Category: Evolution

Survival of the fittest

Evolutionary theory is considered to be one of the famous theories of all time. The entire theory is based on Darwins theory of natural variation and Mendels model of genetic inheritance (Rice, 2004). It is considered to be the naturalistic theory of the history of life. This theory introduces a process that involves the simple transformation of life from its simple form to more complex life forms (Denton, 1986). This theory revolves around three main processes variation, reproduction, and selection (Gould, 2002). Similarly, two major mechanisms are involved in driving evolution. The first one is natural selection; its a process that causes genetic traits that are essential for reproduction and to become popular in a population. The second major mechanism is considered to be genetic drift. Genetic drift is a process that produces changes in the frequency of traits in a population and these frequencies are random (Johnson, 1993). In this paper we would highlight the fact that evolutionary theory is usually misunderstood by many individuals and would highlight the misconceptions about the concept survival of the fittest.

As far as the theory of evolution is concerned there are some misconceptions regarding it. For e.g. the misconception of the complex organs, the misconception of people coming from apes/monkeys etc, the misconception of the fact that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, misconception of survival of the fittest.

The term survival of the fittest is widely understood by many individuals and many people believe that the fittest can only be the most affectionate and selfless. Aggression and violence are not associated with the fittest. Therefore, what happens in nature doesnt justify peoples attitude toward behaving in the same way (Page, 2008). The term survival of the fittest generally gives a connotation that the strongest individual will survive in the universe and it presents a picture that brutality prevails in the universe (Vanneli, 2001). The term has different meanings in the biological terms like the cleverest, camouflaged and even the nicest.

The evolutionary theory was initiated by Darwin but the term and the misconception of the evolutionary theory survival of the fittest were coined by philosopher Herbert Spencer. In the early stages one must have an idea about the conditions of natural selection to understand the survival of the fittest phenomenon. Natural selection is the creative force in evolution and is mainly responsible for the design of organisms (Greg, 2007).

Variation is considered to be a heritable aspect and a considerable number of populations must believe that fitness must be affected by replicating entries and the variations between them (Northcut, 2004). Survival of the fittest is considered to be a dead end. This misconception is dealt with by business oriented people in a strange way when they relate the phenomenon of survival of the fittest with the evolution theory.

This phrase invokes ideas for the struggle of survival and people might believe that the most violent, most aggressive and the strongest one is the best fit for survival. However, the reality is quite different from it and the word fittest doesnt means stronger or the most aggressive (Monaghan & Just, 2000). This word has other connotations like people who posses attributes like being most cooperative, most productive, optimistic etc. People who are most influential in the world like Einstein, Gandhi, and Newton etc are included in this category and elements of Rambo are not included in it. Cooperation is the basic element of success for life and people can easily succeed in their life if they follow a cooperative strategy and learn how to comprise and on the other hand lead from the front.

Biologically speaking, its a misconception that the strongest usually survives and people mostly believe that the strongest, cleverest and the violent members of the society would be the ones who are responsible for successfully reproducing and they are the eligible ones to pass on their genes to the next generation (Everything, 2005). These people believe that technological changes and the introduction of technology over the environment are responsible for survival of the unfit and to have their children (Ratzsch, 1996). Moreover some people usually believe that this phenomenon has accelerated over the recent generations and believe that evolution doesnt operate on the human species.

This belief is true to some extent and in the past years being the strongest and bearing an aggressive personality was considered to be the sign of victory (Matsumura, 1995). Evolution in todays world is concerned with this generation and it is believed that it has neither memory not it has insight. It is next to impossible that one can be both a parent and an evolutionary unfit. The term fittest in the phrase survival of the fittest means that has kids and then goes deeper into the hierarchy that has grandkids.

This fact is quite unsupportable that due to the industrial revolution the effects of natural selection have been removed (Hippel, 1995). The industrial revolution has removed the selective pressures that were operating on the human genome but such pressures arent removed by it. The process of selection is happening until some people breed and some dont. The elements of genes are disappearing and some are transmitting to the next generation (Miller, 2007).

Conclusion

Thus, in a nutshell we can say that although there were a number of misconceptions in the evolutionary theory and many individuals interpret different connotations of this theory. The general public usually attaches different misconceptions with this theory like the survival of the fittest, natural selection etc.

Some people posses a nuisance interpretation of this phenomenon when they believe that the fittest people in the universe are the one who are the finest, strongest or even the fastest. However, fittest are those who have greater number of babies. Although its quite possible that people who are stronger, smarter, faster may have more babies but we cant generalize this phenomenon (Sciences, 1998). A mentally imbalance cult leader who has more babies is considered to be more fit by Darwins definition as compared to handsome, strong, famous movie stat who has just one kid.

If we consider it biologically then it can be explained that an individual is considered to be fit if he/she can generate more children and in other words we can say that fitness of an individual is measured by its relative ability and such an individual is considered to be the fittest if he/she can produce more number of copies of his/her genes and these copies of genes will make it into next generation. This statement can be understood by a situation that if person A has four children and person B has two. As the time passes by all of our kids makes it to adulthood then we can evaluate that person A is twice as biologically fit as person B. In the next generation this phenomenon would be transformed into a situation in which more people would be similar to person A thats why he is treated to be more powerful.

This definition of fitness doesnt give us a complete idea at the first glance and this definition seems to say nothing. This definition gives a clear statement that people who have more kids have more kids and thats how they are classified as fittest among others. This would clearly depict that kids usually carry the genes of their parents and if something is present in their genes that would result in more kids then it is highly possible then those types of genes are more likely to be relatively common in the next generation. Similarly, the next generation would include individuals that would more kids then the previous generation.

Therefore, this phrase survival of the fittest can be depicted as the fittest genotype is considered to be the one which actually posses a higher survival rate and have lots of kids that would actually survive. As the environments keeps on changing on continuous basis then the attributes that contributes to the fitness of species also change. It is believed that dangerous environments drive evolution (abarnett, 2008). Due to strong selective pressures actually cause species to evolve rapidly.

Bibliography

1. abarnett. (2008). Evolution creationism.[online]
2. Denton, M. (1986). Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. Adler & Adler.
3. Everything. (2005). Most pernicious misconception about evolution. [online] Web.
4. Gould, S. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press.
5. Greg. (2007). The Three Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Natural Selection.
6. Hippel, A. (1995). Human Evolutionary Biology: Human Anatomy and Physiology from an Evolutionary Perspective. Stone Age Press of Alaska.
7. Johnson, P. (1993). Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press.
8. Matsumura, M. (1995). Voices for Evolution. National Center for Science Education.
9. Miller, K. (2007). Finding Darwins God: A Scientists Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. Harper Perennial.
10. Monaghan, J., & Just, P. (2000). Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford University Press.
11. Northcut, W. (2004). The Darwin Awards III: Survival of the Fittest. Plume.
12. Page, M. (2008). Evolution myths: Survival of the fittest justifies everyone for themselves. [online] Web.
13. Ratzsch, D. (1996). The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press.
14. Rice, S. (2004). Evolutionary Theory. Sinauer Associates.
15. Sciences, N. A. (1998). Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academies Press.
16. Vanneli, R. (2001). Evolutionary Theory and Human Nature. Springer.

Introduction

There are a number of scientific works done on super continental cycles and have mainly focused on the amalgamation, break-up and the drifting away of supercontinents. Researches on evolution in the other hand focus mainly on the gradual change of the earths continents and the organisms (both flora and fauna) over successive generations (Beck 1995, p.799). Super continental cycle and evolution have been addressed separately for many years. However, it has been established that during any two super-continental cycles, tectonic plates join and break-up causing global warming and ice-age periods. During such processes there are many changes that occur as a result of post-global warming (Volonteri 2010, p.1). In general terms whenever tectonic plates are apart, live thrives and evolution takes place when plates combine to form a single crust. It can therefore be observed that super continental cycles happen as a result of motion of the tectonic plates above which the earths continents rest. For that reason, it is believed that the beginning of tectonic motions marked the beginning of the first super continental cycle hence and therefore one cannot be studied without the other.

From time immemorial, many theories have come up in relation to continental movement on the Earths surface. Since the development of the theory of plate tectonics, more and more studies have been done regarding the effects and relationship of plate tectonics to the sequential super continental cycles. The gradual developments of the globe is also said to have been attributed to the super continental cycles. These cycles have substantially left great effects some of which are beneficial to ecosystem like the diversification of species and other destructive ones like the ice-age which causes extinction of species (Thompson, 2003 p 355). This paper focuses mainly on super continental cycles and how they happen in relation to plate tectonic theory and the relationship of these cycles to the evolution of the earth.

