evolutionmyths

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS, MYTHS, MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION ABOUT EVOLUTION, FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT. AND, what’s wrong with textbook disclaimers like the one in Cobb County. A LIST...

    First, it's important to keep in mind that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC explanation of the natural world. In that sense,
it's every bit a part of science as any other idea, from quantum mechanics to black holes to continental drift to cell theory to the germ theory of disease.

   Evolution is fully consistent with the philosophy and methodology of science. In other words, it uses material evidence (what we can detect with our senses or extensions of our senses in the form of machines) derived from natural processes to explain the natural world. And ONLY the natural world.
    If it’s out of the realm of the natural, i.e. the SUPERNATURAL, then science can’t deal with it. Any explanation of the natural world that invokes the supernatural falls out of the realm of science. Simply put, it ISN’T science. For example, the idea of 'intelligent design', or I.D., invokes an ultimate designer who created the universe. Such a designer is a supernatural concept. Proponents of I.D. avoid using the word God, for the official record, but in conversations, speeches before religious groups etc., they forthrightly proclaim that of course, the designer is God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or any other supernatural entity, because such entities cannot be detected and therefore tested with methods based on material evidence. Therefore, I.D. is automatically out of the realm of science. Simply put, it ISN'T science. This is not to say that God does or doesn't exist; just that science cannot be used to make such claims. In other words, science and religion play in different ballparks.

   With these criteria in mind, here's my list:

1. Perhaps the most common myth foisted on the lay public about evolution is that it’s 'only a theory', meaning it's inherently untrustworthy. That is, it's a guess.

     Consider the wording of the sticker Cobby County used to place in all biology textbooks:
         ‘Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things’.

     This contention is WRONG and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science. A theory in science is much more than the common, popular use of the word. It’s NOT a guess. It’s an idea that explains a large body of sometimes disparate information. Furthermore, it goes on to make predictions that can be tested by scientific methods involving the gathering of data and observations from experiments and from nature. When questioned in court, Cobb officials admitted that they did not know the difference between the popular and scientific definitions of the word.
   If evolution is untrustworthy because it’s a theory, so too is the cell theory and the germ theory of disease. All are commonly accepted explanations of the makeup of organisms and the cause of disease. Just look them up in an introductory biology or microbiology textbook. In fact, these theories are subsumed by evolution because evolution explains much about cells and the origin of pathogens and the immune system.

Question:
     Would you not go to oncologist if you had cancer, because cancer is a manifestation of the cell theory?
     Would you not have your children immunized against polio, whooping cough and a host of other diseases that once were fatal, just
        because immunizations are a function of the germ theory of disease?
Question:
    What does it take to overturn a theory? Answer: another explanation that is better, and for which there is sufficient supporting evidence
        in the form of data. Is there any other SCIENTIFIC theory out there that competes with evolution? Not yet.

   In science, you can't pick and choose theories based on personal, subjective belief. You can't tacitly accept the cell and germ theories, but denounce evolution because it's only a theory. Frankly, that’s inconsistent, unscientific and anti-intellectual.

   Another version of the 'it's only a theory' claim is that evolution isn’t a fact. That statement is also false. It's like claiming that apples don't fall from trees because gravitation is only a theory. Evolution is indeed fact, based on a mountain of observations including fossils, gene sequences, comparative anatomy and morphology. Species most assuredly have changed over time. The big questions remaining in biology involve HOW change has occurred and the mechanisms that drive it.

2. Just as we can't pick and choose among theories for personal, subjective reasons, we can't pick and choose among facts to support our agendas. Why fund the human genome project to discover genes that, when defective, cause disease, only to ignore what the genome tells us about our ancestry and relation to other primates? Why use DNA evidence to exonerate or convict criminals, trace our own family trees, establish paternity for the sake of child support, but ignore or dismiss the very same kind of evidence as immaterial in evolution? Just as DNA tells us that Thomas Jefferson probably fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemmings, it also tells us that our closest primate relatives are chimps and bonobos.

