Version 2.

0
Copyright 1999 by Ken Harding
[last update: August 24, 1999]

[Other topics for beginners]

It's true that subjects like biology, geology and the like can be very
technical and difficult for the beginner. Reading up on all these
topics can seem time consuming and complicated. That's why I'm
going to cut to the chase. In this article you'll find very little
technical terminology. Most web sites and articles attempt to be
brief and simple, but few are successful enough to satisfy the
average reader.
How do we know that life has descended through millions of years
from a common ancestor? We accept the inescapable conclusions
drawn from the physical evidence. We accept evolution because
that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other
reason. Some people experience difficulty in accepting
evolution. That is not due to flaws in evolution, but flaws in their
understanding of biology. The most common questions about

evolution illustrate that few people have done any investigating for
themselves. We in our modern society have gotten used to soundbyte bits of information that we can digest without having to think
much. Yes, understanding evolution and science will take some
effort on your part. Is it worth it? Absolutely! Of course evolution,
and especially the transformation from one species into another, will
seem impossible if you don't clearly understand the process, and
can't see the steps in between.
To paraphrase Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the hope
that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering
breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return
to an earth-centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
Okay, how does it work?
The study of the origin of life is called Abiogenesis, and that topic
will be discussed elsewhere. I'm going to leave that out right now
because the theory of evolution was developed to deal with things
that happened after the origin of life. The study of evolution deals
with existing DNA and living organisms. Abiogenesis, while
important to the study of evolution, is a separate subject, dealing
with pre-cellular molecular biology, and may or may not involve
evolutionary processes.
Okay, so what is this evolution stuff? The scientific answer is that
it is a change in a gene pool over time. And you're saying, "What's
that got to do with me?" Well, here is the plain English explanation
of evolution: A change in the genetic potential of a species, and
how environmental forces reward or punish individual organisms
because of their genes. Now you're saying "Okay, how does that
turn one animal into a different kind of animal?" Well, good
news! In just 15 minutes you'll have the answer!
At a minimum, three things are needed for evolution to
happen. Birth (we know that happens), death (we also know that
happens), and genetic variation (and we know that
happens). More specifically, 1) the births of many more individuals
than can survive, to give the maximum genetic potential; 2) the
disproportionately high percentage of deaths of organisms who are

less well suited to their environments and predatory conditions, and

therefore are unable to leave as many offspring; and 3) genetic
variation to produce the raw material of physical change, which is
then acted upon by natural selective forces. All of this has nothing
to do with the species wanting to evolve into another
species. Creatures do not choose to evolve. If the environment
and food supply changes, or if the species relocates to a new
environment, or a new species enters the area and competes,
evolution will probably occur- or the species may become extinct.
The idea that chance is the sole engine of evolution is a
misunderstanding. Chance is only one factor involved in evolution.
Non-random natural selection another. If evolution was random, it
wouldn't work! Sometimes people say that it's too improbable that
we evolved from single-celled organisms, but such calculations are
only meaningful if you assume that humans are the goal of the
evolutionary process, and not merely a result of that process.
See also: What is Evolution and Evolution and Chance
What is Information?
One of the most common misunderstandings regards
"information". The difference between living and non-living things
is that living things have information embedded in them which is
used to produce themselves. Rocks contain no instructions on how
to be rocks; a fly contains information on how to be a fly.
Information is not a thing. It, like an idea, is dimensionless. It's
simply a comparison between one thing and another, like a list of
differences. Information is not a physical property. Information
becomes tangible only when it is encoded in sequences of symbols:
zeros and ones, letters and spaces, dots and dashes, musical notes,
etc. These sequences must then be decoded in order to be
useful. For information to be stored or transmitted, it must be put
into some physical form- on paper, computer disk, or in DNA- all
processes that take energy.
Life's information (the instructions on how it works) is encoded in
genes, which are decoded by biological mechanisms. Then these

mechanisms manufacture parts that work together to make a living

organism. Like a computer that builds itself, the process follows a
loop: information needs machinery, which needs information, which
needs machinery, which needs information. This relationship can
start very simply, and then over many generations build into
something so complicated that some people can't imagine how it
ever could have gotten started in the first place. It is important to
recognize that the information encoded in DNA is not like a
blueprint, which contains a scale model image of the final product, it
is like a recipe-- a set of instructions to be followed in a certain
order. Life's complexity arises from remarkable simplicity. DNA's
message says, "Take this, add this, then add this stop here. Take
this, then add this" These actions are carried out by a variety of
proteins. The result is all the intricacy and diversity of the biological
realm.

