Does the Evolutionary Theory offer any practical uses?

Question

First I'm a Creationist because as a believer in a Divine Creator I accept that the Old Testament (Written and Oral Torah) are completely true and the word of G-d in both its deeper hidden meanings (yet to be discovered) and it's known meanings (already discovered by humans). I'm Jewish and accept the tenants of my religion without reservation even though I don't practice all aspects of my religion such as eating non Kosher food. My husband who is currently being trained in Infantry with the US Army and is the bravest man in the world (MY OPINION!!) and soon to be a father of the cutest little boy in the world (lol lol) doesn't have an opinion on Evolutionary Theory. I'm currently taking Biology and College Algebra (precalculus class) at a Community College. As a future Scientist and Mathematician (I love Math!! almost as much as my husband!!) I see Evolutionary Theory as some sort of voodoo that doesn't work and doesn't seem to lead to any practical applications.

Thanks for all the great answers. Many answerers gave me a lot of food for thought. I intend to go through all the listed web site references and over a period of time revisit this question (not ask another one on the same subject but reread the answers that I received on this one is what I mean) because I want to understand and learn. The pace is starting to pick up with my two classes and I'm reaching the "finishing stretch" (to borrow from horse racing lol lol) of my pregnancy with all that entails and will have to revisit my great answers over time. I appreciate all the people who answered. To the religious Jew who weighed in, my understanding of our religion is that generally the Theory of Evolution is not accepted as the explanation for life on our planet. Perhaps I'm wrong and if so apologize for that.

I'm sorry if I slighted anyone. ALL answerers gave me "food for thought", not most but ALL!!

Answer 1

I think you're confusing macroevolution with microevolution.

Microevolution is just a change, in a population, of the ratio of certain genetic traits. For example, the growth in the number of cases of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis cases. We overtreat TB with certain antibiotics, and the ones that survive, because of a random genetic trait, are able to reproduce without competition from their buddies who are now quite dead. They reproduce and grow and replenish the population of tuberculosis-causing bacteria.

That means that the population, through selection, has evolved a resistance to antibiotics. Evolution at work.

Now one key note in that paragraph is that the change that allowed some bacteria to survive is random. That's the basis for why evolution occurs in the most strict view: randomness. Chance. Happenstance. You might see only one changed item in DNA, but that could change an entire protein and the way it folds up and the way it operates. That might make the creature weaker; it could kill it. OR it could make the creature better able to survive. And without a different rate of survival for different genetic traits, you don't really have much evolution occuring.

It does not take a huge stretch to take what we learn in this case and look at it over a long time frame - like, say, 3 billion years or so. Eventually you can see that random changes in DNA can pile up and create new species. This is because some changes that occur (not all, mind you) make those who inherit those changes just a little bit better than their neighbors at living long enough to have babies. And their babies will inherit those changes as well - eventually, if the changes are big enough, those who have that trait, just like the antibiotic-resistant TB, will swamp out the old-school version of the population. And if enough differences pile up, you have a new species.

A major complaint lodged by those who discount evolution is "where are all the mid-way species?" Well, they died out. Evolution takes a long time, several thousand generations for even the minutest differences to be noticable, and that's plenty of time for intermediaries to be lost to time. However, many of them are well-preserved in the fossil record. The evolution of the modern horse is an excellent example of intermediate species.

Another complaint is one of "why are there still monkeys if humans evolved from monkeys?" This is an example of failing to actually understand what is being argued against. First off, monkeys did not beget humans. Apes and monkeys split off from a single progenitor many millions of years ago. The monkeys kept some traits - like tails. Apes lost them. Monkeys stayed small, apes got big. Humans and what are now the great apes split off from a common ancestor millions of years ago, too - but millions of years after the monkey/ape progenitor split.

