Evolution V. Creation

Evolution V. Creation

Evolution

Should the stork theory appear in books on reproduction? How about astrological lore in expositions on astronomy? It would be unreasonable to even consider those ridiculous concepts. This is why the idea of creation should not be considered as the answer to how life began. Rather, the theory of evolution accounts for the creation of life. Charles Darwin is credited with creating the theory of evolution. Evolution assumes that all natural forms arose from their ancestors and adapted over time to their environments, thus leading to variation. In evolution, there are many rules the environment places upon the survival of a species. “There are many misconceptions that creationists have about evolution. A large part of the reason why creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous” (Isaak). Evolution refers to change, or transformation over time. “There are numerous ways in which evolution occurs, the most noted are Natural Selection and Adaptation” (“Evolution v. Creationism”). As Savage said, “We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges” (v).

A very popular, although erroneous, argument given by creationists is that evolution has never been observed. Evolution at its simplest involves relatively minor changes in the gene pool of a particular population from one generation to the next (Savage 32). One example of evolution being observed is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. “What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution” (Isaak). According to Isaak, what they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

Another inaccurate argument against evolution is that there are no transitional fossils. A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two (Prinze). To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Prinze continues, “Transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down.” According to Prinze, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. "The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like ‘dog’ or ‘ant,’ they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category" (Isaak). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Another misconception is that the theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. But there is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution (Isaak). Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. "Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out" (Dennett 146). According to Dennett, when the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species (146). Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange