# Tell us what you know about the theory of evolution without using anything but your own brain. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419 "2010-01-10T19:51:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/161 "2010-01-14T22:54:25Z")
I’m not sure what the value is in considering the label “monkey” to apply to a paraphyletic taxon. If you get down into the technical details, then it’s simpler to deal with the clades, so it’d be preferable to consider the clade of (common ancestor of old-world and new-world monkeys and all of its descendants), rather than the taxon consisting of that clade less the great apes. And if you don’t get down to the technical details, the common usage is to consider apes to be monkeys. There’s only a narrow layer of pedantry, insufficiently technical to prefer the cladistic view but insufficiently common to accept the common view, that maintains that the term “monkey” should exclude apes. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/162 "2010-01-14T22:58:45Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > This is perhaps a layperson vs. specialist thing, but humans are not fish, even though we are descended from fish. So why are birds dinosaurs just because they descended from dinosaurs? I think the wikipedia article on [paraphyly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyly)may help. Also the one on [cladistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics). I would try to summarize but I have not yet convinced myself that my understanding is sufficiently rigorous. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/163 "2010-01-14T23:02:26Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Cesario** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > These were the steps they explained to me in my earliest biology course, and obviously they were a simplification. I simply assumed that was the phrasing of the original theory due to the way it was presented. > > **ITR champion** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Natural selection occurs by Darwin’s six steps: organisms over-reproduce, not all organisms survive, variations exist, those variations are inherited, certain variations make an individual more fit, and as a result whole populations become more fit. Sexual selection occurs when a certain trait makes an individual more likely to mate and reproduce. > > You appear to be correct. I suppose I quibble over what is meant by “over reproduce”? Create more offspring than the number of parents (i.e. more than one offspring per parent per lifetime)? Creating more offspring than the environmental resources can support if they all survived to adulthood? Creating enough offspring that the population increases even after all limits (e.g. predation) are taken into consideration? What Darwin actually said was this: > [@Charles Darwin](#): > > A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them. So, it’s not really the case that organisms over-reproduce, but rather _if every individual grew to adulthood, the resulting population would be unsustainable_. However, they do _not_ all reach adulthood, because there is competition between the offspring and their siblings, conspecifics, or neighboring species (and even with “the physical conditions of life”) to actually obtain the resources necessary to do. So the “over-reproduction” is with respect to the finite resources available in a given place and time, rather than a raw number. > [@Irishman](#): > > **Superfluous Parentheses** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > **We are apes, and apes are monkeys.** Going back further, matters get more confused, but that is purely due to our poor nomenclature - we’re also mammals etc etc - just like birds appear to be a subset of dinosaurs. It’s just that much of the intermediate groupings are poorly defined and/or don’t actually exist except in our head. The common descent of our species all the way back to fish at least is pretty clear. > > This is perhaps a layperson vs. specialist thing, but humans are not fish, even though we are descended from fish. So why are birds dinosaurs just because they descended from dinosaurs? From a strict cladist viewpoint, humans are, indeed, fish (specifically, sarcopterygian fish). Birds are, too. Humans are primates \< mammals \< synapsids \< amniotes \< tetrapods \< sarcopterygians \< osteichthyes. Birds are theropods \< saurischians \< dinosaurs \< archosaurs \< reptiles \< synapsids \< amniotes \< tetrapods \< sarcopterygians \< osteichthyes (with several other important branches omitted in both cases, of course). Basically, you can’t say anything about sarcopterygian fish (or the more general category of osteichthyes) that doesn’t _also_ pertain to humans or birds, because we all share uniting characteristics (which, of course, is a product of our common ancestry). ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/164 "2010-01-14T23:40:23Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > Birds are theropods \< saurischians \< dinosaurs \< archosaurs \< reptiles \< **synapsids** \< amniotes \< tetrapods \< sarcopterygians \< osteichthyes Uh…birds are sauropsids, not synapsids. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/165 "2010-01-15T00:17:59Z")