3. You may hear that evolution can’t be ‘proved' since nobody was there to see the origin of life or to witness the birth of a new species like humans. But, does science really prove or disprove ideas, in the absolute sense of the word? NO.
         Science qualifies statements in probabilities based on the weight of evidence. Nobel Prize physicist Leon Lederman once said that science speaks in terms of probabilities BETWEEN 0 and 100. In that light, evolution is every bit as strong as the cell theory,
quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, etc. That’s because all of the evidence adds up to the conclusion that it is very highly probable that life evolved. It’s the best explanation for the data.
     Let's consider another aspect of the false assertion that science requires witnesses, or that it only utilizes results from contemporary
experiments. WRONG. Again, this is a misrepresentation of how science operates. Not all science is based on contemporary
evidence. We also make observations from nature, e.g. in astronomy. We see galaxies billions of years old by observing the light they emit, which takes billions of light years to reach us. If you want to argue with that premise, you'll have to challenge modern concepts and laws in physics. Climatologists and meteorologists study weather records hundreds and thousands of years old, in ice cores etc. Modern day archaeologists learn about ancient civilizations by studying their ruins, art, texts, etc. Much of science is based on HISTORY. Historical data are valid data, even in science!

4. According to another claim, we can't explain everything about evolution, we don't know everything about it, and there are inconsistencies in evolutionary ideas and evidence, therefore, evolution is untrustworthy and should be discarded. This is sometimes called THE GAPS ARGUMENT.
     But is ANY scientific idea ever fully explained? Do we ever learn EVERYTHING about anything? If not, is that justification for discarding everything else we know about a subject? Do we know everything about photosynthesis, for example, and if not, should we therefore toss prevailing ideas of how it works? Should we not plant crops because of our ignorance of all the details? Do we know everything about the American Revolution, and if not, should we abandon American history or political science?
     What do gaps in scientific knowledge mean and how should we see them? We should see them not as evidence against prevailing ideas but as opportunities to do more research. The only thing a scientist can infer about 'I don't know' is, 'I don't know -- yet’
     Previous arguments that pointed to gaps in our knowledge -- e.g. missing fossils -- fell short as those gaps were filled in. For example, fossils of intermediates in the evolution of whales, flowers, humans, birds etc, have all been acquired, in abundance, in recent years. As science progressively acquires information about the natural world, gaps are invariably filled in. I remind you that the same argument about gaps in our knowledge was used around the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial (see ‘SUMMER FOR THE GODS’, by UGA’s Edward Larson, a historian of science.) We know a lot more now about evolution than we did even 10 years ago - especially with sequencing of genomes, which contain historical records of evolution, just as fossils do.
   Remember too that just because we don't know something now doesn't mean we'll never know it. Jenner didn't have a clue about the nature of the agent that causes small pox, just that there probably is one. He certainly couldn't see viruses in the microscope, which came centuries later. That didn't stop him from trying to do something about small pox, like immunizing people with the cow pox virus. BTW, many people were aghast at the idea of immunization at the beginning, just as they were about fluoridation of water.

5. Some insist that because evolutionary biologists can't agree on their science, we shouldn’t believe what they say about life?
     This assertion misrepresents the nature of scientific debate. Any field worth studying is vibrant, even contentious. That's the nature of science. If everybody agreed on things, the field would be stagnant, uninteresting. Scientists do disagree about evolutionary mechanisms, but they almost universally agree that evolution happened and still happens.

6. Evolution deniers often claim that evolutionary biologists are guilty of overstatement and even dishonesty. That may be true, but so what? Ideas are bigger than people. Just because Pasteur massaged his data -- which he apparently did -- should we stop immunizing our children with vaccines? If Alan Greenspan became a communist tomorrow, would we automatically discard free enterprise and capitalism?
   Are some scientists guilty of dishonesty, overstatement, hype, ego and even hubris? Yes. They're no different than members of other professions -- they're people! The difference in science, though, is that claims are only as good as the ability of others to verify them through experiments and other kinds of observation. In science, if a result can't be repeated, it's worthless. That's why science is a self-verifying and self-correcting body of knowledge. It's almost never the police, lawyers or politicians who discover mistakes and fraud in science; it's other scientists. Likewise, if an idea holds up through repeated observation by others, then it really doesn't matter who made the initial discovery, whether they were a thief, atheist, Christian, Hindu, communist, capitalist, or vegetarian. A good example is the way HIV was discovered. Some think that in heated competition with a foreign laboratory, an American lab behaved in a rather unethical way during the quest. That may be true, but HIV still causes AIDS.

