Of Piranhas, Pythons, and Crocodiles: An Essay Against Evolution Denial

[Deep Dish]

Aside from global warming, evolution is the most hotly contested scientific fact debated in the Roman colosseum of public collective thought. Disguised as prudent thoughtfulness, antievolution is a meme of antimatter seeking to annihilate the matter of science. FOX News may have trademarked the phrase “fair & balanced” but “fair & balanced” is not the same action as fence–sitting an issue and deciding there “may be something” to each side, not when there is only one side. On the aggregate sociological level, people reject evolution not because the science is wrong—evolution is actually the penultimate triumph of science—but rather because they perceive it implies and negates certain questions and implications of ethics and morality. Kurva!—my inner ancestral Czechoslovakian dares to say. Science prohibits cherry–picking of truths most especially when based upon unscientific considerations. Evolution is a demonstrably proven truth insofar as anything can be proven and its acceptance is mandatory insofar as that precious thing called reality is concerned.

The United States no longer pioneers the frontiers of science and has lost its eminence as the bastion of leading scientists. Scientific discoveries predominantly originate from Europe and Asia, with honorable mention of up–and–coming India. The United States has not attained total insignificance but one canary in the coal mine of its disinterest in science is the general rejection of evolution by the general population. Given if the public opinion surveys are reliable, in the ballpark of sixty percent of Americans are creationists, three out of ten believe in evolution guided by theism, and only ten percent believe in naturalistic evolution <1>. Approximately half of Americans believe they are “very familiar” with evolution but only one–fifth believe is “definitely true,” which is less confidence than creationism (for which three–tenths believe “definitely true”) <2>. Of 34 Western countries, the United States ranks an abysmally 33rd in general acceptance of evolution, only worsened by Turkey <3>. Apparently cold weather improves mental function, as the countries with the highest acceptance of evolution are Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden. Move over, Hamlet—something is definitely very aromatic in Denmark.

As idiotic, dogmatic, and uncritical this will sound, there is no debate in evolution. Within the non–debate is debate of explosive Cambrian proportions over specific data points, but for all the inner debate is a convergence from many scientific fields—including paleontology, anthropology, developmental and molecular biology, biochemistry, geology—and consensus of the international scientific community abroad, the central tenant is settled and agreed upon. Evolution is true and it happens on the grand scale. Whether evolution denial, global warming denial, or even Holocaust denial, one methodology the denial movement employs is mistaking genuine academic debate within a field as casting crucial doubt over the premise of the entire field. Another tactic is confusing very minority dissent as substantive debate with the consensus; henceforth, dissent by creationists—(un)intelligent design—is used to argue the principle of evolution is under controversy. Science has often been characterized by fringe movements as political, but science is political in the sense arguments need to be convincing; science actively encourages dissent and promotes the processes of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; but dissent must considerably be convincing to constitute genuine debate.

For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world, and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation. Another thing about which we agreed was our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists. Steve had even more reason than me to be irritated by them. They distorted the theory of punctuated equilibrium so that it appeared to support their preposterous (but astonishingly common) belief that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Gould’s reply deserves to be widely known:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

By denier logic, the more gaps you fill-in with transitional fossils, the more gaps there are to fill! Two fossils have one gap, three fossils have two, five fossils have four, nine fossils have eight. Ergo, to deniers there never can be macroevolution. Archaeopteryx was “just a bird.”

Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. ‘There must be something in creationism, or Dr So–and–So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.’ Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science <4>.

It certainly is a dicey conundrum. Academics need to devote their time to conducting real science and making advancements in knowledge, as their time is precious enough, but ignoring the fringe plays into enemy hands of not playing fairly by not giving dissent equal time and practicing confirmation bias. But engaging the fringe only gives credence. Most erroneous beliefs never gain enough traction to develop into viral memes and perish away unnoticed, but occasionally as with evolution denial it catches on and surmounts a viable threat to the very fabric of reality.

...cience keeps its playing field level by the rather admirable system of anonymous peer–review. If you have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty to submit a paper to the Editor of Nature, or Science, or the Journal of Theoretical Biology, or the American Naturalist, or Biological Reviews, or the Quarterly Review of Biology, or any of hundreds of other reputable journals in which ordinary working scientists publish their research. Do not fear that Editors will reject it simply because it opposes evolution. On the contrary, the journal that published a paper which really did discover a fallacy in evolution, or convincing evidence against it, would have the scoop of the century, in scientific terms. Editors would kill to get their hands on it <ibid>.

To wit:

Pick up any issue of a peer–reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid–1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years [of 2002], surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed–minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes) <5>.

By no authority am I permitted to evaluate the merit of scientific considerations, any more or less than nuclear physics or aeronautical engineering, but rather refer and delegate to expert authorities. But therein lies the rub. Due to the very nature of the subject, the origin of humans, people wrongly think they can decide whether they should accept it, and Cobb County (Georgia) placed this infamous sticker: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Ergo, the issue of evolution itself is hotly contested solely in the public’s imagination. However tempting and correct it is to blame defective educational institutions, the media, politicians, and religious organizations, it seems to me perhaps the greater underlying monkey wrench is pervasive anti–intellectualism against Ivory Tower academicism. People believe they are smart—and many are—and have enough common sense to reach their own conclusions about the natural world without those pesky irksome “know–it–all” academics who really “don’t know what they don’t know” tell them how is the state of the world.