Super Continental cycles and plate tectonics

A Supercontinent can be defined as a mass of land from which continents form and it is believed that one of the largest continental masses broke into several parts that drifted apart to form the present six continents. The land masses included Pangea, and its successors Gondwanaland and Laurasia. A Super continental cycle is a progressive geological sequence where the continents of the earth alternatively amalgamate into one, split into several continents, and then assemble successively together (Zhao et al, 2004 p 101). Early studies dated the first super continental cycle about 2800 million years ago.

Scientists believe that a complete continent cycle lasts 300-800 million years. It results from random movement of plate tectonics upon which a third of the earths continent rests. These tectonic plates continuously disperse and collide as part of the Earth history. It therefore makes it hard to take in the plate tectonics without the super continental cycle.

The earth is made of three major layers namely Crust, Mantle and the Core as shown in figure 3 below. Supercontinents do not permit heat flow from the interior part of the earth. This then leads to overheating which in turn causes deformation of the upper part of the Earths mantle which is a weak zone. The deformation causes the Crust to vault upwards eventually making it crack, allowing magma to rise. The continental drifts later leads to joining of fragments that had been forced to move away from the crust and the cycle is repeated (Storey, 1999 p 621).

Supercontinents do not permit heat flow from the interior part of the earth. This then leads to overheating which in turn causes deformation of the upper part of the Earths mantle. This upper part is a weak zone. The deformation causes the Crust to vault upwards eventually making it crack, allowing magma to rise. The continental drifts later leads to joining of fragments that had been forced to move away from the crust and the cycle is repeated (Stephane, 2001 p 121).

There are features that subsequently recur after 425 million years. Some of the notable features are the deposits of global ice, impacts of mountain ranges and changes in sea levels. They are foundations that clearly illustrate the realization of Supercontinents. Though it is very hard to tell the precise time of the former super continental movements, its duration is continually stable. The recurring nature and the continually stable duration of the super continental movements play a great role in explaining the Plate tectonics concepts. The old and heavy oceanic plate submerges causing movement of the plate tectonics and a rise in oceanic basin due to disintegration of super continental lithosphere.

Eventually, both the Continental plate and the oceanic plate get older resulting to an increase in the lithospheres density. It takes approximately 200 million years after which tensions in the Earths crust which can produce earthquakes or volcanic eruptions are felt. All these are caused by the oceanic plate which starts to slide under adjoining tectonic plate into the mantle and congregate the margins of the continent which are divided as a supercontinent (Barbara and David, 2002 p. 107)

The plate tectonic theory can be viewed in a different manner. The theory describes the plate on the basis of it being a rigid body. The interior folded mountains establishment after the collision of continents relaxes the adjoining tectonic plate from sliding under. This gradual plate movement discharges magma at the crest which in turn chills the ocean. A single plate is thus formed when the discharged magma from the crests fills the earths surface. When the earth is fully covered and no more heat from the core is able to make its way to the earths surface, a global ice age is experienced and at times it can lead to a snowball earth (Brasier, 1980 p. 699).

With time, the supercontinent disintegrates arising to new plate. This then results to magma being discharged once again and hastily melting the existing ice sheets and this leads to a harsh global warming. (Beck R.A.et al. 1995 p.290)

The relationship between the Super Continental cycles and Evolution

Subsequent breaking and fusion of the earths continents in the super continental cycle that is believed to take place every 300 to 500 million years, contribute immensely to evolution on the earth. When continents collide, land is squeezed together and the sea level falls and when they separate or break apart, a new sea floor is created hence a rise in the sea level. Worldwide climatic conditions are highly influenced by these cycles. The development of mountain ranges worldwide and the stable rotation of the earth on its axis have all come about due to the development of supercontinents and the effects it has on the mantle of the earth. Volcanic activity is in most cases correlated with plate tectonic motions.

Plate tectonic movement has a great impact on how organisms are distributed in different continents and climatic zones of the earth. The distribution is checked mainly by climatic and physical obstacles. Plants and animals in the same region which have similar climatic conditions are in most cases similar in characteristics and survival requirements. It is therefore believed that regions are divided by natural climatic barriers which are as a result of tectonic movement (Monroe and Wicander, 2009 p.2).

The most remarkable climatic effects or changes that happen during the super continental cycle are global warming and Ice age periods. When continents collide and stop moving, they merge into one large mass called a super continent and during this period, the earths crust becomes a single crust triggering a global ice age. This brings about a time of no diversification of species as well as extinction for both plants and animals due to the extreme harsh conditions. Consequently, when the continents are apart, climatic conditions are favorable in most continents and life thrives as well as evolution of new species. Between one super continental cycle and another, global warming also may occur and cause extinction of species as well (Navarro, 2002 p. 162)

Continents distribution and topography influence wind and ocean water currents in a big way. In turn, wind and currents impact on global climate which has a strong influence on how plants and animals are distributed in different regions of the continents (Monroe and Wicander, 2009 p. 1). When barriers like an ocean separates once similar set of plants and animals, species change. If conditions on the other side are remarkably different, then species have to adapt to the new environment. Adaptations in most cases may be so intense to the extent of evolving a totally new and different species.

Other than the fauna and the Flora kingdom, the super continental cycle has had a great impact on the galaxy as far as evolution is concerned. This considers the processes and the relative transformation of cosmos from a homogenous to a heterogeneous state. It also involves aspects of how galaxies change through time and the various processes that have led to the generation of the diverse structures that are seen today in the galaxies. Initially, the geologists said that the universe was uniform as seen in the cosmic microwave background and there was no significant structure hence no galaxies (Navarro 2002, p.155). However the theory of Einstein-de-sitter and Friedmann on galaxy formation ascertains that these structures developed as an effect of augmentation of primordial oscillations. These are the tiny changes in the cosmos mass in a restricted area. The process of galaxy formation began with formation of dark matter plants colonizing a salty area which are ascertained to be more plentiful than any other matter hence dominating the development of the total density oscillations as the baryons fell into the prospective wells of dark matter (Thompson 2003, p.354). The salty area is believed to be the oceanic waters that form during the super continental cycles. As the universe chilled, dark matter began condensing together with the gas in them. The result of these, supposedly led to accumulation of dark matters and gas into denser areas where they gravitated to form structures making the first galaxies. During this epoch, the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen, helium and the dark matter but after the formation of the first proto galaxies, these gases condensed to form stars. With time most massive stars ceased to be because they blazed away more quickly than the tiny ones leading to the formation of black holes. The black holes further collected in the middle of the proto galaxy and integrated to form super massive black holes that were seen as quasars once they accreted gas (Navarro, 2002 p. 163).

Two types of galaxies arose after the formation and evolution process. They are namely, the blue and the star galaxies which are more of the spiral form and the red non-star forming ones which are the elliptical galaxies. The elliptical galaxies contained very huge black holes whose function was to prevent any other hot gas from cooling onto the galaxy. Then was formation of the elliptical galaxy which mostly occurred in huge dark matter halos, which corresponded to the available group of galaxies. Therefore, no more stars could form but the galaxy kept on growing by coalescing with other big galaxies which happened to fall in the cluster (Thompson 2003, p.353).

A number of galaxies have black-holes at the centre that have differences in their masses ranging from a few millions to billions of solar masses. These black holes can emit large amounts of energy during their growth process that in most cases power galactic nuclei and quasars. A small amount of this energy could easily stop the formation of stars by heating and casting out the ambient gas if it is absorbed by the host galaxy. There are two types of galaxies; the football shaped elliptical and the pancake shaped spirals. Its the spirals that structurally contain central bulges and each bulge consists of a central black hole. The mass of the bulges and the black holes are directly proportional because the two are formed at the same epoch (Zhao et al, 2004 p. 102). This clearly indicates that the formation of black holes and that of bulges occur at the same time or are associated. Hence black holes are essential in the galaxy formation process.

It was believed that the universe was formed through the Big Bang with small haloes in homogeneities that developed into lumps called haloes with time. Galaxies grew through accretion of gas that fell to the centre in cold flows in low-mass haloes. On the other hand, high-mass haloes did not form galaxies. This is because they were dominated by heat hence the gas did not accrete onto galaxies. Combination of tiny haloes formed big ones which contained a huge number of galaxies that are referred to as clusters or groups. As a result, the merging of galaxies within haloes led to the transformation of discs into bulges which provided a chance for the development of galaxies when they ceased to accrete gas. In cases where there was merging of galaxies that were still accreting, the gas fell into the centre, triggered stars to burst out and fed the rapid growth of black holes. In response, the black holes released energy into the surrounding gas and produced winds which compressed the gas that accelerated the rate at which stars were formed. In galaxies which fail to accrete gas, there is lack of star formation and black hole accretion (Beck et al, 1995). Research has also revealed that massive black holes dwell in most local galaxies and other previous studies have also established that a number of relations exist between the super massive black holes masses and the properties of host galaxies (Volonteri, 2010 p.1). Therefore all these findings imply that black holes play a very fundamental role in the formation of galaxies.

