Were he biblical in his longevity, Charles Darwin would be 200 years old today. This year is also the 150th anniversary of his groundbreaking “Origin of Species”. I was listening to a Podcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” the other day about the controversy still surrounding Darwin in the U.S. – a program which prompted much rolling of eyes from your underwhelming correspondent. I guess after spending four plus years in places where Darwin is about as controversial as Galileo, one tires of hearing about the ongoing attempt to discredit his ideas in theocratic Islamic states. Oh, and the U.S. as well.
In the days and months preceding Darwin’s bicentennial year, there has been a lot of revisionist history surrounding the naturalist – rewriting him either as a buffoon, anti-christ or saint – none of which is particularly relevant. There has also been a recent conceit in the popular science press to question the validity of Darwin’s theory based on recent molecular evidence regarding the ‘Tree of Life’ (an artificial construct in itself). This is a dangerous meme, because publications like The New Scientist are not suggesting that Darwin’s core hypotheses were wrong, they’re pointing out minor inconsistencies in the way that evolutionary biologists look at species level relationships. However, they have inadvertantly given fuel to the bonfire by which the Creationist fringe warms its hands.
So, in celebration of Darwin’s big 2-0-0, I thought it may be worth pausing to reflect on the elegantly simple, but earth shattering, ideas that Darwin first proposed 150 years ago.
Darwin actually trained at Cambridge to become an Anglican minister, but was distracted by the opportunity to take a trip on the H.M.S. Beagle, which had been commissioned to survey South America for the Empire. Darwin, employed as the ship’s naturalist, departed Britain in December of 1831 and during the five year round the world journey of the Beagle collected vast geographical and biological samples. Later, back in England, he used some of these samples as a catalyst to the formation of a theory that he called transmutation. Poring over a collection of finches that he had made on the Galapagos Islands, he noticed that birds from different islands were similar both to each other and finches from the mainland. It occurred to Darwin that the islands could have been colonized by the mainland birds and then changed once they were established on the island.
Not a particularly controversial idea, one would have thought, but the accepted dogma regarding the diversity of life on earth at the time was that each species had been created in its current manifestation – that a creator god had placed different species of finches on the continent of South America and on each island of the Galapagos about 3,000 years before. Darwin’s idea, the idea of descent with modification – that one species could have evolved from another, flew in the face of 1,800 years of church doctrine. It was nothing short of heresy.
From this idea of transmutation, Darwin came up with the concept of natural selection – the idea that this transmutation was driven by ecological processes. For this, he employed the theories of Thomas Malthus who proposed that human populations would eventually outgrow their food production capacity and kill themselves off. Darwin could see that if animal populations grew too large then they would be faced with a competitive situation and that individuals that were better able to cope with shortage would reproduce preferentially. Again, his finches served as inspiration. He noticed that different populations from different islands with different food sources had notably different beak shapes. Bed on that observation and he hypothesized that a random change in beak shape in one individual could give that bird an advantage in feeding. That bird would be more robust and thus would breed preferentially, passing that mutated beak shape to its progeny. Over a number of generations, the trait (beak shape) that lent a selective advantage would become fixed in the population. Hence natural selection driving speciation. Darwin expanded this idea by invoking examples of artificial selection in agriculture and animal husbandry. He continually invoked variation as the fuel that drove evolution.
With both the idea of descent with modification and natural selection in hand, Darwin was able to construct the first evolutionary tree. Working with the idea of descent with modification, he was able to make the next intellectual hop to propose that similar species were related by a common ancestor. Again, in the context of our knowledge today it doesn’t sound like a vast leap, but Darwin’s contemporaries – the few who had accepted that there was any kind of transition of form – thought that it occured in a linear fashion. In other words, species A gave rise to species A’. Darwin’s breakthrough was the idea that species A gave rise to two new species – B and C. In his later book, “The Descent of Man”, he used the example of men being related to apes via a common ancestor – a proposal that threw the religious zealots of his day (and ours) into fits.*
Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ was by no means complete, a fact that Creationists take great joy in pointing out. He had no concept of the gene. Mendel was a contemporary, but they were not aware of one another’s work so Darwin was never able to fully explain the inheritance of variation. In his day, Darwin’s theories were just that – theoretical. It has taken 130 years of hard work by scientists to help those theories evolve into the fundamental scientific truth as we understand it today. And there are exceptions to some of Darwin’s hypotheses – there has been a lot of work recently into the role of horizontal gene transfer in speciation. The effects of epigenetic gene regulation have inspired some to reconsider Lamarck’s inconsistent ideas ideas about linear progressive evolution. Darwin was not infallible nor were all of his ideas completely original, but he was remarkably prescient for his time and an outstanding scientist. His ideas have stood the test of time and have been repeatedly supported by overwhelming experimental evidence. For that, he deserves respect from both the scientific and lay communities. For his ideas and his ability to synthesize a thesis that changed scientific though from natural observations, he stands among the great scientists and thinkers in our species’ history.
