(06-13-2009 08:43 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-12-2009 01:25 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  Might as well quit looking for explanations and chalk it all up to creationism.

What is the purpose of trying to prove evolution, to disprove most religions? Same can be said proving the "Big Bang Theory" which can never be proven since intelligent design has to be involved to simulate what is believed to have caused the Big Bang.

I believe in evolution. With that said, does proving evolution really disprove most religions? Maybe there is a god and he created the Big Bang for reasons we don't know yet or may never know. As science advances we learn more and more about the past, but when it comes to religion we don't know any more than we did 2000 years ago.

For those of you who believe in Adam and Eve please explain to me how, regardless of what ever race they may have been, we now have a variety of races on this planet? Evolution is the only answer. It doesn't explain how we came from apes but to a degree it does show how we adapt and change.

(06-14-2009 01:28 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-14-2009 11:41 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 07:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 07:36 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 08:43 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-12-2009 01:25 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  Might as well quit looking for explanations and chalk it all up to creationism.

What is the purpose of trying to prove evolution, to disprove most religions? Same can be said proving the "Big Bang Theory" which can never be proven since intelligent design has to be involved to simulate what is believed to have caused the Big Bang.

I don't think the purpose is to disprove religion. Many phenomena were once chalked up to acts of God. The more we know about how and why things happen, the better in my book.

I just think spending time on evolution and big bang theories is somewhat of a waste of time. Instead of trying to prove the big bang theory develop technology to send a manned mission to Mars, or put a satellite in orbit around a star to send back up close data about the star and any orbiting planets. Stop trying to prove that man came from apes and study genetics in general to develop technology for tissue regeneration or other medical benefits.

Way too much expense to send someone to Mars, especially when we're trying to cut budgets! Besides the fact that we don't have a way to shield astronauts from long term exposure to cosmic rays. We can find evidence related to the big bang without leaving the earth, or at least earth's orbit. And the (a) big bang may have happened more than once - we could be in a cyclical universe and not know it.

Do you know how long it would take to get a spacecraft to even the closest star (besides the sun)?

If we're going to develop new technology, a major emphasis should be on alternative energies.

Don't you think the technology to send a spacecraft to another star would involve alternative energies? Not going to do it with fossil fuel or current nuclear technology.

Without external forces there is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe, so more than one big bang is not likely (IMHO as unlikely as the first). Many scientists who support the Big Bang Theory believe we live in a slowly dying universe that will some day run out of energy.

More than one big bang is probably unlikely, but Paul Steinhardt has a theory (and a book on it) about a cyclical universe, with a couple of "branes" that repeatedly collide (on very long time scales, of course) creating big bangs, and somehow entropy is not a problem for this particular theory (I don't understand why not). There should be experiments fairly soon that may be able to rule that out depending on the results.

On the alternative energy point, I mean energy that can be used here on Earth for our basic needs. If it can also be used to power a spacecraft to near-light speeds, so much the better. Seems pretty unlikely though.

(06-17-2009 05:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 08:43 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-12-2009 01:25 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  Might as well quit looking for explanations and chalk it all up to creationism.

What is the purpose of trying to prove evolution, to disprove most religions? Same can be said proving the "Big Bang Theory" which can never be proven since intelligent design has to be involved to simulate what is believed to have caused the Big Bang.

I believe in evolution. With that said, does proving evolution really disprove most religions? Maybe there is a god and he created the Big Bang for reasons we don't know yet or may never know. As science advances we learn more and more about the past, but when it comes to religion we don't know any more than we did 2000 years ago.

For those of you who believe in Adam and Eve please explain to me how, regardless of what ever race they may have been, we now have a variety of races on this planet? Evolution is the only answer. It doesn't explain how we came from apes but to a degree it does show how we adapt and change.

I believe in evolution and that the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. However....I am open to evidence to the contrary.

We are still very much an ignorant people.

(06-17-2009 05:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  For those of you who believe in Adam and Eve please explain to me how, regardless of what ever race they may have been, we now have a variety of races on this planet? Evolution is the only answer. It doesn't explain how we came from apes but to a degree it does show how we adapt and change.

