The only thing I would admonish to evolutionists is not to consider their theory fact - that goes against the idea of attempting to disprove theories, and leads to scientific stagnation. They should be trying at every turn to disprove it, and see if it holds up. It can still be taught until such a time as a better one comes along, but it must be treated as a theory only to remain scientific.
I think this is the biggest problem. Many people who dispute evolution theory on religious grounds are fated to misunderstand the mindset of those who subscribe to it. These folks think in their own language, the language of a religious worldview, whose ways are all so very foreign to the culture of science, and this bias instills in them a great many misperceptions. Only creationists call people “evolutionists.” Their worldview is ill-suited for them to wrap their minds around the scientific point of view, so instead they speak in the language that they know. But the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as an “evolutionist.” Evolution is not a life philosophy, nor is it an object of worship, or fanatical devotion. It is an admittedly provocative theory, but one that is well-supported in explaining the change in species. It is settled science.
Religious fundamentalists look at “settled science” and see an absolutist, fanatical devotion, which leads to words like “evolutionism.” At the very least, they see the subscription to scientific knowledge as a sort of religious act. Many do this with gleeful hostility, but other, well-meaning Christians—such as our Daniel Krispin here—are respectful of the culture of science, and try to word their thinking in the native tongue of science. Yet well-meaning or not, there is an immense cultural divide here, because those whose minds are structured around the principles of
religion are severely constrained when it comes to comprehending the culture of science. Not only does religious faith inhibit people’s ability to perceive the world more naturally, but it also closes people’s minds to ideas they perceive as a threat to their religious worldview, which, highly fantastical and subject to the cold whims of reality, must remain scrupulously sheltered if it is to be kept unchanging.
Science begins in the world of fact. Our world intrigues us. We are ignorant but we seek to know. And while there are many ways to piece together this grand mosaic, only a few are factually consistent. We are greatly aided by this consistency, for it is the way of science not to create fantasy, but to discover reality. The mosaic is our universe, and it is already perfectly arranged in accordance with itself. Our
image of the mosaic strives toward this perfect reality. Science is the agency by which we strive.
As such, the principal enemy of science is false knowledge, and this is reflected in the elemental concept of scientific
skepticism. Fatalistically, skepticism means we’ll never be sure that what we know is true, and this is generally how the concept is understood amongst the lay public. But science is not in the business of fatalism. The lesson of skepticism is to not assume more than one has tested, in greater detail than has been measured, beyond the limitations of the experiment. When applied practically, this shows us that true certainty is an elusive feat.
But in the language of religion, the lack of certainty is a damning liability. “Not certain” becomes “uncertain.” “Uncertain” becomes “unproven.” “Unproven” becomes “tentative.” “Tentative” becomes “speculative.” “Speculative” becomes “conjectural.” And suddenly we’re dealing in unsubstantiated conjecture. This is the pejorative that is intended when a religious detractor of something like evolution calls it “just a theory.” Their religious worldview has no basis for discriminating between a subscription to scientific knowledge and an act of religious belief. The religious rationale is that the faithful will believe, and belief is a product of conviction. They assume science works the same way. But in science, there’s no such thing as “belief.” Instead of thinking of scientific subscription as “the faithful will believe,” it’s really exactly the opposite of that: The facts will persuade.
Evolution is universally accepted as settled science because the facts persuade anyone who considers them with an open mind and a comprehension of the subject matter. The theory of evolution has undergone over a hundred years of academic scrutiny, and has emerged even stronger for it. It began as a “what else could it be” theory based on bizarre morphological observations in exotic environments. But in time the common ancestry predicted by the theory was verified. In time the process of speciation likewise predicted was also verified. And evolution was greatly legitimized by the separate discovery of genes and the rise of genetic science, providing a malleable basic unit to account for the characteristics of living organisms. The theory’s years of contention have passed; its core precepts remain intact; and there are no remaining points of contention. All the interesting developments in evolutionary biology are happening on the frontiers, building upon what has already been learned. And while evolution may certainly be false in part or in its entirety, there is no proof today to indicate that, and no legitimate scientific dispute. Any external controversy is meaningless; science operates on its own internal logic, which is the scientific method. The ivory tower is persuaded.
