Flukec

Great link! Thanks!

There's been some great answers recently. Thanks a lot, guys. I'm still a bit unclear on how exactly the predictive value of evolution helps predict resistances. But I'm guessing an in depth answer would probably be fairly technical in nature. On a related note, here's an exert from a recent article I read: Here's the link: http://acube.org/volume_29/v29-2p25-33.pdf

I can clearly see how evolutionary theory is the best idea to describe how life came to exist in it's present form, yet I fail to see how it provides guidance for our current endeavors. Going back to the Tyson quote that started this discussion: "But today, with biotech companies, there is no understanding of biology without the theory of evolution. And so if you say, ‘I don’t believe the theory of evolution, I think we were all specially created,’ you must understand the consequences of it to your own employability." He is basically saying that a disbelief in evolutionary theory is a hindrance to practical research. My question is simply, how and why is this? Can you name a development or discovery which came out of modern biology that relied on an understanding of evolutionary theory, and simply could not have been accomplished without it? Yeah....I was hoping for a semi-layman's answer. I don't really have the time or resources to dig through countless journal publications.

This is not meant to be a creationism thread. My question is simply "what is the practical importance of evolutionary theory?" What discernible guidance has evolutionary theory provided in the developments and discoveries that have come out of biological research in the last century? This isn't about the credibility or veracity of evolutionary theory (or creationism for that matter). It's about the practical application of evolutionary theory....and whether or not it even exists. We've probably all heard the quote, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"...yet, is this true? If so, please explain.

I originally thought this would be an obvious answer. Yet, is it not true that antibiotics do not actually 'create' antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria? The way I've understood it is that antibiotics simply create an environment in which only those organisms with pre-existing genetic resistances to the antibiotic survive and reproduce. Thus, one would not have to accept the evolutionary model to conduct research in this field. The creationist model allows for changes within a population due to pre-existing information (like those seen in antibiotic resistance). The thing it does not allow for is the creation of new information within the genome. I understand your point. But my question is, would a belief that the "ceiling cat" created life on this planet affect a researcher's work in the development of new antibiotics....or the discovery of the double helix.....or the mapping of the human genome? If so, how?

Yes, I believe evolutionary theory could be used to explain the wasp's ability to stand on a hose. Yet, a creationist would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose. How would either be more useful in practical research? I guess what I'm getting at is, how do the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past, such as the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides, owe their existence to evolutionary theory? Would the researchers who achieved these great feats have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong?

Thanks for the response, Sayonara³. Perhaps I should have linked the entire Tyson article to give the quote some context. Here's the link: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/09/consequences-of-opposing-evolution.htm In another quote from the article, Tyson says: "But today, with biotech companies, there is no understanding of biology without the theory of evolution. And so if you say, ‘I don’t believe the theory of evolution, I think we were all specially created,’ you must understand the consequences of it to your own employability." Essentially he's saying that the biotech industry could not operate without the theory of evolution. Yet, what is it about the knowledge gained from evolutionary theory that has lead to biotechnological advancements, and why would these advancements not have been reached without it? Hopefully that makes my question a bit more clear.

Hi, I was wondering if you guys (and gals) could give me some insight into the practical importance of evolutionary theory? I've often heard the theory of evolution referred to as "the foundation of modern biology", and I've seen it credited with biotechnological advances in medicine and agriculture. I've even seen the human genome project credited to evolutionary theory. However, I'm ignorant on just how these things directly owe their existence to the theory. The thing that sparked me to ask this question was this quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson: "...the emergent economies are going to be scientifically and technologically driven, with biotech front and center. If you’re coming in saying that there was Adam and Eve, you’re not going to get past the front door. Because they can’t use your knowledge base to invent the next vaccine, the next medicine, the next cure for cancer. That knowledge base does not track into discoveries we know are awaiting us in the halls of biotech firms" So, how exactly does an understanding of the theory of evolution "track" into new discoveries? Thanks for the answers, P.S. This is my first post here, but I've enjoyed being a reader for a while now. I'd like to emphasize that I'm not a creationist looking to poke holes in evolutionary theory. I'm just genuinely interested in expanding my knowledge on the subject.