Selective breeding of anything relies an a living things ability to mutate and adapt. All domesticated animals are selectively bred.
I’m not so sure about most of these examples.
Evolution explains most of these things best, but is Darwin’s theory really necessary, at least from a technological standpoint?
Yes, Darwin’s theory explains why fossils of life forms change in different strata, and this helps us data rock strata, but you could just accept that this fossil goes with this strata on an observational basis. I suppose you might have trouble explaining why you don’t find fossil A in strata B (absent strata disruption) without invoking evolution, but it doesn’t have to be survival of the fittest, etc.
The fact that a software simulation can evolve doesn’t prove that it is happening in the wild, nor does it depend on it in any way.
CRISPR is one of those things that just is. It was discovered and it is used to manipulate genes, but this doesn’t distinguish evolution from intelligent design, does it? When ancient surgeons cut into people, they expected them to heal, but not because they thought people were evolved to heal wounds.
I think that the existence of genes, themselves, is similar. They support the theory of evolution (by demonstrating the very mechanism of transmission of traits with occasional variation), but the fact that we have a mechanism to reproduce doesn’t prove evolution.
Agriculture and animal husbandry? Maybe. People have done this for ages without subscribing to this theory. I’m sure they had their own theories and practices. At the very least it is a good example of microevolution, and it’s probably fair to say that, looking back on it, it couldn’t have happened without evolution. Just as bronze was made without a full understanding of atomic theory.
IMHO Anaglyph’s post #18 about utilizing ‘directed evolution’ may be the best example in tech. Despite it not being quite the same as evolution in nature, just as most technology is not quite the same as processes observed in nature (although tech is dependant on natural processes and does not ‘break the rules’).
Pardon me for expanding on this a bit. I have heard that the GPS positioning would drift by about 13 km a day if not corrected for general relativity. Best test ever of the theory.
As for the OP, the best test of evolution is the way cancer treatments stop working. The cancer evolves.
Once upon a time, around 60 years ago when I was working as a lab tech in a research lab, a graduate student carried out the following experiment. First he had a colony of E. coli growing in a flask in a growth medium that the bacteria flourished in. The flask grew quite cloudy. Then he injected a quantity of a T bacteriaphage a virus that infects E. coli (I forget which one and it doesn’t matter). The flask cleared up as the bacteria died. Nearly all of them. A few that were somehow immune survived and reproduced and the flask got cloudy again. But a few of the mutant T viruses infected even those bacteria and the flask cleared (with, to be sure, a lot of dead bacteria fallen to the bottom of the flask). After one or two more iterations, the nutrients were exhausted and the experiment ended. But fascinating while it lasted. Each iteration took about a day. Real evolution in action.
Can you clarify that last point?
(BTW, I was floored when I first heard that bacteria have an immune system. Then it seemed obvious in retrospect, 'cuz, evolution. If bacteria could have an immune system, then they would.)
Is the question that people who believe the theory and directly try to employ it, or technologies that depend on it regardless if the developers knew about/believe it?
How did you feel finding out that some viruses have immune systems?
Maybe we are chicken and egging. You seem to be saying more or less the same thing that I said. The Brothers had a theory (“of operation” if you like), which implied a design (AKA a technology); the technology didn’t work like they thought it would; so they tinkered with their theory; and that implied a new technology; and so on. Rather than the design/technology depending on the theory, the success or failure of the technology drove the evolution of the theory. Ultimately however the airplane did not fly because its design was built according to this or that theory, but because the design had a close enough correspondence with how the world really works. Their theory could have been completely different, but as long as their resulting design corresponded closely enough to way the world works, the airplane would have flown.
Another difference might be terminology, What you call “theory of operation” I’d call “principles of operation”, or the explanation/model for how a specific technology works, given the postulates of the overall theory that defines the forces, entities and processes that are involved. Theories are limited only by imagination. Technology on the other hand is limited by how well the “principles of its operation” correspond to how things actually work. If there is a discrepancy between theory and reality, reality wins, and theory changes.
There is plenty of “directed” evolution. When a lion chooses which antelope to chase it is “directing” evolution. For most of human history, the process that created all the major crop plants and domesticated animals was similarly directed. By Humans who had about as much understanding of evolutionary theory as a Lion did.
That said a huge amount of technologies in the last century or two HAVE been dependent on the theory of evolution. The technologies behind the Green Revolution, which likely saved millions of lives being an obvious example.
Ha! My ignorance protected me from any serious floorage.
After skimming your article, it is less surprising to me than the bacterial immune system thing to me for 2 reasons.
First, knowledge of CRISPR opens the idea of how “evolution finds a way” even in tiny systems.
Second, those giant viruses are weird beasts. I have only heard of them before on “RadioLab” (great show, by the way- same place I first heard of CRISPR). They may be thought of as obligate intracellular pathogens (which is a role which is taken by all viruses and some bacteria). The question becomes, are the giant viruses bacteria which are losing genes and becoming more like viruses or viruses which are adding genes and becoming more like bacteria? According to theRadioLab report from last year, there are lines that seem to show both types of evolution.
Whether or not it is true that today a viral line might “enbiggen” like this or not, IMHO this phenomenon is the “smoking gun” that shows that viruses originated as “stripped down” bacteria.
Anyway, considered in that light, it becomes less surprising that a virus (especially a giant virus) might use mechanisms found in bacteria. I’ll admit to some surprise that a virus might “want” an immune system. Boy, life sure is weird!
