A Deal on Evolution
Tags:
update Pennsylvania too. (via Anil Dash)
MemeFirst has an interesting point regarding Cobb County, Ga.'s decision to label evolution as "a theory, not a fact" — why don't we label Genesis 1 in all their bibles with "not even a theory, total myth."
As the recent National Geographic article about why Darwin was right says, many people confuse "theory" with "hypothesis".
Saying "It's just a theory", as if a theory is mere conjecture, is a misunderstanding of what a theory is, the way scientists mean it.
A theory to scientists is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Basically it's something that has been observed, tested, verified over & over again with experimentation and observation, and serves as the best explanation of a phenomenon. Theories differ from facts in that scientists will CHANGE them if the evidence points to an alternative explanation.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It is the accepted explanation for the divergence and development of species of all forms of life, and it is the accepted explanation because EVERY experiment and observation done since Darwin and others began thinking in this way has borne it out. And now that we know even more about genetics than ever, the theory of evolution is being borne out even more strongly than before.
It's not a leap of faith to accept that evolution is happening, because you can SEE it.
Creationists disregard it because they are offended by the implication that humans arose from more primitive species. But what they choose to ignore is that evolution and religion are NOT incompatible. The way I look at it, God's in the details. And SOMETHING significant happened to change us from those primitive species to humans -- the cognitive abilities we've developed are so far beyond those of any other animals that divine influence is as good an explanation of that leap as any other.
"It's not a leap of faith to accept that evolution is happening, because you can SEE it."
Just want to expand on a couple things...
Microevolution relates to short-term, minor changes within a species. Creationists tend to accept this one, as it can easily be seen. A couple good examples are a population of insects that quickly become resistant to a pesticide and bacteria that become immune to an over-prescribed antibody.
Macroevolution is about long-term changes that result in new species or changes higher up in the taxonomy hierachy. This is observed through fossil records and DNA comparison. For example, how do you explain that dinosaurs from 50 million years ago are all gone, with only fossils to be found, but the oldest remains of today's species are nowhere near as old.
Then again, those people think that the world is only 6,000 years old, so the dinosaurs must have died back then and the "great flood" buried them under millions of years worth of sediment.
By the way, if I didn't mention it, I'm doing a double major in chemistry (biochemistry) and biology (microbiology). If I don't drop out again, I could probably have a PhD by the time I'm 32 or 33.
Posted by: O'dell on November 10, 2004 4:50 PM | permalinkDr. Hicks. Nice.
I will admit that I don't quite "get" how evolution makes the jump to a new species with a different number of chromosomes than its predecessor.
You'd need two births of the opposite sex, in basically the same time and place, to have the same uncommon mutation.
Then the pair would have to survive until they can breed, and have offspring that, themselves, bred successfully.
(For example, Humans havd 23 pairs and chimps do not; therefore at least one of them is different from our common ancestor.)
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 10, 2004 5:32 PM | permalinkWell, I guess it might kind of be like this: You know Amish have this disorder that is in one out of every x children due to inbreeding? Well, if something similar resulted in a positive change and kept showing up every x times, eventually there will probably be a mated match. Don't forget that macroevolution is a slow process that happens over many years and many generations.
I don't know enough about reproduction yet to know if it would be possible for only one parent to pass along the extra chromosome.
Posted by: O'dell on November 10, 2004 10:35 PM | permalinkI'm amused that creationists aren't asked more often to account for the different order of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. To my mind, it really puts a crimp extreme literal interpretations of the Bible.
Creation story 1 -
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=gen+1%3A1-2%3A3
Creation story 2 -
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=gen+2%3A4-25
Also, "Ask A Scientist: Chromosome Numbers and Evolution" -
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00320.htm
Alan:
I would imagine it goes like this: God is perfect. The Bible is the word of God. Ergo, if the Bible doesn't make sense, it's your thinking that is problematic.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 11, 2004 7:43 AM | permalinkYes, and I flush toilets too, Ali G.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 12, 2004 11:58 AM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.