The Five Mechanisms of Evolution

All of these different processes can be operating at once within the
same species. In addition, more than one occurrence of each of
these five processes can be going on at the same time within a
single species. There are 5 mechanisms of evolution, and I'm going
to group them into 2 types-- two mechanisms that decrease genetic
variation (Natural Selection and Genetic Drift), and three
mechanisms that increase it (Mutation, Recombination and Gene
Flow). I'll provide a brief explanation of each process, but you can
find out much more about each by clicking the hyperlink. These
links lead to more scientific, technical explanations.
1. Natural Selection
Here is how Natural Selection works:
1. More organisms are born than can survive.
2. Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents. Every
batch of offspring contains a natural range of genetic variation.

Genetic variation is produced in several ways, as discussed

below. Changes in the genetic code, most of the time, are either
harmful to an organism or neutral to it. However, there are rare
instances where such changes can be helpful to the survival of
an organism. Changes in the genetics of a species can bring
about physical changes which give a survival advantage to the
species, allowing it to continue when other species cannot.
3. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for
the conditions, and that species survives. Selective forces drive
physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity,
but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many
die. The reason lions are so fast and powerful is that their prey
is so swift and elusive. (Because any slow and weak lions would
not be able to survive long enough to reproduce). The reason
antelopes are so swift and elusive is because lions are so fast
and powerful. (Because any slow antelopes, and any that lack
the instinct to run in a zig-zag pattern, would not survive long
enough to reproduce.) There are other types of selective
forces: climate changes and food supply changes will eliminate
any organisms which aren't well suited for survival; sexual
selection is the reason male peacocks have enormous tail
feathers, and why deer and moose have huge antlers-- peacocks
with small feathers and moose with little antlers don't get to
mate with the females. Selective pressure is any factor that
makes it hard for some organisms to continue surviving, and
rewards any advantage that some organisms may have been
born with.
4. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic
variations, which give survival enhancements, bring about new
species. Thousands of generations of small changes result in a
species that can look very different from the one that it came
from.
NOTE: Species evolve-- individual organisms do not. Creatures
don't "change" from one thing into another... they remain as
they were born. Organisms do not choose to evolve-- favorable
traits are chosen by the survival of the creature; less efficient
characteristics are eliminated by the deaths of organisms. Within
a species, there is a predictable range of possible traits, and a
guaranteed chance of random mutations. Any trait that provides
a survival advantage is preserved into the next generation, but a
trait that is harmful to an individual results in the death of that

individual.

The process of evolution is not entirely random. Natural selective

pressures are very specific. As an example, bacteria becoming
resistant to antibiotic drugs isn't a random thing, is it? Certain
bacteria that have developed a resistance (due to mutations) are
selected for survival by a specific external pressure (the application
of antibiotic drugs), which causes the death of the bacteria that do
not possess the resistant trait, allowing the increased reproduction
of the more resistant bacteria. Here we see a non-random,
recognizable pattern. The fact that the selective pressure was
caused by human made antibiotics means nothing to the theory of
natural selection. The bacteria dont know the difference.
Artificial selection is a similar process which can help you
understand natural selection. Artificial selection is when humans
choose certain individual organisms for their traits, for the purpose
of selective breeding. Consider dog breeding. Humans select the
traits (size, shape, color, temperament, etc.) that they would like,
and make sure only the dogs with those traits breed. Dogs without
those traits are not allowed to breed. From this process, human
beings shaped dogs into all the varieties we know today, from
Dachshunds to Great Danes. It makes no difference to dog genes
what force is manipulating them. Artificial Selection is a great way
to introduce people to the concept of selection, and to demonstrate
how Natural Selection works by using the same mechanisms to
shape one species into quite a different looking species. The
difference between Artificial and Natural Selection is intention. In
both cases, certain breeds are selected for survival, because of their
characteristics. In one case, humans intentionally do the selecting,
in the other, natural selective pressures do the work.
2. Genetic Drift
In a population of limited size and if a given pair of parents have
only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all
selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly
reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. With
a large number of offspring (or in a large population) this will not
have much effect in each generation because the random nature of

