Evolution

Experiments have shown that a myriad of different, apparantly unrelated organisms have processes that give their offspring new traits. Some of these traits make it easier for those offspring to survive and procreate. Some of them make it harder.

Experimental and empirical data have been collected on a vast number of organisms. The case of England’s Peppered Moths demonstrates a “natural” form of evolution. 200 years ago, the peppered moth was mostly white. (I say “natural”, because this effect was never intended. Similar evolution would have occured with natural sources of soot, like volcanic ash) With the rise of the industrial evolution and its subsequent pollution, the environment of the peppered moth changed. The burning coal dropped soot on trees, darkening them. It also killed off the light colored lichens on and around the trees.

With their environment significantly changed, the moths no longer had effective camouflage in their natural environment, and their natural predators should have decimated their ranks. But, some of these moths DID have effective camouflage, in the form of much darker tones. While the Light moths were nearly annihilated, the dark moths flourished.

But do moths alone indicate proof of evolution? Of course not, they are only a tiny piece of evidence that supports it, hardly conclusive.

How about Peas? Some of the earliest genetics experiments were done by Gregor Mendel -an Augustinian priest and scientist - from 1856 to 1863. Mendel discovered and proved what we now call recessive traits, features that only occur when both parents carry the genetic code that causes it. Mendel cross pollinated yellow, smooth peas with green, wrinkly peas, and discovered that ALL of the offspring were yellow and smooth. He interbred the offspring, and discovered that 1 in 4 of the plants, on average, were green, and 1 in 4 were wrinkled. 1 in 16 were both green and wrinkled. But, the green and wrinkled traits were apparantly bred out in the second generation. (there is plenty of additional information available on Mendel’s experiments, I suggest wikipedia as a good starting point. Mendel’s research was so revolutionary and somewhat controversial that it was ignored for nearly 50 years, yet his theories were the starting point for ALL subsequent genetic research.)

Mendel discovered that despite being yellow and round, peas could carry the genes that allowed for Green and Wrinkled. What does this mean with regards to evolution?

Consider the moths again. When white moths became less able to survive, the were also less able to reproduce. Black moths were not only more able to reproduce, they were less able to reproduce with other white moths (white moths were eaten by predators at a much higher rate) so black became the predominant feature.

But, this still isn’t enough evidence to suggest evolution. At best we’ve demonstrated that certain traits can be coaxed into existence with sufficient environmental pressures, we’ve identified and quantified the amount of pressure it would take to press these traits into the predominant feature. (In the example of the moths, color of their habitat; in the example of the peas, something that affected yellow or round peas would leave only green or wrinkled peas to pass on genes) Furthermore, we’ve identified similarities between insects and plants. (There is plenty of additional evidence for this, however, because this aspect of evolutionary processes is not often challenged, I leave it to you, the reader, to research and discover)

<=== This photo is NOT photoshopped. This is a Harlequin Great Dane named Gibson, owned by Sandy Hall of Grass Valley, California. Gibson stands 42 inches at the shoulder. (photo from BigPawsOnly.com)

=====>

This photo isn’t photoshopped either. This is Big Boss, a Yorkshire Terrier only 4.7 inches tall.

(Photo from Guinness World Records)

How about dogs? Every canine on the planet has a common, wolf-like ancestor. (by common ancester, I am referring to a common ancestral species, not an individual member of that species) Even if you don’t believe that, the recent origin of certain breeds is well established. The German Shepherd, Doberman Pinscher, Yorkshire Terrier, and Labrador Retriever all originated just before the turn of the 20th century. The St. Bernard first showed up in the 1000’s. All of these breeds, and hundreds of others were intentionally created by breeding dogs that expressed certain traits. The fact that they COULD be intentionally created indicates that they had the ability to evolve. That similar breeds can procreate to produce entirely new animals - mutts - indicates that the ability to evolve has not been removed.

Which brings me to my next point, Speciation. Speciation is sometimes used to challenge the theory of evolution, and says, for example “Yes, there are different breeds. There are big dogs, there are small dogs, some have big, droopy ears, some have small pointy ones. Some have long fur, some have short fur. But all of them are dogs!”. I challenge this theory on a couple issues.

First, certain dog pairs cannot procreate. Ever see a Yorkshire Terrier/Great Dane mix? St. Bernard/Chihuahua? The effects of speciation can create animals that can no longer interbreed. If this had happened in nature, these animals would be identified with a new genus and/or a new species. But, because these types of animals only exist due to human influences, they are not considered unique species, but are universally referred to as Canis Familiaris.