7. Deniers claim that evolution has bred mayhem, murder etc. It’s lead to moral decline, crime, depravity, totalitarianism and a host of
other evils.
     NO. Evolution is a biological principle that has nothing to do with politics or morality, except to the extent that we can study the evolution of morality and human behavior. Murder and mayhem existed before 1859, when Darwin published 'Origin of Species'; it didn't arrive on the scene after the book was published. People have been slaughtering their neighbors since the stone age. Millions have been killed over the course of history in the name of sectionalism, greed, religion, politics, etc. Need I mention 9/11? The people who slammed planes into the World Trade Center didn’t do it with the name of Charles Darwin on their lips. Besides, ideas aren't responsible for the people who misuse them. Tyrants and criminals will always find excuses and justification for what they do.

8. Counter arguments about evolution often contort and twist science. The best example is the misuse of the second law of thermodynamics, which we discussed at length in class. Not only does evolution NOT violate the second law, which addresses the tendency of CLOSED systems to go towards more disorder and less free energy, it’s fully consistent with it and indeed dependent on it! If evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics by breeding increased complexity, then by the same reasoning, we and every other complex organism on earth couldn’t exist because we display increasing complexity during development. We do so because we obey the second law, by utilizing potential chemical energy obtained by ingestion of other organic material, i.e. animals and plants. And where did their energy come from? You got it -- from the sun during plant photosynthesis.
   The earth is NOT a closed system and much of the potential solar energy streaming onto our planet is harvested by biological systems to do work, including development and evolution.
     As for COMPLEXITY, evolution and developmental biology have taught us a lot about how eyes, wings, feathers, fins, flowers, and even anti-freeze proteins in antarctic fish evolved. Don't believe people who tell you we can't explain the evolution of these structures and processes. Do we know everything about it? No, but so what.
     Another, related myth is the bogus argument that all mutations are negative. Evolution wasn't possible because it depends on 'positive' improvements or changes in genes, organisms etc. The people who spout this silliness don't know anything about genetics. Mutations most certainly are NOT all negative. Just ask the millions of people in Africa who carry one copy of the defective sickle cell gene and because of it are resistant to malaria. Genes don't act in isolation; their effects depend on the context in which they act, including other genes and the environment. Deleterious genes, like that for sickle cell, can be carried along for generations in the recessive state, only to emerge as adaptive should conditions change.

9. Evolution deniers often distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. They acknowledge changes in gene frequencies in populations such as the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bactieria (it would be hard to deny such changes since they’re easy to observe and well documented), but claim that speciation is a different ball of wax. It hasn't been demonstrated. However, most biologists consider the distinction between micro- and macroevolution to be one of academic convenience rather than a true reflection of nature. Speciation, or macroevolution, utilizes microevolutionary mechanisms involving changes in gene frequencies in populations. Speciation has also been observed in the field and even reproduced in the laboratory (see item 10). In other words, evolution should be viewed as a continuum of processes rather than several disjunct ideas.

10. A popular denier mantra is, we've never seen a species form in contemporary times. Again, that's flat out WRONG. Spartina anglica, a European species of marsh grass, has appeared in the last 150 years as a result of hybridization between S. maritima and S. alterniflora. Likewise, speciation events involving evening primrose, maize, wheat, and other plants have been well documented. We've even repeated speciation in the laboratory with native sunflowers. Various cychlid fish species in Lake Victoria arose over the last 10,000 years, though they're still not 'hard wired'. We're also seeing speciation in action in hawthorn/apple flies. We know about various speciation mechanisms, especially those in plants which hybridize relatively easily and also undergo polyploidy, in contrast to animals. In fact, one of the most exciting debates among evolutionary biologists today is what constitutes species in various organisms. We also now know, based on experiments, that evolution and speciation may occur much more rapidly than previously thought.

11. Some argue that natural selection cannot create 'design' and complexity in nature. That's also wrong. We've seen natural selection and sexual selection create many intricate designs in nature. Just look at the tail of a male peacock. Lots of scientific papers have documented design in organisms such as guppies, lizards, orchids..... the list is large and growing. Sometimes, all it takes is JUST ONE GENE to make major changes in complexity and design, as in a mutation that radically changes floral symmetry in the common weed, Butter and Eggs, a relative of snapdragon.

