Alan Boyle has a roundup of links about Darwin’s birthday. I don’t have much to say right now, except that his theory is probably the most controversial, and most misunderstood (and most powerful as well, in many senses) in the history of science.
26 thoughts on “Happy Birthday, Chuck!”
Comments are closed.
In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Dan Dennett brilliantly describes it as “corrosive” — eating away not (as the anti-Darwinians would have it) at our values, but at our belief that the natural world must provide support or sanction for those values. I think that goes to the heart of it.
I don’t know what is “corrosive” about these ideas. A little observation will reveal considerable beauty and ugliness in both the natural world and human society. Darwin’s ideas don’t change that. Further, our values have already evolved in close contact with the natural world. So I don’t see knowing more about evolution changing that.
Some religious beliefs focus on the uniqueness or superiority of humans (or particular groups of humans). Again, evolution may indicate that humans have evolved from “lesser” animals, but it doesn’t contradict any opinions of superiority or uniqueness. The descendants of the current Queen of England weren’t all nobility. Does that mean she is no longer a queen? Of course not.
As I see it, the problem is that some people used religious beliefs to make unfounded claims about hard reality. I’m not talking about nebulous, unobservable stuff like “God exists” or “We have souls”, but wild claims like “The world is flat” or “The Earth is 6,000 years old”.
When we discovered more about reality, these claims cease to be accepted in the mainstream. But I gather that’s a benefit for cults. As I see them, holding nonmainstream beliefs is essential. It means that the member of such a group has demonstrated through considerable sacrifice (ie, by holding the group’s errant beliefs) that they want to belong to the group.
So to add this all up, I think evolution is singled out because it contradicted beliefs held to significant degree by large groups of people. Eg, the shock most people probably felt when they found out someone thought they were descended from apes. In time, most people came around, but I think the historical prevalence of anti-darwinian views (in the recent past) is the reason for its current strength.
I think science has also been often viewed as a competitor to religion. Certainly that is the context of much of the current assaults on science education. Eg, intelligent design is presented as an alternative to evolution.
Darwin had an honest integrity that seemed to be common during his lifetime but is not common today. He also made a mistake (although he qualified it based on some better future understanding) in confusing adaption and evolution which is very commonly confused in any discussion of evolution today. Adaption is easily provable. It is simply the random combination of existing genetic traits filtered through ‘survival of the fittests.’
Evolution requires new code which introduces new features not already existing in the genetic population.
Survival of the fittest plays a part in evolution as well but in the opposite way the evolution propaganda suggests (sort of like saying to ‘swift boat’ is to lie when it is just the opposite.)
Mutations occur at a phenominal rate, but we don’t evolve because most are filtered out by not sexually reproducing and the rest are filtered out by survival of the fit.
The argument is that enough time would allow mutations to propogate.
The math is beyond me, but it seems to be beyond most people that argue for or against as well. I happen to believe that the age of the universe (15 billion years or so) is insufficient for even the most trivial changes and not the tadpole to people changes that the evolution faithful say is proven beyond doubt (global warming anybody?)
Rand, although we may disagree occasionally in details, your honest integrity keeps me looking forward to my daily read. Do you at least agree that adaption and evolution are two distinct things that are often confused?
I strongly sense that you are aware of this common confusion and know that some people knowingly and often use this confusion to support an otherwise weak argument. Stronger arguments (such as in the books you had me buy) are presented in a popular way that require a more rigorous examination that I don’t see happening (or at least haven’t come across in my modest research.)
The implications are profound. Superior race arguments and genicides just being the tip of the iceberg.
I don’t know what is “corrosive” about these ideas.
Well, you wouldn’t, unless you read Dennett’s book.
Karl: Dennett esteems Darwin very highly, and uses “corrosive” in a neutral sense… no defense needed.
At one time, spatial position w/r/t the earth was imbued with value: the heavenly spheres were pure and flawless, Dante put Satan & Judas at the center of the earth, etc. Via Copernicus, Kepler, Newton & co. the values “leaked out” of that: we now look not to a preordained plan, but to astronomy, geology, and their contingent working-out over time to account for what we see.
