Subscription Center
Feb 2, 2009 05:25 PM | 18
Editor's Note: This post is also appearing at the American Institute for Biological Sciences' Year of Science 2009: Celebrate Evolution. For more on Darwin's 200th birthday, see our January 2009 issue on evolution.
"If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone ever had, I'd give it to Darwin." So wrote philosopher Daniel Dennett in his 1995 book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. "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."
Dennett's musing really hits home to anyone who took introductory biology that did not include evolution: such a course is a giant survey of the different kinds of plants, animals and other organisms of our planet, tied together by a single principle--you needed to know it for the final. But evolution by natural selection ties all life together with process and chemistry. As the great biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously, and correctly, said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
The idea itself is fairly easy to grasp (which may be one reason why people who would never dream of finding fault with Einstein feel qualified to dispute Darwin): in populations of organisms, each individual is a bit different from every other; the differences may give that individual a bit of a survival advantage; that individual is more likely to pass on the traits that helped it survive; that trait becomes more widespread; rinse; repeat. In a few hundred million years, you can go from amoebae to elephants (and still have amoebae).
Of course, in the decades since the publication of Origin of Species, scientists have learned much more about the evolutionary process than Darwin could have dreamed of. Genes get duplicated; chromosomes get rearranged; viruses shuttle genetic information from one species directly to another; individual genes govern the activity of other genes. But Darwin got much of the overall picture right--a remarkable achievement for a man working with whole organisms, before the unraveling of heredity on the molecular level of DNA.
A line from early in the Origin, published in 1859, reveals how he did it. "On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question [of the origin of species] by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it." In other words, collect a lot of data and then think about it long and hard. Imagine what the world might be like if, say, politicians or financial analysts adopted that philosophy.
The incorporation of genetics into evolutionary theory in the first half of the 20th century led to what is called "the modern synthesis." Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin's friend and defender Thomas Henry Huxley, discussed DNA in relation to evolution in 1963. After a brief review of the structural characteristics of DNA, Huxley writes, "The various properties of DNA which I have mentioned make evolution inevitable. The existence of an elaborate self-reproducing code of genetical information ensures continuity and specificity; the intrinsic capacity for mutation provides variability; the capacity for self-reproduction ensures potentially geometric increase and therefore a struggle for existence; the existence of genetic variability ensures differential survival of variants and therefore natural selection; and this results in evolutionary transformation." Voila.
You'll be hearing a lot about Darwin in 2009. In addition to it being the 150th anniversary of the debut of the Origin, February 12th of this year is the bicentennial of his birth. (Were he one of the tortoises he studied on the Galapagos Islands, he might even still be here to celebrate it--a tortoise probably collected by Darwin himself lived until 2006.) So happy 200th, Charles Darwin! There is indeed "grandeur in this view of life," a view he bequeathed to all of us.
Photo of Steve Mirsky coming out of his shell at the Bronx Zoo by Molly Frances
Tags:
evolution,
darwin
More News Blog:
Next: India promises $10 laptops for students
Previous: Obama orders review of FDA in wake of salmonella outbreak
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ Program For Upcoming Evolution Conference Released http://t.co/MOayah6hMT
TetZoo Very simplified #reptile cladogram I'm using for bracketing reasons. #Rio #pterosaur conference.... http://t.co/Ta1v9gVU8M
EricROlson Farm Equipment That Runs on Oats http://t.co/Yst4TzDkjm #longreads @nytimes
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
18 Comments
Add CommentNinety-five per cent of what is being taught as evolution, no one disagrees with. It is observable, testable, and can be reproduced in the laboratory. However, a lot of very intelligent people may be making very good observations, but they are coming to the wrong conclusions. It is that last five per cent that includes their conclusions that has absolutely no evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the "Big Bang" hardly ever mentioned in textbooks today? Because the evolutionists have tried to prove how it could happen through natural processes without the existence of space, time, matter, and energy and have failed. The latest attempt was a "vacuum fluctuation." This was being hailed as the answer. However, it was said to take place in a moment of time (time didn't exist yet), from a spot no bigger than a dime (space didn't exist yet), a vacuum is the absence of matter (but it requires the existence of matter), a fluctuation requires energy, when none was supposed to exist. Their attempts at explaining the existence of the universe through natural processes violates the laws of thermodynamics, cause and effect, and the conservation of angular momentum to name a few.
