|
Out, demons OUT! |
Return to ch. 2 presentation page
An introduction to widespread misconceptions about modern evolution theory
by Tom Morris
Fullerton College
Fullerton, CA
USA
|
Out, demons OUT! |
The above photo shows the high genetic variety in two species of peppers. Agricultural scientists draw upon this variety to genetically modify crops to accomplish the following: 1) Counteract continuously-evolving pests; 2) Develop new varieties needed to cope with changing climates.
a University of Nebraska plant geneticist inspects tiny transgenic plants growing in her lab. She heads a research team that has identified a genetic key that triggers male sterility in plants. Male sterile plants don't produce pollen, which makes it easier to breed improved hybrids and produce hybrid seed. Scientists think their techniques should work on a broad range of crops and vegetables.
In above photo, Theodore Hymowitz, emeritus professor of plant genetics in the crop science department at the University of Illinois., and doctoral assistant Leina M. Joseph have isolated two Chinese soybean lines that grow without the primary protein linked to soy allergies in children and adults.
Steven A. Frank relies on evolution theory to unify our understanding of how infectious diseases work -- giving new insight on how best to fight them.
Evolutionary biologists are racing to understand how a bird flu virus has suddenly started to infect humans for the first time. Humans are especially vulnerable to this new flu because our immune systems are not prepared for it
Evolutionary biologists are investigating how environmental circumstances are leading to dangerous genetic transformations in many varieties of the virus.
Click on this photo to see a brief video on evolution and HIV.
The medical treatment of HIV patients is becoming a sophisticated evolutionary battle. The emerging treatment strategy acts to counteract the virus' evolutionary power with a combination of evolutionary tricks and powerful drugs.
Shane Killian's edgy response to uninformed creationist's arguments.
Continued response to creationist's claims.
A series of videos where expert scientists talk about evolution theory and refute creationism on scientific grounds.
Scientists describe the phenomenon of evolution to be:
the change in the genetic makeup of a population of living things from one generation to the next.
Evolution theory is a model that helps biologists understand how changes happen to the genetic makeup of populations of living things from one generation to the next.
Genetics Theory + Ecology Theory = Evolution Theory
GENETICS COMPONENT: The physical and operational features of living individuals largely are determined by genetic information inherited from parents.
The mix of genetic information in each individual is unique, yielding genetic diversity in any group of individuals of a species.
Genetics Theory - Information Management
Genetics theory helps us understand:
How packages of coded data on chromosomes translate into useful information
The manifestation of information into observable biological features
How information can be remixed and transmitted to a new individual (offspring)
ECOLOGICAL COMPONENT: Life experiences by individuals in a population can influence the flow of genetic information from one generation to the next.
Ecology Theory - Life happenings
Ecology theory helps us understand:
How individual living things stay alive in their natural environments
How individuals bring inherited features to bear on their surrounding environments
How inherited features assist in exploiting opportunities in rewarding ways
How inherited features help minimize exposure to threats in rewarding ways
What is Conspicuously Absent? The above statements generally characterize evolution theory as nothing more than a synthesis of genetics theory and ecology theory. That's pretty much all there is to it... Please note that the following items are not part of the theory:
Once you understand that these components are not part of the theory, then your perception of it will be much more accurate. |
Population Genetics - Genetic information in populations
Population Genetics is a science that tracks the flow of genetic information in whole populations from generation-to-generation.
Evolutionary Result - If the genetic makeup of a population is different in one generation from the genetic makeup of the population in a previous generation, this is an evolutionary result (the phenomenon of evolution is observed) .
| Generation 1 | Generation 1 | Reproductive Event | Generation 2 |
 75% speckled 25% striped |
 100% speckled 0% striped |
New individuals receive genes exclusively from surviving adults. |  100% speckled 0% striped |
| Population at the start of a new generation.
In this example, color pattern is controlled by two kinds of genes: 1) speckled 2) striped |
Surviving adults just prior to reproductive event | Population after reproductive event.
The mix of genes in this generation is different from the mix of genes in the pervious generation. This observed difference is an evolutionary result. |
|
| Time -> | |||
Evolutionary Biology - Population genetics in terms of ecology
Scenario
Population geneticist discovers significant differences in the genetic makeup of a population over several generations. This is an evolutionary result. But what life experiences could account for such a result?
At the same time, ecologists observe interesting changes in the environment. Ecologists also observe how individuals of the population differentially bring their inherited traits to bear on these new environmental circumstances.
