0
Darwin's sesquicentennial
12 October 2009
[indent]
2009 marks a landmark year for the legacy of Charles Darwin, with dual celebrations.
First it is the 200th year since his birth - February 12, 1809. Second, it is the 150th year since he first published his seminal work, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," first released on Nov. 24, 1859*.
It is probably the most important, and most controversial, yet least-read book of the past 150 years.** I think more has been said about it and regarding it by people who have never actually read it than any other book in history.
We know that work more commonly as "The Origin of Species," and regardless of whether you have read it, it is one of the most important and influential works of science, putting Darwin on par with Newton and Einstein, at least in the field of biology. Origins marks a significant turning point in Western culture.
I was thinking about Darwin this week for many reasons. First was an interview I heard on the CBC with evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, discussing his new book - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. The description of Dawkins' newest book includes this:
As a fan of Dawkins' previous evolutionary writings, I eagerly look forward to reading his current work.
Second was the February, 2009, issue of National Geographic that Susan brought home from the library for me to read this week. The lead story is titled, "What Darwin Didn't Know."
That missing knowledge was, of course, genetics. Where Darwin applied the science of his day, a lot of his conclusions were inspired guesswork. It wasn't until the discovery - and understanding of - DNA, and the initial connections published by Watson and Crick in the early 1950s - that biologists were able to confirm many of Darwin's insights, and pursue entirely new, but related, paths.
Our new understanding of genetics did not undermine Darwin's theories and more than Einstein's theories undermined Newton. They work in tandem, creating a new synthesis, a new collation of facts and theories***.
Darwin wrote, in his introduction, the basics of his theory of natural selection:
The National Geographic article delves into the discoveries that modern Darwinians - and geneticists - have made through their search of genetic codes, a path that has both vindicated Darwin and taken evolutionary biology much further and deeper than Darwin could have imagined.
As the article concludes,
Mendel, of course, published his own paper on the nature of inheritance in 1866, after Darwin had published his Origin of Species. One of the great ironies of science is that Mendel's work was largely ignored until the mid-20th century. Mendel died long before the significance of his work was appreciated, but today he is considered the 'father' of modern genetics.
When Darwin's Origin was announced, it was snapped up by an avid, eager population. The the entire first printing of 1,250 copies was over-subscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 22 November 1859.* One hundred and fifty years later it still manages to command a magnificent presence. No home should be without a copy.
~~~~~
* Wikipedia notes it went on sale Nov. 22. But this could be the day it was offered for sale to booksellers, and Nov. 24 the day it arrived.
** I read Origin when I was 12. I admit it was a struggle then, and I have not read it through in its entirety since. However, I have read parts of it many times since and have several versions at home. What struck me recently was that what I had once considered dense, florid Victorian prose, was actually well-crafted and beautifully written. I mean to reread it on my next vacation, but with a focus on his English, rather than his ideas. But I cannot think of a single other person I know who can claim to have read Origins.
*** There is a common, and unfortunate, misunderstanding about what a 'theory' is. In the vernacular, the word is often used as a synonym for a guess or a hunch. In fact, a theory has "already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn't mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it." What most people commonly call a "theory" is really a hypothesis which is, "a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested." Evolution, as a theory, is up there with gravity and the speed of light: it remains not to be proven, but rather disproven, since it continues to explain the observations these past 150 years and all evidence points to its veracity.
[/indent]
First it is the 200th year since his birth - February 12, 1809. Second, it is the 150th year since he first published his seminal work, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," first released on Nov. 24, 1859*.
It is probably the most important, and most controversial, yet least-read book of the past 150 years.** I think more has been said about it and regarding it by people who have never actually read it than any other book in history.
We know that work more commonly as "The Origin of Species," and regardless of whether you have read it, it is one of the most important and influential works of science, putting Darwin on par with Newton and Einstein, at least in the field of biology. Origins marks a significant turning point in Western culture.
I was thinking about Darwin this week for many reasons. First was an interview I heard on the CBC with evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, discussing his new book - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. The description of Dawkins' newest book includes this:
Quote
Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists and indeed theologians, yet millions of people continue to question its veracity. In "The Greatest Show on Earth", Richard Dawkins takes on creationists, including followers of 'Intelligent Design' and all those who question the fact of evolution through natural selection. Like a detective arriving on the scene of a crime, he sifts through fascinating layers of scientific facts and disciplines to build a cast-iron case: from the living examples of natural selection in birds and insects; the 'time clocks' of trees and radioactive dating that calibrate a timescale for evolution; the fossil record and the traces of our earliest ancestors; to confirmation from molecular biology and genetics. All of this, and much more, bears witness to the truth of evolution.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" comes at a critical time: systematic opposition to the fact of evolution is now flourishing as never before, especially in America. In Britain and elsewhere in the world, teachers witness insidious attempts to undermine the status of science in their classrooms. Richard Dawkins provides unequivocal evidence that boldly and comprehensively rebuts such nonsense. At the same time he shares with us his palpable love of the natural world and the essential role that science plays in its interpretation. Written with elegance, wit and passion, it is hard-hitting, absorbing and totally convincing.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" comes at a critical time: systematic opposition to the fact of evolution is now flourishing as never before, especially in America. In Britain and elsewhere in the world, teachers witness insidious attempts to undermine the status of science in their classrooms. Richard Dawkins provides unequivocal evidence that boldly and comprehensively rebuts such nonsense. At the same time he shares with us his palpable love of the natural world and the essential role that science plays in its interpretation. Written with elegance, wit and passion, it is hard-hitting, absorbing and totally convincing.
