Guest Column:
I was disappointed to see all of the inaccuracies in Ben Nilson’s letter on Wednesday. His comment that evolution is being taught “as though it is the law of gravity” is incorrect. Scientists understand the mechanisms of evolution much better than those of gravity.
As for Darwin’s quote of his work being “too hypothetical”, this was stated in a letter to a colleague preceding the publication of his 1859 work “On the Origin of Species”. His comment referred to Darwin’s collected evidence for natural selection as the driving force of evolution, not to the principle of evolution itself.
While it is true that Haeckel’s images comparing embryos were fraudulently manipulated, his work has never been necessary for the support of evolutionary theory and does not appear in any recent biology textbooks that I am aware of. This includes Campbell’s /Biology/, used in the general biology classes here at USU and around the nation. We have certainly not “all seen them in biology class”.
Many mutations are beneficial. One example from USU reported in a biology seminar several weeks ago explains how a simple DNA point mutation found within several subpopulations of a garter snake allows it to consume toxic prey it couldn’t otherwise eat. Direct observations of speciation have been reported by scientists on many occasions, in both plants and animals. Finally, anyone stating that evolution is “just a theory” is displaying their ignorance of the term as it is used by scientists, and could use a review of the scientific method.
Since Darwin’s time, his theory has been tweaked a bit, but certainly not refuted. Contributions of the past century include our current knowledge of DNA as the material controlling heredity and a better understanding of additional selective pressures, such as sexual selection and coevolution. A century and a half of research has managed to convince biologists and others studying the available evidence that Darwin was right. As for that evidence that Nilson seems to disregard, it comes in several flavors: molecular, morphological (including fossils), behavioral, etc.
Morphologically, transitional forms are evident in the fossil record for most well-studied biological lineages, and “missing links” are being found all the time. Molecular studies (of DNA, etc.) have strengthened our understanding of the relatedness of all living things, and the results have been largely in accord with presumed relationships based on morphology. Many behavioral traits have a genetic component, and also often follow the same patterns found using these other methods.
Nilson concludes with the belief that religion somehow “solves this debate”, without mentioning how. From an LDS perspective (my own faith, and that of most students on this campus), I have a few insights. The LDS church has no official position on evolution. Period. Those who believe otherwise have been misled by uninformed bishops and institute teachers who have referred to McConkie’s /Mormon Doctrine/ one too many times. Many prominent church members, such as James Talmage, John Widtsoe, B.H. Roberts, and Henry Eyring, have expressed their opinions of evolution as being in complete accord with the revealed doctrine of the church, and the likely mechanism of the creation of life.
I would be happy to discuss these claims and provide references for more information to anyone interested in learning more.
Jesse Walker is a graduate doctoral student studying biology. Comments can be sent to jdwalker@cc.usu.edu.