 

[Deep Dish]

One factor which may hinder the acceptance process, I surmise, is grasping the sheer magnitude of time wherein evolution has operated. Our own lifetime is long enough to comprehend, as are centuries, but evolution has occurred over billions of years. By my own calculations, life has existed and evolved on Earth roughly about three times as many years (4.6 billion) as there are inches around the Earth’s equator (63,360 inches in a mile x 24,901 miles)(1.58 billion). Given how long is one year and how small is one inch, evolution is nearly unfathomable. (Editorial note: I used the estimated number of years life has existed on Earth and not simply the number of years from the Cambrian explosion of complex organisms.)

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then, and then so imperfect is our view into long last geographical ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were <6>.

“Just” a theory?

To fully appreciate the absurdity to argue evolution is “just” a theory (and therefore unproven) you simply need to look the word up in the dictionary, but understand conventional colloquial usage by ordinary people is often an entirely different context than the technical context scientists use the term. According to dictionary.com, based upon the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006), colloquial usage of theory is defined as “contemplation or speculation” (definition six) and “guess or conjecture” (seven). This starkly contrasts with technical usage by scientists: “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (definition one), “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well–established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact” (two). Although definition two mentions “whose status is still conjectural,” there is no contradiction between the two; definition one pertains to a group of propositions whereas definition two pertains to the veracity of a single proposition. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (fourth edition) defines: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena” (definition one). In a word, fact. The Oxford American Dictionary defines law as “a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are met” (definition two). In other words, theories explain whilst laws describe.

Science and all knowledge is provisional. Dictionary.com defines provisional as “providing or serving for the time being only; existing only until permanently or properly replaced; temporary” (definition one), “accepted or adopted tentatively; conditional; probationary” (definition two). I can hear laughter in the background—some goofballs in my reading audience think scientists are acknowledging they are a moron (“a city in Argentina, to the west of Buenos Aires,” WordNet 3.0 by Princeton University, definition two). Provisionality is not doubt and the collective body of science is smarter than you. Science continuously weighs evidence, continuously draws conclusions, accepts as true certain theories of fact, the most probable answer based upon the best available information. Calculus would describe the limit of x as x approaches 100 (percent certainty). Science is always open to reconsidering theories of fact when upon newly discovered disconfirming evidence, but there is the fine distinction between possibility and probability. “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Gould said it best.

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid–air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape–like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered <7>.

Next time you hear someone proclaim “Evolution is just a(n unproven) theory,” instruct them they must be from a small city in Argentina.

The Great Debate

In terms of scientific debate over certain aspects within evolution, I have neither the time nor resources to cover every debated issue but I do wish to focus my crux on the debate between the two most prominent figures, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.

Dawkins opined of the position held by Gould,

The theory of punctuated equilibrium is a minor gloss on Darwinism, one which Darwin himself might well have approved if the issue had been discussed in his day. As a minor gloss, it does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity... the theory has been sold—oversold by some journalists—as if it were radically opposed to the views of Darwin and his successor <8>.

Gould opined of the position held by Dawkins,

As the main claim of this book [Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin], I do not deny the phenomenon of increased complexity in life’s history but I subject this conclusion to two restrictions that undermine its traditional hegemony as evolution’s defining feature. First, the phenomenon exists only in the pitifully limited and restricted sense of a few species extending the small right tail of a bell curve with an ever–constant mode at bacterial complexity and not as a pervasive feature in the history of most lineages. Second, this restricted phenomenon arises as an incidental consequence... of causes that include no mechanism for progress or increasing complexity in their main actions <9>.

And, said separately,

The outstanding [misunderstanding of evolutionary theory] is clearly the equation of evolution with progress. People believe that evolution is a process that moves creatures toward greater complexity through time. This makes our very late appearance in the history of the Earth a sensible outcome. The word evolution means progress, but for Darwin, evolution is adaptation to changing local environments, which are randomly moving through time. There is no principle of general advance in that <10>.

But two agreements are clear. For one, Dawkins wrote the book Climbing Mount Improbable (1997) and Gould opined “the proof of evolution lies in those adaptations that arise from improbable foundations.” Secondly, both agreed evolution is true. As though speaking to the ghost of Gould, the opening remarks of Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale read:

History has been described as one damn thing after another. The remark can be seen as a warning against a pair of temptations but, duly warned, I shall cautiously flirt with both. First, the historian is tempted to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves; or at least, following Mark Twain, to seek reason and rhyme for everything. This appetite for pattern affronts those who insist that, as Mark Twain will also be found to have said, ‘History is usually a random, messy affair,’ going nowhere and following no rules. The second connected temptation is the vanity of the present: of seeing the past as aimed at our own time, as though the characters in history’s play had nothing better to do with their lives than foreshadow us.

Under names that need not trouble us, these are live issues in human history and they arise with greater force, and no greater agreement, on the longer timescale of evolution. Evolutionary history can be represented as one damn species after another. But many biologists will join me in finding this an impoverished view. Look at evolution that way and you miss most of what matters. Evolution rhymes, patterns recur. And this doesn’t just happen to be so. It is so for well–understood reasons: Darwinian reasons mostly, for biology, unlike human history or even physics, already has its unifying theory, accepted by all informed practitioners, though in varying versions and interpretations. In writing evolutionary history I do not shrink from seeking patterns and principles, but I try to be careful about it.