The reason that there are still monkeys, and still apes, and all of those other "earlier" or "more primitive" species is simple: they are still very good at making babies. Mankind may be viewed as the pinnacle of evolution to date, but that doesn't mean that monkeys and fish and ants stopped having sex. And it doesn't mean that they aren't good at surviving anymore - it means, in fact, that they are doing just fine where they are, thankyouverymuch, and that we are doing just fine where WE are. We have evolved the way we have because we're good at being where we are in nature's grand links. Monkeys are very good at being where they are. There is no pressure on them to change quickly or die - some genetic changes still arise, but if they don't make the monkey better than his neighbors, there's not a lot of chance that his genes will take the place of others. They might stick around, or they might get swamped out.

Another major complaint is an unstated one, but IS very important. And that's the question of timeframe - evolutionary theory is based on the earth being about 4.7 billion years old. But if you take the Bible literally, the earth is only about 6011 years old. And that means that evolution, as we study it, could not have happened. So there are two mutually exclusive ideas: either the creation of the earth as described in Genesis is wrong, or evolution is wrong; there is no happy middle.

An alternative is to look at Genesis as an allegory: God created the earth and the rules that govern it. God may have guided evolution, or He might simply have known what would happen if He set the world into motion. This does not require that you stop believing in God (which many Creationists seem to think is the goal of evolutionary biologists - it isn't), nor does it require that you discount all of the study and science that backs up evolutionary biology (which many biologists believe is the goal of Creationists - and I think in a lot of cases, it is).

Here's the thing: evolution is backed up by a lot of good, solid, repeatable research. The study of evolution is SCIENCE - it's tested, it's examined, it's reviewed, it's repeated. The point of science is not to go as far as you care to understand, and then brush off your hands and say, "well, that's as far as I can figure out, God did the rest." That's theology, not science. And it's best to keep the two apart.

As for what evolution teaches us, its practical applications? Evolution allows us to learn more about where we came from, why we came from where we did, why our bodies are the way they are; it allows us new models of examining the genetic nature of disease, it allows us new ways to examine and test medications; it also allows us to learn just how lucky we are to be here.

I'm attaching some links that will allow you to learn more about the science that backs up evolutionary theory.

Answer 2

I don't understand how you can call yourself a future scientist and at the same time call the evolutionary theory "some sort of voodoo." Perhaps you are not understand the concepts of it correctly. You saying you are a soon-to-be parent, you are given a chance to see the very basis of the evolutionary theory at work. When you son is born, I'm sure you will hear people saying "He has your eyes" or "He has his father's smile" This is no "voodoo" This is the simple process of inheriting traits down thru a generation, which in turn is the most basic concept of evolution. Overall, our ancesors, whether you believe they are monkeys or Adam and Eve, have made you and I what we are today, thru no coincidence. You will find that many devote Christians, Jews, or any other type of religious folk do find and agree with many of the points of the Evolutionary Theory. Calling it voodoo is simply ignorant.

Answer 3

Excuse me, but there is no such thing as evolutionary theory. It is the LAW of Evolution (a measurable trait) and the theory is of Natural Selection.

Evolution explains why radiation causes birth defects, how antibiotic resistant diseases become more prevalent, Zoonetic diseases, the failure of pesticides over time. The decent of man explains many other conditions, including the presence of Tay-sachs and sickle cell anemia. I remember my cladistics teacher telling of how a doctor diagnosed a girl who developed a growth on her neck through his ontogylogical training (that means comparing humans to other animals in developement). She had a gill that didn't fuse during her devlopment and it filled with water.

You can't be a doctor or any type of scientist without knowing and understanding evolution. And if you don't, your a pretty bad scientist.

Answer 4

If you see any sort of theory as "voodoo", there is no hope of you understanding it until you change the way your mind works.
Evolution is a major part of the whole concept of biology.
Let me put it this way..
It has been regarded as impossible to collect a male and a female specimen of the 40,000 species of spiders to put on Noah's arc even by creationists, so therefore all the species of spiders must have common ancestor just like humans do, Adam and Eve... Obviously not all spiders look the same just as not all humans look the same. Therefore evolution must have at least a degree of truth for Noah's arc to be plausible.