————————
* To be strictly accurate, Darwin was not the first to propose that humans are related to apes, but he tends to get the credit.
————————
Pulp’s “We Love Life” is available from
.
Image credits:
Popularity: 44% [?]

Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz















by holly*
12 Feb 2009 at 20:05
a few weeks ago i was having a chat with a friend of a friend who didnt believe in darwin and his finches (nor other theories). amusingly enough, by the end of out “conversation” she unknowningly agree with darwin. all i could do was roll my eyes.
happy bday mr. darwin.
holly*s last blog post..super simple valentines cards!
by SSG
12 Feb 2009 at 23:21
Darwin rocks. Darwin’s cafe at zoology was a bit shite though, but at least it served hot food. I wonder how many people have the first name Darwin. I looked on 192 UK directory and there are 4 people over 18 called “Darwin Smith”. You can’t search by first name only and I couldn’t be bothered looking up other surnames. I hope this information has pleased you.
SSGs last blog post..India indeed
by Prefers Her Fantasy Life
13 Feb 2009 at 00:04
It seems we are lacking great scientists and thinkers these days. I fear too many of them are funded by industries which may influence their work.
Prefers Her Fantasy Lifes last blog post..Wordless Wednesday (or Why I Love Winter)
by The Unbearable Banishment
13 Feb 2009 at 01:05
I collect rare books. In its initial run, there were only 1,250 copies of Origin of the Species printed—a very small number. A true first edition, depending on condition, can easily run into the six figures.
The Unbearable Banishments last blog post..Vegans/peta members: DO NOT READ THIS POST!
by Cat
13 Feb 2009 at 01:10
And this is why I love your blog – on Wednesday we read about your learning that the toddler actually doesn’t sleep through the night then on Thursday we celebrate Darwin’s birthday.
Cats last blog post..I Want It! I Want It! I Want It!
by Cat
13 Feb 2009 at 01:12
Of course, you did lose my liberal-arts-degree brain there a little at the end with your horizontal gene transfer blah, blah, blah, but I’m proud to say I stuck with it to the end.
by Teri
13 Feb 2009 at 01:44
Nice piece.
For some reason I have ended up in circles with fundamentalist Christians. And it’s so frustrating. I am religeous, but find no mutual exclusivity in having faith in God and believing what the evidence supports in the scientific arena. Many Christians turn to home schooling (which makes me cringe) to avoid the scientific curriculum taught in public schools.
I find I almost must appologize for my faith in scientific circles, saying, “I’m not a religeous zealot.” And I need to just not talk about anything too intellectual in some religeous circles, lest it make some minds explode with the input of more information.
Odd.
I’ve got to go to my kids. Thanks for posting this.
Teris last blog post..Mom tastic
by courtney
13 Feb 2009 at 02:16
Nicely said. I will never understand why some people consider evolution to be at odds with religion. It makes no sense to me.
Happy birthday, Chuck!
courtneys last blog post..More Than You Needed To Know
by Ginny
13 Feb 2009 at 02:24
You know what gets me? How being compared to apes is the part that drives the Creationists into fits of insulted righteous indignation. If anyone should be insulted by the comparison, it’s DEFINITELY the apes.
Wonderful, wonderful post.
by Jason O.
13 Feb 2009 at 02:45
What pisses me off is the popular media (and even some smart commentary) that totally misunderstands Darwin: The phrase “survival of the fittest” is among the most misused terms in the last century.
The “fittest” of a given population survive due to a priori genetic variations that allow this particular “fit” subset to adapt to an unforeseen change in environment…not because they are “tougher” than the rest. This misunderstanding led to the moronic “social Darwinism” concept that survives to this day.