So ends the hijack.
Or that bacteria originated as “ramped up” viruses.
Is this necessarily true? For example mightn’t you try a variety of antiseptics to study how well they disinfect laundry or surgical instruments, and not base the work you are doing on evolution and natural selection per se? That’d be biotechnology, wouldn’t it? Or how about in vivo testing of a slew of new polymers for making sutures, to see if they provoke inflammation?
I understand that the theory of evolution is pretty thoroughly woven throughout biology and biotechnology. I’m just wondering if biotechnology is exclusively based on it.
I was just “thinking out loud” there, so I’m not sure to what extent it might have come up in debates with creationists and what the stock response might be.
But my understanding of what many YEC believe is that all animals started out as vegetarian, then following “The Curse” they became carnivores but did not change physically; e.g. lions already had sharp teeth and claws to…strip leaves or something.
Then, also following the curse, organisms’ DNA degraded and no new information could be, or was, added.
This being the case, where does the immune system fit in? Was it made before the curse? And if so, were there pathogens at that time? Either answer seems to lead to more questions and problems.
In which vivo? I mean, I suppose you could do all of the testing in humans, but nobody’s actually going to want to do it that way. Realistically, you’re probably going to do most of your testing in rats… but why are those test results valid? On what basis can you say that a rat is enough like a human for the test results to be applicable?
If you use rats, aren’t you making the choice on the basis that it’s standard practice, without applying evolutionary theory per se? I mean, you’d probably use your opposable thumbs at some point, but the fact that evolution lets it work doesn’t mean that’s what it’s based on. Otherwise we have to invoke the theory of gravity and everything else.
I suppose you could do some animal testing just by looking for empirical similarities. However, those experiments are going to be a hell of a lot more efficient and useful if you account for specific similarities inferred from evolutionary relationships.
For example, let’s say you’re trying to design a drug that inhibits enzyme X to stop disease A. In humans, there’s a well-characterized pathway from X->Y->A. All those genes are present in mice; that much could be inferred from genome comparisons without much knowledge of evolution. However, it might turn out that there is no interaction between X and Y. While you could determine this empirically, you’ll save yourself a lot of time if you check whether there is evidence that the X->Y interaction is conserved in mice. Understanding phylogenetic relationships and the effect of selective pressure on specific mutation frequencies is necessary to make any determination about whether a genetic or biochemical relationship is conserved.
That analysis could instead show you that, say, the X->Y->A pathway is conserved in hamsters. Picking the right model in the first place is much better than trying everything to see what works.
I wonder if this isn’t an example of circular proof? Evolution explains biology, because biology demonstrates evolution?
(Your single sentence doesn’t clearly demonstrate cirularity, so I give you a chance to clarify. I ask because I have seen unfurtunate circularity in some other places.)
Also, I offer an alternative definition of “the theory of evolution”, which is “the origion of species”, and I invite posters to comment on importance of “the origion of species” as distinct from “breeding”.
The theory of evolution really is embedded in every aspect of the study of biology. It’s not just that we happen to study things that evolved.
Here’s another quick personal example: 510 of 721 references in my personal library refer to homology, e.g. descent with modification from a common ancestor. Only a few of those are primarily studying the process of evolution. Most use homology as a tool for understanding genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology.
Even the researchers focused 100% on humans, without any mention of model organisms, have to use the concept of homology to understand families of genes in a single organism.
Dating remains. Different chromosomes evolve at different rates, so the amount of change in one chromosome relative to another is a way of placing very old remains in chronological order.
Also, identifying newer remains sometimes is helped by it. The fact that the Y chromosome is resistant to change can help both identifying remains, and identifying DNA left by a perpetrator. If you are my brother (assuming that I’m a man) and your DNA is not in any system, and you rape someone, so they have an anonymous sample; my DNA is in the military database because I served in the reserves (honorably), eventually my brother’s Y chromosome may be traced to mine. However, the rest of the DNA won’t be a perfect match (assuming we are not twins), so they know I didn’t do the crime. I have only one brother, my son is 5, and my father is deceased. Mt brother gets arrested.
It still could possibly be a cousin or uncle of something, but the DNA usually can tell just how close the relationship is.
Integrated pest management. It’s an agricultural technique to minimize the use of pesticides and other expensive inputs by using them in the most efficient way. It includes monitoring the pests (are they abundant? Are they about to reproduce?) But it also includes switching around the various pesticides in a way to make it harder for the pests to evolve resistance.
I would take issue with the claim that “computers are dependent on quantum physics being true.” Computers were around for a VERY long time before anyone thought about quantum physics.
Perhaps this is all based on different definitions of “dependent” than I am aware of.
As for something being “dependent” on evolution? If this is about INHERITANCE, which evolution “depends on,” then all animal husbandry is "dependent " on evolution, big time. Most dog varieties wouldn’t exist were it not for humans purposely manipulating “evolution.” The kind of farm animals we have depend on it, so all industries and food sources having to do with animal products are “dependent” on “evolution,” or at least on the recognition that evolution can occur.
If the point of this is to postulate that the theory of evolution could be discarded entirely, and that civilization as we know it would survive, then I would say that obviously (since civilization got a long way before Darwin and company started their chat sessions), the answer is “yes, sort of.” There are plenty of people today who still deny that evolution occurs, or at least that humans aren’t descended from anything related to apes, and they mostly get along fine. As long as no one allows them to interfere with the aspects of life which ARE dependent on evolutionary theory.