On the other hand, black holes have been known to be closely associated with the stellar mass and its speed distribution within the host bulges. This shows an informal relationship between the formation of black holes and that of bulges though they can be interpreted in two ways. First, the formation of stars and black holes occurs simultaneously because both of them feed from a similar gas and they get to the centre by disc instabilities. In addition, the accretion of black hole ceases when all the gases have been used up by star formation hence the two are interdependent on each other. Secondly, the formation of stars normally ceases when the black holes blow away all the gas outside the host galaxies (Volonteri 2010, p.1).

Conclusion

Theories associated with super continental cycle lead to a distinct way of learning about the Earths evolution and geological history. It is clear that the habitual cyclic routines or super continental cycles are fully controlled by the plate tectonic processes. In addition, the evolution of life on earth can be well understood by keenly following the super continental cycle and the changes that occur as a result throughout the history. This can be attributed to the diverse biological changes resulting from climatic and topographical changes that have great significance to the evolution. These include the circulation of the ocean, formation of the global ice-age and the global warming. Certainly it is with the throbbing of the super continental cycle that the fauna, flora and the physical features such as the rocks, mountain belts and the structure of the earth are improved and reintroduced.

References

Barbara A. C. and David A. K. (2002). Cataclysmic bombardment throughout the inner solar system 3.9-4.0, Journal of Geophysical Research  Planets, 107, E2.

Beck R. A.et al (1995). Organic carbon exhumation and global warming during the early Himalayan collision. Geology 23, 387390.

Brasier M.D. (1980). The lower Cambrian transgression and Galuconite-phospate. Journal of the Geological Society, London: 137: 695-703.

Monroe J.S and Wicander, R. (2009). The changing Earth; Exploring Geology and Evolution. Web.

Navarro J. (2002). Hierarchical origin of galaxy morphology. New Astronomy. Volume 7(4):155-160.

Stephane L. et al (2001). The age of the inner core, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 190, 111-123.

Storey, B.C. et al (1999). Mantle plumes and Antarctica-New Zealand drifting: evidence from mid-Cretaceous mafic dykes. Journal of the Geological Society, 156, 659 671.

Thompson R. (2003). Astrophysics and space science, Test and constraints of galaxy formation and evolution. Volume 284(2):353-356.

Volonteri M. (2010). Formation of super massive black holes.

Zhao et al (2004). A Paleo-Mesoproterozoic supercontinent: assembly, growth and breakup. Earth-Science Reviews, v. 67, p. 91-123.

Introduction

Classification is the grouping of organisms in predefined taxonomic groups based on the degree of similarity or difference between them. The classification is based on observable morphological features. The basic unit of classification is the species, and it consists of organisms that resemble each other in all biological and observable characteristics, and their similarity is marked by their ability to mate and produce viable offspring. The Study of evolution has always fascinated man and this is manifested by the deep study of anthropology and history. Hominids were a central part of humans and a study on them must be conducted.

Krings, et al (21) tell us that classification utilizes two names to identify a particular species. These are the species and the genus name. The human being is classified as Homo sapiens, the Homo being the genus and the sapiens being the species. Other animals which are quite similar to humans but cannot reproduce and produce viable offspring with the human belong to the genus Homo. Most of the animals that shared this genus with human beings are morphologically extinct, and they were learned of through excavation and examination of their fossils. The last surviving relative of the human being in this genus was the Homo neanderthalensis, but according to the theory of human evolution, it became extinct some 24,000 years ago. A hominid is an organism that shares the genus Homo with the human being. According to the theory of evolution, the current species of humans, the Homo sapiens, has been in solitary existence as the only member of the genus Homo for the past 25,000 years.

The three main concepts that guided western thoughts about humanitys place in nature, nature, and the nature of the earth itself before Darwin include the concept of the genus, the concept of catastrophism, and the concept of uniformitarianism. The concept of genus implied that human beings were indeed part and parcel of nature just like plants and other animals. From this concept, early western thoughts revolved around the explanation of nature by implying that nature was not fixed in its form because organisms changed over time (The Hobbit Debate Continues).

The catastrophism concept implied that the earth itself was shaped by catastrophes such as floods and earthquakes which brought about rapid mountain formation. The uniformitarianism concept or theory sought to explain the nature of the earth itself by implying that the earths surface was shaped by natural forces. An example of a pre-Darwinian explanation of the natural world is that life and the earth were created by God who formed a continuous and infinite form of life from simplest to the most intricate. Hence, the pre-Darwinian explanation of the natural world describes animals and plants as they are and not the process that resulted in their present form. Another example of a pre-Darwinian explanation of the natural world is that the earth was created between 4000 B.C to 6000 BC (Krings 34).

Darwinian explanations

However, we know that these explanations were incorrect today because the Darwinian explanations of the natural world include the argument that all things in the planet, microscopic organisms, tropical frog trees, coastal redwoods, desert cacti went through an evolution from simple organisms. In addition, the geological principles as we know them today indicate that geological processes occur at a very slow pace which is a strong indication that the natural world is indeed very old than 4000 B.C or 6000 B.C.

Hominid

The three main varieties of hominids in Africa around 2 million years ago include Australopithecus Africanus, Australopithecus robustus and Australopithecus boisei also called Zinjathropus boisei. It also had small teeth with large and strong lower jaws. The Australopithecus boisei existed between 2 and 1.1 million years ago. It had a large brain capacity of 530cc as compared to robust. It also had a heavily developed skull.

Decoupling of behavior

Decoupling of behavior from anatomy refers to the reframing of studies related to modern human emergence to develop or establish a debate that focuses explicitly on the origin of modernity behavior which relates to contemporary anatomy and which intersects with contemporary anatomy. It is significant to the evolution of homo because it seeks answers to different questions related to behaviors. For example, is the origin of contemporary behavior gradual or sudden, what is the meaning of modern behavior, whether the contemporary behavior is unique to contemporary humans or whether it is shared with Neandertals and many other species, whether the new cognitive abilities are the result of the origin of modern behaviors or whether it is a result of cultural, social, historic and demographic factors. Another example is that decoupling of behavior from anatomy is vital in explaining the relationship between modern human behaviors with those of other homo species. Additionally, another example is that decoupling of behavior from anatomy seeks to establish a relationship between modern humans and other human species.

Conclusion

This article has examined facets regarding concepts that guided humanity up to the point that we have evolved to what we are today. The article has studied Darwinian explanations regarding the evolution process as well as the study of Hominids.

Works Cited

The Hobbit Debate Continues. Full Nature Article.A1. Web.

Krings, Stone. Neanderthal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans. London: Oxford University, 1997.

Wong, Kate. The Littlest Human. New York. The Scientific American.. pp.58-65.A34. 2005.

The evolution theory is very easy to understand and interpret. This is the case because it argues that all living organisms evolved from specific primitive species that occupied the universe over three billion years ago (Keller, 2014). At the center of evolution, in accordance with the theory, is natural selection. The process of natural selection indicates that unfit traits are discarded throughout the evolutionary process (Coyne, 2010). The discarded traits are not transferred to the future generations. Despite the issues and facts presented to support this model, many theorists have gone further to offer valid arguments against evolution. The purpose of this analytical paper is to describe the issues associated with the evolution theory. The paper is founded on the ideas presented in the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

Thesis Statement

Although the book Why Evolution is True uses a wide range of concepts such as fossil records, vestigial structures, embryology, biogeography, and suboptimal design to support the process of evolution, the outstanding fact is that it fails to offer conclusive arguments to explain the origin and nature of life on earth.

Detailed Summary of the Book

The book Why Evolution is True gives a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the question of evolution. The first chapter is called What is Evolution? and focuses on the question of evolution. In this chapter, the author explains how evolution has taken place within the past three billion years. Several stages of evolution such as speciation, natural selection, gradualism, and non-selective mechanism are outlined by the author. The second chapter is called Written in the Rocks. This chapter gives a detailed description of fossil evidences (Coyne, 2010). The author uses specific concepts and examples to support the idea of evolution. For instance, the author uses the emergence of tetrapods to support the arguments. Birds are described as creatures that have similar evolutionary paths with dinosaurs. The chapter argues that the use of fossil records can become a powerful tool for understanding evolution. The concept of gradualism is used to support the evolution of different creatures on earth.