What of the second temptation, the conceit of hindsight, the idea that the past works to deliver our particular present? The late Stephen Jay Gould rightly pointed out that a dominant icon of evolution in popular mythology, a caricature almost as ubiquitous as lemmings jumping over a cliff (and that myth is false too), is a shambling file of simian ancestors, rising progressively in the wake of the erect, striding, majestic figure of Homo sapiens sapiens: man as evolution’s last word (and in this context it always is a man rather than woman); man as what the whole enterprise is pointing towards; man as a magnet, drawing evolution from the past towards his eminence <11>.

 

[Deep Dish]

Essentials of Physical Anthropology senior authored by Robert Jurmain of San Jose State University reads:

What the advocates of punctuated equilibrium are disputing are the tempo (rate) and mode (manner) of evolutionary changes as commonly understood since Darwin’s time. Rather than a slow, steady tempo, this alternate view postulated long periods of no change punctuated only occasionally by sudden bursts. From this observation, it was concluded that the mode of evolution, too, must be different from that suggested by classical Darwinists. Rather than gradual accumulation of small changes in a single lineage, advocates of punctuated equilibrium believe that an additional evolutionary mechanism is required to push the process along. They postulate speciation as the major influence in bringing about rapid change.

How well does the paleontological record agree with the predictions of punctuated equilibrium? Indeed, considerable fossil data show long periods of stasis (on the order of 10,000 to 50,000 years) punctuated by occasional quite rapid changes. The best supporting evidence for punctuated equilibrium has come from the fossilized remains of marine invertebrates. Intermediate forms are rare, not so much because the fossil record is poor, but because the speciation events and longevity of these transitional species were so short that we should not expect to find them very often.

How well, then, does the primate fossil record fit the punctuated equilibrium model? In studies of Eocene primates, rates of evolutionary change were shown to be quite gradual (Gingerich, 1985; Brown and Rose, 1987; Rose, 1991). In another study, here of Paleocene plesiadapiforms, evolutionary changes were also quite gradual. Although no longer considered primates, these forms show a gradual tempo of change in another, closely related group of mammals. The predictions consistent with punctuated equilibrium have thus far not been substantiated in those evolving lineages of primates for which we have adequate data to test the theory.

It would, however, be a fallacy to assume that evolutionary change in primates or in any other group must therefore be of a completely gradual tempo. Such is clearly not the case. In all lineages, the pace assuredly speeds up and slows down as a result of factors that influence the size and relative isolation of populations. In addition, environmental changes that influence the pace and direction of natural selection must also be considered. Nevertheless, in general accordance with the modern synthesis, microevolution and macroevolution need not be ‘decoupled,’ as some evolutionary biologists have recently suggested <12>.

I point towards a recent research which demonstrates human culture has apparently sped up human evolution over the past 10,000 years <13-14>. Evolution is a dynamic rather than static process, so next time you hear someone argue there “hasn’t been enough time” for evolution, ask them how is the weather to the west of Buenos Aires.

Evolution denial argues macroevolution has never been observed—ergo an upper limit between mutations within a species and speciation of macroevolution—but that would be neglecting to consider the historical record of transitional fossils. Herein I cite a few examples: Tiktaalik roseae (see below), Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Tulerpetonhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Tulerpeton12DB.jpg/800px-Tulerpeton12DB.jpg, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pederpes finneyae, and Eryops demonstrate steps from fish to amphibians. From diapsid reptiles to birds are Yixianosaurus, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Changchengornis, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis <15>. Many lineages have been found in evolution of whales—Mesonychids, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Mysticetes, Odontocetes <16>—and in December 2007 the announcement arrived the missing link between whales and their “four–footed ancestors” is the 48 million year–old ungulate Indohyus <17>. In fact, in November 2006 a bottlenose dolphin was found... with feet. The dolphin had an apparent mutation which reactivated the vestigial limbs <18>.

The discovery of Tiktaalik Rosae in 2006 was heralded as arguably the most significant finding since Archaeopteryx (discovered almost 150 years ago).

[Tiktaalik Rosae] lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals (known as tetrapods), as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish. The scientists who discovered it say the animal was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile–like head, and a body that grew up to 2.75 metres (9ft) long.

“It’s very important for a number of reasons, one of which is simply the fact that it’s so well–preserved and complete,” said Jennifer Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University and author of an accompanying article in Nature. Scientists have previously been able to trace the transition of fish into limbed animals only crudely over the millions of years they anticipate the process took place. They suspected that an animal which bridged the gap between fish and land–based tetrapods must have existed—but, until now, there had been scant evidence of one.

“Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land–living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life,” said Neil Shubin, a biologist at the University of Chicago, and a leader of the expedition which found Tiktaalik. The near–pristine fossil was found on Ellesmere Island, Canada, which is 600 miles from the north pole in the Arctic Circle. Scientists from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University led several expeditions into the inhospitable icy desert to search for the fossils. The find is the first complete evidence of an animal that was on the verge of the transition from water to land. “The find is a dream come true,” said Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences. “We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition.” When Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a land mass which straddled the equator. Like the Amazon basin today, it had a subtropical climate and the animal lived in small streams. The skeleton indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity.

Note how evolution is testable. The scientists made an educated prediction where they would find such an animal—and did.

Farish Jenkins, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University said: “This represents a critical early phase in the evolution of all limbed animals, including humans—albeit a very ancient step.” Tiktaalik also gives biologists a new understanding of how fins turned into limbs. Its fin contains bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land–living animals.

