AboutDana Krempels Expertise I can answer questions about evolutionary mechanisms and theory, including genetic drift, mutation, natural selection, etc. I also can clear up misconceptions about evolution as it's sometimes talked about by those not well-versed in the subject (e.g., some politicians and many religious fundamentalists).
Experience I have a Ph.D. in Biology, and presently teach Evolution and Biodiversity, Genetics, Botany, and Zoology at the University of Miami.
Organizations House Rabbit Society
Beta Beta Beta Biological Honor Society
I cently met a Creationtist, who told me the following:
At its core, evolution is built solely on a foundation of hocus pocus, magic, conjecture and outright fraud. Explain (if you can) how evolution explains just a few of the following "miracles:
1. Abiogenesis
2. Absence of Cambrian precursors
3. Multi-mile unconformities and
Overthrusts
4. Polystrate trees"
He said the above Macro Evolution or whatever.
Can you help? Thanks
Answer Dear Ray,
It sounds as if this creationist was tossing terminology at you without fully understanding what s/he was talking about. It's pretty clear that this person doesn't understand evolutionary theory, because none of the above present problems for evolutionary biologists. I'll take them one at a time.
1. Abiogenesis
Literally translated, this means "life created from non-life." Life was not always present on earth, so where did it come from, if not magically created by some supernatural being?
If one *wishes* to invoke the intervention of the supernatural, I have no control over that. Such belief must, by definition, be taken on faith. Because it cannot be tested with scientific methods, nor its process repeated to see if it could have happened. This means it's outside the realm of science.
However, one does not *need* to invoke the supernatural to explain how life could have originated. Classic experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey have demonstrated that organic molecules (which can form in the conditions provided by the primordial seas in the absence of oxygen, which was not present in the earth's early atmosphere) can join to form more complex molecules that are the building blocks of life. Together with the results of experiments by Aleksander Oparin, which showed how early, cell-like "vessels" could form in the primordial soup, one can witness how life could originate from non-life.
Note that these experiments happened over the course of only a few decades. The earth had an inconceivably long time to "get things right" for natural selection to be able to take over (once a means of replication had arisen): Life first shows up in the fossil record about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago, and the solar system (and earth) were formed more than half a billion years earlier.
If you would like to read more about Miller and Urey's experiments, and about Oparin's contributions, you can find good overviews here:
Fossil formation is a rare phenomenon. It's even more rare for organisms that lack hard body parts. So it's not all that surprising that there is a lack of fossils when life first emerged. This isn't to say that the Cambrian explosion of diversity--a geologically "sudden" burst of life that took place over about 13 million years--is solved. But there are certainly logical and reasonable hypotheses that could explain it. You can find a very good explanation and overview here:
I'm not sure exactly why your creationist friend would say these present problems for evolutionary biologists and geologists. These types of explainable geological phenomena actually help *explain* why older fossils can sometimes appear in strata above newer ones. These are formed by natural processes such as earthquakes, faults, and erosion.
4. Polystrate trees.
I'd never even heard of this one, and had to look it up. I discovered why I'd never heard of it from this very good site, which explains that the term "polystrate tree" isn't a standard geological term, but may be one made up by creationists trying to sound "scientific." But these, too, are not a problem, and the site I found gives a very good explanation of why:
Macroevolution is defined as the generation of new species from an existing ancestral species via reproductive isolation of members of the original population. Microevolution is defined as genetic change *within* a species, without generation of a new, reproductively isolated species. So none of the above "miracles" your friend cites even apply to macroevolution. Which is, by the way, an observable phenomenon. No faith required.
I'd suggest you direct your creationist friend to this truly excellent web site, hosted by the University of California Museum of Paleontology: Evolution 101:
It has everything you need to know, is constantly updated, easy to navigate and read and is probably the best tutorial on evolution I've seen so far.
It isn't going to convince any creationists that a supernatural being didn't create the earth and all it's life, because such people do not require physical, observable evidence to believe that. However, for those who *do* require physical proof (scientists are skeptics!), this site provides
an excellent educational tool.