In the chapter Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos, and Bad Design, the text explains how some poorly designed features can be used to support the process of evolution (Coyne, 2010, p. 57). Some of the widely ignored features such as human tails and whale hips are used to support the theory. The author uses the example of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (Coyne, 2010, p. 59). According to the author, this nerve is observed to take a long course down from the throat to the aorta because it was initially attached to a gill arch during the early stages of development (Keller, 2014, p. 38). The fourth chapter is called The Geography of Life. In this chapter, the author uses numerous evidences from the field of biogeography. The writer examines the nature of various species found in certain islands across the globe.

In the chapters The Engine of Evolution, How Sex Drives Evolution, and The Origin of Species, Jerry Coyne uses a wide range of neontological ideas to support the concept of evolution. Most of the ideas are borrowed from speciation theory and genetics. Such evidences have been analyzed and described by many biologists. These ideas show conclusively that the evolution theory is useful towards describing the development of various species (Coyne, 2010). The author goes further to describe how sexual traits can be used to explain the process of evolution. Sexual recombination is presented as a powerful argument to support speciation and the presence of genetic variability.

The eighth chapter is called What About Us? and focuses on the idea of creation. According to the author, many proponents of the creationist model tend to ignore the arguments presented by many evolutionary biologists (Coyne, 2010). Such creationists ignore various arguments and biological concepts. These theorists believe strongly that human beings and other creatures must have been created by a Supreme Being. According to the author, many creationists would have found it hard to embrace the idea of evolution if human beings lacked various similarities with the other creatures in the animal kingdom (Coyne, 2010). In order to refute the concepts embraced by these creationists, the author offers powerful ideas from different fields such as genetics, anatomy, and paleontology. This description is presented to support the process of evolution. According to the author, the resemblance between apes and human beings is something that cannot be underestimated.

The last chapter is titled Evolution Redux. This chapter presents powerful notions to explain why many scientists support the idea of evolution. The author uses the arguments presented by Charles Darwin in an attempt to support the evolution theory (Coyne, 2010). Such ideas are carefully crafted in order to explain how scientists and psychologists can embrace or use the theory.

Critical Analysis of the Book

This book is a masterpiece because it presents a wide range of arguments and facts to support the evolution theory. The text presents specific concepts such as fossil records, vestigial structures, embryology, biogeography, and suboptimal design to explain how various evolutional changes must have taken place in the past (Coyne, 2010). The author indicates clearly that biologists have found transitional forms between major groups such as whales and land animals (Coyne, 2010, p. 222).

The author has considered numerous experiments and observations that have been recorded by many scientists and evolutionary biologists. These experiments, according to the text, continue to support the validity of the evolution theory. The text shows conclusively that there are various aspects that support the concept of evolution. For example, sequencing of DNA molecules, dissection of various organ systems, and behaviors show conclusively that many species must have evolved from common creatures or ancestors (Montgomery, 2012).

The use of the above ideas and facts try to demonstrate that the process of evolution is true. This is the case because the major tenets of Darwinism have been proved (Coyne, 2010, p. 223). In order to support some of these arguments, the author indicates that biologists and scientists have continued to acknowledge the major claims aimed at supporting the theory of evolution. The current debate has only focused on specific issues such as the timelines and mechanisms that have the potential to support the evolutionary theory. Despite the existence of such differences, the author denotes clearly that any science without controversy is a science without progress (Coyne, 2010, p. 223).

The ultimate conclusion presented by the author is that human beings should be proud that they are the only species that has figured out life came to be (Coyne, 2010, p. 233). The book shows conclusively that genes (and genetics) are changeable and can be affected by a wide range of environmental forces (Coyne, 2010). The author has presented a wide range of researches and ideas to examine how different species have evolved over the past three billion years.

However, the reader acknowledges the fact that the theory of evolution might not be acceptable to many historians and ethicists. This is the case because Jerry Coyne is aware of the issues affecting the validity of this theory. That being the case, the author goes further to explain why evolution should be treated as a form of diversification (Coyne, 2010). This means that evolution should never be examined from a philosophical perspective (Coyne, 2010). This fact explains why many scholars and believers will find it hard to accept the idea of evolution.

The reader therefore observes that the book tackles the issue of evolution from the intelligent design and creationism perspectives. This is something that has been ignored by many evolutionists and biological scientists. In order to support the argument, Jerry Coyne uses various undisputable concepts such as natural selection (Coyne, 2010). This process has been embraced by many evolutionists in order to support the theory. According to the author, the current evidences confirm the scientific arguments that have been used to support the process of evolution.

Jerry Coyne presents the best ideas from the fields of geology, paleontology, genetics, and anatomy to present powerful arguments that can support the process of evolution. In a nutshell, the author presents convincing arguments that might be used by many scholars to explain why evolution is practical, undeniable, and true (Coyne, 2010). However, the arguments and notions presented in this book have continued to fuel the debate on the question of evolution than ever before. This fact explains why the evolution debate is something that might never end any time soon.

Reflection of the Book Using Philosophical, Theological, and Sociological Ideologies

The Christian worldview presents powerful insights that can be used to refute the concept of evolution. According to the worldview, human beings (and all other creatures) were created by a Supreme Being or God (Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini, 2011). That being the case, any argument supporting the process of evolution is biased and inadequate. According to this theological notion, human beings are created in the image of God. This understanding makes man superior and capable of differentiating the wrong from the right. This worldview explains why the ideas presented in Jerry Coynes book Why Evolution is True can be refuted by many theologians.

Similar views have been described by a number of sociologists and scholars. The current sociological view is that evolution is not a real process. This is the case because very few transitional forms are noticeable in different organisms. Fortunately, what human beings see is a world characterized by distinct animals and plants portraying diverse features (Keller, 2014). This single fact shows clearly that the ideas aimed at supporting the concept of evolution are questionable. Different animal species have been observed to portray unbridgeable gaps in terms of features, behaviors, and physical attributes. That being the case, the world must have been designed by a superior being. This fact explains why diversity defines a wide range of human forms.

Some creationists have offered diverse views regarding the inaccuracies associated with Jerry Coynes arguments. To begin with, evolution is treated by the author as something that takes place gradually and occurs after millions of years. However, this is something that has not been recorded in the world of microorganisms. Such species reproduce within a fraction of a second. That being the case, evolutionists might have proved that the process exists through the use of these microscopic species (Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini, 2011). This fact explains why many scholars trying to address and support the idea of evolution have encountered numerous challenges.

According to Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (2011), the evolutionary history of vertebrates from invertebrates is something that must be characterized by a wide range of intermediates. This should also be the case for the evolution of mankind from vertebrates. Unfortunately, it becomes quite clear that the evolutionary links towards proving this development have never been presented by scientists. This means that the arguments outlined by the author can be criticized from different perspectives.

The other unique field that can be used to analyze the process of evolution is philosophy. Many philosophers believe that evolution is inaccurate since all creatures and species are eternal in nature (Keller, 2014). Similarly, the concept of evolution has failed to fulfill the threshold of what a true scientific argument entails. Although many creationists believe strongly that living organisms lacking specific features or traits will find it hard to survive. This means that the fittest creatures or species will always survive.

However, many philosophical arguments have continued to oppose the ideas of evolution such as naturalism. Some philosophers have gone further to argue that the survival for the fittest concept fails to present useful aspects about the process of evolution (Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini, 2011). That being the case, the future of evolution will continue to attract much attention from more scholars, naturalists, and scholars in the future. This development will present a wide range of ideas and arguments to place the question of evolution in its proper context.

Personal Opinion

After reading the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, I have observed that powerful arguments are presented to describe the process of evolution. The author goes further to use powerful ideas in an attempt to support the theory. The ideas have informed me about the unique processes and stages of evolution (Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini, 2011). The role of environmental forces is analyzed in the masterpiece. This representation has therefore made it easier for me to understand how evolution is believed to have taken place within the past three billion years.

The author uses scientific arguments and evolutionary processes to support the ideas. The roles of genetics, DNA make-up, and environment are also carefully analyzed. The main message presented by the book is that the current evidence is overwhelming and goes further to support the evolutionary theory. The evidences identified and documented by many biologists within the past one century are used to support the targeted argument (Montgomery, 2012). The role of sex towards promoting evolution is properly described by the author.

However, the evolution theory should never be taken seriously since it does not present valid scientific experiments. According to me, I strongly believe that the complexity of the universe and the presence of diversity is something that explains why the world must have been created by a Supreme Being (Montgomery, 2012). On the other hand, evolution should be treated as a theoretical argument embraced by a specific number of people in the world. This notion explains why the evolution is something that should never be treated as a science. This happens to be the case because it meets the criteria for a worldview.