If that's what you want to call "evolution" then fine. The critical point is that is NOT the same as dinosaurs evolving into birds, or both sharing a "common ancestor."

A HUGE part of this debate is that the term "evolution" gets defined in more than one way. That should be a red flag to a true skeptic (Michael Shermer) because one sort of evolution gets "proven" and then that proof gets applied to all sorts.

The more I look at this, and the climate change documents, the more I see "cargo cult" science, or more accurately superstition. It's offensive from so many positions including: post-enlightenment scholarship, propositional debate, and rigorous academic criticism.

(06-18-2009 07:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  A HUGE part of this debate is that the term "evolution" gets defined in more than one way. That should be a red flag to a true skeptic (Michael Shermer) because one sort of evolution gets "proven" and then that proof gets applied to all sorts.

alot/most people can not wrap their minds around that for whatever reason.

a formerly good blog, LittleGreenFootballs, ruined itself over this issue. Ben Stein made the guy loose his mind, this being the blog that quickly exposed Dan Rather. Charles Johnson never really was a conservative though, so much as a 9/11 awakened moderate lib.

(06-18-2009 07:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 05:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  For those of you who believe in Adam and Eve please explain to me how, regardless of what ever race they may have been, we now have a variety of races on this planet? Evolution is the only answer. It doesn't explain how we came from apes but to a degree it does show how we adapt and change.

If that's what you want to call "evolution" then fine. The critical point is that is NOT the same as dinosaurs evolving into birds, or both sharing a "common ancestor."

A HUGE part of this debate is that the term "evolution" gets defined in more than one way. That should be a red flag to a true skeptic (Michael Shermer) because one sort of evolution gets "proven" and then that proof gets applied to all sorts.

The more I look at this, and the climate change documents, the more I see "cargo cult" science, or more accurately superstition. It's offensive from so many positions including: post-enlightenment scholarship, propositional debate, and rigorous academic criticism.

I don't think that people having different opinions on the definition of evolution is a red flag that evolution isn't even occurring - any more than the lack of a definition of intelligence means that everyone has the same intelligence level. And I don't think that evolution or anything else gets proven, it just has a stronger or weaker case for it. But I don't doubt that evidence of one thing can be sometimes used inappropriately as evidence for something else.

I find it funny that the article the nutjob posts mentions evolution numerous times. You know the article that PROVES they've had it all wrong. You are a fake and a fraud Torch. There is nothing in that article that disproves anything. It even says they share a common ancestor.

From your article

Quote:"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

How in your sick and twisted world do you get this:

Almost like it was designed that way! Eerie.


Stop embarassing yourself.

(06-19-2009 03:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I find it funny that the article the nutjob posts mentions evolution numerous times. You know the article that PROVES they've had it all wrong. You are a fake and a fraud Torch. There is nothing in that article that disproves anything. It even says they share a common ancestor.

No, it doesn't say that. It is one of their hypotheses. And they are unable to provide any evidence for that hypothesis. None. Zilch. Zero.

They also go on to say that common ancestry is "routinely found in evolution," but they don't cite any cases where that's been demonstrated either. They just state it as if it's a fact, as if they don't need any supporting evidence. That's not science. I'm not surprised that you don't know that.

Quote:From your article

Quote:"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

Yes, I know what the article said. Too bad those big words confuse you.

Quote: How in your sick and twisted world do you get this:

Almost like it was designed that way! Eerie.


Stop embarassing yourself.

Hmm. How would I come to that conclusion? Well, since I've actually designed devices that work, I know something about that process. Not exactly my specialty, but I have had some success. I also have seen and admired the work of others.

Of course if you come into the discussion knowing nothing about it, but certain that it's wrong, you will have a hard time understanding. That's why I don't like know-nothings teaching students. It sets a terrible precedent.

Your pathetic............. but heh at least it's not a conservapedia or WMD post. Your branching out pseudo and that deserves some praise. Now that wittle article you just linked actually backs up evolution. They still share a common ancestor, hence evolution. Keep up the good work though. Put down the Vox and keep branching out. This is progress.

