Evolution itself is simply the process of change over time. When applied
to biology, evolution generally refers to changes in life forms over time.
"The Theory of Biological Evolution" is a term used to refer to
the proposition that all
forms of life on earth are related through common descent, that inheritable
traits are passed on from parent organisms to their offspring, that some
changes naturally arise when organisms have offspring, and that over time
these changes have resulted in the variety of life that we see on earth
today.
The Theory of Biological Evolution is most often associated with Charles Darwin,
because it was Charles Darwin that proposed the mechanism of natural
selection and accompanied that proposition with a large volume of empirical data
providing evidence for biological evolution.
Darwin was not, however, the first person to propose an evolutionary
explanation for the diversity of life on earth. In fact, evolutionary
concepts about life date far back into history and arose in many different
cultures. The Greeks developed a concept of evolution over 2,300 years ago
that was basically equivalent to that of Charles Darwin's, but the early
Christians opposed the idea and destroyed all of the works that promoted it
or any other naturalistic explanations for earthly phenomena.
There are literally thousands of different mythological stories about the
origin of the world and of life. There are several common themes in origin
mythology, but there are many different means by which the universe, earth,
life, and man have come into being throughout the various different origin
myths. The importance and role of origin mythology has varied
widely from culture to culture throughout history as well. In many archaic
cultures origin mythology was not central to the belief system, nor were the
origin myths fully thought-out to a logical conclusion. In societies that
did not have writing, origin myths, like all of the other myths, were passed
down orally, and often served as a form of entertainment as well as a means
of passing on beliefs that were important to the society.
When looking at origin myths from around the world several patterns can
be observed. The origin myths of pre-agricultural societies tend to place humans and
animals in close relations, while the origin myths of agricultural societies
tend describe a separate creation of humans. Some of the beliefs about humans and animals that are expressed in various
origin myths include beliefs that: Animals transformed into people, humans
were born from animals, the gods were animals or part-man/part-animals, there was a time when animals were
civilized, humans and animals share spirits, humans are reincarnated as
animals or animals as humans.
Among more technologically advanced societies, where separation between
humans and other animals was more pronounced and where humans had
domesticated animals, themes such as the domination of man over animals, the
separate creation of man from animals, and the creation of animals for the
use of man are common themes in origin mythology.
Australian Aboriginal culture is thought to be the oldest continuous
culture in the world, due to the isolation of the Australian continent. The
mythology of the Aboriginal Australians is also thought to be reflective of
some of man's earliest mythology. Below is one telling of Aboriginal
Australian origin mythology.
In the beginning the earth was a bare plain. All was dark. There was
no life, no death. The sun, the moon, and the stars slept beneath the
earth. All the eternal ancestors slept there, too, until at last they
woke themselves out of their own eternity and broke through to the
surface.
When the eternal ancestors arose, in the Dreamtime, they wandered the
earth, sometimes in animal form - as kangaroos, or emus, or lizards --
sometimes in human shape, sometimes part animal and human, sometimes as
part human and plant.
Two such beings, self-created out of nothing, were the Ungambikula.
Wandering the world, they found half-made human beings. They were made
of animals and plants, but were shapeless bundles, lying
higgledy-piggledy, near where water holes and salt lakes could be
created. The people were all doubled over into balls, vague and
unfinished, without limbs or features.
With their great stone knives, the Ungambikula carved heads, bodies,
legs, and arms out of the bundles. They made the faces, and the hands
and feet. At last the human beings were finished.
Thus every man and woman was transformed from nature and owes
allegiance to the totem of the animal or the plant that made the bundle
they were created from -- such as the plum tree, the grass seed, the
large and small lizards, the parakeet, or the rat.
This work done, the ancestors went back to sleep. Some of them
returned to underground homes, others became rocks and trees. The trails
the ancestors walked in the Dreamtime are holy trails. Everywhere the
ancestors went, they left sacred traces of their presence -- a rock, a
waterhole, a tree.
For the Dreamtime does not merely lie in the distant past, the
Dreamtime is the eternal Now.
This origin myth, like many archaic myths, demonstrates the concept of a
common ancestry between humans and other animals.
In many Native American and Asian mythologies there is no specific
creator god or act of creation, instead the world is said to have formed out
of chaos, and the development of life is said to be a product of some spirit
force. This spirit force is often said in these belief systems to be ever-present and continually acting. Native American mythology generally presents
humans and animals as being related and having common ancestry. Many
different Native American cultures discovered and interpreted fossils and
integrated the knowledge of fossils into their origin mythology.
Various origin myths can be identified
as having come from Asia, but origin mythology has not held an important role in
Asia for many centuries. This is largely because much of Asia came to be
dominated by Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, all of which are highly
philosophical and say little or nothing about origins.
"Animism" was common among the European and Asian cultures of
pre-historic Eurasia and persisted into relatively recent times in some
parts, until it
ultimately came into conflict with Christianity. Many of the ancient
European cultures, such as the Celts, the Huns, those of the Scandinavians,
and many others, believed in a common tie between the "animal" and "human"
world. Indeed for many there was no separation at all. This is one reason why the
wearing of animal hides was a common ritual practice among the so-called
"barbarian" tribes of Europe.
It was precisely this belief in the unity of the human and animal
world that that was seen as "pagan" and primitive by later Christians of the Roman Empire and post-imperial Romanized societies. The
belief that humans and the animal world are united has been one of the major
beliefs that Christians have worked to stamp out over the past two millennia
of Christian expansionism. First throughout Europe, and then throughout
North and South America, Christians have come into conflict with cultures
that viewed humans as having descended, in some form, either spiritually or
bodily, from animals. In every case Christians have fought intensely for the
past 2,000 years to
eradicate the belief that humans and animals have a close relationship.
Mesopotamia is known as the "cradle of civilization", and for good
reason. It is in Mesopotamia that writing, farming, and the domestication of
animals is thought to have first taken place. Civilization from this region
had wide ranging impacts on the surrounding area as the practices of
writing, farming, domestication, law, and coinage spread east and west to
influence other cultures.
It is also from Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean that we find the most
developed creation myths that tell of a separate creation of man and of the
domination of man over the rest of the animal world.
The Sumerians, because they were the first to develop writing, recorded
one of the oldest known origin myths. Sumerian mythology tells that the gods
lived on earth where they worked and toiled. After some time, the gods grew
tired of working so they created humans to do their work for them. In
Sumerian mythology a team of six gods created humans from a special mud. During
the creation several different "defective" people were made, (non-sexual,
sterile, diseased, and blind) explaining why it is that such afflicted
people exist on the earth.
Animals, in this case, already existed and were of a completely separate
origin. The people were made in the image of the gods, to be like the
gods, but they were
mortal and imperfect. This mythology tells that people were created for the
purpose of laboring and ruling over the animals and farm fields.
In a major telling of Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish, which
was based on the Sumerian story, the primary Babylonian god Marduk is
credited with directing the creation of the heavens and the earth through
six cycles and creating man as the final and ultimate act of his creation.
The purpose of creation, again, was to remove the burden of work from the
gods by creating humans in the form of gods to take on the burden of work. In
the Babylonian myth the blood of Kingu, a god who led a rebellion against Marduk, was used to create mankind.
His [Marduk's] heart prompts him to create ingenious things.
He conveys his idea to Ea,
Imparting the plan which he had conceived in his heart:
'Blood will I form and cause bone to be;
Then will I set up a savage, Man shall be his name!
Yes, I will create mankind!'
Upon him shall the services of the gods be imposed that they may be at
rest.
...
Kingu it was who created the strife,
And caused Tiamat to rebel and prepare for battle.
They [the gods] bound him and held him before Ea;
Punishment they inflicted upon him by cutting the arteries of his blood.
With his blood they created mankind;
He [Ea] imposed the services of the gods upon them and set the gods
free.
After Ea, the wise, had created mankind,
And they had imposed the services of the gods upon them-
That work was not suited to human understanding;
In accordance with the ingenious plans of Marduk did Nudimmud [Ea]
create it. - Enuma Elish, ~1700 BCE
In the Sumerian myth the humans have no divinity, but in the Babylonian
myth people are given partial divinity by their creation from the blood of a
god, but the god from which they were made was rebellious and deceitful,
thus giving the explanation for the "negative" aspects of human behavior.
Like the creation myths of the Sumerians and Babylonians, the creation
myth of the Hebrews tells of a separate and special creation of man. In the
Hebrew myth man is also given dominion over the plant and animal kingdoms.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be
for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of
the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. - Genesis 1, ~440 BCE
It is also worthy of note that the Genesis myth, like the Sumerian and
Babylonian myths (as well as other Mesopotamian myths), mentions the
existence of cattle (domesticated animals) at the time of creation. All of
these myths were obviously influenced by the fact that their civilizations
had control over animals. Importantly as well, all of these myths reflect
the fact that these were civilizations where work was portrayed as the
objective of life.
Moving from the mythical and religious realm to the philosophical, the Greeks made
substantial philosophical arguments in favor of a universe created and
designed by a creator god for the use of man.
Many different schools of philosophy developed in Greece. Stoicism was a
Greek school of philosophy that, while ostensibly non-religious and
anti-superstitious, viewed the universe as being intelligently designed by a
rational creator, who continued to govern the universe through his divine
providence.
In 45 BCE the Roman statesman Cicero wrote a masterful summary of the
boldest elements of Greek philosophy, The Nature of the Gods. In the
tradition of his time the work was written in dialog format. In The
Nature Cicero put forward the positions of the major schools of Greek
philosophy relating to gods, the universe, and life. The Nature was a
widely read work by Roman scholars and early Roman Christians; such men as
Saint Augustine were influenced by the work. The Nature also, of course,
reflects the views and opinions that prevailed in Mediterranean society
shortly before the birth of Christianity. In The Nature Cicero
summarized the arguments for and against views, including those of Platonic
Stoics, that the universe was created by an intelligent force for the use
of man, and thus the book serves as a good window into that school of
philosophy.
[W]ho would ascribe the intelligence of a man to him who when he saw
such regularity in the movements of the heavens, such stability in the
order of the stars, such interconnection and mutual coherence in all
things, denied the presence of any reason in these, and described as the
result of chance things which are administered with a skill to which we
cannot by any skill attain? Or is it that when we see anything such as a
globe, or horologe, or numerous other things, moving by means of some
kind of mechanism, we make no question of their being the work of
intelligence, and yet are skeptical, although we see the heavens rushing
on with marvelous speed, and bringing about with the utmost regularity
the yearly recurring changes of the seasons by their revolution,
ensuring thereby the most complete well-being and preservation of all
things,—are we, I say, skeptical as to such phenomena being the result
not merely of intelligence, but of an intelligence which is exalted and
divine? For we may now set aside the refinements of argument, and
survey, as it were, with our eyes the beauty of the things which we say
were instituted by the divine providence.
And in the first place let us note the earth as a whole, which is
situated in the central quarter of the universe, and is solid,
spherical, gathered at every point into that shape by its own gravity,
and clothed with flowers, herbs, trees, and fruits, the incredible
multitude of all these being set off by a variety which cannot tire. Add
to them the cool perennial springs, the liquid transparency of the
rivers, the green covering of the banks, the vast hollows of the caves,
the rugged rocks, the lofty overhanging mountains, and the boundless
plains; add, too, the hidden veins of gold and silver, and the limitless
wealth of marble. And what tribes of animals, there are, both tame and
wild, and how various! what flights and songs of birds, what grazing of
cattle, what forms of woodland life! How shall I next speak of the race
of men, the appointed cultivators, as it were, of the earth, who neither
allow it to become the lair of savage beasts, nor to be turned into a
waste by a rough undergrowth, and whose handiwork makes bright the
fields and islands and coasts, dotting them with houses and cities? If
we could see these things with our eyes, as we can with our mind, no
one, when he gazed upon the earth in its completeness, would doubt as to
the divine intelligence.