Evolutionary biologists consider reports from the population geneticist and the ecologist. The evolutionary biologist looks for evidence of a causal relationship between genetic changes and the environment. That is, "Could the observed genetic changes have been a consequence of observed environmental changes?"
My experience as a college biology teacher since 1980 indicates that Americans learn more about evolution theory from Hollywood films, television and church -- than they do from science teachers and scientists.
Unfortunately, the "evolution theory" they learn is not the same evolution theory that scientists use.
 |
 |
 |
| Evolution learned in a science classroom | Evolution learned from movies and television | Evolution learned at place of worship |
↕ |
↕ |
↕ |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Religious philosophers do make attempts to reconcile religious faith with scientific understandings. |
 |
| The message expressed by this object feeds into the notion that evolution theory should be decided upon by advocacy on the community square. |
Sometimes the message is not what we wish to hear
Scientists use evolution theory as a tool for interpreting publicly verifiable evidence.
Sometimes such interpretations are at odds with fundamental beliefs -- especially religious beliefs.
As a result, they can be unwelcome and unsettling.
Despite that evolution theory is debated by theistic philosophers, politicians, journalists and everyday people, it is not a religious, political, journalistic or everyday idea. It is a scientific idea based on verifiable observations about nature.
Any debate about evolution theory outside the scientific arena only frames it in ideological and political terms.
Current debates about evolution theory in the media are artificial and do not reflect the general sense of the theory in the scientific community as a whole.
Fruitful debate about evolution theory only can come from the realm in which it resides... science.
For decades, scientists have continued to refine the theory based on new findings. But within the scientific community, there is little debate about its usefulness.
This Talk's MissionDebunk widespread misconceptions about evolution theory
Many early naturalists considered natural explanations for the appearance of different species on Earth.
Scientists assemble theories from many explanations about our natural reality
Scientific discovery involves many years or many generations of exploration, study and hard work in the field or in the lab.
Beagle - Expedition seeking commercial development opportunities around
the world.
Evolution theory is a synthesis of Genetics and Ecology.
There is no separate evolution phenomenon.
Evolution is NOT a process. Evolution is an outcome.
You cannot observe evolution happening because evolution does not "happen".
'Evolution' is the term we use to describe a RESULT.
So, if evolution doesn't happen, what DOES happen?
Life happens.
 |
| In this scenario, the first population of rabbits has genetic
variety in terms of ear-length alleles -- mostly short-ear alleles.
Following reproduction of the adult survivors, the long-ear alleles
are more abundant. This difference in allele frequency represents an
evolutionary result.
The cause for the differences was ecological (the result of life experiences amongst individuals in the first generation). For some reason(s), individuals with long ears reached adulthood at a greater rate than individuals with short ears. This is a purely statistical finding. There could be many, many random and non-random ecological causes for this result. For example, in this scenario ecologists observed the presence of predators during the study period. If they determined that the predators were the primary cause of the observed difference in survivorship among rabbits, and if they found that predators killed short-eared rabbits at a higher rate than long-eared rabbits, then this evolutionary result could qualify as a non-random result. |
Problem No. 1: This is an INTERPRETATION of evidence that uses evolution theory as a framework for analysis. Such a claim is not part of the theory.
Theories cannot interpret themselves.
Interpretations of evidence that use the theory, remain separate from the theory.
Problem No. 2: Evolutionary change does not occur along a single path.
 |
| Human evolution often is portrayed as a "pipeline" of change.
This model misleads because it implies that evolution proceeds along
a single pathway.
It further misleads by implying that given enough time, modern gibbons would "evolve" into humans (the Planet of the Apes fallacy) |
Instead, we see evolutionary change unfolding as in the branches of a tree.
 |
| The leaves of this tree are contemporary developments. Branching points initiate unique growth patterns with common origins. |
|
| Cladistics. This drawing indicates how evolution theory can be applied to integrate fossil, genetic and anatomical evidence of monkey-like, ape-like and human-like species. Notice that shrews, monkeys, humans, apes and lemurs are contemporaries of each other. That is, they reside in parallel with each other -- but with unique histories linked by common lines. |
 |
| This drawing indicates the application of evolution theory to interpret evidence in human-like species. This interpretation indicates that some lines may become extinct. This interpretation also recognizes and confronts compelling similarities between modern humans and extinct lines. |
Living individuals have no capacity to 'evolve'.
