Letter: The facts (and theory) of evolution

Armando Corripio’s letter of Jan. 8 clearly demonstrates the ignorance and misconceptions so many people in Louisiana have about the facts and theories of evolutionary biology.

For example, Corripio writes, “The theory of evolution has some holes in explaining, among other things, how the universe and life came into existence.” Truth be told, evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe and the origin of organic life on planet Earth. Evolution simply explains the origin of life’s diversity; its multiple forms and unique morphologies. It explains why there are 400,000 species of beetles, why ostriches lost their ability to fly, why frogs lay their eggs in water, while sea turtles lay their eggs on land, and why mammals are the only organisms to nourish their young with milk produced within the mother’s body.

We need to look no farther than the well-accepted and easy-to-explain topic of gravity to help differentiate between a scientific fact and a scientific theory:

Gravity is fact. Objects attract one another. An apple dropped from the roof of a two-story building will fall until it hits the Earth.

Gravity is also theory. There are reasons why the dropped apple falls to the Earth and not to the moon or to the sun. The theory of gravity explains the “how and why” of the fact of gravity.

Evolution is fact. Organisms change over time — Darwin called it “descent with modification.” Evolution is also theory. There are reasons why and how organisms change and adapt and new species evolve.

Thoughts on evolutionary theory began with the early Greek philosophers 300 years before the birth of Christ. Since that time, at least four theories have been proposed, studied and researched, with the first three being discredited and supplanted by the most-recent one, that being Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Natural selection is the theory which explains some of the “how and whys” of the fact of evolution.

Michael Hiller

dentist

Baton Rouge


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (66)


1) Comment by potkcalb - 25/01/2013

Yes ABayouBoy there are many enigmas that we do not understand, may never be able to understand. We do understand that the modern theory of evolution explains how life forms change, evolve. Evolution does not answer, does not purport to answer, any other question, nor has any other question been asked of it.

2) Comment by ABayouBoy - 25/01/2013

@ potkcalb, for the millionth time, its not all about the superficial and finite mans understanding, or his attempts to understand the infinite. Its about having an open mind, because we are incapable of comprehending the incomprehensible - at least for the present. Strive for understanding, but don't let it blind you to certain truths. Just ask any Physicist....how quantum theory works, they don't know yet....random nature.

3) Comment by potkcalb - 24/01/2013

gerald "How did man's soul come about?" I thought we were talking science not religion. I have never heard of any scientific evidence that anyone has a soul, whatever that is. And wadep66 as to the surmise by religious fundamentalists who say that a "day' could be a million years. "Could" is a conditional,not evidence of anything. It is a hypocritical ploy used by by religious fundamentalist to try to make the creation story compatible with science.

4) Comment by Scrooge - 24/01/2013

rgeraldwallace@cox.net asks "How did man's soul come about? " a question concerning the concept of a soul that could be answered using his own unique nonstandard reasoning: "it should cause questions in the mind of any objective observer. " to my esteemed colleagues, I suggest a more productive response will be obtained from the family dog, at least dogs have evolved to listen.

5) Comment by potkcalb - 24/01/2013

ABayouBoy for the millionth time (seems like that many) evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with "how it came about."Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, of the universe, of the big bang or of anything else. No responsible person has claimed that it does. It is solely the mechanism by which life forms change (evolve) as determined by the environment of the life form. Think in terms of an electric generator. It's sole purpose is to make electricity, not to make apple pies or critique the latest movies. The sole purpose of the modern theory of evolution is to explain how life forms change (evolve), not to make apple pies, critique the latest movies, or to explain the origin of life, of the universe, of the big bang or anything else. Do you understand?

6) Comment by ABayouBoy - 24/01/2013

With all due respect to Mr. Hiller, his qualifications are in the dental field. So essentially he is stating his educated guess, or opinion. I do believe in evolution to a point, but it doesn't completely explain how it came about to begin with. So, I'm somewhat open-minded until proven otherwise.

7) Comment by wadep66 - 24/01/2013

Intelligent folk who believe in a God can see how these two ideas can coexist. Even reading the Christian Bible, unless you are so fundamentalist you don't understand what an allegory is, you can understand that the "day" referred to in Genesis could be a million years. Unless you aren't intelligent.