“Most of the major joints of the fin are functional in this fish,” Professor Shubin said. “The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land–living animals” <19>.

And hey, what about Manbearpig?

 

[Deep Dish]

To briefly touch upon one more facet of this great debate within evolution, there certainly are open questions concerning the roles of natural selection and genetic drift. The question is not diametrically either/or—may I remind the reader of the logical fallacy of a false dilemma—but rather finding the proper synthesis between the two mechanisms. To illustrate the perplexing complexities of evolution is the eyeless cavefish:

Previously, scientists could not determine which forces contributed to regressive evolution in cave–adapted species, and many doubt the role of natural selection in this process. Darwin himself, who famously questioned the role of natural selection in eye loss in cave fishes, said, “As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, although useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse”... Cave adaptations have evolved in many species independently, and each cave species can be considered a replicate of the same evolutionary experiment that asks how species change in perpetual darkness. This makes cavefish a rich source for the examination of the evolutionary process...

[Research] results suggested that eyes and pigmentation regressed through different mechanisms. Mutations in cave populations that affected eye or lens size invariably caused size reductions. This observation is consistent with evolution by natural selection and inconsistent with evolution by genetic drift. By contrast, mutations in cave populations that affected pigmentation sometimes caused increases instead of decreases in pigment cell density, consistent with evolution by random processes and genetic drift <20>.

By way of another example is evolution of the human skull apart from Neanderthals. “A take–home message may be that we should reconsider the idea that all morphological (physical) changes are due to natural selection, and instead consider that some of them may be due to genetic drift” <21>.

An amoral wasteland?

Scientists and the general public debate evolution with two different sets of questions. The questions debated by scientists are scientifically relevant and with merit, but the general public debates with a different but illegitimate set of questions. The illegitimate questions include but are not limited to: physics, e.g. the Big Bang, thermodynamics, entropy, etc.; statistics, e.g. irreducible complexity; abiogenesis; ethics and morality. As for abiogenesis, the unresolved mystery of abiogenesis is irrelevant because evolution is not a theory of the origin of life; the two issues are separate. As for statistics of improbability, natural selection provides the mechanism of guided probability, so go ahead and deal yourself any hand in the game of bridge and then tell me the 1–in–6 billion odds are so improbable that you couldn’t have been dealt that hand through random chance.

The comedian Ben Stein hosted the polemic antievolution documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which will be released in April 2008. Prominent academics such as Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers have blasted the producers for flagrantly lying about their intentions—remember how Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. But pertinent to this essay is Stein’s response to a simple and most elementary question:

Paul Lauer: You mentioned that Darwinism appears to be lacking on certain fronts. From your research, and your travels, and interviews with many different scientists, what are some of the areas that scientists are, perhaps, increasingly saying are problematic with the theory of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?

Ben Stein: Well, just a couple of them, I’ve already hit one is: Where did life come from? Second one is: How did the cell get so complex? Third one, which I think is overwhelming, and just sort of blows the whole theory of Random Mutation out of the water, is, at least, let me say, raises big questions, that is. Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from? Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from? Where, I guess that’s the same as thermodynamics. Where did all these laws, that make it possible for the universe to function, where did they all come from? Why isn’t all just chaos and everything collapsing in on itself and killing everything? I think that’s where the universe works. Who created these perfect laws, that keeps the planet in motion, keeps the blood pumping through our bodies? So, I think, all these are giant questions that need answers <22>.

For a man who once hosted his own television show aptly dubbed Win Ben Stein’s Money, the question was his money shot (at my money). Rather than address the question and summarize scientific evidence against evolution, Stein engaged in evasive rhetoric of displaying Bertrand Russell’s turtles all the way down by hinging evolution upon a regressive set of increasingly extraneous conditions beyond the scope of evolution; evolution is not a house of cards in which everything is ultimately predicated upon the point of singularity of the Big Bang (another true fact). (Lest I remind the reader science is compartmentalized and evolution is not a “theory of everything.”) (And gravity is the tragic flaw of evolution? Newton’s Law: dumb brains fall equally fast as brains of geniuses.) To the question asked of him, after all his research and during which the inordinate time he had at his disposal to contemplate the subject, his response was essentially “I have no clue.” Most revealing, Stein wrote: “Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process” <23>. I understand and empathize how egregious misapplications of science may forge a touchy personal issue to Stein, but reductio ad Hilterism is a logical fallacy and nonetheless the denial of evolution self–evidently is rooted in reasons separate and apart from scientific considerations of evolution. (Kiddies, that is how you debate with eloquence.) An extreme example of pegging evolution with amorality and the horrors of history’s past is Tourette Syndrome political commentator Ann Coulter, but she is too absurd (and political) to warrant any further consideration. There is even a book written by Tom Sutcliff entitled Why Evolution is a Fraud: A Secular and Common–Sense Deconstruction wherein rests the description: “exposes the shocking racism and blatant distortions of this pseudo–scientific, atheistic philosophy” <24>. But as Michael Shermer, author of The Science of Good and Evil and chief editor of Skeptic magazine, scribed in his latest book Why Darwin Matters:

This is what bothers people about evolutionary theory, not the technical details of the science. Most people do not know, nor care about, adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, phenotypic variation, assortative mating, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and the like. What people want to know is this: If my kids learn about evolution in school are they going to become atheists? Will we lose all meaning and morality? Will society go to hell in an immoral handbasket?