Yet the religious mindset is beset with handicaps in understanding what this signifies. Religious folks look at the settled science and they see scientists as having become arrogant. They reason, as Daniel has, that if a theory is not continually doubted, science will stagnate. The true meaning of skepticism is lost on them; the best analog their jaded worldview can accommodate is something that I might call “faith-based mistrust,” wherein any knowledge must be continually doubted, not because of some physical
reason to call the veracity of said knowledge into question, but simply because faith requires the mistrust inherently…perhaps because it is knowledge of human certification, and therefore, by their standards, deeply flawed. But the idea of mistrust for mistrust’s sake has little relevance in the scientific community, and is in opposition to the true nature of skepticism. The skeptic’s recourse is to bring more knowledge to the table.
The only reason evolution gets so much attention is because religious fundamentalists have gone to war against it. There are no altars in the halls of the ivory tower, and anyone who
believes in science is missing the point. Faith and religion like to set themselves up as antagonistic opposites of science, but this yin-yang isn’t real. Science would just as soon not be bothered by the religious fantasy world…yet religion is adamant in opposing scientific progress that (unintentionally) grates upon people’s religious sensibilities. Science makes the discovery that “Golly, once upon a time we were single-celled organisms,” and religion mistakes it for an act of aggression. Outside the ivory tower is a very strange world indeed, one not governed by truth but by perception. By
misperception.
The most scathing rebuke of the theory of evolution upon narrow-minded religious fundamentalists is that evolution is settled science. It fits the facts extremely well. Its predictions are corroborated by experimentation and observation. Like a Riemann sum approaching a smooth curve, evolution continues to become more precise and better understood as our discoveries and advances in multiple fields of evolutionary biology and related sciences continue unabated, from genome mapping to fossil digs. We can’t call it
true; that would be more of a religious way of looking at it. Instead let the final word in the matter of evolution be that to which science ever aspires:
persuasive.
In what I have seen, evolution cannot explain most especially how life began...
As Radical Dreamer pointed out, this is because evolution does not provide for the origins of life. Much like Hadriel and Eriol did earlier in this thread, you are associated evolution with statements it does not consider. It seems that people treat evolution as a blanket term for a much wider swath of biology than it legitimately addresses. In any case, there is no indictment of evolution here.
…but also cannot conclusively explain the change in life-forms.
Evolution explains
exactly this. You have summarized the entire field of evolutionary biology into a single phrase. Such a broad dismissal is audacious to be sure, but unsubstantiated to be equally sure. You are free to pleasure yourself to your heart’s content with these sentiments of denial, but on their own they carry no weight in any academic forum.
That is not to say things cannot adapt - they most surely do - but rather that large scale evolution, if it were to occur, would likely take longer than it has.
Your intuition tells you that over three billion years of evolution is insufficiently long to account for today’s biological diversity. All right. We mustn’t disparage people for their intuition. But what, beyond intuition, convinces you of this? What knowledge can you produce to authenticate your hunch?
And neither can it explain why certain creatures have not apparently evolved, whilst others have.
Ah, but here is a point of contention that is easily put to rest! I’m sure you will appreciate this simple clarification, so that your rejection of the theory of evolution can move on to its more serious points. As it so happens to be, one of the most important conclusions of evolution is that species tend to adapt to their environment. “Adaptation” in this case implies a change in the optimal survival configuration. And as you can certainly imagine, if this optimal configuration does not change, then a given species will have a relatively muted external pressure to evolve. This tempers the natural selection process, and thus slows evolution.
Yet, what is optimal for some species may not matter to others. The environment exerts different pressures on different species at the same time. Suppose the Earth entered a wet period and it rained a great deal more. This would have been disastrous for the prairie-dwelling wicked witches. Thus, if the wicked witches survive, we can conclude they must have found a way to avoid melting. Perhaps a genetic mutation made a witch water resistant at some point. Or perhaps some of the witches migrated to drier areas. Or maybe they entered into a symbiotic partnership with the umbrella people. Any combination of these is possible, but in every case what we have is discernable evolution, owing to natural selection brought on by environmental pressures. And yet the rainier era would have had a much more benign impact on the good faeries. They would have faced no such pressure to evolve. And so they would have remained much the same. Once again, the witches get the short end of the broomstick. O, what a world!
So you can see how different species can evolve at different rates simultaneously. And yet there are other factors to take into consideration, too. There are periods in geologic history when it as though all the species of the world suddenly lurched into a great period of evolution. Does this disprove evolution? Hardly! This is
predicted by evolutionary theory. Insomuch as a species’ evolution is guided by its environmental circumstances, and that the environment itself is varied and not regular, we can expect environmental changes to have a direct impact on the evolution of species. Everything from ice ages to asteroid strikes can drastically change the optimal survival configuration for a great many species. But more frequent than those are the more relatively minor changes to the environment, which for whatever reason cause a sort of butterfly effect—say, at the bottom of the food chain—simply because the denizens of the biosphere are so deeply interrelated into the same uncertain song. That’s how the biosphere is…you can poke and prod it in one place and nothing will change, but so much as tap it on a tender spot, and everything comes flying apart…and the world changes.
So what we have are long periods in geologic history where evolution plods along because the biosphere is mostly stable, punctuated by periods of realignment, and the occasional super-disaster. Alongside this, we have different species evolving at different rates at the same time. All in all, evolution correctly predicts that species tend to adapt to their environment. Your mistake, I gather, is that you neglected to consider that the environment is no mere metronome, but a pulsating, erratic entity.
Nor can it explain that thousands of missing links between different stages of evolution.
Here you are providing a weaker contention. This observation is not contradictory evidence to the theory of evolution so much as a
lack of corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, the contention is still somewhat valid. A lack of compelling evidence does not a theory make, after all. So, let’s put aside for the moment the fact that evolution has reams and gobs of supporting evidence, and just focus on this.
You mention “thousands of missing links,” which I gather to be directed at the fossil record—although please correct me if you were referring to some other kind of chain. Due to the rarity of conditions that lead to the making and preservation of fossils, and due to the statistical likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. You can get five million years of some lizard, and then suddenly it’s not there anymore. Now you’ve got this different lizard arriving on the scene shortly thereafter, but the two are dissimilar enough that you’ve grounds to believe there is a missing link between them. What has happened is that the evolution occurred so quickly that, given the low survival rates of fossil remnants, none have made it into the modern era.
You see, the reason species tend to evolve in fast spurts is that the intermediary stages are necessarily unstable—or else they wouldn’t have remained intermediary. You change one little gene on an animal, and suddenly everything gets thrown out of whack. This has ramifications in the environment among those species who are related to this animal in some way. And voila, you get that butterfly effect again. Eventually the whole works stabilizes, because the unstable points are arrived at and soon left behind, but stable points brook no further progression, and thus are a great moderating influence.
However, this is not to say that speciation is not well-documented. It just isn’t as well-documented as the much longer eras of history where evolution progressed much more slowly. For instance, here is the fossil record of the evolution of the horse…which I remember seeing in pictures in a textbook long ago:
So here's the summary of the horse sequence. For more info, see the Horse Evolution FAQ.
* Loxolophus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive condylarth with rather low-crowned molars, probably ancestral to the phenacodontid condylarths.
* Tetraclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A more advanced Paleocene condylarth from the phenacodontid family, and almost certainly ancestral to all the perissodactyls (a different order). Long but unspecialized limbs; 5 toes on each foot (#1 and #5 smaller). Slightly more efficient wrist.
GAP: There are almost no known perissodactyl fossils from the late Paleocene. This is actually a small gap; it's only noticeable because the perissodactyl record is otherwise very complete. Recent discoveries have made clear that the first perissodactyls arose in Asia (a poorly studied continent), so hopefully the ongoing new fossil hunts in Asia will fill this small but frustrating gap. The first clue has already come in:
* Radinskya yupingae (late Paleocene, China) -- A recently discovered perissodactyl-like condylarth. (McKenna et al., in Prothero & Schoch, 1989.)
* Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma; previously "Eohippus") -- The famous "dawn horse", a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout. 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Compared to Tetraclaenodon, has longer toes, interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps. Probably evolved from Tetra. in about 4-5 my, perhaps via an Asian species like Radinskya. Note that Hyrac. differed from other early perissodactyls (such as tapir/rhino ancestors) only by small changes in tooth cusps and in body size.
* Hyracotherium vassacciense (early Eocene) -- The particular species that probably gave rise to the equids.