8) Comment by chem - 24/01/2013

rgeraldwallace stated: "My grasp on science might be tenuous, given that science changes all the time, ..." I took that as a dig toward science, but that is what separates science from the Bible or any of the other holy books. Science is always on the march for the truth and if new evidence adds to a previous theory, or overthrows it, then so be it. That is infinitely better than saying the holy books are inerrant and cannot change.

9) Comment by On_The_Fence - 24/01/2013

Ergo- thank you. You've proven my point. This is too easy.

10) Comment by 1ryben - 24/01/2013

(channeling my inner phil)......"but science doesn't have all the answers".....there ya go jedleland

11) Comment by prbeav - 24/01/2013

@jedleland: I liked your post.>>>>Recently, I read a book, E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature, 1978. He asserts that beyond biological evolution over billions of years, human kind is culturally evolving with much more rapid responses to the environment. I recommend the book and am considering reading his 2012 book, Social Conquest of Earth.>>>>I have long been fascinated with human kind's conclusion that human sacrifice should be extinct, even if some cultures disagree, and speculate that the end of human sacrifice is a product of cultural evolution. Same with institutional slavery outside sex trafficking and drug promotion by the rich and powerful.>>>>It seems to me fulfillment of the preamble to the US Constitution is an evolutionary process that so far has not even begun, because of this nation's bemusement with--even division over--the influence of God.

12) Comment by HerbF - 24/01/2013

I have always been interested in why people believe what they believe. In a political science class some fifty years ago, I was introduced to three British political philosophers, Locke, Hobbs and Burke. One was very religious. One was agnostic, and one was an atheist. From those base beliefs they derived three different political philosophys that are still studied today. What was interesting to me is that all three proceeded logically. It was interesting because I had assumed that there would be logical deviations that would explain the differences. There weren't. >>>>>Everyone does the same thing. We have to have base beliefs to explain our world, and we proceed to incorporate subsequent information to fit in our "world". Thus, we see intelligent, nice people who believe in "gods", magic and superstition. >>>>> Somewhere in this equation is the fact that we're social animals. Thus, conforming is an hereditary trait, a survival trait. Thus, refusal to question authority, or our core beliefs, may have a genetic origin. >>>> While I have often wondered how people over the age of twelve, can "believe" things that are so obviously foolish, with abundent evidence surrounding them, I know it's not intelligence.

13) Comment by jedleland - 24/01/2013

nice of you to say. i dont post here much at all anymore as its just the same reactionary cranks and paw paws saying the same thing every single day but i do read them occasionally and never fail to get riled up by creationists. dont know why. lets hope for all concerned that phil is otherwise busy today.

14) Comment by potkcalb - 24/01/2013

Exceedingly well stated jedleland. How life forms evolve is determined by the environment in which they are living. Some therefore change slowly over time, others rapidly. And as you have pointed out evolution has nothing to do with progression to what we like to think as more sophisticated or higher level functioning. I know that I have added nothing to your excellently expressed post jedleland, but perhaps if it is expressed enough times those who have little grasp of the evolutionary process can come to understand at least some of the basic concepts.

15) Comment by jedleland - 24/01/2013

Two points of very basic misunderstanding to clear up. First evolved doesn’t mean ‘got better’ or ‘improved’ – that’s a very common mistake people who don’t understand the basics of evolution make. its placing a qualitative emphasis on a dispassionate physical process, one that doesn’t require it. ‘Evolved’ in scientific terms just means changed according to the pressures of the environment. That’s all. Some things barely evolve at all (like sharks for instance) because they never have to while other populations evolve rapidly to meet changing demands brought on by external environmental factors. Some things cant evolve and so are made extinct. it has nothing to do with ‘getting better’ except s that relates to being better able to exist within an environment. Its easy to make the mistake that things that evolve are constantly getting ‘better’, more improved, like car models over the decades. but like I said, that’s a mistake. As for why its not still happening? Well it is its just very very slow kinda like creationists. Every time your flu vaccine needs to be changed that’s evolution at play. Every time a superbug appears that resists antibiotics that’s an organism that has changed to survive environmental pressures. Take such small changes and extend over a few million years and you have new organisms. That’s why people no longer die from the plague like they did 700 years ago – the people who had a natural resistance in their dna survived and passed that gene along to their offspring and over generations and generations we changed to survive against the environment. fundamentalist religious indoctrination can make smart people seem real stupid. Michael Behe is a smart guy and threw away his whole life’s reputation and credibility cause he couldn’t get past his indoctrination and was humiliated in Dover in public as a result. Don’t let this happen to you!

