What is Evolution? 
Why does understanding evolution matter? 
"What about "Social Darwinism" 
What about Creationism & "Intelligent Design"? 
"But, isn't evolution just a theory?" 
Evolutionism verses Creationism? 
Of course, my main interest is in studying the evolution my own species, Homo Sapiens 
Interesting Facts about Evolution

What is Evolution?
What is it? 
Evolution is simply our way of saying that as we observe nature, we recognize that organisms change over time from generation to generation (not necessarily always "for the better"). Sometimes organisms even change enough to result in the emergence of what scientists consider a new species. 

How does it happen? 
As far as we can tell at this time, it happens by means of accidental, random genetic mutations accumulating over time which turn out to either help or hinder an organism's ability to survive in its environment and to successfully mate and produce viable offspring. 

Organisms usually change little by little over time. Not all changes result in massively noticeable differences in species so as to lead to our classifying them as separate from each other (as in the case of our species evolving different blood-types). Some do though (as in the case of our much larger and more powerful brain as compared with the other primates). Evolution is only noticed when a change in the organism results in either helping or hindering that organism to survive in its environment. 

Changes in environment do not necessarily result in corresponding changes in organisms. Most organisms do not really posses the capability to "adapt" to changes in their environment like some might think. That's not what is meant when we say that organisms evolve. For instance, they don't grow fins because there's water to swim in... or grow legs because the water all dried up and there's plenty of land to walk on. This was the way we used to understand evolution before Darwin discovered the process he named Natural Selection. 
    Now we understand that positive-survival changes in organisms usually happen completely independent of changes in their environment. There may indeed be environmentally induced changes in the organism, but they are usually not corresponding to the environmental change it self in any way, other than the fact that it caused them. For instance, there may come about some kind of genetic mutation in an organism due to high levels of radiation from living close to a nuclear reactor facility, but unless those genetic changes just happen (very unlikely) to help that organism survive in the high radiation environment they most likely will not survive. If they survive, it is most likely not due to mutations caused by the radiation of the nuclear facility, but mutations that had already accumulated prior to the construction of the facility or prior to the organisms migrating to that environment. 
    The only time we usually notice a change in any particular organism is when their environment changes, revealing whether or not any of their randomly and accidentally accumulated genetic changes along the way might have inadvertently prepared them for the current environmental change. Changes in the organism may or may not impact their ability to survive in their environment. Small changes over time that have no noticeable effect can be the very thing that either kills an organism later or helps keep it alive in the event of environmental change along the way. 

This is what evolution is all about. If groups of the same species were kept geographically separated long enough, it's pretty easy to see how even minute changes over time could add up to such great differences that we'd classify them as different species. 
    In the case of our species, even though we took a fork in the road a long time ago that lead us out of Africa and began a journey that has taken us to literally every place on Earth, we've still remained one (though very diversified) species to this day. This is most likely due to the fact that our evolutionary path had already resulted in being so well adapted to Earth's environments by that time that there have been no environmental changes that we haven't been able to cope with (unlike the Neanderthals which apparently left before humans got to the point where we were when we left). 
    Though we have evolved different blood-types, there has neither been significant enough changes in our environments, nor significant enough genetic changes in our species, nor has any group spent a significant enough amount of time apart from the others for their genetic changes to result in further speciation....yet. Although we see our species continue to grow by leaps and bounds in areas of thought, technology, culture, social structure and such, with the brain size and power that we now have to cope with and adapt to our changing environment, it is probably not very likely that we'll ever notice any further major anatomical evolution. 
    Not that it could never happen. It is happening right now as you read this. However, since the mutations are so minute, and since we haven't seen any speciation in the past 100,000 years of our species existence, it is unlikely that we'll ever notice our species evolve until some pretty major environmental change...something on the scale of wiping out 99% of our species.... or perhaps something like leaving Earth to go populate some other planet which has drastically different environmental conditions which would result in revealing those of our species which have accumulated helpful mutations along the way without it ever being known before. 