I agree that there is an annoying tendency by the ID/creationist crowd to attempt to invalidate Darwin by finding minor inconsistencies in what is the best available theory and then claiming that the alternative theory is “God’s divine inspiration.”
A good analogy: Newton’s macro theories were wrong about the behavior of the cosmos, but his observations about the behavior of particles are the foundation of fluid mechanics and underlie all of the engineering principles that result in cars, airplanes, chemical engineering, etc.
So because his macro theories have been supplanted by general relativity, quantum theory et al, should we disregard Newtonian mechanics?
The creationist’s first principle is God. God (by definition) requires faith and no experimental data. ID and creationism belongs to metaphysics and philosophy, not science class.
Jason O.s last blog post..Inglorious Bastards?
Pingback
by You Don’t Look a Day Over 195! « Praying to Darwin
13 Feb 2009 at 03:52
[...] Happy Big 200, Charlie D. [...]
by Here In Franklin
13 Feb 2009 at 05:59
Back in the 80s we lived in Arkansas where the state legislature regluarly took up the subject of “creation science.” During one such time, we went to London. I remember being in Westminster Abbey and discovering that I was standing on Darwin’s grave. My husband cracked up as I told Darwin all about the trouble he stirred up. Great post.
Here In Franklins last blog post..To Kill a Mockingbird
by NATUI
13 Feb 2009 at 06:02
Damn those finches. What trouble they caused.
Great post, man. The kids and I will sing for him and blow out candles in his honor.
NATUIs last blog post..Where Does God Have His Hands?
by Dr O'C
13 Feb 2009 at 08:32
Just thought I should point out that it is Lincolns 200th (I think) birthday today as well:)
by Agnes
13 Feb 2009 at 11:49
I can’t say that I’m blessed with a particularly scientific mind, but I really enjoyed this post. I’ve always had a basic understanding of Darwin’s theories, but this gave it a bit more context.
I don’t understand why his work offends religious groups so deeply, but then I struggle to understand the basis of most religious concepts so I guess that makes us even.
by Casey
13 Feb 2009 at 17:03
I went to a Darwin b-day celebration tonight here in StL at the Botanical Garden. It was great. Three local profs (Dr. Patricia Parker from UMSL, Dr. Alan Templeton, WashU, and Dr. Ursula Goodenough, WashU) gave seminars concering Darwin, their own work, and science generally. Each talk was better than the one before and Dr. Goodenough gave a thoroughly splendid and engaging presentation entitled Darwin & the Sacred. Essentially dealing with three main aspects: evolutionary history (the three domains of life), the fittest and fitting in, and whether or not nature could be religious. If you get a chance to hear her talk I would highly recommend it!
by Angel
13 Feb 2009 at 21:05
Teri, you’re so right. I’m the same way. I find I can believe scientific fact when it’s presented to me even though I’m a religious person. It’s hard to get Christian zealots to believe that, but it’s also hard to get Scientific extremists to believe it, too.
Dr. O’C, being from Kentucky, the birthplace of Lincoln, he had more celebrations around here than Darwin!
There’s a tree trunk through the roof of my car. My insurance company said that is considered “…an act of God”. That’s just wrong.
Angels last blog post..Seriously. I need a vacation.
by tysdaddy
13 Feb 2009 at 22:35
I saw an article recently where the Church of England has added some pages to its site celebrating the work Darwin did locally on behalf of the parish. Yes, there are those who don’t squabble with Chuck . . .
Great post. I might link to this, for you say what I’ve been thinking lately, and way better than I ever could. I’d just blabber on and on and on . . .
tysdaddys last blog post..For Mature Audiences Only
by arizaphale
13 Feb 2009 at 23:31
Look I am a Christian and I don’t get what the fundamentalist nutcases are on about! What’s wrong with the idea that Chas just happened to stumble upon “God’s divine inspiration.” (thank you Jason)?
“The creationist’s first principle is God. God (by definition) requires faith and no experimental data. ID and creationism belongs to metaphysics and philosophy, not science class.”