16) Comment by HRoark - 24/01/2013

rgerald, sadly, your grasp of time seems tenuous as well. And Fence, evolutionary change does not imply advancement or improvement in the subjective sense, it only implies change through time. Loss of eyes in cave dwelling creatures may not be viewed as improvement, but the change does not cause them to go extinct in a dark environment, so it persists. Loss of most body hair in one of the great apes does not cause extinction either (yet), and we get to wear flashy outfits and comfy pajamas.

17) Comment by On_The_Fence - 24/01/2013

I wonder what words our ancestors hurled intended as insults. Couldn't have been Ape. And if the word stupid is indicative of low intelligence, how would a caveman even know that? Maybe they furiously scribbled lines on the inside of their cave showing other cavemen unwilling to come inside with them. Then they all sobbed instead of laughed.

18) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 24/01/2013

My grasp on science might be tenuous, given that science changes all the time, but answer me this, i.e. if indeed these DNA strains magically or suddenly began to propel all these different species from the slimy soup, why is it not still happening? Shouldn't these chimps suddenly start speaking and giving lectures? How did man's soul come about? From the slime? Why was it just us? Go take a look at the progression of mankind exhibit at the Smithsonian up in DC; it should cause questions in the mind of any objective observer.

19) Comment by On_The_Fence - 24/01/2013

I'm not so sure we evolved. Evolved denotes that the human race has gotten better. Our ancestors actually worked for a living. They used plants for medicinal purposes. They had to have gumption and courage and the wherewithall to overcome difficulties. Now, we Apps!

20) Comment by Bouncer - 24/01/2013

HumanApe and HRoark have just about said it all. You have to remember that there's two kinds of stupid: regular stupid and Louisiana stupid, which is a "special" kind of stupid. Owners of such stupidity (like rgeraldwallace) think that they know more than all of the experts combined. The fact of the matter is that Louisiana stupid can't be taught anything. You couldn't teach it to take its hand off of a hot burner.

21) Comment by HRoark - 23/01/2013

rgeraldwallace, cows didn't evolve from horses, or vice versa, so that can't be reproduced anymore that humans evolving from bonobos or chimps can be reproduced. These lineages evolved from common ancestors. These common ancestors are hypotheses of relationships, which is science. Your grasp of science is tenuous. This is a problem with a society that depends on science for many everyday items and services. Sad really...

22) Comment by Human Ape - 23/01/2013

rgeraldwallace@cox.net wrote "Macroevolution", for those of my hopelessly uninformed ilk, is something not demonstrated so far. Then according to you every single biologist in the world is hopelessly uninformed. Grow up and educate yourself mister. It's pathetic that you think you're qualified to write about science when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. The evolutionary relationship between all species has been repeated proven, thousands of times, thanks to comparisons of DNA sequences of different living species. Evolution, including what you call macroevolution, is the strongest fact of science. I'm sorry but you disgust me. Educate yourself and if you're too lazy to do that, then shut up.

23) Comment by Human Ape - 23/01/2013

"Armando Corripio’s letter of Jan. 8 clearly demonstrates the ignorance and misconceptions so many people in Louisiana have about the facts and theories of evolutionary biology." Every state in this country is infested with science deniers. These god-soaked people have another problem. They keep trying to dumb down science education. They want every student to learn nothing about science just like them. The solution is to demand the teaching of evolution starting at a very young age, long before religious brainwashing permanently destroys a student's mind. It's also important to demand competent science teachers. A good place to start would be to immediately fire all Christian teachers. Christians are not qualified to teach science because they are just plain stupid. Type "darwin killed god" in the google search box then click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.

24) Comment by On_The_Fence - 23/01/2013

If this universe was created out of nothing, wouldn't it make sense that other universes have always been and always will be created out of nothing? So no edge of the universe; no end of time. That's called eternal or Eternity. I think we all may have it figured out a bit and not figured out a whole lot.

25) Comment by prbeav - 23/01/2013

JimmyD7: Dawkins's book looks interesting; it's newer (2009); it's less daunting.>>>>Interestingly, the NYT review, after giving a complimentary lip spends 80% of its words refuting Dawkins's claim that evolution is a fact.>>>>Of further interest is that the reviewer seems a creationist.>>>>Thanks for more light.