Conservapedia................... that's still a CLASSIC........................ I'll plow that field for a long time................. Give me one.... cite one site and you break out the CONSERVAPEDIA............................. I'm surprised you still post here after that.

(06-20-2009 10:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Your pathetic............. but heh at least it's not a conservapedia or WMD post. Your branching out pseudo and that deserves some praise. Now that wittle article you just linked actually backs up evolution. They still share a common ancestor, hence evolution. Keep up the good work though. Put down the Vox and keep branching out. This is progress.

Torch answered that. Did you not read his responce?

(06-20-2009 10:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Your pathetic............. but heh at least it's not a conservapedia or WMD post. Your branching out pseudo and that deserves some praise. Now that wittle article you just linked actually backs up evolution.

It doesn't. But that's the point. You think everything backs up evolution...even when it doesn't.

In some ways I'm glad you don't think for yourself. That's probably scarier.

It does Einstein..... BECAUSE if it didn't................ IT WOULD NO LONGER BE A THEORY!!!!!!! do you get that. ALL of this supports evolution. If it didn't then you would have all the nutjobs like you with a boner jumping up and down and saying here here is the proof. When it is clearly not. Why do you continue to post this. It's silly. You get a scientist who questions if dinosaurs and birds were actually decesdants of thecodonts instead of theropods. That's IT............... That's all there is and you trumpet it as something entirely different. Never mind there is plenty of biochemical evidence to the contrary. It is interesting, I'll give you that. Here's an assignment. We actually found some DNA of a tyrannosaur. Check out whose DNA is very similiar. Read up on it. You won't find it in any WND postings or a CONSERVAPEDIA. You are going to continue to branch out. I think you'll be surprised.



This is why you had to have some pictures on somebody to get your doctorate. It had to be blackmail. No other explanation.

(06-13-2009 07:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I just think spending time on evolution and big bang theories is somewhat of a waste of time. Instead of trying to prove the big bang theory develop technology to send a manned mission to Mars, or put a satellite in orbit around a star to send back up close data about the star and any orbiting planets. Stop trying to prove that man came from apes and study genetics in general to develop technology for tissue regeneration or other medical benefits.

Every single evolutionary biologist worth his salt would agree that man is not descended from apes. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that man is descended from apes; that idea comes from the anti-evolution/creationism crowd. Saying "man descended from apes" is equivalent to saying that you are descended from your own brother or sister. Both apes and humans are modern species that evolved from a common ancestor. You and your brothers/sisters are not the same as parents, but you are related via your parents (most common ancestor). Similar, apes and humans are not the same species nor did one evolve from the other, but both evolved from a common ancestor.

(06-13-2009 08:43 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  What is the purpose of trying to prove evolution, to disprove most religions? Same can be said proving the "Big Bang Theory" which can never be proven since intelligent design has to be involved to simulate what is believed to have caused the Big Bang.

Science refers to the system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method and then utilizing that knowledge to explain natural or social phenomena (depending on whether you are talking about natural or social sciences). Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. At the core of the scientific process is the scientific method - a system of generating hypotheses, gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence, and then testing hypotheses against the accumulated data.

In order for the scientific method to be employed, two conditions must be met. The first condition is falsifiability, or the ability to show that something is false. For example, I can postulate that thunder is caused by gods fighting one another in the heavens, but such a statement cannot be considered scientific because it is impossible to falsify the existence of gods. In a similar manner, intelligent design is not science because the supernatural, which operates outside the realm of natural phenomena, can not be shown to be false. I cannot provide scientific, observable evidence to show that the concept of God creating the universe is false nor can I give scientific, observable evidence to show that the concept that fairies living beneath my garden cause my plants to grow is false. As a result, neither explanation is scientific because one of the central tenants of the scientific method , the principle tool that every scientific field utilizes, cannot be met. It is also important to remember that scientist don't "prove" anything - they merely shown things are more than likely "not false". This may seem like a minor difference in semantics. but the difference has enormous implications for science. Proof, by definition, implies certainty and science cannot guarantee with certainty that the explanation as given is absolute truth. This is what allows science to adapt and revise hypothesis and theories as new evidence is presented.

