What is Evolution?

[goseyn]

One of the complaints that I frequently hear from evolutionists is that they feel creationists do not have a proper understanding of what exactly evolution is. I have on occasion found that my arguments were written off and attributed to 'ignorance'. These claims have only pushed me to learn more about evolution, and in the process, has shored up my confidence that the claims of the 'ID movement' are indeed valid.

I have decided to start this string in an effort to inform anyone who genuinely would like to know more about evolution. A way of confronting these evolutionist complaints head on.

Brethren, we should not be afraid of evolution. I would encourage Christians to read about both sides of the issue.

**************

Mark Ridley defines evolution in his textbook titled 'Evolution', a work cited by Steve Jones in 'Darwins Ghost' as a standard text on evolution, and, 3 of Mark Ridley's works are cited in the Bibliography of 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. (So, I take it he's an expert on what evolution is.)

Ridleys basic definition:

Evolution means change in living things over long periods of time.

p.3

The following is my synopsis of Chapter 1.1 from the textbook Evolution by Mark Ridley.

Ridley says that evolution means change in the form (macroscopic morphology), social behavior, and DNA sequences between generations. He then clarifies this by stating that developmental change within the life of the organism is not evolution per se, and this statement refers only to change between generations.

The author also states that changes within an ecosystem as a whole (something made up of numerous species) would not be considered evolution. (Example: a 10 species ecosystem in which 5 species go extinct and are replaced by 5 species from a different region with different characteristics, would not be considered an example of evolution.) A good quote: "Evolution then consists of change between generations within a population lineage."

Ridley goes on to describe some of the properties on which evolution is dependant. Namely, environmental stressors, and random positive genetic innovation. He says that the future course of evolution is unpredictable except conditionally. He describes evolution as proceeding in a 'branching tree-like' pattern as lineages have repeatedly split off since the original first life-form.

The author concludes section 1.1 by pointing out that the application of the word 'evolution' to politics, economics, history, technology, scientific theories, etc. is synonymous with 'change over time' and is fundamentally different from how it is used in evolutionary biology. Ridley remarks that while these things do change over time, they seldom split in the process, which is a hallmark of biological evolution. Quote: "Change and splitting provide two of the main themes of evolutionary theory."

I hope this information is illuminating.

 

[Zadok]

But when you read up on scientific theories, please use present day ones as a reference. Remember, things in science are ALWAYS changing.

Microevolution AND macroevolution are both observable.

Macroevolution is the same as SPECIATION

If you want sources on observable macroevolution please let me know and i'll get it for you...

 

[unworthyone]

I don't have a problem with evolution as a means for explaining certain things but it will always leave question unanswered and it takes an IQ of over 150 to fully understand it. Isn't there some saying how the simplest explanation is probably the one more likely?

 

[Zadok]

Isn't there some saying how the simplest explanation is probably the one more likely?

Ocam's Razor.



If you "creationists" would just say "god did it" and leave it alone instead of trying to explain a supernatural event based on naturalistic terms, im sure things would work out for the better!!

 

[unworthyone]

This seems like a simple question but I've never had it answered in laymans terms:

How do you know that all these fossils in the records were not all created at one time but slowly died off and didn't evolve at all? How can you ever prove they did evolve?

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Zadok
Ocam's Razor.
If you "creationists" would just say "god did it" and leave it alone instead of trying to explain a supernatural event based on naturalistic terms, im sure things would work out for the better!!

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Zadok
But when you read up on scientific theories, please use present day ones as a reference. Remember, things in science are ALWAYS changing.

Microevolution AND macroevolution are both observable.

Macroevolution is the same as SPECIATION

If you want sources on observable macroevolution please let me know and i'll get it for you...

Yes, an observable case of macroevolution please. Preferably not involving yeast, but I'll take that one too just as a starting point.

 

[Zadok]

Except morphological and chronological intermediaries exist. Genuses and species both share uncanny genetic characteristics that develop over a certain amount of generations.

You can show the evolutionary sequence for, lets say, mammls, by looking through the fossil record for morphological and chronological intermediaries that share the same characteristics, i.e. skull openings, teeth shape etc etc...

Determining how evolution happened is what certain 'isms are all about. The most popular being Darwinism. I actually dissagree with darwanism and being my own personal opinion that evoultion happens in great spurts than settles.

Ask to know more...