It is helpful to also keep in mind that natural selection not only occurs as the result of accidental, unavoidable and indiscriminate means as in the accumulation of genetic mutations, but also as the result of choices made and behaviors engaged in by organisms. 
For example...
(This may not be the best example I could have brought out of my memory to make this point, but I think you'll catch the drift)
In conversation about our history as a species that I was having with someone at a party in March, 2003, the topic of human waste and how it "stinks" came up. They said something like, "The reason we think it stinks is simply because, at one point in time, certain members of our species noticed that it had a certain odor. Those who didn't like the odor avoided it and survived and those who didn't avoid it did not survive." 
    Now I'm not saying that their explanation of the "stinky" human waste issue is necessarily scientifically proven, but it sure does get at the heart of a major factor in the Natural Selection part of evolution. I was very pleasantly surprised to hear someone considering something about our present form or condition as a species in terms of our evolutionary history. It is a good starting point when considering how we got to this point as a species, regardless of whether or not it turns out to be true after a real scientific study of the issue. The main point is the fact that sometimes, the reason one organism survives rather than another may simply be due to a particular behavior they tried in a certain situation which another didn't try. 

Another, perhaps more appropriate (for those who don't like to talk about poop) example might be the fact that we now know that breathing in smoke causes cancer. Not all smoke that's breathed in will always cause cancer in an observably consistent manor across the entire spectrum of our species, but we do know for sure that sometimes cancer is indeed caused by breathing smoke into the lungs where it would not have been in that particular individual at that particular time in their life without adding the factor of breathing the smoke. 
    The ones that start breathing smoke into their lungs at an early age will be less likely to produce viable offspring since they will die from some related cancer before they have a chance to mate. This is not usually the case since with our species mating starts much earlier than does the onset of smoking related cancers. However, I think this is a good enough example to help us see how a behavioral choice can effect the process of Natural Selection in the evolution of a species. 

Finally, here is one more explanation even more likely to be helpful in seeing this point. 
Two humans, call them A and B, camp next to a river (each on separate days, not together with each other). Neither of them know it, but the river is teaming with predacious fish and reptilian creatures.
    Human A has food and water with them which they brought from their last location along the journey. Human A avoids the river all together, gets up the next morning and moves on to the next spot on their trip. 
    On the other hand, Human B is hungry and thirsty and has no such food or water from the journey so far as in the case of Human A. Therefore, Human B decides to go to the river bank for a much needed drink of water after the long walk from the pond at their last camp site. Also, they notice fruit trees on the other side of the river and they decide to swim to the other side for a meal. 
    Now, it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion that Human B will die trying to get food and water at this particular camp site, but it is fairly safe to say that they are in very grave danger even if all they would do is lean over briefly at the river bank for that drink. An unsuspecting and unaware human would not present much of a challenge to the agile and powerful crocodile. 
    In this example, the only differences are the choices made by each camper. This might show that one of them had a certain genetic mutation that enabled them to think more clearly and with a tendency to plan for the future or perhaps just some tribal teaching that lead them to "be prepared" while on a journey. 
    Either way, whether we can attribute A's success and B's failure to survive through this particular camping experience to accumulated genetic traits or not, there are indeed genetic mutations which Human B had accumulated along the way which will never have a chance to get passed on to any offspring simply because they haven't mated yet (I know, that wasn't part of the story, but...) and will most likely die before getting the chance to in light of their behavior as regards planning for their journeys and safety while camping on dangerous rivers. 
    So, the point isn't to say that the smarter guy always wins. That was only the point I was using in this particular example of how thinking and planning ahead can be helpful. The real point here is the fact that none of the genetic mutations (neither good nor bad) that B had accumulated over time will ever get passed on to another generation. That's how it works. B may very well have accumulated some genetic mutations that would have helped future generations in various environmental situations, but we'll never know because those mutations are now gone forever since B never successfully mated and produced viable offspring before they died. 
    This isn't meant as an exhortation to go out and have sex just to pass on one's genetic code to another generation either. Clearly it would be at least questionable whether or not I would want the genes passed on from someone that would conclude such immature nonsense from the things I have to offer here on this page (critical thinking and healthy, level-headed planning come to mind?). 


