Why is evolution taught as a science since no humans existed when the universe began?

Question

The word "science" means knowledge. Since no one was around when everything began and it is impossible to reproduce evolution in lab, why is it called a science. Only the Creator was around and thus only He can be trusted to tell us how all things began. Besides, where's the missing link? The fossil record is, by now, complete and they still haven't found any missing links- no transformation forms of any kind.

Answer 1

We also teach molecular chemistry as science, even though no one can "see" a molecule. We can indirectly observe their existence, and gather sufficent evidence to determine they must exist. We teach Einstein's theory of relativity as science, even though we can't see an object moving at close to the speed of light. We can't directly observe what happens, but we can infer it from a prepoderance of tangible evidence. That is what science is all about. The fact is that evolution is supported by far more scientific evidence than many other theories that are taught as science.

No, the fossil record is not complete. Scientists are constantly finding new fossilized species. If you have nothing even remotely intelligent to say, please, do us all a favor and say nothing at all.

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.

As the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.

The theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.

Science is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not. What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

1. Vestigial structures

One example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.

Another example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.

2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.

Creationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. This is true. However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.

3. The fossil record.

Although the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species. There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).

I want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).

There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).

5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.

Creationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument. Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin. It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.

Any developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.

I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.

6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.

The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.

Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?

Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.

7. Homologous structures.

Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).

The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.

An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.

That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.

8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.

The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.

9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).

These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.

There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."


For more information, see the following links:
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Or just do a google search for something like “evidence of evolution,” or check your local library.

Answer 2

Wow. Almost everything you said seems misinformed. Let's do a quick rundown:
"The word "science" means knowledge." - Correct!

"Since no one was around when everything began and it is impossible to reproduce evolution in lab, why is it called a science." --- Incorrect on both. Evolution has nothing to do with everything beginning, and it IS possible to reproduce it in the lab. See here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/
That's why it's a science.

"The fossil record is, by now, complete and they still haven't found any missing links- no transformation forms of any kind." -- Incorrect on both accounts again. The fossil record is far from complete, and they have found MANY transitional forms. Here is a HUGE page listing a bunch of them, have fun:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html


Once you're done educating yourself about what evolution actually is, then come back an ask a question. Cause right now what you said sounds to an educated person like "Why isn't the shape of that house RED instead of THREE?!"

Answer 3

Religion insists that everyone take what it says at it's word.

The definition of science if NOT knowledge. It's "any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means." Should I underline verifiable?

Now, what makes you think human beings know everything there is to know about the universe? What makes you think that we will never know more than we do now? Do you really think that everyone has just stopped searching to discover anything new?

Science "based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research."

That means science is measurable. Religion is not. Religion is purely in your head and there's no way to verify that what you say is true other than you saying it's true. Especially not with a 2000 year old book written during a time when we still believed in dragons and more full of fantasy than almost any fantasy novel written in the last 2000 years.

I don't understand why closed minded Christians continue to bring up the missing link. Ok, maybe I should capitalize this so hopefully it will sink in...

JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW NOW, DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T FIND OUT LATER.

Honestly, we know maybe 1% of the information about our own planet. Why does that mean we should already know about where the missing link is? Tell me, did YOUR god grant you the sum of all knowledge? Did YOUR god give you x-ray vision to see inside the rocks? Yeah, I thought not. Well science can't x-ray the whole damned planet at once. That's alot of planet and our technology doesn't reach all the bloody way through it.

Science is a process. It's constantly changing, and yes, evolving. It's constantly learning, proving, and disproving.

So how about you quit asking where the missing link is and accept that we just don't know YET and that it doesn't mean we won't know in the future.

Btw, yes, we have found missing links. We just haven't found the one you're looking for. If you want to know, look at evolution and learn about it instead of acting on uneducated and fearful guesses.

Answer 4

Well, the fossil record for hominids is not complete, there are new finds all the time and they sometimes have to change the lines they thought humans evolved from. Like at one time it was assumed humans evolved from species to species in a single line and now they know that there were several species of hominids that existed at once and are pretty sure which one we came from but need a bit more evidence to know. Every species is pretty much a so called transitional species - has some traits of the species before it but starting traits of a species that will follow. As far as missing link - it is just another term for transitional fossil. So far Australopithicux africanus seems to fit the bill pretty good - a combination of ape and homind characteristics. If you want to see a very comple transformation of a species jut google horse evolution - there is a great record from a wee beastie about the size of a dog with four toes to the hooved animal we know today. Elephants, whales, have a great fossil record as well.

Answer 5

Congratulations!!!

That is the single most stupid argument against evolution I have heard here in several weeks, and there are a LOT of stupid ignorant arguments against the ToE on this board.

You clearly demonstrate your ignorance of science in general, evolution in particular (hint: there is no "missing link"..never was part of evolutionary theory, it is xians who demand one)

Please, how do you prove that "the Creator" was around, where is your evidence?
The fossil record is by no means complete, new fossils are being found all the time, and while the gradual evolution of some animals is well documented (eg. the horse) it is patchy for most. You are 100% wrong when you say there are no transitional fossils. Please stop getting your "science" info from AiG or Dr Dino...

Answer 6

The term science is derived from the Latin verb "to know". No one was around when gravity was created. Evolution does not attempt to explain the creation of the universe. Evolutionary processes are routinely reproduced in the lab on a small scale, and the world itself is a giant laboratory. Genesis is attributed to Moses and nowhere in the Bible does it say that God dictated Genesis to Moses. The fossil record is far complete and new discoveries, including transitional forms, are unearthed regularly.

I suspect Satan is proud of you for transcending deceptive rhetoric and turning to outright lies.

Answer 7

First, you have made the assumption of a Creator without justifying it in your discourse. Second, as noted above, evolution is not concerned with origins. Third, it's extremely closed-minded to assume all fossil data have been found. Fourth, it's also closed-minded to assume that we would be able to find remnants of all past life. Fifth, transitions have been found, as well as commonalities that show relation between the species.

And to answer your question, we derive knowledge from fossils. Knowledge does not imply complete understanding. It involves the interpretation of data.

Finally, I find it very odd that someone who has never seen a 'Creator' but still believe in him challenges evolution on the basis of "I didn't see it."

Answer 8

Oh man there is so much misinformation here it hurts me. Evolution says nothing about the beginning of the universe or even the beginning of life. And there are literally hundreds of fossils showing dozens of transitional species between us and our common ancestor to apes. And evolution has not only been reproduced in a lab, it has been observed in nature.

Answer 9

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. That's cosmology.

Tons of transitional forms have been found. YOU are a transitional form. ALL life is a transitional form. The fossil record is NOT complete. If every plant and animal on the planet ever left a fossil, the world would have ran out of atoms a LONG time ago.

Answer 10

It is a scientific theory taught the same as the theory of the speed of light. Most science is just that theories based on available evidence. Theories change as new facts present themselves. It is taught as science because it is science.

Answer 11

Wow. Ok. See, I thought, from your previous questions that you maybe actually knew a little about what you were talking about. But now I see that you don't even know what science is. Go read some books, go read some articles in National Geographic, read about our ancestor Lucy and then come back.