Latest on Evolution

From the ezine Mental Floss:

[list=][*]“Survival of the fittest” has become shorthand for Darwinism, but Charles Darwin didn’t actually coin the phrase. Herbert Spencer did, in his 1864 book The Principles of Biology, presenting it as his take on what Darwin called “natural selection.” Instead of being offended, Darwin embraced Spencer’s terminology. He even included it in the 1869 edition of On the Origin of Species and praised it as a more “accurate” and “convenient” distillation of his evolutionary theory. But not every exchange of ideas regarding evolution has ended so amicably

Believe it or not, the theory of how life develops on Earth has inspired a lot of controversial and inaccurate statements, including some from Darwin himself. We’re going to attempt to settle the evolution debate once and for all in this article, based on an episode of Misconceptions on Youtube. You’re welcome, science.

1. Misconception: Natural selection always means “survival of the fittest.”

Charles Darwin may have co-signed the phrase, but “survival of the fittest” is not an entirely accurate representation of natural selection. Natural selection is the process that weeds out disadvantageous traits from a population and allows advantageous traits to flourish. Spencer’s wording implies that surviving alone is enough for a specimen to propagate the next generation. This isn’t true. Surviving to sexual maturity is one half of the natural selection equation, and the other is reproducing successfully. A fish that’s fast enough to evade predators won’t have much impact on the gene pool if sharks gobble up all of its eggs.

This is why many modern biologists prefer the phrase “reproduction of the fittest” over “survival of the fittest.” Still, this version can be problematic depending on how you interpret the word “fit.” Spencer’s phrase brings to mind animals that are stronger, bigger, and faster than their competitors. We now know the specimens that are most likely to reproduce aren’t always the ones that would do best in a one-on-one fight. Other traits, like cooperation, can be just as important to a population’s success.


No species better exemplifies this than human beings. Humans are the most successful predators on Earth, despite being far from the strongest or the fastest.

2. Misconception: Evolution is elegant.

It’s easy to view nature as a carefully designed masterpiece. Natural selection has produced some incredible stuff, like the beautiful wood nymph moth, whose main defense mechanism is looking like bird poop. But for every bird poop moth, there are plenty of less-elegant examples of evolution.

One is the inside of a giraffe’s neck. In creating one of the most impressive adaptations in the animal kingdom, natural selection left behind a bit of mess beneath the hood. A giraffe’s brain is only 10 centimeters from its voicebox, but one of the nerves connecting the two parts is 13 feet long. This is a gross oversimplification, but when a giraffe decides to vocalize, the impulse travels down the neck, around the aorta, and back up the neck again before reaching its destination. That’s because giraffes evolved from organisms that didn’t have necks—their distant ancestors were fish, or fish-like creatures. In those animals, a nerve that wrapped around the heart may have made sense, but as giraffe necks have gotten longer, the configuration has gotten more absurd.

Sometimes, evolution’s roundabout path results in something awesome. Take whales: You might assume that their phylogenetic tree starts and stops in the ocean, since that’s where all life on Earth began. But fossil evidence shows that whales descended from terrestrial mammals roughly the size of wolves. That means that whales’ ancestors left the ocean, adapted to walk on land, and then returned to the sea to evolve into some of the smartest and biggest creatures on Earth. It’s not the most straightforward path to the top of a food chain, but they got there eventually.

3. Misconception: Evolution is random.

We’ve established that evolution isn’t always elegant, but it’s not exactly random, either. It’s true that the genetic variations that drive evolution show up randomly in organisms, but once that mutation appears, natural selection becomes a lot more predictable. If a trait harms a species’ chances of survival and reproduction, it won’t stick around for long, and if a trait helps its chances, it’s more likely to spread throughout the population. Whether a trait helps or harms a given animal has everything to do with the environmental pressures a species faces.

Under certain conditions, some evolutionary traits are practically inevitable. We see this in a phenomenon called convergent evolution. Bats and birds evolved wings independently, not through some freak coincidence, but because they faced similar demands from their ecosystems. So, no—Earth producing life that’s well-adapted to its environment isn’t the same as an immortal monkey with a typewriter eventually producing Shakespeare, unless the monkey has help from an editing team that saves the good stuff and burns the rest.