The second condition required by the scientific method is testability, or the ability to show that a given hypothesis is false (or not false) through the observation of a reproducible series of counterexamples (or supporting examples). It other word, the scientific method requires hypotheses to be based on testable and reproducible condition (either experiments or natural observations). This condition allows science to accumulate support for or against hypotheses via repeated observations or experiments and allows science to change as new evidence is accumulated. Intelligent design also fails to met this criteria because 1) one cannot conduct reproducible experiments of the supernatural and 2) one cannot make repeated natural observations that support or argue against the postulates of I.D. I.D. supports often claim that evidence for I.D. can be found in thing such as the Earth being perfectly within the habitable distance from the sun. This "evidence"; however, cannot be tested nor can repeated observations be made (there is only one Earth). In addition, the "evidence" cannot be prove to be false - one could claim with equal "proof" that the Earth's distance from the sun was actually due to the supreme alien leader Sarlak in his quest to create a super race of humanoid slaves. Both theories are not falsifiable nor are either testable.

There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument, cited by some creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.

(06-12-2009 08:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution and this could be explained as being a needed component, mutated from a different one, that allowed birds to fly longer. I would also ask (I didn't read the article entirely) if non-flying birds or birds that do not make legnthy flights possess this trait. If they do, then why since they don't fly?

I am a professional biologist (focus on urban ecology) and I do not "believe" in evolution. The word "believe" describes a the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true in the absence of evidence. For example, consider the statement "I believe there are aliens". This statement implies that I accept the fact that aliens do indeed exist without requiring the element of proof. This is the common element in many religious practice and is the basis for the concept of faith.

As I explained above, science requires the presentation of repeatable and falsifiable evidence in order for hypotheses to be accepted as valid (not false). This concept of requiring "proof" is at the very core of the philosophy of science. This is why as a scientist I say that I do not believe in evolution - such a statement would go against the principle of science itself. Rather, I say that based on the evidence presented in the fossil record, genetic analysis, etc, I accept the theory of evolution as valid.

(06-20-2009 06:25 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-12-2009 08:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution and this could be explained as being a needed component, mutated from a different one, that allowed birds to fly longer. I would also ask (I didn't read the article entirely) if non-flying birds or birds that do not make legnthy flights possess this trait. If they do, then why since they don't fly?

I am a professional biologist (focus on urban ecology) and I do not "believe" in evolution. The word "believe" describes a the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true in the absence of evidence. For example, consider the statement "I believe there are aliens". This statement implies that I accept the fact that aliens do indeed exist without requiring the element of proof. This is the common element in many religious practice and is the basis for the concept of faith.

As I explained above, science requires the presentation of repeatable and falsifiable evidence in order for hypotheses to be accepted as valid (not false). This concept of requiring "proof" is at the very core of the philosophy of science. This is why as a scientist I say that I do not believe in evolution - such a statement would go against the principle of science itself. Rather, I say that based on the evidence presented in the fossil record, genetic analysis, etc, I accept the theory of evolution as valid.

WOW !!!!!!

You are a very bold individual for stating that you believe in Alien Life outside of our own Atmosphere and I applaud you for it.

It is good to know others that aren't mental cases also believe that since the Universe is Mega Huge with many many Planets just like Earth, that there is Life Out There be they like us or different.

Why should we be the lucky strike out of the ultra-billions of Solar Systems to be the lone provider of Intelligent Life or Life of any kind ??

I think us fairly snobbish and self indulged to believe that we are all there is in all this vastness of Suns, Planets, Moons, Solar Systems .... to me it seems a bit foolish and naive to think us the only living things in all that abounds around us.

We haven't even explored the deepest parts of our own oceans yet and we are bold enough to deny life outside our own atmosphere ???

It kind of throws me that we are that stuck up and self important.

.