He then itemizes and expounds upon “six specific fears about evolution:” general resistance to science, belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets, misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, the fear that evolution degrades our humanity, the equation of evolution with ethical nihilism. He then reassures “All of these fears are baseless.” <25>. I have not yet had the pleasure to read Why Darwin Matters, but herein I cite a passage from his earlier book Why People Believe Weird Things:

1. The use or misuse of a theory does not negate the validity of the theory itself. Marx once claimed that he was not a Marxist. Darwin would undoubtedly be spinning in his grave if he knew how the twentieth century has used his theory to justify all manner of ideologies from Marxism to capitalism to Fascism. The fact that Hitler implemented a eugenics program does not negate the theory of genetics. Similarly, any correlation between loss of faith and belief in evolution cannot touch the theory of evolution. Scientific theories are neutral; the use of theories is not.

2. The creationists’ list of social problems—promiscuity, pornography, abortion, infanticide, racism, and so on—obviously existed long before Darwin and the theory of evolution. In the several thousand years before Darwin came along, Judaism, Christianity, and other organized religions failed to resolve these social problems. There is no evidence that the fall of evolution–science will either mitigate or eradicate social ills. To blame Darwin, evolutionary theory, and science for our own social and moral problems is to distract us from a deeper analysis and better understanding of these complex social issues <26>.

Science is science is science.

 

[Deep Dish]

Closing remarks

In my humble personal opinion, a most captivating discovery of zoology are naïve chimpanzees and gorillas of the Goualougo Triangle located between the Ndoki and Goualougo Rivers of the Nouabalé–Ndoki National Park in the country of Congo, as well as neighboring Langoue Bai in the country of Gabon. Described by Time magazine as the “Last Eden” and by National Geographic as “The Last Place on Earth,” this region is home to chimpanzees and gorillas who had little or no contact ever with humans and therefore are naïve to predatory poachers and our propensities of habitat destruction. Their reaction is most astounding and spellbound.

“Gorillas and chimpanzees, when they’re completely naïve, they recognize you as a fellow primate. They see your head, they see your arms, they see your fingers, and they think they’re just like us, but they’re not. There’s something different,” says [Mike Fay of New York’s Wildlife Conservation Society]. “They’ll actually go get their buddies and say, ‘Look at this, man, this is really amazing.’ Their great–great–grandparents haven’t seen humans, so they can’t kind of pass down that fear, that instinct, to say humans are predators and they’re bad” <27>.

When researchers visited the Goualougo Triangle, their initial contacts lasted upwards of seven hours and “ended only when we chose to leave the chimpanzees to continue our surveys. Often times when we were leaving the chimpanzees, they would follow us through the forest canopy” <28>. Amazing!

The issue of evolution has been a divisive point of contention in my personal life for numerous years. My family, many of my extended family, and many of their friends are creationists—though probably, I would think, mostly of the unintelligent design variety—and I happen to be of the Richard Dawkins variety. Despite what dimwitted half–baked pundits love to otherwise contend with grotesque rhetorical distortions, science and evolution are not religion. I remain unwavering in my support of evolution and given the perpetual state of scientific illiteracy and anti–science which abounds, I feel the moral imperative as an educated and eloquent writer to spread the excellence of knowledge.

Darwin’s efforts to pen Origin of the Species spanned over twenty years, which remarkably was only intended to be an introductory outline to his magnum opus which was to span twenty volumes. It took him so long to write the book partly because of the controversial firestorm his work would most assuredly generate. In the same spirit, I made a rather most unprecedented effort in my own writing to deliver a most tediously and cogently argued and referenced essay, which took me more than twenty days but less than twenty weeks and most assuredly less than 20,000 words. If I may—well, of course I may, I’m the writer!—I wish to end with the final words in Origin of the Species.

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants, of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet as gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Q.E.D.

Endnote

What does the title mean, you ask? Piranhas, pythons, and crocodiles are dangerous animals for which I allegorically symbolized for evolution denial and their sequence was a metaphorical evolutionary lineage, from piranha to crocodile.

References

1. “Majority Reject Evolution, 51 Percent Believe God Created Humans.” CBS News. October 23, 2005. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
2. David W Moore, “Most Americans Tentative About Origin-of-Life Explanations.” September 23, 2005. Retrieved on March 23, 2008
3. Ker Than, “U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution.” August 10, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
4. Richard Dawkins, “Why I Won’t Debate Creationists.” May 15, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
5. John Rennie, “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” Scientific American. July 2002. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
6. Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1859). Page 71.
7. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory.” Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
8. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (1986).
9. Stephen Jay Gould, Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin (1996). Page 197. (See also excerpts of Stephen Jay Gould on Stanford Presidential Lectures in the Humanities and Arts).
10. “Stephen Jay Gould.” Boston Globe Magazine. December 31, 1995.
11. Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale. First edition (2005).
12. Robert Jurmain, et al., Essentials of Physical Anthropology. Fourth edition (2001).
13. David Biello, “Culture Speeds Up Human Evolution.” Scientific American. December 10, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
14. Analee Newitz, “Getting Evolution Up to Speed.” Wired News. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
15. “Transitional Forms of Whales: The Journey from Land to the Deep Sea.” Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
16. “List of transitional fossils.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
17. “Whales Descended From Tiny Deer-like Ancestors.” Science Daily. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
18. “Japanese Researchers Find Dolphin With ‘Remains of Legs.’” Associated Press. November 6, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
19. Alok Jha, “Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution.” The Guardian. April 6, 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
20. “‘Regressive Evolution’ In Cavefish: Natural Selection Or Genetic Drift.” Science Daily. February 16, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
21. “Skulls Of Modern Humans And Ancient Neanderthals Evolved Differently Because of Chance, Not Natural Selection.” Science Daily. March 20, 2008. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
22. Dan Whipple, “The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists ‘Expelled.’” Colorado Confidential. February 15, 2008. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
23. Ben Stein, “Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?” http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog. October 31, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008. The blog entry could not be directly linked, but rather browse to the cited entry.
24. Book description. http://www.lulu.com/content/662821. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
25. Newsletter of Skeptic magazine. August 30th 2006. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
26. Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things. Revised edition (2002). Page 135.
27. “The Garden of Eden.” 60 Minutes II. CBS News. February 25, 2004. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
28. “Chimpanzees With Little Or No Human Contact Found In Remote African Rainforest.” Science Daily. March 14, 2003. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I remain unwavering in my support of evolution and given the perpetual state of scientific illiteracy and anti–science which abounds, I feel the moral imperative as an educated and eloquent writer to spread the excellence of knowledge.