Answer 5

Your religion is clouding your reasoning. If you really study evolution you will see that it is a beautifully elegant mechanism and one that is FULLY accepted by the scientific community. It has been repeatedly validated for the past 150 years. There is no disagreement among scientists on whether evolution happened, although some of the details are still being debated and worked out (just like ANY area of science). Practical uses? Yes! Our understanding of antimicrobial resistance is a direct result of our understanding of evolution. There are many others.

Answer 6

Yes, that is the purpose of a theory, to be of practical application. Darwin's ideas give us a way of understanding the observable world. That is why we collect data, empirical evidence, to fill out this understanding and improve on the way it models our world. Once you have the math to follow the research and do more than be subjected to opinions you will discover whether the theories are of any use in understanding and modeling behavior.
Behavior modeling is of use in understanding repeating patterns of behavior seen in many species. An example is there are many mammals that undertake long arduous terrestrial migrations every year. Our understanding how environmental changes will impact their migration corridors will be based, in part, on understanding the general behaviors of all the migrating species. How do we weigh the factors? Migrating ungulates may follow seasonally abundant resources, or seasonal resources of exceptional quality, and/or avoid non-migratory predators. Group migration has costs through parasite and disease transmission and benefits through predator swamping. All these are the factors that effect the reproductive success of a species and its chances at avoiding extinction without considering habitat infringement humans inflict. Without understanding migration pressures we wont reserve adequate space. Then survival of species like the pronghorn antelope, caribou, kob, & chiru can not be assured and the species may be lost.
Darwin's theories are the tools by which we understand complex animal behaviors. Understanding their behavior may give us the arguments to preserve resources in order to preserve species.

Instead of tackling all of the selective theory why not look at one tool. The cost theory of W D Hamilton. An action will be taken if it is done for close kin, does not overly reduce the over all fitness of the actor while benefiting the recipient.
C < R x B
C is the cost to the actor, R is the degree of genetic relation (sibling, parent, etc.) B is the fitness benefit to the recipient of the action. This came in response to the question, Is there any evidence of genetic self-sacrifice despite the evident cost in negative genetic selection. How can helping benefit the actor?
Once the various pressures are balanced, the cost versus the benefit, it can be understood why some organisms invest time and effort in behaviors that do not show immediate results. Parents invest in offspring spending time feeding and rearing for genetic survival but why do fellow wolves and elephants share rearing of another's young? This is helping behavior.
Reciprocal altruism in bats was the first documented case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/mammals/explore/altruism.shtml
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2002/perry/altruism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

Keep taking the classes and ask the questions. Each question should give rise to another way of looking at the empirical evidence, the world. My experience is that people who ask themselves hard questions become better people for it.

Answer 7

You can believe in something all you want but that doesn't make it true, and if you don't accept the fact of evolution - which runs through all of biology and is supported by geology and physics as well - I don't see how you could be suited to a scientific career.

Evolution is a unfying principle of vast explanatory power which ties together all those sciences mentioned above, and after 150 years of being verified at every turn the likelihood that it will be discovered to be wrong is vanishingly small. Its "practical use" of course is in the field of genetics especially, and genetics is the future of biotechnology and the promise of great power to cure disease, to mention only one aspect of it.

By denying evolution you deny present and future humans (and other living things) the potential to be free of unnecessary suffering by interfering with biological research - stem cells in particular. To me this is an extremely immoral position, and I urge you to reconsider.

If you are sincerely interested in examining your beliefs with a scientific and open-minded attitude, look at www.talkorigins.org, which will show you the glaring mistakes (intentional or otherwise) made by proponents of creationism.

Answer 8

Funny, I got my first introduction to evolution in Hebrew school. It was a looooong time ago but I think it was a response to my question about Noah's ark being nowhere near large enough to hold all the animals, to say nothing of their food. There are a lot of devout Jews who have not gone off the deep end and become creationists.

Answer 9

Understanding adaptive traits probably wouldn't compromise your beliefs. God created us to be able to adapt to different environments. As humans we are emotionally evolving -I think that our personal and technological evolution is part of why He put us here to begin with.

Answer 10

Survival of the fitest and thinning of the herd. The dumb get left behind and the smartest succeed.