Since Darwin, the same has been happening to our view of life: what we see has a law-driven, contingent history, but no moral lessons to impart. Most corrosive of all, Darwin’s is entirely a local rather than global theory: it works fine without ideas of progress, or “higher” and “lower” life forms, or evolutionary destiny. (Even when that last is invoked to justify space activity 🙂
ken anthony:
Do you actually realise just how long a period of time the age of the Earth is?
Most authorities think that life first arose on Earth around 3 billion years ago. Assuming that a human generation is 30 years, that means that the age of the Earth corresponds to 100 MILLION human generations. In other words, 100 million chances for the genome to alter.
Of course, most organisms have a generation time much shorter than human ones; a typical bacterial generation time is about 30 minutes. Which means that the number of bacterial generations is larger than the above figure by five orders of magnitude. OK, let’s be conservative and call it three. That means that there has been time for 100,000,000,000 generations to succeed one another within the life of the Earth.
OK, this gets speculative. Simulations have been done on the possible evolution of the eye. A typical figure, for an eye superficially similar to human eyes to arise from what starts as a simple light-sensitive spot, is 100 thousand generations of change. Which means that the number of generations of life on Earth is a MILLION times as many as the number needed to create an eye from a photosensitive lump of jelly.
Conclusion; there has been easily enough time to evolve “higher” organisms from bacteria.
Of course, if you believe that the Earth was created at 9 AM on October 23, 4004 BC…
Yes, Fletcher, I do actually realise just how long a period of time the age of the Earth is? 4.5 billion years I heard back in grade school I think.
…life first arose on Earth around 3 billion years ago. Conclusion; there has been easily enough time to evolve “higher” organisms from bacteria.
You can’t justify that conclusion based on the info you gave because the question is not just about mutations and time. We do look a lot like apes, arms, legs and such and are genetically just a percent or so away from hanging out in trees and eating bananas. The problem is, assuming a common ancestor six million years ago (which means 12 million years of separation because both lines evolve) and assume a generation per year, that 1 or 2 percent represent hundreds of changes each generation. All must be sexually transmitted. Let’s just assume that. Then you have that survival of fittest thing THAT WORKS AGAINST CHANGE. Alright, but we’ve got perhaps millions of apes breeding so a beneficial change just has to happen to a few or pehaps just one of them?
Assume I give you all of that. It’s still ridiculous despite the outward similar appearance for those genetic jackpots to occur so many times in those millions of years… water doesn’t go uphill. You can make a much better argument that life devolves.
Of course, if you believe that the Earth was created at 9 AM on October 23, 4004 BC… Actually I think it was 9:15, he spent 15 minutes making 100 million galaxies with a 100 million stars in each first 😉
ken anthony said:
What do you mean “works against change”? How does survival of the fittest work against change? Even better, what do you mean by “change”?
The “low probability” argument doesn’t work either. This is the anthropic principle is another guise. The simple fact is that we ARE here, no matter how low the probability was before we were. Perhaps in uncountable billions of other universes on the quantum tree, there aren’t any people, but they don’t matter – there, there are no observers to note the fact.
Also, ken anthony has understated both the number of galaxies and the number of stars in each by three orders of magnitude. Is it unreasonable to think that on one planet of one star, amongst ten sextillion, the small probability might have come up trumps?
Let me take your second question first. …what do you mean by “change”?
I make a distinction between adaption, which is the random mixing of code fragments that exist within a species population; with evolution, new code that does not previously exist within a population resulting in a new species.
Adaption is proven and observable and never results in a new species.
By change, I mean evolution which by definition does result in new species.
How does survival of the fittest work against change?
Experients on radiated fruit flies show that mutation breed out. This is a very good thing because it turns out that the natural mutation rate is extremely high. If life didn’t breed true, it would cease to exist after just a handful of generations, you’d never get to millions or billions.
