Log In | Register
MIGUEL 
Climber, evolustionist, programmer, and designer.
Articles Posted: 21; Links Seeded: 39
Member Since: 11/2005
Member Since: 11/2005
31 Comments
Print
A monkey pondering on what seemed like deep thoughts. (Photo by Miguel, in Cambodia)
In the past few years, the theory of evolution has been under the microscope, questioned by the layperson, but more often than not, attacked by creationist. While these attacks are understandable, and are not necessarily detrimental to the scientific theory, a meticulous inspection of their major arguments is definitely needed.
This article introduces popular myths on the theory of evolution by explaining their motivations as classic creationist arguments, and provides the reader with quotes from scientists explaining the general scientific view regarding the myths. While I shall keep my feelings out of this article as much as possible, for the sake of presenting only scientific arguments against the myths, I will be more than happy to provide my own beliefs to the readers in comments. No attempt at ordering the myths have been made, however, we do begin this survey with what many would consider the most discussed question in the Evolutionism vs. Creationism debate.
1. The theory of evolution rejects supernatural explanations
In this myth, people suggests that Neo-Darwinism offers a natural explanation to account for the facts of evolution, while rejecting supernatural explanations and the idea of God's creation. Moreover, it often describes scientific work as being attacks on the theological belief systems.
To this myth, Dr. Matthew Hoch, Professor of Biology at Penn State University, responds:
Science does not reject religion; it works within a framework where supernatural entities have no place whatsoever. By highlighting the fact that supernatural forces are not even in the realm of science, we will strengthen the case that these creation myths have no place in the science classroom (but rather in religious philosophy classes).
Scientific studies of evolution and people's religious beliefs about the origin of life can undoubtedly coexist, as long as both groups recognize that each domain has no legitimate place in the other. As scientists, we must be careful in our use of language, so that we are not misinterpreted by the sensitive religious who believe our work is a direct attack on their belief systems.
2. The "ladder of progress" vs the idea that mutations are random
This myth questions the logic behind the fact that mutations can be random, while being the only agent producing so much diversity. This in turns often becomes a favorite argument against the theory of evolution, by stating that only a divine intervention could potentially create so much diversity.
To this, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology at Oxford University, answers:
Mutation is indeed random, but natural selection is not. Natural selection drives lineages toward improvement, and this usually means that evolution is progressive. In the case of eyes, for instance, there is an obvious progression from simple beginnings, which could see only the difference between light and dark, to later eyes, such as those of birds and primates, with precise aperture and focus control that present high-resolution, edge-enhanced, color images. Progressive evolution is especially evident wherever there is an evolutionary arms race between, say, predators and prey or parasites and their hosts.
3. There are no transitional fossils, or why are there so many missing links ?
Arguments of this nature frequently postulate that even Gould and Eldredge have tried to mask the fact that there are no transitional fossils by formulating their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. However, it is known that the theory was in fact formulated to explain the rarity of transitional fossils, and not its absence.
Regarding this comment, Stephen Jay Gould, says:
Paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.
Moreover, it is also often argued that if evolution worked as chain of links then the facts that the missing links are actually missing is a proof against the theory of evolution. IT IS ARGUED that the presence of missing links demonstrate the weakness of the theory of evolution.
To this, Don Keith argues:
The chain is the problem, with its series of discrete links suggesting a sharp distinction between species. I prefer to liken evolution to a continuous rope, with fossil discoveries representing points on the rope. Adjacent points on the rope are indistinguishable, but the whole rope would clearly show changes along the way. Each new fossil is another point on the rope, but we cannot expect ever to find all the points.
4. Evolution can't be observed, therefore we can't be sure it happened.
First of all, I cannot resist the opportunity to state an analogy I have came across once. If one day your house has been broken into, and you are missing your television set and your stereo, are you going to hesitate to call the police and report a rubbery on the basis that no one has seen it happened ? Even though this is an analogy, it demonstrate well the obvious weakness of this very popular argument against the theory of evolution.
