Don't think of evolution as a linear progression from apes to human, and don't pit it as the opposite of religion, said a Cornell evolution lecturer Feb. 8 at Cornell's Lab of Ornithology in celebration of Charles Darwin's 202nd birthday this week.

"Why is it that so few people in our country, but not necessarily other countries, accept the notion that evolution occurs and that humans are the result of that process?" asked Michael Webster, associate professor of neurobiology and behavior, as part of this year's Darwin Days. His lecture focused on misperceptions of evolution.

"This is a topic near and dear to my heart," said Webster, who studies evolutionary causes and consequences of variation in reproductive behavior.

"This is how most people think of evolution," said Webster, showing a picture depicting an apelike creature evolving into a human. "The implication here is that evolutionists and evolutionary biology contend that evolution is progressive and linear ... get this idea of evolution out of your head."

Rather, he explained, evolution acts as a diversification mechanism through descent with modification, speciation and natural selection.

He also suggested that since Darwin, the theory of evolution has evolved. "Darwin's theory of natural selection didn't go very far -- it was not a very widely accepted theory in scientific circles until the 20th century, when it was married with Mendelian genetics," Webster said. Since then, the scope of evolution has expanded to include such scientific perspectives as molecular evolution and "evo devo," the evolution of developmental systems.

While some contend that evolutionary biology is a weak theory, "nothing can be further from the truth," said Webster. "There are ... many decades of research by many researchers that not only show that evolution has occurred but try to unlock the ways that it does."

Webster touched upon a sampling of the vast amount of evidence for evolution, including Darwin's Galapagos finches, similarities between the physiologies and DNA sequences of varying species and the presence of nonfunctional ancestral traits in species, such as the presence of eyes in blind cave salamanders. Webster discussed in some detail evidence for the ascent of birds from dinosaurs, such as the discovery of fossilized remains of the archaeopteryx, a transitional creature with dinosaur and birdlike characteristics.

Another misperception, he said, is that "there is a lot of scientific debate about evolution," noting that the scientific community is mostly in agreement about evolution. The real debate about evolution, he emphasized, is whether evolution should be taught in schools and whether creationism deserves equal time.

"Taking a non-controversy and pretending its controversial reinforces this [mis]perception in young children's minds," said Webster. "So with all due respect, I don't agree that both [creationism and evolution] should be taught in science classes. You might want to teach creationism in other kinds of classes, but not a science class."

Finally, Webster emphasized that the most important misperception of evolution is that it is atheistic. "It's often pitted this way: Darwin or God," Webster said. "There are many scientists that have a diversity of beliefs about religion. A lot of theologians and philosophers are really starting to promote the idea that there is not a conflict between evolutionary biology and religion."

Rather, the two should never be in conflict because science only speaks for itself, not for theology. "A scientist can tell you how nature works, and that's how we make our living and that's our business. We cannot tell you whether God did it or not," said Webster.

Michelle Spektor '12 is a writer intern for the Cornell Chronicle.