Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true?

Question

During a lecture at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981, prominent evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson asked his esteemed audience of evolutionists this surprising question. Can you answer it? The only answer he got from the experts was silence. Patterson also tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there was silence again - for a long time - eventually one honest person said, "I do know one thing--it ought not to be taught in high school."

Cited in: Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 10. Johnson says in the research notes of his book that Patterson's lecture was not published, but he had reviewed a transcript of it (p. 173). Furthermore, Patterson again stated the same position in an interview with journalist Tom Bethell (Bethell, "Deducing from Materialism," National Review, Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43).

Answer 1

Well to answer this question you must first understand that there are two types of evolution; Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Microevolution occurs when a section of DNA is mutated through either corruption or mistranscription. Here's an example using a phrase to represent a DNA strand (I admit this is not 100% accurate as DNA is so much more complex but it will serve for this answer):

Original DNA strand: The dog didn't bite the boy

Transcription error: The hog didn't bite the boy
This copy may in a benign or even possibly beneficial effect to the organism. Likewise it may result in a horrible mutation that may doom the organism to a painful early death. However the organism has now lost the original DNA strand and can no longer pass it on.

Deletion error: The dog bite the boy
This copy is missing information changing the original meaning and making it a jumbled mess. Once again multiple possibilities loom in the future of the mutated organism and the original DNA strand is lost.

Microevolution has been observed by scientists and even creationists accept it as fact and use it as staples of their theories. All previously observed forms of evolution have been examples of microevolution. However microevolution doesn't and can't explain the leap from one creature, such as a fish, to another entirely different organism, such as an air breathing mamma. That would require macroevolution as I will try to explain as simply as possible below.


Macroevolution is the addition of genetic information not found in the original DNA strand. For example:

Original DNA strand: The dog didn't bite the boy

Mutated DNA strand: The flying mer-dog didn't bite the boy

This mutation requires for additional genetic information to be added on to the original strand, something which has never been observed in any living organism. While some claim that it is possible since scientists in labs have artificially inserted genetic material to DNA strands, it is important to note they were using pre-existing genetic information. The spontaneous formation of genetic information where none previously exististed defies known scientific laws that require energy to remain a constant, neither able to be created nor destroyed. Any competent evolution theorists will tell you this which is why it is still a theory and not a fact as some of the more uneducated individuals would have you believe.


As evolution is still only a theory I find it the height of arrogance for any person to dismiss opposing theories, no matter how absurd, as non-science. This is even more true when you realize most scientific evidence is in opposition to macro-evolution, not in support of it.

In short, micro-evolution is confirmed fact, macro-evolution is still no more then a flight of fancy.


Regarding the fact that Spartina anglica evolved naturally from Spartina × townsendii; this was a process of microevolution, not macroevolution. Spartina anglica contained no new genetic information and in fact had less usable genetic information as pieces of it's DNA were now corrupted.

Answer 2

COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE. THAT IS A MISQUOTE.

MISQUOTE
"First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school".

Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not."

CORRECT QUOTE
There is no original quote. The speech Patterson gave was taped without permission. But the sentences immediately before that, quoted by other creationists, indicate that Patterson's tongue was in his cheek:

"Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. "

IT WAS MEANT AS A JOKE!

Answer 3

Evolution happens.

We can observe microevolution in the laboratory. In junior-level genetics lab, you will expose fruit flies to a mutagenic chemical. When the young are born, you will notice that some are not quite like their parents. You will find, through further crosses, that some of these differences breed true.

Intermediate evolution happens. A mini-dachshund is not a wolf, buts its ancestors were wolves. A couple of mutations and several hundred generations of selection separate the mini-dachshund from the wolf ancestor.

There is no known mechanism that would prevent microevolution and intermediate evolution, over a very long period of time, from becoming macroevolution.

===
Colin Patterson's audience does not seem esteemed to me, if the anecdote you are relating above is accurate.

Answer 4

Spartina anglica evolved naturally from Spartina × townsendii in historic times. It is a new species by definition because it cannot produce viable offspring with the parent species and is morphologically distinct.

Now, can you give us some information on anything the retired law professor, Phillip Johnson, has said regarding biology that doesn't use one or more logical fallacies? While you're at it, maybe you could tell us why his "Wedge" tactic allows you to think he is a man from whom you could expect anything truthful on the subject.

Answer 5

Unfortunately your anecdote is one of many examples of a creationist taking a scientist out of context and deliberately omitting things to make it look like a refutation of evolution. Pure propaganda. Creationists comb the scientific literature searching for such opportunities for deception. Even Steven J. Gould was victimized by them and spent the rest of his career trying to deny the claims. Same thing here.

The link below includes a letter written by Patterson concerning the event. This story has been debunked over and over again, but it keep sticking up its ugly head. Creationists are not interested in fair representation, scholastic ethics, or scientific discourse. They are interested in promoting their religious dogma at all costs. They will take any opportunity they can to twist and deceive, and then gloat over their godly misrepresentations. It's a small moral price to pay for the more divine work of turning people away from evolution.

Edit: Thanks for the e-mail, Jeremy. "Bible Science News?" Why would "bible science" be any different from regular science? Why would there need to be a designation of its own? I will look at the reference you gave, but that seems unnecessary in light of the letter Patterson himself wrote in response to this incident.
You claim to be a paleontologist. What University?

Answer 6

One has to accept a fact that we know of what we see while beeing alive. When we die and are reborn we can not tell of past. But we trust what our parents or education teach us.

Similarly theory of human evolution is developed by studying objects around us, and passing the knowledge on.

Any living person can not tell things of past. BUT AS WE STUDY we can make a good judgement based on what we know.

It is the study , the knowledge, constant research,search of available evidence, that has taken human race to moon, car,cellphone, tv,medicine, airplanes all these advances.

So it up to individual to trust a theory. But a study must go on.
If nothing else we will develope more thinking power.

The world is full of believers and non believers. If this world dooms, and human life developes again, who would believe in planes or cellphones,cars,or tall buildings?

So one should trust knowledge gained by study. It does not hurt.

Answer 7

Evolution is a hypothesis that has never been proved.

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth

Evolution claims, random change & natural selection make simple things spontaneously transform into more complex things without recourse to intelligent design. Chance and random changes simply do not produce higher levels of organization & complexity

Answer 8

Fact: Evolution is one of the longest-standing scientific theories of all time. Since its first publication nearly 150 years ago Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been subjected to more scrutiny, analysis and attempts to discredit it by scientists, theologians and many others than just about any other theory in history - and yet remains not only intact but stronger than ever.

Discoveries made since Darwin's time, such as DNA and genetics have only served to reinforce the basic tenet of Darwin's concept by providing a molecular mechanism for the changes that evolution requires for species to adapt to changing environments and for speciation itself.

This one thing, along with many others is true about evolution; Patterson's esteemed audience were obviously sent to sleep by him droning on about creationism.

During one 30 year period a species of Golapagos finch was observed to grow it's beak length by over 10% in order to cope with different seeds that became abundant during a period of drought; those with shorter beaks died from starvation.

Speciation has been observed, documented and proved in Cichlid fish in the African Rift Valley lakes, European Grasshoppers, Californian Salamander ring species, Herring Gull/Black-backed Gull ring species, two species of North American ground frog and many others.

Now I challenge you to name one thing about the existence of god that can be proved to the exacting scientific standards to which the theory of evolution has been subjected. As you will realise, the bible is heresay and cannot be used as documented proof.

Answer 9

Humans didn't evolve from primates. We evolved at the same time as primates from one common ancestor. I've been studying the animal life of Australia - both present, and in the fossil record. What interests me about Australia is its unique animal life, unlike the rest of the world. Australia is an isolated continent and life evolved there without influence from the rest of the world's gene pool. The animals there took an isolated course in evolution, and that's why they are found only in Australia. Good question.

Answer 10

Yes I can tell you one thing about evolution that is true - it's a fact, get over it.

BTW creationists, making unsubstantiated and specious remarks about the scientific basis for evolution just won't wash, except with your irrational brethren. In the mean time, the scientific community will continue to ignore you.