With regard to adaption, survival of the fit, works to fill environmental niches. With regard to evolution, survival of the fit kills off mutations so they do not produce new species.
A new species, even the slightest of variations would require hundreds of mutations that would breed out long before they had any chance to become a permanent change. If benign enough to remain part of the population it doesn’t really change anything. No new species.
Like I said, water does not go up hill no matter how long you watch it.
ken anthony has understated both the number of galaxies and the number of stars in each by three orders of magnitude.
That figures… but I did get the 15 minutes part right, didn’t !? 😉
Is it unreasonable to think that on one planet of one star, amongst ten sextillion, the small probability might have come up trumps?
Not at all. But it’s all in how you frame the question, isn’t it? I’m saying that no matter how many planets you have the arrow of time works the same on all of them. Which allows scientist to predict the outcome of experients even though in theory the arrow of time could go in reverse. …and mutations that happen at an extremely high rate breed out very quickly so they cause no harm (and no new species.)
The whole point is that evolution generally proceeds by small changes; for example, there are minor variations in size and shape of the beaks of finches, and one finch’s beak may be be better for winkling out the seeds of a particular plant. Which gives that particular breed (to use an analogy with domestic animals) an advantage, and an advantageous change, no matter how small, becomes totally dominant in a remarkably short time.
Another famous example is the peppered moth of England. The melanism gene is a single point mutation, and quite a common one at that. In pre-industrial England, it was a rather uncommon one, for the simple reason that dark moths didn’t live to breed very often. However, in early industrial Emgland, over a short space of time, the dark moths had an advantage and very quickly came to dominate the population. Incidentally, the change has been reversed since less coal smoke meant that trees were lighter once again.
Another example is the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. S. aureus in hospitals is almost completely in the penicillin-resistant form now.
It is also a fact that even such a thing as an extra chromosome is survivable (sometimes) and might even be an advantage in some circumstances; the XYY genome in humans leads to more muscular and larger men, albeit with less self control – but in societies somewhat less rules-bound than ours that might even be an advantage.
The point is that evolution does not normally proceed by large jumps, although it may look that way in the fossil record – because fossilisation is very rare.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that God created the universe six thousand years ago in seven days (or seven milliseconds, for that matter) in such a way as to make it look as if it had existed for billions of years, together with all the fossil records, stellar atmosphere compositions, cosmic microwave background and everything else; but why would he? To lead unbelievers down the wrong path? That sounds rather more like the other side to me – which I believe is a rather serious heresy.
ken anthony said:
Huh? Wouldn’t the survival of the fit mean that mutations that are not beneficial in a particular environment be weeded out while those that are beneficial or neutral in that environment remain? To make sure we’re using the same definitions of “evolution” and “species”, please state your definitions for both in short summary.
Fletcher Christian said:
The Omphalos Doctrine certainly presents serious theological problems. It implies that God is a deciever.
Going back to the “corrosive” comment for a moment, I didn’t mean it in a negative connotation either. But I don’t see a fundamental change in religious belief from Darwinism.
Second, Ken, while you speak of “survival of the fittest”, the real term is “selection”. Among other things, the second term doesn’t imply that what actually survives is the fittest. And the concept of selection is essential to an understanding of why an organism would change and evolve. First, it reduces noise. If each organism were equally likely to survive, then the noise from mutations would eventually randomize the genome. So it does help to stabilize the genome of an organism.
Second, selection changes. It’s well known that species including humans have experienced changes in environment and climate, die-offs, new parasites, and other harrowing events. This introduces the change you speak of.
I like what one of the commenters had to say on the linked site. Ask a modern christian now if the earth is flat or if the sun orbits the earth and they too will laugh. Evolution seems to be another religious argument that will be mowed over in time and not even thought of in a few hundred years. What science has definitely proven, religious folks quote as true, even though when it was not yet proven, they scoffed at the science for destroying God. This proves the cyclic nature of man’s understanding throughout history.