12. Evolution deniers try to convince others that evolution is about to topple; scientists are jumping ship left and right.
     WRONG. If you go to scientific meetings, you'll see that isn't the case. In fact, many more scientists and scientific disciplines invoke evolutionary explanations now than just a few years ago. A good example is epidemiology and disease biology. Evolutionary principles are now being applied to understand how disease organisms like HIV and flu arose in the human population and change with time.
   Evolution is NOT controversial among biologists, except for a very few who happen to have another agenda. It’s only controversial
in the public domain. That’s why groups that oppose evolution argue their case before school boards, congressional committees, city councils, and in the newspapers, NOT at scientific meetings.

13. Some people claim that it's not necessary to study evolution in order to learn biology. In a strict sense, that's true. You can certainly learn how the circulatory and digestive systems work in humans, and how respiration occurs in mitochondria. On the other hand, evolution is an amazingly good framework for understanding diverse biological principles and observations. Like any good theory, it links what seem like disparate ideas together, explains them, and makes TESTABLE predictions. Evolution is an incredibly productive theory in that regard.
   True, you can indeed just learn the facts of biology, e.g. how the digestive system works, or how plants capture light energy in photosynthesis, but why learn all those facts and not ask HOW nature came to be as it is? Why not ask where chloroplasts came from, or how the blood clotting cascade arose? How can we possibly understand contemporary American society, politics, economics etc. without understanding our history? Millions of us are fascinated by geneology, and the Internet is full of sites devoted to it. But why place people in families without implicitly understanding that they are grouped together by common descent? Likewise, why group plants into families based on similarities in floral structure without acknowledging that they share common descent?
     How can we learn about the complexity of ecosystems without appreciating that such complexity, and the diversity of niches, result from evolutionary mechanisms? You can’t really understand ecology except in an evolutionary framework. That’s because the environment drives selection. You can’t understand the evolution of life on earth without understanding changes in earth’s
environment. A great example is the way molecular oxygen came to comprise 20% of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of photosynthesis, and how oxygen in turn changed the direction of biological evolution. You can’t understand the incredible diversity of flowering plants, compared to other groups, without understanding plant interactions with pollinators.
   Our modern understanding of genetics is based on Mendel's experiments, but it wasn't until cell biologists observed the behavior of chromosomes during meiosis that they linked Mendel's ideas with entities in the cell. Likewise, modern molecular biology has given us a profound view of the nature of genes. And now, in the age of genomes, you can’t understand why our genomes, and that of maize, are full of ‘junk’ like dead viruses and millions of copies of transposable elements except in an evolutionary context. It makes no sense otherwise.

14. Evolution deniers often argue that evolution could not have occurred by chance (mutations) alone, as Darwin and modern biologists claim. The products of evolution are simply too complex for that to have occurred. Just look at US, or any other complex organism. We couldn't possible have appeared by chance. That's like a Boeing 747 assembling from spare parts by chance, e.g. in a junkyard after a tornado. This is actually a very old argument, made famous by William Paley back in the early 19th century. It's called the watchmaker argument. Just as a watch has to have a maker, so do we. Unfortunately, again it's WRONG. The people who offer this argument in fact no little about evolution, or don't want to. What they conveniently leave out is the second crucial ingredient in evolution, natural selection. The environment selects chance mutations that impart a reproductive advantage on individuals. No reputable biologist claims that evolution works by chance alone, and Darwin certainly didn't either.
   To look at this argument from another angle, let's consider whether evolution is any more chancey than other commonly accepted theories. The best example is quantum mechanics, which in large part is based on chance and probability. Some of it’s predictions are totally counterintuitive -- an object being in two places at the same time, or two objects at opposite ends of the universe affecting each other instantaneously -- yet those predictions are now established by experiment, some only in the last few years.

15. I've heard on a number of occasions students say that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is a myth -- it never happened.
In fact, Darwin's daughter debunked it. But, what if Darwin did take it all back? After all, Galileo recanted (albeit under pressure from the church). Does that mean that the sun really isn't at the center of the solar system? Think about it...