...
The conclusion is thus reached upon every hand, and from every
consideration, that everything in this universe is marvelously
administered by the divine intelligence and forethought with a view to
the safety and preservation of all things. But it will be asked for
whose sake so vast a work was carried out. Was it for the sake of trees
and herbs, which though without sensation are nevertheless sustained by
Nature? No, that at any rate is absurd. Was it for the sake of animals?
It is equally improbable that the gods went to such pains for beings
that are dumb and without understanding. For whose sake, then, would one
say that the universe was formed? For the sake, undoubtedly, of those
animate beings that exercise reason. These are gods and men, whom
nothing assuredly transcends in excellence, since reason is the highest
of all things. It is thus credibly established that the universe and
everything that is in it were made for the sake of gods and men. - The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE
This argument, while more sophisticated and philosophically derived,
exemplifies the reasoning present in the earlier creation myths of the
Sumerians, Babylonians, and certainly the Hebrews, as well as the myths of
others. This reasoning, however, was not the only one present in ancient
Greece or presented in The Nature.
Must I not here express my wonder that anyone should exist who
persuades himself that there are certain solid and indivisible particles
carried along by their own impulse and weight, and that a universe so
beautiful and so admirably arrayed is formed from the accidental
concourse of those particles? I do not understand why the man who
supposes that to have been possible should not also think that if a
countless number of the forms of the one and twenty letters, whether in
gold or any other material, were to be thrown somewhere, it would be
possible, when they had been shaken out upon the ground, for the annals
of Ennius to result from them so as to be able to be read
consecutively,—a miracle of chance which I incline to think would be
impossible even in the case of a single verse. Yet, as the Epicureans
assure us, it was from minute particles possessing neither color, nor
any kind of quality, nor sensation, but coming together by chance and
accident, that the world was produced, or rather that innumerable worlds
are, within each instant of time, either coming into being or departing
from it. But if a concourse of atoms is able to form the universe, why
cannot they form a portico, or temple, or house, or city, things which
are less, far less elaborate? - The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE
Here we see, from over 2,000 years ago, a common argument that is still
used against evolution today. We see this argument in The Nature
because the ancient Greeks had already developed a "theory of evolution by
natural selection" over 2,000 years ago.
"Ancient Greece" is a very loose term that refers to the Greek speaking
cultures from the period of about 800 BCE to 200 CE, a period of about 1000
years. The exact times and cultures considered to be a part of "ancient
Greece" vary from historian to historian. The cultures, philosophies, and
beliefs of "ancient Greece" are, of course, extremely varied. There is no
possible way to generalize "ancient Greek" culture, and the individuals
within each of the different cultures were themselves highly varied.
The first logically proposed evolutionary concept is agreed to have come
from Anaximandros (Anaximander) of Miletos, who lived from 610 BCE to 547
BCE, about 100 years before the writing of Genesis. Very few texts from Anaximander remain today, but some information
about the teachings of Anaximander have been preserved by later writers who
disagreed with him.
Anaximander believed that life must have started in the water, and that
from this early form of life, other forms of life, including man, developed.
Below are some quotes that refer to the evolutionary concepts of Anaximander:
Wherefore they (the Syrians) reference
the fish as of the same origin and the same family as man, holding a
more reasonable philosophy than that of Anaximandros; for he declares,
not that fishes and men were generated at the same time, but that at
first men were generated in the form of fishes, and that growing up as
sharks do till they were able to help themselves, they then came forth
on the dry ground. - Plutarch (1st century CE)
Anaximandros, the companion
of Thales, says that the infinite is the sole cause of all generation
and destruction, and from it the heavens were separated, and similarly
all the worlds, which are infinite in number. And he declared that
destruction and, far earlier, generation have taken place since an
indefinite time, since all things are involved in a cycle. He says that
the earth is a cylinder in form, and that its depth is one-third of its
breadth. And he says that at the beginning of this world something [Diels]
productive of heat and cold from the eternal being was separated
therefrom, and a sort of sphere of this flame surrounded the air about
the earth, as bark surrounds a tree ; then this sphere was broken into
parts and defined into distinct circles, and thus arose the sun and the
moon and the stars. Farther he says that at the beginning man was
generated from all sorts of animals, since all the rest can quickly get
food for themselves, but man alone requires careful feeding for a long
time; such a being at the beginning could not have preserved his
existence. Such is the teaching of Anaximandros. - Hippolytus (3rd century CE)
Animals come into being
through vapors raised by the sun. Man, however, came into being from
another animal, namely the fish, for at first he was like a fish. Winds
are due to a separation of the lightest vapors and the motion of the
masses of these vapors ; and moisture comes from the vapor raised by the
sun from them; and lightning occurs when a wind falls upon clouds and
separates them. Anaximandros was born in the third year of the
forty-second Olympiad. - Hippolytus (3rd century CE)
What distinguishes the teachings of Anaximander from other origin
mythology is that his views were arrived at from a naturalistic perspective
and they were not tied to any religious belief. Anaximander is credited with
having invented the sun dial and other observational instruments. He
produced teachings in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, geography, and
biology. While his teachings were crude compared to what we know today, they represent the
earliest known example of naturalistic evolutionary thought.
Xenophanes of Kolopbon, who was born around 570 BCE, was both the first
recorded person to have understood the implications of fossils, and also one
of the first monotheists. Xenophanes was considered an "atheist" of his time
because he rejected the traditional Greek pantheon of anthropomorphic gods,
instead claiming that there was only one god and that god was infinite.
Despite the fact that this view seems "religious" today, Xenophanes was
seen as a rationalist and materialist of his time. Like other monotheistic
Greeks, Xenophanes did not develop any kind of religion or base his beliefs
on claims of divine revelation. Instead, his view of god was philosophically
derived.
In relation to fossils, Xenophanes understood that the fossils were
formed by animals that had been preserved in mud. He developed an
explanation for fossils which stated that earth must have gone through
many life cycles, during which different forms of animals existed and were
then wiped out, but their bodies were preserved in the rocks. He believed
that new forms of animals developed during the new cycles. Xenophanes did
not believe that his god created people, instead he stated that all living
things, including people, developed from earth and water.
"Shells are found inland and in the mountains, and in the quarries of
Syracuse an impression of a fish and seaweed has been found, and
impressions of fish were found in Paros in the depth of the rock and in
Malta impressions of many marine creatures. These, he [Xenophanes] says,
were produced when everything was long ago covered with mud and the
impressions were dried in the mud." - Hippolytus (discussing the teachings of
Xenophanes)
The Greeks, along with other ancient cultures, came into
frequent contact with fossils. The word fossil actually comes from Greek and
means "dug-up item". The Greeks did not use the term fossil the way that we
do today, instead they often talked of petrified bones when discussing
larger fossils. Ample evidence now suggests that the fantastic mythology of
the ancient Greeks was heavily influenced by their observation of fossils.
Not only were fossils commonly found out in the open throughout the lands of ancient
Greece, but the Greeks quarried massive amounts of rock. In the
process of quarrying rock they often came across fossils. Fossils were
actually excavated and put on display in temples in some cases.
The Greeks interpreted many of the large bones that they found as being
humanoid. When the Greeks found large thigh bones, for example, they were
commonly interpreted as the bones of giants, and it is from these giant
bones that the Greeks developed the mythology that Titians once lived on
earth, whom Zeus and the other gods fought and killed. Because of the
tendency of the Greeks to interpret the "bodily" fossils that they found as
humanoid, when they found near complete skeletons that included horned or
tusked skulls they interpreted these as having a human type body with an
animal head. A small sampling of ancient accounts of fossils are listed
below:
"I have seen shells on the hills," evidence that "Egypt was
originally an arm of the sea."
In Scythia, "the natives show a footprint left by Heracles on a rock
by the river Tyras. It is like a man's footprint, but 3 feet long."
(units of measure translated) - The Histories; Herodotus, 430 BCE
"When King Masinissa landed on the headland of Malta, his admiral
stole the special tusks of astonishing size from the ancient Temple of
Juno." - Against Verres; Cicero (born 106 BCE)
A "figure resembling Pan" was found inside a slab of rock split open
in a Chios quarry. - De Divinatione; Cicero
"earth brought forth the giants, ... who were matchless in the bulk
of their bodies and invincible in their might, with terrible aspect....
Some say they were born at Phlegra [Italy], but according to others in
Phallene [Greece]." Zeuse "killed them with thunderbolts and Heracles
shot them with arrows." Athena "threw Sicily on top of the giant
Enceladus," while Poseidon "broke off part of Kos and heaped it on the
giant Polybotes." Typhon "surpassed all the offspring of earth. As far
as the thighs he was of human shape and of prodigious bulk." Zeus fought
him from Syria to Thrace and finally buried Typhon under Mount Etna,
Sicily. - Apollodorus (1st century CE)
"The giants [were] men of immense bodies, whose bones of enormous
size are still shown in certain places for confirmation of their
existence." - Clement of Rome, 96 CE
"Historians of Chios assert that near Mount Pelinaeus in a wooded
glen there was a dragon of gigantic size who made the Chians shudder. No
farmer or shepherd dared approach the monster's lair. But a miraculous
event allowed the discovery of how large it really was. During a violent
lightning storm a forest fire destroyed the entire region of the wooded
slopes.... After the fire, all the Chians came to see and discovered the
bones of gigantic size and a terrifying skull. From these the villagers
were able to imagine how large and terrible the brute was when alive.
...
Euphorion says... that in primeval times Samos was uninhabited
[except for] animals of gigantic size, which were savage and dangerous,
called Neades. Now these animals with there mere roaring split the
ground. So there is a proverbial saying in Samos: 'So and so roars
louder than the Neades.' And Euphorion asserts that their huge remains
are displayed even to this day." - On Animals; Aelian (lived 170-230 CE)
Two schools of thought developed to explain these "large bones":
Mythological explanations and naturalistic explanations. To some degree,
however, even the mythological explanations were naturalistic, because these
were not mythologies that were made up out of thin air, nor did the
mythological beliefs of Greeks always include supernatural beliefs. To many
Greeks the objects of their mythology were as real and natural to them as
dinosaurs are to us today.
Despite this, not all Greeks believed in the mythological explanations
for the bones, as we shall see, but before discussing the naturalistic Greek explanations for fossils we must first discuss the Greek atomic theory and
evolutionary concepts about the "origins of worlds".
Between 500 and 370 BCE Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and Democritus are
credited with developing the basis of materialism (the view that everything
that exists is made of matter) and the concept of the atom. Democritus is
specifically credited with developing the first atomic concept. Democritus
identified atoms as the smallest forms of matter, of which everything else
is made.
The early atomic concepts were based on the observation that things could
be transformed. Specifically, animals were observed to consume food in the
form of grass as they grew in size. The conclusion was that the grass had to
be made of invisibly small particles that were capable of being broken apart
and then put back together into different forms. The early atomists had made
the connection that living bodies were actually composed of the material
that they ate.
The Greek concepts of atoms were relatively crude compared to today, but the
fundamental concept of the atom as a particle was the foundation for the materialist understanding of
reality. Democritus stated:
"The universe is infinite because it has not been produced by a
creator. The causes of what now exists had no beginning."
"There is an infinite number of worlds of different sizes: some are
larger than ours, some have no sun or moon, others have suns or moons
that are bigger than ours. Some have many suns and moons. Worlds are
spaced at differing distances from each other; in some parts of the
universe there are more worlds, in other parts fewer. In some areas they
are growing, in other parts, decreasing. They are destroyed by collision
with one another. There are some worlds with no living creatures,
plants, or moisture."
"The material cause of all things that exist is the coming together
of atoms and void. Atoms are too small to be perceived by the senses.
They are eternal and have many different shapes, and they can cluster
together to create things that are perceivable. Differences in shape,
arrangement, and position of atoms produce different things. By
aggregation they provide bulky objects that we can perceive with our
sight and other senses."
"By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by
convention cold, by convention colour: but in reality atoms and void." - Democritus
Atomism was never completely accepted among all the Greeks, in part because of the
materialism that the concept was based on, and because the atomists proposed
that the world was created from the chance collisions of atoms,
contradicting the popular idea of a purposeful creation. Plato and
Aristotle, in particular, argued against the atomic concepts of the
materialists.
Democritus' atomic concepts were integrated into the later teachings of
Epicurus. The Epicurean school of thought went on to become relatively well
accepted in Greece. It's estimated that about 30% of Athenians were
Epicureans during the philosophy's height.
Like so many of the other naturalistic works of the Greeks, almost all the texts of the atomists were lost or destroyed by the Christians. Cicero's
The Nature of the Gods does, however, provide a good summary of the
Epicurean concept of the "evolution" of worlds from the random collisions of
atoms.
[T]he world was produced by the working of nature, without there
having been any need for a process of manufacture, and that what your
school declares to be capable of accomplishment only by means of divine
intelligence is a thing so easy that nature will produce, and is
producing, and has produced worlds without end. It is because you do not
see how nature can accomplish this without the help of some kind of mind
that, like the tragic poets, in your inability to bring the plot to a
smooth conclusion, you have recourse to a god. Yet you would certainly
feel no need for his agency if you had before your eyes the expanse of
region, unmeasured and on every side unbounded, upon which the mind may
fasten and concentrate itself, and where it may wander far and wide
without seeing any farthermost limit upon which to be able to rest. Now
in this immensity of length and breadth and height there floats an
infinite quantity of innumerable atoms which, in spite of the
intervening void, nevertheless join together, and through one seizing
upon one, and another upon another, form themselves into connected
wholes, by which means are produced those forms and outlines of the
material world which your school is of opinion cannot be produced
without bellows and anvils. You have therefore placed our necks beneath
the yoke of a perpetual tyrant, of whom we are to go in fear by day and
night, for who would not fear a god who foresaw everything, considered
everything, noted everything, and looked upon himself as concerned in
everything,—a busy and prying god? From this has come, in the first
place, your idea of preordained necessity, which you call ε μαρμένη,
meaning by the term that every event that occurs had its origin in
eternal truth and the chain of causation—(though what is to be thought
of a philosophy that holds the ignorant old crone’s belief that
everything happens by destiny?)—and secondly your art of μαντικ , or
divinatio, as it is called in Latin, which, if we were willing to listen
to you, would imbue us with such superstition that we should have to pay
regard to soothsayers, augurs, diviners, prophets, and interpreters of
dreams. From these terrors we have been released by Epicurus, and
claimed for freedom; we do not fear beings of whom we understand that
they neither create trouble for themselves, nor seek it for others, and
we worship, in piety and holiness, a sublime and exalted nature. - The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE
To these concepts the Stoic of the dialog, after giving many examples of
"ordered phenomena", replies:
Can any sane person think that all this grouping of the stars, and
this vast ordering of the heavens, could have resulted from atoms
coursing to and fro fortuitously and at random? Or could, indeed, any
kind of nature that was destitute of mind and intelligence have produced
these results, which not only needed intelligence in order to be
produced, but which cannot be understood in their nature without a very
considerable amount of intelligence? - The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE
It was this concept of atoms and infinity that freed the Greek Epicureans
and materialists to embrace evolutionary concepts of life origin. Though
Cicero does not present the Epicurean teachings on biological evolution in
The Nature, the Greek materialists had nevertheless developed a
highly sophisticated concept of evolution with natural selection. Atomic
theory was the essential first step in their development of concepts of
biological evolution.
Several different Greeks are known to have put forward varying
evolutionary explanations for biological diversity, ranging from the
mythical to the purely naturalistic. Two of the best surviving examples of
Greek evolutionary concepts come from the Epicurean Lucretius and from Aristotle,
who argued against the concept.
In 50 BCE the Roman philosopher Lucretius wrote the epic poem On the Nature of Things,
which is now one of the best surviving examples of Greek materialist thought
in a materialist's own words. (Most of our knowledge of Greek materialism
comes from the remaining writings that opposed the view) This work contains
the best known explanation of the Greek concept of biological evolution
written by a proponent of the teaching. In a section titled "Origins of
Vegetable and Animal Life " Lucretius wrote:
For lapsing aeons change the nature of
The whole wide world, and all things needs must take
One status after other, nor aught persists
Forever like itself. All things depart;
Nature she changeth all, compelleth all
To transformation.
...
In suchwise, then, the lapsing aeons change
The nature of the whole wide world, and earth
Taketh one status after other. And what
She bore of old, she now can bear no longer,
And what she never bore, she can to-day.
In those days also the telluric world
Strove to beget the monsters that upsprung
With their astounding visages and limbs-
The Man-woman- a thing betwixt the twain,
Yet neither, and from either sex remote-
Some gruesome Boggles orphaned of the feet,
Some widowed of the hands, dumb Horrors too
Without a mouth, or blind Ones of no eye,
Or Bulks all shackled by their legs and arms
Cleaving unto the body fore and aft,
Thuswise, that never could they do or go,
Nor shun disaster, nor take the good they would.
And other prodigies and monsters earth
Was then begetting of this sort- in vain,
Since Nature banned with horror their increase,
And powerless were they to reach unto
The coveted flower of fair maturity,
Or to find aliment, or to intertwine
In works of Venus. For we see there must
Concur in life conditions manifold,
If life is ever by begetting life
To forge the generations one by one:
First, foods must be; and, next, a path whereby
The seeds of impregnation in the frame
May ooze, released from the members all;
Last, the possession of those instruments
Whereby the male with female can unite,
The one with other in mutual ravishments.
And in the ages after monsters died,
Perforce there perished many a stock, unable
By propagation to forge a progeny.
For whatsoever creatures thou beholdest
Breathing the breath of life, the same have been
Even from their earliest age preserved alive
By cunning, or by valour, or at least
By speed of foot or wing. And many a stock
Remaineth yet, because of use to man,
And so committed to man's guardianship.
Valour hath saved alive fierce lion-breeds
And many another terrorizing race,
Cunning the foxes, flight the antlered stags.
Light-sleeping dogs with faithful heart in breast,
However, and every kind begot from seed
Of beasts of draft, as, too, the woolly flocks
And horned cattle, all, my Memmius,
Have been committed to guardianship of men.
For anxiously they fled the savage beasts,
And peace they sought and their abundant foods,
Obtained with never labours of their own,
Which we secure to them as fit rewards
For their good service. But those beasts to whom
Nature has granted naught of these same things-
Beasts quite unfit by own free will to thrive
And vain for any service unto us
In thanks for which we should permit their kind
To feed and be in our protection safe-
Those, of a truth, were wont to be exposed,
Enshackled in the gruesome bonds of doom,
As prey and booty for the rest, until
Nature reduced that stock to utter death.
But Centaurs ne'er have been, nor can there be
Creatures of twofold stock and double frame,
Compact of members alien in kind,
Yet formed with equal function, equal force
In every bodily part- a fact thou mayst,
However dull thy wits, well learn from this:
...
Such hybrid creatures could not have been begot
And limbs of all beasts heterogeneous
Have been together knit; because, indeed,
The divers kinds of grasses and the grains
And the delightsome trees- which even now
Spring up abounding from within the earth-
Can still ne'er be begotten with their stems
Begrafted into one; but each sole thing
Proceeds according to its proper wont
And all conserve their own distinctions based
In Nature's fixed decree. - On the Nature of Things; Lucretius, 50 BCE
The monsters that Lucretius mentions no doubt refer to the many forms
found in fossils, but the discussion of monsters also contains the idea that
many of the early forms of life were "unfit", and that through a process of
"natural selection", which he discusses, the forms of life that were able to
survive did survive and have passed on their traits to their present day
descendants. It is also important to note that Lucretius denied the existence
of "fantastical" creatures, such as centaurs, griffins, etc.
As much as this sounds similar to our present day concept of evolution it
must be remember that Lucretius' work is but a poem, and though poems were
often used in ancient times, it was still not as rigorous a text as other
scholarly works. We do know, however, that an even more sophisticated
concept of evolution existed hundreds of years before Lucretius because of
Aristotle's discussion of the concept in 350 BCE. Aristotle refuted the idea
of evolution, however, but mentioned the concept in his work because he
taught against it. He taught against it because it was a known concept that
had been embraced by a significant portion of thinkers at the time.
We must explain then (1) that Nature belongs to the class of causes
which act for the sake of something;
...
[I]f a man's crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not
fall for the sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but
that result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with
the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the
front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for
grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it was
merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we
suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about
just what they would have been if they had come before an end, such
things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas
those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish....
Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause
difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the
true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or
normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of
chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere
coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer
we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in winter. If
then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or
for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or
spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such
things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is
before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things
which come to be and are by nature. - Physics; Aristotle, 350 BCE
This description of the process of evolution and natural selection put
forward by Aristotle is perhaps the most lucid explanation of evolution to
be found in the existing literature of the ancient Greeks. Why is it that
the best explanation of evolution comes to us in a book that is written by
an author that is opposed to the concept of evolution?
Understanding Christian belief requires understanding the historical
development of those beliefs, and understanding the Christian impact on the
world also requires understanding the historical rise of Christianity.
"Christianity" is an amalgam of Jewish mythology and law,
Zoroastrian mythology and theology, Ptolemaic Egyptian Religion, Greek
philosophy, Roman civics, and Roman imperialism. The Christian religion as we know it today developed over a period of several hundred years.
The concept of God in Christianity is not the Jewish concept of God. The
God of the Hebrews was a God that embodied both good and bad. He was the
creator of both strife and blessing. The Christian concept of God, on the
other hand, is a
combination of the Platonic god concept and the Zoroastrian God.
Isaiah 45:
7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and
creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. - The Torah/Old Testament
Furthermore, the god of the Hebrews was not well defined, he was simply
YAHWEH, who gave various commands and was given credit for the
fortunes or misfortunes of the Hebrew people. Likewise, the Jews did not
have a concept of Satan like that which exists in Christianity. The Hebrew
religion presents Satan as one of God's helpers - a being that tests the
faith of individuals for God. In the Hebrew religion there is no "war in
heaven" or "fall from grace". The Christian concept of Satan comes from
Zoroastrianism.
Early Christianity adopted Zoroastrian mythology and the concepts of
Zoroastrian dualism. The word devil does not appear in the Torah or the Old
Testament because the word "devil" comes from the Persian word daeva,
which was used by Zoroastrians to describe evil spirits. The Zoroastrian
religion believed in one god, Ahura Mazda, who was completely good. In
opposition to Ahura Mazda was Angra Mainyu, the evil one.
Pre-Christian image of Angra Mainyu
According to Zoroastrian mythology these two beings were almost equally
powerful and they were locked in a cosmic battle of good vs. evil. Angra
Mainyu, according to the mythology, rebelled against Ahura Mazda and is
responsible for all of the ills of the world, while Ahura Mazda is
responsible for all of the good things. On the day of final judgment
Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda will defeat Angra Mainyu and banish
him, as well as all evil, from the universe forever.
