Greetings, George,
Your wife suggests that there are "missing links" between species, and that
this constitutes the 'gap' in the evidence for evolution.
This is incorrect. For example, we know the link between Humans and
Chimpanzees, and that 6 million-yr old species and today's Gorillas, which
'split' 9 million years ago, etc. etc. It is true that we don't have fossil
evidence for all these links - and we never will. The matter of fossils is
difficult, for it requires the physical remains of individual organisms,
when they die, to remain sufficiently intact that we can find them and
examine them many millions of years later. Given the geologic processes of
the earth, I am always amazed that we can find any. But find them we do, and
each is a clue to show us what existed back then. Fortunately, we have
several tools that help us do this. The first tool is whatever we use to
observe the fossils, ranging from our eyeballs, to microscopes, to machines
that can show the molecular composition of a fossil. Second, we have
geologic mapping, maps that show where geologic strata lie, and which are on
top of which. As newer layers of material (e.g. from floods and volcanoes,
and even wind-borne dirt) are laid down, the layered nature of the earths
surface is created, trapping within its different layers the remains of
organisms, older as you search deeper. Thus when you find a fossil, you can
form a pretty good idea of when the organism lived, and what kind of other
organisms lived around the same period of time.
All of this is like a huge puzzle, with fragmentary but real clues. It is
not easy, but that doesn't mean that it is 'only' just another theory. And
our range of knowledge and understanding keeps growing. We might find a
fossil of a species, but find that it comes from a layer that is much older
than we heretofore associated with the species. This is happening with human
fossils, over which we are greatly interested: it seems like every decade or
so, an older human fossil is discovered. This then forces a reappraisal of
all connecting bits of fossil evidence, and the redrawing of our
evolutionary charts. But none of this undermines evolutionary theory or
knowledge; indeed the process strengthens it.
So while there are 'missing links', this is to be expected: it lies in the
nature of fossils and their survival. But we do know enough to say
unequivocally that the patterns and processes of evolution do include
mutation, selection, and the branching of species, and to say that this has
happened over many millions of years. To deny this is simply to deny the
plain evidence that lies in profusion before us. And yes, we have more to
learn, and that is what makes evolution such an interesting area of study.
And no, we don't 'witness' these evolutionary splittings, because it takes
longer than one of our lifetimes to establish a new evolutionary line. It
doesn't happen at a single moment, the split happens over several
generations, as the two branches become sufficiently distinct to be called
two different species. (An exception, as I pointed out in my long-ish post
to you, are short-lived species which go through a sufficient number of
generations that the evolutionary split could be observed.)
Now, to the matter of 'resistance.' As you point out, within any given
population, there will be differences in how its individuals respond to
stress. Some will die, and others will survive. The remaining population
will be, by definition, 'stronger'. But that is not in itself evolution, of
course. Evolution occurs in a couple of ways.
1) When the stronger survivors breed and pass on whatever genetic traits
were the cause of that strength (assuming that there was a genetic component
to begin with).
2) When a mutation occurs within the genetic make-up of a single individual,
which breeds and passes on the mutation to its offspring, which carries on
with its descendents. Mutations are like little biological experiments:
most mutations don't take. Mutations need not be helpful to the host
individual, they can actually detract from the performance of the individual
and its offspring, making it more likely that come a time of stress, its
line will perish. But occasionally a mutation 'works' and the offspring are
significantly strengthened, and perform better than the rest of the
individuals. If this superiority is sufficient, and its genetic basis is
successfully passed on to off-spring, these individuals will thrive,
relative to the rest of the population. Over time, this new 'strain' of
individuals may go to establish additional differences of such
distinctiveness that we would consider it a new species.
I hope this is of interest to you and your wife.
Best regards,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On
Behalf Of George M Jempty
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 4:14 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Creationism The Solution
> For a quick answer to all the BS on evolution that has been making the
> rounds today, may I suggest the following article on 15 myths on
> evolution. As usual, Jonathan -- I mean the Doctor -- is spot on.
>
> The following link shjould take you to a recent Scientific American (is
> this an magazine name an oxymoron, John?))
>
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EE
DF> &
> catID=2
>
> Rog
Here is my wife's off the cuff response to Dr Who, without the benefit of
having read the above article, which I have since suggested she do.
George
Resistance to antibiotics and pesticides is evolution? I was taught in
my clinical microbiology classes that the resistance was already there,
latent, in the population and that the adverse stress of the inimical
agent causes it ti come to the fore. And that the resistant bacteria
"teach" the other survivors to do the trick by "gene swapping". They
aren't evolving something entirely new, it already existed in the
population. And, if the harmful substance is removed, the resistance
ability also goes dormant again. Is this evolution in reverse? But
wait: "Evolution is the development of the simple toward the more
complex." It "isn't supposed" to happen in reverse.I admit, simple
evolution does sometimes happen, though resistance isn't
the best example. How about the observation the Indian elephants almost
never develop tusks anymore. Are we evolving a new species? No, it's
'simple' evolution, evolution within a species. Darwin observed simple
evolution in the Galapagos (sic) finches. He thought, "All these species
of finch are descended from one species of finch." He then made the
enormous leap, "Therefore ALL species have a common ancestor." That's
like saying, "These two paintings look like they were painted by the same
artist. Therefore ALL paintings must have been painted by the same
individual." Evolution has never been demonstrated to operate across
genus and species lines. That's what the "missing link" term is about.
No one has ever unearthed a common ancestor between egg-layers and non egg
layers, between animals with reptile type ears and mammalian type ears,
between ruminants and those of us with 'normal' stomachs, or arthropods
and vertebrates. The infamous archaeopteryx, which we were all taught in
school was the link between reptiles and birds, has long been considered
by paleontologists to be an evolutionary 'dead end'; ancestral to nothing.
Check your professional literatureEvolution does not work across genus,
family, order, class, phylum, or
kingdom. Explain the 'Cambrian Explosion' if it does. Precambrian
fossils consisted only of single-celled organisms until just before the
Cambrian. The Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many
fully-formed phyla and classes of animals. Even Darwin noticed: "several
of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest
known fossiliferous rocks." Suddenly means that life evolved from
jellyfish to insects, fish, salamanders, mollusks and others 'overnight'.
How?While you're at it, how does evolution fly in the face of Newton's Third
Law - that everything tend toward a state of maximum disorder. One has to
put energy into a system from the outside to get it to organize instead of
fall apart.And to reply to one last point: I agree, I have more in common
with an
ape than with a locust. But then we were designed to operate in totally
different ecological niches. A mountain bike doesn't have much in common
with an F-16 either.Sir, you're a scientist. Scientists make hypotheses and
then try to prove
them. If they cannot be demonstrated, they remain theories. That is why
evolution is called a theory.Creation cannot be proven by men either. We do
not have the creative
power within us. But God's true creative spirit is demonstrated if the
life of everyone he has changed. We cannot change ourselves, "For who can
bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" But there are untold millions of
transformed lives to speak for God. If He speaks in individual lives and
not academic demonstrations, well, He always has preferred to work one on
one.
So, when was the last time you witnessed the evolution of a new, non-
interbreeding, genus and species?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST