On the Theory of Evolution Versus the Concept of Evolution: Three Observations

Science and evolution

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.

Evolution Controversy: A Phenomenon Prompted by the Incompatibility between Science and Religious Beliefs

The incompatibility between science and the belief in supernatural causation helps us understand why people do not accept evolution. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays, or stops (3Ds + S) the acceptance of scientific evidence. Here we examine the evolution controversy under three predictions of the incompatibility hypothesis. First, chronological-conflict-and-accommodation, which explains the historical re-emergence of antagonism between evolution and religion when advances in science continue to threaten the belief in supernatural causation; in such situations, creationists' rejection of and subsequent partial acceptance of the new scientific discoveries are expected. Second, change in evolution's acceptance as function of educational attainment, which explains the positive association between acceptance of evolution and level of education. And third, change in evolution's acceptance as function of religiosity, which explains the negative association between acceptance of evolution and level of religious beliefs. We rely on an ample assessment of the attitudes toward evolution by highly-educated audiences (i.e. research faculty, educators of prospective teachers, and college students in the United States) to characterize the associations among the understanding of science and evolution, personal religious convictions, and conservative ideology. We emphasize that harmonious coexistence between science and religion is illusory. If co-persisting in society, their relationship will fluctuate from moderate to intense antagonism.

Galapagos III World Evolution Summit: why evolution matters

There is no place on Earth like the Galapagos Islands and no better destination to discuss the reality of evolution. Under the theme ‘Why Does Evolution Matter’, the University San Francisco of Quito (USFQ), Ecuador, and its Galapagos Institute for the Arts and Sciences (GAIAS), organized the III World Evolution Summit in San Cristóbal Island. The 200-attendee meeting took place on 1 to 5 June 2013; it included 12 keynote speakers, 20 oral presentations by international scholars, and 31 posters by faculty, postdocs, and graduate and undergraduate students. The Summit encompassed five sessions: evolution and society, pre-cellular evolution and the RNA world, behavior and environment, genome, and microbes and diseases. USFQ and GAIAS launched officially the Lynn Margulis Center for Evolutionary Biology and showcased the Galapagos Science Center, in San Cristóbal, an impressive research facility conceptualized in partnership with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. USFQ and GAIAS excelled at managing the conference with exceptional vision and at highlighting the relevance of Galapagos in the history of modern evolutionary thinking; Charles Darwin’s visit to this volcanic archipelago in 1835 unfolded unprecedented scientific interest in what today is a matchless World Heritage.

Educators of Prospective Teachers Hesitate to Embrace Evolution Due to Deficient Understanding of Science/Evolution and High Religiosity

Acceptance of evolution by educators of prospective teachers remains superficially studied despite their role in having mentored schoolteachers whose weak support of evolution is known. Here, we contrast the views of New England educators of prospective teachers (n=62; 87% Ph. D./doctorate holders in 32 specializations) with those of the general faculty (n=244; 93% Ph.D./doctorate holders in 40 disciplines), both members of 35 colleges and universities, and with college students (n=827; subsample of the 35 institutions) who were polled on: (1) the controversy evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design (ID), (2) their understanding of how science/evolution works, and (3) their religiosity. The educators held intermediate positions in respect to the general faculty and the students: 94% of the general faculty, 75% of the educators, and 63% of the students said they accepted evolution openly; and 82% of the general faculty, 71% of the educators, and 58% of the students thought that evolution is definitely true. Only 3% of the general faculty in comparison to 19% of the educators and 24% of the students thought that evolution and creationism are in harmony. Although 93% of the general faculty, educators, and students knew that evolution relies on common ancestry, 26% of the general faculty, 45% of the educators, and 35% of the students did not know that humans are apes. Remarkably, 15% of the general faculty, 32% of the educators, and 35% of the students believed, incorrectly, that the origin of the human mind cannot be explained by evolution; and 30% of the general faculty, 59% of the educators, and 75% of the students were Lamarckian (=believed in inheritance of acquired traits). For science education: 96% of the general faculty, 86% of the educators, and 71% of the students supported the exclusive teaching of evolution, while 4% of the general faculty, 14% of the educators, and 29% of the students favored equal time to evolution, creationism and ID; note that 92% of the general faculty, 82% of the educators, and 50% of the students perceived ID as either not scientific and proposed to counter evolution based on false claims or as religious doctrine consistent with creationism. The general faculty was the most knowledgeable about science/evolution and the least religious (science index, SI=2.49; evolution index, EI= 2.49; and religiosity index, RI=0.49); the educators reached lower science/evolution but higher religiosity indexes than the general faculty (SI=1.96, EI=1.96, and RI=0.83); and the students were the least knowledgeable about science/ evolution and the most religious (SI=1.80, EI=1.60, and RI=0.89). Understanding of science and evolution were inversely correlated with level of religiosity, and understanding of evolution increased with increasing science literacy. Interestingly, ≈36% of the general faculty, educators and students considered religion to be very important in their lives, and 17% of the general faculty, 34% of the educators, and 28% of the students said they prayed daily. Assessing the perception of evolution by educators of prospective teachers vs. the general faculty and the students of New England, one of the historically most progressive regions in the U.S., is crucial for determining the magnitude of the impact of creationism and ID on attitudes toward science, reason, and education in science.