It is a matter of historical fact that this mythology of the Zoroastrians
existed before the advent of the Christian religion, and the transmission of
this mythology to Jews within the Babylonian empire is also a matter of
recorded history.
This dualism set the stage for the integration of the Platonic concept of
god.
Early Christianity developed among Greek speaking and Aramaic speaking
Jews. The word Christ itself is Greek and means "anointed one". The
first references to "Christianity" began to emerge around 120 CE in Greek
speaking regions around the Mediterranean Sea.
Paul, the apostle who is said to have spread the message of Christianity,
spent his time promoting the religion in Greece.
Acts 17:18-33 (New International Version)
18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute
with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?"
Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said
this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the
resurrection. 19Then they took him and
brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May
we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
20You are bringing some strange ideas to
our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21(All
the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing
nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of
the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are
very religious. 23For as I walked around
and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar
with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as
something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24"The God who made the world and
everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in
temples built by hands. 25And he is not
served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself
gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26From one man he made every nation of men,
that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times
set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27God did this so that men would seek him
and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from
each one of us. 28'For in him we live and
move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are
his offspring.'
29"Therefore since we are God's
offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or
silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill.
30In the past God overlooked such
ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
31For he has set a day when he will judge
the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof
of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
32When they heard about the
resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We
want to hear you again on this subject." 33At
that, Paul left the Council.
It was the Epicureans who would have sneered no doubt.
The fact of the matter is, however, that the concept of a single god,
creator of the universe, had been log established in Greece on philosophical
grounds. As early Christianity developed in Greece it was heavily influenced
by the Greek concepts of god and providence.
Clement of Alexandria, who was born in Athens around 150 CE, was a highly
influential early Christian theologian. Clement was a Greek and infused
Christianity with a strong element of Platonic philosophy. Clement's
attacks on other Greek philosophies is indicative of the interactions
between Christianity and Greek philosophy of his time. The following
quotes are taken from Clement's Stromata, written in 190 CE.
"Theopompus and Timaeus, who composed fables and slanders, and
Epicurus the leader of atheism, and Hipponax and Archilochus, are to be
allowed to write in their own shameful manner. But he who proclaims the
truth is to be prevented from leaving behind him what is to benefit
posterity? It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good
children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are
the progeny of the soul." - The Stromata, Book I; Clement of Alexandria,
190 CE
Here Clement is discussing the issue of whether or not Christians should
leave behind writings or reject writings as materialistic and embrace oral
tradition instead. Clement was a well educated Greek from a well off
background, and thus he believed that Christians should embrace philosophy
and literature, things that earlier Christians had opposed.
"The Greek preparatory culture, therefore, with philosophy itself, is
shown to have come down from God to men,...
...
These arts, therefore, if not conjoined with philosophy, will be
injurious to every one. For Plato openly called sophistry "an evil art."
And Aristotle, following him, demonstrates it to be a dishonest art,
which abstracts in a specious manner the whole business of wisdom, and
professes a wisdom which it has not studied.
...
Thus the truth-loving Plato says, as if divinely inspired, "Since I
am such as to obey nothing but the word, which, after reflection,
appears to me the best." Accordingly he charges those who credit
opinions without intelligence and knowledge, with abandoning right and
sound reason unwarrantably, and believing him who is a partner in
falsehood. For to cheat one's self of the truth is bad; but to speak the
truth, and to hold as our opinions positive realities, is good.
...
CHAPTER XI -- WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY WHICH THE APOSTLE BIDS US SHUN?
This, then, "the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God," and of
those who are "the wise the Lord knoweth their thoughts that they are
vain." Let no man therefore glory on account of pre-eminence in human
thought. For it is written well in Jeremiah, "Let not the wise man glory
in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let
not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in
this, that he understandeth and knoweth that I am the Lord, that
executeth mercy and judgment and righteousness upon the earth: for in
these things is my delight, saith the Lord." "That we should trust not
in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead," says the apostle, "who
delivered us from so great a death, that our faith should not stand in
the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." "For the spiritual man
judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no man." I hear also
those words of his, "And these things I say, lest any man should beguile
you with enticing words, or one should enter in to spoil you." And
again, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ;" branding not all philosophy, but the
Epicurean, which Paul mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, which
abolishes providence and deifies pleasure, and whatever other philosophy
honours the elements, but places not over them the efficient cause, nor
apprehends the Creator." - The Stromata, Book I; Clement of Alexandria,
190 CE
What would become known as the Christian movement began among the poor and uneducated, which is a
major reason why there are no writings from the earliest "Christians". It is
within the Greek culture, and through the Greek influence, that Christianity
gained the intellectual fortitude, as well as the credibility, to expand
beyond the simple moralistic movement of its origin.
The god of Christianity was heavily influenced by the god of Plato and
Aristotle. The god of Plato and Aristotle is the all knowing and all
powerful creator of the universe and instrument of "final causes". The god
of Plato and Aristotle was a philosophically derived concept though, and
not to be worshiped - nor did their god love and care. The Zoroastrian god of love and
forgiveness was merged with the Platonic god of omnipotence and infinity to
create the all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god of Christianity.
Plato, who lived between 427 and 327 BCE, believed in the immortality of
the soul and in the existence of two forms of reality, the corrupt material
world that we experience while we are alive on earth and another perfect
spiritual world where the soul goes after death. Plato thought that truth
came from the soul, while falsehood came from the natural world.
Aristotle, while more of a naturalist than Plato, accepted Plato's view of god and
added that whatever has a use must be the product of an intelligent
creator, thus all things in nature that have a function must have been
created by god.
Aristotle extended the
teleology of Socrates into a system of natural philosophy that he
used to describe all of the phenomena of nature, especially the phenomena of
life. Teleology is a doctrine that attempts to explain the universe in terms
of ends or "final causes". Teleology is based on the proposition that the
universe has design and purpose. In Aristotelian philosophy the explanation
of, or justification for, a phenomenon or process is to be found not only in
the immediate cause, but also in the "final cause"— the reason
for which the phenomenon exists or was created.
"Further, where a series has a completion, all the preceding steps are
for the sake of that. Now surely as in intelligent action, so in nature;
and as in nature, so it is in each action, if nothing interferes. Now
intelligent action is for the sake of an end; therefore the nature of
things also is so. Thus if a house, e.g. had been a thing made by
nature, it would have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and
if things made by nature were made also by art, they would come to be in
the same way as by nature. Each step then in the series is for the sake
of the next; and generally art partly completes what nature cannot bring
to a finish, and partly imitates her. If, therefore, artificial products
are for the sake of an end, so clearly also are natural products. The
relation of the later to the earlier terms of the series is the same in
both. This is most obvious in the animals other than man: they make
things neither by art nor after inquiry or deliberation. Wherefore
people discuss whether it is by intelligence or by some other faculty
that these creatures work, spiders, ants, and the like. By gradual
advance in this direction we come to see clearly that in plants too that
is produced which is conducive to the end-leaves, e.g. grow to provide
shade for the fruit. If then it is both by nature and for an end that
the swallow makes its nest and the spider its web, and plants grow
leaves for the sake of the fruit and send their roots down (not up) for
the sake of nourishment, it is plain that this kind of cause is
operative in things which come to be and are by nature. And since
'nature' means two things, the matter and the form, of which the latter
is the end, and since all the rest is for the sake of the end, the form
must be the cause in the sense of 'that for the sake of which'.
...
It is plain then that nature is a cause, a cause that operates for a
purpose." - Physics; Aristotle, 350 BCE
So, what does all of this have to do with evolution?
Opposition to the ancient Greek concept of evolution was an integral part
of the early development of Christianity. The philosophy and culture of
Christianity has its roots among the anti-Epicurean philosophers of Greece.
Anti-Epicurean philosophy of Greece was merged with Christianity by early
Greek theologians, whose works became the basis for later Christian
theology. Both directly and indirectly, Christian theology was heavily influenced by
Platonic philosophy from this early point on. This is not to say that
Christian theologians accepted every philosophical principle of Plato, they
did not, but Platonic views had become such an integrated part of some
segments of Greek and Jewish society by the time Christianity came along that many
Platonic views had ceased to be strictly identified with Plato and were just
popularly held concepts that evolved and integrated into various other
philosophical and religious systems. Plato was embraced by early Christians,
but even he was rejected as time went on and Christian ideology become
increasingly anti-philosophical and opposed to all people who were
associated with "the pagan times".
Concepts adopted by Christians from Platonic Greek philosophers include:
God is infinite and perfect
The ontological argument for the existence of god
Logos (logos has dual meanings: logic and word) is the source of
existence
Logos (logic) is unique to humans
The soul contains sacred knowledge that people have from birth
The sun revolves around the earth
Nature is a product of intelligent design, and god is the designer
Most important, however, was the conflict between the early Christians
and the other schools of philosophy, namely the Epicureans. The early
Christians saw Epicureanism and other forms of natural philosophy as the
main ideologies that they were struggling against. The writings of the early
Christian fathers are littered with references to Epicureanism, Anaxagoras,
and Democritus. Likewise, the naturalistic philosophers saw Christianity as a
growing negative influence in the civilized world as well.
One of the most striking books written by the early Christians is perhaps
Refutation of All Heresies by Hippolytus of Rome. It is not known
when Hippolytus was born, but he is thought to have died around 235 CE. What
makes Refutation of All Heresies so extraordinary is that it is a
collection and explanation of all of the most well known naturalistic philosophies
of the time, which
the work then goes on to refute. The work stated to Christians that the
ideas held by the naturalistic philosophers were heretical. Refutation of All Heresies now provides one of the fullest explanations
of the Greek philosophies because it is one of the fullest accounts that
remains of these teachings (the originals were destroyed by the Christians).
"We propose to furnish an account of the tenets of natural
philosophers, and who these are, as well as the tenets of moral
philosophers, and who these are; and thirdly, the tenets of logicians,
and who these logicians are.
Among natural philosophers may be enumerated Thales, Pythagoras,
Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus,
Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, Hippo.
Among moral philosophers are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus the
physicist, (and) Plato the pupil of Socrates. This (speculator) combined
three systems of philosophy.
Among logicians is Aristotle, pupil of Plato. He systematized the art
of dialectics. Among the Stoic (logicians) were Chrysippus (and) Zeno.
Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all
philosophers. Pyrrho was an Academic; this (speculator) taught the
in-comprehensibility of everything. The Brahmins among the Indians, and
the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod (devoted themselves to
philosophic pursuits).
...
CHAP. I.--THALES; HIS PHYSICS AND THEOLOGY; FOUNDER OF GREEK
ASTRONOMY.
It is said that Thales of Miletus, one of the seven, wise men, first
attempted to frame a system of natural philosophy. This person said that
some such thing as water is the generative principle of the universe,
and its end;--for that out of this, solidified and again dissolved, all
things consist, and that all things are supported on it; from which also
arise both earthquakes and changes of the winds and atmospheric
movements, and that all things are both produced and are in a state of
flux corresponding with the nature of the primary author of generation;
...
CHAP. V.--ANAXIMANDER; HIS THEORY OF THE INFINITE; HIS ASTRONOMIC
OPINIONS; HIS PHYSICS.
Anaximander, then, was the hearer of Thales. Anaximander was son of
Praxiadas, and a native of Miletus. This man said that the originating
principle of existing things is a certain constitution of the Infinite,
out of which the heavens are generated, and the worlds therein; and that
this principle is eternal and undecaying, and comprising all the worlds.