Why does understanding evolution matter when dealing with Biology?
Understanding the nature and history of the evolution of life on Earth is to Biology what understanding the history of human civilization is to Sociology. It is possible to look at an organism or a group of organisms and study them without being aware of or considering where they've been or how they got to their present form and condition, but I wouldn't recommend it. Neither would any true, modern biologist. As long as they're using nature it self (as opposed to religious material) as their fundamental, guiding, data resource, why would we want to study life on Earth in any other way than how it is studied by the professional biologists? Certainly they know more about Biology than we do...right? 


But, doesn't the evil of "Social Darwinism" prove that it is wrong to believe in evolution? 
First of all, what is "Social Darwinism"? 
Click this link for a pop-up page with a definition and links to other resources on the web about this historical anomaly. 

Secondly, believing is only for things which can't be tested and for which there is either inconclusive evidence or no evidence at all with which to make a reasonable conclusion about whether or not it is real or actual. 
    With evolution this is not the case. Like I said previously, evolution is simply our way of saying that as we observe nature, we recognize that organisms change over time from generation to generation (not necessarily always "for the better"). As far as we can tell at this time, it happens by means of accidental, random genetic mutations accumulating over time which turn out to either help or hinder an organism's ability survive in its environment and to successfully mate and produce viable offspring. This is not only revealed in the fossil record, but also confirmed by our observations of living organisms in the wild and in fact proven in the laboratory of modern biological science. 
    Evolution is not a belief system. It is a fact of nature. There is nothing to "believe" about evolution. Therefore, it is up to the individual whether or not they are going to acknowledge evolution's status as natural fact. Keep in mind though, its status as natural fact will not be altered, one way or another, by one's choice to acknowledge it as such or not. 

Finally, the only thing that "Social Darwinism" proves is that homo sapiens are capable of taking objects or facts which are neutral in and of them selves and using them for their own, unrelated, sometimes selfish and potentially hazardous purposes. It would be very silly and immature to say that it is wrong to utilize forks because of the evil done with them by some kooky, serial murder. Likewise, why pin the evils done in the name of "Social Darwinism" (which was used as the building block of manmade social engineering concepts of eugenics, selfishness, greed, egocentricism and nationalism) on a totally neutral and indifferent, natural, biological, physical process like evolution? Why? 


What about Creationism and the concept of "Intelligent Design"?
The mythical, religious fairytale of Creation and its latest reincarnation called "Intelligent Design" are to the science of Biology what ESP, "Pin the Tail on the Donkey" and Astrology are to the science of Physics and Astronomy. It might sound neat to a lot of people, and it might get a lot of attention and mental ascent from a lot of people, even from an entire society, but this is all irrelevant in the light of what we now know to be true through scientific investigation into the natural history of life on Earth. 
    I personally might even favor something like "Creation by a Loving Creator" as my preferred Story about how the "natural world" all began and what's behind the "Big Bang", but I would only consider it a possibility. I certainly wouldn't "believe" such things, and even if that were the case, it still wouldn't change the  nature of the Story. No matter how hard anyone ever wants to believe that it's true, the only thing we know for sure is that it is a story ...a story, by the way, which does not line up with what we find in nature. 
    Since neither Creationism (or "Creation-Science") nor "Intelligent Design" start from a fundamentally "scientific" premise and since they do not use scientific methods to arrive at scientific conclusions, they are not science at all. Therefore, they can't be considered Biology at all since Biology is fundamentally a scientific endeavor ...the scientific study of the nature and organic history of all known living organisms, past and present. 


"But, isn't evolution just a theory?"
On the matter of evolution being a theory . . . 

Short Answer: 
No. Darwin's "Evolution by means of Natural Selection", and Eldredge and Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" are theories about evolution, but evolution it self is not a theory, but a fact of nature. 

