Of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in The Struggle For Life by Charles Darwin, 1859.
Although belief in life developing from non life goes back to the ancient Greeks, and natural selection had been described in 1835 by the creationist Edward Blyth writing in the magazine of Natural History (Darwin cribbed the idea from him and never gave him any credit), this is the book that started the ball rolling. Its heavy going due to the plodding style and tortuous arguments (such a contrast from the racy and interesting 'Voyage of the Beagle', but then that book dealt mainly with facts rather than speculation, whereas Origin is the other way round). Nevertheless it should be read by anyone serious about the evolution/creation debate.
Much of the book is taken up with statements of the
fairly obvious, such as observations of reafforestation with and
without grazing animals excluded, and experiments Darwin carried out
like floating a dead pigeon on a pond for a few weeks then cutting it
open and seeing how many seeds in it's crop germinated (thus proving
that a dead bird might float the sea and bear seeds with it across
water to distant lands). One tends to think, yes, a very good bit of
experimental science which helps us understand how plants might spread
from one body of land to another, but how does this explain the origin
of species?
In my copy of 'origin of Species' the note TBI (true,
but irrelevant) has been scribbled frequently in the margin. But
every time Darwin spells out a science fact that you may not have
thought of (certainly his 1857 audience mostly wouldn't have) but which
makes sense, he is winning your confidence as he prepares to spring his
big story. The big story was that the observed variations we see in
species like dogs, cattle or pigeons (when selectively bred by
intelligent humans who have a goal in mind) can be logically extended
to suppose that all organs and plants and animals arose by millions of
gradual random changes from a common single celled ancestor. Darwin does not say anything about where the
single celled ancestor came from, and he admits his total ignorance
of the means by which features pass from one generation to the next (he
hadn't read Mendel). But he believes it happened. He really believes,
and invites you to. That's about it, apart from waffle, speculation,
stultified prose, irrelevancies and the excuses
offered to cover the lack of fossil evidence (it is still lacking).
Difficulties with the theory? nah! Just IMAGINE
them away!
Darwin includes a chapter on difficulties with the theory, but this is false modesty inserted as an emollient to give the appearance of humility and persuade the naive reader that the due process of science is being followed. Reading between the lines, he doesn't believe there are any difficulties, he has persuaded himself he is right and that the difficulties (even the ones he acknowledges are overwhelming) can just be 'supposed' away. He uses words like 'suppose' quite often. He wriggles and squirms around the 'difficulties' but doesn't satisfactorily answer any of them. His self referential and circular reasoning as he tries to wish away the impossibility of the vertebrate eye arising by various gradual changes over millions of generations is a masterpiece of evasion which should be read by all aspiring politicians and criminal defence lawyers, it is reminiscent of Tony Blair on Iraq. In the end he just says he doesn't see any problem with the eye in all its complexity coming into being by millions of gradual changes (from a starting point, although he avoids this inevitable consequence of his thought, of dirty water and lightning).
Darwin must have known even then (when so little was known about biochemistry and the cell) that he was speculating way beyond what the evidence could support. Natural selection, his only agent for change, explains small variations within species or even perhaps families of plants and animals, but to achieve large changes through many successive sequential small changes, say from reptile to bird, the putative evolving organisms would have to pass through many, many stages which were neither one thing nor the other, so had no selective advantage, so they would be selected against. This was clear even then, and clear in terms of Darwin's own theory, so although Darwin is less to blame than modern scientists who are aware of the irreducibly complex nature of cell biology and the DNA check and repair mechanism which is only explicable in terms of intelligent design and also an effective road block against evolution, Darwin certainly had no excuse for refusing to address the issue of useless intermediate structures.