Why are they trying to speak of biogenesis in terms of a theory now, instead of a scientific law? It has been considered a scientific law for over 100 years. So they can teach the students abiogenesis on equal ground with biogenesis. In the textbooks they say that biogenesis (life only comes from other life) doesn't really answer the question: "Where did life come from?," and of course they believe it evolved from non-life. Well, actually, the Law of Biogenesis does tell us one thing about life, it didn't come from non-life, that much we know. So forget abiogenesis. It has never been observed, all that is observed is biogenesis. Only one of these is scientific.
Do you know what their response has been to their failures in proving the big bang and abiogenesis through natural processes? They say that the big bang and abiogenesis aren't really evolution anyway. So we'll just start with a life form that is fully formed and can reproduce itself, and go from there. After all, evolution is really about being able to adapt and survive. So, that other stuff isn't really important to the theory anyhow. Why do they get a free pass up to that point? No life form could adapt to changes in the invironment if biological properties did not already exist to allow for that type of change. A life form cannot produce new biological properties to meet adaptational needs. That is a fact.
Fact: Almost all mutations are harmful and cause a net loss of genetic information over time. Fact: Natural selection almost always prevents change. Fact: Mutations are almost always the least likely to survive. Fact: These two negative mechanisms are given as the driving force behind evolution that results in an upward accumuilation of complexity and information over time, when in reality it is just the opposite.
Fact: Speciation takes place. Ex: 450 or so kinds of dogs. Fact: Speciation is often the result of a net loss of genetic information over time. Fact: Advanced speciation often produces sterility in the species. Fact: Students are taught that advanced speciation produces greater complexity and increased genetic information over time. In fact, a brand new kind. Fact: Speciation doesn't work that way.
Before Charles Darwin ever went on his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he read the writings of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin on evolution. He took with him the first volume of Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell. While on the voyage Lyell sent him the two later volumes. Looking through evolutionary eyes he observed 14 different kinds of finches and arrived at the conclusion that they had a common ancestor, and it was a tomato or a pine tree. He made good observations, but came to the wrong conclusions.
Evolutionary scientists today observe dogs producing different kinds of dogs, and roses producing different kinds of roses, and arrive at the conclusion that the dog and the rose had a common ancestor, and it was a rock. There are no clear transitional forms alive today. There are no clear transitional fossils proving it happened in the past. The only place faith meets facts for the evolutionist, is when they draw their conclusions, and faith always wins out over fact.
The evolutionist says there is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design. But when they observe the human and his ability to see, hear, smell, taste, think, our blood-clotting system, nervous system, respiratory system, etc. their conclusion is, we are the result of random chance mutations that did not have us in mind. Good observations, very strange conclusions.
If the DNA from one human being was beamed in from outer space, the scientists at SETI would go nuts. Why, that would be absolute proof that there is intelligence out there. I think it would be better proof that many are not putting the intelligence they have down here to good use. Both the evolutionist and the creationist exercise faith. But only one of their faiths actually fits the facts.
In Search of the Truth,
Arv Edgeworth
Fact: Saying fact in front of something doesn't make it a fact. Fact: Anyone can claim something is a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour lack of understanding of evolution is on proud display in your response. Any high school science class should be able to cure that problem for you. Just because you want the big bang and abiogenesis to be tied to evolution doesn't mean it must be so. If you want to talk about evolution - stick to it - though I'd recommend you do just a bit of research that isn't pasting false facts that have been answered too many times by the scientific community. If you want to talk about a naturalistic worldview I'd recommend you then do at least a little more research on the big bang and abiogenesis so you don't continue to come off as completely ignorant.