4. Misconception: There’s a “missing link” in human evolution.

Whether in reference to fossils or Bigfoot, you’ve likely heard the term “missing link.” It’s used to describe some mysterious, unknown creature that, if discovered, would draw a clear line between humans and our ape ancestors. But as any evolutionary biologist will tell you, the whole concept is rooted in a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

For there to be a transitional species connecting ancient apes to modern humans, evolution would have to unfold like a ladder, with one link leading cleanly to the next. This line of thinking gave us the argument: “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” It’s also responsible for the iconic but thoroughly unscientific illustration known as the “The March of Progress,” which actually never intended to show what people generally assume it’s showing.

The counter to these misconceptions is that evolution is not a linear hierarchy—it’s more like a messy web. Multiple lines can break off from one population; populations can gain traits and lose them later; land mammals can turn into whales sometimes. Drawing a straight line from one species to another across millions of years is impossible.

Even the idea of a transitional species comes with problems. It implies that some species are fully formed evolutionary ideals, while others only serve to bridge gaps in nature’s timeline. The truth is that change is constant, even in humans. Wisdom teeth, for example, are vestigial features. It’s estimated that 35 percent of the population is born without them, and that number may
[/list]

The true story of Creation:
Genesis 1:1-31 (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Your use of the word "true" is very idiosyncratic. A sort if "i believe this and you have no right to argue".

And as a metaphor it isn't that bad. As an alternative to evolution, however, it offends greatly the nostrils of those who do not accept the bible as a source of historical accuracy. In other words, somewhat ironically, it stinks to high heaven.

You have every right to argue. However, you have no solid ground to argue from. Your position is based on shifting sand. Feel free to believe in ever-changing, man-made hypothesis. I’ll take my stand on the immutable word of God.

A compelling case is one where the premises are demonstrably true, the conclusion is inevitable, and if you come across a new compelling argument its conclusion will become part of your belief system if it was not already.

There is no compelling argument for the existence of a god and there is no compelling argument that shows god does not exist.

The agnostic point of view is the more rationale and is not a man made hypothesis. Once a compelling argument arrives on this topic, the agnostic will convert to theism or atheism in accord with the case: this is not ever-changing, it is "we are still waiting"

And should the theist claim prove true, then any of the Abrahamic faiths is a likely as the rest of them.

I see no compelling case for evolution. What I do see is a lot of guesses, hypothesis and speculations about evolution. Evolution is based on faith, just as creation is based on faith. I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

The case for evolution is backed with a lot of evidence: to such a degree that even the Discovery Institute agrees that evolution takes place at the microscopic level. Christian fundamentalists have a habit of ignoring uncomfortable evidence on the grounds that anything that does not support scripture's doctrine has, by definition, got to be wrong.

What I think you are trying to say is that you have too much faith in dogma to accept anything that suggests that that dogma is errant.

I see no compelling evidence for evolution at all. The Discovery Institute may recognize mutations within a species but there has never been a case where a creature mutated or evolved into another creature. Viruses may mutate but they are still viruses. If you can provide evidence that a creature evolved into another species I’d love to examine that evidence. Until then, I simply do not have the faith to believe in evolution.

The British Bulldog, like all canine critters had the wolf as one of its great ancestors.   They are now so disparate as to be accepted as two distinct species.   Covid variants are classic examples of mutations at the microscopic level:  or is it the case that each variation was another act of god? And it is not a question of needing faith to accept evolution, but relying on dogma to reject what is now accepted as good science/

The bulldog and the wolf are both canines. The bulldog did not evolve into a feline, a whale or a pigmy monkey. It’s still a dog. Selective breeding is the cause, not evolution. Again, zero compelling evidence for evolution. Zero.

Your classic straw man argument once more. Perhaps you should call your chums at the Discovery Institute and see if they can give you a better one. I suppose genetically engineered food is god using men as his agents under your dogma,

Straw man? Hahahaha….no, no, no. Facts ol’ boy, nothing but facts. Speaking of facts, there are none for evolution. Not only is there no compelling argument for evolution, there’s nothing at all that suggests evolution. Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale. Something the Brothers Grimm would be proud of. If you have any legitimate evidence to indicate monkeys evolved from tadpoles I’d love to see it. Any evidence at all that would indicate an animal evolved from a totally different animal would be appreciated. Again, I say I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

No one has ever suggested that evolution means that two members of one species spawn a completely new species: and refuting a case that has never been made is known as the straw man fallacy. We have discussed this before but those of a dogmatic nature also seem to have selective amnesia. Your use your faith as if it was a pair of peril sensitive spectacles that prevent you seeing anything that challenges your world view and gives you permission to rant and rave at anyone who disagrees with you. Really, your faith seems to be as useful as the letters w and h in the word "why".

