I am a great proponent of evolutionary theory, which Charles Darwin expounded 166 years ago. Although there have been debates about trifling aspects of the theory, the solid bedrock of 'Natural Selection', resulting in the transformation of species over a vast span of time, remains. Until some other theory comes along best fitted to the data, Darwin's fundamental insight remains unsullied.
I'm about to embark on a series of posts regarding Evolution Theory with a particular emphasis on its Natural History. This is an ambitious series. Darwin and his theory are often studied in isolation. Darwin's theory appears in biology books as accepted dogma, and the author moves on. Of course, science books teach science and often leave out the crucial historical steps leading up to a seminal discovery. However, Darwin did not live in an intellectual vacuum. Evolution was in the intellectual 'air' and ripe for discovery in the mid-19th century. All the pieces of the puzzle were present; however, it required the genius of Charles Darwin to put them together in beautiful accord. Intriguingly, his contemporary, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently developed the theory, although he quickly stated that Darwin's analysis was primary. Poor Wallace has been lost to history's wasteland; few remember him today.
Darwin rushed ' On the Origin of Species' to print after he received a letter from a fellow naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace. At the time, Wallace was engaged in biological research in the jungles of Borneo. The letter was a shock, outlining evolutionary processes resulting from differential survival and reproduction due to natural selective forces. Darwin and Wallace's concepts were similar but differed in several crucial regards. While Wallace emphasised selection at the 'group' level, Darwin envisaged the 'individual' as the unit of selection. In addition, Wallace envisaged environmental factors as paramount in the selection process. Although Darwin acknowledged the importance of the environment as an evolutionary force, he also emphasised the importance of predation and intra-specific competition within the species. A final point of difference between the men concerns the importance of 'Sexual Selection'. Darwin correctly noted the critical importance of sexual selection or mate preference as a force for individual change. Darwin's conception of the theory, with its provision for additional complexities, has been shown to be fundamentally correct.
Wallace's independent discovery spurred Darwin into a frenzy of writing. Secluded in his study, Darwin wrote his seminal work in just under nine months. He had planned a much larger tome with an exhaustive, and to his mind, a complete exposition of his theory, making it watertight. The 490 pages of the first edition were a compromise and left out much of his research. Regardless, the book became a best seller, and the first run of 1,250 copies was sold out on the first day, prompting a second run of a further 1,500 copies.
As said, Evolutionary Theory was in the air in the mid-19th century. And as Darwin was about to discover, after the publication of 'Origin' in 1859, a number of individuals would come out of the woodwork to claim credit and primacy for developing the theory. This would cause Darwin great distress as he had to examine each claim for credibility and validity. Of course, he attracted his fair share of cranks and charlatans. However, in the deluge of mail Darwin received following the book's publication, there were credible scientists with something important to say. Apart from Wallace, however, none of the claims seriously threatened Darwin's fundamental insight. On a different note, Darwin received criticism for not citing innovative thinkers from the past who had the intellectual honesty to publish evolutionary ideas. This was fair criticism and acknowledged by Darwin. His omission was a consequence of the rushed nature of the work.
Wallace's letter forced Darwin to a rushed publication. Darwin was a meticulous researcher who sat on his theory for twenty years. Over the intervening years, Darwin's friends beseeched him to publish his results, but Darwin's painstaking nature prevented him from rushing into print.
Darwin was arguably the greatest scientist of the 19th century. He unlocked the last great puzzle facing humanity. Before Darwin, theists' best argument for the omnipotent, omniscient supernatural deity was undoubtedly the answer to the perplexing question: How was it possible to produce the complexity of the natural world, that is, the elaborate intricacy of organic organisms, by natural means? Even the most basic bacterium is an immaculate web of biochemical majesty. How could this complexity come about by natural processes? The alternative: God did it. Thoughtful men acknowledged the obtuse absurdity of the problem. They knew that relying on the theist argument involving an invisible supernatural entity acting by means unknown, causing natural 'things' to come into existence, was intellectually unsatisfying. However, how could this degree of complexity observed in nature occur naturally? No wonder intelligent, educated folk relied on supernatural intervention. But here is the rub and the deadly dichotomy. Those same smart, educated folk were well aware that the theist explanation was no explanation at all and tantamount to superstitious magic and wand waving. Surely, there must be a naturalistic, fundamental explanation devoid of supernatural content.
