Critics of Evolution Should First Learn the Subject

Boris Shpungin

At the core of evolution are three simple observations.

First, among sexually reproducing organisms, no offspring is exactly identical to its parents. Second, some traits of the parents are inherited by their offspring. Third, most species naturally produce more offspring than could be supported by the environment.

Can anyone honestly dispute those three basic science facts? Yet as a logical consequence of the third observation, members of any species must compete over limited resources: some survive, some die. Because all offspring are different (first observation), some will have built-in survival advantages, and will be less likely to die. Then, some of these survival advantages will be passed on to the offspring of the survivors (second observation). Over several generations, this process eliminates the "unfit" individuals from the population, leaving ones with as many advantageous traits as possible. This, in a nutshell, is 'natural selection'.

All life on Earth can be compared using outward appearance (morphology.) Here comes the crucial observation: when species similarity relationships are charted together, they link up to form a pattern remarkably reminiscent of genealogical 'family trees'!

And now the proverbial "leap of faith": IF new traits are introduced into different species over time, THEN the 'family tree' of life on earth results from 'natural selection' acting on many generations of organisms. This, in a nutshell, is classical 'Darwinian Evolution'.

Of course, Darwin made some daring assumptions. He did not know of the mechanisms that enable transmission of traits. He did not know how brand-new traits could suddenly appear. All of these fine details (and more) were filled in since Darwin’s time by modern science.

Today, we know that DNA recombination is responsible for inheritance of traits. We know that mutations in the DNA of, as well as infections of, reproductive cells are responsible for emergence of brand-new features over time.

Today, evolution is simulated on computers, and ecological systems analyzed using Game Theory, with convincing results. Our various methods of species classification now incorporate DNA similarity. We have greatly refined our chronology of the universe in general and the planet Earth in particular, including its actual age as well as the gradual reconfiguration of its continents over time: we have many new reliable and independent dating techniques for ascertaining the true age of fossils and geological formations. Most of these interlocking advances come from the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and cosmology; they are mathematically rigorous in theory as well as empirically verified in practice. Today, we know vastly more than Darwin might have dreamt of knowing. But the basic, core premise of evolution through natural selection is stronger than ever.

For a small sampling, only evolution through natural selection explains the fossil record, predicts the process of DNA recombination and the processes of genetic mutation. Only evolution, combined with geology, explains such mysteries as why marsupials (and their fossils) are found only in Australia and South America (half a world away) but nowhere else. Only evolution explains why embryos of all species are similar at the earliest stages, why the human embryos should develop gills, a tail, and webbed digits. Only evolution explains clearly vestigial features, for example such as the tailbone, the appendix, toes, male nipples, and body hair in humans. Microevolution has been observed, and is an indisputable fact. Speciation -- a key step in macroevolution -- has been observed in the wild and is a fact. Many modes of mutation are observed in the wild; frequent non-harmful DNA transcription errors are a biochemical hard fact. Analyses of the fossil record, DNA and body morphology, and geographical distribution of species all conspire toward the conclusion that macroevolution is, also, a fact.

How long does it take to evolve the myriad complex and optimized biochemical mechanisms of a sexually reproducing eukaryotic cell? The last 500 million years of multi-cellular evolution were preceded by 3 billion years of single-celled life.

But where, when, and how might the first life have formed? These questions are under the rubric of 'abiogenesis', not evolution. (For more information, consult Wikipedia.)

Anyone interested in knowing the subject before launching into critique, would be well-advised to at least peruse the excellent "Evolution 101" free online course found at the UC Berkeley "Understanding Evolution" web site.