I was under the impression that according to evolutionists, all life on earth began from a single cell ameba. That would mean all species evolved from different creatures. This is an incredible story, but there is no evidence for such fiction. Again, show me the empirical evidence that mankind evolved from a single cell creature in a pond of scum. Claiming there is a mountain of evidence is not the same as presenting said evidence. I just do not have enough faith to believe in evolution.

If you are unable to bring anything fresh to this discussion, perhaps you should retire to your bed and get yourself some well earned rest. Don't slam the door on you way out...

Please present a shred of evidence to support your belief. If evolution is true, it should be easy to validate it. If you want to walk away, don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

You have rejected all the evidence presented on the grounds that you have no faith with which to believe it. If you insist on wandering around with your eyes tightly shut, being in bed might save you from harming yourself. Shooting yourself in the foot is one thing, walking into a door post is quite different and not wished upon anyone.

I find it amusing that you began this thread about 7 Misconceptions about Evolution. Evolution is nothing but a misconception. You cannot offer any evidence for evolution. You cannot explain how humans evolved from a unicellular organism. But you claim there is a mountain of evidence. No, my friend, you have been duped and bamboozled by the guesses, hypothesis and speculations of man. I don't have the faith to believe in evolution because there is nothing to support the belief. Life does not simply begin from nonlife.

Also of interest is the author of the article you posted isn't even a scientist. Michele Debczak has a B.A. in Writing, Literature and Publishing. In fact according to her bio, "Some of her favorite subjects include defunct theme park rides, weird-looking sea creatures, and fast food history. When she's not writing, she's probably reading about unsolved mysteries on Wikipedia." This is your expert for misconceptions of evolution??? Hahahaha.....you're killing me....hahaha

Now you are adding an ad hominem attack to your list of fallacies.   Perhaps you could become a case study for students of twisted thinking.

Oh, don't be so dramatic. I'm not attacking anyone. I am once again showing how unqualified your "experts" are. I'm sure Michele is a nice woman. However, I don't believe an expert on defunct theme park rides qualifies her as an expert on evolution. But, then, defunct theme park rides are more legitimate than evolution. If you can find some actual evidence for evolution, hit me up. Hahaha....experts....hahaha

Try is one:  Britannica article   Spoiler alert:  contains long words and thought challenging explanations.

So evolution is true because this article says it’s true? Seems kinda circular to me. All the article contains are assumptions and beliefs. No evidence at all for evolution. In fact the piece supports my position. Notice this quote: “ One example is the evolution of the horse. The horse can be traced to an animal the size of a dog having several toes on each foot and teeth appropriate for browsing; this animal, called the dawn horse (genus Hyracotherium), lived more than 50 million years ago. The most recent form, the modern horse (Equus), is much larger in size, is one-toed, and has teeth appropriate for grazing.”

The horse has changed over time, but it is still a horse. It did not become a cat or a dog or a human. Show me where the horse evolved from a single cell bug living in a scum pond. The truth of the matter is even evolutionists know life did not evolve from one creature into not another. Evolution = Fake news.

Nobody has ever purported your theory that evolution mean two critters of one specie mate and produce a completely new species.   I note you repeat that fallacy every time your scorn tank runs out gas.   By the way, using your scorn method, I have been able to prove that algebra is false maths.   Yay for us.

As a reward. I offer you this update to your scripture to refute some of modern science's more problematical issues:

And the Good Lord did make a chimpanzee out of part of a pile of clay.  And saw that it was good.

Taking the rest of the clay, he fashioned a human being and said unto the multitudes "now the similarity in genomes will confound satanists and creationists alike."

And the multitudes roared their approval

The basic tenant of evolution is that creatures have evolved over time into totally different creatures. For instance it is my understanding that some scientists believe modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. That would mean big lizards became birds over millions of years. Evolutionists claim human beings evolved from single cell creatures over millions of years. There is simply no evidence for any of this. None.

Again, you have offered no evidence for evolution. Articles written by evolutionists do not count as evidence. They are simply the musings of a believer in the religion of evolution. Evolution is a religion where man is worshipped as god. As the highest life form, man must a god. Since man is god he isn’t responsible to a higher power so man can do anything he wants.

If you can offer empirical evidence for evolution I’ll accept it as a fact. Until then you keep right on blindly follow your religion. I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.