* Orohippus (mid-Eocene, ~50 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests.
* Epihippus (late Eocene, ~45 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser.
* Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- A later subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth.
* Mesohippus celer (latest Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Three-toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
* Mesohippus westoni (early Oligocene) -- A slightly later, more advanced species.
* Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running.
* Kalobatippus (late Oligocene) -- Three-toed browser w/foot intermediate between Mio. & Para.
* Parahippus (early Miocene, 23 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot". Permanent establishment of the extra crest that was so variable in Miohippus. Stronger tooth crests & slightly taller tooth crowns.
* 'Parahippus' leonensis (mid-Miocene, ~20 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer with the emphasis on grazer. Developing spring-foot & high-crowned teeth.
* 'Merychippus' gunteri (mid-Miocene, ~18 Ma) -- Three-toed grazer, fully spring-footed with high-crowned teeth.
* Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, ~17 Ma) -- Slightly more advanced.
* Merychippus spp. of mid-late Miocene (16-15 Ma) -- 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony. Diversified into all available grazer niches, giving rise to at least 19 successful three-toed grazers. Side toes of varying sizes, very small in some lines. Horsey hoof develops, leg bones fuse. Fully high-crowned teeth with thick cement & same crests as Parahippus. The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines". Crystal clear, right?
SMALL GAP: It is not known which Merychippus species (stylodontus? carrizoensis?) gave rise to the first Dinohippus species (Evander, in Prothero & S 1988).
* Dinohippus (late Miocene, 12 Ma) -- One-toed grazer, spring-footed. Very equine feet, teeth, and skull, with straighter teeth & smaller fossae. First was D. spectans, followed by D. interpolatus and D. leidyanus. A slightly later species was D. mexicanus, with even straighter teeth and even smaller fossae.
* Equus (Plesippus), also called the "E. simplicidens" group (Pliocene, ~4 My) -- Three closely related species of one-toed spring-footed high-crowned grazers. No fossae and very straight teeth. Pony size, fully "horsey" body -- rigid spine, long neck, long legs, fused leg bones with no rotation, long nose, flexible muzzle, deep jaw. The brain was a bit larger than in early Dinohippus. Still had some primitive traits such as simple teeth & slight facial fossae, which later Equus species lost. These "simple Equus" species quickly diversified into at least 12 new species in 4 different groups. During the first major glaciations of the late Pliocene (2.6 Ma), certain Equus species crossed to the Old World. Worldwide, Equus took over the niche of "large coarse-grazing plains runner".
* Equus (Hippotigris) (Pleistocene) -- Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
* Equus (Equus) (Pleistocene) -- Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. (note: very rarely a horse is born with small side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.)
And of course that’s the biological history of just one of today’s living organisms. Gaps in the fossil record? Sure. But we’re talking about the sorts of gaps like 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7 8 9. The fossil record on the whole has been greatly helpful to the verification of evolution. Those who look at the fossils but see only the gaps are being selective, which is very unscientific and not at all befitting a man of your ostensible respect for the institution of science.
Should we not have at least one example of a smooth transition, or at least of several inbetween steps?
Perhaps, like the evolution of the horse, eh? =P
Well, until those are found, I will be skeptical that they exist.
There are others, too.
Don't worry yourself. I've looked at the issue before and, for the time being, taken my stance. I fear it would simply be a waste of your efforts.
Oh.
You know, that’s the problem with religious folks. Their respect for science goes out the window when the science becomes inconvenient. You’ve “looked at the issue before.” Yet all your listed complaints against evolution are either unsubstantiated, incorrect, or are not actually complaints at all. Pray, then, in what regard have you “looked at the issue before”? I picture you casually brushing your evolution biology textbook to the side after hardly cracking open the first page. It cannot be that it
bored you, can it? So I can only assume it contradicted your religious convictions.
You have “looked at the issue before.” What an anti-intellectual remark! Your only redeeming qualities, Daniel, are your intellectual stylings—your politeness and your respect for others’ points of view. Yet these things seem more shallow than I might have thought. Considering your attitudes on women, I shouldn’t be surprised…but I am disappointed. I suppose I did waste a good deal of my time and efforts.
Science will never persuade one whose mind is made up.
Poll