For this particular myth, it is very hard to explain its motivation since it does not seem to make much sense, that is to the person with the appropriate scientific background. The only legitimate reason for being able to use this sort of argument is if the person is not aware of what we call the facts of evolution. That is, the person does not know (or believe) that there exists evidence of evolution such as fossils, or that evolution can actually be observed in organisms with shorter generation times (such as bacteria, or even AIDS).
As opposed to providing a quote from a scientist to provide a neutral scientific view on this myth, I propose an article, from The Journal of Evolution, for an example of rapid speciation that has been observed in laboratories, refer to (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220).
5. It's Only A Theory:
The fact that evolution is only a theory is often used as a mean of convincing the layperson that it is not as important as other scientific thoughts. It usually states that if evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?
On this subject, Stephen Jay Gould, in a 1994 article entitled "Evolution as Fact and Theory", explains:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, Ray Sutera remarks:
It needs to be emphasized that building theories is the ultimate goal of science. Thus, calling an idea a scientific theory is granting it the highest level of confidence that science can allow. In this way, it becomes obvious that a theory is an explanation rather than the hunch or guess that theory means in the general vernacular.
Simple, understandable examples are usually necessary to illustrate this point. Several good ones are as follows: the heliocentric theory (the explanation that the sun is at the center of the solar system), atomic theory (the explanation that matter is made of atoms), cell theory (the explanation that life forms are made of cells), and the germ theory of disease. These are so basic that even science illiterates should have an inkling as to what they pertain to and in each case the idea of a theory as an explanation is highlighted.
56 VotesEnjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- © 2005-2006 Newsvine, Inc.
Code of Honor- Company Info
- Contact Us
- Jobs
- User Agreement
- Privacy Policy
- Copyright Policy
Comments:
Possible the best, least bias, article about Evolution, Science, and Natural Selection I have ever read. Thank You
No, thank you. I am slowly trying to produce less biased articles on newsvine as I personally have a hard time to come across them. Especially when we discuss Evolution. I am happy to see that people do appreciate it.
Great read, I wish I could send it up the vine 4 times
Good summary on evolution myths. It was also nice to see Dawkins quoted:)
I'm coming from a Christian, creationist background, looking for more information to see whether the theory of evolution can be reconciled with my beliefs. With that disclaimer, here are my critiques.
1. The theory of evolution rejects supernatural explanations
I don't think that the quotes presented here really help to dispell this myth at all. Rather, they strengthen it. As Dr. Hoch said, scientists are interested in observable evidence as to how the universe works. Since a supernatural cause is by definition outside of natural laws, science can never be used to prove faith, nor will scientists accept supernatural causes for the universe as we see it.
The theory of evolution has a reasonably strong framework; scientists' current work mainly deals with filling in the holes, revising questionable portions, and the like. If, in the future, scientists arrive at incontrovertible evidence that completely explains the universe and proves that the theory of evolution, supernatural explanations of the origin of the universe would have to be completely rejected. To do otherwise would be like clinging to the belief that the sun revolves around the earth after space probes have visually shown otherwise.
Because of this, an effect of the ultimate aim of science as defined by Hoch is in fact to obsolete supernatural explanations of the universe. And if God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, then the universe is a force outside God's control and God is not God.
2. The "ladder of progress" vs the idea that mutations are random
Again, I don't think the arguments presented here address this issue at all. I think that most people understand that, in biological evolution, natural selection keeps traits that prove advantageous while discarding traits that aren't. The problem is in conceiving random change that would produce an advantageous trait and thus be kept long term. Take the classic typing monkeys example. How long would it take 1000 monkeys with typewriters to write one of Shakespeare's plays? One could imagine that collectively, they would produce all of the letters in a Shakespeare play, or even all of the words. But these letters and words are meaningless if not in the proper order. Let's add 500 English Literature professors to the mix, one for every 2 monkeys. Each professor takes each page output by two monkeys and eliminates all of the nonsense. All of the legible words are kept and thrown together randomly. If the result is a page of Shakespeare, it is kept, otherwise it is trashed with the rest of the nonsense.