26) Comment by prbeav - 23/01/2013

JimmyD7: my distinction is that while evolution does not explain the first life, some 3.7 billion years ago, it does apply to what followed--not a fact, but part of the theory.

27) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

I was afraid that might be the reaction. It really is an excellent explanation, though.

28) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/01/2013

Oh no!!! Jimmy has invoked the name of that most evil atheist, humanist, materialist, Rickard Dawkins. Why should we read anythgin he writes? There, I beat the fundies to the punch.

29) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

Not quite sure I get the distinction prbeav is trying to draw. I think the sentence in the letter is fully accurate: evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe or the origin of organic life. A book I would recommend to the general reader, one that is clear on the distinction between what evolution is and is not, would be Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth.

30) Comment by prbeav - 23/01/2013

One sentence bothers me: "evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe and the origin of organic life on planet Earth.">>>>I understand the big bang was some 13.7 billion years ago, then Earth formed some 4.6 billion years ago, then abiogenesis started some 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago, when the earth was molten. (the abiogenesis part from unreliable Wikipedia).The only part of this sequence I can directly attest to is now: life is.>>>>It seems reasonable to assume that adaptation to the environment began when life began, and that assumption would hold as part of the theory of evolution until it was dis-proven. Thus, evolution would seem to start with the beginning of life on earth, and that idea would not be possible without the theory of evolution.>>>>Whatever constituted that first life is reflected in the species that exist now.>>>>Anyone who feels inadequate to undertake evaluating the strength of the theory of evolution would be pleased to read Daniel C. Dennett. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. 1995. Easier to read and re-read but less informative regarding the would-be competition is Ursula Goodenough. The Sacred Depths of Nature. 1998. I would be interested in neighbor's recommendations.

31) Comment by chem - 23/01/2013

urbanmoderate: Why the emphasis on the "Truth be told ..." sentence?

32) Comment by potkcalb - 23/01/2013

As I pointed out in my earlier post and as Mr. Hiller noted, evolution is both fact and theory as is everything else that is regarded as scientific fact. The relationship between theory and fact is reciprocal, not hierarchical, not one above and more certain than the other. It is a scientific fact that acorns fall from trees. The theory of gravity explains why they fall. Theory explains fact. The confusion of the uneducated is that they think a scientific theory is JUST an opinion, surmise, belief, conjecture. Given that thinking they will never understand science. A scientific theory is none of those. And yes species have evolved into another species. Try opening a biology book, learn something about paleoanthropology, stop listening to religious fundamentalist's distortions of science, go to a natural science museum, or look in a mirror.

33) Comment by DMJ - 23/01/2013

If you ignore history (or science) you distort the present. You distort the present, you squander the future. It's all connected.

34) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

So then we're left with the present, which is something we can know about. And we're left with the choice of facing the facts of the 21st century with observation and reason, or from the perspective of ancient mythology.

35) Comment by nimby? - 23/01/2013

therein lies the rub . Madame Cleo , where are you ?

36) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013



37) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

If we don't know where we're going, how can we like priorities to the future?

38) Comment by nimby? - 23/01/2013

JimmyD7 , we cannot agree where we came from or where we are going . personally I'd prefer priorities linked to the future rather than the past . "we are going forward" , good words .

39) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

nimby, I think "where we are going" is very much the topic here. Some people are willing to look at the present and chart a course for the future on the basis of observation and reason, while others insist on ignoring those in favor of 1st-century mythology. Those distinct mindsets produce incompatible analyses of current situation and what direction to set for the future.

40) Comment by nimby? - 23/01/2013

just a thought ; wouldn't it be to our advantage to worry more about where we are going than where we came from ?

41) Comment by UrbanModerate - 23/01/2013

Everybody please re-read the second sentence of the second paragraph of this letter very closely before commenting --->>> "Truth be told, evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe and the origin of organic life on planet Earth."

42) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

Tea_Slayer says it best.

43) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

Oh.... I see... it's that four-letter word by itself that triggers the delete, because it might be used as an epithet.

44) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/01/2013

if you go to an online dictionary and look up the word "obtuse", there will be links to phil's various posts on evolution

45) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

Wow.... that's going to seriously limit some valid discussions.

46) Comment by UrbanModerate - 23/01/2013

Found out what it was -- I was making prodigious use of our own human species name, h_m_ sapiens. And the filter didn't like the first part of that. File that away for future reference. :)

47) Comment by UrbanModerate - 23/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

48) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

some keyword might have tripped an automatic delete.

