"As soon as you begin to look at our bodies from an evolutionary perspective you see more and more we are not intelligently designed." ~ Paul Sherman, PhD Much of the evidence for evolution takes time and interest to learn. How we know evolution is true comes from many independent areas of science including genetics, paleontology, geology, biogeography, developmental biology and many more. Evidence from our own bodies is easier to access and understand for many. After presenting some fairly simple observations about our own anatomy to a high school biology class that is best explained by evolution, it became clear that others may find these observations interesting also. It's 36 minutes long and a fun way to look at how our past evolution has produced some amazing and often hilarious work-arounds to solve issues that came up during our development as a species. Many of these examples can be found in my blog entry on Unintelligent Design. For more convincing evidence for evolution that presents similar visual evidence especially see the videos on whale evolution. For evolution evidence that rises to the level of near proof, see the blogs and section entries discussing the DNA evidence for evolution, macroevolution.

How vs. What: why it’s important in evolution discussions “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” ~ Charles Darwin. The Decent of Man “Evolution is a theory, and it’s a theory that you can test. We’ve tested evolution in many ways. You can’t present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact.” ~ Bill Nye Introduction When a committed anti-evolutionist views the three whale evolution videos I produced, the evidence for whale evolution is so overwhelming that often a very predictable response occurs. Rather than address the evidence and why we know whales evolved, the person pivots and attempts to divert to what I call the “whataboutthisthen?” response. What usually follows is a listing of many of the amazing adaptations of cetaceans with the accompanying challenge of how could all of this have come about naturally? But the “what” comes before the “how” in nearly all investigations and this attempt is what is called putting the cart before the horse. This “butwhataboutthisthen” also can happen when discussing the DNA evidence for evolution, as detailed in my site discussions of shared ERVs, human chromosome 2 fusion, shared DNA repairs, and pseudogenes - but to a lesser extent. Shared ERV objections for example often start by trying to show that retroviral insertions are not random or that the LTRs are original and not a result of past retroviral insertions. Or, since no one saw the HC 2 fusion, the evidence for it is dismissed. Having failed to discount the incredible DNA evidence for human evolution, the anti-evolutionist will often then appeal to the amazing complexity of 3 billion human DNA nucleotides (the “steps” of the DNA “ladder”) and run the Intelligent Design flag argument up the flagpole. Given the complexity, they ask how could the DNA have evolved by only natural means? Or, give up completely and move directly to abiogenesis, which has no direct involvement with evolution (see abiogenesis). Thus the mound of evolutionary evidence “what” we observe is completely bypassed as if it magically is not central to the discussion. The origin of species is a different topic from the origin of life. Appealing to gaps in knowledge and holding them up as evidence is not evidence. By ignoring the evolutionary evidence and diverting to “hows” and abiogenesis, the attempt is made to avoid addressing the overwhelming facts that support evolution. This avoidance of evidence, of what we do know, and pivoting to demanding to know how something occurred first, usually also includes wanting to know to their level of satisfaction. Experts and specialists in various scientific fields are simply dismissed. But must we always know how something happened before we accept that it DID happen? Absolutely not! Yes, to fully understand something it is important to know the “how” and we strive for that. Scientists are constantly working on how something came about, to close those unknown loops. But our curiosity starts with just observations, the plain facts or proposed hypotheses to test. In Hollywood, scientists are often portrayed as shouting “eureka” upon making a discovery, but rather most often it’s a phrase quietly uttered, “well, that’s funny” or, “well, that’s interesting” and then the search for how the observation could be explained is on. In the following section I will present multiple examples of why we put the “what” before the “how” and more importantly that the observations can often stand alone as a conclusion without knowing how something occurred. These two questions are thus separate and we can know that the “what” is true and practical without knowing the “how”. I have not in general discussed how whales evolved nor the mechanisms that produce evolution. We must begin at the beginning - observations or tested hypotheses and knowing evolution is true because of what we know before proceeding to investigating how species arise. Ignoring observations is a diversion from addressing the fact of evolution. Mechanisms are not unimportant, but they in nearly all cases follow observations and hypothesis testing first. I will list several examples of why knowing the “what” is independent of the “how” because in my experience this attempt to discount evolution evidence by demanding exactly how something happened, usually to their satisfaction, is an excuse and false justification for rejecting sound and robust evidence for evolution. This