I look at it from the practical view point. When penicillin first came out it was a wonder drug against all forms of disease. As the years have gone by, it has lost its effect on may of these diseases. Syphilis is one example of this. There are some syphilis infections that are resistant to penicillin. The penicillin is the same, so the disease must have changed. How did it change if not for evolution? Same applies for TB and a number of other diseases. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/166 "2010-01-15T07:33:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m not sure what the value is in considering the label “monkey” to apply to a paraphyletic taxon. If you get down into the technical details, then it’s simpler to deal with the clades, so it’d be preferable to consider the clade of (common ancestor of old-world and new-world monkeys and all of its descendants), rather than the taxon consisting of that clade less the great apes. And if you don’t get down to the technical details, the common usage is to consider apes to be monkeys. There’s only a narrow layer of pedantry, insufficiently technical to prefer the cladistic view but insufficiently common to accept the common view, that maintains that the term “monkey” should exclude apes. So you’re in favour of redefining “monkey” to be synonymous with the clade “simian” - it’s a valid point of view, I can respect it, even if I don’t agree that it should be so or that it is, in fact, the “common view” of sufficiently educated people - my 5 YO can easily tell you the difference between monkeys and apes (“only monkeys have tails, silly:rolleyes:”\*). I’m OK with the existence of paraphyletic taxons for everyday descriptions - like the common use of “reptiles” which excludes “birds”, or the taxon “algae” which jumps whole kingdoms. ETA: that would be her rolling her eyes at me, not me at you. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/167 "2010-01-15T07:42:48Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > From a strict cladist viewpoint, humans are, indeed, fish (specifically, sarcopterygian fish). I’d take issue with this - from a strict view, humans \*are \*class Sarcopterygii (and superclass Osteichthyes), but they are \*not \*fish, because “fish” is _not_ a clade, but a paraphyletic group. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/168 "2010-01-15T17:02:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’d take issue with this - from a strict view, humans \*are \*class Sarcopterygii (and superclass Osteichthyes), but they are \*not \*fish, because “fish” is _not_ a clade, but a paraphyletic group. I think you mean polyphyletic. “Fish” isn’t a clade, but “sarcopterygian fish” can definitely be considered a clade (indeed, Sarcopterygii is typically referred to as “fleshy-finned fishes”, vs. the “ray-finned fishes” which make up Actinopterygii). “Fish”, taken by itself, however, is polyphyletic, since it’s basically a haphazard grouping of all “swimmy things with fins”, which includes everything from early vertebrates to gnathostomes to chondrichthyes, and the more traditionally-fishy teleosts, while excluding several other related groups. So sure, there’s no actual “fish” clade, but there are “fleshy-finned fish” and “ray-finned fish”, just as there’s no actual “monkey” clade, yet there are “new world monkeys” (Platyrrhini) and “old world monkeys” (Cercopithecidae). And I’m surprised that you use both clades and Linnaean ranks, to be honest… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/169 "2010-01-15T19:05:07Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > I think you mean polyphyletic. Nope, I mean _para_phyletic, as I understand it viz. a group that contains all “fish” up to their last common ancestor also contains things that are not “fish” viz. all the tetrapods. But that last common ancestor was probably a fish, too (i.e. a swimmy finned thing). For it to be polyphyletic, it’d have to \*exclude \*the ancestor and be a wholly artificial grouping (like grouping birds, pterosaurs and bats together as “flyers” when their last common ancestor was not a “flyer”). > [@](#): > > “Fish” isn’t a clade, but “sarcopterygian fish” can definitely be considered a clade I agree that “sarcopterygian fish” is a clade, actually. > [@](#): > > And I’m surprised that you use both clades and Linnaean ranks, to be honest… These things happen when dragging non-cladistic systems like “fish” or the like into things. We use what works and gets the message across, don’t we? The Linnean stuff still has some meaning to impart, even if it’s not always the best way. Not by first choice, of course, I’d prefer a straight cladistic approach without ambiguity. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/170 "2010-01-15T19:51:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Nope, I mean _para_phyletic, as I understand it viz. a group that contains all “fish” up to their last common ancestor also contains things that are not “fish” viz. all the tetrapods. But that last common ancestor was probably a fish, too (i.e. a swimmy finned thing). > For it to be polyphyletic, it’d have to \*exclude \*the ancestor and be a wholly artificial grouping (like grouping birds, pterosaurs and bats together as “flyers” when their last common ancestor was not a “flyer”). In general, a paraphyletic grouping can be expressed as “clade A - clade B”. E.g., “non-avian dinosaurs”, which is composed of all dinosaurs except for birds. For fish, it depends on where the clade for fish “begins”. You could say, for example, that “fish = Craniata - Tetrapoda”, but there are a lot of pre-Craniata chordates that look pretty fishy. And you also have hagfish in there, looking all snakey and non-fishy. If you move it back to Chordata, then you also have the decidely-un-fishlike tunicates mucking up your definition (that is, fish = Chordata - Urichordata & - Tetrapoda). If we go by Wikipedia’s defintion, “a fish is any aquatic vertebrate animal that is covered with scales, and equipped with two sets of paired fins and several unpaired fins.” then we are still leaving out a bunch of critters (basically, anything before placoderms [since placoderms were the first major group to have two sets of paired fins], despite their decidedly fish-like appearance). So, to my mind, since “fish” cannot easily be expressed as “clade A - clade B”, they are more poly- than paraphyletic. That may or may not be strictly true, but that’s my take on it. It can potentially be made paraphyletic by stating “fish” = Gnathostomata - Tetrapoda, but that remains unsatisfying to me because of all the fishy stuff between Chordata and Gnathostomata. I’m not even sure it’s possible to define fish using a crown-based definition (“the common ancestor of Taxon A and Taxon B, plus all its descendants”), since no matter what you pick, you’re probably not going back far enough unless you make it so general that that it becomes synonymous with Vertebrata. The traditional definition of fish, it seems to me, is more gradistic than cladistic. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/171 "2010-01-15T20:12:36Z")
Fish are Craniata - Tetrapoda, at least to me. And hagfish are “fish” just as much as lampreys are. And I think it’s a bit disingeneous for you to take Wiki’s first, simplest definition when the next section goes on to say:[ > [@](#): > > The term “fish” **most precisely** describes any non-tetrapod craniate (i.e. an animal with a skull and in most cases a backbone) that has gills throughout life and whose limbs, if any, are in the shape of fins. ]([Fish - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish#Diversity_of_fish))Exactly what you say you don’t agree with. Note also where it says: > [@](#): > > Fish are a **paraphyletic** group: that is, any clade containing all fish also contains the tetrapods, which are not fish. My emphases. Just do a google search - there are _no_ relevant results for “fish are a polyphyletic group”, whereas “fish are a paraphyletic group” returns 33 000 hits. If even 1% of those have relevance, that’s a lot more than think fish are polyphyletic. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/172 "2010-01-15T20:23:09Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > The traditional definition of fish, it seems to me, is more gradistic than cladistic. I agree with this. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/173 "2010-01-15T21:02:37Z")
Disingenuous? Wha? I was just using that definition as another possibility. Geez, I thought this was just a friendly disagreement… So long as you consider conodonts “fish” and critters like _Pikaia_ as non-fish, then I agree that fish is paraphyletic. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/174 "2010-01-15T21:23:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Fish are Craniata - Tetrapoda, at least to me. And hagfish are “fish” just as much as lampreys are. > > And I think it’s a bit disingeneous for you to take Wiki’s first, simplest definition when the next section goes on to say:[ I would also like to point out that Wikipedia [url="[Diversity of fish - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_of_fish)’]disagrees with itself]([Fish - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish#Diversity_of_fish)) on this definition: > [@](#): > > The term “fish” describes any non-tetrapod **chordate** , (i.e., an animal with a backbone), that has gills throughout life and has limbs, if any, in the shape of fins. So on the one hand, they are Craniates - Tetrapods, on the other they are Chordates - Tetrapods. And it uses the same source as the cite for both! They go on to discuss whether the so-called “jawless fishes” are actually fish or not, despite the fact that many are basal gnathostomes, and those are quite definitely craniates. And that hagfish are “the only fish which aren’t vertebrates”, when they just said that “fish” goes all the way back to Chordata! Not that I’m using this to discount what you said, just that Wikipedia itself seems a bit confused on the matter. It’s entirely possible that the Chordate reference is in error. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/175 "2010-01-15T22:33:24Z")
