The Practical Importance of Evolutionary Theory?

[Flukec]

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.

[Sayonara]

I'm not certain what the quote has to do with the evolutionary sciences.

 

Advances in biotechnology will come largely from biochemistry at the planning end of things, not evolutionary theory. It seems to me that the only way you could crow-bar evolution into that quote is if you decide that it is only possible to approach any given scenario from a religious or evolutionary direction.

 

Have I just missed the point?

 

Anyway, to (sort of) answer your question. the practical use of evolutionary theory is difficult to sum up, because the range of disciplines covered by that term "evolutionary" is so very broad. Did you have any particular element of evolution in mind, such as Natural Selection?

[Flukec]

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.

[Sayonara]

Yes, that does make it clearer.

 

A good example are sorting algorithms which are based on natural selection. It's much easier and faster to sift through x million possible molecular configurations to find the one you are looking for if you involve selection in your filtering process.

 

Here is a practical example which uses a selective learning process to identify the molecular signature of tumours: http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/9/R76

[Ophiolite]

The consequences of the reality of evolution as approximately described by the current version of the theory of evolution lead us to particular experimental methodologies. Those methodologies would not have been developed without the undersanding inherent in the theory of evolution. However, once they exist they can be applied (often) without paying any heed to the theory on which they are based.

[ecoli]

evolution is having extraordinary impact on medicine, especially in things like infectious diseases and genetic diseases. They days of viewing disease as a static entity are over.

[foodchain]

Hi, I was wondering if you guys (and gals) could give me some insight into the practical importance of evolutionary theory?

 

 

Well, to put it simply biology cant or does not make any sense scientifically without it. Its not that people have not tried to say discredit evolution either from a scientific perspective or other, they do all the time and still cant. So I would say for that its prime practical importance is it allows humans to scientifically understand life to a far greater accuracy then without. This applies across the board to anything dealing with life to some extent, such as with medicine.

 

Also for what its worth being its part of the three natural sciences as labeled, those being biology, chemistry and physics, then it has to aid somehow in regards to the endeavor of human understanding for such.

 

Here is a nifty question and I would just like to ask if you think evolution could be used in its answer. A wasp like a yellowjacket lands on the side of a typical green garden hose, its body parallel with that hose, do you think evolution comes to bear in regards to the wasp slipping off the hose. Now think it could slip off into some danger such as a pool of water.

[Flukec]

Here is a nifty question and I would just like to ask if you think evolution could be used in its answer. A wasp like a yellowjacket lands on the side of a typical green garden hose, its body parallel with that hose, do you think evolution comes to bear in regards to the wasp slipping off the hose. Now think it could slip off into some danger such as a pool of water.

 

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?

[ecoli]

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?

 

The evolution of resistance to pesticides and antibiotics relies on evolution. We've been able to model this type of evolution fairly accurately (and getting better at it all the time).

 

Where creationism fails, is that it assumes static, unchanging populations. Its sort of funny now that some intelligent design proponents now accept microevolution because they ignore the fact that genes within a population in fact evolve.

 

Macroevolution works on the same principles, but is the evolution of species on a long timeline. That can't possibly be true, because the earth is only 6000 years old! (notice the inconsistency?)

[foodchain]

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?

 

Evolution is a theory primarily based on empirical evidence. It has support from a broad range of fields and an overwhelming amount of data to it in support of such overall. In really from a molecular on up in scale to ecological scale the study of evolution has support, there is no break inbetween say biochemistry and ecology that provides some other mechanism then evolution.

 

If evolution did not occur as it is held, something like phylogeny would be impossible to study. This can be physically studied and made empirical, such as with genetics, and it can be observed to occur in time via natural selection.

 

To add a creationist view like you are doing basically is to say all this occurs because of something supernatural really. Its supernatural because there is no way to study such a statement scientifically, which I think should pretty much restrict it from being in a scientific theory really. Else I think you should describe to me that somehow I am wrong.

[Sayonara]

Yet, a creationist would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose.

 

The great thing about this sentence is that it is really really versatile, but never gets any closer to providing an evidentially credible explanation.

 

Yet, a mime artist would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose.

 

Yet, a ceiling cat would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose.

 

Yet, a pole dancer would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose.

 

Yet, a strawberry cheesecake would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose.

 

 

And so on.

[Flukec]

The evolution of resistance to pesticides and antibiotics relies on evolution. We've been able to model this type of evolution fairly accurately (and getting better at it all the time).

 

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.

 

 

Where creationism fails, is that it assumes static, unchanging populations.

 

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.

 

Yet, a ceiling cat would also offer an explanation for the wasp's ability to stand on a hose.

 

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?

[iNow]

I knew this was going to turn into a silly creationism thread.

[Flukec]

I knew this was going to turn into a silly creationism thread.