Good discussion all,
Adaption is proven and by my definition is not evolution as I’ve already pointed out. When humans direct adaption it’s called breeding. When breeding is taken to an extreme you get a sterile animal. In no case can you say new code is added to the gene pool (although mutations do occur).
Fletcher Christian wrote:
The whole point is that evolution generally proceeds by small changes; for example, there are minor variations in
…size and shape of the beaks of finches… this is adaption, no need to invoke evolution for existing element in the gene pool.
…one finch’s beak may be be better… yes, this adaption to an environmental niche, happens all the time. You could also breed them to have beaks that do not have an environmental advantage and those would die out in the wild.
…the peppered moth of England… again adaption, they go from dark to light and back again in a short period of time. Something you can easily breed for.
…The melanism gene is a single point mutation… perhaps, or perhaps not. The way the genetic code works is to have sections of working code switched off. There this japaness scientist (sorry I don’t have a ref, just saw his book at the library) that claim we can turn the genetic switches on and off in our own bodies by just consciously changing our own mood. Don’t know if it’s true, but that wouldn’t be evolution either.. no new code.
…antibiotic resistance in bacteria… this is a different ballgame because we no longer have sexual selection. I don’t wish to address it now to try to stay focused on the adaption vs. evolution point that I’m trying to make.
…an extra chromosome is survivable (sometimes)… I trust you say that’s true. The beauty of genetics and selection is that it keeps a breed true over countless generations even in a highly dynamic environment.
Humans living at higher altitude develop better lungs which is purely adaption… no need to invoke evolution to account for that.
The point is that evolution does not normally proceed by large jumps, although it may look that way in the fossil record – because fossilisation is very rare. Yes, this is the fundamental argument of evolution (but with no allowance for adaption vs. evolution)
Occam’s razer would say that evolution is not required if adaption handles the case. So evolution has the burden of proof to show that new code causes new species. Darwin looked to the future for such proof. We are still waiting.
…[god being a prankster] That sounds rather more like the other side to me… Me too. I think most religious arguments disputing clear evidence are stupid and the people making them are ignorant. I don’t think God suffers such fools easily.
Robert wrote:
…definitions of “evolution” and “species”, please state your definitions for both in short summary.
All cats are cats from domestic to liger (or tion if you prefer, I don’t)
Karl Hallowell wrote:
…the real term is “selection”… Yes, this is a better term for the reason you gave.
Second, selection changes… the burden of proof for the evolution argument is to show that the adaptions you descrbe are not in the preexistant genetic pool of a species. Going back to fruit flies, it seems that exeriement did produce new code in a random fashion but when viable it always breed out, even though the scientists tried to cook the books by providing an environment where it would not breed out.
They claimed that only one case of a multitude was an ‘improvement’ found. This ‘improvement’ was only with regard to careful laboratory conditions. It bred out.
The burden of proof remains.
Sorry, I wrote the response to Karl and Robert above. It must have been a random mutation.
Sorry for not responding to this point Robert,
Wouldn’t the survival of the fit mean that mutations that are not beneficial in a particular environment be weeded out while those that are beneficial or neutral in that environment remain? yes, we agree.
I respectfully suggest you reread my comment.
There is another argument based on real facts; it’s a rather interesting one based on something I believe to be called “ring species”. An example is the ring that includes the herring and lesser black-backed gulls. Herring gulls can interbreed with the American herring gull, and the gradual change continues west around the globe until it finishes with the lesser black-backed gull. This bird very rarely interbreeds with herring gulls in Europe, and the hybrids are almost always sterile; thus if they aren’t quite different species yet they are pretty damn close to it. This demonstrates that gradual change can lead to speciation; the fact that the change is over space rather than time is irrelevant. (It was probably both.)
I’m not sure where I heard this, but I believe that there are extremely rare occasions when mules are fertile. Both cases demonstrate that a species is not as clear-cut a concept as one might think.