The evolutionary worldview is therefore refutable because it fails to present a meaningful explanatory value. The other oust sanding fact is that human beings can comfortably say that the model is inappropriate because of the existing arguments cannot be proved scientifically. This happens to be the case despite the fact that many biologists believe strongly that they have successfully proved such evolutionary processes using various scientific frameworks (Keller, 2014). This reason explains why more people have been on the frontline to present a wide range of ideas about evolution. It is agreeable that many scholars can present numerous arguments to support the process of evolution since they may never be required to prove them.

The ideas presented in the book fail to quote various verses and arguments from the Holy Bible. This fact shows clearly that scientists who say that theology supports evolution are usually wrong. That being the case, the arguments in the book aimed at supporting the evolution theory are biased and non-scientific. Instead, such ideologies go further to confirm that evolution is a worldview embraced by specific people other than a theoretical framework (Keller, 2014). This is true since many scholars and evolutionary biologists have been unable to present convincing facts to prove that evolution is a scientific process.

This discussion explains why future researchers should prove the process of evolution using scientifically-proven models. Similarly, they should be able to explain why there are missing links and diversities in the word. When such issues are addressed, it might be possible for more scholars to explain why the theory might appeal to more people. Unfortunately, the creation theory is superior and goes further to borrow numerous ideas from different worldviews (Montgomery, 2012). Future scholars focusing on the issue of evolution should consider these issues in an attempt to present convincing arguments.

It is agreeable that the argument presented in the book is admirable to some scholars. Unfortunately, there are numerous missing links that explain why many species in the world might not have developed in accordance with the evolution theory. My worldview goes further to present powerful ideas regarding the origin of life (Montgomery, 2012). The order of things, presence of diversity, and complexity of the universe proves the fact that the all living creatures (both plants and animals) must have been created by a Supreme Being. Such facts explain why the ideas in the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne should be analyzed from a critical perspective. This approach will ensure the question of evolution is clearly understood.

Conclusion

The reader will observe that the author of the targeted book does a great job of describing the theory of evolution. The masterpiece embraces the use of specific concepts such as fossil records, vestigial structures, embryology, biogeography, and suboptimal design to support the process of evolution. The author goes further to explain how different creationists have been opposed to the existing evidences. However, the outstanding fact is that it fails to offer conclusive arguments to explain the origin and nature of life on earth (Keller, 2014). From a personal perspective, I strongly believe that this book does not convince many readers regarding the issue of evolution. Consequently, the creationist theory presents powerful insights to describe the origin of life.

References

Coyne, J. (2010). Why evolution is true. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fodor, J., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2011). What Darwin got wrong. New York, NY: Profile Books.

Keller, T. (2014). Creation, evolution, and Christian laypeople. The BioLogos Foundation, 1(1), 1-14.

Montgomery, D. (2012). The evolution of creationism. GSA Today, 22(11), 4-9.

Introduction

Behavioral patterns of humans, as well as other species, are not accidental. Cognition is dependent on various aspects, including ones genetic material and the surrounding environment. For example, some behaviors and actions are so deeply rooted in ones primal instincts that they are hard to alter in any way. The concept of the time lag explains this. According to Dawkins, bodies can be viewed as survival machines where genes, while slowly changing ones habits, do not affect behavior very quickly (68). Thus, the disruption of an individuals cognition and the surrounding environment occurs. Humans still have behaviors that contributed to their survival many centuries ago. According to Nairne and Pandeirada, ones memory has some footprints of ancestral selection pressures, which reflect the information that was the most relevant for survival before (239). This information remained in peoples systems because it was needed over a long period of time. However, the speed of progress is constantly increasing, while the process of evolutionary change remains slow. The assessment of genes, with the intention to distinguish bad genes from good ones, not only takes time but also consistent pressure from certain aspects of the environment. Thus, a lag in time affects peoples cognition.

Analysis

Although the selection of the so-called good genes does affect ones behavior to adapt to current surroundings, the speed at which these alterations happen does not allow humans to adapt concurrently on the genetic level. Some genetic changes deal with the problem of the time lag and help with adjustment to the environment. However, other choices do not reflect modern living conditions and lead to various problems. For example, ones hunter-gatherer instincts can be viewed as a result of genetic selection as they are based on ones need to survive in harsh environments. Modern living conditions, on the other hand, are not harsh for most people. Thus, ones instincts to prefer fatty and sugary foods, which were scarce during the time when the hunter instinct was most prevalent, are negatively affecting peoples health in modern society (Buss 18). Other examples include aggressive behavior and separation of groups into insiders and outsiders. The need for group survival was necessary at some point. However, now these behaviors have a limited function. Genetically induced attitudes are hard to unlearn. Therefore, the behaviors described above are likely to stay imprinted in peoples minds for a long time. It is plausible that at some point new good genes will replace the existing ones to reflect the changes in ones way of living.

The slow process of genetic change is complemented by ones adaptive flexibility. Humans can adapt due to the ability of the brain to participate in ones learning process (Buss 18). However, people cannot be considered fully adapted to every existing condition because they need to go through this learning process during their lives. Peoples genes do not secure the results of this education because of the time lag. Therefore, each individual has to rely on his or her surrounding environment and their own cognitive abilities to comprehend the current situation and adapt to it. That is why humans are flexible in their behaviors and actions. To adjust to a new way of living, they have to reevaluate new and old information constantly. For instance, the instincts to find sugary foods are replaced by conscious choices to opt for healthy products. Thus, the concept of adapted cognition affects future planning and prediction of any future actions or choices.

Conclusion

All in all, the lag in time can be explained by the slow speed of evolutionary change. This influences the way people understand core concepts and creates the need for flexible learning. The process of choosing good genes in order to pick the best traits for ones behavior, however, is too slow to completely eradicate this problem.

Works Cited

Buss, David. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. 5th ed., Psychology Press, 2015.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016.

Nairne, James S., and Josefa N.S. Pandeirada. Adaptive Memory: Remembering With a Stone-Age Brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 17, no. 4, 2008, pp. 239-243.

Morality is one principle that applies in both human beings and animals alike especially considering the evolution theory. Morality covers a broad perspective made of several elements/virtues like empathy. In their work, Martin Nowak and Frans de Waal address the issue of empathy in relation to human evolution. Of the two scientists, Martin Nowak addresses the issue of empathy better in relation to human evolution.

Nowaks explanation of empathy fits well in evolution. Elementary, evolution is based on natural selection, which in turn is based on competition. Therefore, if humans have evolved through competition and survival for the best, it means that there has to be a change of rules to contain competition prevalent in natural selection to accommodate empathy.

Empathy calls for cooperation, which is non-existence in competition; therefore, Cooperation means that one individual pays a cost for another individual to receive a benefit (Nowak 12). This explains how empathy fits in this selfish nature of evolution as facilitated by natural selection. The rules change when the cost for another individual is fully paid.

There has to be mechanisms therefore, to facilitate paying this cost. To this Nowak posits, The fundamental mechanisms encouraging cooperation are direct and indirect reciprocity (Nowak 12).

Direct reciprocity results from interaction of two same individuals; what one individual has done to the other, determines how the other individual will treat the former. On the other hand, indirect reciprocity insinuates that what an individual has done to others, will determine how she/he will be treated.

This means that, even in presence of competition, two competing sides may have empathy towards each other and cooperate. This is why Nowak says that, Cooperation&is another, fundamental force of evolution (13). Therefore, just like natural selection, cooperation becomes part of evolution bringing in the element of empathy existing amidst competing and evolving beings.

Frans de Waal on his side views empathy from a perspective that does not withhold the competing nature of natural selection that brings about evolution. According to Waal, Human morality must be quite a bit older than religion and civilization. It may in fact, be older than humanity itself (12). This argument may be true; however, it does not address the issue of competitive nature of evolution. It excludes the issue of survival for the fittest.

While the principle cardinal rule of doing unto others as you wish them to do to you may hold true, it fails to explain how basic components of evolution apply. Waal argues that, Other primates live in highly structured cooperative groups in which rules and inhibitions apply and mutual aid is a daily occurrence (12).

The only thing he fails to address here is how these cooperative groups come to be in a scenario where everyone is competing to survive. He holds that empathy and reciprocity support human morality; however, the big question remains, how does empathy prevail in competition grounds.

Looking at the two works of these scientists, Nowak seems to explain empathy better in relation to evolution. Without changing core principles of evolution like natural selection, empathy could only occur at a cost but not based on morality.

Nowak exposits the process of paying the cost through reciprocity adding that cooperation is a basic element of evolution. Along evolution, competing individuals learn to empathize with those who empathize with them, hence cooperating in the process. Waals argument that human morality preceded humanity itself does not address the issue of competition in evolution.

