any way indicate that you’re incapable of honest debating in the future, and I am willing to give you the full benefit of the doubt with that. In fact, I intend to further discussion with you on other topics (some which are ongoing as well). I have long put that episode behind me. It’s time you do the same. Cheers. =)
“Besides, if his claim was so easily dismissed, why would a scientific magazine geared towards scientists publish it?”
It was a letter, not an article. And they published a long rebuttal (though you need to be subscribed – ie pay – to read it.
“And how that cell come alive? Isn’t it a matter of chemistry? So surely chemistry has something to say?”
That’s abiogenesis, not evolution.
“But suffice it to say if I give a link to a web site, I would be told that if it isn’t in a peer-reviewed journal or book, it doesn’t mean much to a scientist.”
Not necessarily. But if you’re making a claim that runs contrary to accepted science, then the lack of a peer-review on that claim detracts somewhat from its credibility. Certainly, the converse is true: citing a peer-reviewed paper bolsters your claim. And talkorigins is written by biologists and backs up its claims with references to peer-reviewed papers, hence its credibility.
“So surely chemistry has something to say?”
Chemistry doesn’t have NOTHING to say on biological matters – biology comes down to chemistry, which in turn boils down to physics. But that doesn’t tell us much about how much of an authority a chemist would be on matters biological; a CHEMIST isn’t necessarily the best person to be an authority on biological matters. Certainly just because a chemist doesn’t know something about biology, it doesn’t really follow that that thing isn’t known by a biologist. In other words, if a chemist says “I can’t think of a way that evolution has benefitted us”, then it probably says more about that chemist than it does about benefits or otherwise of evolution.
No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory.
Such information is freely available. The Theory of Evolution is useful. People do real work with it.