Biological evolution is not a response to the environment.
Biological evolution is a consequence of the environment.
 |
| Lamarck's evolution theory of the early 1800's (before Darwin) proposed that species evolved by necessity. Here, according to Lamarck's theory, a short-necked giraffe initiates evolution of a longer neck out of perceived necessity. Hollywood loves Lamarckian evolution... but it's generally not supported by the evidence. |
 |
| The statement on this sign expresses one of the great myths about evolution theory -- the notion of "evolution-by-necessity." According to this myth, if a feature is "needed" then it should appear -- by evolution. Evolutionary scientists agree that there is nothing in modern evolution theory that would support such a claim. |
 |
| This cartoon is based on long-discredited Lamarckian evolution theory -- Evolution-by- necessity. |
 |
| If evolution is so powerful, why don't birds have teeth? Here is
another misinterpretation that implies "evolution-by-necessity".
The big fallacy here is that somehow humans have the ability to imagine lasting improvements on existing configurations. This is pure Lamarck. |
In other words, 'survival of the survivors'
This expression implies that an individual's unique suite of traits somehow pre-destines it to survive to adulthood, while others are predestined to die before reaching adulthood.
It's like saying, "He finished the race because
he's a finisher, and this other guy didn't finish the race because he's a
quitter."
This expression invites a Lamarckian perspective.
Because living individuals are too complex and life is too unpredictable, it is not possible to predict which individuals will succeed and which will not. As such, this expression is inconsistent with modern evolution theory and practice.
Instead, scientists understand the term, "fitness" in terms of statistical "presence" of alleles in the population. Alleles present in greater proportions are regarded as "most fit." This is purely a statistical interpretation. No qualitative rationale are implied.
He who turns and runs away, lives to eat, and reproduce, another day.
Sometimes subtlety is more rewarding than brute strength
 |
| Rewarding application of camouflage by a walking stick insect. |
Science is not in the belief business.
Science is in the utility business.
To the extent possible, science is a purely intellectual enterprise.
Science discovers and uses tools that help explain the realities of the Universe.
Ironically, to the extent that a scientist 'believes' in a theory, he / she is NOT doing science.
Beliefs are appropriate and useful components of our spiritual lives -- provided they don't adversely interfere with our interpretations of natural reality.
 |
| "C'mere you big-headed, skinny wimp. Let's make ugly alien babies." |
We could if we wanted to...
Or...
Evolution-by-necessity (myth) |
 |
| This drawing uses Lamarckian evolution theory to predict
the result of future human evolution. Lamarck's discredited theory
proposed that living things evolved out of necessity. So, this
future human exhibits features accordingly.
This drawing is utterly inconsistent with present-day, Darwinian evolution theory. Instead of making predictions based on strident presumptive logic, modern evolution theory recognizes the power of unpredictable environmental circumstances that have the potential to produce unexpected results. Interpretation: There is no reason to suspect future humans will be much different from us. |
  |
| This myth suggests that in a single
instance genetic mutations can produce fully functional new biological
systems.
This is a gross oversimplification. Genetic mutations do occur, but the results are mostly benign, or harmful if not outright fatal. This myth addresses the notion of "adaptation" evolution. Darwin proposed the ecological phenomenon of "natural selection" to explain how useful features might arise. Adaptation evolution is the most challenging field of evolution theory. |
 |
| The "X-Men" fantasy implies that sudden genetic mutations could lead to completely new kinds of fully operational biological systems. This is completely science fiction that uses long-discredited Lamarckian evolution theory. |
Evolution theory's predictive powers are limited because the system it seeks to understand is inherently dynamical and unpredictable.
Modern apes are contemporaries of modern humans and modern cockroaches.
All of these lines have diverged to produce unique results.
Evolutionary biologists understand that, even with a robust evolution, there is no ultimate pipeline that leads all species to become human-like.
Even if humans disappeared from Earth tomorrow, it is scientifically unsupportable to claim that modern apes would evolve into a technological species.
If
we were to use the theory to predict the evolutionary outcome of ape evolution
in the absence of humans on Earth...
 |
This picture implies the myths that:
Evolutionary biologists agree that there is no scientific basis for such a claim. |
This myth maliciously distorts the theory suggesting that the complex and meaningful features we see in living things are entirely the result of purely random activities -- that all of evolution is utterly and thoroughly random.
