Introduction
This thread is about two things.
First to inform the public on topics that are commonly misunderstood by the public. I don't care what the topic is so long as what you state is accurate and preferably thorough. I will add the posts to my own that I find to be accurate for better visibility. Of course I do not claim to be knowledgeable on all things so I will determine accuracy by checking sources and the like.
Secondly any questions you may have about the topics detailed here. Whether you would like to point out flaws you perceive in the topic, mistakes made in the topic, add information you think is relevant to the topic, request specific information on the topic, or something else. I simply ask you don't get too opinionated with your posts
I am well aware that there are a number of threads dealing with the whole "Evolution vs Creationism" concept right now. This is not to be one of those threads. What I hope to start here is a thread that thoroughly details topics misunderstood by the public purely to better educate everyone on what they are talking about.
I can not stress this point enough. I don't care if you do or do not agree that the topic described is true or not. I care whether or not you actually know what the topic is simply because it is important in order to be able to actually argue for or against the topic. I use Evolution as a starting point because its a topic I'm relatively well versed in, it fits the criteria and because its been such a hot topic lately.
I warn you this is practically a small essay in terms of length, but I tried to organize it so that it is easily navigated.
Conclusion
Thank you to all of those who took the time to read that small essay. I started this thread because I believe continuously replying with a thorough accurate explanation is the best tool to fight misinformation, lies, and to resolve misunderstandings in general. Feel free to reuse my topic (Evolution) in its entirety if you so desire.
This thread is about two things.
First to inform the public on topics that are commonly misunderstood by the public. I don't care what the topic is so long as what you state is accurate and preferably thorough. I will add the posts to my own that I find to be accurate for better visibility. Of course I do not claim to be knowledgeable on all things so I will determine accuracy by checking sources and the like.
Secondly any questions you may have about the topics detailed here. Whether you would like to point out flaws you perceive in the topic, mistakes made in the topic, add information you think is relevant to the topic, request specific information on the topic, or something else. I simply ask you don't get too opinionated with your posts
I am well aware that there are a number of threads dealing with the whole "Evolution vs Creationism" concept right now. This is not to be one of those threads. What I hope to start here is a thread that thoroughly details topics misunderstood by the public purely to better educate everyone on what they are talking about.
I can not stress this point enough. I don't care if you do or do not agree that the topic described is true or not. I care whether or not you actually know what the topic is simply because it is important in order to be able to actually argue for or against the topic. I use Evolution as a starting point because its a topic I'm relatively well versed in, it fits the criteria and because its been such a hot topic lately.
I warn you this is practically a small essay in terms of length, but I tried to organize it so that it is easily navigated.
Motives and Credentials.
After witnessing the gross misunderstanding of Evolution lately both from supporters and those opposed to it I decided to post this description of both what it is, what it predicts, and what it is not. I am by no means an expert in the field of Evolution, nor have I done any work in the field of Evolution beyond that of a typical biology major. I have however worked with two experts in the field of biology, am graduating soon with a Bachelors in Biology, and have already completed my coursework relating to biology for my degree. I would like to point out that while I do agree with everything that I'm posting it is not my opinion. It is textbook definitions and well accepted science.
What is Evolution?
What comes to mind when you think evolution is likely not evolution at all, but a prediction made by evolution. Darwin was not the first to observe evolution. In fact Darwin sought to uncover what caused evolution as it was at that time an unexplained observable phenomenon. Evolution is rather straight forward, is observable, and does not require any fossils to validate itself. For those not wishing to read my quite literally textbook definition here is a more concise definition.
Evolution is a change in the traits of a population over time. Change being either the fixation of new traits, or changes in the distribution of already existing ones.
"Evolution in a broad sense, [is] the origin of entities possessing different states of one or more characteristics and changes in those proportions of those entities over time. Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon."1
This is observable, and has been observed in the same manner we have observed any other scientific theory.2,3
What causes Evolution?
This is where terms like Natural selection and mutation come into play. However, those are not the only things that cause evolution. Genetic drift, gene-flow, artificial selection, biased mutation, and many other things can cause evolution. The only criteria for causing evolution is to cause what was described above. The following are explanations and textbook definition of the key concepts in evolution. Those are Natural selection, Genetic drift, Mutation, and Speciation. Keep in mind that both my explanations and the textbook definitions are summaries of topics that are actually quite complex and involve a multitude of concepts themselves. I would be writing a a series of textbooks if I hoped to explain them completely.
Natural Selection is commonly referred to as "Survival of the fittest" and the "Driving force of Evolution". This means that some trait allows an organism to be able to reproduce better than fellow members of your species and that the genes that allowed you to do so will make up a greater proportion of future populations. This is logical not theoretical, and again is observable.
