I'll be the first to admit that a column is one of the worst mediums to discuss the importance of a topic as far-reaching and widely researched as evolution'it's like trying to write 'War & Peace' as a pop-up book. Call it hubris, but I tried to do just that a little over two weeks ago, defending evolution in the face of Intelligent Design and the six to four Kansas decision to teach it.
This is a controversial issue and, not surprisingly, I got quite a few impassioned emails??. Most were very supportive of my column, but even those who objected to it brought with some truly thoughtful questions and comments. With this column, I hope to touch on a few of the more recurring themes from a science perspective.
'Now, I'm not sure about my facts on this, but I assume some sorts of microevolution have been somewhat shown scientifically through experimentation. Now, I understand that you can postulate based upon these microevolution findings that macroevolution would follow, but do you see how that's quite a big jump to make and that it's really not scientific theory at all since it cannot be measured or reproduced.'
-Brent Finley
Microevolution just refers to evolution resulting from changes in a single species' gene pool with time. These sort of changes are quite common. For one, microevolution becomes a nightmare for farmers everywhere when their pests become immune to their pesticides after a few sprays. Antibiotic resistance for a given disease is also a result of microevolution within bacteria.
Macroevolution, or evolution that leads to large-scale change like the creation of new species, is just a buildup of microevolution's effects over incredibly long periods of time. As a result, the evolutionary transition between distantly related species cannot be observed directly, barring the invention of a time machine and millions of years of video.
But since there is no biological barrier to large change and because small changes can be expected to yield large changes, macroevolution can occur, albeit slowly. Since both types of evolution are fundamentally the same in their effect on the DNA, just for different periods of time, the 'jump' from microevolution to macroevolution is not as big as it seems.
And while it doesn't have the biological gee-whiz factor of, say, a fish evolving into a frog, speciation'the evolution of new species that cannot reproduce with its closest relative on the tree of life'has been documented in mosquitoes, bacteria and plants. Speciation is, by definition, a form of macroevolution.
The fact that dramatic macroevolution cannot be directly seen isn't even that important. According to the TalkOrigins archive (talkorigins.org), 'the evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly,' in light of the mountain of other evidence.
According to Douglas Theobald, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Colorado in Boulder, 'direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is usually impossible ... the round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept has been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years.'
'I read your article hoping to be presented with evidence which would convince me that in the last 30 years, science had gotten around to 'proving' Darwin's hypothesis. I am still looking for that proof.'
-Shawn Brown
Definitive, infallible proof of anything is hard to come by in any discipline, including science. According to Theobald, 'all scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge.'
The best that science can provide is a hypothesis that is strongly supported by scientific means. In a scientific context, this is 'proof' enough. Evolution has attained this level of credibility'it's up to the individual to accept it based on the divergent evidence and insights scientists have systematically gathered for over 150 years. The TalkOrigins archive does a phenomenal job of outlining their work.
''Vocal minority'? What planet are you from? Try more like around 90 percent of the general population believe in 'Intelligent Design''
-anonymous
I'll take this one on the chin'I should've written that it's a 'vocal minority within the scientific community.' Specifically, I'm referring to those scientists belonging to the Discovery Institute, the think tank running the 'Teach the Controversy' campaign that advocates ID's teaching in science classrooms nationwide.
I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that 90 percent of the population believes in ID, per se. Since ID defines itself as a secular belief (I don't buy this claim), the majority's trust in traditional creationism and/or theism, the idea that God is guiding nature, better define the American public's beliefs.
Finally, to address those readers who labeled my last column as biased'they're right.
As a science columnist, it's my job to use the resources I have'be it my own understanding, the incredibly accommodating scientists I interview on campus or through credible sources online'to present the view that the scientific majority subscribes to. From this perspective, ID just doesn't stand up.
Adam Dylewski is a junior majoring in genetics. This column made extensive use of the TalkOrigins archive, a newsgroup that provides well-researched, science-based answers for questions that arise in the creationism/evolution debate. Check it out for further reading. Letters? Send them to adylewski@wisc.edu.