49) Comment by UrbanModerate - 23/01/2013

I am not sure why my comments are in violation. Anybody know the "rules?" I'm not trying to post anything out of the ordinary. Oh well.

50) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

Way to miss the point, Phil. I assume you do that deliberately.

51) Comment by Being_Stupid - 23/01/2013

Evolution is fact, not theory. It happens everyday.

52) Comment by UrbanModerate - 23/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

53) Comment by UrbanModerate - 23/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

54) Comment by phil - 23/01/2013

This letter is a nice very basic description. Of course, when folks can actually tell me EXACTLY what life is then perhaps we can further define what evolution really is. We know that life has evolved, but can someone tell me what exactly this thing we call "life" is. We can observe the beginning of life and (for a human) the development from a fetus to an adult being, we can observe living things during their lives, and we can observe the death of living things, but can we really create life or bring a dead person (or other living thing) back to life? We are not so smart after all are we? Speaking of religion, there were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ. How many people were around to witness the beginning of life (or the beginning of the universe)? How many more letters about this will I see in the Advocate?

55) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

Nonesense, rgerald. You seem to be saying that an entire species must change in lockstep, rather than recognizing that what evolves are populations, not individuals nor species as a whole. You also seem willing to ignore the entirety of the fossil record as well as genetic analyses, both of which clearly demonstrate large-scale changes over large periods of time, such as the development of whales from land mammals. Both of these indicate that what you know about evolution you got from Creationist sources, not scientific ones. You need to learn what the scientific theory of evolution actually says, instead of the claims of the straw-man version found in your church bulleting.

56) Comment by DMJ - 23/01/2013

Great letter with a cogent explanation. Too bad such explanations still have to be made in the year 2013.

57) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 23/01/2013

"Macroevolution", for those of my hopelessly uninformed ilk, is something not demonstrated so far. For instance, we can all see that there are some people who can only be described as Neanderthals still walking among us; obviously they never were a part of such a thing because they're still the way they were while the rest of us, well, some of us have certainly been improved.

58) Comment by JimmyD7 - 23/01/2013

It has been refreshing to see so many comments on the Advocate blogs that show that Louisianans actually know something about Evolution, in spite of attempts by religious groups and our own state government to poison the well of scientific knowledge. Of course, there's no point in arguing with rgeraldwallce or his ilk, who are so hopelessly uninformed as to trot out the tired and debunked claim that we can observer "microevolution" but not "macroevolution."

59) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 23/01/2013

popseal has a point; I believe I've seen the same thing on the internet. As I recall, it was something to do with us being derived from hibernating bacteria within rocks flung to Earth from Mars.

60) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 23/01/2013

Mr. Hiller's logic is admirable, but he left out one main point, i.e. there is nothing to show that one species evolved into another via natural selection, though certainly we all know for a fact that either natural selection or artificial selection certainly will effect changes within any species. Nobody has ever been able to turn a cow into a horse.

61) Comment by popseal - 23/01/2013

We all know that the earth was created by space aliens and seeded with life by comets.....these are proven facts. I know because I found it on the Internet.

62) Comment by chem - 23/01/2013

The sad about the religious (fundamentalists for the most part), is that there are many who are intelligent and well educated. However, there religious delusion clouds there intelligence and they become babbling idiots when that delusion is attacked. They become closed-minded and will not listen to any evidence or reason, regardless of how overwhelming. How sad for them.

63) Comment by Bighug - 23/01/2013

Information based on study and experiment is lost on people who will say you're wrong because the Bible, or whatever religion they believe, says differently.

64) Comment by potkcalb - 23/01/2013

A succinctly stated explanation of the complementarity of theory and fact. Everything that is accepted as scientific fact is based on theory. Electricity is a theoretical construct. Atomic theory is just that although it's been used to blow things up.The theory of relativity (gravity) is widely taught and accepted as the scientific explanation of the universe at large. The germ theory of disease and the modern theory of evolution are other examples that meet all of the criteria of scientific theory.

65) Comment by healthbudget - 22/01/2013

No; wait a minute. You actually expect LA citizens to accept logic and fact? If so, how did Jindal get re-elected?

66) Comment by tradewinns - 22/01/2013

all that sounds reasonable to me.