Darwin's genius lay in the assemblage of the diverse puzzle pieces to provide a naturalistic and intellectually satisfying answer. And the answer turned out to be deceptively simple. It was so simple, in fact, that no one had thought of it before. Natural selection operating over aeons could modify the simple to the complex with remorseless, unrelentless force and potency. The irony: Darwin was not a trained biologist. In fact, his MA degree gained at Cambridge University was a prerequisite for entry into the clergy. Before his Cambridge education, he had spent two years at Edinburgh University, supposedly studying medicine. It is here that Darwin was exposed to a smattering of biological, chemical and geological training. However, given his shotgun approach to science and the curtailment of his clinical studies, Darwin never received a formal qualification in medicine or science.
The next post in this series will be an askew glance at the men who influenced Darwin, the men who provided the puzzle pieces. Darwin quickly remedied his error of citation in subsequent editions. Some of the men I mention were omitted from Darwin's survey. Their influence on theory was indirect due to their impact on later thinkers, and therefore, will be included for completeness. I suspect this work will require several posts, as there is much to cover. So, hold on and hang on to your hats. Tis is going to be a wild ride with a few hot gypsies thrown in, Hola!
Pre Darwin and his ilk, farmers - animal breeders and horticulturists - must have known all this. Maybe it was all a trade secret. Huge draught horses and skinny race winners. And fat ones for eating. And dogs, so many breeds for so many uses.
ReplyDeleteTulip growers?
Thank you for provoking thought.
Or peas.... Gregor Mendel, a contemporary of Darwin was working on pea genetics by selective crosses favouring certain traits. As I recall his work was published in the early 1860s but was mostly unrecognised at the time. He is rightly called the Father of Genetics. His work supported the idea that genetic elements were particulate. The general idea, at this time, was that genetic factors from the parents were somehow blended together in the offspring, analogous to blending two glasses of different coloured waters. This mechanism posed a problem for evolution as it would result in the dilution of parental traits. It was therefore difficult to fix desirable traits using this model. Darwin recognised this as a problem. Sadly, he was unaware of Mendel's work which would have provided the final piece to the puzzle.
ReplyDeleteWonderful, well written and thought provoking post as always
ReplyDeletePope’s epigram on Newton could just as equally be applied to Darwin.
What is truly extraordinary is that it was observation, rigorous and detailed observation over years – and let’s not forget the hardship and risk Darwin endured in making his observations - leading to inference and insight. As you say, there wasn’t really much science in play. There had to be some mechanism, but as to what that actually could be?
Darwin vs religion is where this inevitably leads, and an interesting parallel (in some ways) is Michael Faraday, who never received much (if anything) in the way of formal education and, apart from some algebra and perhaps the occasional first order differential equation, used no mathematics to support his extraordinary insights. He cited experimental evidence of course of which he had accumulated an impressive amount.
For Faraday, of course (as for any good scientist) what the real world said was what mattered.
Faraday was not taken particularly seriously by scientists – an undoubtedly talented experimentalist who was straying “out of his lane” - until others – most notably Maxwell – provided an overarching mathematical structure into which it all could fit. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now look at Darwin and Wallace
In the 150 years since, we have discovered the basic mechanism and can use it to verify Darwin’s remarkable insights in ways that neither he or his myriad opponents could even conceptualise. And in all that time – not that I am aware of – has anything really indicated that they were wrong.
The misuse of evolution – the “social Darwinism” rabbit hole – is a topic, and a quite dark topic, of its own. The counter reformation as it were, began almost as soon as origins had been published and continues – pretty cynically and shamelessly to this day.
And there are the actual scientific objections to evolution arising at the time – time being the operative factor and how old the earth actually was. That’s yet another intriguing story.
Yes Darwin certainly stirred the pot. Theologians, were often shocked as it gave an explanation not reliant on their deity. By this time science had basically pushed out god from the natural world. A position it will never regain. Darwin, initially a devout man eventually lost his faith due to his theory. As for the social Darwinism episode- tis best forgotten.
ReplyDelete