Works Cited

Nowak, Martin. Does Evolution Explain Human Nature? John Templeton Foundation. N.d. Web.
<www.templeton.org/evolution/Essays/Nowak.pdf>

Waal, Frans. Does Evolution Explain Human Nature? John Templeton Foundation. N.d. Web.
<www.templeton.org/evolution/Essays/deWaal.pdf>

The book by Coyne (2010) provides an analysis of the existing arguments that suggest that the theory of evolution first introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 indeed exists. The book is divided into nine chapters that dwell on different possible evidence that the evolution left in its wake. The author mentions such evidence as fossils that many archaeologists find during their excavations. Of course, this is not the only evidence elucidated in the book. Nevertheless, evolution had been highly debated since it was first mentioned by Darwin. Although the presentation and rhetorical abilities demonstrated by Darwin both in his manuscript and discussions proved the counter-arguments to be insufficient for the time being, modern creationists and other individuals supporting them develop their arguments as well. Thus, it even came to the point where evolution theory might be at risk of being dismissed. This paper will, however, focus on Coynes book and its weight in proving that evolution indeed exists and its results are visible.

Arguments Provided in the Book

The author provides several primary arguments that are aimed not at explaining how evolution works. Instead, the book provides several pieces of evidence suggesting that the traces of evolution left are visible and may be scientifically researched to establish what significance they have. Thus, the author focuses on fossils found in ancient layers of the lithosphere, genetic connections to ancestry found in animals and plants, geographic allocation of found life forms (both petrified, extinct but documented, and existing), and so forth. As it becomes evident, the author resorts to a great deal of scientifically proved data to ensure that his research will indeed be significant enough when it comes to supporting the theory of evolution.

The first argument provided in chapter one is the formation of the fossils found in various layers of tectonic plates. It is important to notice that this evidence is one of the most basic existing arguments that are provided in defense of the evolution theory. Many researchers have also contributed to developing these arguments. The role of fossils detection and research may be evaluated solely by the number of researches that deal with this topic. For example, research by Solodovnikov, Yue, Tarasov, and Ren (2013) demonstrates how the extraction and analysis of fossils lead to establishing connections between the evolutionary processes that led ancient insect species to transform into the modern ones.

Further, the chapter that sheds light on the importance of the existing traces of earlier species that gave birth to new ones also may find significant support in various publications. However, vestiges of the modern species received more coverage than any other aspect mentioned by Coyne. The research by Ruiz-Labourdette, Schmitz, and Pineda (2013) elucidates the discoveries related to vestiges found in tree species that were predicted to emerge (having the mentioned vestiges). Indeed, vestiges are an important element that many species possess when it comes to visualizing the results of evolution and how they may be detected and researched. Vestiges may be found in various species  including homo sapiens  and it is yet to be proved by creationists that these are not the remains of organs or body parts that the ancient species possessed.

Moreover, Coyne provides a great example from his personal experience to support his argument. He talks about ostriches and how they use their wings not to fly but to maintain balance while running. Naturally, it is not direct evidence of evolution as the function that their wings have may have been given to them initially by the Creator. However, it is common in science to adopt the explanation that results in fewer complications and doubts. As for the creation theory, it would be unclear why the Creator gave ostriches wings that have a function that differs from those of other winged creatures. After all, it is their wings that add to the body composition and mass preventing ostriches from running without having to take their body position and balance into account.

One of the most fundamental flaws in the creation theory is that it does not explain why the distribution of species is so immensely diverse. It is often stated that if creation took place as described in the Bible and Noah did indeed build his Ark, it would be impossible for certain species to be located in isolated regions such as Australia. For example, it would be impossible for kangaroos to inhabit the areas they exist in without some means of transportation that would have them delivered from the place of Arks stopping. Even if there had been some land bridges or ships that would allow kangaroos to inhabit Australia, there is no evidence of that between the Arks destination and the modern area that kangaroos inhabit. There are no traces of bridges or kangaroo remains underwater which leaves this possibility under significant doubt.

To support this point of view, one may pay attention to the amount of coverage that the topic of species distribution has. An article by Warren, Cardillo, Rosauer and Bolnick (2014) may be viewed as one of the examples of this issues cover. Although the authors mostly dwell on a more specific part of the topic, it is explicitly stated by them that there is indeed a connection between evolutionary processes and species distribution as they state that patterns of species distributions driven by historical biogeography are often interpreted as evidence of particular evolutionary or ecological processes (Warren et al., 2014, p.1).

One of the most interesting arguments provided by Coyne, however, is the mechanisms that drive evolution. He picks an example of Japanese hornets and honeybees. The evolutionary processes include adaptation. And the example described by Coyne perfectly demonstrates how surprisingly complex the mechanisms of adaptation may be. It is indeed very likely that, without evolution, many species would not be able to survive and reproduce as they do now. If one considers that species were created, it would be strange to notice that some of them start to derive from the original manner of behavior prescribed to them by their Creator. It is another important aspect of dismissing the creation theory.

Moreover, adaptation may be seen not only in species. On a cellular level, there are also evolutionary processes that push organisms to shift their behavior, body structure, or even their intellection. Zhang et al. (2014) describe the recent discoveries regarding genome evolution and adaptation in avian species. It is important to notice that the authors stress the evolution part. Indeed, as stated above, it would be most irrational for created species to shift their body structure and genome structure. After all, that would lead to new species born from the original ones. The Bible states, however, that there cannot be any more species that we have now. This point is highly debated, and creationists already have an answer that would be mentioned later.

All in all, the base of arguments provided by Coyne is more than significant. The highlights of the book, however, lie in the authors ability to state his findings with a particular background or a supporting example from his personal experience and knowledge. It is essential to do so as the arguments become much easier to understand and form a more complete picture of what the author is trying to convey. Also, the author successfully picks the arguments that compile the basis of the modern evolution versus creation debate. This basis of arguments is the most useful tool in dismissing creation theory.

Nevertheless, creationists also have a robust base of arguments that may easily prove that Coyne is wrong after all. There are numerous counter-arguments as well as scientific data that allow creation theory to exist very successfully even now. Moreover, there are hundreds and thousands of scientists that do not believe in evolution. With their experience and scope, they dismiss a great number of postulates offered by evolutionists. In the context of this paper, it is also important to research the arguments provided by creationists to ensure that the work by Coyne can hold such pressure and remain topical.

Alternative Perspective

It is commonly stated by evolutionists that the arguments provided by those who believe in creation address separate questions and problems while not forming a whole picture. Although it may be true, there is no point in denying that some of the arguments not only create a complete model of the world but also with relative ease dismiss evolution as a theory and as a phenomenon.

The first argument against evolution is usually the fact that evolution is a process that nobody can perceive right now. Creationists state (quite rightfully) that there are indeed a variety of different kinds of flora and fauna species, but there are no transactions. For instance, there is no example of mixtures between cats and birds or rhinos and jackals. If evolution were indeed happening, there would have been a significant number of species that are currently evolving into new kinds. This would manifest in lots of things: new limbs, new organ functions, increase or decrease in size, etc. All of this, however, is out of sight.

Nevertheless, this argument proves to hold little significance because of numerous reasons. For example, the evolutionary processes may have been significantly slowed down or even stopped because of human activity. There are simply no significant changes in the environment for species to shape-shift. Moreover, cross-species reproduction has also been left out of the question because there are simply no ways for initially different species (especially with different reproductive systems) to have any offspring.

Next, there is the argument that evolution is not scientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. Indeed, there is no way to test evolution or even observe it. All that humankind is allowed to do is find the consequences that were presumably caused by evolution. Nevertheless, this argument tends not to endure any sort of criticism as there are two critical areas to evolution science: micro-and macroevolution. Nowadays, even creationists have to acknowledge that it is indeed very much possible to test microevolution in laboratories. Moreover, resorting to the falsifiability of any given phenomenon works against creationists as the Creator as a concept is most unscientific. It is also impossible to perceive, experience, test, measure, prove or dismiss anything related to God and his alleged existence.

There are also such arguments as the one stating that it would be impossible for one species to evolve from another, while these previous species exist. For example, creationists may say that if humans evolved from a kind of monkey, then there would be no monkeys left. However, this statement completely ignores that the theory of evolution does not suggest that humans evolved from a monkey. The statement should be human and monkey have a common ancestor. After this remark is made, it becomes apparent that there is easily a way for both humankind and various kinds of primates to coexist without replacing each other.

