History of Nature 6a Darwinian Revn.pdf

DARWIN AND THE “EVOLUTION
REVOLUTION”
COMPETITION AND CHANGE

DARWIN AND THE “EVOLUTION
REVOLUTION”
COMPETITION AND CHANGE
You are here

EVOLUTION REVOLUTION
DARWIN’S MURDER
I am almost convinced
(quite contrary to the
opinion I started with) that
species are not (it is like
confessing a murder)
immutable.

Charles Darwin, 1844
en.wikipedia.org

▸ Evolution in the context of life on Earth is the idea that one
kind of organism can change into another kind over time

▸ Includes, but is not identical to, changes caused by natural
selection
WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
atheismresource.com

EVOLUTION BEFORE THE
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
I cannot understand why you scienti
fi
c people make
such a fuss about Darwin. Why it’s all in Lucretius!

Matthew Arnold, 1871

▸ Narrator: It wasn’t, not really…

▸ [A common response from the non-Darwinians; see

▸ Osborn, Henry Fair
fi
eld. 1894. From the Greeks to
Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the
Evolution Idea. Columbia University Biological Series.
I. New York: Macmillan.]
Elliott & Fry – National Portrait Gallery, London: http://
www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw115288/
Matthew-Arnold, Public Domain

THE RISE OF STUDYING NATURE

▸ An increasing interest in facts and
observations from the 9th century among
educated theologians (contrary to the “Dark
Ages” myth)

Ages” myth)
▸ In the 16th century, European scholars begin
to challenge the authority of the Bible as the
primary source of information about life on
Earth

Ages” myth)
▸ In the 16th century, European scholars begin
to challenge the authority of the Bible as the
primary source of information about life on
Earth
▸ In the 17th century, this became the norm.

HOOKE AND THE AGES OF CREATION
There have been many other Species of Creatures in
former Ages, of which we can
fi
nd none at present;
and that ’tis not unlikely
also but that there may be
divers[e] new kinds now,
which have not been from
the beginning.

Hooke, 1705
http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/67/2/123

JEAN-BAPTISTE DE LAMARCK
(1744-1829)
‣ A French scientist at the Natural History Museum in Paris

‣ Held that

‣ Life is created spontaneously

‣ Simple species become more
complex in response to their
environments
en.wikipedia.org

“LAMARCKISM”
▸ Characteristics develop in response to use
and disuse

▸ New characteristics can be inherited by
offspring

▸ ‘Soft’ inheritance

▸ Evolution is like a fetus developing
according to a pre-existing plan, in a
particular direction (progressive evolution)
http://www.artinsociety.com/the-art-of-giraffe-diplomacy.html
https://www.bioscience.com.pk/topics/zoology/item/593-
organic-evolution-lamarckism

CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN
(1809–82)
▸ English scientist

▸ Sent to university to become a doctor or
clergyman

▸ Passionate about natural history as a student

▸ Accepts place on voyage of The HMS Beagle
© Darwin Heirlooms Trust, English Heritage Photo Library

THE INFLUENCE OF LYELL
▸ Charles Lyell (1797–1875)

▸ Uniformitarianism

▸ Principles of geology (1830–33)

▸ Darwin took a copy with him on the
Beagle

▸ Open to evolution, but rejected Lamarck
en.wikipedia.org

DARWIN AFTER THE BEAGLE
▸ Darwin read Rev. Thomas Malthus’ (1766–
1834) An essay on the principle of population
(1798)

▸ From it he gained the idea of the Struggle for
Existence in nature

▸ Idea also in other writers (e.g., de Candolle,
even Aristotle)
en.wikipedia.org

ROBERT CHAMBERS (1802–71)
▸ Publisher and Encyclopaedist

▸ Author of Vestiges of the natural history
of creation (1844)

▸ Life began as a simple form, that
became more complex over time

▸ [Rejected by nearly all naturalists;
Wallace was an exception]
en.wikipedia.org

ALFRED RUSSELL WALLACE(1823–1913)
‣ Persuaded of evolution by Chambers

‣ Identified the Wallace Line

‣ Also inspired by Malthus, while
recovering from malaria

‣ Wrote about his ideas to Darwin in 1858
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

THOMAS HUXLEY (1825–95)
‣ English scientist

‣ Trained as a surgeon

‣ Rattlesnake voyage 1846–50

‣ Met and eventually married an Australian
girl from Sydney

‣ Lectured in paleontology and natural
history at the London School of Mines
www.npg.org.uk

If then the question is put to me would I rather have a
miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly
endowed by nature and possessed of great means of
in
fl
uence & yet who employs those faculties & that
in
fl
uence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule
into a grave scienti
fi
c discussion — I unhesitatingly
affirm my preference for the ape.

Huxley,1860

ASA GRAY (1810–88)
▸ American botanist

▸ Con
fi
ded in by Darwin before
publication

▸ An active Christian

▸ No natural explanation for variation

▸ Natural selection consistent with natural
theology
botlib.huh.harvard.edu

ASA GRAY

▸ Darwin had no scienti
fi
c explanation for mutations (although he tried)

▸ Gray held that God caused “fortuitous variation” on which selection
acted

Really, we no more know the reason why the progeny
occasionally deviates from the parents than we do why it
usually resembles it.

