The Theory of Evolution is generally accepted as the best scientific explanation to explain the diversity of life on the planet. It applies to everything that we see alive, from bacteria to people. This theory proposes that all life on earth, no matter how simple or complex, derives from single-cell organisms.Over time, and due to mutations, single-cell organisms became dogs, jacaranda trees, bumble bees, streptococcus pneumoniae, or human beings, among other living things. The simple mechanism of evolution explains not only the variety of life which exists today, but also serves as the foundation for all of modern biology. To understand the Theory of Evolution, we must first understand what a theory is.
What is a Theory?
A theory is a testable explanation for a series of facts. Theories generally are extremely difficult to prove, and are often impossible to prove. Theories can, however, be disproved. For example, before a modern understanding of genetics came about, there was a Theory of Acquired Characteristics, which was used to explain things like why giraffes have long necks. The idea was that each generation of giraffes would stretch to reach higher branches, slightly lengthening their necks, and then passing those slightly longer necks on to their offspring. This theory could never be proven, but it is possible to conduct tests to determine whether such effects are possible. For example, you could look at people with shaved heads, and see if their babies were more likely to have less hair. Or you could do experiments with animals, like cutting the tails off mice and seeing if their offspring have shorter tails. A theory is not, when used in science, simply a guess or a hunch. A theory, in its scientific meaning, also precludes the use of supernatural explanations. If it did not, everything could be conclusively explained as simply being the product of magic, witchcraft, or some other mystical explanation.
The Theory of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, a 19th century British geologist and botanist in his book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” (1859). He did not call it by this name, but his theory was clearly laid out in it.What the Theory of Evolution proposes is that all life on the planet began as simple, one-celled organisms. Over time, as these organisms reproduced, mutations occurred. These mutations could have resulted from environmental factors, or simple errors in the process of reproduction. Most of the mutations would be ineffectual, and would make no difference to the creature. Some would be detrimental, and result in an organism that could not survive at all. On rare occasions, the mutation would be beneficial. When a mutation was beneficial, in this sense, it would encourage the successful production of more offspring who were fertile and who carried the new trait.
There is no value judgment involved in the fact that a trait was “selected.” It does not mean that the trait has improved the species by making it smarter, faster, nimbler, or anything else. It simply enable the creature with this trait to have more offspring that survived to produce offspring.
Bacteria are particularly good demonstrations of evolution in action because they reproduce so rapidly and allow for many rapid mutations through the creation of dozens of generations every day.
When penicillin was first discovered and used, following the Second World War, it was effective for treating many diseases, acting by attaching itself to the cell wall of the bacteria and destroying it, so that the whole cell would then fall apart. There were certain cells that were slightly different from the other bacteria, and the penicillin did not work on them, and those cells survived and prospered and produced numerous offspring, evolving into diseases which, while having many of the same traits of the original disease, were able to resist penicillin.
Main Anti-Evolution Arguments and Why They Are Wrong
No One Has Ever Observed Evolution – Wrong
Critics of evolution tend to use misunderstandings to foster their arguments. Some claim that no one has ever observed evolution in action. This is patently false. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and also of pesticide-resistant insects are a case in point. These evolved creatures are the product of evolution through natural selection of those traits able to survive in the new environment. Evolution, as a theory, makes predictions about what we would expect to see in areas such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, and location of species, and the number of observations supporting evolution is enormous.
Evolution Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics – Wrong
Another anti-evolutionist argument, which can easily be found on the internet, is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is preposterous. This law of physics is often misstated by those against evolution, who claim that what it states is that the natural tendency of a system is to disorganization, and since evolution means increasing complexity, it violates the law. The reason this argument fails is several-old. First, the law is misstated. What the law really states is that “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]. Anti-evolutionists restate this to say that “as usable energy decreases, decay increases. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.” The law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to life. It applies to heat. It applies to the relationship between hotter and cooler substances. It also only applies in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. It is constantly receiving energy from the sun, which adds to the amount of energy in the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t threaten evolution theory because evolution is about complexity, not energy.
If Something Appears to be Designed There Must Be a Designer – Wrong
This argument says that if you find a watch, you can tell it was designed, so there must be a designer. Another version of it says that the watch is complicated, so its designer must be more complicated, and since life is complicated, life must have been designed by a more complicated being, aka, some god. This falsity of this argument can be seen on many grounds. For one thing, how “designed” do things have to be to require a designer? Crystal formations and snowflake can be completely explained by natural law, and yet they appear to be designed. The rotation of the planets is completely explained by gravity, yet it appears designed. The main problem with this argument, of course, is that if you insist that everything must have a designer, who designed the original creator? And if that creator has always been there, why couldn’t the laws of the universe have always existed without the creator as well? Evolution does not rule out the existence of a god. Evolution is not against religion. Religion must be understood as having spiritual meaning, not simply that a religious text is actually a science textbook. .
All over the world, the scientific community accepts evolution, and makes predictions based upon it, and drug companies develop antibiotics because of the evolution of bacteria and diseases. If you are against evolution, you are against all modern biology, and against science itself.