And he speaks of time as something of limited generation, and
subsistence, and destruction. This person declared the Infinite to be an
originating principle and element of existing things, being the first to
employ such a denomination of the originating principle. But, moreover,
he asserted that there is an eternal motion, by the agency of which it
happens that the heavens are generated; but that the earth is poised
aloft, upheld by nothing, continuing on account of its equal distance
from all (the heavenly bodies); ... And that man was, originally,
similar to a different animal, that is, a fish. And that winds are
caused by the separation of very rarified exhalations of the atmosphere,
and by their motion after they have been condensed. And that rain arises
from earth's giving back (the vapours which it receives) from the
(clouds under the sun. And that there are flashes of lightning when the
wind coming down severs the clouds.
CHAP. VII.--ANAXAGORAS; HIS THEORY OF MIND; RECOGNISES AN EFFICIENT
CAUSE; HIS COSMOGONY AND ASTRONOMY.
...
And that animals originally came into existence in moisture, and
after this one from another; and that males are procreated when the seed
secreted from the right parts adhered to the right parts of the womb,
and that females are born when the contrary took place.
CHAP. VIII.--ARCHELAUS; SYSTEM AKIN TO THAT OF ANAXAGORAS; HIS ORIGIN
OF THE EARTH AND OF ANIMALS; OTHER SYSTEMS.
...
And with regard to animals, he affirms that the earth, being
originally fire in its lower part, where the heat and cold were
intermingled, both the rest of animals made their appearance, numerous
and dissimilar, all having the same food, being nourished from mud; and
their existence was of short duration, but afterwards also generation
from one another arose unto them; and men were separated from the rest
(of the animal creation), and they appointed rulers, and laws, and arts,
and cities, and the rest. And he asserts that mind is innate in all
animals alike; for that each, according to the difference of their
physical constitution, employed (mind), at one time slower, at another
faster.
...
CHAP. X.--LEUCIPPUS; HIS ATOMIC THEORY.
But Leucippus, an associate of Zeno, did not maintain the same
opinion, but affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and
that generation and change exist continuously. And he affirms plenitude
and vacuum to be elements. And he asserts that worlds are produced when
many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space
to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the
same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus
intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that
created things wax and wane through necessity. But what the nature of
necessity is, (Parmenides) did not define.
...
CHAP. XI.--DEMOCRITUS; HIS DUALITY OF PRINCIPLES; HIS COSMOGONY.
And Democritus was an acquaintance of Leucippus. Democritus, son of
Damasippus, a native of Abdera, conferring with many gymnosophists among
the Indians, and with priests in Egypt, and with astrologers and magi in
Babylon, (propounded his system). Now he makes statements similarly with
Leucippus concerning elements, viz. plenitude and vacuum, denominating
plenitude entity, and vacuum nonentity; and this he asserted, since
existing things are continually moved in the vacuum. And he maintained
worlds to be infinite, and varying in bulk; and that in some there is
neither sun nor moon, while in others that they are larger than with us,
and with others more numerous. And that intervals between worlds are
unequal; and that in one quarter of space (worlds) are more numerous,
and in another less so; and that some of them increase in bulk, but that
others attain their full size, while others dwindle away and that in one
quarter they are coming into existence, whilst in another they are
failing; and that they are destroyed by clashing one with another. And
that some worlds are destitute of animals and plants, and every species
of moisture. And that the earth of our world was created before that of
the stars, and that the moon is underneath; next (to it) the sun; then
the fixed stars. And that (neither) the planets nor these (fixed stars)
possess an equal elevation. And that the world flourishes, until no
longer it can receive anything from without. This (philosopher) turned
all things into ridicule, as if all the concerns of humanity were
deserving of laughter.
...
CHAP. XIX.--EPICURUS; ADOPT'S THE DEMOCRITIC ATOMISM; DENIAL OF
DIVINE PROVIDENCE; THE PRINCIPLE OF HIS ETHICAL SYSTEM.
Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all. He
supposed, as originating principles of all things, atoms and vacuity. He
considered vacuity as the place that would contain the things that will
exist, and atoms the matter out of which all things could be formed; and
that from the concourse of atoms both the Deity derived existence, and
all the elements, and all things inherent in them, as well as animals
and other (creatures); so that nothing was generated or existed, unless
it be from atoms. And he affirmed that these atoms were composed of
extremely small particles, in which there could not exist either a point
or a sign, or any division; wherefore also he called them atoms. ...
[H]e says that God has providential care for nothing, and that there is
no such thing at all as providence or fate, but that all things are made
by chance. And he concluded that the souls of men are dissolved along
with their bodies, just as also they were produced along with them, for
that they are blood, and that when this has gone forth or been altered,
the entire man perishes; and in keeping with this tenet, (Epicurus
maintained) that there are neither trials in Hades, nor tribunals of
justice; so that whatsoever any one may commit in this life, that,
provided he may escape detection, he is altogether beyond any liability
of trial (for it in a future state).
...
The opinions, therefore, of those who have attempted to frame
systems of philosophy among the Greeks, I consider that we have
sufficiently explained; and from these the heretics, taking occasion,
have endeavoured to establish the tenets that will be after a short time
declared. It seems, however, expedient, that first explaining the
mystical rites and whatever imaginary doctrines some have laboriously
framed concerning the stars, or magnitudes, to declare these; for
heretics likewise, taking occasion from them, are considered by the
multitude to utter prodigies. Next in order we shall elucidate the
feeble opinions advanced by these.
...
The followers, however, of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and of
Democritus, and of Epicurus, and multitudes of others, have given it as
their opinion that the generation of the universe proceeds from infinite
numbers of atoms; and we have previously made partial mention of these
philosophers. But Anaxagoras derives the universe from things similar to
those that are being produced; whereas the followers of Democritus and
Epicurus derived the universe from things both dissimilar (to the
entities produced), and devoid of passion, that is, from atoms. But the
followers of Heraclides of Pontus, and of Asclepiades, derived the
universe from things dissimilar (to the entities produced), and capable
of passion, as if from incongruous corpuscles. But the disciples of
Plato affirm that these entities are from three principles--God, and
Matter, and Exemplar. He divides matter, however, into four
principles--fire, water, earth, and air. And (he says) that God is the
Creator of this (matter), and that Mind is its exemplar.
...
HAP. XXVIII.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRUTH.
The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had
nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water,
nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor
the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in
Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which
antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For
He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for
foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different principles, however,
of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz., fire and
spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to
form His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but
others He compounded from two, and others from three, and others from
four. And those formed of one substance were immortal, for in their case
dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be dissolved.
Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, or three, or four
substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also are they named mortal. For
this has been denominated death; namely, the dissolution of substances
connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently answered those
endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional
instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances
of these things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become
acquainted with these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised
(under the title), Concerning the Substance of the Universe. I
consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those
causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous
phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the
Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have
transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar
doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies.
...
Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O ye
men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and
Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and ye Latins, who lead armies,
and all ye that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya. And to you I am
become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos,
and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught
who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not
devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the
vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity
of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the
approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of
gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of
the Word!
You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's eternal lake of fire
and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in
Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm
that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it.
Now such (torments) as these shall thou avoid by being instructed in a
knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even
one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And
thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst
sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a
companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by
lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast
become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a
man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but
whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to
bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto
immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know thyself;"
i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own
image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object
of God's knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not
therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor
hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God
above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,
rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from
the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And
provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful
follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou
shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him." - Refutation of All Heresies; Hippolytus (3rd
century CE)
This book is not only one the few remaining sources of information about
the naturalistic philosophies of Greece that preceded Christianity, but it
tells us the real story of the decline of Western Civilization. All of the
advanced knowledge and concepts of the ancient world were condemned by the
Christians, considered heresies and eliminated. The principles that we
understand today as being products of "modern science" were generally
understood over 2,000 years ago, but the Christians denied them and
destroyed almost all evidence of these ideas, the only real evidence remaining
being their own denunciations of the ideas.
The work of the Greeks and Romans was not purely "philosophical" as we
know the term today. The Greeks and Romans practiced science, thought they
did not use the term. They postulated hypothesis, conducted
experiments, collected data, and reviewed each other's work. They conducted
experiments on gravity that would not be duplicated again until the time of
Galileo and Newton. They built machines, calculating devices, mechanical
robots, and observational instruments. All of this was destroyed by the
Christians.
The teachings of Epicurus were especially disdained and opposed by the
Christians. It was the Epicurean school that developed the most coherent
philosophical framework of materialism that integrated the concepts of many
of the different naturalistic philosophers and combined the ideas of atoms
and evolution as well as natural explanations for fossils and meteorological
events. For the Epicureans all the world was explainable through observation
and reason. Epicurus himself is known to have been a very prolific writer,
and he is thought to have written over 900 books, based on titles that have
been referenced in other works, but Epicurus himself was just one of many
men who held naturalistic views. All of the early Christian theologians taught against
Epicurus and naturalistic understandings of the world.
"And as he is in error who alleges that the superintendents of the
markets make provision in no greater degree for men than for dogs,
because dogs also get their share of the goods; so in a far greater
degree are Celsus and they who think with him guilty of impiety towards
the God who makes provision for rational beings, in asserting that His
arrangements are made in no greater degree for the sustenance of human
beings than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns.
For, in the first place, he is of opinion that 'thunders, and
lightnings, and rains are not the works of God,'--thus showing more
clearly at last his Epicurean leanings; and in the second place, that
'even if one were to grant that these were the works of God, they are
brought into existence not more for the support of us who are human
beings, than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and
thorns,'--maintaining, like a true Epicurean, that these things are the
product of chance, and not the work of Providence. For if these
things are of no more use to us than to plants, and trees, and herbs,
and thorns, it is evident either that they do not proceed from
Providence at all, or from a providence which does not provide for us in
a greater degree than for trees, and herbs, and thorns. Now, either of
these suppositions is impious in itself, and it would be foolish to
refute such statements by answering any one who brought against us the
charge of impiety; for it is manifest to every one, from what has been
said, who is the person guilty of impiety. In the next place, he adds:
'Although you may say that these things, viz., plants, and trees, and
herbs, and thorns, grow for the use of men, why will you maintain that
they grow for the use of men rather than for that of the most savage of
irrational animals?' Let Celsus then say distinctly that the great
diversity among the products of the earth is not the work of Providence,
but that a certain fortuitous concurrence of atoms gave birth to
qualities so diverse, and that it was owing to chance that so many kinds
of plants, and trees, and herbs resemble one another, and that no
disposing reason gave existence to them, and that they do not derive
their origin from an understanding that is beyond all admiration. We
Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who
created these things, feel grateful for them to Him who made them,
because not only for us, but also (on our account) for the animals which
are subject to us, He has prepared such a home, seeing 'He causeth the
grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that He
may bring forth food out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the
heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which
strengtheneth man's heart.' But that He should have provided food even
for the most savage animals is not matter of surprise, for these very
animals are said by some who have philosophized (upon the subject) to
have been created for the purpose of affording exercise to the rational
creature. And one of our own wise men says somewhere: 'Do not say, What
is this? or Wherefore is that? for all things have been made for their
uses. And do not say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for everything
shall be sought out in its season.'" - Contra Celsus, Book IV; Origen of Alexandria
(185-232 CE)
"But with reference to man, whom He formed an eternal and immortal
being, He did not arm him, as the others, without, but within; nor did
He place his protection in the body, but in the soul: since it would
have been superfluous, when He had given him that which was of the
greatest value, to cover him with bodily defences, especially when they
hindered the beauty of the human body. On which account I am
accustomed to wonder at the senselessness of the philosophers who follow
Epicurus, who blame the works of nature, that they may show that the
world is prepared and governed by no providence; but they ascribe the
origin of all things to indivisible and solid bodies, from the
fortuitous meetings of which they say that all things are and were
produced. I pass by the things relating to the work itself with
which they find fault, in which matter they are ridiculously mad; I
assume that which belongs to the subject of which we are now treating." - On the Workmanship of God; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE)
""These," [Lucretius] says, "flutter about with restless motions
through empty space, and are carried hither and thither, just as we see
little particles of dust in the sun when it has introduced its rays and
light through a window. From these there arise trees and herbs, and all
fruits of the earth; from these, animals, and water, and fire, and all
things are produced, and are again resolved into the same elements."