DARWIN’S RESPONSE

▸ If we ascribe the end results of natural selection to God’s guidance,
we may as well abandon natural selection as an explanation
OPPOSING VIEWS

DARWIN ON PROVIDENCE
If we assume that each particular variation was from
the beginning of all time preordained, the plasticity of
organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations
of structure, as well as that redundant power of
reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for
existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural
selection or survival of the
fi
ttest, must appear to us
superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an
omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything
and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to
face with a dif
fi
culty as insoluble as is that of free will
and predestination.

Darwin 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication

THE DARWINIAN VIEW
▸ Nature is de
fi
ned by two phrases

▸ “the struggle for existence” [from Malthus]

▸ “the survival of the
fi
ttest” [from Spencer]

▸ Nature is a place of biological change

▸ Nature is competitive; similar to the capitalism of Adam
Smith and David Ricardo (who Darwin read)

▸ Nature is wasteful (Malthus)

HUMANS ARE THE RESULT
OF NATURAL PROCESSES
▸ Darwin’s greatest offence was to naturalise humans in a competitive nature.

▸ It wasn’t that we evolved from apes; but that we are apes, animals and
natural products of an unguided process.

▸ More, it was because humans were the process of a cruel and wasteful
process, not the bene
fi
cent design of a loving deity who created nature for
our use.

▸ The moral issues also played a part:

I have received in a Manchester newspaper a
rather a good squib, showing that I have
proved "might is right", & therefore that
Napoleon is right & every cheating tradesman
is also right
‣ The newspaper is now called The Guardian

ARE HUMANS THE RESULT OF SELECTION?
▸ Darwin in the Descent (1871) held that human traits were either the result of
natural selection, sexual selection, or culture.

▸ He referred to “races” (the Turkish, the European, the Negro, the
Amerindian) in ways that were confused, sometimes biological and
sometimes cultural (civilisations), but
fi
rmly viewed human differences as
biologically trivial

▸ Shortly after the Origin, Wallace and W. R. Greg argued that civilisation
countered natural selection and let the un
fi
t survive, to the species’ detriment.

▸ Darwin rejected this in the Descent, arguing that we were still subject to
selection.

RELIGIOUS REACTIONS
▸ Contrary to common opinion, many church authorities initially accepted evolution

‣ Rev. Baden Powell:

‣ Mr Darwin’s masterly volume supports the grand principle of the self-evolving
powers of nature.

‣ Rev. Charles Kingsley (author of The Water Babies):

‣ I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to
believe that he created primal forms capable of self development into all forms
needful pro tempore & pro loco [for the time and place], as to believe that He
required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas wh he himself had
made.” Letter to Darwin 18 November 1859

‣ German Catholic bishops in 1860 partially rejected it:

‣ … man as regards his body, emerged
fi
nally from the spontaneous continuous
change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred
Scripture and to the Faith.

SUMMARY
▸ Darwinian nature is seen as a Malthusian process of waste
and trimming by competition

▸ Loss of the idea of teleology in nature

▸ Struggle for life precedes Darwin

▸ Neither Arcadian nor Imperial view of nature, but often
interpreted as Industrial/Capitalist

DARWIN’S [AND WALLACE’S] SEVEN MAIN THEORIES
1. Evolution itself (transmutation of species)

2. Common Descent (shared ancestry of related species)

3. Struggle for Existence (life is not bene
fi
cent)

4. Natural Selection (competition leads to some reproducing more)

5. Sexual Selection (mate choice – usually female – leads to maladaptive
traits)

6. Biogeography (close allied species are regionally close also)

7. Pangenesis (Darwin’s failed attempt to found heredity)

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
3. Struggle for Existence
4. Natural Selection
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
Transmutationism (also called by Darwin
“Descent with Modification”). This word
means in context that species change
("mutate", from the Latin) from one
species to another.

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
This is the view (not held by all
evolutionists prior to Darwin or even
after) that similar species with similar
structures (homologies) were similar
because they were descended from a
common ancestor. Darwin tended to
present the cases for limited common
descent – i.e., of mammals or birds – but
extended the argument to the view that
all life arises from a common ancestor or
small set of common ancestors.

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
This is the view that more organisms are
born than can survive. Consequently,
most of those zygotes that are fertilised
will die, and of those that reach partition
(birth) many will either die or not be able
to reproduce. The competition here is
against the environment, which includes
other species (predators and organisms
that use the same food and other
resources).

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
This is a complex view that species
naturally have a spread of variations, and
that variants that confer an advantage on
the bearer organisms, and are hereditable,
will reproduce more frequently than
competitors, and change the species
overall.

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
Many features of organisms are obvious
hindrances (such as the tails of birds of
paradise), and these often occur in one
sex only. Darwin argued that there was
competition for mating opportunities and
any feature that initially marked a gender
out as a good mating opportunity would
become exaggerated by the mating
choices of the opposite gender.
Competition here is between conspeci
fi
cs
of the same gender. Wallace did not think
much of this idea.

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
Darwin and Wallace were concerned to
explain why species were found in the
areas they were, and argued that
dispersal of similar, but related, species
was due to their evolution in one place
and migration into other regions

1. Evolution itself
2. Common Descent
5. Sexual Selection
6. Biogeography
7. Pangenesis
Darwin knew very little about what we
would call the principles of genetics. He
accepted the prevailing and old view that
the use of features of the organism would
change the way those features were
inherited.

History of Nature 6a Darwinian Revn.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to History of Nature 6a Darwinian Revn.pdf

Similar to History of Nature 6a Darwinian Revn.pdf (13)

More from John Wilkins

More from John Wilkins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

History of Nature 6a Darwinian Revn.pdf