Or consider dogs. At the moment, all dogs can interbreed – but a miaiature dachsund/Great Dane cross is going to need some serious help, and is probably only viable in any case if the sire is the dachshund; both problems have obvious mechanical reasons behind them. It is quite conceivable that in another couple of thousand years the two breeds will be distinct species. Again, in this case deliberate selection is taking the place of the natural variety, but nature is quite capable of exerting just as strong a selection pressure.
It’s not sterility that defines a species. Actually, species (regardless of tons of paper regarding the concept) is not really defined (or has so many definitions that it’s meaningless.)
Because the variation within a kind of animal is so vast, you’re going to see exactly what we see… wild variations in size, shape and color that can interbreed and those that look alike but are sterile. None of which has anything to do with evolving (def: new code. new code. new code.)
Random mixing of existing code is adaption.
“It is quite conceivable that in another couple of thousand years the two breeds will be distinct species.” You could define it to be so, but that’s just paperwork. Canine is canine.
It used to be thought that there wasn’t enough time in the age of the universe for mutations to cause the variations we see. Then somebody actually measured the rate of mutation and the problem became why aren’t we able to see the changes in a lifetime. It turns out the reason is the effiency that sexual selection maintains the integrity of the gene pool to the point that mutations don’t stand a chance no matter how long you posit.
The mechanism for evolution exists. Something Darwin had no knowledge of. Natural selection without mutation is meaningless. Mutation is the mechanism. So science now has the obligation to show real examples. One big obstacle is the definition of species. So you could prove evolution by defining it. So if somebody does some gene splicing (put some bunny ears on a dog?) is evolution thereby proved?
Natural selection without mutation is adaption. with mutation it’s overwhelmingly not viable. when viable, the only thing we see is that it breeds out. If sufficiently benign it may not breed out (I suspect that to be true more than not, but I could be persuaded either way.)
Adaption is not evolution no matter how much some would prefer to define it so. If it were, evolution would be proven with no room for argument because adaption is proven with no room for argument.
Please forgive me for being so pendantic. This is my last post on this subject.
ken anthony said:
Gene splicing bunny ears on a dog is evolution? Apparently we both don’t share the same definitions of “evolution”.
Regarding “species”, here is the dictionary definition:
Species (Biology): the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Regarding Evolution by Natural Selection:
Evolution by Natural Selection: The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution. See Notes at adaptation, evolution. Compare artificial selection.
Bunny ears should have given you a clue Robert. I didn’t think I was being that subtle.
Your dictiionary citation of species requires me to ask just one more questions…
So explain to me how sterility leads to a new species?
I’ll give you another reason adaption is not evolution. Adaption is fast, requiring only a handful of generations. If evolution is just adaption until speciaition we wouldn’t have to look for possible examples, we’d be surround by an abundance of them.
Not one person has responded to my contention that evolution involves new code.
If adaption is simply a mix of existing code, that has consequences, one being that generally you should be able to breed back from the extremes. That’s just what we see.
Robert, you asked me how natural selection works against change. Apparently your instructors failed to mention that. They tend to do that because it just confuses the student. Natural selection works in the negative by limiting what is viable or fit. Populations tend to normalize toward the mean rather than toward the extremes. You might have to read quite a few books before you see an evolutionist state that selection works against change, but if you read enough, eventually you will. If you need a citation, send me an email and I will try to find one for you.
kenneth_john@yahoo.com
ken anthony said:
Sterility by itself creates new species? Please reread the dictionary definition of “Evolution by Natural Selection” in my previous quote. Your bunny ears quote is a clear indication that you are not using the same definitions for evolution that I and others on this blog are using.
ken anthony said:
Assuming that your term “new code” means “new patterns”, take a look below.
Note this string of symbols representing a code:
SDAFSDAFSD
Here’s the same number of symbols randomly rearranged. Was “new code” created?
FDASSDASFD
Evolution by Natural Selection requires replicating machines/organisms that have imperfect replication, thus creating variation. Without variation, Evolution by Natural Selection wouldn’t work.
This discussion has continued on this thread.