Technically, I was using that statement as an example to illustrate my point about using the word "believe" versus the word "accept". This is why I prefaced the comment with the phrase "For example". I didn't mean for people to literally read that statement as my own personal belief on the subject; rather I intended it to make a point about word choice.

However, since the topic has come up, I might as well share my own opinion on the subject. Personally, I don't "believe in alien life" in the strictest sense of the phrase because I don't know with 100% certainty that there is life out there. Perhaps Earth is the only planet with life on it, though I find such a scenario to be incredibly depressing considering how poorly a job human are doing to take care of it. With that said, I do believe that there is an incredibly strong chance of alien life existing somewhere out there in the universe. I find it improbable that in the vast expanse of space, Earth is the only planet that is capable of supporting life. I don't guarantee that alien life forms exist (be they micro- or macro-scopic), but I do think the odds of life existing past the limits of our own atmosphere are fairly high.

(06-13-2009 07:36 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  I don't think the purpose is to disprove religion. Many phenomena were once chalked up to acts of God. The more we know about how and why things happen, the better in my book.

This post highlights one of the biggest problems scientists have in discussing scientific concepts with religious fundamentalists. Growing up in a rural section of the Bible Belt, I have know many religious people that believe that science is "hell bent on destroying God" and that scientists the world over have constructed the theory of evolution as an "atheist hoax". I have a great deal of pity for those individuals because they truly do not understand the difference between science and religion.

As I explained above, science refers to the system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method and then utilizing that knowledge to explain natural or social phenomena (depending on whether you are talking about natural or social sciences). In other words, science seeks to explain natural phenomena through the observation of nature and via scientific experimentation. It provides us with answers about the natural state of our world and the physical processes that lead to its creation. Thunder is not the sound of gods fighting, but is instead the shock wave resulting from an expansion of air. Science attempts to explain to us the "how" of the natural world - how the universe came into being (Big Bang), how earth was formed (planetary accretion), how Homo sapiens came into existence (evolution), etc.

Religion, on the other hand, is an organized approach to human spirituality, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth. It provides many people with answers about life's intangible qualities. Religion attempts to explain to us the "hows" and "whys" of the social world: how and why one should act in society, why certain values should be promoted over others, why man came into existence, etc.

The above paragraphs illustrate the primary difference between the spheres of religion and science that many individuals find difficult to understand. Science should not be seen as the antithesis of religion because quite frankly, it is not. Science enables us to understand the natural laws that govern our universe; it can tell us how the diversity of life found on Earth came into being (evolution), how the Earth itself was created (planetary accretion models), etc. Science cannot tell us how we should act, however, nor the values we should aspire to as a society (religion/personal belief systems). Those explanations are provided by religion and personal belief systems which enable us to understand our social interactions and the intangible qualities of life (emotions, relationships, etc).

Unfortunately, many individuals fail to understand the difference between two and attempt to inappropriately masquerade idea from one sphere (intelligent design from religion, social Darwinism from science) as valid conclusions in the other.

(06-13-2009 07:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I just think spending time on evolution and big bang theories is somewhat of a waste of time.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973)

Here's a short list of the value of studying evolution:

Conservation

Evolutionary biology is important in conservation because conservation is a particular example of the general problem evolutionary biologists are interested in—dealing with how species expand or contract the environment they occupy. Some species are very successful and they occupy lots of different environments. They spread very rapidly. Some species, on the other hand, are dwindling down to extinction. These two processes are essentially evolutionary processes.

There are changes in populations, demographics, and genetics over time, and so evolutionary biologists spend a lot of time studying what is called biogeography, that is, the study of the distribution of living organisms and what mechanisms determine the biogeography of species. These mechanisms are the same mechanisms that evolutionary biologists have been interested in ever since Darwin. These include

* natural selection
* migration patterns of different species
* the origin of new mutations
* perhaps the change in the DNA that allows certain species to be more successful in a new environment

So evolutionary biology is relevant to conservation biology because conservation biology essentially represents the same sort of basic questions and problems that evolutionary biologists are dealing with.