method of avoiding the obvious is a very insightful demonstration that the rejection of evidence for evolution is usually rooted in presuppositions and an allegiance to anti-evolution views at any cost. Throwing out the “butwhataboutthisthen” is a type of cognitive dissonance avoidance defense mechanism and attempt to divert the discussion from the facts before them rather than a sincere question. Examples 1. Aspirin. It’s pain relief and anti-inflammatory properties were known for 4,000 years. Humans derived its main ingredient, salicylic acid, from various tree bark species, including the willow tree. Our ancestors knew what it was useful for without knowing how it worked. In 1971 scientists noted how aspirin operated by blocking prostaglandins. In 1976 researchers discovered how aspirin further worked by binding to the specific enzyme cyclooxygenase, (COX), and lowering prostaglandins. For 4,000 years we acknowledged what aspirin was good for and used it without knowing the how. 2. Court cases. Many murder convictions around the world have occurred even though a body was not recovered and sometimes not even the murder weapon. In 2000, Gregory Chrysler and Lawrence Weygant were convicted of murder by beating a coworker to death even though the body and bat were never found (July 2000 Times-Herald Record). Unwitnessed, and the “how” evidence was never found. Enough other evidence can be presented to show an event must have happened in the past. In court cases, this can include DNA forensic evidence, phone records and GPS information, etc. The how is not necessary to reach a solid conclusion of what must have happened. We can be certain whales and humans evolved by the massive amount of confirming evidence and the consilience of that evidence. The how is not critical but we’d like to have that also. DNA paternity testing as evidence alone is 99% certain even though where, when and how the conception occurred may not be known. IVF? Consensual? Rape? Hotel room or at home? Time of day? It is not necessary to confirm paternity or rule out candidates to know all the aspects of how the conception occurred to answer the biology question. Legal and moral questions may need the "how" inputs however. 3. Sun rises in the east. For thousands of years people knew the sun rises to our eyes always in the east. They could predict it and navigate by the stars without knowing how the sun and stars formed and why the sun appears in the east to us. 4. Driving a car. Most people drive their cars without knowing how all the specific systems work. They know what a car is without knowing how it all works. With an internal combustion engine, it is not necessary to know how each system in the car engine works in order to drive and use the car (coolant, gas/air combustion mechanics, air conditioning, etc.) How many of us can describe in detail how an automatic transmission actually works? Does that stop us from using cars? If the exact "how" something evolved in all it’s steps is not completely worked out, does that mean we are justified in not accepting that it did evolve if the evidence is compelling and massive that evolution must have taken place? 5. The vacation cabin. After many months, you return to your wonderful vacation cabin only to find it destroyed. Only the chimney is left standing. Debris is everywhere. No witnesses are available. The fact that your cabin, or what is left of it, is in shambles cannot be denied. But how did it happen? Hurricane? Tornado? Forest Fire? Earthquake? Mad neighbor? Gas explosion? Those possibilities will be investigated, especially by the insurance company, but does the how in any way change the fact that it has been destroyed? Do you withhold a conclusion of total destruction for months or years of denial awaiting a final “how”? What if it is never concluded exactly how it was destroyed? Does that change the fact that it is no longer there? Are we to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that whales evolved or the incredible DNA evidence that humans have evolved because someone is dissatisfied with the explanations of how it happened? 6. Building fire. Recently (2023) a large apartment fire occurred in a nearby town close to me. It started on the fourth floor and since it was an old building, the building was a total loss. No one died but two fire fighters were injured. As we watched the building on fire and the roof caving in on the news, they noted that no one knew how the fire started. Electrical? Candles? Smoking? Does how the fire started in any way impact on the fact that the building was on fire and ultimately destroyed? 7. Caffeine. The scientific name is 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine. First discovered in China around 1000 BC in the form of tea it was later discovered as coffee in Ethiopia around 850 AD. This is the most widely used drug in the world for thousands of years but was it necessary to know how it worked for people to use it as a stimulant? It wasn’t until the 20th century that researchers determined that caffeine works by attaching to the body’s A1 adenosine receptors, not allowing adenosine to act to make you sleepy. This in turn raises your dopamine and glutamate levels and you feel more energetic. Did not knowing the exact biochemical mechanism, the detailed how, in any way keep people from using caffeine for thousands of years, of knowing that it was useful and what to use it for? 8. Cholera. The disease cholera has been with humans for hundreds of years. There have been numerous outbreaks and several pandemics. It may infect up to 4 million people per year and may kill up to 140,000 