Although the opposition of the evolution theory is quite high, it is often seen that creationists may readily accept evolution as well as evolutionists may believe in both creation and the evolutionary processes that followed it. All in all, the acceptance of both teachings remains rather uneven across the globe. Many countries even go as far as to deny evolution or creation on a national level prohibiting this teaching in schools and preventing related publications from being permitted on the territory of the country.

There are, however, some initiatives that have the goal of uniting evolution and creationism by allowing both theories to be introduced to children in schools. An article by Baker (2013) provides an example of such an initiative. The author states that The influence of religious identity on educational trajectory and selective perception presents unique challenges for advocates of evolution. Addressing these topics in a manner perceived as an attack on creationism, and therefore religion is likely to strengthen prior convictions of the faithful (Baker, 2013, p. 226). This provides an example of just how difficult it becomes for evolution adherents to promote evolution-related ideas. This problem has become surprisingly acute with the growing amount of radical religious groups that strictly prohibit the theory of evolution from being taught among them.

Flaws in the Book

One of the greatest advantages that Darwins manuscript had is that it provided both evidence supporting his theory and an explanation of flaws that the creation theory possessed at the time. This simple approach to compiling the work made Darwins manuscript so convincing and disarming regarding the opposition. However strong the arguments were, they alone would not suffice if it would have come to debates. After Darwins magnum opus had been published, the creationists were simply left astonished and lacking any possible counter-evidence. This made the theory of evolution so successful.

This is important to notice because the book by Coyne simply does not do anything of a sort. Although providing robust evidence supporting evolution, the author leaves any possible answers to his opponents aside. It becomes unclear as to who should be convinced by the book. After all, the ninth chapter Evolution redux is dedicated directly to this question. Many may find the arguments provided significant and convincing, but they still will not be convinced. Why? The answer is simple: the only approach to place one theory above any other that works are to introduce the theory and then immediately present the flaws of the ones that are to be replaced.

This significant weakness may also not be the only one that this book possesses. After all, the evidence that the author speaks of is not the final amount of visible traces of evolution. The author could, for example, also include the evidence that relates to the age of the Earth. Surprisingly enough, the claims about the Earth being much younger than modern science believes are one of the cornerstones of the contemporary creation theory. Should the young age of the planet be dismantled, the creation theory would suffer a significant loss in its significance. However, it may be what prevented Coyne from including this in his book. As of now, there is no way to undoubtedly say that the Earth is indeed approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Any of these additions would make the book much more convincing and significant at the same time. However, it is pointless to state that Coynes work as it now does not necessarily possess any importance. It is indeed a significant contribution to the evolution theory and the ongoing debate regarding creation and evolution. The work in itself is a compilation of existing facts that prove to hold the most weight relating to the truthfulness of evolution theory. It seems that the book is mostly designed for an average reader that does not professionally exercise science.

Personal Response

The most compelling thing about the book is, of course, how it approaches the presentation of facts. However, I was also greatly interested in the arguments that the author provided to support his claims. I found them to be well-selected and thoughtfully placed. Each supporting statement that the author makes leaves a lasting impact on how one perceives evolution and the struggle that evolutionists have regarding opposing the theory of creation.

Another important factor that led me to believe that this book is, in fact, a great piece of scientific literature is the self-aware nature of the authors claims. In the chapter Evolution redux, the author notes that it is almost impossible for some people to accept evolution, and that is what makes evolution so influenced by debate. All in all, this book created a very positive impression on me.

Conclusion

After reading the book and dwelling on the arguments and commentaries that Coyne provides, it becomes far less difficult to accept evolution. This conclusion is easily explainable. The theory in itself is a scientific fact  this statement is undoubtedly true. However, there are also arguments against evolution that quickly dismiss every assumption that the theory makes. The problem with these facts is that they are also dismissed without any effort. What is more important, however, is the fact that these counter-assumptions create a significant number of controversies both in the whole picture of the world (in which evolution does not exist) and the minds of those who dwell on these arguments for more than one second. In science, it is often referred to as a concept known as Occams razor. This concept is used to explain the methodological approach that postulates that the assumption that requires more explanation and causes more doubts must be dismissed.

If Occams razor is applied to the theory of creation with the progress that science has made over the centuries, it becomes clear that creationism requires lots of explanation and causes a lot of doubts. It just does not work as intended. There is a vast amount of evidence that points out the insolvency of the theory of creation. The evolution theory, on the other hand, is far less complicated in this perspective. Therefore, if nothing else, it would be most rational to accept the theory of evolution, and the book by Coyne is an excellent example of why one may do that.

References

Baker, J. O. (2013). Acceptance of evolution and support for teaching creationism in public schools: The conditional impact of educational attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 216-228.

Coyne, J. A. (2010). Why evolution is true. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ruiz-Labourdette, D., Schmitz, M. F., & Pineda, F. D. (2013). Changes in tree species composition in Mediterranean mountains under climate change: Indicators for conservation planning. Ecological Indicators, 24(1), 310-323.

Solodovnikov, A., Yue, Y., Tarasov, S., & Ren, D. (2013). Extinct and extant rove beetles meet in the matrix: Early Cretaceous fossils shed light on the evolution of a hyperdiverse insect lineage (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Staphylininae). Cladistics, 29(1), 360-403.

Warren, D. L., Cardillo, M., Rosauer, D. F., & Bolnick, D. I. (2014). Mistaking geography for biology: Inferring processes from species distributions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(10), 572-580.

Zhang, G., Li, C., Li, Q., Li, B., Larkin, D. M., Storz, J. F., & Gary, R. (2014). Comparative genomics reveals insights into avian genome evolution and adaptation. Science, 346(6215), 1311-1320.

Darwinian theory is masterfully articulated and skillfully presented in a documentary series produced by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)Evolution. The scientists vision that caused the inconceivable transformation of peoples understanding of the universe and their place in it is also clearly held forth throughout a book of a philosopher Daniel DannerDarwins Dangerous Idea. These two sources of information will help me to develop a paper in which I will argue that it is impossible to integrate Creationism within a framework of Darwinism without encountering substantial logical contradictions or majorly distorting Darwins core thesis.

Darwins theory of evolution by means of natural selection can be summarized as the ability of the fittest individuals to survive and reproduce, thereby passing their heritable traits and giving rise to new species over time (Dennett 42). The scientists views have always been contested by a wide spectrum of opponents subscribing to various religious beliefs and representing numerous religious denominations. While the crux of Darwins argument is that no intelligent supervision is necessary for the creation of a seemingly endless level of complexity associated with living creatures, those who derive their knowledge from the Book of Genesisjust like FitzRoy does in the seriestend to hold the opposite view of the universe (Evolution). Creationists or literal interpreters of the Bible reject the idea that the world and everything in it is just a matter in motion. However, the argument from faith can be rejected just as easily based on the fact that people are surrounded by a wealth of evidence of gradual algorithmic evolution, whereas there is no incontrovertible proof of the existence of a creator, which is described in the Bible.

If one were to accept that the Book of Genesis presents a factual account of the creation of species, they would have to agree that Gods hand is at work in the creation of new breeds of cats, cattle, and corn, which implies that at least two out of seven days of creationthird and sixthare still in motion. However, this idea explicitly contradicts the word of the Bible; therefore, there is no way one can hold this view without exercising the art of mental gymnastics that is necessary for dealing with the cognitive dissonance produced by rationalizing tendencies of the human brain. Unfortunately, that is precisely what creationists do.

Animal-breeders that oppose the theory of evolution while regularly participating in the process of the creation of new breeds argue that it is impossible to achieve speciation through the accumulation of slight variations between individual animals during countless successive generations (Dennett 43). In order to refute their position, it is necessary to consider the fact that all species exist in the environment that can be characterized by the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them (Darwin qtd. in Dennett 42). Such variations in conditions give rise to relentless culling of natural selection (Dennett 44), which helps to produce subtle differences that can be passed to successive generations. If an ancestral chain is long enough, organic beings will inevitably become fundamentally different from their predecessors.

It can be concluded that it is impossible to draw a connection between Darwinism and Creationism without stumbling upon numerous contradictions that completely destroy any semblance of consistency.

Works Cited

Dennett, Daniel. Darwins Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life. Simon and Schuster, 2014.

Evolution. Directed by Jane Goodall, performance by Liam Neeson, Public Broadcasting Service, 2001.

Close binary stars have attracted a lot of attention due to the peculiarities of their evolution. The development of these systems is associated with several paradoxes that are of particular interest to scientists. More so, it has been acknowledged that most stars are found in binary and multiple systems (Podsiadlowski 45). Therefore, it is essential to make sure that all properties of this system are properly researched as they can have a certain impact on the Earth as well.

