Your question arrived last night, just before I read something that seems
to me applicable. See _Science_, 288:1853 (9 June 2000).
Dave
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:55:51 -0500 "Wendee Holtcamp"
<wendee@greendzn.com> writes:
> Can anyone offer feedback on the following statement:
>
> > evolutionary theory has little proven
> >relevance to the actual day-to-conduct conduct of modern science,
>
> What about the development of antibiotics, the classification of
> organisms, etc? Can you give me a concrete explanation of how
> evolutionary theory is used in applied scientific/biological/medical
> endeavors? And the statements, "You are going to have to give me
> some
> pretty strong evidence that formulating medicines, vaccines, and
> pest
> controls "depends" in any way upon the evolutionary theory like
> engineering depends upon the laws of physics. Are you saying that
> there are actually medicines, vaccines, and pesticides that could
> not
> have been developed if the general theory of evolution were wrong?"
>
> Now this discourse above also fails to distinguish between macro and
> microevolution. I would say that microevolution and natural
> selection
> are involved in the understanding and development of things like
> antobiotics. But there is a fine line between where micro stops and
> macro begins, particularly with primitive organisms.
>
> Any feedback?
> Thanks! Wendee
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~ Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com ~~
> ~~ Environment/Travel/Science Writer ~~ www.greendzn.com ~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 14:17:12 EDT