Evolution vs. Creationism:
Introduction
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, once famously quoted that “nothing within the scientific realm, makes sense except on the basis of evolution.” I agree with Theodosius in the defense for the evolutionary theory: that engaging in a creationist perspective on discussing the existence of living things is a departed idea. Creationists insist that everything that exists in nature originates from a deity, and they base their arguments on the “intelligent design.” Evolution, on the other hand, is unquestionable with regard to life existence on earth. It involves the emergence and development of living organisms from earlier forms throughout the earth’s history (“Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere”). A better strategy to explain this would include the use of scientific evidence. It is difficult for one to argue that evolution has not taken place when presented with evidence. In this paper, I create an emphasis on the process of adaptation and survival of living organisms, share some evidence on evolution, and clarify the need to follow the evolution theory as opposed to creationism.
- Reason 1
- Survival of the Fittest
“Survival of the fittest” is a term used by the British naturalist, Charles Darwin, where he argues that species best adapted to their surroundings are the most likely to survive and reproduce (Lewens Np). It is a familiar way of describing the process of natural selection, however, it takes a practical explanation when clarifying the different rates of reproduction and survival. This means that, instead of classifying organisms as being more or less fit for an ecosystem, we can talk of the number of offspring that are likely to survive under a given circumstance. Consider a scenario where we have a pair of small-beaked finches that are reproducing at a very high rate and at the same time we have a pair of large-beaked finches that are breeding at a slower rate. In the course of a few generations, the fast reproducers may end up controlling the larger part of the food resources. But then, if the source of food largely depends on the ability to crush nuts, then the benefit tips to the slow reproducers. As on the Galpagos Islands study on finches, researchers confirm these types of changes in the wild on the basis of “Survival of the fittest” (Lewens Np). The key idea is that the ability to adapt in a given ecosystem highly depends on the nature of the species: large-beaked finches are better fit for crushing seeds, and that ends up being their unique trait of survival in such circumstances.
- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Early Discoveries
Charles Darwin is not the first and the only naturalist to argue that species change over time and turn into new species—that life is an evolving process. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist in the eighteenth century together with other naturalists introduced the idea of life as a continuous process (Lewens Np). Lamarck took a great theoretical step and came up with a developed theory of evolution. He was amazed by the numerous similarities that existed in various species under his study and also impressed by the increasing fossil records. The previous records helped Lamarck establish a stance that, furthermore, life was never a fixed entity: organisms could change with the changing environments and could as well change their survival behaviors. Lamarck noted that if a given organism began to use one of its organs more than it did in the past, then the organ would increase over time while organs not used over time would shrink. For instance, if a giraffe stretched its neck to reach for shrubs, the neck would increase in size over time. The sort of evolution proposed by Lamarck argued that life progressed through a natural process rather than a miraculous intervention.
- Galapagos Islands/Finch Studies
All finches species are closely related having been from common ancestry. Populations of finches inhabit different islands depending on their ability to adapt to the existing ecologies (Lewens Np). Closely related species inhabit together on the same island. The process of natural selection is best explained by the “Survival of the fittest” criteria. This allows the species to reproduce in an environment that best suits their natural characteristics. For instance, as we had seen earlier, the evidence for adaptation among finches has to do with their beak sizes and diet. On Fernandina Island, which is a high island, we are likely to find relatively blunt-beaked finches that feed on mollusks, arthropods, and fruits. On Genovesa Island, which is a low island, we are likely to find relatively small-beaked finches that feed on small seeds, pollen, and nectar from the vegetation (Lewens Np).
- Reason 2
- Structural Similarities
Several structural similarities exist within various natural species despite their different way of life and the diversity of their environments. The striking bone by bone similarities is evident not only on the limbs of these organisms but also on other parts of the body. Comparative anatomy examines the inherited similarities that exist among various organisms in terms of bone structures and different parts of the body. Researchers argue that the correspondence between these structures is typically close among the organism, for instance, in the different birds, but also becomes less similar as the organisms under comparison become less closely related within their evolutionary constraint (Vinicius Np). The structural similarities are less among mammals and birds compared to mammals and other mammals. Structural similarities, therefore, not only portray evolution but also help recreate the evolutionary history of living organisms. Like the humans, birds, horses, or turtles forelimbs, the body parts of the organisms are less of adapted characteristics as they are inherited rather than created from “raw” materials. The imperfection within these structures is evident in the evolution process.
- Carbon Dating/Modern Methods of Recreating Bone Structures
When restructuring the evolution process, getting to know how old the fossils are, is a crucial process. Through Carbon dating and other modern technological methods, we get to establish the fossils chronological framework within the local geology, the artifacts that exist in relation to the fossils, the flora and the fauna, as well as the numerical studies of these materials (Nature News). Recent developments in the ultrafiltration techniques have extended the range of dating radiocarbon. It is now seemingly possible to date bones of up to 50,000 years. New advancements permit the analysis of a series of isotopes, thus presenting us with a fast and almost non-destructive dating technique that dates back to around 300,000 years (Nature News). The carbon dating methods are generally applied to a wide range of materials, for instance, in dating fossil teeth and bones. Radiocarbon and other advanced pretreatment methods address chronological issues that relate to existing fossils and help trace the evolutionary characteristics that support the idea of the evolution theory.
- Fossil Records
Fossil records and other evidence reveal that various species have evolved over time and although we may not have observed the transformations, there exists indirect evidence that is definitive and convincing. Scientific procedures in general depend on indirect evidence. For instance, a physicist may not be in a position to directly view subatomic particles but is forced to verify their existence by observing the tracks that they mark within the cloud chambers. The lack of direct evidence does not the physicist’s conclusion less certain. Besides, the fossil records contain various transitional forms that allow for the restructuring of species under study. In cases of convergence, evolutionary records and evidence are found in a detailed manner, for instance, a Mollusca and a vertebrate’s lens composition may be express remarkable similarities, but a vertebrate retinal structure maintains its ‘back to front’ structure (Vinicius Np). Within the fossils records, the field of evolution is divided into two main areas: macroevolution and microevolution. The macroevolution study insists on the inference from DNA structures within taxonomic groups rather than direct observation while that microevolution study focuses on the variations within organisms over a given period—variations that may prelude speciation of new spaces (Vinicius Np).
- Reason 3
- Genetic Makeup
The evolution theory suggests that living organisms originate from other pre-existing types and, in that case, exhibit distinguishable differences through modification of successive generations (Nicoglou 67). Our DNAs are like an instructional manual that has all instructions that make us, our personality, and other characteristics, and these instructions are in the form of genes. Each gene contributes towards a particular trait, for instance, the eye color originates from a set of genes. Each copy of the gene is gotten from each parent and this means that every organism has two copies of most of its genes. But not all copies are the same. There is a variety around the surroundings that exist in different versions. Some versions may be stronger or weaker than others. The stronger version becomes the dominant trait while the weaker version becomes the recessive trait (Nicoglou 68).
- Dominant and Recessive Traits
The question about dominant and recessive traits gets to the core of genetics and evolution. Scientists in most cases look at one’s family history to figure out their dominant and recessive traits. They do this to see how certain traits are passed down throughout generations. For instance, if a certain trait appears to have been passed down to a child from a parent, then its odds are pretty balanced and it becomes a dominant trait. If a trait is seen to skip generations or emerges from nowhere then it becomes a recessive trait (Nicoglou 71). There exist other lots of suggestions that can be traced across families’ histories and a lot of expectations too, but this gives us an idea of what it means to have a trait passed down from one generation to another, which is more of an evolution process.
- Natural/Sexual selection.
The natural selection process is the fundamental concept of this explanation. Natural selection as noted earlier occurs when individual organisms have more favorable traits, for instance, swifter legs, larger beaks, or more acute eyesight, that can help them survive and reproduce in a better way compared to other organisms with less favorable traits (Nature News). Scientists find that convergence in evolution provides a powerful basis for arguments against the creationists’ “intelligence design” and highpoints the general effectiveness of natural selection. Creationists will often refer to an eye as an intricate organ that may not have evolved if there was no intervention of a deity. However, biologists counter that, it is easier to trace the evolution of an eye on various occasions. Despite the varying origins, the lanes converge at some point. Biologists argue that, for instance, a trout and an octopus may exhibit similar characteristics in their altered lens composition, they may produce the ideal parabola, but both had to undergo adaptation to overcome similar limitations (Vinicius Np). Therefore, it is not surprising that the organisms adapted in the same way, their eyes displayed high fitness capabilities that made it possible for them to escape predators and access food without the need to redesign. They only had to undergo a sequence of advantageous mutations which is basically the natural selection process.
Conclusion
It is worth pointing out that most believers also consider evolution as a fact. Although disputing the rhetoric of the supporters of creationism with scientific evidence may not be an easy task, it is important to note that in as much as the two theories are concerned, the deity approach fails to explain and offer enough evidence on how living things came to be. The evolution theory sheds light on the existence of living organisms. The theory seeks to explain the biological developments within various species. As it is the case with any scientific theory, evolution theory is constantly challenged and supported by new evidence unlike creationism, which rejects new evidence and favors a narrow world-view based on intelligence and divine intervention. Until a Precambrian rodent comes leaping out of the fossils records, the theories of evolution and natural selection remain to be the only valid justifications of how living organisms come into existence.
Works Cited
Lewens, Tim. Darwin. London: Routledge, 2007. Print.
Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/each-organism-s-traits-are-inherited-from-6524917/. Web.
Nicoglou, Antonine. “The Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity: Genealogy of a Debate in Genetics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biol & Biomed Sci 50 (2015): 67–76.Web.
Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere (Online). Springer Link: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1968. Print
Vinicius, Lucio. Modular Evolution How Natural Selection Produces Biological Complexity. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.