Darwin, Then and Now

Posts Tagged ‘science’

Charles Darwin attempted to avoid the use of the term “vestiges” largely because the term had been associated with the “erroneous” Larmarckian concept of “use and disuse” that was only “veritable rubbish.”

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) was a member of the French Academy of Sciences and was appointed to the Chair of Botany in 1788. When the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle was founded in 1793, Lamarck was appointed professor of zoology. In 1801, he published Système des animaux sans vertèbres, a major work on the classifications and coined the term invertebrates. Lamarck is thought to be the first use the term biology in its modern sense. Lamarck continued his work as a premier authority on invertebrate zoology.

Darwin did credit “Lamarck as the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention.… In these works he up holds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species.”

Lamarck’s theory of evolution, which he referred to as “transformism,” was based on the idea that individuals develop new traits during their own lifetimes by “use and disuse” and transmit them to the next generation. Larmack writes – “Progress in complexity of organization exhibits anomalies here and there in the general series of animals, due to the influence of environment and of acquired habits.”

The giraffe served as Lamarck’s classic example of evolution through “use,” acquiring longer necks in successive generations in competition to reach the ever-scarcer leaves higher in the trees. In illustrating Lamarck’s views on adaptation, Darwin wrote, “To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees.”

For Darwin, however, this explanation was simply not scientific – “Lamarck, who believed in an innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by spontaneous generation. Science has not as yet proved the truth of this belief.”

One of the most eminent pre-Darwinists was Charles Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802). Erasmus discussed his ideas at length in a two-volume work, Zoonomia, published in 1794. Erasmus wrote that “all … have risen from one living filament.”

Erasmus’ book was widely popular in Western Europe- even translated into German, French, and Italian. Erasmus envisioned that the driving force behind species modification was a result of “lust, hunger, and danger.” In line with Greek philosophy, Erasmus envisioned changes by “continuing to improve its own inherent activity.”

Actually how these “improvements” developed was completely unknown to Lamarck and Erasmus—evolution was a philosophy, not a science. The unknown cause of “improvements” is what drove Darwin to discover the underlying laws of nature—scientifically. Writing in the preface of The Origin of Species, Darwin suggests how Erasmus’s work, although “erroneous,” may have influenced Lamarck: “It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his Zoonomia.”

For Lamarck, new characteristics are acquired through the process of “use and disuse.” Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a Lamarckian evolutionist. Charles Darwin, however, in pursuit of a “scientific theory” of evolution, initially opposed Lamarckian evolution, only granting the theory marginal support.

In a letter written to J. D. Hooker in 1844, Darwin wrote, “Heaven forefend me from Lamarck nonsense of a ‘tendency to progression.’ … But the conclusions I am led to are not widely diff erent from his, though the means of change are wholly so.” “With respect to books on this subject,” Darwin continues, “I do not know any systematic ones, except Lamarck’s, which is veritable rubbish.”

Although attempting to distance himself from Lamarck’s concepts of “use and disuse” and “vestages,” Darwin distain for “use and disuse” eventually waned as causes for the origin of variation required for the actions of natural selection remained Darwin’s largest unsumountable enigma.

Since then, the term, “vestiges” has once again gained prominence over “rudiments,” as has Larmarckian concepts of evolution. The question remains, however, are structures classified as “vestiges” evidence of evolution? Specifically, have vestiges seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution?

To address answers to these questions, we will be examining the most popular example of vestiges—the mammalian appendix in the up-coming posts.   

Genomics offers unprecedented opportunities for testing the central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859, later modified into the Central Dogma by the Modern Synthesis during the twentieth century.

In a 2009 review article by entitled “Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics”, published in Nucleic Acid Research, Eugene V Koonin concludes “[m]ajor contributions of horizonal gene transfer… undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life.” 

Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species,“[a]lthough the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.”

Koonin continues, “[t]here is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity.” Genomics has failed to demostrate increasing complexity as hypothesized by Darwin.

Evolution needs to synthesis a new mechanism to survive. To this end, Koonin suggests the possibility: “a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.” Until then, genomic evidence fails to support evolution.

Koonin, EV. 2009. Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acid Research, 37(4)1011-1034.

With the evaporation of the Central Dogma of evolution, there has been a resurgencent interest in Charles Darwin’s forerunner, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Lamarckian theory of evolution. Epigenetics and Larmackian experimentalists are the new trend.  

Darwin was on target stating, “Lamarck, who believed in an innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by spontaneous generation. Science has not as yet proved the truth of this belief.”

After returning with the HMS Beagle in 1836, Darwin never left the shoreline of England again. Darwin took the enlightenment and unrelenting and grueling hardships of the voyage to construct a new purpose for life—writing. In his autobiography, Darwin explains: “As far as I can judge of myself, I worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation, and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass of facts in Natural Science.”

 Darwin goal was to achieve a noticeable place in history: “But I was also ambitious to take fair place among scientific men – whether more ambitious or less so then most of my fellow-workers, I can form no opinion.” Without question, Darwin has met that goal. Darwinism is today’s most contentious cultural and scientific topics.

The scientific method was not in Darwin’s toolbox, however. While Newton had demonstrated the value of the scientific method, for Darwin science stood in the way of the theory: “My error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.” For Darwin, the evidence was an obstacle, not a trump card.

Recognizng Darwin’s shroud of science, Richard Owen from the Royal College of Surgeons that had originally surveyed Darwin’s work declared that the Origin of Species was strictly an “abuse of science.” Actually, Darwin clearly acknowledged, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Had Darwin not gone “beyond the bounds” and adhered to the scientific method, would Darwinism have lead to such a stormy and contentious history?

The anticipation around Charles Darwin’s 200^th birthday celebration passed nearly unnoticed. Few media venues ventured to highlight the day. Perhaps, the struggling economy naturally selected the sullenness.

While researchers in Germany, announced completion of the first draft of the Neanderthal genome, to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, the hoped for links to human evolution are still missing.

 The genome team led by geneticist Svante Paabo after isolating 3.7 billion base pairs could only conclude:  ”We’re currently analyzing if we see evidence in the Neanderthal genome of contribution from human ancestors,” Paabo said. “That question I think is still totally open.”

Again, this big golden nugget of evolution, like the fossil record, continues as the emperor without clothes. In the Guardian, palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris writes:

 “[P]erhaps now is the time to rejoice not in what Darwin got right, and in demonstrating the reality of evolution… “Isn’t it curious how evolution is regarded by some as a total, universe-embracing explanation, although those who treat it as a religion might protest and sometimes not gently. Don’t worry, the science of evolution is certainly incomplete.”

Even the New York Times writer, Carl Safina, in an essay for the science section entitled “Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live” concludes, “So let us now kill Darwin.”

 After 150 years, since the natural mechanism of evolution that Darwin was looking for is still missing, in this post-modern evolution era the birthday party fizzled.