This can be borne as long as the inquiry is respecting small matters.
Even the world itself was made up of these.
He has reached to the full extent of perfect madness: it seems
impossible that anything further should be said, and yet he found
something to add. "Since everything," he says, "is infinite, and nothing
can be empty, it follows of necessity that there are innumerable
worlds."
...
Why should I speak of animals, in whose bodies we see nothing formed
without plan, without arrangement, without utility, without beauty, so
that the most skilful and careful marking out of all the parts and
members repels the idea of accident and chance? But let us suppose it
possible that the limbs, and bones, and nerves, and blood should be made
up of atoms. What of the senses, the reflection, the memory, the mind,
the natural capacity: from what seeds can they be compacted? He says,
From the most minute. There are therefore others of greater size. How,
then, are they indivisible?
In the next place, if the things which are not seen are formed from
invisible seeds, it follows that those which are seen are from visible
seeds. Why, then, does no one see them? But whether any one regards the
invisible parts which are in man, or the parts which can be touched, and
which are visible, who does not see that both parts exist in accordance
with design? How, then, can bodies which meet together without design
effect anything reasonable? For we see that there is nothing in the
whole world which has not in itself very great and wonderful design. And
since this is above the sense and capacity of man, to what can it be
more rightly attributed than to the divine providence?" - On the Anger of God; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE)
"
Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these
things, induced as it were by the injustice of these matters (for thus
it appeared to him in his ignorance of the cause and subject), he
thought that there was no providence. And having persuaded
himself of this, he undertook also to defend it, and thus he entangled
himself in inextricable errors. For if there is no providence, how is it
that the world was made with such order and arrangement? He says: There
is no arrangement, for many things are made in a different manner from
that in which they ought to have been made. And the divine man found
subjects of censure.
Now, if I had leisure to refute these things separately, I could
easily show that this man was neither wise nor of sound mind.
Also, if there is no providence, how is it that the
bodies of animals are arranged with such foresight, that the various
members, being disposed in a wonderful manner, discharge their own
offices individually? The system of providence, he says, contrived
nothing in the production of animals; for neither were the eyes made for
seeing, nor the ears for hearing, nor the tongue for speaking, nor the
feet for walking; inasmuch as these were produced before it was possible
to speak, to hear, to see, and to walk. Therefore these were not
produced for use; but use was produced from them.
...
Does wisdom therefore nowhere exist? Yes, indeed, it was amongst
them, but no one saw it. Some thought that all things could be known:
these were manifestly not wise. Others thought that nothing could be
known; nor indeed were these wise: the former, because they attributed
too much to man; the latter, because they attributed too little. A limit
was wanting to each on either side. Where, then, is wisdom? It consists
in thinking neither that you know all things, which is the property of
God; nor that you are ignorant of all things, which is the part of a
beast. For it is something of a middle character which belongs to man,
that is, knowledge united and combined with ignorance. Knowledge in us
is from the soul, which has its origin from heaven; ignorance from the
body, which is from the earth: whence we have something in common with
God, and with the animal creation.
...
What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the
antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the
west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same
quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what
contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west
to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in
every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its
immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore,
from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the
midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself
must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round,
which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also
were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same
appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise
aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were
so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of
the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity
of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended
antipodes.
But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why
all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply
that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the
middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we
see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist,
smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the
heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it
is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not
that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain,
which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the
work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let
it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the
others may be understood.
...
Wherefore there is nothing else in life on which our plan and
condition can depend but the knowledge of God who created us, and the
religious and pious worship of Him; and since the philosophers have
wandered from this, it is plain that they were not wise. They sought
wis-dom, indeed; but because they did not seek it in a right manner,
they sunk down to a greater distance, and fell into such great errors,
that they did not even possess common wisdom. For they were not only
unwilling to maintain religion, but they even took it away; while, led
on by the appearance of false virtue, they endeavour to free the mind
from all fear: and this overturning of religion gains the name of
nature. For they, either being ignorant by whom the world was made, or
wishing to persuade men that nothing was completed by divine
intelligence, said that nature was the mother of all things, as though
they should say that all things were produced of their own accord: by
which word they altogether confess their own ignorance. For nature,
apart from divine providence and power, is absolutely nothing. But if
they call God nature, what perverseness is it, to use the name of nature
rather than of God! But if nature is the plan, or necessity, or
condition of birth, it is not by itself capable of sensation; but there
must necessarily be a divine mind, which by its foresight furnishes the
beginning of their existence to all things. Or if nature is heaven and
earth. and everything which is created. nature is not God, but the work
of God." - Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE)
"I will therefore set forth the system of the world, that it may
easily be understood both when and how it was made by God; which Plato,
who discoursed about the making of the world, could neither know nor
explain, inasmuch as he was ignorant of the heavenly mystery, which is
not learned except by the teaching of prophets and God;... But since God
has revealed this to us, and we do not arrive at it by conjectures, but
by instruction from heaven, we will carefully teach it, that it may at
length be evident to those who are desirous of the truth, that the
philosophers did not see nor comprehend the truth; but that they had so
slight a knowledge of it, that they by no means perceived from what
source that fragrance of wisdom, which was so pleasant and agreeable,
breathed upon them.
...
Therefore that is more correct which they derived from Plato, that
the world was made by God, and is also governed by His providence. It
was therefore befitting that Plato, and those who held the same opinion,
should teach and explain what was the cause, what the reason, for the
contriving of so great a work; why or for the sake of whom He made it.
But the Stoics also say the world was made for the sake of men I
hear, but Epicurus is ignorant on what account or who made men
themselves. For Lucretius, when he said that the world was not made by
the gods, thus spoke:
'To say, again, that for the sake of men they have willed to set in
order the glorious nature of the world'
then he introduced:
'Is sheer folly. For what advantage can our gratitude bestow on
immortal and blessed beings, that for our sake they should take in hand
to administer aught?'
And with good reason. For they brought forward no reason why the
human race was created or established by God. It is our business to set
forth the mystery of the world and man, of which they, being destitute,
were able neither to reach nor see the shrine of truth. Therefore, as I
said a little before, when they had assumed that which was true, that
is, that the world was made by God, and was made for the sake of men,
yet, since their argument failed them in the consequences, they were
unable to defend that which they had assumed.
...
Let us now assign the reason why He made man himself. For if the
philosophers had known this, they would either have maintained those
things which they had found to be true, or would not have fallen into
the greatest errors. For this is the chief thing; this is the point on
which everything turns. And if any one does not possess this, the truth
altogether glides away from him. It is this, in short, which causes them
to be inconsistent with reason; for if this had shone upon them, if they
had known all the mystery of man, the Academy would never have been in
entire opposition to their disputations, and to all philosophy. As,
therefore, God did not make the world for His own sake, because He does
not stand in need of its advantages, but for the sake of man, who has
the use of it, so also He made man himself for His own sake.
...
Therefore the opinion entertained by Democritus, and Epicurus, and
Dicaearchus concerning the dissolution of the soul is false; and
they would not venture to speak concerning the destruction of souls, in
the presence of any magician, who knew that souls are called forth from
the lower regions by certain incantations, and that they are at hand,
and afford themselves to be seen by human eyes, and speak, and foretell
future events; and if they should thus venture, they would be
overpowered by the fact itself, and by proofs presented to them. But
because they did not comprehend the nature of the soul, which is so
subtle that it escapes the eyes of the human mind, they said that it
perishes." - Divine Institutes, Book VII; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE)
Divine Institutes, by early Christian apologist Lucius Lactantius, is a
somewhat confused work which demonstrates that the author did not fully
understand the philosophies that he was addressing, but nevertheless, the
work was addressed to the Greeks and Romans of his time. In the work Lactantius explains that while all of the Greek
philosophies contain some elements of truth, none of them can fully explain
the nature of existence. Lactantius explains that Christians alone have the
answers that the philosophers cannot explain because they have been given
the answers by God. Lactantius explains in his works that all true knowledge
comes directly from God, and that wisdom comes from religion, and that
knowledge is born into the soul. Lactantius also explained that it was
foolish for the Greeks to believe that the earth was round and that the idea
of "antipodes" was inherently against the divine teachings of the scriptures.
Antipodes ("opposing feet") is a term that was used to describe people living on the other
side of the earth, whose feet would have to be facing the feet on the
opposite side of the earth. The rejection of the Greek understanding that
the earth is round was later upheld by Saint Augustine and became official
Christian doctrine based on the teachings of the Bible.
"CHAPTER 24 -- OF THE ANTIPODES, THE HEAVEN, AND THE STARS.
How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to
our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one
so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher
than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent
position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and
trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to
the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned
among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging
fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error
must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same
manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of
their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they
necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they
fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in
agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they
placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of
those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they
ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or
false.
What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the
antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the
west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same
quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what
contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west
to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in
every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its
immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore,
from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the
midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself
must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round,
which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also
were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same
appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is. that it should raise
aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were
so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of
the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity
of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended
antipodes.
But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions,
why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they
reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to
the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as
we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist,
smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the
heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it
is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not
that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain,
which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the
work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let
it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the
others may be understood." - Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE)
"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the
opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men
who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing
it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information;
they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the
concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of
it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void
of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be
believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form,
it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not
completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there
should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of
its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies,
teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might
have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of
ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that
one first man." - The City of God; Saint Augustine of Hippo
(354-430 CE)
The above statement, while allowing that the earth might be round (since
so many people at the time already knew it and had proved it), asserted
based on scriptural logic that there couldn't be people on the other side of
the earth even if it was round. Significantly, Augustine put forward the
Christian view that scripture was always right because it is proved true by
scriptural prophecies. This thinking is what overturned the scientific
method that had been established in the Greek speaking world for hundreds of
years.
"1. Introductory.--The subject of this treatise: the humiliation and
incarnation of the Word. Presupposes the doctrine of Creation, and that
by the Word. The Father has saved the world by Him through Whom He first
made it.
...
2. Erroneous views of Creation rejected.(1) Epicurean (fortuitous
generation). But diversity of bodies and parts argues a creating
intellect.
...
Of the making of the universe and the creation of all things many
have taken different views, and each man has laid down the law just as
he pleased. For some say that all things have come into being of
themselves, and in a chance fashion; as, for example, the Epicureans,
who tell us in their self-contempt, that universal providence does not
exist speaking right in the face of obvious fact and experience. 2. For
if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and
independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come
into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct." - On the Incarnation of the Word; Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 CE)
Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, a now Catholic saint, was one of the
highly influential early Christians. He was a controversial figure, but he
not only wrote several highly influential works, as well as being the first
to assemble the 27 books of the New Testament, but he was also very active
in fighting for the dominance of early Christianity. Athanasius used strong-arm tactics to gain political and religious power. He incited large riots of
poor people and had a close group of militant loyalists. He was exiled from
Alexandria several times for his use of beatings, murder, and bribery to
silence critics of Christianity, but he enjoyed a large following among the
poor, who were quick to rally to his support. Bishop Athanasius justified
his actions by saying that it was for the ultimate good since his actions
would lead to the saving of future souls.
