UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

3 Full Author Name1, Full Author Name2, Full Author Name2, Full Author Name2,

4
1
5 Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, University of Santo Tomas, Manila

8 ABSTRACT

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Keywords:

25
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

26 INTRODUCTION

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 MATERIALS AND METHODS

34 The group's task was to operate Phylostrat to see how independent creation and evolution

35 work on lizards. First, the application was launched and a window with designer lizards appear.

36 Seven lizards of the same trait appeared at the top of the interface. The task was to add traits to

37 the lizards. To give the traits, the triangle below each's lizards tail was selected. The students

38 selected at least two or three traits per lizard. After designing the lizards, the hand tool was used

39 to drag the items around and the marker to draw in the window. The lizards were arranged so that

40 the ones with similar traits are close to each other. Then a red marker was used to encircle the

41 lizards that possess the first trait (dewlaps). Using the colors of the marker tool, it was used to

42 encircle the lizards that possess similar traits.

43 While the designer lizards window was left open, the evolving lizards were selected under

44 the menu button which showed one lizard at the bottom. The run button was then clicked and the

45 lizard slowly moved up the dragging line behind it. Once the line was long enough, the pause

46 button was clicked. While the simulation was paused, a trait was given and the simulation

47 continued. A label appeared in the line below the lizard which marked the point at which the trait

48 first showed. During the simulation, the actual lizard was clicked. This action splits the lizard each

49 representing a different species and the line dragging also splits. It demonstrated that both lizard

50 species inherited the trait that was chosen. The process was repeated to let the lizards evolve,
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

51 every so often traits were added and split the species until seven lizards show and all the traits

52 were selected. After the guided evolution of the seven lizard species, the marker tool was again

53 selected to encircle groups of lizards sharing the same traits which were the same process that

54 was used in the designer lizards the group designed before.

55 The next step was to compare that designer lizard and the evolved lizard. The windows

56 were switched back and forth. The difference in the way the lizards were grouped was observed.

57 The nature of the organization was also described. Thereafter, the challenge mode was selected.

58 This process was necessary to explore the importance of Darwin’s hypothesis. The challenge

59 button was chosen in the windows menu of Phylostrat. The challenge window presented seven

60 lizards of different traits and arrangements at the top of the interface and present below is the

61 label of the traits possessed by the lizards. The task at hand was to reassemble their evolutionary

62 history. The hand tool was used to assemble the lizards according to their trait and the marker toll

63 was utilized to draw the cladogram. The trait labels from the bottom of the window were also

64 dragged around to mark the appearance of the traits on the tree drawn.

65

66 RESULTS

67

68

69

70

71 DISCUSSION

72 Using phylostrat to simulate creationism and evolution through lizards is a good way to

73 compare these contrasting ideologies. Although there is no concrete answer, both creationism

74 science and evolutionary science do provide feasible pieces of evidence of how life on Earth
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

75 diversified and came to be. Using the simple traits of lizards, the students were able to utilize the

76 software effectively and were able to grasp the essence of the simulations presented.

77 There is a big difference between the evolutionary and design-based theories in terms of

78 how the lizards were organized according to morphological traits. Phylostrat shows that the

79 diversity of life is likely through evolution by descent with modification. The subsets formed by

80 lizards were organized systematically in the same method as to how the phylogenetic tree of life

81 was formed. It is evident in the evolving lizards the pattern of complexity as one ancestor with

82 simple traits, produced descendants of novel traits. Life exhibits this evolutionary trend as

83 organisms generally increase in size, complexity, and diversity (Caroll, 2001). From a single-

84 celled organism in the early years of Earth, life transcended, producing diverse organisms that

85 are known today. However, evolutionary trends do not always complexify organisms. Species

86 “devolve” as a response to changing the environment. Rather than having different traits, species

87 decreases their complexity to adapt better in the environment (Dougherty, 1998). An example of

88 “devolution” is seen on how snakes diverged from lizards as a result of the loss of limbs. Natural

89 selection enables species to enhance their abilities to utilize environmental resources efficiently,

90 attaining fitness (Hickman, et al., 2017, p.119).

91 Evolution has its drawbacks as some concepts are ambiguous. Evolutionists failed to

92 elaborate on these problems which led creationists to reject their theories. Paraphyly and

93 polyphyly in the phylogeny are the consequences of the ambiguity in evolution. Morphological

94 gaps are present in evolutionary studies (Norell & Clarke, 2001). Evolutionary biologists find it

95 hard to link taxa of extinct and extant species because of morphological gaps caused by

96 insufficient fossil records (Senter, 2010). An example of the morphological gap is the hypothesis

97 of Archaeopteryx being the evolutionary transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds. Another

98 reason why evolution is not accepted by creationists is the concept of convergent evolution.

99 Theoretically, homology is a result of inheritance from a common ancestor. However, homology

UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

100 does not apply to some species as the traits they possessed did not come from common descent

101 like birds, bats, and insects. Convergent evolution is a problem for evolution as it invalidates the

102 assumption of common descent (Brown, et al., 2014).

103 Creationism, as the adversary of evolution, is unlikely the key principle on the diversity of

104 life. Regardless of any religious belief in the concept of creation, proposing that life itself is created

105 through a design mechanism is an illogical action to oppose the undirected natural process of

106 evolution (Rusbult, 2002). It can be seen on phylostrat that the groups formed in the design-based

107 lizards are always dependent on the designer. This suggests that intelligent creation as coined

108 by Pennock (2003), is possible for the reason that a highly intelligent user can create an organized

109 group of lizards. Much like the theories of evolution, creation science fails to prove their ideology

110 as it lacks the evidence for discovering the “intelligent design”.

111

112 CONCLUSION

113
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

114 REFERENCES

115 CARROLL, S. B. (2001). Chance and necessity: The evolution of morphological

116 complexity and diversity. Nature, 409(6823), 1102–1109.
117 https://doi.org/10.1038/35059227
118
119 PENNOCK, R. T. (2003). C Reationism and I Ntelligent D Esign . Annual Review of
120 Genomics and Human Genetics, 4(1), 143–163.
121 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400
122
123 SENTER, P. (2010). Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: Application of a
124 creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of
125 coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(8), 1732–1743.
126 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x
127
128 DOUGHERTY, M. J. (1998, July 20). Is the human race evolving or devolving? Retrieved
129 February 9, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-human-
130 race-evolvin/
131
132 BROWN, P. D., STACKPOLE, R., LUSKIN, C., ROSS, H., MOORE, G., RANA, F., &
133 CHABAREK, M. (2014). More than myth?: seeking the full truth about Genesis,
134 creation and evolution. Place of publication not identified: Chartwell Press.
135
136 RUSBULT, C. (2002). Definitions and Comparisons in. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from
137 https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/logic.htm
138
139 NORELL, M. A., & CLARKE, J. A. (2001). Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian
140 evolution. Nature, 409(6817), 181–184. doi: 10.1038/35051563
141

142