Since this thread is about what you know about evolution from just your own head, let me just say that classification is one of those things with which I am insuffficiently informed. I’ll try reading the links. Regarding terminology, just remember that sometimes scientists take existing terms and then mangle them to suit their own needs, such that the modern scientific use does not necessarily bear any relation to the common use. An example might be “planet” or “star”, for instance, and “dinosaur” also fits that category. Was watching a science program on History Channel last night that mentioned the time when the “dinosaurs ruled the land and the sky”. It’s my understanding that most of the flying things at that time were not what is currently classified as dinosaurs, even though they were big, scaly, scary things. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/176 "2010-01-15T22:49:47Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Regarding terminology, just remember that sometimes scientists take existing terms and then mangle them to suit their own needs, such that the modern scientific use does not necessarily bear any relation to the common use. An example might be “planet” or “star”, for instance, and “dinosaur” also fits that category. It’s not so much an attempt to mangle the terms, but to standardize them. if everyone has their own personal definition of what a “monkey” or “ape” or “dinosaur” is, then it becomes difficult to discuss any of these groups without lengthy explanations as to which definition, exactly, you are using. And if folks don’t agree on definitions, then discussion effectively goes nowhere. For the most part, scientists agree on their definitions. The problem, really, is that the public awareness of changes in terminology lags behind the “official” acceptance. So, while paleontologists can agree on what a dinosaur is (or is not), popular culture still lumps pterosaurs, _Dimetrodon_ (which wasn’t even a Mesozoic animal!), plesiosaurs and mosasaurs as “dinosaurs”. The trick is getting all of this out to the general public (who, I think, seems to be coming around to the whole “birds are dinosaurs” thing finally, albeit slowly). > [@](#): > > Was watching a science program on History Channel last night that mentioned the time when the “dinosaurs ruled the land and the sky”. It’s my understanding that most of the flying things at that time were not what is currently classified as dinosaurs, even though they were big, scaly, scary things. While there were certainly flying birds around during the Cretaceous, the Mesozoic fliers most folks are familiar with were pterosaurs. Which, while not currently considered dinosaurs, were certainly closely related to them. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/177 "2010-01-16T07:19:26Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > Disingenuous? Wha? I was just using that definition as another possibility. Geez, I thought this was just a friendly disagreement… I wasn’t trying to be unfriendly, honest. Sorry about that. I apologise completely, both for the word and the tone. I think I was just a little miffed that you quoted a Wiki article that says _right there_ that fish are para. > [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > So long as you consider conodonts “fish” and critters like _Pikaia_ as non-fish, then I agree that fish is paraphyletic. Well, I do. Conodonts are definitely in, since the latest discoveries (South African, too! I’m quite chuffed) point to a lamprey/hagfish-like physiology, and Pikaia is definitely out, like lancets. I agree that Wiki is confusing - perhaps because Craniata is such a new grouping? I’ve tried looking up the reference, but my nearest library doesn’t have the 2006 edition yet, damn it. Call themselves a University! ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/178 "2010-01-16T18:31:48Z")
**Proof of Martians ‘to come this year’** \*\*Final proof that [Mars](http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=mars) has bred life will be confirmed this year, leading NASA experts believe. The historic discovery will come not on Mars itself but from chunks of the red planet here on Earth. \*\*David McKay, chief of astrobiology at NASA’s Johnson Space Centre in Houston, says powerful new microscopes and other instruments will establish whether features in martian meteorites are alien fossils. He says evidence for life in the space rocks could have been claimed by the UK if British scientists had used readily-available electron microscopes. Instead, images of colonies of martian bacteria were collected by American scientists. The NASA team is already convinced that [colonies of micro-organisms are visible inside three martian rocks](http://news.skymania.com/2009/11/ancient-martians-were-carried-to-earth.html) that landed on Earth. If so, this would have profound implications for our understanding of life in the universe. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-of-martians-to-come-this-year-2010-01](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-of-martians-to-come-this-year-2010-01) Assuming they discover biological stuuf in these rocks, how will this affect the views of the people who don’t believe in evolution? Will this just be another test that god made to test the faith of true believers? ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419/179 "2010-01-16T18:49:09Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > \*\* > > Assuming they discover biological stuuf in these rocks, how will this affect the views of the people who don’t believe in evolution? It is a miracle! God made life on other planets 6,000 years ago too! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-us-what-you-know-about-the-theory-of-evolution-without-using-anything-but-your-own-brain/524419.md?page=8)