"Natural selection [is] the differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics. To constitute natural selection, the difference in survival and/or reproduction cannot be due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the different entities. Thus natural selection is also definable as a deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes, or subsets of genotypes, populations, or, in the broadest sense, species. A complex concept..."
This definition then refers to read an entire chapter dedicated to the topic, so again keep in mind its actually rather more complex than "Survival of the fittest" even though that is the simplest explanation. Again this is both observable, and has been observed. 2,3
"Genetic Drift random changes in the frequencies of two or more alleles or genotypes within a population." 1
Simply put this accounts for observed randomness in some evolutionary patterns. Genetic drift can actually counteract Natural Selection or accelerate it. That is having a trait may make one more fit but your trait may be drowned out due to random chances. As predicted by probability Genetic drift can have extremely important effects on evolution in small populations, but becomes less influential in larger populations. Look up things like the founder effect and bottleneck if you wish to learn more.
Mutation is commonly referred to as the fuel for evolution. It allows room for new previously non-existing traits to appear in a population, and allows that population to become drastically different once accumulated.
"Mutation [is] an error in the replication of a nucleotide sequence, or any other alteration of the genome that is not manifested as a reciprocal recombination." 1
There really isn't much more to say about this, but that mutations are clearly observable.
"Speciation [is] evolution of reproductive isolation within an ancestral species, resulting in two or more descendant species." 1
Speciation is arguably the most important part of evolution. It is when the entire theory comes together to explain the origin of new species to which the theory was meant to explain. Once a new species occurs it can undergo different evolution than its ancestor or sister species and become something drastically different. One becomes two, two becomes four, and so forth.
Again it is observable and has been observed. A semi-personal experience I have with this is that the Dean of the biology department in the university to which I attend and the man who taught me (and everyone else in my Evolution lecture) the more intricate details of evolution does work on this very subject. He studies the speciation that is currently happening between flies that live on two different species of goldenrod. Other examples of speciation have been observed of course, but that is an example that has always stuck with me. If you wish to see the example I am talking about see section 5.5.2 in my 3rd citation or my fourth citation.4
Predictions of Evolution
This is what many non-scientist find so controversial. Most predictions are uncontroversial, that speciation will occur under certain conditions, that evolution will occur under selective pressures, and other such things that have been validate to the same level of gravity. That is, we have observed it directly.
Where things become controversial (for non-scientist) is that evolution predicts that man evolved from an ape ancestor, and that every living species has some common ancestry. So far these predictions have been in line with evidence uncovered through paleontology and genetic analysis. We know speciation can occur, as stated above through speciation that is happening today. It is therefor no stretch to think it has happened in the past, and that a large number of these events can result in a numerous amounts of different organism that we see today
We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between reptiles and birds which are actually so closely related that they belong to the same phylum. We can actually turn on some genes in birds so that they grow traits associated with reptiles, such as facial structure and the presence of teeth. In fact, this sometimes happens naturally and is the origin of ?hens teeth?. We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between reptiles and mammals. We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between ape and human. These are by no means complete, but we do not need completeness for the individual components to be evidence towards something especially if that something is already predicted by a well established scientific theory.
I will not reference them here as the diversity of information is to great for me to do it any justice within the time frame I wish. However if you would like to find the sources yourself I encourage you start with the following. Look up Synapsids, in particular Cynognathus, for the mammal-like reptiles and homo species for human-ape intermediates. Looking up the reptile bird connection is rather straight forward, but I point you to the most common example (there are many others) of Archaeopteryx.
Controversy in Evolution
I add this section not because its particularly important for the layman to understand evolution, but because many opponents to evolution will point out that "Not all of the science community agree on evolution' as if it there was a significant part of the scientific community that thinks evolution is not the most inclusive and well tested theory in determining the origin of species.
Evolutionary scientists disagree on a number of fine points within evolution. The major dispute is between those who think Gradualism is the most important contributor, or if punctuated equilibrium is. Both of these theories fall under what I previously described as evolution, the definitions I gave, and the predictions I stated.
"Gradualism [is] the proposition that large differences in phenotypic characters have evolved through many slightly different intermediate states."
"Punctuated equilibrium [is] A pattern of rapid evolutionary change in the phenotype of a lineage separated by long periods of little change; also; a hypothesis intended to explain such a pattern, whereby phenotypic change transpires rapidly in small populations, in concert with the evolution of reproductive isolation. "
Both are currently valid hypothesizes, and each have some convincing evidence. That is why its controversial. Both can occur, but which is the typical case is what is considered controversial.
What evolution is not.