what a jackass

 

[ketostix]

Something is not a fact when you can't even present a working model for abiogenesis,the most fundamental requirement. Believing something is a fact that isn't proven and couching it as "scientific", is just a form of religion.

 

[Deep Dish]

Something is not a fact when you can't even present a working model for abiogenesis,the most fundamental requirement.

Man, did you even read the essay? You either didn't read it (which would beg a most obvious question), skimmed through and didn't read it carefully (which is somewhat forgivable), or are unskilled in debate. I already preemptively rebutted your counter-argument. Abiogenesis is irrelevant. While abiogenesis makes sense fitting into the greater encompassing handiwork of historical chronological sequences, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, it is not a theory how organic arose from inorganic. Science is compartmentalized. Even if “ancient astronauts”—aliens—had descended upon Earth and planted the earliest bacteria, in some primordial experiment—preposterous, of course—that would be an issue separate and apart from what has since happened, i.e. changes of allele frequencies in populations. To reduce your argument to reductio ad absurdum, it would be akin to doubting Steve Jobs founded Apple because “you can’t even explain how life started.”

 

[thehexman]

Deep Dish,

I haven't read your essay in full yet, but I want to congratulate you on your explanation of scientific theory and how science works. Sadly enough, compartmentalization is the rhetoric Achilles' heel of science, as it opens the floor to sweeping generalizations by populists who wish to promote a certain point (often enough themselves).
These are the types of people who do not understand the concept of proof and thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This dialectic is the basis of all science. Also it should be noted that just because something is plausible, it is not necessarily proven, ie. the expansion of Newton's laws by the Theory of Relativity (Einstein).
I seriously hope that the readers of this essay will take a sharp look into the mirror after reading it.

 

[thehexman]

I remain unwavering in my support of evolution and given the perpetual state of scientific illiteracy and anti–science which abounds, I feel the moral imperative as an educated and eloquent writer to spread the excellence of knowledge.

what a jackass

Bible_Belt, just because you can't contradict him does not mean that he is a jackass. In fact, you are probably the type of reader he wishes to reach.

 

[ketostix]

Man, did you even read the essay? You either didn't read it (which would beg a most obvious question), skimmed through and didn't read it carefully (which is somewhat forgivable), or are unskilled in debate. I already preemptively rebutted your counter-argument. Abiogenesis is irrelevant. While abiogenesis makes sense fitting into the greater encompassing handiwork of historical chronological sequences, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, it is not a theory how organic arose from inorganic. Science is compartmentalized. Even if “ancient astronauts”—aliens—had descended upon Earth and planted the earliest bacteria, in some primordial experiment—preposterous, of course—that would be an issue separate and apart from what has since happened, i.e. changes of allele frequencies in populations. To reduce your argument to reductio ad absurdum, it would be akin to doubting Steve Jobs founded Apple because “you can’t even explain how life started.”

Ok whatever but the theory of Evolution does also include macroevolution and abiogenesis. Macroevolution hasn't been proven and demonstrated as fact any more than abiogenesis has. You should of titled your thread "An Essay Against Microevolution Deniers", then there'd be no debate. And no the correct analogy would be more like you found a Boeing 747 in a junkyard and concluded that a tornado put it together. While my theory would be some intelligent designer did it until someone has demostrated how and the mathematical possibility of a wirlwind assembling a Jumbo Jet from random parts is possible.

 

[Nighthawk]

Who designed the intelligent designer then? A whirlwind?

 

[ketostix]

Who designed the intelligent designer then? A whirlwind?

Well when you can answer how matter and the universe got here in the first place I'll know. We've already been through this. The point is that is a separate argument from macroevolution and abiogenesis. But obviously the intelligent designer might not have been a natural living organism but could be some other kind of entity. A designer could've started biogenesis or not, and macroevolution could be the naturally occuring result from that or not.

The point is when people say evolution is a fact they're implying macroevolution is too, and it's not. And there also implying no intelligent designer is in the process, therefore there has to be abiogenesis, and abibiogenesis is not a fact either. That's a big difference from just saying only, "Microevolution is a fact."

 

[thehexman]

What is also interesting to me is that almost all "evolution" debates are similar to debates about economics. Both inherently have one thing in common that seperates them from the rest of natural and engineering sciences: They cannot experiment.