people per year through copious diarrhea and dehydration. One of the pandemics reached London in 1854 and John Snow mapped cases in the Soho part of the city demonstrating hot spots in that area. He had the water pump handle removed with the immediate result of a decrease in cases. In 1883 the causative bacteria was finally identified to western science. It would be over a hundred years before the exact mechanism for how the bacterial toxin causes the severe diarrhea was revealed. The toxin activates through ADP a cellular signaling GTP protein. This causes CTA1 loop changes that allow NAD+ to bind to the active site and causes electrolyte shifts and ultimately death in some cases. Was it necessary to know all the details of how cholera, through its toxin, causes disease and sometimes death in order to know that the etiology was a bacterial species and its toxin? Could we use basic observations that the cause wasVibrio cholerae without knowing exactly how it produced disease? Knowing how it causes disease can help in designing drugs and treatment but does it change the fact of the causative agent? Does demanding to know exactly how whales and humans evolved change all the evidence that we have showing evolution did happen? Is it justified to withhold agreement that evolution in these two examples happened because every possible step in how it occurred may not be available yet ? https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/history-of-cholera https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1113398 How vs. What and Einstein? Scientist : Einstein's theory of general relativity has been validated and corroborated by evidence. Critic : Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be valid until you explain the origin of space-time. Scientist : Listen, there is evidence for this theory, let's talk about that. Critic : If you cannot explain the origin of space-time, your theory is false, because where did the space-time needed by general relativity come from ? It's a religion because you can't explain the origin of space-time ~Adeleke Emmanuel Oluwasegun Conclusion When examining the overwhelming evidence that evolution must be true, how it happened is an important secondary question, but it is not critical and does not carry the force of disproving evolution. Actual and theoretical examples were discussed showing that how is not critical to reaching a solid conclusion and even practical considerations in many cases. An appeal by someone that they will not accept the evidence for evolution until they know exactly how it happened is really an avoidance maneuver, and rarely sincere in my experience. It is a red herring. Wanting to know how evolution unfolded can be a sincere inquiry and centers around how new information for natural selection to operate on becomes available. Those sources are known and found by a search of the literature. There will always be unknowns in science - it’s one reason for scientific activity. Not knowing everything does not mean science does not know enough to make sound conclusions regarding observations and revealed insights through experimentation. We don’t need to have perfect knowledge to have secure knowledge and reach sound conclusions. How and why are often what drives our curiosity but it usually starts by noticing observations and data. Those must be acknowledged first. Evolution is true not only because it fits observations but because it passes testing and makes verifiable predictions. How it occurred, the pace, and other considerations are still areas of active research and debate but the fact of evolution is settled science.

"The origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis. While scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from non-living material, that has no impact on evolution." ~ Austin Cline Frequently in discussions concerning evolution, the question of how life arose from chemical ingredients is brought forward. This may be due to a genuine curiosity about the subject, but in my experience it is often from someone who is unable to accept evolution no matter the evidence so instead needs to change the subject to a “whataboutthis then?” in an attempt to deflect a discussion of evolution that may not be going in a direction they like. (1) The answer to how life came from non-life to form the first cells is simple. We don’t know. That is a gap in knowledge and it may even be a gap that will never be filled. But that does not mean people are justified to drop the family favorite reason into the gap. This answer even has a logical fallacy name: a Gaps argument. Abiogenesis is a prediction that flows from evolution, but the two are separate. Evolution is about species origins and not the origin of life. Natural Selection is a proposed mechanism for Evolution. Thus, Darwin’s 1859 book was titled “On The Origin of Species By Natural Selection” - not the origin of life. The formation of life from non-living chemical precursors is thus not part of Evolutionary Theory. We can still study and know that species give rise to other species, and for example that human evolution is true even if we don’t know the ultimate starting point. Appealing to an unknown does in no way discount the known. Just because the origin of life by natural processes is a very difficult problem, it does not mean that much research in this field has not already yielded some potential advances. Studies include looking at chemical reactions and early cell like structures forming in undersea vents (3), chemical reactions in hot thermal springs (4, 7) and even clay catalyst substrates. Scientists have reported that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on earth, can give rise through some simple reactions to the three major classes of biomolecules - nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), amino acids and lipids.