During the early period, before Christianity was made the official religion
of Rome, religious and philosophical conflict was building in the Greek
speaking region of the Roman empire. Christians were being persecuted and
they were also persecuting others. Christians rioted, destroyed libraries,
and intimidated opponents, Epicureans being chief among them. The reason
that the Christians were being persecuted in the first place, however, is
that they broke laws and were intolerant of other religions. The Roman empire and Greek
civilization were both renowned for their religious and philosophical
tolerance, which is why so many different gods were worshiped in these
cultures. All of the different temples existed amongst each other. The
Christians, however, said that there could only be one god and that everyone
else had to renounce their gods, or lack of gods, in order to follow Christ.
Not only were the Christians pushy, but they consisted mostly of the uneducated
poor, who were prone to riot at the direction of their spiritual
leaders, and thus they were considered a threat.
Christianity made its inroads into society through the poor. Eventually the Christian movement came to
dominate the Roman army because the army had become filled with the ranks of
the poor. In imperial Rome the army held great political power, so when the
a significant number of people in the army became Christian the emperor Constantine gave
acknowledgement to the religion and began granting concessions to the
Christians in return for the loyalty of the military.
Christ as Roman Legionary from 495 CE - "I am the way, truth, and life"
Rome was a dictatorship when Christianity was adopted as the official
state religion in 381 CE by the emperor Flavius Theodosius. Furthermore,
there was significant controversy within Christianity as to the nature of
Jesus and the beliefs of the religion. There was also significant
controversy about making Christianity the official state religion of Rome,
and there was much opposition from the various non-Christian citizens of the
empire. Many schools of learning were openly opposed to Christianity.
Under the reign of Theodosius, official state oppression against
non-Christians began. All of the holidays that had not yet been
Christianized (all of the Christian holidays are pagan holidays
that were converted to Christianity) were eliminated, non-Christian temples
and libraries were destroyed by mobs with the assistance of the state, all
state support for the civic activates of the pagan temples was eliminated,
and the Olympic games were terminated.
In 391 some part of the Library of Alexandria was destroyed by Christians
under the order of Theodosius. The Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus
recorded the destruction of the library and part of its adjoining museum in
his writing Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent
Conflict between the Pagans and Christians:
"At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor
[Theodosius] issued an order at this time for the demolition of the
heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in
execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity,
Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries
to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned
out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries.
Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he
publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant
superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the
midst of the forum. ... Thus this disturbance having been terminated,
the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in
Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These
were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of their gods molten
into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of the Alexandrian
church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for
the relief of the poor. All the images were accordingly broken to
pieces, except one statue of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus
preserved and set up in a public place; 'Lest,' said he, 'at a future
time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.'" -
Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent
Conflict between the Pagans and Christians; Socrates Scholasticus
The Serapeum was one of the final holdouts for the non-Christians of the
region. The city had been fortified to try and protect it against Christian
attack, and many pagan and philosophical works had been taken to the
Serapeum to protect them. A large collection of the works of the Library of
Alexandria were housed in the Serapeum at the time it was destroyed.
The emperor Justinian, however, was the most destructive and authoritarian
Christian ruler to yet come to power. Under Justinian non-Christians were
stripped of their rights and their property. All non-Christians were given
the opportunity to be baptized and declare themselves followers of Jesus
Christ. Those that did not lost their rights. The Justinian Institutes
prohibited the building of pagan temples or Jewish synagogues. All
non-Christians, including Jews, were forbidden from public assembly and from
testifying against Christians in court. Christians were prohibited from
marrying non-Christians. Christians retained the right to hold any and all
slaves, but non-Christians could not hold Christian slaves. The
Justinian Institutes collected many different laws that had been passed
over the previous centuries by Christian emperors under one code and added
several new laws as well, thus many of the laws in The Justinian
Institutes had already been in place prior to Justinian.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND
PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.
1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of
the City of Constantinople.
We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live
under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the
Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself,
and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop
of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in
accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical
doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the
Holy Trinity.
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the
name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and
insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the
Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall
afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have
acquired from the judgment of Heaven.
Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during
the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.
2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Prćtorian Prefect.
Let no place be afforded to heretics for the
conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to
display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons
know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of
any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid.
Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful
assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be
celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed,
recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly established by the
testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.
(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true
believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who
believes that Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person,
God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the
Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent
of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith
flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy
Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word .... These
things, indeed, do not require further proof, and should be respected.
(2) Let those who do not accept these doctrines
cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and
let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed
from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as
We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If,
however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be
driven outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence,
and We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world,
shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have
embraced the Nicene Creed.
Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under
the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.
...
12. The Same to John, Prćtorian Prefect.
We order that Our Divine Decree by which We have ordered that no one who
accepts the error of heretics can receive an estate, a legacy, or a
trust, shall also apply to the last wills of soldiers, whether they are
made under the Common, or military law.
Given, on the Kalends of September, after the Consulate of Lampadius and
Orestes, during the second year of the reign of Justinian, 535.
...
CONCERNING THE PAGANS, THEIR SACRIFICES, AND THEIR TEMPLES.
1. The Emperor Constantius to Taurus, Prćtorian Prefect.
We have determined that the temples shall be immediately closed in all
cities, and access to them forbidden to all, so that permission for
further offending may be refused to those who are lost. We also wish
everyone to abstain from sacrifices, and if any person should do
anything of this kind, he shall be laid low with the avenging sword; and
We decree that his property, after having been taken from him, shall be
confiscated to the Treasury, and that the Governors of provinces shall
also be punished, if they have neglected to suppress these crimes.
Extract from the Novel, "Concerning Statutes and Customs." Section
Beginning "Gazarists," Collection 10, Last Constitution.
...
We condemn to infamy, set apart, and banish the Gazarists, the Patarians,
the Leonists, the Spheronists, the Arnoldists, the Circumcised and all
heretics of both sexes, and of every denomination; declaring that all
the property of such persons shall be confiscated, and shall not be
restored to them afterwards, so that their children cannot succeed to
them; for it is much more serious to give offence to Eternal than to
temporal majesty.
(1) Moreover, those who are found to be only liable to suspicion, unless
they show by proper repentance that they are innocent, shall, according
to the nature of the suspicion and the rank of the person, and in
compliance with the orders of the Church, be considered as infamous and
banished, so that if they remain in this condition for a year We shall
condemn them as heretics.
...
1. The Emperor Constantius and Julian-Cćsar to Thalassius, Prćtorian
Prefect.
If anyone, after renouncing the venerated Christian faith, should become
a Jew, and join their sacrilegious assemblies, We order that, after the
accusation has been proved, his property shall be confiscated to the
Treasury.
Given at Milan, on the fifth of the Nones of July, during the Consulate
of Constantius, Consul for the ninth time, and Julian-Cćsar, Consul for
the second time, 357.
-
The Code of Justinian; 529-534 CE
In 529 Emperor Justinian closed all of the remaining schools of
philosophy in Athens. The remaining members of the Academy of Athens fled
with Greek texts to Persia, where the largest part of the remaining texts of
Greek antiquity remained until the Crusades. The Athenians who fled were of
the Platonic and Aristotelian school of thought, which is why they had been
allowed to remain as long as they did, and also one of the reasons why so
many Platonic and Aristotelian texts remain compared to the writings of
other Greek philosophies.
Over the following few hundred years Christian doctrine was consolidated
and all writings and teachings that contradicted official Christian doctrine
were destroyed. All writings that taught about atoms or chaos or evolution
were prime targets for destruction.
This is why almost nothing remains of the early Greek writings on these
subjects, except for the writings that were opposed to the ideas. Almost all
of our knowledge of Epicureanism comes from anti-Epicurean writers because
these are the only texts that were allowed to survive.
The Christian battle against evolution is not new. In fact the conflict
between Christianity and evolutionary concepts is central to understanding
the history of Western Civilization.
Ever since the domination of Christianity in Rome, Western Civilization
has been viewed through the lens of Christianity. The history of ancient
Rome and Greece that has been popularly passed-on and accepted is the
Christian version of history.
Why have Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle been considered the greatest
Greek philosophers for the past 2,000 years? Because these were the
philosophers that were most compatible with Christianity. The philosophers
of opposing schools of thought not only had almost all of their works
destroyed, but their philosophies are incompatible with Christianity, so
they have been relegated as lesser thinkers for the past 2,000 years.
Yet, among these so-called "lesser thinkers" sprang the concepts of atoms,
gravity, the realization that stars are suns with other planetary systems, the comprehension of
fossils, and the idea of biological evolution.
Additionally, Christians saw to it to belittle and trivialize Greek
mythology. In efforts to demonstrate superiority, Christian writers and
thinkers have presented Greek religion and Greek mythology as absurdly
fantastical and beyond belief. Over the centuries Christians have been
taught to think of the Greeks as lascivious, corrupt people who believed in
completely ridiculous gods. The reality of Greek achievement and society has
always been a sore point for Christians. The reality is that even Greek
mythology has a substantial basis, and the Greeks went well past mythology
to develop purely naturalistic explanations for existence based on both
philosophical and scientific principles.
Not only did the Roman Christians destroy the greatest conceptual
products of advanced Greek philosophy, but due to the nature of Roman
civilization Christianity became a civilizing force among the non-Roman
peoples of Europe. Christians, who were not the creators of Roman
civilization, but who instead contributed to its downfall, became the
inheritors of the greatest civilization the world had ever yet known. As
such, Christians brought both civilization and their religion to the
so-called "barbarian" peoples of Europe. As Christianity expanded the
Christians came into conflict with European cultures that believed people
and animals were related and that humans should live in harmony with the
natural world.
This again was in conflict with Christian ideology, which held that
humans were superior to all life on earth, and that humans were rightly the
rulers and subduers of the earth. The Christian inheritance of Roman
civilization brought apparent validity to the Christian doctrine of human
superiority and separation from the animal world in the eyes of less
technologically advanced peoples. During the process of Christian
expansionism the previously dominant view in Europe, that humans and animals
are related, was eliminated.
The so-called barbarians who sacked Rome were in fact Christians. Rome
was both literally and figuratively destroyed by Christians. The Visigoths had
been Christianized by the time they invaded the city of Rome under the
command of Alaric and slaughtered
its citizens, but they only killed pagans and Jews. They spared the Christians, as
recalled by Saint Augustine:
"Are not those very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians through
their respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ? ... Thus
escaped multitudes who now reproach the Christian religion, and impute
to Christ the ills that have befallen their city; but the preservation
of their own life -- a boon which they owe to the respect entertained
for Christ by the barbarians -- they attribute not to our Christ, but to
their own good luck. They ought rather, had they any right perceptions,
to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to
that divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners of
men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions the
righteous and praiseworthy -- either translating them, when they have
passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still on
earth for ulterior purposes. And they ought to attribute it to the
spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to the custom of war,
these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, and spared them for Christ's
sake.... Therefore ought they to give God thanks, and with sincere
confession flee for refuge to His name, that so they may escape the
punishment of eternal fire -- they who with lying lips took upon them
this name, that they might escape the punishment of present destruction.
