Novowels

Hey evo/cre denizens. You're all smarter than I.

Could I get a list of specific examples of things that require Evolution to exist, that have been extremely beneficial to mankind? By this I mean things that require acknowledging evolution as a fact before one could find/study/put said 'thing' to use. For a far-reaching umbrella example: antibiotics. (feel free to get specific on this subject as well)

Please contribute that which you know of that we have to "thank" an understanding of evolution for. Specific examples, please! (with documentation, if possible )

I think this could be an interesting and handy list to have for debates with Creationist arguers that say evolution is unsupported by other fields, or even stupid sayings like, "nothing good comes from evolution."

Apologies if this has been posted/answered before. Just point me towards the list and I'll move along.

WinAce

Genetic algorithms rule. Radio evolves from electronic soup

(Also great to use for the "no new information" kreated kind of kreationist; watch them squirm as they say "but that's just a process of testing, adding random changes, discarding the bad results and repeating - not evolution". Actual paraphrase from RaptureReady )

The Lone Ranger

Not that your average Creationist will admit it, but there really isn't much point to testing new drugs on animals if we aren't related to them.

Ideally, we test new drugs on mammals, since we're mammals ourselves, instead of on amphibians or birds, for example. The reason that mammals are preferable to other vertebrates (much less invertebrates) as test subjects should be obvious to any "Evolutionist."

Cheers,

Michael

lpetrich

Evolutionary biology is also proving useful in comparative genomics. From well-studied genes, it is apparent that much molecular evolution is genetic drift -- neutral selection. And that the more functionally-constrained genes generally have a lower rate of evolution.

From there, it has been a simple matter to extrapolate to identifying genes by finding out what parts of a genome change relatively little from one organism to another.

A technique used extensively in genomic research -- the large majority of human genes have been found to have counterparts in the mouse genome, and vice versa. Looking further, the match rate is about 75% with pufferfish; this greater distance is in agreement with what evolutionary biologist have concluded for over a century about the species' relationships.

OrderedChaos

For more nifty examples of genetic algorithms, I suggest you head on over to the Genetic Algorithms Archive . A really cool example from this site is the Navy using GAs to create the behaviors of autonomous vehicles.

If it was not for man's use of evolution, we would still be relying on the wild types of crops and animals for our food. Has anyone ever seen the ancestor of corn? Doesn't create a lot of food. What is even more amazing is that man has been doing this thousands of years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Another use of evolution that is rather recent would be Darwian Medicine , which uses evolution for a greater understanding of why we get sick.

To expand on what the lone ranger said, different experiments can be run on different animals depending on how closely realated they are to us. If a researcher wanted to learn about some of the more basic life processes, yeast would work just fine. If you wanted to learn a little bit more about basic psychology or something as advanced, you might want to use an animal even closer to humans then rodents, such as chimps.

Monkey

Evolution has vast implications for Ecology and Conservation. It's essential for understanding how present biodiversity was created and hence how best it should be managed.

The reconstructions of evolutionary history are known as phylogenies. We can use molecular data to estimate the common ancestries of life, for example, specific causative agents (as a bacterium or virus) of disease. For example whether recent cases of polio in North America were relict strains from the New World, were vaccine strains, or were introduced from Asia.

Doubting Didymus

Ordered chaos: I can't access your link to 'darwinian medicine'. It could be just me, though.

Arrowman

Ah yes, but it's still corn!!!

Seriously - impressive though the responses to this thread have been, the problem is that they will make little impact on the creationist mind because the sorts of uses of genetics that have been described don't actually require common ancestry etc. They only require that you recognise the role of genetics within "kinds" (whatever they are). Even the commonality of genomes between species can be dismissed as "common design". This is why (imho) it is possible to be a creationist and yet still succeed in the biological sciences (study or career).

I have a little list of "questions creationists can't answer" - I have asked these on various message boards at various times, as well as having read some creationist material, and I can honestly say I have never received or read a clear, straightforward answer.

One of these questions is "Please describe the biological or genetic barrier which prevents natural genetic diversification from proceeding beyond the 'kind' barrier." (Of course, this also implies "define a kind" which is equally impossible for creationists to answer.)

Oh, PS: As for "nothing good comes from evolution", one answer is - even if that were true, so what? The truth of otherwise of a scientific theory is measured by evidence - not whether it's of any practical utility. But that's probably a bit too rational for your average creationist to grasp. Especially when you've got all those good things that have come from creationism - like, er....

RufusAtticus

Yeah here is the list of questions that I bring out whenever a creationist tries to assert that immutable kinds exist.

So "dove," "raven," and "olive" are basic kinds? What did they diversify into?

1. What is a kind and how many are there?
2. Do mammals constitute a kind? If not how many mammal kinds are there?
3. How can you determine if genetic similarity is due to having a common ancestor or due to having similar creations? If this cannot be determined, then I see no way for the "kind" hypothesis to be valid.
4. Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
5. Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion?
6. Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?
7. If I were to present you with two organisms, a poe and a moe, how would you evaluate whether or not they belong to the same kind?
8. How many species belong to the horse kind? If kind is so well established to trump evolutionary concepts, then this should be easy to answer. Also, what genetic evidence allows you to identify this?
9. Please identify the barrier that limits evolution to only occuring within kinds. In other words, what molecular mechanism would prevent a terrestial predator, related to cows, from evolving into a whale? What limits novelty?
10. Doves, ravens, and olives are all mentioned in the story of Noah's flood? Is each one a kind, and, if so, what did they diversify into?

See how the most resent creationist handled it.

Arrowman

Rufus, good list! May I copy and keep for mysel? For some reason I can't get at the Christian Forums - I'd really appreciate it if you would quote a relevant piece of the creationist response here, just for my personal amusement...