(8) A common working hypothesis that became popular is the “RNA World First” hypothesis (DNA later) when it was discovered that two simple precursor compounds could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotides. Since some RNAs can act as enzymes in addition to RNA’s normal information functions, this approach to the abiogenesis problem has attracted much research activity.(2) Some researchers have noted that the building blocks of life have been found in space, and comets or meteorites may have seeded the earth with the raw materials for life. Many organic compounds have been found in space. NASA announced the finding of key building blocks for organic molecules discovered in meteorites in 2020 (5). All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites (6). At this time, although much work on abiogenesis is ongoing, no particular series of steps have been shown to bridge the non-life to life naturalistic expectation. Choi and Dutfield summarize the seven theories on the origin of life in their 2022 article of the same name (9). Conclusion The origin of life is an active area of research. Multiple theories are being investigated and only time will tell if scientists are able to develop the steps and produce a viable cell that mimics current cellular life. In terms of evolution this however is a separate research area and does not impact directly on the Theory of Evolution. To claim this indicates a counterfeit motivation or at least ignorance about why the two theories are related but not dependent on one another. We don’t know how life arose - yet, or perhaps ever. And what if scientists succeed? Will detractors then note that it took intelligence to do that in support of Intelligent Design? Or complain that the recipe that the scientists used is not necessarily the exact one life took? In terms of evaluating evolution and the impact it has on our lives, societies and religious beliefs, the unknown of abiogenesis is interesting but does not diminish humankind’s greatest discovery. Citations 1. https://www.learnreligions.com/abiogenesis-and-evolution-249875 2. https://www.sciencealert.com/rna-world-hypothesis 3. https://brewminate.com/hydrothermal-vent-hypothesis-on-abiogenesis-origin-of-life/ 4. https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2018/pdf/2535.pdf 5. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/key-organic-molecule 6. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/all-of-the-bases-in-dna-and-rna-have-now-been-found-in-meteorites 7. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2019.2045 8. https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum 9. https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed for the remarkable fact of our own existence, indeed the existence of all life wherever it may turn up in the universe." ~ John Maynard Smith, FRS "Let me lay my cards on the table. If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of even Newton or Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. It is not just a wonderful idea. It is a dangerous idea." ~ Daniel Dennett, PhD Philosophy In: Darwin's Dangerous Idea The Claim I would like to make what might be considered a bold claim. Of all the amazing discoveries in the history of humankind, the theory of evolution is the greatest so far in my opinion. Competitors to this claim might include a moving and spherical earth, our heliocentric solar system, writing, fire and even relativity. I posit that evolution is not just a well established scientific theory but an idea that affects nearly all parts of our lives. You should care and understand it. Discussion First, what is a scientific theory? It can be defined as a broad explanation of the natural world that is formulated to explain a body of facts and observations, both observed and predicted. Besides evolution, we also have the scientific theories of gravity, germ, cells and relativity for example. Note that all these listed are both fact and theory. Scientific theories are concerned with the “whys” and “hows” of nature. In common culture, we often say “I have a theory” regarding something. For example when observing smoke coming out of a car engine. Blue often means oil burning where white may mean a water leak. But that’s not really a “theory” as the term is used in science; that’s what in science could be called a hypothesis - an educated guess that is testable. Because the person perhaps has experience with internal combustion engines, the reason is suggested, tested, and the engine hopefully repaired. Facts in contrast are statements that are demonstrated to exist or known to be true. For example, confirmed fossils out of sequence would demolish Evolutionary theory. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory like other scientific theories. Evolution is falsifiable and has passed testing for over 150 years. The theory of evolution is well established with overwhelming evidence, often from independent lines of study. See here the only two robust examples I discuss. For humans, through science we have learned where we came from, when, from what and how we and all species got here. And that informs “why” we are here. For thousands of years, especially philosophy and religion have sought those ultimate answers to life and yet we now know many of the answers to those questions because of science. I doubt science sought these existential answers to life but curiosity and science have indeed combined to provide solid answers for many of them. In addition to theology and philosophy, art and the humanities often bring forth works that explore what it means to be human. What it means to be moral. Is there purpose and meaning in life? Art and story telling for example often elicit emotions so we can focus on themes that may be important to us. Unless we look at these issues through an evolutionary lens however, they will be poorly understood. How we have morals is best explained by evolution and discussed briefly here. The questions of ultimate purpose and meaning in life are also informed by evolution. Let’s look at more examples of how evolution informs issues that we encounter often. Examples There exists a healthy and robust discipline of evolutionary psychology. Why do people consistently loose money in the stock market or make bad gambling decisions? Evolution tells us how our brains were wired for survival in the past and how that wiring can cause us to misjudge risk. If our ancestors saw grass rustling in the distance - is it a lion or the wind? What is the best course of action when it comes to false positives or false negatives in terms of survival? Evolution can explain that. Our enjoyment at magic shows rests on a foundation of evolutionary selection pressures. From our deep past, evolution wired our brains for survival and that often meant mental short cuts and assumptions were the best way for us to perceive the world. These usually saved time, energy and in many cases our lives. But these perceptions are often not exactly correct and can be put to use in auditoriums and on stage for levity. They did however serve us well in our past. Magicians use wrong conclusions we draw in some circumstances to our delight, but in pre-modern circumstances they served us well. We are a world and nations divided by nationalism. Where did those strong beliefs come from and why? Nationalism is really tribalism scaled up in the political arena. In our hunter-gatherer days having a stranger stay with you could have resulted in your death while you sleep and the loss of your spouse and children. Better to trust blood relatives in your tribe and those who were known to be loyal. It was “us or them”, a theme repeated throughout our recorded history including most wars. Our political and racial divides certainly have evolutionary roots. Understanding them and changing behaviors must include an evolutionary perspective. Knowing why we behave because of our evolutionary past does not mean we are forever slaves to them. Modern medicine is grounded in evolution. One can’t study human anatomy and disease and understand it fully without an evolutionary lens. Centers for the study of evolutionary medicine have been established around the world. The understanding for cancer can’t be fully explored without a context of evolution. Cancer with its serial random and hierarchal nested mutations, natural selection, new functions arising and historical phylogenetic trees IS evolution. See the blog on evolutionary medicine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, inguinal hernias, accessory nipples, and many other structures that seem strange can only be fully understood by understanding their evolutionary history. See this site’s web page on unintelligent design for detailed information regarding some examples. Why malaria persists biologically and why mitochondria are derived from bacteria must be understood with an evolutionary background of opposing selection pressures in the later and endosymbiosis mechanisms in the latter. See the discussion about mitochondria. Much of the “double standards” between men and women can be understood through evolution. Not to endorse it, but to begin to know how to address it. In terms of evolution, women have potentially more personal investment in reproduction. They produce only so many eggs, have health risks during pregnancy, and needed especially in the past support to feed newborns in hunter-gatherer groups. They needed to be careful to choose partners who would stay with them to support them and help in the raising of the child. Men on the other hand produce millions of sperm per day and may benefit evolutionarily by inseminating as many women as possible. There is reproductive benefit for them to be promiscuous. But also a cost if they don’t know the child they are helping to raise is actually theirs. There are competing selection pressures for women and men. These can be discussed in modern societies and addressed but not if we ignore drives from our evolutionary past. Again, just because certain behaviors were beneficial in the past does not mean we can’t change them now if they are no longer for our benefit. And of course there are alternative narratives and traditions for the origin of species in various cultures that can be tested by science. The same rigorous applications that have produced the evidence for evolution can be applied to other proposed stories of how humans and all life arose. Many of them make specific claims that can be tested and falsified. Billions of people around the globe base their lives and worldviews on these alternative and often mutually exclusive foundational narratives so the Theory of Evolution does have a profound effect on people’s lives if claims are shown by science to be false. Darwin, Wallace and the Theory of Natural Selection Darwin - Age 51 Wallace - Age 24 Darwin's 'stick diagram' - 1837 Charles Darwin, who had a Master of Divinity degree, left on a 5 year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle in 1831 at age 22 as the