Your post reeks of intellectual laziness - or willful ignorance. In my opinion willful ignorance should always be called what it is - stupidity. You haven't bothered to actually try to learn about what you're so quick to reject. Congratulations for contributing nothing but white noise to the body of human understanding. You are a perfect example of how our education system is failing all of us.
As someone who has faith that there was intelligent design I have to say that the acutal papers trying to prove it were mathimatically poor work. The statements went something like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: Most people die from NOT smoking.
That is based on two facts. First most people do not smoke. Second everyone dies. However there is no control group to prove the realationship between the two facts. Combining two facts does not make a new fact without proof of the relationship. This is the kind of work that was done in the intelligent design studies although in a mathmatical way.
As far as "existence of the universe through natural processes violates the laws of thermodynamics, cause and effect, and the conservation of angular momentum to name a few" look into quantium mechanics. There is enough room there for atheists, faithful, and smurfs to all coexists,
As far as "ability to see, hear, smell, taste, think, our blood-clotting system, nervous system, respiratory system". The ability to see evolved seperately at least 5 seperate times. The ability to sense magnetic fields evolves at least 3 seperate times. First were we not good enough to have magnetic field detection? Second the point about evolving many times proves adaptability. Organisms adapt to the abunance of light in the wavelengths they are most strong in and the magenetic world we happen to live on.
If anything scientific discovery has been a humblining force. Why knock down the tower of babble when you can show that it is much less signficant than an anthill.
Intelligent design and faith (including the faith of atheism) need to be discussed in schools. They were fundemental to the formation of our country, our history, and our species. But they should be covered under civics or history not science which is the study of the observable not the confinment of interpetation.
Also the transfer from science to development of new morals is folly. The "most fit survive" is too weak a summary. During extinction events the small tend to survive. Sickle cell anemia helps prevent malaria. The lesson from evolution is that "the most fit for current conditions thrive but conditions can change abruptly".
Intelligent design is just code for creationism, so why hide behind it? If you are confident in your beliefs then come out and say it. But don't try to impose your will by getting a supposedly sterile version of them into science class. Intelligent design does not pass the first test of being a valid scientific theory, so it should never be held up as a competing theory with evolution or the Big Bang. Partly because when it is really held up as such it fails miserably, so be careful what you wish for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to say that we don't yet know everything about evolution or the first few milliseconds of the universe after the Big Bang, or the final seconds for that matter. We have a lot to learn, but not having learned these things yet is not an argument refuting what we have learned already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: The dimmest people are the most verbose.
PeterT
And, the most verbose people all too often make it into the bright light of fawning attention,... which in turn, ironically produces more dimness. Go figure! :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no "Law of cause and effect".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no "Law of biogenesis".
Mutations do not necessarily decrease genetic information.
The Big Bang doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.
There are plenty of transitional fossils detailing the evolution of horses, whales, birds, and hominids to name a few.
The errors in your post go on and on. It seems there's always someone like you to fill up forums with this kind of mindless creationist drivel. Your "facts" are nothing more than discredited creationist rhetoric.
You have no clue what the Big Bang is, much less how current theory deals with it, and your contention that it has been abandoned by physicists is flat wrong.
In fact, you demonstrate abysmal lack of knowledge about physics, as well as biology in general. Have you taken even a single course in either subject or do you get all your information from creationist tracts?
From the absurdities in your post I'd guess that you're a plumber. Or a bicycle messenger. Or a migrant fruit picker. Why on earth do you think you can contradict experts in these fields, when you're so poorly informed? Doesn't it embarrass you?
aedgeworth: "In fact, a brand new kind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour use of the distinctly non-science term 'kind' is a dead giveaway. I'm sniffing a Hovindism here. And your determined prefacing of each paragraph with the word 'fact' doesn't work on SciAm. Rather, it gives the impression that, although you know that what you are saying is bogus, you are a tad too anxious to cover yourself. For the rest, your comments are fallacious and unsubstantiated pseudo-science. I suggest that you stick to posting on Biblical creationist websites, where such comments will find a less savvy and more gullible readership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin Admits he Did not Originate the Theory of Natural Selection
Here's a quote from Darwin that has ben convenient;y ignored!