Useless intermediate structures which
natural selection would have eliminated
His avoidance of the problematic area of origin of life from non life,
massive an omission though this is, is more excusable than his
avoidance of the issue of the useless intermediate structures which
would have been necessary for his hypothesis to be true (species
occurring through natural selection for beneficial traits which had
arisen by an process that was at that time unknown but which we
now realise could only have been random
mutation). Such structures, if they existed (for which we have no
evidence) were neither one thing nor the other. Since the book is
supposed to be about natural selection, this is an extremely grave
omission which should have sunk the theory at birth. Why does he not
offer any explanation of how partly formed structures could offer
selective advantage? To take the much proclaimed supposition that birds
evolved by innumerable gradual changes from reptiles, a structure that
is neither scale nor feather, neither reptile claw nor bird wing,
neither reptile heart/lung nor bird heart/lung etc etc is useless so
could not confer any selective benefit. Natural selection would
therefore act against the wasteful, inefficient not feather not scale,
not fin not leg, not gill not lung, not arm not wing, etc. It must be
constantly repeated, natural selection is a demonstrable science fact
which even the most radical Biblical literalist young earth
creationists accept. It eliminates less fit structures and
organisms. IT CREATES NOTHING. This failure to address the
problem of non-advantageous intermediate structures is an absolutely
vast, gaping hole in Darwin's theory IN IT'S OWN TERMS which should
have led to it being laughed out of sight had not there been such a
willing audience who wanted to get rid of the idea of a creator God and
replace it with, well, absolutely anything.
Natural selection is a useful concept, and may even have led through adaptation to environmental changes to new species (as with dogs, carp, grasses, rattlesnakes, oak trees, finches etc) but the cardinal error of the book is the great leap of faith which asserts that given enough time, enough generations, one kind of animal would turn into completely different kind. We do not see this in living or fossil animals, there is no evidence to prove that it has ever happened, or that it could happen. It bears repeating that Darwin never saw one kind of animal turn into another, and to this day neither has anyone else. It is faith, not science.
He knew, and said, that for this supposed
transformation from a common ancestor to all living things, the only
real proof (since we cannot see it happening today or travel back in
time) would be large numbers of intermediate forms in the fossil record. He lamented and made excuses
for the absence of these intermediate fossils and predicted that they
would turn up. After 150 years of massive world-wide effort, mostly
done by people who wanted to prove Darwin right, the intermediate
fossils predicted by and necessary for his theory are still
absent. They are the only possible direct evidence of evolution, given
the fact that we do not see species 'morphing' into other species. When
does absence of evidence become evidence of absence?
Evolutionists, when confronted with the observable fact that apart from
minor variations within species which are accounted for by Mendelian
genetics, we do not see evolution in action, reply that of course this
morphing between different kinds of plant or animal happens very, very,
very gradually over millions and millions of years. If this were true,
then allowing for major fossil producing events say every couple of ten
thousand years or so, the fossil bearing rocks ought to be packed with
intermediate kinds, in fact the intermediates ought to be more abundant
than 'fixed' species that we recognise. The reverse is
true, with only a tiny number of disputed intermediate kinds to
set against the millions of fossils which are of clearly defined
species (sponges, ferns, shellfish, arthropods, fishes etc) when
considered with an open mind can usually be ruled definitely as one
kind or another. They are still missing despite a gigantic,
global, determined and well funded effort to find them. What we find in
the fossil record is large numbers of animals and plants of all kinds
appearing suddenly without ancestors (see Cambrian explosion).
After this there are extinctions (and supposed extinctions-see coelacanth) and stasis, more in
keeping with the Creation and global flood model.
Mendel-a proper
scientist who only wrote about what he observed in his experiments and
who founded the science of genetics
While Darwin was hurriedly writing his book to get it into print before Wallace beat him to it (Wallace had independently reached similar conclusions), Gregor Mendel 's work on plant breeding appeared. This, unlike 'Origin of Species', was firmly based on experimental and repeatable science and has proved to be an enduring foundation of genetics. Mendel demonstrated the extent to which species tend to breed true and although variations did appear, left to breed without interference there was a strong tendency to return to the norm for that species. This suggested that natural selection was essentially a conservative process, not a means for producing new kinds of plant of animal. Mendel's work is not mentioned by Darwin in Origin of Species, whether he had read it or not at the time is unclear, probably not but who knows?
The success of the philosophical speculations in this book can best be explained by the rising tide of materialism, revolution and atheism in Europe at the time, it certainly does not establish any scientific case beyond the banal. Natural selection had been written up by the creationist Edward Blyth 24 years earlier, and Darwin had studied his work, as well as that of Wallace and others who had written up the idea of natural selection that would forever be associated with his name. People WANTED (and still want) an explanation of the natural world that excluded a supreme deity, so they could get rid of the restricting idea of God and follow their autonomous desires to do as they pleased. Malcolm Bowden has written this up in his 'Rise of the Evolution Fraud'. Those who wanted a watered down Christianity included many compromising, jobsworth churchmen, some of whom were much more quickly won over to the new belief system than scientists, many of whom dismissed Darwin's speculations as nonsense.