As a fan of Dawkins' previous evolutionary writings, I eagerly look forward to reading his current work.
Second was the February, 2009, issue of National Geographic that Susan brought home from the library for me to read this week. The lead story is titled, "What Darwin Didn't Know."
That missing knowledge was, of course, genetics. Where Darwin applied the science of his day, a lot of his conclusions were inspired guesswork. It wasn't until the discovery - and understanding of - DNA, and the initial connections published by Watson and Crick in the early 1950s - that biologists were able to confirm many of Darwin's insights, and pursue entirely new, but related, paths.
Our new understanding of genetics did not undermine Darwin's theories and more than Einstein's theories undermined Newton. They work in tandem, creating a new synthesis, a new collation of facts and theories***.
Darwin wrote, in his introduction, the basics of his theory of natural selection:
Quote
As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be <i>naturally selected</i>. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.
The National Geographic article delves into the discoveries that modern Darwinians - and geneticists - have made through their search of genetic codes, a path that has both vindicated Darwin and taken evolutionary biology much further and deeper than Darwin could have imagined.
As the article concludes,
Quote
Though modern genetics vindicated Darwin in all sorts of ways, it also turns the spotlight on his biggest mistake. Darwin's own ideas on the mechanism of inheritance were a mess - and wrong. He thought that an organism blended together a mixture of its parents' traits, and later in his life he began to believe it also passed on traits acquired in its lifetime. He never understood, as the humble Moravia monk Gregor Mendel did, that an organism isn't a blend of its two parents at all, but the composite result of lots and lots of individual traits passed down by its father and mother from their own parents, and their grandparents before them.
Mendel, of course, published his own paper on the nature of inheritance in 1866, after Darwin had published his Origin of Species. One of the great ironies of science is that Mendel's work was largely ignored until the mid-20th century. Mendel died long before the significance of his work was appreciated, but today he is considered the 'father' of modern genetics.
When Darwin's Origin was announced, it was snapped up by an avid, eager population. The the entire first printing of 1,250 copies was over-subscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 22 November 1859.* One hundred and fifty years later it still manages to command a magnificent presence. No home should be without a copy.
~~~~~
* Wikipedia notes it went on sale Nov. 22. But this could be the day it was offered for sale to booksellers, and Nov. 24 the day it arrived.
** I read Origin when I was 12. I admit it was a struggle then, and I have not read it through in its entirety since. However, I have read parts of it many times since and have several versions at home. What struck me recently was that what I had once considered dense, florid Victorian prose, was actually well-crafted and beautifully written. I mean to reread it on my next vacation, but with a focus on his English, rather than his ideas. But I cannot think of a single other person I know who can claim to have read Origins.
*** There is a common, and unfortunate, misunderstanding about what a 'theory' is. In the vernacular, the word is often used as a synonym for a guess or a hunch. In fact, a theory has "already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn't mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it." What most people commonly call a "theory" is really a hypothesis which is, "a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested." Evolution, as a theory, is up there with gravity and the speed of light: it remains not to be proven, but rather disproven, since it continues to explain the observations these past 150 years and all evidence points to its veracity.
[/indent]
At the risk of sounding pedantic, Einstein's work did indeed contradict Newton's. Newton's laws of motion are a good approximation at speeds relatively low compared to the speed of light. Einstein's work more thoroughly describes the behaviour of time, space and matter up to the speed of light.
While I have great respect for the work of Darwin, I have never put him on the same pedestal as Newton and Einstein. It had been known for centuries that offspring inherit the traits of their parents. Darwin simply pointed out that successful animals - the strongest, smartest and best adapted for their environment - stand a better chance of surviving to pass on their traits (therefore enhancing those traits among the species). The theory of Evolution has always been a no brainer. It is surprising that we got into the 19th Century before someone pointed it out. Einstein, on the other hand, was probably 50 years ahead of his time.
Thats not to diminish the importance of Darwin's work, of course.
I find it incredibly depressing that there are still so many people out there today who deny the theory of evolution.