HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 2, 2005 On a bright and sunny day the Jehovah's Witnesses came by and gave me some literature which insists that scientists are mixed over “Darwin's” theory of evolution and many are changing their minds. They even included some misquoted bits from science magazines. The so called “evolution debate” is full of myths. I've honestly never encountered someone against evolution that actually knows what it is. This is a real problem – America is weak in science – this is not a good trend, and bad for our future. I'm not going to attempt teach evolution in this article – I'm no scientist - but I do want to expose some of the more common myths. I'll expose a few more in the second part, which I'll write later on this week (hopefully). In my opinion, the following should be common knowledge. We all know that the world is round, we know that Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the 21st century is no time to be ignorant of some basic misconceptions. That scientists are “leaving” the theory is myth number one. Evolution is accepted as fact, so much so that it's the cornerstone of modern biology. It's even included on that list of things which makes something alive, if you can remember back to grade-school science class. A rock is not alive, in part, because it doesn't evolve. A semi-recent National Geographic Magazine was titled, “Was Darwin Wrong”? Their answer was, of course, “no”. I highly recommend that issue – it explains what evidence Darwin found compelling – remember that this was before the discovery of DNA. Scientific American on the web recently used evolution as their April's Fools joke: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F&colID=2 It's a very funny article, highly recommended reading as well. Here is another amusing example – scientists named “Steve” that accept the theory: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp It's both funny and sad that our nation's scientists have to get involved like this. So, no, scientists are not mixed and conflicted as some religious material insists. Myth number two is that evolution is “just a theory”. This is wrong in many ways. First and foremost, it misrepresents what a theory is. Theories explain facts. The “how” for the diversity of life is evolution. That life changes over time is fact. Electricity is also “just a theory”. Atoms and their various sub-particles are also “just theories”. Indeed, science is a collection of theories, for the most part. Second, don't confuse the common usage of the word “theory”; scientific theories require evidence, they make predictions which can be tested and they generally must be falsifiable. That last one is a real kicker – how I wish other disciplines were so interested in the truth! A theory generally must explain in detail that which needs to occur or be discovered to show that theory to be wrong. In other words, something which can not be proved false cannot be a scientific theory. Science isn't a field for the thin-skinned. The nature of science is such that a scientist invites his colleagues to not only come to the same conclusions given the same data, but to actively attempt to prove his hypothesis wrong. Myth number three is the oft-used statement, “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys”? First, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor which also lead to several ape-lines, including the other living apes (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc.) Another way to answer this, however, would be to say, “I came from my grandma, and she's still there”. Evolution doesn't morph one species into another species: poof! and fish become frogs. Evolution gradually changes populations of animals – traits that enhance survival tend to breed true. This is very easy to see with dog breeds. The process here is artificial selection. Where in natural selection the force for change might be a gradually cooling climate, artificial selection has humans which decide they want to breed only dogs with fat and fluffy tails, until a very odd looking breed evolves, like a chow. This doesn't mean that all dogs become chows. Likewise in nature, populations of animals are separated; traits that breed true among one sub-group may differ from those in another. Animals that find themselves stuck on islands give perhaps the most clear example of this as they change, sometimes drastically, from their still existing main-land comrades. Finally, myth number four, “there are no transitional fossils”. First, “transitional” can be misleading. Such a fossil can be any fossil we don't have. Typically, they refer to adaptations having to do with seemingly grand lifestyle changes, land to sea, sea to land, land to air, and so on. But consider that “transitional” creatures are as real as any other. A sea lion might look like something which has decided to leave the land and return to the sea, while a flying squirrel might look like something which wants to take to the sky like a bat and so on, but each creature is a fully developed, “normal” animal in its own right. Second, of course we have transitional fossils. Archeopteryx is perhaps the most famous – it looks like a bird with wings and feathers, but has the mouth of a dinosaur. We've since found other dinosaurs with feathers that are much less-bird like, suggesting that features evolved for non-flight related reasons first. We've also found fossils of creatures that are “half-way” between land animals and whales. But, again, “half-way” is misleading – that animal was a fully developed, happy animal in it's own right. Of course we have vestiges in living animals as well, useless leg bones in snakes and so on – these also highlight transition. The chance of anything fossilizing at all is slim; I'm amazed we have as many fossils as we do. http://www.talkorigins.org is great site to get more information on this fascinating topic and everything else related. In part 2, I will attempt to debunk the following:
------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