the process will tend to average out. But in a small number of

offspring (or in a small population) the effect could be rapid and
significant. Genetic Drift is one of the major forces of evolution,
along with Natural Selection.
Click here for a more detailed explanation of Genetic Drift.
3. Mutations
The idea that all living things intentionally change their own DNA is
a serious misunderstanding.
At the conception of some living organisms, mistakes occur in the
copying process of DNA. (Most people know these as birth defects.)
"Bad" errors result in the death of the organism. But not all
mutations are harmful-- a small percentage of these "mistakes" can
actually benefit the organism by making it more efficient in its
survival- either in finding food, avoiding predators or finding a
mate. These "good" errors are then transmitted to the next
generation, and those organisms head off in a different direction
from the original speciesresulting in a different looking
organism. The idea of which mutations are "good" and which are
"bad" depends on the current situation and selective pressures.
4. Recombination
Each chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes
from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of
as gene shuffling. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there
are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in
humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the
mother, the other inherited from the father. Because of
recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix from the mother
and father. On average, we have 50% of our genes from each
parent. This means we also inherit - on average - half of all
their variant genes. This means that children are not exactly
like either of their parents, giving selection something to work on.
5. Gene Flow
New organisms may enter a population by migration from another
population. If they mate within the population, they can bring new

genes to the local gene pool. This is called Gene Flow. In some
closely related species, fertile hybrids can result from inter-species
matings. These hybrids can carry genes from species to
species. Gene flow between more distantly related species occurs
infrequently. This is called horizontal transfer. Gene flow
introduces new DNA information into a species' gene pool.
Click here for the Synthesis of Modern Genetics and Evolution
But does all this bring about new species, or just
variation within the same species?
A common non-scientific objection to evolution is that evolution can
produce new varieties within a species, but the stage-by-stage
transformation of one species into another is not possible. No
reasons are ever given for this limitation, just that it can't
happen. Well, I'd like a reason, please. All we ever get is the
incorrect statement that macro-evolution has never been
observed. (Yes, it has: Observed Instances of Speciation ) Enough
with that. What, specifically, makes the evolution of new species
impossible? What is this elusive limitation of which they speak?
The emergence of a new species takes many generations to happen.
In most cases, the life span of species, especially large animals, is
too long for us to observe changes directly. For very short-lived
species such as insects and plants, the emergence of new species
has been observed. (More Observed Instances of Speciation)
There are variations within different types of dogs- but they are still
dogs. But that is not saying a lot. There are more differences
between a poodle and a German shepherd than in a German
shepherd and a wolf-- but the wolf is categorized as a separate
species. All such categorizations are done by humans... it is our
decision what constitutes a separate species. The differences in all
the breeds of dogs are produced by humans, through selective
breeding, from a single, original type of wild dog. If humans can do
that in so short a time (several thousand years) by encouraging
favorable traits to be passed on to the next generation, and
discouraging unfavorable characteristics, Natural Selection must be
far more efficient and effective at creating new types. When you
add other evolutionary processes that humans aren't able to use,

