Two posts got me thinking about this subject:
Looking at these two posts--coming from opposite sides of the ring--it became clear to me that "Evolution" is rather unclear. Sadly, my own ignorance is all too evident the more I learn. But, I'd like to share what little I think I currently understand in the interest of better science...
I soaked up the rebuttals to evolution early in life. I really enjoyed the "Frog in a Blender" and "toss parts of an airplane into the air" thought experiments. Sadly, it wasn't until last year that I even heard that these two staples of my grasp of evolutionary theory are wrong.
Part of my ignorance is understandable. "Evolution" is a vague term that is rarely defined consistently enough to talk about it. Here are a few areas of "evolution":
- Descent with modification. Mix this with genetic mutation and heredity, and we've got something everyone can agree on. ...mostly. The fact is: Living organisms change with reproduction. One main protested sticking point is...
- Common descent. Can all living things trace back to some original source via speciation? And, if so, where did that life come from? That is the question considered from a naturalistic perspective in the study of...
- Abiogenesis. An element connected with abiogenesis is the Big Bang, or the potential starting point that flung everything in the universe out there.
- Notice, however, that none of these areas of study even begin to touch the question of "how did it all get here in the first place?"
If we are to get anywhere in a discussion about evolution, we must be aware of which aspect of evolution we are talking about. Modification is a fact. Common descent is a theory. Abiogenesis is a naturalistic necessity. And the origin of matter is an ignored reality. ...all for very good reasons.
Or so I'm told.
I have yet to learn what most those reasons are. They weren't covered in my Honors Biology class in high school. They aren't covered in any of the Usborne books Sonlight carries in our homeschool Science programs. In fact, much of what I know about evidence for evolution comes from Young Earth Creationists' materials. Which is problematic because those are the same resources which contain the frog-blender/airplane-toss examples...
Why is it wrong to compare evolution to a blended frog zapped with electricity?
Because the "random chance" of evolution is not nearly that random or chance-ish. Here's the best analogy I've come up with thus far:
Evolutionary speciation is not like tossing pieces in the air an expecting a plane. It's more like replacing a piece of your Lego set with another piece--grabbed without looking from your bucket--each time you build a plane. If you like the new look, you keep that design for next time.
This aspect of evolution requires life to already exist. In fact...
Something I've only just started to glance at is the idea of engineered evolution. Basically, if common descent is a part of how we all got here, life was designed to evolve us forward. That is a fascinating twist!
I've still got a lot to learn about this subject. But that's the joy (and frustration) of life-long learning <smile>.
Have you heard any evidence for evolution that didn't come from someone who opposes it? And if so, what?
What do you think of the random mutation generator? Pretty fun, eh?
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester
P.S. If I've misrepresented something here, please leave a comment so we can learn together!