Evolution is not a belief, a religion, or a creed. It says nothing about the origin of life in the way its typically talked about. Although chemical evolution (notably different than Biological evolution) is a hypothesis for the origin of life we currently lack the experimental evidence to elevate it to a scientific theory. Evolution says nothing about the existence of god except that some of its predictions conflict with creationist stories. Most notably that god created man as man is currently today.
The End and Rant
As stated in my introduction I have no problem with you believing in creationism, or another explanation instead of Evolution. That is your personal decision so no need to bring those up.
I do have a problem when you suggest that evolution is not accepted science, or state that pseudo-scientific ideas like Intelligent design are just as valid and well supported concepts and/or that both should be taught in a science classroom. As such expect me to completely dismantle a reply that states such things. Such things are never going to be taught as science, because a trained scientists knows what science is, and that such theories are not science. To force them to teach it would be the equivalent of forcing a English teacher/professor to teach math alongside English. Regardless of whether or not it is true it would be both be confusing, detrimental to teaching the subject and silly to do so. I plan on making another two topic segments about what ID actually states, and what pseudo-science is if this thread lasts a day and another has not already done so.
1. Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005. Print.
2. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec09.html
3. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
4. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710
After witnessing the gross misunderstanding of Evolution lately both from supporters and those opposed to it I decided to post this description of both what it is, what it predicts, and what it is not. I am by no means an expert in the field of Evolution, nor have I done any work in the field of Evolution beyond that of a typical biology major. I have however worked with two experts in the field of biology, am graduating soon with a Bachelors in Biology, and have already completed my coursework relating to biology for my degree. I would like to point out that while I do agree with everything that I'm posting it is not my opinion. It is textbook definitions and well accepted science.
What is Evolution?
What comes to mind when you think evolution is likely not evolution at all, but a prediction made by evolution. Darwin was not the first to observe evolution. In fact Darwin sought to uncover what caused evolution as it was at that time an unexplained observable phenomenon. Evolution is rather straight forward, is observable, and does not require any fossils to validate itself. For those not wishing to read my quite literally textbook definition here is a more concise definition.
Evolution is a change in the traits of a population over time. Change being either the fixation of new traits, or changes in the distribution of already existing ones.
"Evolution in a broad sense, [is] the origin of entities possessing different states of one or more characteristics and changes in those proportions of those entities over time. Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon."1
This is observable, and has been observed in the same manner we have observed any other scientific theory.2,3
What causes Evolution?
This is where terms like Natural selection and mutation come into play. However, those are not the only things that cause evolution. Genetic drift, gene-flow, artificial selection, biased mutation, and many other things can cause evolution. The only criteria for causing evolution is to cause what was described above. The following are explanations and textbook definition of the key concepts in evolution. Those are Natural selection, Genetic drift, Mutation, and Speciation. Keep in mind that both my explanations and the textbook definitions are summaries of topics that are actually quite complex and involve a multitude of concepts themselves. I would be writing a a series of textbooks if I hoped to explain them completely.
Natural Selection is commonly referred to as "Survival of the fittest" and the "Driving force of Evolution". This means that some trait allows an organism to be able to reproduce better than fellow members of your species and that the genes that allowed you to do so will make up a greater proportion of future populations. This is logical not theoretical, and again is observable.
"Natural selection [is] the differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics. To constitute natural selection, the difference in survival and/or reproduction cannot be due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the different entities. Thus natural selection is also definable as a deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes, or subsets of genotypes, populations, or, in the broadest sense, species. A complex concept..."
This definition then refers to read an entire chapter dedicated to the topic, so again keep in mind its actually rather more complex than "Survival of the fittest" even though that is the simplest explanation. Again this is both observable, and has been observed. 2,3
"Genetic Drift random changes in the frequencies of two or more alleles or genotypes within a population." 1
Simply put this accounts for observed randomness in some evolutionary patterns. Genetic drift can actually counteract Natural Selection or accelerate it. That is having a trait may make one more fit but your trait may be drowned out due to random chances. As predicted by probability Genetic drift can have extremely important effects on evolution in small populations, but becomes less influential in larger populations. Look up things like the founder effect and bottleneck if you wish to learn more.
Mutation is commonly referred to as the fuel for evolution. It allows room for new previously non-existing traits to appear in a population, and allows that population to become drastically different once accumulated.
"Mutation [is] an error in the replication of a nucleotide sequence, or any other alteration of the genome that is not manifested as a reciprocal recombination." 1
There really isn't much more to say about this, but that mutations are clearly observable.
"Speciation [is] evolution of reproductive isolation within an ancestral species, resulting in two or more descendant species." 1
Speciation is arguably the most important part of evolution. It is when the entire theory comes together to explain the origin of new species to which the theory was meant to explain. Once a new species occurs it can undergo different evolution than its ancestor or sister species and become something drastically different. One becomes two, two becomes four, and so forth.
Again it is observable and has been observed. A semi-personal experience I have with this is that the Dean of the biology department in the university to which I attend and the man who taught me (and everyone else in my Evolution lecture) the more intricate details of evolution does work on this very subject. He studies the speciation that is currently happening between flies that live on two different species of goldenrod. Other examples of speciation have been observed of course, but that is an example that has always stuck with me. If you wish to see the example I am talking about see section 5.5.2 in my 3rd citation or my fourth citation.4
Predictions of Evolution
This is what many non-scientist find so controversial. Most predictions are uncontroversial, that speciation will occur under certain conditions, that evolution will occur under selective pressures, and other such things that have been validate to the same level of gravity. That is, we have observed it directly.
Where things become controversial (for non-scientist) is that evolution predicts that man evolved from an ape ancestor, and that every living species has some common ancestry. So far these predictions have been in line with evidence uncovered through paleontology and genetic analysis. We know speciation can occur, as stated above through speciation that is happening today. It is therefor no stretch to think it has happened in the past, and that a large number of these events can result in a numerous amounts of different organism that we see today
We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between reptiles and birds which are actually so closely related that they belong to the same phylum. We can actually turn on some genes in birds so that they grow traits associated with reptiles, such as facial structure and the presence of teeth. In fact, this sometimes happens naturally and is the origin of ?hens teeth?. We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between reptiles and mammals. We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between ape and human. These are by no means complete, but we do not need completeness for the individual components to be evidence towards something especially if that something is already predicted by a well established scientific theory.
I will not reference them here as the diversity of information is to great for me to do it any justice within the time frame I wish. However if you would like to find the sources yourself I encourage you start with the following. Look up Synapsids, in particular Cynognathus, for the mammal-like reptiles and homo species for human-ape intermediates. Looking up the reptile bird connection is rather straight forward, but I point you to the most common example (there are many others) of Archaeopteryx.
Controversy in Evolution
I add this section not because its particularly important for the layman to understand evolution, but because many opponents to evolution will point out that "Not all of the science community agree on evolution' as if it there was a significant part of the scientific community that thinks evolution is not the most inclusive and well tested theory in determining the origin of species.
Evolutionary scientists disagree on a number of fine points within evolution. The major dispute is between those who think Gradualism is the most important contributor, or if punctuated equilibrium is. Both of these theories fall under what I previously described as evolution, the definitions I gave, and the predictions I stated.
"Gradualism [is] the proposition that large differences in phenotypic characters have evolved through many slightly different intermediate states."
"Punctuated equilibrium [is] A pattern of rapid evolutionary change in the phenotype of a lineage separated by long periods of little change; also; a hypothesis intended to explain such a pattern, whereby phenotypic change transpires rapidly in small populations, in concert with the evolution of reproductive isolation. "
Both are currently valid hypothesizes, and each have some convincing evidence. That is why its controversial. Both can occur, but which is the typical case is what is considered controversial.
What evolution is not.
Evolution is not a belief, a religion, or a creed. It says nothing about the origin of life in the way its typically talked about. Although chemical evolution (notably different than Biological evolution) is a hypothesis for the origin of life we currently lack the experimental evidence to elevate it to a scientific theory. Evolution says nothing about the existence of god except that some of its predictions conflict with creationist stories. Most notably that god created man as man is currently today.
The End and Rant
As stated in my introduction I have no problem with you believing in creationism, or another explanation instead of Evolution. That is your personal decision so no need to bring those up.
I do have a problem when you suggest that evolution is not accepted science, or state that pseudo-scientific ideas like Intelligent design are just as valid and well supported concepts and/or that both should be taught in a science classroom. As such expect me to completely dismantle a reply that states such things. Such things are never going to be taught as science, because a trained scientists knows what science is, and that such theories are not science. To force them to teach it would be the equivalent of forcing a English teacher/professor to teach math alongside English. Regardless of whether or not it is true it would be both be confusing, detrimental to teaching the subject and silly to do so. I plan on making another two topic segments about what ID actually states, and what pseudo-science is if this thread lasts a day and another has not already done so.
1. Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005. Print.
2. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec09.html
3. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
4. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710
Conclusion
Thank you to all of those who took the time to read that small essay. I started this thread because I believe continuously replying with a thorough accurate explanation is the best tool to fight misinformation, lies, and to resolve misunderstandings in general. Feel free to reuse my topic (Evolution) in its entirety if you so desire.