Long Answer:
When using the word theory, it is wise to keep in mind the difference between theory and belief. They are both forms of opinion. However, a theory is a testable opinion based on facts, whereas a belief is an opinion which is neither testable nor based on facts. 
    For instance, since Creationism is not an opinion based on and guided by the discovery of facts, and since it is not the result of scientific investigation, but the result of reading a mythical story in an ancient book written for religious and philosophical reasons (not scientific reasons) by people not as scientifically aware of their world as we are, it is not scientific and can not be a scientific theory. Furthermore, since it is an opinion which is untestable, not only is Creationism not a scientific theory, it isn't even actually a theory at all, but a belief. 
    On the other hand, when an opinion does come about as the result of observation of facts, we call it a hypothesis, and after it has been tested through scientific study, examinations and experimentation, if it survives such an assault, we call it a theory. A theory is a testable opinion. We know that it is testable if the one offering it has arrived at it through the means just stated...scientific study of facts. If we take their theory and try to test it and can not find a way to do so, then it is not a theory, but simply an opinion...an unscientific opinion; usually referred to in the real world as a belief, not a theory. 
    Since Darwin did in fact study facts of nature relative to his "Evolution by means of natural selection", and since we can and indeed have tested it by exposing it to the rigorous demands of the scientific method, over and over again since he introduced it, it is appropriate to call it a theory.

It is also wise to keep in mind that in the minds of scientists, being designated as a theory does not elevate an opinion to the status of "absolute truth". No scientific opinion can be considered absolute because we only know things to the extent to which we have data available to examine and we only know these things within the framework of the thinking quality and study methods that we've developed thus far. 
    It's not that we don't know anything for sure. The current, scientific database of the natural world overwhelmingly attests to the fact that we do indeed know many things for sure. It's just that we don't want to claim to know something for sure that we clearly don't. For instance, we know for sure that, while standing on planet Earth, if I drop a solid, hand-sized chunk of iron (barring miracles and any other intervening forces, natural or supernatural), it will fall to the ground. There are no two ways about it. It is not even debatable. The chunk of iron will fall. This is something that we all know for sure. It is not even an opinion, but a fact of nature. However, where we start talking about what makes it fall, this is when we can get into the realm of opinions. 
    Because of the fact that we can test some of these opinions, they have become known as theories; Einstein's and Newton's for example. However, we still don't know, with absolute certainty, exactly what the nature of gravity is or how it comes about. So, since we can all see that gravity exists and that it has a measurable, predictable effect, it is clearly a fact...and since we're still not absolutely certain of the nature of gravity, we have theories about its nature. Now, does the fact that we don't yet know everything about the nature of gravity cause us to question whether or not it is actually there? Of course not. Nor do we claim to know for sure what its nature is just because we know for sure that it is there. 
    It is like this with evolution. We know for sure that living organisms have evolved and continue to evolve here on planet Earth. This is a fact. However, since we are not quite sure as of yet what the exact nature of all of the mechanisms of evolution are, we still have theories of evolution such as Darwin's theory of evolution by means of "Natural Selection" and the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. 

So, to sum it up....the short answer to the opening question of this section once again..... 
No, evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. "Natural Selection" and "Punctuated Equilibrium" are theories because they are testable opinions based on facts.  Since Creationism is an opinion that is neither testable nor based on facts, it is not a theory, but a belief.  


