The Shell Game of Evolution
Scientists play a game in which they use facts from phenomena for which there is clear empirical evidence to support related ideas for which there is little to no empirical evidence. This is especially true when it comes to the theory of evolution, which holds that undirected, chemical biological processes generated the very first life forms, and then caused these life forms to undergo transformations to generate the diversity of life that we see throughout earth’s history.
This idea of biological evolution is the prevailing view among the scientific community to explain life’s origin and history. However, it is a mistake to think of evolution as having a single mode of expression or as playing out in a singular fashion.
In the most generic sense, the term simply conveys the notion of change with respect to (or that happens over) time. But when it comes to biological systems, there are at least five different categories of change that fall under evolution’s umbrella. They include:
Microevolution refers to variation that takes place within a species in response to changes within the environment or in competitive and/or predator pressures—or due to random processes that scientists refer to as “genetic drift.” Microevolution does not create a new species, but simply allows a species to adapt to changes in its environment or experiences.
Speciation is a process in which long-term microevolution occurs over a significant period of time due to population isolation—where parts of the population become isolated from each other, and as a consequence, the two populations begin to assume different characteristics and/or different features.
But there is nothing radical that happens here in terms of evolutionary mechanisms being able to create anything genuinely new. Instead, it is a single species branching into two closely related sister species that are very much the same in many respects, though they differ enough to be considered different species.
Microbial evolution happens among viruses, bacteria and single-celled organisms (eukaryotes) like amoebas and paramecia, for example. The malaria parasite would be another example of this type of organism. It is very clear from the scientific evidence that microorganisms can evolve.
But again, there is nothing radical that is happening. These are still organisms that are viruses, bacteria, and single-celled eukaryotes that do not really change their characteristics all that much. They still would be considered, in a sense, the same species, but they are able to undergo evolutionary change just because of the sheer population size. The population sizes are so large that even random events are able to stumble on beneficial mutations or advantages, allowing these organisms to evolve.
However, scientists go too when they point to these occurrences as evidence that evolution has genuine creative power or potential.
The idea that nature created complex living entities from simple molecules all on its own (i.e., abiogenesis, chemical evolution, or the origin of life) through a process in which a complex chemical mixture underwent a series of transformations to generate the very first cells or life forms, ascribes to the evolutionary process something that cannot be observed anywhere in the environment.
Likewise, macroevolution is the unverifiable idea that evolution can transform one major biological group into another. Common examples include dinosaurs evolving into birds, wolf-like creatures evolving into whales, or ape-like creatures evolving into human beings. It says that the diversity of life throughout the history of life on earth can be explained though unguided, undirected evolutionary mechanisms.
Again, there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution. But when it comes to the ideas of chemical evolution (the origin of life) and macroevolution, one sees very significant scientific challenges, and this is where the shell game of evolution comes into play.
Because there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, speciation and microbial evolution, scientists will point to these categories and say, “Look, evolution is a fact!” and then try to extrapolate the weight of evidence found here, and apply it to concepts like chemical evolution and macroevolution.
For example, they will argue that because microevolution is a fact, we can be confident that an ape-like creature over the span of seven million years evolved through a series of transitional forms to produce the very first human beings. In other words, they will use evidence from microevolution to validate a concept that falls under the umbrella of macroevolution, and many people allow themselves to be sucked into this shell game of evolution.
Nonetheless, evidence for microevolution is evidence for just that—microevolution. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution. To justify human evolution, there are certain scientific criteria that must be met independently of the evidence of microevolution, speciation and microbial evolution.
These issues will be looked at in greater detail elsewhere.
Scientists play a game in which they use facts from phenomena for which there is clear empirical evidence to support related ideas for which there is little to no empirical evidence. This is especially true when it comes to the theory of evolution, which holds that undirected, chemical biological processes generated the very first life forms, and then caused these life forms to undergo transformations to generate the diversity of life that we see throughout earth’s history.
This idea of biological evolution is the prevailing view among the scientific community to explain life’s origin and history. However, it is a mistake to think of evolution as having a single mode of expression or as playing out in a singular fashion.
In the most generic sense, the term simply conveys the notion of change with respect to (or that happens over) time. But when it comes to biological systems, there are at least five different categories of change that fall under evolution’s umbrella. They include:
- Microevolution
- Speciation
- Microbial evolution
- Macroevolution
- Chemical evolution
Microevolution refers to variation that takes place within a species in response to changes within the environment or in competitive and/or predator pressures—or due to random processes that scientists refer to as “genetic drift.” Microevolution does not create a new species, but simply allows a species to adapt to changes in its environment or experiences.
Speciation is a process in which long-term microevolution occurs over a significant period of time due to population isolation—where parts of the population become isolated from each other, and as a consequence, the two populations begin to assume different characteristics and/or different features.
But there is nothing radical that happens here in terms of evolutionary mechanisms being able to create anything genuinely new. Instead, it is a single species branching into two closely related sister species that are very much the same in many respects, though they differ enough to be considered different species.
Microbial evolution happens among viruses, bacteria and single-celled organisms (eukaryotes) like amoebas and paramecia, for example. The malaria parasite would be another example of this type of organism. It is very clear from the scientific evidence that microorganisms can evolve.
But again, there is nothing radical that is happening. These are still organisms that are viruses, bacteria, and single-celled eukaryotes that do not really change their characteristics all that much. They still would be considered, in a sense, the same species, but they are able to undergo evolutionary change just because of the sheer population size. The population sizes are so large that even random events are able to stumble on beneficial mutations or advantages, allowing these organisms to evolve.
However, scientists go too when they point to these occurrences as evidence that evolution has genuine creative power or potential.
The idea that nature created complex living entities from simple molecules all on its own (i.e., abiogenesis, chemical evolution, or the origin of life) through a process in which a complex chemical mixture underwent a series of transformations to generate the very first cells or life forms, ascribes to the evolutionary process something that cannot be observed anywhere in the environment.
Likewise, macroevolution is the unverifiable idea that evolution can transform one major biological group into another. Common examples include dinosaurs evolving into birds, wolf-like creatures evolving into whales, or ape-like creatures evolving into human beings. It says that the diversity of life throughout the history of life on earth can be explained though unguided, undirected evolutionary mechanisms.
Again, there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution. But when it comes to the ideas of chemical evolution (the origin of life) and macroevolution, one sees very significant scientific challenges, and this is where the shell game of evolution comes into play.
Because there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, speciation and microbial evolution, scientists will point to these categories and say, “Look, evolution is a fact!” and then try to extrapolate the weight of evidence found here, and apply it to concepts like chemical evolution and macroevolution.
For example, they will argue that because microevolution is a fact, we can be confident that an ape-like creature over the span of seven million years evolved through a series of transitional forms to produce the very first human beings. In other words, they will use evidence from microevolution to validate a concept that falls under the umbrella of macroevolution, and many people allow themselves to be sucked into this shell game of evolution.
Nonetheless, evidence for microevolution is evidence for just that—microevolution. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution. To justify human evolution, there are certain scientific criteria that must be met independently of the evidence of microevolution, speciation and microbial evolution.
These issues will be looked at in greater detail elsewhere.
Also, it was nice of David Rudge to say that it's intelligent people who are are in disagreement on both sides of the issue.