Now for a curious thing about my Book..In last Saturday's Gardeners' Chronical ,a Mr Patrick Matthew publishes a long extract from his work on Navel Timbers and Arboriculture published in 1831,in which he briefly,but completely anticipates the theory of natural selection.(Darwin letter to Lyell 2754,10 April,1860), (Search Google for "wainwrightscience" for more details).Dr Milton Wainwright,Dept.Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,University of Sheffield,UK
Some people can add 2+2=10....and that's it. No question...end of story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven when I think I'm right, It's smart to keep the back door ajar, just in case...
Thanks for this. It took me 20 minutes to stop the tears of laughter. I have never read such ill-informed, self-righteous tosh. What "textbooks" have you been reading?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr. Edgewood I applaud your essay and congratulate you on your fact based conclusion. I also applaud your knowledge and eloquence. With your approval I would like to refer to you article when confronted by adamant anti-creationists. many Thanks---Artubtu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know nothing about the current theories of the big bang, or what came before it. Good think that it did happen though, now you have the tima and space to waste posting that reply. It's a shame that the SCIAM servers have to host gibberish like that. There should be a filter for that sort of ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see it being easy refuting science on things such as global warming, they are new and haven't been thurougly tested with time (50 years really isnt that much). But to copy and paste such ignorance and spam a science forum on EVOLUTION! You are biting off more than you can chew. I see you know this because you have yet to defend any of your rediculous statements. Maybe its worth the effort to spam on a bunch of forums hoping an idiot reads it....I dont know what GOD did for you that was so worth destroying your credibility, but it must have been good to turn your mind aginst all the hard evidence that he created around you.
BANG. Youre startdust and thats all! Its a shame we all share the same ancestral matter.
To Aedgeworth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: just because you can write an insanely long section under an article doesn't make you the least bit intelligent.
1) it means you have no life
2) It means you think everyone actually gives a shit what you think
3) Don't try and say anything about the Big Bang, unless you are a genius like Darwin. If you are going to leave bullshit on an article, leave it on something other than Darwin.
Sincerely, ImmaculateSpearhead
@ Artu: Who in the world are 'adamant anti-creationists', exactly? You have scientists who practice their science. Personal religious beliefs play no part in the sciences, whose stance is neutral on such issues. And you have Biblical literalists, who perceive their beliefs as being threatened by specific areas of scientific knowledge. To comment as you do, I presume that you group yourself with the latter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also be interested to know of your own experience in the sciences which leads you to conclude that the distinctly unscientific comments by aedgeworth are 'fact based'. This commenter commits the scientific faux pas of assuming that a theory in science is of a less worthy hierarchy than a law. Nonsense. A scientific theory can actually contain a law, as you also would know were you conversant with these matters.
Greetings all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and faith might coexist beautifully were it not for political/religious extremism.
The creationism/ID lobby seeks to establish their sectarian interpretation of faith over physical evidence by promoting as science an astonishing religious error which actually contradicts the Bible!.
This teaching claims that evolution by natural processes, including what both creationists and IDers continually label blind chance (random occurrence), could only be accidental , and therefore godless. In this they agree with the atheist position.
Why this current marriage of convenience, agreeing with atheism against the Bible, in order to promote a religious agenda? Might it be because this heretical tactic permits them to deny the possibility of guided evolution through chance?
This startling and contradictory machination is carefully explained here:
Intelligent Design Rules Out Gods Sovereignty Over Chance
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34289
What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI humbly suggest:
Darwin Extended Beyond His Own Horizon,
and
Rethought Unified Field Theory And Evolution
in
"EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200"
at
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407
Dov Henis Feb. 16, 2009 sciencenews.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI humbly suggest:
Darwin Extended Beyond His Own Horizon,
and
Rethought Unified Field Theory And Evolution
in
"EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200"
at
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407
Dov Henis Feb. 16, 2009 sciencenews.org