16. Evolution deniers often call on the principle of fairness to demand that so called alternative theories of how contemporary life arose be included in science classes. In other words, it’s only fair to offer other views about life, isn't it? Fairness is part of the American Way. WRONG.
   Science is not about fairness or democracy. Yes, it's a marketplace of ideas, but DATA are all-important in determining the fate of those ideas. The Declaration of Independence says that all 'men' are created equal. It doesn't insist that all ideas are created equal. Would you demand that your astronomy teacher also include astrology in class? Should your geography professor cover the flat earth hypothesis just because some people still think that way? Should your microbiology professor teach you that HIV may not cause AIDs, just because about 10 people still have doubts?

17. Some deniers insist that scientists are carrying out a vendetta against their views. We don’t let other ideas about life into our journals. WRONG. It’s true that not a single paper has ever been published in a scientific, peer reviewed journal providing POSITIVE data for supporting another explanation of life. Nada. Why no papers? Probably because nobody has DATA to back up those alternative ideas!
   Instead publishing where other scientists reveal their work, evolution opponents publish articles in books, philosophy journals, law journals and the popular press. Again, it has to do with DATA. Scientific journals require it; they don't publish just philosophical tracts. You have to play by science’s rules to be published in peer reviewed journals. Why? Because the rules work! 200 years of progress testifies to that success. Most people in our class would have been dead 200 years ago, but because of the way science is conducted, and therefore the modern medicines, food, sanitation etc. it brought about, we're quite alive and kicking. Evolution is part of that picture, that scientific progress.
   Let’s say for argument's sake that there was a vendetta against evolution deniers. The problem is, their views have in fact appeared, in the form of books, articles in the popular press, etc. Why haven’t they received a warm reception in science? After all, Darwin
published his ideas in a book geared toward the public, and within a few years he had convinced most biologists!!! The difference is, Darwin had data to convince the scientific world -- lots of it.
   You can't just criticize the prevailing explanation in science and declare yourself a viable alternative. It's easy to criticize any scientific hypothesis or theory because we never know everything about anything! Science is an easy target in that respect. To get an alternative idea accepted, or even considered, you must offer POSITIVE data in support of it. Again, none have appeared in support of any alternative to evolution.

18. Some deniers accuse biologists of taking evolution on faith, as if it's a religion. NOT SO. Scientists don't 'believe in' evolution; they believe it. 'Believe in' implies faith. Scientist believe evolution, or accept it, because it's the best scientific explanation of how contemporary life came on the scene, based on DATA. Yes, they recognize it as the governing paradigm in biology and construct experiments accordingly, but that's because no other SCIENTIFIC explanation based on data has appeared. Until it does, evolution is the only game in town, from a scientific perspective. And that's all science is concerned with.

19. Finally, there's the ‘I JUST DON’T BELIEVE IT’ argument. ERGO, no matter what your professor or any informed scientist says, how much data (s)he offers, you won’t accept evolution. That’s ok, but what your insisting on fits the definition of faith, not science. Faith doesn't require data. With faith, you accept something because in your heart of hearts, you just know it's so. Nobody should challenge you on your personal beliefs. You are free to hold them. But science deals in facts, data, observations etc. from the tangible, physical, natural world. It's been remarkable successful as a method of finding out about and even ameliorating, the natural world, witness modern agriculture, the radical drop in infant mortality over the last 200 years, antibiotics, modern sanitation, aspirin, computers, the Internet, electric lights, automobiles, Saran wrap, deodorant, detergents and Viagra.

Additional reading material covering the above points, if you are interested:

Was Darwin Wrong? National Geographic, November 2004

Evolution: facts and fallacies.
J.W. Schopf, Academic Press, 1999

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.
National Academy of Sciences, 1998
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/

Rocks of Ages. Stephen J. Gould. Ballantine Publishing Group, 1999

Creationism's Trojan Horse; The Wedge of Intelligent Design.
B. Forrest and P. Gross. Oxford University Press, 2004.

Science and the Versus of Religion. A conversation with my students.
B.A. Palevitz, Skeptical Inquirer, 1999.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2843/4_23/55208048/p5/article.jhtml?term=

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), director's statement on teaching about evolution.
http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/biomajor/evolution.html