Feedback for April 1998

Evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. See

• The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability , and
• Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Also, evolution is not progress. That is a common misunderstanding. Older versions of evolution before Darwin were progressive, and some later writers revived it, but Darwinian theory predicts nor prohibits progress. See

• Evolution and Philosophy: Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution? Are there goals?

for a brief discussion.

As to what the "theory of evolution" actually is, note that Darwin proposed seven distinct theories, of which he admitted he was original author of two, one of which was wrong, see (Darwin's Precursors FAQ). The one that is an alternative to special creation is the transmutation of species, and if Watson is quoted in context, it is that theory that he refers to.

Christians have various ways of understanding God's involvement in that process. Some attempt to set apart the natural part of the process as due to natural processes in contrast to to other aspects due to God. This is the classic God of the gaps, and is opposed to the view of God's involvement in the normal unfolding of events. We discern regularities in nature and describe them as laws... why would you want to insist these regularities are not divine? Why would you refer to such regularities as "chance"? It is the opposite of chance!

Just as the growth of a baby to an adult is a natural part of the unfolding of the world, which can fill us with awe even as we study to illuminate the principles according to which this growth occurs; so also the diversity of living things is a natural part of the unfolding of the world, which can fill us with awe even as we study to illuminate the principles according to which this diversity comes about.

That study is called evolutionary biology.

The definition given by the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ concerns the fact of evolution. We observe changes taking place in the gene pool of terrestrial organism populations. Populations evolve, traits change, and new species emerge.

The definition given by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their Statement on Teaching Evolution concerns the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, as first outlined by Darwin and since refined, explains the fact of evolution. It explains the evidence that we see, more fully than any other explanation to date.

Consider gravity. Things fall; that is the fact of gravity. Theories of gravity, including Newton's laws and relativity, explain why things fall, why we observe what we do.

Please read the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ for more information on this distinction.

The possible results of inter-species breeding rather depends upon the species concept used to define "species" in the case under consideration. Please look at Boxhorn's Speciation FAQ for more information.

I think that reading Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology text would go a long way in clearing up what "natural selection" and "genetic drift" actually imply.

As to changes in chromosome number, there are a number of known means for chromosome number to change. Some of those covered in genetics texts can be located under the terms "fission", "fusion", and "polyploidy". It should be noted that while a difference in chromosome number is often a bar to inter-fertility, it is not always so. Thus, a change in chromosome number does not always mean that an individual is automatically not inter-fertile with others of the parent population. In those cases where chromosomal re-arrangement does imply that inter-fertility is reduced or eliminated, reproduction may still occur if the species is self-fertilizing or the same or similar change occurs in two or more individuals of complementary genders at the same time. This is a gross simplification of the genetic realities, but is reasonably accurate.

How genetic change happens in an individual is a separate concern from how such changes either are eliminated or are spread through a population. The genetic processes concerning change in karyotype address one class of change under the former. For the latter, natural selection and genetic drift each offer explanations of observed phenomena. If chromosomal change or re-arrangement occurs, and such change does not affect the fitness of the individuals bearing that change, then genetic drift is the appropriate model for how that change may or may not spread. If fitness is affected, then natural selection comes into play. The "size" of the genetic change involved doesn't bear on which mechanism applies.

If you think that a 140-year-old rock is somehow bad news for "evolutionists," you are mistaken. I have seen rocks that are even younger than yours; just a few months ago I saw many rocks at Mount Saint Helens that were less than 20 years old. Minimum formation times are only a problem (to the young-Earth crowd) for a few types of rocks; since your example was not one of those types, it doesn't really help the young-Earth cause. The age that rocks "have" to be (by virtue of the time they would need in order to form) is not nearly so big a problem as the age that many rocks appear to be (by virtue of the distribution of isotopes within them). I recommend that you read the talk.origins Age of the Earth and Isochron Dating FAQs on this site. They provide a brief introduction as well as many pointers for further reading.

There are many messages latent in a large amount of text, and with suitable encoding protocols one can extract whatever one wants to find. This is a kind of natural selection, for gibberish and nonsense tends not to get passed on. The chances that a "correct" result will be found is greatly increased over simple randomness; which is in fact what natural selection does for genes.