 

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.

[iNow]

Wouldn't evolutionary theory be better at "describing" what has come from research during the last century than providing practical applications?

 

Evolution is so rich and expansive with its descriptive power that there really are no limits to using it to describe things. For anyone interested, as you seem to be, in practical applications, then the countless journal publications on the topic might be a good place to start.

[Flukec]

Evolution is so rich and expansive with its descriptive power that there really are no limits to using it to describe things.

 

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?

 

For anyone interested, as you seem to be, in practical applications, then the countless journal publications on the topic might be a good place to start.

 

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.

[iNow]

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?

Sure can. This years flu vaccine.

[Sayonara]

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.

Sort of yes and no. The mutations which allow resistance are what you'd call the new information, and although yes they do pre-exist the introduction of the antibiotic, they are still novel expressions of genetic programming as far as that strain of bacteria is concerned. The mechanism is pretty well understood; it's getting your head around the interpretation of experimental results that sometimes throws a spanner in the works.

 

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.

The thing is, the creationist model doesn't provide any alternative testable mechanism, or predictions of its own, so it's not a theory in the scientific sense. In fact, when pressed for an explanation, creationists usually end up citing their interpretation of "microevolution" as the mechanism, which is not really helping their case at all. Bless 'em.

 

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?

Assuming they had heard of the ceiling cat (and let's assume they have, because lolcats have pretty much done the internet rounds now), there's no more reason for them to ascribe it some sort of causal responsibility in those areas you mentioned than there is any reason for them to ascribe the same responsibilities to a yoghurt or a plant-pot.

 

The basic unit of research is hypothesise a mechanism, predict what will happen if that mechanism exists, devise an experiment to test the scenario.

 

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?

 

I think really what he is saying here is that it is a hindrance to those people who lack a belief in evolution but wish to be employed within some kind of industry or agency that primarily deals with products or services which are rooted in the biological sciences.

 

The whole tone of the article seems to be "if you believe evolution is a lie, then you are not going to get a job in a biological field".

 

Which is fair enough really, because regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory provides real practical advantages to (for example) biotechnology industries, someone who considers the evolutionary sciences to be false is going to have a highly compromised -- if not downright distorted -- understanding of the other biological areas which they need to know to do the job.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Sayonara³
multiple post merged

[ecoli]

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.

Yes, but you have to get those genes for resistance from somewhere. This is supplied by mutations or gene flow (yes there's plenty of evidence for this).

 

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.

Without new information, species cannot evolve. Where do you think the variation comes from? Frequencies of genetic variation change, with new genetic material getting introduced into a population. This happens all the time, and I've even seen it in sequencing data myself, first hand.

 

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, because if you don't understand that new genetic information can get introduced into a population, than you don't really understand evolution.

 

Hopefully PhDP will come onto this thread and explain to you some models of evolution that rely on introduction of new alleles.

[CharonY]

As already mentioned, evolution puts biological data into context. Without the evolutionary context you cannot assign functions to DNA areas, for instance. You would only have the pure biochemistry (ACTG), but no possibility of interpretation of this data. And this is only the simplest example I could come up with on the way to the coffee machine.

 

Just wanted to add: this is because we assume an underlying phylogenetic relationship of proteins (and hence, certain DNA loci) and can infer functionality (though often not the precise one). Where is the bloody sugar?

Edited August 7, 2008 by CharonY

[SkepticLance]

Just one small example of the practical application of evolution.

Take micro-paleontology. This is utterly crucial to the oil industry. Micro-fossils are used to gain all sorts of information about rock strata, including age, and possible organic content of the rock. Without an understanding of evolution and the gradually changing nature of life, the practical interpretation of these fossils and their practical use in searching for oil would be much more difficult.

 

Ditto for other fossils in geological studies. Knowing that life has evolved permits us to create a prehistoric 'tree of life' into which we tie specific fossils. These fossils in turn, give a lot of information about specific rock strata.

 

In medicine there is a predictive value in understanding evolution. This permits us to predict probable development of resistance to drugs.

 

In practical entomology, we have a better understanding of the changes that occur to pest insects with environmental change. This helps to design plans to control those insects.

 

And so on.

[Flukec]

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:

 

Hillis (1999) explains that phylogenetic analyses of the

human influenza type A virus are being used to predict

which of the current, constantly evolving strains will

likely be most related to the epidemic strain for the

following year. This information can then be used to

produce a more effective flu vaccine.

 

Here's the link: http://acube.org/volume_29/v29-2p25-33.pdf

[iNow]

On a related note, here's an exert from a recent article I read.

 

Cool.

 

Here's another good place to read more, along with links to other references:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu

[Flukec]

Cool.

 

Here's another good place to read more, along with links to other references:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu

 

Great link! Thanks!