I think that the addition to the example makes it a more accurate model, but most people would still not believe that the process could produce one of Shakespeare's plays. Life is much more complex than a literary work, so extending this idea to the evolution of life is out of the question.
3. There are no transitional fossils, or why are there so many missing links ?
One of the problems here is the small number of fossil evidence that has been found, combined with the well-publicized frauds and forgeries. While the arguments presented here do address the problem fairly well, the small number of transitional fossils is only another nail in the coffin for many.
4 and 5 : Well argued. I completely agree that these points are inconsequential if not erroneous.
I think it's more that the scientific process itself tends to reject supernatural explanations. The study of evolution, being a scientific process, behaves similarly. The scientific process doesn't do this out of spite; its natural inclination is to look for the simplest explanation, and the supernatural is necessarily, unavoidably complex. (See also "Occam's Razor.")
For instance, to borrow the television and stereo from the fourth myth (I'll put 'em back when I'm done, I promise!), if one were to come home and find major appliances missing, the first conclusion most people would draw is simple and straightforward ("Someone swiped them!") rather than the supernatural (e.g. transsubstantiation, aliens, or tunneling and other quantum phenomena).
Bear in mind that science is ideally an impartial, logical process. Scientists, however, are only human, and after having to defend against numerous hysterical charges of blasphemy, heresy, and Corrupting the Children™, even the best of us are liable to get a little snarky and vindictive.
Ironically, a lot of creationist arguments use Occam's Razor. I tend to think it's a lot like statistics. It doesn't mean anything except in context. All the same, you make a good point.
icarus4586: While I do not feel like re-phrasing arguments I myself have made numerous times on Newsvine, I would like to briefly address you first two points:
I think you missed the importance of the term "framework" in the quote. I will attempt to provide a more detailed explanation of the connotation I associate with that term.
The scientific method is to devise repeatable experiments that demonstrate the relationships between facts. Repeatability is a necessary condition for acceptance as a workable scientific theory. Other scientists must be able to reproduce the environment and initial conditions of the experiment and observe that the experiment reproduces the result predicted by the theory.
Supernatural processes cannot be reproduced (verified) by other scientists. This does not mean supernatural events cannot happen. It means that they cannot be reliably reproduced using the scientific method based on the current state of scientific knowledge. Science operates within the realm of natural events not the supernatural. Natural events are those that can be demonstrated using the scientific method.
The universe of all events, those that can be demonstrated using the scientific method and those that cannot, defines a so-called supernatural realm. The natural realm of events that can be demonstrated using the scientific method is embedded in the supernatural realm. The supernatural realm is a higher order set of events. The natural realm of events is a subset of the supernatural realm of events. This is what the term framework implies in the quote.
Science confines itself to the natural realm. Religious interpretation belongs in the supernatural realm of events that cannot be repeatably demonstrated in the natural realm.
icarus4586: First off, let me thank you for reading this article and giving us (me) your comments on the arguments. It is nice to see that you have interest in understanding the scientific point of view on this subject. Now, since I think the Jason Coleman's explanation for (1) and (2) are very good, I will focus (for now) on the third argument.
Let me just make something clear. The two most well known well publicized frauds and forgeries are the following: Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man. The first was "discovered" in 1912 by Charles Dawson in England (Piltdown quarry in Sussex), and was supposedly a mixture of human and ape, the famous "Missing Link". It took 40 years to realize that this was in fact a fraud and that the whole specimen had been constructed from day one and placed in the quarry for Dawson to find. But that was 94 years ago!
The second, the Nebraska Man, was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. From this tooth, Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, had quickly concluded that it belonged to an apeman (caveman) and even went as far as drawing what it might look like (along with it's family!!!, ref: This image). Further excavations revealed that the tooth belonged, in fact, to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.