So then, is it all about Evolutionism verses Creationism?
No. First of all, real science has no opinion about such unknowable things as the existence of a Creator or His/Her/It's creative work. Science only deals with and comments on what can be studied by natural means and methods here in the natural world. Since the various stories from around the world that tell of some kind of Creator or of a Creation are all we have to go on, we have no cold, hard factual data from the natural world with regard to Creation. Therefore, there is no scientific way to study Creation.
     To count or claim any one of these Stories to be real and actual is to make a conscious choice to "believe" in them. To believe in something means that we're choosing to count it as real and actual even though we have no way what-so-ever of knowing whether or not it really is real or actual. Believing in something is what makes it become a belief system. Therefore, Creationism is a belief system because it is a body of knowledge about some unknowable thing that is held to be real and actual even though it only comes from human writings with no direct, corroborating evidence in the natural world. 
    Oh, people try to find "evidence" for it in the natural world. Some even think they have found it, but no supposed evidence for Creation has ever stood the test of the critical eye of the scientific method and this is due to the fact that the Creationists' methods are not actually scientific in the first place. Creationism starts with the assumption that a Creator created the organism. It then goes on to try to find ways that the Creator's creativity can be seen in the created organism. When Creationism finds some currently unexplainable anomaly, oddity or complexity in, on or about an organism, it claims this anomaly, oddity or complexity to be evidence of its created origin. 
    Hopefully the flaw is obvious. It's a circular argument. If there's some unexplainable anomaly, oddity or complexity about an organism, of course it must be evidence of it having been created if we already concede that it was created in the first place. In this way, Creationism does not start from a blank slate position with respect to the nature and history of life and look at it the way it is and attempt to ascertain its nature and history by employing the natural mechanisms we already know for sure are at work in our world. No, it sets all of that aside and uses supernatural intervention to explain it all instead. When we concede supernatural intervention in the nature and history of life on earth, all scientific research is irrelevant and useless. Again, scientists are not against the idea of a Creator or of a Creation. It's just that they can have no scientific conclusions about such things because there is no scientific way of studying them. Creationism is not science but a belief system. The term "Creation Science" is an oxymoron (the combination of two thoughts which are either opposite or in some way cancel each other out). Go ahead and believe in Creation if that's your thing, but when it comes to "Creationism", please don't call it science. 
    On the other hand, there is no such thing as "Evolutionism". This is because evolution is not an untestable claim found in a story created by humans and passed down through the ages. Evolution is a fact of nature. We certainly have a ways to go in landing on and exhaustively understanding the exact mechanisms of evolution, but people like Darwin and Eldridge sure have helped a great deal in our process of discovery and investigation. Not only have we found evolution to be a fact of nature from looking at the fossil record and from living organisms in the wild, but also from conducting real, live experiments right here in the modern world. 
    There's a goofy idea circulating, especially among conservative religious groups, propounded their Creationist teachers that says that the theory of evolution is "in trouble" and losing ground or acceptance in the scientific arena. However, the only "debate" about evolution going on among biologists is about how evolution happens, not about whether or not it happens. As I said earlier, we do now know for sure that life has evolved and continues to evolve here on planet Earth. Evolution it self is not a theory, but a fact of nature. However, Darwin's concept of "Natural Selection" is indeed a theory. It was his "theory of evolution" (i.e. his theory about how evolution works). So, he did not introduce evolution, but a theory of how it works. I think clearing up this one, historical mistake could go a long way in helping people understand what we actually know about life and how long we've actually known it. Evolution was already understood by most biologists as that which most accurately explains the nature and history of life on Earth. It's just that Darwin's theory showed how it could actually happen, thus making it more palatable for some to acknowledge evolution publicly who were still torn between the truth of nature and what they had held to be true all their lives due to their religious up-bringing. Even among scientists, it was the idea that our species had also evolved just as the others which held Darwin's "Natural Selection" at bay for so long after he first released it to the public. 
    There should be no such thing as "believing in" evolution. If someone you know "believes in" evolution, they are not doing science a favor. True scientists of Biology do not want believers in or adherents to their claims. They simply study life as it really is and offer their findings. It is up to us as critical thinking homo sapiens whether or not we are going to examine their findings according to the scientific method and discover for our selves whether or not they line up with reality. 
    The stories of Creation and the claims of the so-called "Creation-Scientists" (the oxymorons of the intellectual world) do not line up with scientific studies of nature. This and this alone is why we call believing in them "Creationism". Since evolution is actually the result of scientific study, it would not be appropriate to label the acknowledgment of its existence, nature or history as evolutionism. 
    So, the answer is... No, it is not all about Evolutionism verses Creationism. Since there is no such thing as "evolutionism" and since Biologists are not believers in untestable claims but scientists who conduct scientific studies of the nature and history of life on Earth and since science contains no competing belief system, the Creationists should not feel threatened in the least by the natural fact of evolution unless they think that their belief system is somehow at risk of being rejected due to people actually waking up to reality and beginning to think critically about the nature and history of life in the world in which we actually live. 

Of course, my main interest is in studying the evolution my own species, Homo Sapiens 

back to my home page    contact me    .    .    .