The Pillar of Evolution

I think that part of that urge to attempt to "debunk" evolution by attacking Darwin on the part of Christians is that they perceive (wrongly as it turns out) that Darwin the same kind of position and reverence for people who subscribe to evolution as Christ does for Christians. Similarly, they attack his written works thinking they are some kind of holy text of evolution, not really understanding how science advances itself over time.

One always hears much dessent from those who do not accept evolution, or who do not agree with it. While I am always willing to educate those who do not accept evolution on what it is and I'm willing to listen to any counter arguments against it - there seems to be something that really bothers me with those who wish to debate the theory of Evolution.

So, to clear up this argument I wish to get a few misconceptions out of the way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misconception 1: Darwinism and Evolution are essentially the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darwinism - anything which follows the ideas of Charles Darwin.
Evolution - a general scientific theory pertaining to the changes in gene frequency over time.

Charles Darwin was born in 1809 and died in 1882. He wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and this work was published in 1859. Now, please keep this in mind:

• Darwin died 123 years ago.
• On the Origin of Species was published 146 years ago.

Darwinism can clearly be seen now as only the beginning to the study of the theory of Evolution. Darwin lived and died over a century ago, and since then, nearly 150 years have been devoted to the study of what Darwin first suggested.

This body of study which first started with Darwin's publication and which continues through today is called Evolution.

So you see,

Darwinism is only a very small part of the theory of Evolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misconception 2: Invalidating Darwin invalidates Evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many creationists and dissenters feel that by attacking Darwinism one attacks Evolution. I've seen this approach to debunking evolution many times and they often occur in these forms:

• Darwin was [racist, sexist, etc.] so his ideas must be wrong
• Darwin could not explain the evolution of the eye, so his ideas were wrong
• Darwin did not have an explaination for [insert something here] so his ideas were wrong

Now, since I've established the difference between the greater body of work that is Evolution, and the work of Charles Darwin, it should be of no surprise that merely attacking Darwin implies that one is only attacking Darwinism and is not attacking Evolution.

There is, again, a substantial body of evidence to support Evolution - the fossil record, transitional fossils, geology, genetics, and even DNA - so how can creationists (or those who oppose evolution) simply say that Darwinism is incorrect for the above bulletted reasons?

How can it not be even a complete stretch to even say that Evolution is wrong for any of the misconceptions about Darwin's personal beliefs or that it is wrong because Darwinism did not explain a few things?

Evolution is backed up by evidence from many independent and interconnecting scientific fields such as biology, geology, chemistry, genetics, etc. Therefore one can only rebuke Evolution by presenting counterevidence for any things which have been shown by Evolution to be true.

Simply stating Darwin lied about something or was a racist cannot erase 150 years of research into the field of Evolution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misconception 3: Evolution is unsupported by [insert field here].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This really aggrivates me to no avail. As mentioned earlier, much research into the theory of Evolution has taken place since 1859 and since Darwin left this mortal coil.

Since 1859, Darwin's ideas have been under the careful scrutiny of millions of scientists in countless independent fields of science. From that time forward, the theory of Evolution has advanced such that it can explain and predict many things about what we find in the natural world, and what we can find in the fossil record.

Geologists since then have uncovered millions of fossils from all across the world. So far, even with minor revisions in the theory of Evolution, the fossils that have been found according to dated strata and fossils above and below (earlier and later than its existence) neatly fit into the theory of Evolution.

For example, Evolution predicts that we will never find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as flowering plants. To date we have never found any, and we probably never will.

Evolution also predicts that there is no ultimate goal and no ultimate ends to how live will evolve and change. We've found many species that haven't changed in tens or hundreds of millions of years, and we have found species that change relatively quite rapidly. Sharks haven't changed much at all in a very long time due to their stable environment. Mammals, with the exposure to much more drastic changes in climate and weather, have evolved seemingly quite rapidly. If Evolution weren't true, we'd find quite the opposite. We'd find 'goals', and some designed direction. We do not find that.