Obviously, an experiment in economics is nearly impossible to carry out, because it is rather hard to experiment with, for example, the exchange rate EUR/USD. So, the economists use data given from the past and try to extrapolate and derive workable theories of why economic phenomena such as supply/demand and the market exist.
Oftentimes, a person will state that he or she has the proof of why economic change is happening, and another will state unequivocally that he or she is wrong, and then presents another "truth". The debate will soon end ad absurdum when both start insulting each other.

So, the theory of evolution is derived from observations only, just like economics (just that no one doubts the existence of a market just because no one "created" it).

What I would like to get at is that a failure to completely understand a theory opens the door to many misconceptions and absurd statements, such as the possibility of randomly assembling a 747 (see above). That's just like saying that having the power to print money makes you richer, because if you can print it, you can spend it, right? If you do not understand money theory, then you will also ignore inflation and rising prices due to increased money supply.

Ultimately, economics is a pretty closed model (or theory if you will) of how business works on a large scale. It does not answer why the market works as a function of supply and demand, only that it does. The theory of evolution does the same. It explains how we got here and became intelligent beings, not why and who created life to start with. It only says that we are genetically similar to apes, and that we are biological brethren. (Of course it says more than that, but economics also explains more than the market).

Sadly enough, most people try to discredit the theory of evolution by making it answer to questions which no science can answer, and which the theory of evolution has no ambition to answer to: Why are we here? Who created us? What is the meaning of life? That is religion, and religion is above all, faith and not facts.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The author rubs me the wrong way. He calls himself "humble" and "eloquent," but his writing is horribly wordy and unedited. Being dorky is obviously all this guy has going for himself in his life, but he's too much of a science geek to use English well enough to make his arguments. His writing reeks of low self-esteem nerd.

 

[djtdot]

Something is not a fact when you can't even present a working model for abiogenesis,the most fundamental requirement. Believing something is a fact that isn't proven and couching it as "scientific", is just a form of religion.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

You might be interested in #7.

 

[ketostix]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

You might be interested in #7.

How nice and balanced, they give one line to a "creationist" and responded with paragraphs. Now, how many more paragraphs would a "creationist" need for balancing those paragraphs? Anyway, the point remains microevolution might be fact, but not macroevolution or abiogenesis (and a lack of a designer).

They say evolution is a "fact" and they're implying that all 3 (4) conclusions are a fact to. This is narrow-mindedness. I like how in #7 they move the question of biogenesis to another place, extraterrestrial aliens, when it's never been demonstrated to be possible yet. Why do they do this? Because there can't be a designer separate form nature in their view. Macroevolution and abiogenesis is not fact. When and if it all 3 becomes fact then you can say "Evolution is a fact" , as opposed to microevolution. I'll conclude there's no intelligent designer, and the theory of intelligent design should be banned as it is already for all practical purposes. It may well be that they may never be able to answer these questions, but make no mistake about it they're purposely giving the impression that they already have been conclusive answered, or at least they know what the answer already is. I'm more skepticle of the "biological sciences", but hey that's just me. That does not make one ignorant, unscientific, religious or any other pidgeonholes evolutionists like to use. Leave it at that.

 

[Deep Dish]

All throughout history, up until Origin of the Species, virtually all naturalists were creationists (including Darwin himself until his discovery convinced him otherwise). Once Origin of the Species was published, the burden of proof rested upon evolution to prove its veracity. (To be sure, Darwin didn’t invent naturalism.) Over many decades, slowly but most assuredly, as more evidence mounted, the pendulum swung from the scientific community being comprised of creationists to virtually all “evolutionists.” The burden of proof has been satisfied and now rests upon deniers. If one wishes to argue how science has sometimes gone astray, one might point out how phrenology (the study of skulls to determine a “born criminal”) was once briefly part of mainstream science, but support for phrenology evaporated as more evidence came to light, and my point is the exact opposite has occurred with evolution. There is a certain irony not to be lost that scientists “know” science; they know the scientific method, they know the rigors of evidentiary burdens of proof and peer review discourse, they know real science from pseudoscience; and so the claim evolution as a whole enterprise is unproved and pseudoscientific is erroneous at best—99% of scientists have forgotten about science?

Why, then, is there a controversy? Because 99 percent of scientists take the strict naturalistic view shared by only 9 percent of Americans. It would be hard to imagine any other belief for which there is such a wide disparity between the person on the street and the expert in the ivory tower (Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 156)

Here are excerpts from “Twenty-five Creationist Arguments/Twenty-five Evolutionists Answers” (relevant to this discussion):

2. Science only deals with the here-and-now and thus cannot answer historical questions about the creation of the universe and the origin of life and the human species.

Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science.

“Evolution, for example, is proved by the convergence of evidence from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, anatomy, physiology, and comparative anatomy. No one piece of evidence from these diverse fields says ‘evolution’ on it. A fossil is a snapshot. But when a fossil in a geological bed is studied along with other fossils of the same and different species, compared to species in other strata, juxtaposed with species in other parts of the world, past and present, and so on, it turns from a snapshot into a motion picture. Evidence from each field jumps together to a grand conclusion—evolution” (p. 214).

5. The theory of natural selection is tautological, or a form of circular reasoning. Those who survive are the best adapted. Who are the best adapted? Those who survive. Likewise, rocks are used to date fossils, and fossils are used to date rocks. Tautologies do not make science.