Now, the point I am trying to make here is that both those examples are from about a 100 years old and do not very well represent the state of the paleontologists of today. The method used for identifying are much more complex and fraudulent fossils like these will never resurface as easily as they did in those years. As a general rule, when using arguments like these (I am not trying to attack you personally, but I am talking in general), it helps to take things into perspective and place the events into their historical circumstances. Now, I still think that the analogy of the rope is a good one and one would need a very good argument to be convinced otherwise.
Hope this helps in the discussion.
I'd also like to point out that all fossils are transitional fossils and all species are transitional species. The terms have no meaning unless you state which two speices you're trying to find transitional forms between.
There is nothing special about any species in the evolutionary 'rope'.
That's a great point Ryan. Whenever people ask for a transitional species I always think "well, pick a species".
There are transitional fossils. The fossil record is massive, but very incomplete, gaps are filled all the time. Certain groups of species have good fossil records, and change can be seen.
I don't understand the argument is, that the fossils haven't been found, but should have been found for the proof of evolution? I don't think so, the process of fossil creation wouldn't suggest so.
Frauds and forgeries don't prove anything, accept perhaps the fallibility of scientists, which is understandably, they're human too.
For any doubter of evolution, I would recommend Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb". In the first part of the book (I don't have the book with me, so I can't produce a citation at the moment), he argues that the evidence for evolution is not the perfection of organisms, but their imperfection. For example, the panda's thumb is not an anatomical thumb, but is a functional thumb.
On point 3, I like Don Keith's metaphor for evolution. Sometimes the right word makes a big difference, if the chosen word evokes a certain sense or thought, for example, that chains require all links to be intact, but knots on a rope don't harm the overall integrity of the rope.
Excellent book to read. I happen to have a copy and found an interesting quote (although not from Gould, but from Darwin. Panda's Thumb, p.26). It is not perfectly related to what you just mentioned, but is still an interesting thought on how evolution can fashion such diversity:
I humbly submit Myth Nol 4.5: "Micro-evolution is possible, while Macro-evolution is not."
I so often see this presented as though the two are independent and separable actions. I fully understand why biologists would use such terms to describe, to use Don Keith's analogy, a differentiation between two adjacent points on a rope versus two distant points along the same rope. However, a most unfortunate by-product of selecting this terminology is that others use the terms in a lay-sense to distort their meaning. However, as with the use of the word theory, we can see that this tactic is used often.
Commenting on 3. There are no transitional fossils, or why are there so many missing links ?
It should be noted that creating a fossil is more rare than the layperson believes. I have read that as little as 10% of the earth (lower case e) is capable of producing fossils of bones.
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" is a reference for that.
That's an excellent point. One of the reasons why fossils are so rare (see my article on this: What are fossils ?) is that only extreme conditions will permits fossils to form.
That raises a good point and a good book. A Short History of Nearly Everythig should be required reading for everyone.
Great article.
I think it's important for arguers of your first myth to remember that science by necessity must ignore the super-natural.
If scientists could just say "Oh, well, um, God makes things fall when you drop them!" then it would be far too easy to be a scientist.
Well, that's a good point. It is a little bit oversimplifying, but I still like it. ;-)
For once I'd like to see someone conversant with the historical development of evolutionary theory comment on it's quality as a scientific theory compared to other scientific theory--instead of comparison to the "straw man" of creation science.
The raw data and number of objects for prehistoric investigation appears to be very sparse spread over a 4-5 million year time frames. It seems an amazing amount of change is unaccounted for in those vast periods between the origin dates of the fossils. In other words, if a finch's beak can change completely in 20 years, an enormous number of changes could happen in millions. How can anyone say that the current models are more than guesswork about what has happened?
The quality of fossil evidence is certainly not the same as having bone fragments or tissue samples. How do fossils deform during fossilization? When fossils are scraped out of other mineral deposits, how does that alter the original? How reliable have the excavation methods been for the major finds? How has the evidence survived over the years? What damage did the original researchers do to it?
Older evolutionary assertions have been repeatedly disproven (or refined, if you prefer). No doubt today's versions will seem quaint 100 years from now. Grant me Machiavellian misgivings, please. A lot of scientist (much like artist) have been at the mercy of their patrons. In other words, there's obviously a political and money driven side to evolutionary research. There might be no valid religious influence, but there are plenty of others. What makes evolution anything more than junk science?