What it boils down to is that Evolution is supported by 150 years of solid research. While the theory itself has evolved a little here and there, the theory will remain until it is not supported by science.

Now that I've got those misconceptions cleared up, I can go into the meat and potatoes of this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pillar of Evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three key points that have been established by this thread so far:

1. Evolution extends far beyond Darwin's original ideas.
2. Evolution is supported not by Darwin but by the evidence of the real world.
3. Evolution is also supported by 150 years of research and by every field of science.

With that in mind, it's easy to see that Evolution is a pillar for fields of science like Genetics, Biology, Paleontology, and more. Evolution explains many mechanisms of Genetics over time. Evolution also explains why Biology functions the way it does and how it has changed and adapted over time. Evolution also explains how fossils got there, what they were, and why there is so much diversity and order to the fossil record over time.

So, if we were to remove Evolution because we disagreed with it, we would have to cut the legs out from under Genetics. Research into hereditary diseases would be quite impossible if we did not have a clear understanding of the gene frequency population in a species over time. If we did not know how genes could evolve from one parent to the offspring it would become very difficult to predict the danger to the offspring of recieving an inherited trait.

Genetics research is also very helpful in the study of benefecial mutations. For example, some people have genes which give them increased longevity - and there is a great deal of research being done in this. Research is also being done with health and frequency changes over time. Understanding which mutations are good and which ones are bad help us to avoid diseases and improve our lives by living more healthily.

With Paleontology, the greatest impact of Evolution is that it is very beneficial in the search of fossil fuels. With certain index fossils, and a certain understanding of them and how they evolved we can conduct educated searches for oil and natural gas.

Billions of dollars are spent on oil wells, platforms, and drilling equipment, and they are not easily transportable. So, when companies start drilling, they want to make extra sure they are in the right spot. Paleontologists help companies find the right spots by knowing where these index fossils can be found, and by pointing to the correct layers and locations to drill.

In conclusion, the next time a Creationist or IDer wishes to debate evolution, I hope they take into consideration that it has taken a long time and a lot of research to add to the theory of Evolution and that it is the best explaination to the diversity of life that we see today and that we have evidence for in the past.

Keep in mind though that the Pillar of Evolution only needs a little contrary evidence to change the theory or to even knock it down. However, in over a century and a half of looking for contrary evidence it has not been found - so don't hold your breath.

That's quite an amazing statement, because no one has observed multiple beneficial mutations working together to increase fitness, let alone build something as complex as the human brain.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-eth122804.php

[...]

This is not only "spectacular", it falsifies human evolution.

The human brain poses a problem for evolution. This recent study estimates thousands of mutations in thousands of genes were required for the evolution of the human brain.

That's quite an amazing statement, because no one has observed multiple beneficial mutations working together to increase fitness, let alone build something as complex as the human brain.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...i-eth122804.php

One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. "For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution," said Lahn. "Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."

"It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans."

This is not only "spectacular", it falsifies human evolution.

Neo-Darwinism, also termed the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, was formulated in the 1940s to assist Darwin’s views on natural selection from growing theoretical problems. It incorporated the necessity of genetic mutations to provide the raw material for variation on which natural selection acts. This revision was necessary when the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of inheritance ruled out ideas of blending inheritance, showing instead that inherited characters were based on discrete entities, genes, that were passed on unaltered to the offspring.

What evolutionists need to show is not the effects of one mutation,
but the accumulation of multiple beneficial mutations. They cannot.

They need to show epistatic interactions, the effects of multiple independent, non-allelic, mutations on each other, rather than the effects of single mutations alone.

These interactions can be antagonistic or synergistic: they can work against one another or with one another. Epistasis is defined as any interaction of nonallelic genes, especially the suppression by one gene of the effect of a nonallelic gene.

So, what needs to be shown are synergistic, beneficial mutations
increasing the fitness of the organism.

This is where the "fact" of evolution is overshadowed by the theory
of evolution. In theory the synergistic, beneficial mutations
which increase fitness should be plentiful. In fact they are
nonexistent.