naturalist on board and as an educated companion for the ship's captain. He wrote that he would regularly read the Bible to the crew. By the time he returned after seeing the evidence for speciation in fossils, on islands, an old age in the geology of the world, and in the diversity of life he encountered, he questioned species "immutability". A year after returning Darwin drew his famous "stick diagram" in 1837. In 1838 he read the population economist Thomas Malthus' 1797 Essay on the Principle of Population and Darwin's views on natural selection began to crystallize. He would rush his idea of natural selection into print in 1859 as an "abstract", "On the of Species by Natural Selection...", prompted by Alfred Russel Wallace contacting him with the same idea in 1858. Wallace had the idea of natural selection and speciation come to him while ill with a high malarial fever doing field work in the Malay Archipelago. Darwin and Wallace had their papers presented jointly outlining the idea of Evolution driven by the mechanism of Natural Selection in 1858 at London's Linnaean Society. Neither Darwin nor Wallace were the first to consider that species probably evolved. Lamarck and even Darwin's influential grandfather Erasmus Darwin had stated so. Several German biologists thought that species probably arose from other species. But Darwin and Wallace supplied a proposed mechanism for it, resulting in evolution being widely accepted by scientists within only a few years. We now know that natural selection is not the only mechanism driving evolution. See blogs on endosymbiosis and a note on horizontal gene transfer recently discovered with vertebrate eye evolution. Why do most know about Darwin and few about Wallace? Probably for several reasons. Darwin published Origin whereas Wallace continued his work mostly in biogeography. Darwin also had the idea documented in 1837, two decades before Wallace, and Wallace could never accept that evolution also applied to humans. Darwin published a later book, The Descent of Man in 1871. In addition, Wallace became very involved in spiritualism later in his life. Why did Darwin wait for 20 years to officially publish? That is debated still and some have mentioned his concerns over possible religious backlash; his supportive wife was religious. I suspect that it was more Darwin's compulsive wish to support his idea so soundly that it would convince scientists and the public of evolution. He was very detail oriented, and a great scientist. Being a wonderful father and husband certainly helps as our heroes often fail in those categories. Sir Harold Kroto, PhD, FRS. Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Conclusion It's not surprising that the Theory of Evolution by natural selection, and later other mechanisms for evolution, was so quickly accepted by scientists given the evidence and the theory's robust explanatory power. It's also not surprising that it still generates so much rejection, primarily from religious quarters. After all, the Theory of Evolution not only touches on proximal questions of life - why the pattern of fossils, why there are so many unique species in different parts of the world, why humans have vestigial ear muscles and a crazy recurrent laryngeal nerve, why people often behave the way they do, and how geology and species interact through time, etc., but also why we are here and what probably happens after we die. In terms of philosophical, theological, and existential questions evolution even impacts many areas not usually considered as having important scientific input. Cries come forward about "Darwinism" and "Scientism" being corrosive to our pursuit of understanding and invading traditional fields of human knowledge. I am amused at all the anti-evolution attacks against Darwin. "Darwinism" as a pejorative term is usually used. They attack him relentlessly as if evolution and Darwin are the same, falsely conflating the two. Darwin's incredible contribution was to show the main mechanism for evolution, natural selection. Recall the title of his book, his "abstract": "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection...". Even if it was determined that natural selection was not critical for evolution, the evidence for evolution would still be present and available for all to see. It's not going away. See sections on this web site that include whale evolution, shared ERVs, human chromosome 2 fusion and of course we have the fossil record and many clues that evolution happened as demonstrated with evolutionary compromises. Evolution as fact and theory stands even without Darwin and his mechanism of natural selection. Furthermore, I assert that the best worldviews are based on science, reason, humanistic values, and evolution. The theory of evolution, which is settled science, affects all of us in many ways and produces many consequences and ramifications. We cannot ignore in our search for understanding, in our expressions of art, music, and the humanities, and in philosophy of who we are, where we came from, and why we are here; why we think and act as we do. Science has revealed many answers to those discussions that have been ongoing for thousands of years. No longer will each generation need to start over and debate many of these same questions. It is perhaps a surprise that in discovering evolution science would have such an impact on so many varied areas of our lives, including intellectual activities in pursuit of many of the ultimate questions of life. "Evolution, of course, is not something that simply applies to life here on earth; it applies to the whole universe." ~ John Polkinghorne