Agriculture

Agriculture is an interesting problem because it represents essentially applied evolution in the sense of human beings using evolutionary processes to improve their crops or their animals. This was noted by Darwin since the 19th century. The main analogy, the reason why we call natural selection natural selection, is because Darwin made the analogy of artificial selection done by plant and animal breeders.

Now in the case of other cultures where the interest in evolutionary biology is not just in the fact that humans are mimicking a natural process, which is in itself very interesting, but also that humans are changing the environment by doing agriculture and by changing the environment, they are posing new challenges to the evolution of species that surround them. When we plant a particular crop in a particular area, for example, all of a sudden that environment has changed, from an ecological perspective, and all the animals and plants that live in that area are now faced with a new environment. A new environment poses an evolutionary challenge. There will be natural selection on insects, for instance, feeding on the new plants to adapt to the new environment. So in some sense agriculture is both an example of how human beings can use evolutionary processes to their advantage but also, in so doing, how people change their environment and cause new natural evolution as a response to the changes.


Medicine

There is an entire field that has been developed over the last 20 years called evolutionary medicine. The idea of evolutionary medicine is that human beings are animals like any other species. We are not outside of nature. As such we are subject to the same sort of natural phenomena, including natural selection and other types of evolutionary mechanisms. So evolutionary medicine tries to understand the origin of disease, why we have certain kinds of disease, and how we can fight them using evolutionary principles. Here are two examples:


* One of the typical examples is the idea that is essentially evolutionary when we use antibiotics for our ailments. We should use antibiotics in an intelligent way. For example, we should be using multiple antibiotics in a careful regimen. If we use single antibiotics and we don’t use them carefully enough, what we do is cause natural selection in the pathogen to select for resistance. The origin of resistance in antibiotics is an imminently evolutionary mechanism, and if we understand how evolution works, then we can avoid it or at least we can slow it down. In the case of Tuberculosis, the misuse of antibiotics may lead to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant TB bacterium. When patients misuse antibiotics (for example, not completing the treatment for the time prescribed by a doctor), not all of the bacteria is killed. Those which survive the first few doses of anibiotics are the ones which are successful in reproducing. As a result, more bacteria resistant to the antibiotic are formed. As a result, the patient does not recover from the disease, and the symptoms which had seemingly gone will return. When this occurs, it becomes difficult to treat the patient because it is no longer known which antibiotic will work.

* The same situation goes for the most successful approaches to complex diseases such as HIV/AIDS. One of the best approaches to fight that kind of battle is, in fact, to bombard the population of viruses with a variety of responses, not just with one. For the same reason as multiple antibiotics. The virus evolves very rapidly to respond with resistance to individual medical solutions or medications. When we use multiple ones, what we are doing is using the basic principle of evolution—living organisms simply cannot evolve resistance to complex environments because they cannot count on multiple divisions happening at the same time. That is an important principle that comes out of evolution.


Non-biological fields

The best example at this point, I guess, would be software engineering. Because of the computer revolution we are now using software that is increasingly sophisticated. The most interesting software that we use is the result, essentially, of the evolution of computer programs that are made to compete against each other. In other words, to make them do whatever human beings want to make them do. A lot are very complex pieces of software. For example, the kind of software that runs the larger operations in airports is just too complicated for a human mind to write. Software engineers use what they refer to as genetic algorithms. It is the idea of writing simpler pieces that engineers then put into competitions against each other. They then evolve by mutating themselves, that is, by essentially inserting random changes into the code and then going through a second round of selection. And this works very nicely! Software engineers have borrowed this process from evolutionary biologists.

Forensics is another example. The ways you interpret and analyze DNA evidence in forensic cases depends on principles of evolution. To be able to say that a DNA match for a suspect is significant to a case, you have to know something about the distribution of that particular kind of DNA in a human population and the frequencies of DNA involved in that population. So you have to know something about how human populations themselves evolve in order to make a more meaningful comparison between the simple suspect data you are analyzing. Forensics would be another example of evolutionary medicine, about how biotechnological and medical research are now able to use exquisite evolutionary principles.
Evolutionary biologists can work in industry as well as academia.