Just what is evolution? The definition seems to be more expansive than Microsoft taking over software markets. As used today evolution is practically another word for "change." Certainly, the common understanding is different than that of the researchers, but even academics seem to have tied together 4 or 5 definitions. Does evolution mean the same thing today that it did to Darwin, or the Leakeys for that matter??
What are the major disagreements between contemporary anthropologists? Do they agree on the branching and sequencing model through time? If there has been some hyrbridization in homo lines, (as with genetic evidence of neandertal traits), isn't hybridization overlooked as a major factor? And likely overlooked because there is nothing more than mineral fossils and no genetically testable organic materials. Isn't there a practical limit to what can be said given what has survived?
Frankly, evolution proponents need the creationist and intelligent design groups to use as whipping boys -- to distract from scarcity of real facts. That may be a way of stirring up liberal support. If evolution were compared to a tent--it would look more like a haphazard array of webbing. We've seen how sparse intelligence leads to errors in "connecting the dots." How much more sparse is fossil evidence -- especially from more ancient times? Is evolution silk-threads or spider-webs?
This is generally considered good science. Data is gathered (from experiments or observations) and analyzed in an attempt to disprove the hypothesis, not the other way around.
Peer review. Replication of experiments or observations. Open debate. The Scientific Method.
What are you trying to suggest? That we have much to learn about the evolution of life on this planet, and that we're sometimes wrong? Well of course, as is the case with most scientific fields.
Mr.T.: First off, thank you for your comment. We need more people like you, who is not afraid to ask the right questions regarding evolution. I will only answer two of your questions, as I do not have time to answer all of them right away, but not to worry, I will get to the other ones eventually. :-)
1. To respond to your very interesting comment:
Charles Lyell has said once that
2. My second point is about your question about what is Evolution:
For this one, I need to redirect you to an article I have written not too long ago: What is Evolution ?. Plus, if you want some history of the theory of evolution, please visit http://www.newsvine.com/history-of-evolution. Hope this helps. I will get to your other comments as soon as possible. Don't hesitate to comment on these also. Cheers
Okay. Turns out I did find a little more time. Here is my explanation to three more of your ideas. I will follow my numbering so that you can comment back on them as you wish.
3. About the quality of fossils, you said:
Yes, this is a very good point. I do agree with you. Methods from the 19th century were probably not as meticulous as today's methods. However, I do not really understand how this makes the theory of evolution any different from other theories. Scientific methods were less meticulous a hundred years ago period. But we still believe in the theory of radioactivity. Your point is a good one, it is important to keep these sorts of things in mind when 'preaching' for a theory (we only too often tend to forget the history behind a theory and simply accept it as it is...).
4. Your comment on money driven side to evolutionary research was a little hard:
Fossils evidence and work in microbiology makes evolution more than junk science. You may not agree with the present-day theory of evolution, however, you should at least agree with the fact that there is evidence for some sort of evolution (This is an observable fact!). This, in turn, would be accepting that evolution is not junk science. Plus, as far as the money driven evolutionary research goes, yes it is probably present, but not as much as you would probably imagine. A lot more money is present in Genome sequencing and protein analyses. Evolution does not get much attention, and it is in fact quite hard to make money in this field. However, when you do, of course, you are limited by the people providing the money... It's important to keep this in mind when thinking about science, again good point. But I do want to point out that it is not as present as in other fields.
5. Now, for your last comment,
First of all, anthropologists are the scientist studying anything that is directly related to Human civilisation (from temples, to artifacts, to fossils). The scientist that studies fossils in general is called a Paleontologist. And there are disagreements among paleontologists. Of course. One of the major disagreement is related to state of the fossils record. Some people suggests (Gould and Eldredge) that evolution has happen sort of as a stepwise process, that is, evolution happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species full duration on earth. This theory is called Punctuated Equilibrium (explained in a nutshell, please read a little bit about it before judging what I wrote. I would need a whole article to explain this theory... maybe even a book!).