Introduction: why people do not accept evolution: using protistan diversity to promote evolution literacy

The controversy evolution vs. creationism is inherent to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation. To test this hypothesis, we conceptualized a Cartesian landscape where the dependent variable acceptance of evolution was plotted as function of three factors, each represented by an index (value range 0 to 3): Religiosity Index (RI), Science Index (SI), and Evolution Index (EI). The indexes summarized an individual's personal religious convictions, familiarity with the processes and forces of change in organisms (= concept of evolution), and understanding the essence of science (= method to explore reality). We compared and contrasted acceptance of evolution among four populations of variable educational attainment: 244 professors of New England, United States (93% Ph.D./doctorate holders), 50 protistologists from 25 countries (70% Ph.D./doctorate holders), 62 educators of prospective teachers (83% Ph.D./doctorate holders), and 827 college students. The New England faculty held the highest acceptance of evolution position (RI = 0.49; SI = 2.49; EI = 2.49), followed by the protistologists (RI = 0.46; SI = 2.30; EI = 2.48), the educators of prospective teachers (RI = 0.83; SI = 1.96; EI = 1.96), and the students (RI = 0.89; SI = 1.80; EI = 1.60); therefore, the data supported our hypothesis. Proper science education, public outreach and robust debate over the controversy "evolution versus creationism" should suffice to improve society's evolution literacy, and qualified scholars ought to lead this mission.

The Jackprot Simulation Couples Mutation Rate with Natural Selection to Illustrate How Protein Evolution Is Not Random

Protein evolution is not a random process. Views which attribute randomness to molecular change, deleterious nature to single-gene mutations, insufficient geological time, or population size for molecular improvements to occur, or invoke "design creationism" to account for complexity in molecular structures and biological processes, are unfounded. Scientific evidence suggests that natural selection tinkers with molecular improvements by retaining adaptive peptide sequence. We used slot-machine probabilities and ion channels to show biological directionality on molecular change. Because ion channels reside in the lipid bilayer of cell membranes, their residue location must be in balance with the membrane's hydrophobic/philic nature; a selective "pore" for ion passage is located within the hydrophobic region. We contrasted the random generation of DNA sequence for KcsA, a bacterial two-transmembrane-domain (2TM) potassium channel, from Streptomyces lividans, with an under-selection scenario, the "jackprot," which predicted much faster evolution than by chance. We wrote a computer program in JAVA APPLET version 1.0 and designed an online interface, The Jackprot Simulation http://faculty.rwu.edu/cbai/JackprotSimulation.htm, to model a numerical interaction between mutation rate and natural selection during a scenario of polypeptide evolution. Winning the "jackprot," or highest-fitness complete-peptide sequence, required cumulative smaller "wins" (rewarded by selection) at the first, second, and third positions in each of the 161 KcsA codons ("jackdons" that led to "jackacids" that led to the "jackprot"). The "jackprot" is a didactic tool to demonstrate how mutation rate coupled with natural selection suffices to explain the evolution of specialized proteins, such as the complex six-transmembrane (6TM) domain potassium, sodium, or calcium channels. Ancestral DNA sequences coding for 2TM-like proteins underwent nucleotide "edition" and gene duplications to generate the 6TMs. Ion channels are essential to the physiology of neurons, ganglia, and brains, and were crucial to the evolutionary advent of consciousness. The Jackprot Simulation illustrates in a computer model that evolution is not and cannot be a random process as conceived by design creationists.