such as Genetic Drift and Gene Flow, it becomes even more obvious
how powerful these natural forces are. Couldn't a fox and a wolf
have evolved from the same common ancestor? If nature can
create new varieties within a species, what limits the process to
stopping before it changes the species, until it looks altogether
different? The same process that accounts for the differences in all
breeds of dogs also produces new species-- it is just a matter
ofdegree.
A transition from 'A' to 'Z' would be too big of a jump for us to
observe. But a transition from 'A' to 'B', would not be, nor would a
transition from 'B' to 'C'. In this way, you can have a gradual
transition from 'A' to 'Z'. The fact that small changes can be
observed in short-lived species is EVIDENCE of 'A' to 'B', 'B' to 'C',
etc.
Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of many small changes in a
species there can be so many changes that at some point, the new
species doesn't even look like the old one. The different traits that
cause these changes don't have to occur concurrently all in one
generation. For example, the traits that allow a fish to leave the
water and colonize the land (bony, muscular fins, neural patterns,
lungs, instincts, etc.) wouldn't all suddenly appear in a single fish
through a bunch of separate, coincidental mutations. These genetic
changes occur over hundreds of thousands, even millions, of
years. Any one of these physical changes does not have to occur
fully functional and complete in order to be useful-- any slight
advantage that a partial trait can bestow is beneficial to the
continuation of the species, and could be passed on to the next
generation.
Did lungs just 'pop up' in an individual fish? The mechanism for
new genetic information is mutations. Imagine that a freshwater
fish had a mutation which allowed the lining inside its esophagus to
absorb oxygen directly. None of the other fish would have had this
trait. Maybe for hundreds of generations this trait was passed on
without any real benefit, but as a neutral trait. Then the oxygen
became depleted in the lake in which this fish lived. The fish
discovered that it could swim up to the surface of the water and get

a gulp of air, exactly like the lungfish does today. Now there is
selective pressure to evolve a 'proper' lung. With the fish spending
time near the surface, it skimmed the shallows for food. To assist
this, bony fins that can be used for propulsion on the bottom of the
shallow water would be extremely useful, and individuals who had
this trait would be more successful at exploiting this environment
for food, and leave more descendants. When bony, muscular fins
evolved, it was inevitable that the fish would use this ability to
eventually go up onto dry land to exploit that untapped food
resource. A million years might have passed with this species
making only brief, occasional excursions onto land. Then came
amphibians, with moist skins who still had to lay their eggs in
water, then reptiles who could further colonize the land with
watertight skins and watertight eggs-- what an important step that
was. Then mammals and birds both arose from reptiles, able to
produce heat internally, but the birds (and two species of
mammals) continued to lay eggs. All this would be impossible to
witness within the whole history of human life. But it's not
impossible for this to happen in, say, hundreds of millions of years.
Remember that organs do not have to arise fully functional to be
useful. Organs certainly do not 'pop up' in one or two
generations. In the case of the eye, you can realize that a partial
eye will offer some benefit to a species. Consider early on, before
the emergence of land animals, that it would be beneficial for seagoing creatures to be able to distinguish where the surface of the
water is. Therefore, light sensitive cells on the head would be very
useful, wouldn't they? Would a predatory fish that had lightsensitive cells benefit if those cells were able to distinguish
movement and shapes? Would prey fish have a better survival rate
if they could see the predators? Every improvement on a light
sensitive cell would serve a purpose. You do not need to see
perfectly for eyes to serve a purpose. Even people with 10% vision
can make out objects and avoid colliding with them. They certainly
would not want to lose whatever vision they have. If you had a
choice between one eye or no eye, you would of course choose
one. Color vision is better than color blindness, which is better than
nothing. According to Richard Dawkins, the eye evolved

independently about 40 times during the history of life on earth,

and a 'camera eye' could evolve "rapidly" from a light sensitive cell.
Remember that organs may assume different functions over time,
and each organ did not necessarily 'start from scratch'. Also,
different enzymes assume different functions as well. Certain
digestive enzymes are related to certain blood-clotting enzymes, for
example.
Microevolution is the small changes within a species, and
macroevolution is the long term, cumulative effect of many
small changes.
Seeing the evolutionary progress is like walking through a forest of
giant redwood trees. You might look at the giant trees, and also see
a few tiny saplings, and say "I wonder if these little two foot high
saplings have anything to do with these 300 foot giant
trees?" But no one has witnessed the growth process from seed to
full grown giant redwood! It takes time. But that doesn't mean that
we can't figure out what happens.
If you accept microevolution, but not macroevolution, you should
ask yourself: what limits the process to making only small changes
within a species? (i.e. Why can't hundreds of such small changes,
say over 10 million years, result in a different species?) Can you
come up with a reason?
There are no 'end products' of evolution because evolution has not
stopped. The whole idea of "end products" and a rising hierarchy
of "higher" life forms is incorrect. Species adapt to current
environmental pressures, and also from pressures from predators
and/or competing species. With this is mind, one cannot speak
about "end products", unless all such pressures reach an
unchanging state. Extinct species are not necessarily
"unsuccessful" just because they became superseded by a new
variant. They might have been extremely successful for 99% of
their duration. Were the dinosaurs an unsuccessful species? They
dominated the earth for 160 million years, far longer than
humans. But things change- environments, competition, available
resources, etc. What was successful yesterday might be