The second theory suggests (now that is the more common one) that evolution occurs slowly, but surely, and that eventually, a species has evolved into a new one by the accumulation of many many mutations (among other things). This theory is called phyletic gradualism.
A lot can be said about both theories, but the major difference is regarding what happens at the 'interesection' of the species (when speciation happens). The first theory forces both species to become different ones in a very short time, sort of how we think Homo Ergaster was the common ancestor of Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalisis. The second theory implies that one of the species kind of stays the same and part of the species will become so different (accumulation of mutations and other things) that it is now a new species.
One last comment. The most important one probably.
I totally agree with you on this point. Anything in science has to be taken with a grain of salt. Any theory. I mean, sure, the theory of gravity makes sense, and it does explain everything (observations) from the apple falling from the tree to the moon's cycle around the Earth. But there is nothing that "proves" that it is absolutely right. It's just not wrong. The same applies to the Theory of Evolution. There is a small portion of science that needs faith, faith in the framework and faith in the scientific method. But this does not make for a good argument against the theory of evolution. Again, it is a really good point to make, I agree with you completely.
But please, do not try and use this as an argument against the theory, it's only too easy to confuse people with these sort of thoughts. Everything is a matter of faith at some point. Even the fact that I am alive. There is a very good reason why we call the diploma you get when studying for a doctorat a Ph.D.: Doctor of Philosophy. Because at some point, everything becomes a matter of philosophy.
Miguel,
I'm grateful for the time and consideration you extended in your responses. I found them cogent, thought-provoking, and altogether delightful!
The Lyell quote is a treasure that very succinctly describes the scarcity of fossil evidence. The notion can be extended to other scientific endeavor at and beyond the limits of our perception, (astronomic, subatomic, genomic, etc.). It's easy to forget that searching in the light says nothing definite about what remains in the dark.
Bouncing the wikipedia definition of evolution that you cited against Campbell & Loy ... they give: "evolution is the cumulative changes in the average characteristics of a population that occur over many generations." The obvious question is whether or not anything "other than evolution" can cause genetic changes over several generations? (changes as in either definition: "average characteristics" or "allele frequency")
For instance: horse breeders or a researcher culling out certain traits like pea color or some intracellular organelle (MtDNA) or a virus contaminating the organism. If some other process can result in such changes, I'll assert that the standard academic definition of evolution is too broad.
I do very much acknowledge your point that evolution research is not as influenced by money, power, and politics as other "higher pay-off" areas. I have to wonder if that means that adequate resources for quality field work are not reasonably available?
Regarding "punctuated vs. gradual" factions, certainly there are schisms that "fuzzy up" (or philosophize) our endeavors. It's refreshing to see someone admit that we are trying to understand phenomena despite normal human limitations. Evolution as a model of change in populations is useful, just as math provides models for much of science. Infighting that attempts to squelch other models will soon fall prey itself in an environment that promotes sports-like competition. I wouldn't grant one red cent to support so-called scientists bashing religionists.
I'm satisfied Miguel, that you're focused on the science, quite apt to teach in the process, and very aware of the limitations of evolutionary models. No doubt you'll be rewarded for your efforts. Thanks again for your courtesy, consideration, and insight!
Mr. T: Glad you took the time to read the comments and let me know what you thought. I really like the Lyel quote as well, I do think it represents really well the state of the fossil record (even today!).
Yes, it's very important, as a scientist, to acknowledge the difficulties of our specialization and the cloudy areas. In order for other people to understand what we do, why we do it, and to maybe accept what we are trying to say, we need to listen to them and formulate our ideas better. Anyways. Glad you liked the comments.
While I certainly enjoy your analogy I think the most obvious fallacy behind this argument is that it is coming from someone whose counter argument is that an intelligent supernatural creator whipped up the earth and everything on it in 7 days. Not exactly observable.
(And the rest of your argument negates the need to resort to such analogies anyway.)