In 2009, this book and its author will be celebrated. As we have shown, his theory should be called a philosophical speculation since theories are supposed to be consistent with a large body of evidence, be falsifiable (in other words, be subject to realistic tests which in theory could prove them false) be the best explanation to fit the available facts, and make predictions which are later fulfilled. Evolution, as an explanation of unguided molecules to man progress, fails all these tests.
Natural selection DOES fit these parameters and has useful, albeit limited, explanatory power, and although Darwin did not discover natural selection he deserves credit for writing it up, but the assumption that natural selection acting on naturally occurring variations could explain molecules to man 'evolution' is entirely inconsistent with the observed facts and would have been completely discarded long ago if it were not such a cherished belief, getting rid as it does of the necessity for a creator. Will the 2009 Darwin Day celebrate scientific integrity and truth, or a deeply flawed idea which is protected from criticism because it 'liberates' men from the idea of a Big Scary God?
Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin. This fascinating book is more of a travelogue and anthropological commentary than a biology treatise, well worth a read for anyone interested in the life and times of Charles Darwin. Darwin writes about his adventures on board the Beagle as Captain Fitz Roy's companion. He wasn't the ship's naturalist as is commonly supposed, the ship's doctor was. Darwin's only qualification was in theology, but he certainly got stuck in to the nature with enthusiasm.
Clearly Darwin had a wonderful time, writing in chapter 1 he says “Delight is a weak term to express the feelings of a naturalist who for the first time has wandered by himself in a Brazilian forest. The elegance of the grasses, the novelty of the parasitical plants, the beauty of the flowers, the glossy green of the foliage, but above all the general luxuriance of the vegetation, filled me with admiration……To a person fond of natural history, such a day as this brings with it a deeper pleasure than he can ever hope to experience again.” It is difficult for us today to imagine how marvellous an adventure it was to go round the world on a sailing ship, used as we are to excellently filmed colour wildlife documentaries on TV.
He wrote of his stay near Rio, ‘In England, any person fond of natural history enjoys in his walks a great advantage, by always having something to attract his attention; but in these fertile climates, teeming with life, the attractions are so numerous that he is scarcely able to walk at all.’ His notes are suffused with his sense of wonder at nature coming through, and carefully observed writing about giant butterflies, vampire bats, skunks, condors and their lice, pumas and jaguars (and their victims’ remains) monkeys, fireflies, gigantic ant’s nests, puffer fish, sharks, booby birds, sundry invertebrates ands plants. He also recorded extensive notes on the humans he travelled and lived with.
Many birds are described in detail, it is clear that Darwin’s knowledge of them was encyclopaedic. Here we see Darwin thinking about bird populations on islands, a theme he was to return to as part of his later speculations about change occurring over time in isolated populations. He wrote of the local populations as he travelled through South America, gauchos, villagers, soldiers and slaves. He describes local customs and hospitality, hunting with the gauchos and a humorous incident in which he accidentally caught himself and his horse with the throwing balls (bolas). Many interesting anecdotes are recounted and the difficulties are mentioned, including a degree of lawlessness and the worrying knives and daggers which many men seemed to carry with them and were not infrequently used in fights. Clearly the journey was accompanied by some degree of personal discomfort and risk. There are many descriptions of hardship and discomfort, danger from potentially hostile Indians and hunting Jaguars and Pumas as well as mosquitoes and hunger and thirst. His descriptions of the Gauchos hunting and beef butchery and cookery are fascinating
He records examples of the cruel treatment of slaves which he observed in Brazil, clearly Darwin (in as far as we can tell from what he wrote in his journal when nobody had heard of him, so most likely he was writing very honestly) was clearly moved with anger by the ill treatment of his fellow humans and was a concerned and compassionate man who protested against mistreatment of others just because they were considered ‘barbarians’. He protested against the cruel killing of Indians and the prevailing attitude that justified this as ‘they breed so!’, expressing outrage that ‘in this age, such atrocities could be committed in a "Christian civilised country."’ He described while travelling through Argentina finding hanging from a tree the skeleton of an Indian with the dried skin over bones. He was clearly sickened by the approval his travelling companions expressed at this ghastly sight. There are many references to genocidal wars and bloody revolutions going on in South America during his time there, and it seems likely that this would have impressed him very deeply along with the flora and fauna he observed. He made the remarkable observation, regarding Paraguay, and lamenting its wars, revolutions and economic failure ‘That country will have to learn, like every other South American state, that a republic cannot succeed until it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.’ Very true words; it is interesting to look at them from the context of a 2006 Britain in moral decline which has now largely abandoned Christianity, (Islam, which has never accepted evolution or any form of pluralism and which unlike Christianity does not doubt itself, is growing fast) and in which the murder of pensioners by teenagers is commonplace, crime, drug abuse and marital breakdown are rampant, nobody trusts our politicians and we have to import foreign workers since so many of our own young people are too vain and lazy to do honest work.
He obtained the head of a Mylodon, a giant extinct quadruped, and noted that the bones were so fresh that they contained by analysis 7 percent animal matter and when placed in a spirit lamb burned with a small flame. This certainly suggests that the fossils of these gigantic extinct creatures may not have been millions of years old. (it is interesting to compare this with the recent wet material obtained from a T. Rex thigh bone in the USA-see Answers in Genesis for more details).
He brought his able and enquiring mind to bear on questions such as the amount of food it took to support a large animal and made the interesting observation that, should whales have been extinct and nobody had ever seen one, and the fossilised skeleton of a Greenland whale be found, nobody would have believed that its diet consisted of small invertebrates living in icy cold arctic seas? This is an interesting observation which can be rightly applied to other fossils about which unsupported assumptions are made, remembering also the coelacanth.
Writing about a poisonous snake, Trigonocephalus crepitans, Darwin remarks that is appeared to be intermediate between a rattlesnake and ‘the viper’ (rattlesnakes are of course vipers so presumably he must have meant some other particular viper which is not here named). He went on to say ‘I observed a fact, which appears to me very curious and instructive, as showing how every character, even though it may be in some degree independent of structure, has a tendency to vary by slow degrees. The extremity of the tail of this snake is terminated by a point, which is very slightly enlarged; and as the animal glides along, it constantly vibrates the last inch; and this part striking against the dry grass and brushwood produces a rattling noise, which can be distinctly heard at the distance of six feet….The Trigonocephalus has therefore in some respects the structure of a viper, with the habits of a rattlesnake; the noise however being produced by a simpler device.’ Here we see perhaps the beginnings of Darwin’s idea that there was no true fixity of species and that it was possible as it were to ‘morph’ from one animal to another by numerous slow changes over aeons. He wrote later in Origin of Species that he thought the Creationist belief that every single type of animal had been created exactly as it was and had never changed at all was inconsistent with his observations of small differences like this between 'related' vipers, and he proposed an alternative explanation, which was that variation had occurred with descent from common ancestors. It is of course one thing to propose a couple of dozen localised rattlesnake sub-species descending with variation/adaptation from a common rattlesnake ancestor, quite another to suppose that all snakes, lizards, turtles etc, let alone birds, fish, mammals and all the rest were descended from a single ancestor. But one can see where Darwin was coming from with these observations about similarities between animals belonging to the same group. Of course, he never saw any animals with features between groups, as they have never existed.
Visiting the Galapagos islands, we see the clearest evidence of the nascent theory of natural selection (variation within a kind) in his observations of finches with different shaped beaks. He wrote of the differently beaked finches, 'Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.' I return to my abbreviation TBI (true, but irrelevant).
Further observations are made of Australia, which he didn't like much, and the book closes with a chapter including the interesting statements 'The march of improvement, consequent on the introduction of Christianity throughout the South Sea, probably stands by itself in the records of history.' Thinking back to his comments deploring the cruel treatment of Indians in South America. One can only speculate what Darwin might have thought if he had foreseen what results the widespread adoption of his story of origins would have on men's beliefs and consequent behaviour.
In the penultimate paragraph of 'Beagle' Darwin notes, '..as the traveller stays but a short time in each pace, his description must generally consist of mere sketches, instead of detailed observations. Hence arises, as I have found to my cost, a constant tendency to fill up the wide gaps of knowledge, by inaccurate and superficial hypotheses.'
Ahem, yes Charles. Thank you for, on this occasion,
being so honest. Some of us had noticed this 'constant tendency to fill
up the gaps of knowledge' in your and your disciples' writing,
otherwise known as confabulation.
Highly forgivable in a travel book, especially such a good one as
'Beagle', less so when we are talking about the origin, and therefore
destiny, of the human race.