However, I doubt that it is good theology or hermeneutics to tie an interpretation of the Torah to the fact that it finds a certain value that is consistent with modern cosmology, for this is a field in which findings change matters rapidly, and you may find that the evidence turns against the divine origin of the Torah next year.

Ultimately, I agree with Maimonides that the first book of the Torah is not a literal history, but instead a statement about the relation between God and Man. About that neither I nor science, nor this site, has anything to say.

Your "explosion in a lumber yard" claim is a common creationist canard, but since lumber yards don't reproduce and aren't subject to selective pressures, the analogy isn't reasonable. See the Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQ for more detail.

This is a fascinating area but complex field of study. It also has absolutely nothing whatever to do with differing ages for the Earth and the Universe. (The Earth is roughly one third the age of the universe.)

• The Moon isn't 65 million years old; it is more than four billion years old. Its surface isn't nearly young enough to have been formed at the K/T boundary.
• Stromatolites and ancient corals show seasonal and tidal growth patterns; the Earth has had axial tilt and a Moon for at least the last few billion years.
• The K/T meteorite (~10km) isn't nearly the size of the hypothesized planetesimal (Mars-sized) thought to have caused the formation of the Moon.
• There is evidence of ice ages prior to the K/T boundary, and even the most recent ones were not "right after the S.T.E."
• There's no evidence the "various races of man" were around that long ago.
• Higher gravity would probably favor smaller forms, not larger ones.

Thanks for the interesting response.

There are some problems in what you have asserted, though, ranging from the historical to the theoretical. The modern synthesis incorporates more than just natural selection, which your 5-part summation most likely describes.

The visual system is a classic "poser" set by anti-evolutionists. The eye as it appears in humans and other mammals is a complex piece of biological equipment. However, the modern synthesis does not lead to a conclusion that sub-systems of the modern mammalian eye developed willy-nilly and were then integrated together to form a functional unit. It is true that such an assertion would be absurd. Fortunately, actual biologists do not advance such a notion.

How then can we reject the assertion blandly forwarded that "evolution fails"? Biologists look at the variation in extant organisms in the area of interest, in this case "light sensitivity". What we find is that light-sensing apparatus runs the gamut from simple to complex, and all of them function well for the organisms possessing them. We note that undifferentiated neural tissue has some degree of light sensitivity, which gives a basis for further speculation in the phylogeny of metazoan animals. (A variety of plants have light sensitivity as well, which must have a different underlying physiology, since they do not have neural tissue.) If we start from the simple function of light detection, all that is needed is a light-sensitive tissue, and neural tissue fits that handily. From there, further sensitivity gains can be had by having the neural tissue used for light sensing closer to the surface of the organism, and the retention of adaptations for heightened light sensitivity. The planarian eye-spots show that light-sensing organs of this simple layout are functional. If the neural tissue is distributed around the interior of a cup, then directional information can be had from the pattern of activation of neurons in the cup. See Daniel Alkon's descriptions of the visual apparatus of Hermissenda for details of this slightly more complex and highly functional light-sensing system. If the light-sensitive neural tissue is spread around the interior of a cup that has a top with a hole in it whose size is controlled by muscular action, one has the basis for image formation on the retina by the principle of the camera obscura. The modern nautiloids show that this level of complexity is very much functional. If in addition to an iris controlled by muscle one adds a transparent cover, one has the basis for a lensed camera eye, such as is seen in the octopus, which again is very much a functional apparatus. If the lens material can itself be deformed by muscular control, one has now described fairly well the complex light sensing organ seen in mammals.

A nice discussion of this can be found in Ed Babinski's Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3.

Is there a fundamental gap somewhere in the phylogeny of the modern eye seen in mammals? This is a question upon which the fossil record can give us little assistance. From my perspective, I just do not see that there is any evidence of an unbridgeable gap in the development of light-sensing organs.

We evolved from primates that are more like apes than monkeys in the most recent eras, and like modern monkeys in the more remote past. However, we did not evolve from either modern apes or modern monkeys. Instead, we share common ancestors with them, and they too have evolved since then.