Second, these criticisms compare a large group of animals (dogs) to an individual species (Homo sapiens) Go ahead and compare dogs to hominids, or St Bernards and Chihuahuas to Humans and Chimpanzees. When you do, you quickly see that this theory of speciation no longer supports its claims. We find in both groups that some members can interbreed (certain species of monkeys can interbreed, Native Americans and Japanese; blacks and whites; Labrador retrievers and Doberman pinschers; Chihuahuas and Yorkshire Terriers) while some cannot (The afore mentioned Dane/Yorkie; Chimpanzee and Gorilla; Human and Orangutan) Sure, breeding two dogs will produce a dog. Breeding two hominids will produce a hominid. Eventually, though, individual dogs will not be able to interbreed, just as individual hominids are no longer able to interbreed. Comparing Dogs to Humans, though, is like comparing Mammals to Angelfish, or Vegetables to Apples. It’s not an accurate or fair comparison.

So far, though, we’ve only looked at incredibly sophisticated life forms. I mean, compared to bacteria, amoebas, paramecia, etc, even the simple pea plant has multiple redundant organs and tissues, and a method of sexual reproduction that combines the genetic code from two plants to create new offspring.

What about the tiniest life forms? Do they also show signs of evolutionary processes?

We can see some evidence that they evolve with the rise in antibiotic resistant strands of TB, Methicillin and Oxacillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA and ORSA), and dozens of others. Under environmental pressures similar to those for the moths, the only bacteria that can procreate are the ones that survive the antibiotic measures taken to counter them.

In an experiment involving 10,000 generations of bacteria, the DNA of the resulting offspring was radically different from both the original parents AND eachother. This demonstrates that simple isolation from the parent community is enough to instigate divergent evolution. Consider bacteria in the ocean being separated, and deposited inland during a tidal wave. They could grow for thousands, millions of generations before the next tidal wave occurs, and after a few years or decades, when the next tidal wave hits, we could then see two types of bacteria prevalent in the oceans, yet both have a common ancestor. (this also explains why there are still apes despite the evolutionary claim that we evolved from apes - we evolved separate and apart from modern apes)

Nearly every enlisted member of the US Air Force originally from Ohio can testify to regional influence on the Pigeon. In Ohio, pigeons are about the size of a fist; at Lackland Air Force Base, they are the size of small chickens. Everything, so the saying goes, is bigger in Texas.

We’ve seen how organisms large and small can spawn new organisms, but we also see the limits of evolution. Without an initial life form, biological evolution simply cannot occur. So, we’re ultimately looking at a form of abiogenesis in Earth’s “early” history. (My definition of early and the traditional Christian definition of early are two vastly different concepts, yet we both agree on a form of abiogenesis. The question is only whether Dirt + God or primordial “goo” were the components of the first life forms. I’ll address theology and origins later)

Surely Louis Pasteur’s experiments disprove abiogenesis. If not his experiments, then that old “Atheist Nightmare” -the “Jar of Peanut Butter” - sufficiently discredits the theory, right?

Modern theories of abiogenesis do not contradict Pasteur’s experiments. Pasteur determined that one type of life form (cow) does not spontaneously turn into another type of life form (flies). Modern theories suggest that non-biologic processes can produce amino acids, which can produce proteins, which can produce lifeforms.

As far as the jar of peanut butter, the theory goes that since energy and matter are available in the jar, we should eventually open the jar and find new life forms, right? Of course, peanut butter is only in the jar for what, 3 months? a year? the process of abiogenesis could have taken over a billion years. What, I wonder, would happen to that jar of peanut butter in those billion years…(I have to apologize to all the Christians who also think the Peanut Butter Theory is a crock, unfortunately, some “Christians” do seriously believe that Peanut Butter discredits Evolution.)

We know from basic chemistry that chemicals can interact, producing and/or consuming thermal and/or electrical energy in the process. We know that carbon and hydrogen readily interact with oxygen and a wide variety of other chemicals. We theorize that these things were available on the planet (because they are still here!) and managed to (again over the course of a billion years) create the first life form.

NASA scientists managed to create amino acids by exposing a batch of simple chemicals to ultraviolet light. All these chemicals existed on earth and in space, and UV light is readily available as evidenced by the first and second degree burns I got on my shoulders last summer.

It is only after these amino acids combined to make proteins, and these proteins combined to make life forms that evolution began to take place.

Some Christians (the majority of American Christians, if certain surveys are to be believed) contend that the Earth is a little over 6000 years old. All the evidence to the contrary - radioactive decay, fossil records, stratified sedimentary deposits etc. - was alledgedly placed here by god himself.

My question would be “If God placed all this stuff here, shouldn’t we try to figure out why? Shouldn’t we try to figure out God’s Plan?” I mean, it seems that IF God did put together this elaborate scheme to convince us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, we MIGHT want to pay attention to that fact, and try to find a meaning behind it.

Personally, I see no reason to unequivocably state that God created everything when the evidence to support contrary accounts is readily available, reproducible, and frankly, more amazing than Divine Construction, and evidence to support God rests on numerous assumptions, interpretations, and historical claims that have been proven false.

When the differences between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Judeo-Christian God are merely a matter of timing, I would say it is safe to discard the notion that God (or more accurately, the serpent who tempted Eve) is responsible for our existence.

(Except where noted, all photos are from Wikipedia)