unsuccessful tomorrow. Evolution is like a game of rock, paper,

scissors... which one is best?
See also: Macroevolution,
Click Here for detailed explanations of Horse Evolution,
and Archaeopteryx- the evolution of birds
If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?
Well, one reason that apes still exist is that we did not evolve from
them. Modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. We did
not evolve from any group of modern apes-- therefore apes
are unaffected by human evolution. All of human evolution
occurredafter the split.
The belief that when a new species evolves, it must replace the
original species is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary
process. It's just like you and your brother... you both do not
necessarily share the same fate, do you? If your brother moves to
another country, do his actions and descendants have any affect on
you and yours? And just because you descended from your father
does not mean that your father is dead. Dogs surely evolved from
wolves, and there are still wolves.
If the new species gives the original species too much competition,
the original species could be driven into extinction and be replaced
by the new one. But there are many reasons why the new species
might not replace the old one... such as relocating away from the
old species, a change in the type of diet, an abundance of food. The
original species can still continue to exist as long as it can make a
living. Sometimes the new species replaces the old one; sometimes
the old and new species both continue to exist. Another way to
think about it is that a species is like a river. If that river branches
off, there is no reason that both streams should go in the same
direction.
Click here for a more detailed explanation of this topic

The rocks don't lie

The fossil record demonstrates unambiguously the continuous
evolution of life. In the oldest and deepest levels of rock there are
found no fossils at all. Above that are found the simplest forms of
life-- bacterial fossils and invertebrates. Then above that are found
vertebrate fish, and above that more complex creatures. Within the
strata that contain the most primitive reptiles, you find no mammal
or bird fossils- only reptiles, fish and invertebrates. In the strata
that you first find mammals, they are found to be small, rodentsized carnivores, unlike any living mammal... no large modern
mammal types can be found. In the strata that
containArchaeopteryx, no types of modern birds are fossilized. In
the level of the Australopithecine hominids, like Lucy, you can't find
any Neandertal fossils. At the level where you uncover homo
erectus fossils, there are no modern human remains. You never
find people with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs with trilobites. It is very
clear. There are no fossils found out of order. There are no
paleontology discoveries that conflict with our understanding of how
life evolved over the ages. Sure, we could have more examples of
transitions, and I'm all for putting more paleontologists in the field
to discover them. But consider this- in the big picture, nearly every
species is a transition to another. Crocodiles haven't evolved much
in the last 200 million years, but that's rare to find a species so
well-fitted that it does not change over time. In this sense, nearly
every fossil ever uncovered represents a transition to another
species (except those species which resulted in extinction).
The fossil record mirrors the genetic record. The appearence of
major groups in the fossil record is substantiated by relationships
later shown by DNA comparison testing. There is no other
explanation for this relationship between DNA and fossils besides
evolution. (see also: Evidence for Evolution)
For evolution to take place, hundreds of millions of years must
pass. Radiometric Dating methods ("Carbon 14 Dating") - are the
means by which we know that the earth is incredibly old. The
claims that these methods are unreliable is untrue. See
also:Radiometric Dating for Beginners.

What about God?

The theory of evolution does not address the issue of God, either
positively or negatively. The theory of evolution, like any scientific
theory, certainly does not need the intervention of a deity, and
there are many evolutionists who choose not to speculate about the
involvement of God, for a number of reasons-- chiefly among them
that there is no evidence to support such a notion, and scientific
theories by definition need to be constructed on purely mechanistic,
physical processes. On the other hand, there are evolutionists who
choose to view the theory as the method by which God placed life
on this planet. As this is America, they have the right to believe
such. The decision whether or not to incorporate God into evolution
is a personal one, based on prior beliefs.
See also: Evolution and Philosophy, and God and Evolution.

http://bibletrash.com/