Researchers managed to examine various phenomena taking place in the universe through the close analysis of binary stellar systems. Binary stars are usually constituted by two compact stellar remnants (Negu and Tessema 223). These components are usually remnants of black holes, neutron stars and, the so-called, white dwarfs. At the same time, these stars can consist of two non-degenerate stars, one stellar remnant (or compact star) and one non-degenerate star, or two compact stars (Podsiadlowski 45). These two bodies move around one gravity center. Several processes affect the development of the binary stellar system.

There are several ways a binary star can form. For instance, a star with a significant mass can capture another stellar body through its magnetic field. However, researchers agree that these cases are very rare (Webbink 234). In the vast majority of cases, envelopes of gas, compact stars, and dust usually split into several parts that later evolve into two stars. Interestingly, there are three bodies necessary to develop a binary system as the third body ensures the gravitation that keeps the two other components apart. As has been mentioned above the two stars circulate one orbit, and they can be at different distances.

If the stars are quite far from each other, they often develop in a way all other separate stars evolve (Webbink 234). It is necessary to stress that the two components of the system have little or even no effect on each other due to the distance between them. In many cases, these stars move far from each other and leave the binary system. They start evolving as separate stars. Close binary systems have attracted the most attention of researchers as these systems are constantly developing. The two stars affect each others development through their gravitation fields as well as mass transfer.

Mass transfer is the key process that contributes to the development of binary stars. Negu and Tessema note that this phenomenon is especially remarkable when it comes to the evolution of binary stars constituted by a degenerate star and another component (223).

The mass transfer occurs due to significant gravitational and magnetic fields of the objects involved as well as the influence of such phenomena as pulsed X-ray emission, novae outbursts and nuclear burning (Negu and Tessema 223). It is well known that mass plays a significant role in the process of binary stars formation (Fragner and Nelson 1). The two stars in the system have their mass and gravitation fields that have an impact on each other.

This interaction is associated with the phenomenon called Roche lobes (Negu and Tessema 223). The Roche lobe refers to the space controlled by a star by its gravitational field. In each binary system, there are two Roche lobes. The body with a larger mass has a bigger Roche lobe. In the binary system, the two Roche lobes meet, and this point is referred to as a Lagrange point. This is an important milestone as the matter reaching the Lagrange point transfers to the other star.

It is possible to note that this point is the place where mass transfer occurs. It is necessary to add that the stars may lose the matter as a result of winds and emissions. For instance, the wind can blow away gases from one star, and when they reach the Lagrange point, the gravity field of the other star captures them. There can also be collisions with other objects that can lead to the partial destruction of one of the stars and the occurrence of parts that can reach the other stars Roche lobe.

The mass transfer is also associated with the so-called Algol paradox. The paradox is linked to the interaction between the stars within the binary system (Podsiadlowski 57). The stars within the system are often of different sizes. The larger star has a stronger gravity field, and it increases in mass as it captures matter through its gravitation field. Eventually, the bigger component becomes a giant. At the same time, the giant fills in its Roche lobe, and, hence, its matter reaches the Lagrange point.

The matter that reaches this point is transferred to the other body. Thus, the bigger star loses its mass that is transferred to the smaller body. The two objects are also at different stages of their development, which is also a paradox as the two stars are formed simultaneously.

The evolution of the binary system often ends in its disruption. Several factors contribute to this event. The binary system can be destroyed by external bodies. Some bodies (a big comet, another system with a stronger gravitation field, and so on) can disrupt the binary systems gravitation, which will make the two bodies move away from each other. As has been mentioned above, if the stars in a binary system are far from each other they start developing as separate objects. Apart from that, the interaction of the two gravitation fields can result in the ejection of one of the stars that move at a significant pace. These ejected stars are referred to as runaway stars (Podsiadlowski 53).

Finally, at some point in their development, stars explode, and the other star in the system is affected considerably (depending on the size of the stars and their mass). The bigger star is, the more impact is produced. The other object can be destroyed. The distance between the objects also affects the impact produced by the disruption of one of the stars.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that binary stars are systems that can help people understand the processes that take place in the universe. The evolution of close binary stars is remarkable as it is associated with the interaction of multiple objects and some paradoxes. Researchers have managed to explain the associated processes and describe various peculiarities of these systems. At the same time, it is still important to continue research as people should be ready to address any challenges that the Earth face in the future. It is vital to understand all the processes and the nature of all objects existing in the universe to be able to face any challenges.

Works Cited

Fragner, Moritz and Richard Nelson. Evolution of Warped and Twisted Accretion Discs in Close Binary Systems. Astronomy and Astrophysics 511 (2010): 1-23. Print.

Negu, Sablu Humne and Solomon Tessema. Mass Transfer in Binary Stellar Evolution and Its Stability. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 5.1 (2015): 222-241. Print.

Podsiadlowski, Philipp. The Evolution of Binary Systems. Accretion Processes in Astrophysics. Ed. Ignacio Gonzalez Martinez-Pais, Tariq Shahbaz and Jorge Casares Velazquez. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 45-89. Print.

Webbink, Ronald F. Common Envelope Evolution Redux. Short-Period Binary Stars: Observations, Analyses, and Results. Ed. Eugene F. Milone, Denis A. Leahy and David W. Hobill. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008. 233-257. Print.

A theory is a connected system of general concepts, constructs, or propositions presenting a systematic view of phenomena through the specification of variables to explain the phenomena. Therefore, a theory has three components  i) a set of propositions with interrelated constructs, ii) it highlights the interrelations among constructs to give a specific view of phenomena, and iii) it explains the phenomena. According to Bengtson et al. (2005), a theory is a set of relatively abstract and interrelated statements that attempt to explain a general and repeatable structure or process in nature (p. 8). A theory is developed through a series of steps based on the phenomena being studied. Therefore, theory on a certain subject keeps on changing, but there are three major ways through which a theory could be developed. The first one is speculative, which entails attempting to explain what is already happening. The second approach is descriptive whereby descriptive data is collected to determine what is exactly happening. The last approach is constructive whereby old theories are revised to develop new ones based on ongoing research.

A theory is important because it gives concepts that are used to name what has been observed and explain the interrelationship among constructs or concepts. As such, in the process of describing what is seen, theory creates room to figure out how to create change. In other words, a theory is an important tool that allows the identification of problems and planning on how to change a given situation. Additionally, theory helps people understand what they do not know by guiding research on any given topic.

Like theory, a conceptual framework is a structure that researchers use to explain how a phenomenon being studied progresses naturally. In other words, the conceptual framework identifies the research topic, the problem being examined, questions that would be asked, literature review, theories that would be applied, the methodology and methods to be used, data analysis and findings, recommendations, and conclusions to be made. As such, a conceptual framework is the conceptualization of the entire research project. Therefore, just like theory, a conceptual framework gives clear guidelines through which research would be conducted. It allows the researcher to identify and construct his or her worldview on the problem being investigated. It also allows for the presentation of remedies to the research problem.

The evolutionary theory in sociology holds that societies move in a certain direction. Specifically, this theory is based on the view that societies change from simple forms into complex forms with time through a gradual process. From an evolutionary perspective, dating involves selecting a suitable partner for effective reproduction to ensure the survival of the offspring to also reproduce and pass the genotype to another generation. It thus suffices to argue that dating, whether online or in-person, could be understood from the perspective of survival.

For instance, on the surface, it might appear that a male partner is looking for beauty in a female partner. As such, a male would be looking for all attributes associated with a beautiful woman including the perfect size, voluptuousness, and smooth skin among other related factors. This kind of a female would be highly attractive to males and she would be the perfect candidate for dating. However, from an evolutionary perspective, men are not attracted to the sexiness or beauty associated with this female. On the contrary, men are attracted to such females because their beauty is an indication that they are highly productive and fertile. For example, a smoothed-skinned female with shiny hair, bright eyes, and full lips connotes youthfulness and such an individual has the capacity to bear more children as compared to her older counterparts. Similarly, the popular hourglass shape is ideal for childbirth due to wide hips and ample breasts imply that such a person can nourish offsprings.

Similarly, women choose their mates based on evolutionary dynamics. Traditionally, men are the providers, and thus females would prefer a male with the capacity to provide for her offspring once they are born. As such, societal status, financial capability, and power become elements of decision-making for females when selecting the perfect dating partner. This assertion explains why on various dating sites females would state that one of the characteristics a suitable dating male partner must have is financial stability. This requirement is not related to materialism, but it is an inherent survival mechanism in females to ensure that the young ones are taken care of long enough to grow, find their mates, and pass genotypes to the coming generation.

Reference

Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K., Dilworth-Anderson, P., Klein, D. (Eds.). (2005). Sourcebook of family theory & research. Sage Publications.