F*****’ A mate!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW: have been listening to a few Radio National posts lately about the effect environmental situations have and their ability to influence what a species hands on down to the next generation. I suspect that this was mentioned somewhere in your last (incomprehensible) paragraph. Would love to hear more.
arizaphales last blog post..Public Service Announcement
by mickey
14 Feb 2009 at 03:15
I thought of you while reading the latest NatGeo about Darwin, an article that highlighted his work in South America before he even got to the Galapagos. It also discussed how modern genetics confirmed his theories and how the work is, of course, ongoing. It’s a good piece.
I also saw a survey the other day saying that something like 43% of Americans believe in evolution. How did we fail the other 57% so completely? Mind-blowing.
mickeys last blog post..Submitted for you approval:
by mongoliangirl
14 Feb 2009 at 05:17
When pressed, most leaders of organized religion will admit the ‘gospel’ (in its most basic form) is believed to be the rEVOLUTIONARY power of love. Though ’survival of the fittest’ is not necessarily Darwin, it does seem to me that living in the flexibility and power of love is what causes most of us to survive.
Makes sense to me.
Happy birthday Charlie!
by Nichole
14 Feb 2009 at 07:33
There was an interesting piece in the last issue of Smithsonian magazine about Lincoln and Darwin. And McSweeney’s birthday tribute to Darwin made me laugh.
Nicholes last blog post..Lemon Meringue was my favorite
by we_be_toys
14 Feb 2009 at 08:45
I read the articles in the Smithsonian about both Lincoln and Darwin and their separate impacts on the world. It kind of surprised me they were born on the same day – I don’t know if that signifies anything, but it’s intriguing.
I live in a part of the world where people like to ask you where you go to church, as soon as they meet you. If you don’t go to church, you might as well be one of those evolution blasphemers, to which I’d like to answer, “Amen brother!”
Happy birthday Charles – I always did have a soft spot for troublemakers!
we_be_toyss last blog post..Hindsight Doesn’t Amount to a Hill of Beans
by chris
14 Feb 2009 at 12:59
I want to know more about this epigenetic gene regulation and linear progressive evolution, break it down for us Prof.
chriss last blog post..I’ll Fly Away
by Agnes
14 Feb 2009 at 13:10
Angel, you should watch ‘The Man Who Sued God’ starring Billy Connolly (if you haven’t already). It’s about a man who sues God, or the churches as representatives of God, when an insurance company refuses to pay for his boat when it’s struck by lightning. Great movie.
by Angel
14 Feb 2009 at 23:05
Agnes, that sounds like the perfect movie for me right now! Thank you for the suggestion. Personally, I don’t get the “act of God” thing. I blame rap music.
Angels last blog post..It’s Friday, I’m in Love…"
by Agnes
15 Feb 2009 at 21:27
Hahaha Angel!
Reckon you’ll like it – it’s really clever and it’s an Aussie movie too. I might watch it now in fact, I’ve gotten all excited about it!
by Joe
16 Feb 2009 at 12:38
RE: Dr O’C’s comment…. I read in the paper a couple days ago that they’re (they being the US Mint) creating 4 new penny designs to commemorate Lincoln’s 200th. You’d think with our current economic situation, we could better use our resources.
I’m a huge Darwin fan. I find myself wondering how he would feel if he knew about the Darwin Awards:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
Joes last blog post..Charades
by n Waff
24 Feb 2009 at 05:56
As followup to a comment you posted on another web site, here is the one of the articles the report the length of finch beaks is caused by a protein.
How Darwin’s finches got their beaks
http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/foundations/articles/how-darwins-finches-got-their-beaks
I’ll get you the articles that show how, modifying the protein level causes a normally short-beaked finch to develop a long beak and visa veras.
Here is also an interesting article:
Science Paper Admits Evolution Mechanism of “Adaptive Radiation” Lacks Empirical Evidence
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/new_science_paper_admits_leadi.html
by admin
24 Feb 2009 at 12:54
n Wagg, it isn’t the protein issue that I had an argument with. Almost any morphological difference is due to changes in protein expression levels or amino acid sequence at some level. My problem with your comment was that you:
1) Stated that there was no genetic difference between the finch species, which is absolutely false and
2) Stated that this ‘proved’ intelligent design.
Don’t bring this crazy over here, please.
by admin
24 Feb 2009 at 12:55
Oh, and the article that you cite is from the creationist Discovery Institute, which we all know is very objective and scientifically sound.