Your Views: Biological evolution differs from changes in autos
This is in response to the article about a car show serving as a “metaphor for evolution” (Page 1A, Sept. 27). While I appreciated the teacher’s creativity to stimulate his students’ interest in science, I question the wisdom of comparing development of the automobile to biological evolution. Outwardly, we can see some analogy, but the inner workings of biological evolution are very different.
Whereas changes in the automobile are brought about by the ingenuity of several generations of inventors, the alleged evolution of living beings is much more complex. We can see the vast varieties within species (canines, bovines or human beings), and scientists have learned how to manipulate the genetic make-up of plants and animals so as to bring about wonderful improvements in the productivity of many. This is what I understand to be “micro-evolution,” or changes within species. But “macro-evolution,” the development of new species, is still an unproven theory. For all the genetic manipulation done on fruit flies, they’re still fruit flies.
While numerous correlations exist between species (the vision capacities of eagles, deer, and mankind, etc.), such functional similarities do not prove a biological relationship. Likewise, the incremental changes between the first horseless buggy and a modern Porsche could be called “evolution,” but such was brought about by human engineering and not “evolutionary laws.”
Personally, I believe God is the ultimate “engineer” who created the entire universe, and in the endless wonders of nature, he reveals some of his wisdom and power.
ROY C. ANDERSON