Sometimes tautologies are the beginning of science, but they are never the end. Gravity can be tautological, but its inference is justified by the way this theory allows scientists to accurately predict physical effects and phenomena. Likewise, natural selection and the theory of evolution are testable and falsifiable by looking at their predictive power. For example, population genetics demonstrates quite clearly, and with mathematical prediction, when natural selection will and will not effect change on a population. Scientists can make predictions based on the theory of natural selection and then test them, as the geneticist does in the example just given or the paleontologist does in interpreting the fossil record. Finding hominid fossils in the same geological strata as trilobites, for instance, would be evidence against the theory. The dating of fossils with rocks, and vice versa, could only be done after the geological column was established. The geological column exists nowhere in its entirety because strata are disrupted, convoluted, and always incomplete for a variety of reasons. But strata order is unmistakably nonrandom, and chronological order can be accurately pieced together using a variety of techniques, only one of which is fossils.

12. Something cannot be created out of nothing, say scientists. Therefore, from where did the material for the Big Bang come? From where did the first life forms that provided the raw material from evolution originate? Stanley Miller’s creation of amino acids out of an inorganic “soup” and other biogenic molecules is not the creation of life.

Science may be not equipped to answer certain “ultimate”–type questions, such as what there was before the beginning of the universe or what time it was before time began or where the matter for the Big Bang came from. So far these have been philosophical or religious questions, not scientific ones, and therefore have not been a part of science. (Recently, Stephen Hawking and other cosmologists have made some attempts at scientific speculations on these questions.) Evolutionary theory attempts to understand the causality of change after time and matter were “created” (whatever that means). As for the origin of life, biochemists do have a very rational and scientific explanation for the evolution from inorganic to organic compounds, the creation of amino acids and the construction of protein chains, the first crude cells, the creation of photosynthesis, the invention of sexual reproduction, and so on. Stanley Miller never claimed to have created life, just some of its building blocks. While these theories are by no means robust and are still subject to lively scientific debate, there is a reasonable explanation for how you get from the Big Bang to the Big Brain in the known universe using the known laws of nature.

14. Natural selection can never account for anything other than minor changes within species—microevolution. Mutations used by evolutionists to explain macroevolution are always harmful, rare, and random, and cannot be the driving force of evolutionary change.

I shall never forget the words pounded into the brains of the students of evolutionary biologist Bayard Brattstrom at California State University, Fullerton: “Mutants are not monsters.” His point was that the public perception of mutants—two-headed cows and the like at the county fair—is not the sort of mutants evolutionists are discussing. Most mutations are small genetic or chromosomal aberrations that have small effects—slightly keener hearing, a new shade of fur. Some of these small effects may provide benefits in an ever-changing environment.

Moreover, Ernst Mayr’s (1970) theory of allopatric speciation seems to demonstrate precisely how natural selection, in conjunction with other forces and contingencies of nature, can and do produce new species. Whether they agree or disagree with the theory of allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium, scientists all agree that natural selection can produce significant change. The debate is over how much change, how rapid a change, and what other forces of nature act in conjunction with or contrary to natural selection.

17. Even the simplest of life forms are too complex to have come together by random chance. Take a simple organism consisting of merely 10 parts. Mathematically there are 10 to the power of 158 possible ways for the parts to link up. There are not enough molecules in the universe, or time since the the beginning, to allow for these possible ways to come together in even this simple life form, let alone to produce human beings. The human eye alone defies explanation by the randomness of evolution. It is the equivalent of the monkey typing Hamlet, or even “To be or not to be.” It will not happen by random chance.

Natural selection is not random, nor does it operate by chance. Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature (see Dawkins 1986). In order for the monkey to type the thirteen letters opening Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 trials for success. This is sixteen times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of our solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison (1988) wrote a computer program in which letters were “selected” for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence TOBEORNOTTOBE. It takes the computer less than ninety seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days.

Irreducible complexity is essentially argument by lack of imagination; because you cannot fathom how an organism evolved from simpler beginnings, the organism couldn't have evolved from simpler beginnings, or so you would argue. It isn’t to the fault of the organism you have a poor imagination. Exactly what specific scientific evidence is irreducible complexity based upon? Exactly what specific predictions does it make of the natural world? Exactly how specifically is it testable? Exactly how specifically is it falsifiable? The answer is none.

The burden of proof rests upon you to show your “hole” in evolution—that macroevolution has not been proven—is actually a hole. Prove it hasn’t been proven. Be academic. Cite your sources.

 

[Deep Dish]

It should be noted that just because something is plausible, it is not necessarily proven, ie. the expansion of Newton's laws by the Theory of Relativity (Einstein).

Good point.

 

[6-heads lewis]

The author rubs me the wrong way. He calls himself "humble" and "eloquent," but his writing is horribly wordy and unedited. Being dorky is obviously all this guy has going for himself in his life, but he's too much of a science geek to use English well enough to make his arguments. His writing reeks of low self-esteem nerd.

haha

the first thing that popped in my mind was "who cares?" maybe there is a god maybe there isnt, youve lived 30 years without knowing and it hasnt changed anything. your not going to find a definitive answer, and even if you do come to a conclusion, it wont matter. i had to sit through some dopes arguing about the true ethnicity of jesus christ, what the hell difference is it going to make? maybe hes jewish maybe hes black maybe hes a nazi who the fuk cares.

the 30 hours you spent writing this could have been spent watching the wire or hiding in the bushes oggling large hooters