The most reasonable expectation of the monkey scenario, using the theory, suggests
otherwise - that the monkeys would destroy the typewriters in less than 10 minutes.
Using the theory, it is accepted that the development of meaningful features (adaptations) cannot come about entirely as a result of randomness.
Non-random environments present each generation with a generally consistent set of environmental circumstances. Individuals bring their genetic inheritance to bear on their environment in non-random ways -- in a non-random effort to maintain the living state.
Features that are rewarding in one generation also may be rewarding in future generations.
Adaptations can only arise following successive rounds of the appearance, refinement and application of rewarding features in non-random environments generation-after-generation.
A note about the role of randomness in evolution The overwhelming majority of genetic, molecular and ecological operations that occur in an individual's life are non-random. The living state is utterly dependent on regular operations such as getting food and water, and avoiding dangerous situations. Internal operations like digesting food, filtering the blood and processing sensory input -- these are all non-random operations. Life is mostly about non-random operations. But randomness does play a part. For example, a flood or a fire might occur randomly in a given area. Or particularly good weather might occur randomly. But by far the most important random operation in evolution is the reassortment of parental genes during the production of sex cells like eggs and sperms. Except for identical twins, kids from the same parents may resemble each other, but they are completely unique genetic formulations. The random mixing of parental genes produces unpredictable results in offspring. Once instantiated, newly developed individuals are obliged to apply their genetic inheritance to survive in their environment as best they can -- in non-random ways. |
Origin of life theory wonders about the origin of life on Earth.
Its main tools are biochemistry and molecular biology
Evolution theory wonders how species of living things can change
Its main tools are genetics and ecology
Evolution theory, like all our modern theories, was discovered by generation-after-generation of naturalists who left their comfortable homes to explore nature.
Everything we understand about how reality works in modern civilization is theoretical.
To the extent that a theory is useful, it will be used.
To the extent that a theory is not useful it will not be used.
Given the power and the utility of theories that form the foundation of modern, technological civilization, a statement like the one above reflects an unfortunate failure to comprehend this.
 |
Planetary Biology theory. This picture depicts a network of related ideas that, together, make up a larger idea. |
A scientific theory is a model that explains how reality is organized.
A scientific theory provides a framework for understanding natural reality by showing how real phenomena are organized and interrelated -- like the organization of a jig-saw puzzle.
A scientific theory is an intellectual interpretation of the patterns of natural reality.
Scientific theories are tools that help us comprehend natural reality.
To the extent that a scientific theory is useful, it will be used. To the extent that a scientific theory is not useful, it won't be used.
Some very useful theories
Newton's theory of celestial mechanics
Einstein's theories of relativity
Evolution theory
  |
| Our modern civilization is utterly dependent upon scientific theories. Ignoring them purely for ideological reasons jeopardizes the practical foundations upon which our civilization stands. |
That Intelligent
Design Theory is ScienceIntelligent Design (ID) Theory presents an interesting, if entirely deductive, explanation on the role of an intelligent designer (God?) and the unfolding of life on Earth.
The "intelligent design" advocates vary greatly. But the core beliefs which they all appear to share are the following:
(a) ID advocates believe that the action of an intelligent (presumably conscious) being was involved in the evolution of living organisms.
(b) ID advocates believe that there already exists empirical evidence of this action, sufficient to justify a scientific inference that such action occurred.
Despite its spiritual appeal, it is not a useful scientific theory for many reasons. Several important ones include:
ID theory is based on a foundation of "unexplained" -- otherwise known as the "God-of-the-gaps" -- advocates claim that what scientists do not completely understand today can best be explained by invoking the intelligent designer.
In other words, evolutionary scientists should give up, stop trying, and use the ID solution when confronted with puzzling mysteries about life on Earth.
ID theory is a top down approach, starting with an answer, then searching for evidence to support its claim -- while systematically ignoring all evidence to the contrary -- a process called, "cherry picking". Dogmatic adherence by advocates precludes open-minded consideration of competing possibilities.
ID theory itself provides no expository or explanatory tools that normally accompany useful scientific theories. It doesn't help scientists solve the mysteries that lie before them.
ID advocates promote claims that are largely arguments from ignorance -- a logical fallacy.
ID advocates invoke the action of "new laws" to support their claims, but without providing the empirical research with which to scientifically evaluate such new laws.
Return to ch. 2 presentation page