 

[goseyn]

Originally posted by unworthyone
I don't have a problem with evolution as a means for explaining certain things but it will always leave question unanswered and it takes an IQ of over 150 to fully understand it. Isn't there some saying how the simplest explanation is probably the one more likely?

It's called 'Occam's Razor', but I don't think that involking it in this instance will be found to be convincing to evolutionists.

How do you know that all these fossils in the records were not all created at one time but slowly died off and didn't evolve at all? How can you ever prove they did evolve?

An evolutionist would probably point toward the so-called 'genetic clock'. This is the theory that one can figure out the point of divergance between living species by comparing their DNA. An illustration: if we know that humans and apes are morphologically related (look simular) then we can look at the differences within the DNA of the two and come up with a perspective time in which the two lines split.

There are problems with biomolecular 'clocks' like this, but there is indeed an evolutionist answer to the question.

 

[Zadok]

The most common arguement creationists give is "well you don't see animals becoming other animals"!! Well, it dosn't exactly work that way.

But, this is what macroevolution is all about... I'll get the sources in just a sec...

There are litteraly HUNDREDS of documented cases...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Zadok
Ask to know more...

How similar are we to dogs? And looks can be deceiving (you should know that by now).

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Zadok
There are litteraly HUNDREDS of documented cases...

Please don't bring up the ring species herrings that are changing colors and size.

 

[Zadok]

I'm sure as heck not going to list them all, but I put a good number of them on here from the creation/evolution website talkorigins.org

enjoy, complete with references too...



Example one:


Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:


Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:


Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:


Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self- incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

 

[Zadok]

The study of the "origins" of life on earth is called ABIOGENESIS.

This is when life came from non life. Have fun trying to "define" what life is by the way.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Zadok
I'm sure as heck not going to list them all, but I put a good number of them on here from the creation/evolution website talkorigins.org

enjoy, complete with references too...

It would take me going back to school for 4 years to understand it. LOL.
Why does it have to be so darned complicated?

I mean, I would like to seriously understand it but I can see why people don't. Every other word consists of a -id or -oly. Give me an explanation so that a high school graduate ONLY would understand it.

This is exactly why it should not be taught in junior/elementary schools. They have no idea what the heck is going on. It's absurd to show kids stuff like this and expect to form any reasonable questions about it. They just see it and go, "Okay if that what they say it must be true". Its sooo freaking annoying, and its a monopoly. But I guess its okay because the only objection is in Creationism.

 

[Shane Roach]

Thanks Zadok. Gonna be a while at this then. The fireweed one, doubling chromosome count? Can you explain this then?

It would probably have been more helpful for a discussion to limit your examples to things that directly adressed what I was talking about. Several of these don't convince me for exactly the reason you seem to have understood, as you made mention of it in the note about fireweed.

 

[Zadok]

Mind you, I still only have a lifetime of the love of paleontology and lots of time hunting for fossils. I' will be going on to school to get my "minor" in geology (rocks bore me : then later to go on to study vertebrate paleontology (dinosaurs rule!!). Im in my 20's by the way, so im not no stinkin' kid =)

EVOLUTION FOR DUMMIES VOLUME 1:

My goodness, lemme think of some example before posting again...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone

It would take me going back to school for 4 years to understand it. LOL.
Why does it have to be so darned complicated?

I dunno. Ask God. The world is full of really simple-looking things that get very complicated very quickly. This appears to be a recurring theme.

And yes, it is a definite problem that there are so many issues that take so long to learn. I doubt any one person can fully understand modern molecular biology, nuclear physics, topology, the C++ programming language, and the complete doctrinal history of Christianity. Any *one* of those would be a life's work, and then some... So you sort of run out of options other than trusting other people to be good at their fields, and focusing on yours, and doing your best to explain *your* fields of interest as well as you can when people ask.

 

[Zadok]

There is nothing that I could say that someone else hasn't said better. This is a philosophy I hold true.

There really isn't a simple way of explaining evolution other than, genes in a gene pool change over time, how and why they change are what science debates constantly.

Go to aboutorigins.org for a good starting point for the evolution/creation controversy. It contains some of the best compiled material on evolution in one spot for immediate viewing. It contains all of the arguments and all of the flaws for both sides. Please go see it.

 

[Shane Roach]

is it aboutorigins or talkorigins or both? I can't get aboutorigins.org for some reason.