Agnosticism / Atheism

  1. Home
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Agnosticism / Atheism
Evolution FAQ
Is Evolution Science? Usefulness of Evolution

-->
• Evolution & Evidence
• Evolution & Science
• Basics

• Evidence: Index

• Related FAQ Links
-->
• Site Resources
• Main Site Index

• What is Atheism?
• Religion & Theism
• Skepticism & Logic
• Arguments for / against Gods
• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Religious Timelines
• Hate Mail
• Glossary
• Book Reviews

• Chat Room
Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth century's most eminent evolutionary biologists, had it right when he said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Previous sections of this document should provide some idea as to why this is true. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the theory of evolution the biological sciences would be disjointed, and much within biology would not make any sense because evolution provides the explanatory framework.

Evolution explains the similarities in anatomy and biochemistry between different living organisms, including the vestigial components. Evolution explains why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism but then lose those characteristics in later development. Evolution explains why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function. Evolution explains ring species. Evolution explains drug resistant bacteria. Evolution explains biogeography. Evolution explains the fossil record. And evolution ties all these pieces of data together into a coherent whole.

The science of evolutionary biology is also of very practical use in addition to its power as an explanatory concept. In a 1995 article in Science, Douglas Futuyma listed several ways that evolutionary biology is being utilized:

  • Biodiversity and conservation: Analysis of risk of extinction due to "inbreeding, reduced gene flow, specialization, and constraints on genetic and ecological responses to global change."
  • Phenotypic expression in novel environments: Use of tools already in use in studies of natural systems, like "molecular markers of gene flow, gene geneaologies as evidence of gene exchange, analyses of phenotypic plasticity, and the 'costs' of adaptation".
  • Novel processes and products: This includes production of antibiotics, flavors, pigments, biopolymers, and enzymes.
  • Bioremediation: Production of tolerance to waste products as well as bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
  • Wildlife management: Identification of stocks by genetic analysis.
  • Agriculture: Identification of disease resistance factors in related wild plants, pesticide resistance, management of pest adaptation to pesticide, pest resistant cultivation.
  • Health sciences: Causes of senescence, treatment of fever, tracing origins of pathogens, evolution of virulence in viruses and other pathogens, measurement of genetic diversity in pathogens and hosts, mechanisms of drug resistance, evolutionary epidemiology.

The last item touches on the concept of "Darwinian medicine," an idea that is having a considerable impact on the way that some researchers think about the causes of diseases. If you consider how living organisms evolve over time and the impact that diseases have on the fitness of these organisms, it can lead to interesting thoughts on the causes of diseases. Also, some of the uses listed above can involve genetic engineering, which is intimately related to evolutionary biology.

Thus, in addition to being a powerful explanatory concept, evolution also has a great deal of practical use. If creationists got their wish and evolution were eliminated from the sciences, it would do irreparable damage to the life sciences and to the quality of life.

Creationists might argue that you could have some of these items without "macroevolutionary" concepts or common descent, but this can only be done if you accept their false dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution - remember that in evolutionary science there is no real difference between the two. It is simply a matter of degree, because there is no rational way you could deny the overwhelming evidence of macroevolution/common descent while keeping the idea of microevolution. To remove one is to cripple the other, and eliminating the idea of common descent would destroy the explanatory power as well as the productivity of evolution.

(A bibliographic list of sources and recommendations for further reading will be coming soon...)

This FAQ information provided by Lance F..

-->

Explore Agnosticism / Atheism

About.com Special Features

Agnosticism / Atheism

  1. Home
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Agnosticism / Atheism

©2009 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.