For of those whom you see insolently and shamelessly insulting the
servants of Christ, there are numbers who would not have escaped that
destruction and slaughter had they not pretended that they themselves
were Christ's servants." - The City of God; St. Augustine, 410
Romanized Christianity attacked naturalism on two fronts, both the
intellectual front and the "barbaric" front. The Greek teachings on
materialism were destroyed and the European cultures of "pagan animism" were
eradicated. Barbarian kings converted to Christianity to gain the favor of
Rome and they slaughtered those among them that resisted. With their own
ranks cleansed they invaded Rome itself, finishing the task of the
elimination of all non-Christians. Thus the Dark Ages were born.
The rise of Christianity can be classed as the single most destructive
event in the history of all civilization.
The Crusades of the 11th through 13th centuries brought Christian
Europeans back into contact with some of the Greek texts that had been vanquished from Europe by
earlier Christians. These texts made their
way through the hands of European scholars and theologians leading to the
reemergence of concepts long forgotten by Europeans.
The rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophy formed the basis of the
Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. By the 1700s philosophical
materialism and empiricism were being reborn in European thought.
Fundamental assumptions of Christian thought were being shaken off and
challenged by increasing numbers of thinkers.
During the Age of Enlightenment evolutionary concepts were reborn, but they were
often reinvented from
scratch, based on the same fundamental principles of materialism and
observation of the natural world, i.e. empiricism.
In 1748 French philosopher Julien Offray de La Mettrie published Man a
Machine, one of the most controversial books that Europeans had ever seen.
The book was banned by the churches and often burned.
In Man a
Machine La Mettrie stated that he believed humans and animals were
related. La Mettrie also believed that it would be possible to teach apes to
communicate using sign language.
"But the better to show this dependence, in its completeness and its
causes, let us here make use of comparative anatomy; let us lay bare the
organs of man and of animals. How can human nature be known, if we may
not derive any light from an exact comparison of the structure of man
and of animals?
In general, the form and the structure of the brains of quadrupeds
are almost the same as those of the brain of man; the same shape, the
same arrangement everywhere, with this essential difference, that of all
the animals man is the one whose brain is largest, and, in proportion to
its mass, more convoluted than the brain of any other animal; then come
the monkey, the beaver, the elephant, the dog, the fox, the cat. These
animals are most like man, for among them, too, one notes the same
progressive analogy in relation to the corpus callosum in which Lancisi
- anticipating the late M. de la Peyronie - established the seat of the
soul. The latter, however, illustrated the theory by innumerable
experiments. Next after all the quadrupeds, birds have the largest
brains. Fish have large heads, but these are void of sense, like the
heads of many men. Fish have no corpus callosum, and very little brain,
while insects entirely lack brain.
...
The transition from animals to man is not violent, as true
philosophers will admit. What was man before the invention of words and
the knowledge of language? An animal of his own species with much less
instinct than the others. In those days, he did not consider himself
king over the other animals, nor was he distinguished from the ape, and
from the rest, except as the ape itself differs from the other animals,
i.e., by a more intelligent face." - Man a Machine; Julien Offray de La Mettrie,
1748
In 1749 French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon published his
first 36 volumes of Natural Hi story.
Natural History was
condemned by the Catholic Church and often burned. In Natural History
Buffon challenged the belief that the earth was 6,000 year old and he
proposed that some change could occur within "species". At the time the only
accepted view in Western Civilization was that all species were completely
static. Because of this, virtually all Europeans believed that different
"races" of people were all actually different "species". Buffon
challenged this view by stating that all humans were one "species" which had
changed over time to produce the variety of forms that is presently
observed. Buffon stated:
"Everything therefore comes together to prove that humankind is not
made up of essentially different species, that to the contrary there was
originally only one sole species, which, having multiplied and spread
itself over the entire surface of the earth, underwent different
changes, though the influence of the climate, differences in food,
diversity in way of life, epidemic illnesses, and also the infinitely
varied mix of more or less similar individuals."
- Natural History; Louis Buffon
In 1770 Baron d’Holbach, another French philosopher, published what was
perhaps the most radical view of the natural world up to that time, The
System of Nature. Baron d'Holbach was an ardent opponent of the Catholic
Church and a philosophical materialist, and thus The System of Nature
was more than just a book about nature, it was also a political and
philosophical book that was openly anti-religious. In
The System of Nature
Baron d'Holbach proposed the idea that humans have changed over time
and vaguely implied the concept of common decent, as stated below:
"Let us now apply the general laws we have scrutinized, to those
beings of nature who interest us the most. Let us see in what man
differs from the other beings by which he is surrounded. Let us examine
if he has not certain points in conformity with them, that oblige him,
not withstanding the different properties they respectively possess, to
act in certain respects according to the universal laws to which everything is submitted. Finally, let us inquire if the ideas he has formed
of himself in meditating on his own peculiar mode of existence, be
chimerical, or founded in reason.
...
Has man always been what he now is, or has he, before he arrived at
the state in which we see him, been obliged to pass under an infinity of
successive developments? ... Matter is eternal, and necessary, but its
forms are evanescent and contingent. It may be asked of man, is he anything more than matter combined, of which the form varies every instant?
...
[S]ome reflections seem to favour the supposition, and to
render more probable the hypothesis that man is a production formed in
the course of time; who is peculiar to the globe he inhabits, and the
result of the peculiar laws by which it is directed; who, consequently,
can only date his formation as coeval with that of his planet." - The System of Nature; Baron d’Holbach, 1770
In 1745 French philosopher Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis anonymously
published The Earthly Venus, in which he made reference to a
concept of natural selection. In his work he stated:
"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the
productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain
relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered
at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in
existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of
individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a
manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in
another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order:
all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not
live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate
themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what
blind destiny has produced...." - The Earthly Venus; 1745, Pierre Maupertuis
In 1779 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by philosopher David Hume, was
published (three years after Hume's death).
In Dialogues Hume put forward a concept of evolution with natural
selection. Dialogues presents a debate between three thinkers of
opposing schools of thought. Not only did Hume put forward an early concept
of evolution, but he also presented a counter argument that is still used by
opponents of evolutionary theory today.
CLEANTHES: The philosopher
PHILO: The skeptic
DEMEA: The orthodox theologian
"[PHILO:] Now, according to this method of reasoning, DEMEA, it
follows, (and is, indeed, tacitly allowed by CLEANTHES himself,) that
order, arrangement, or the adjustment of final causes, is not of itself
any proof of design; but only so far as it has been experienced to
proceed from that principle. For aught we can know a priori, matter may
contain the source or spring of order originally within itself, as well
as mind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving, that the
several elements, from an internal unknown cause, may fall into the most
exquisite arrangement, than to conceive that their ideas, in the great
universal mind, from a like internal unknown cause, fall into that
arrangement. The equal possibility of both these suppositions is
allowed. But, by experience, we find, (according to CLEANTHES), that
there is a difference between them. Throw several pieces of steel
together, without shape or form; they will never arrange themselves so
as to compose a watch. Stone, and mortar, and wood, without an
architect, never erect a house. But the ideas in a human mind, we see,
by an unknown, inexplicable economy, arrange themselves so as to form
the plan of a watch or house. Experience, therefore, proves, that there
is an original principle of order in mind, not in matter. From similar
effects we infer similar causes. The adjustment of means to ends is
alike in the universe, as in a machine of human contrivance. The causes,
therefore, must be resembling.
...
[CLEANTHES:] Consider, anatomise the eye; survey its structure and
contrivance; and tell me, from your own feeling, if the idea of a
contriver does not immediately flow in upon you with a force like that
of sensation. The most obvious conclusion, surely, is in favour of
design; and it requires time, reflection, and study, to summon up those
frivolous, though abstruse objections, which can support Infidelity. Who
can behold the male and female of each species, the correspondence of
their parts and instincts, their passions, and whole course of life
before and after generation, but must be sensible, that the propagation
of the species is intended by Nature? Millions and millions of such
instances present themselves through every part of the universe; and no
language can convey a more intelligible irresistible meaning, than the
curious adjustment of final causes. To what degree, therefore, of blind
dogmatism must one have attained, to reject such natural and such
convincing arguments?
...
[PHILO:] In either case, a chaos ensues; till finite, though
innumerable revolutions produce at last some forms, whose parts and
organs are so adjusted as to support the forms amidst a continued
succession of matter.
Suppose (for we shall endeavour to vary the expression), that matter
were thrown into any position, by a blind, unguided force; it is evident
that this first position must, in all probability, be the most confused
and most disorderly imaginable, without any resemblance to those works
of human contrivance, which, along with a symmetry of parts, discover an
adjustment of means to ends, and a tendency to self-preservation. If the
actuating force cease after this operation, matter must remain for ever
in disorder, and continue an immense chaos, without any proportion or
activity. But suppose that the actuating force, whatever it be, still
continues in matter, this first position will immediately give place to
a second, which will likewise in all probability be as disorderly as the
first, and so on through many successions of changes and revolutions. No
particular order or position ever continues a moment unaltered. The
original force, still remaining in activity, gives a perpetual
restlessness to matter. Every possible situation is produced, and
instantly destroyed. If a glimpse or dawn of order appears for a
moment,it is instantly hurried away, and confounded, by that
never-ceasing force which actuates every part of matter.
Thus the universe goes on for many ages in a continued succession of
chaos and disorder. But is it not possible that it may settle at last,
so as not to lose its motion and active force (for that we have supposed
inherent in it), yet so as to preserve an uniformity of appearance,
amidst the continual motion and fluctuation of its parts? This we find
to be the case with the universe at present. Every individual is
perpetually changing, and every part of every individual; and yet the
whole remains, in appearance, the same. May we not hope for such a
position, or rather be assured of it, from the eternal revolutions of
unguided matter; and may not this account for all the appearing wisdom
and contrivance which is in the universe? Let us contemplate the subject
a little, and we shall find, that this adjustment, if attained by matter
of a seeming stability in the forms, with a real and perpetual
revolution or motion of parts, affords a plausible, if not a true
solution of the difficulty.
It is in vain, therefore, to insist upon the uses of the parts in
animals or vegetables, and their curious adjustment to each other. I
would fain know, how an animal could subsist, unless its parts were so
adjusted? Do we not find, that it immediately perishes whenever this
adjustment ceases, and that its matter corrupting tries some new form?
It happens indeed, that the parts of the world are so well adjusted,
that some regular form immediately lays claim to this corrupted matter:
and if it were not so, could the world subsist? Must it not dissolve as
well as the animal, and pass through new positions and situations, till
in great, but finite succession, it falls at last into the present or
some such order?" - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; David
Hume, posthumous publication in 1779
Despite the philosophical reemergence of evolutionary concepts, the natural
sciences, especially biology, were still dominated by the theologically
minded. The heavy reliance on Plato and Aristotle further reinforced the
idea that all life was created and that form followed design.
The scientific concept of biological evolution
was eventually redeveloped independent of philosophy based on fresh
observations of the natural world. The philosophical reemergence
of evolutionary concepts, however, laid the groundwork for the acceptance of
the scientific evidence for evolution.
By the late 1700s there was significant interest in fossils among both
scientists and the public. A wide variety of speculations were put forth in
attempts to explain fossils and their implications. Among the most common
speculations were that fossils were evidence of Biblical creation. A widely
held view was that the fossils were formed after the flood mentioned in the
story of Noah. Many Christian naturalists argued that all fossils had to
represent currently existing life forms because God's creation is perfect so
life must always have been in its current form. They thus tried to assemble
and interpret fossils in such as way that they matched up to currently
existing forms of life, or they believe that if they could not match a
fossil to a known
form of life then the fossil must represent a form of life that was not yet
known to Europeans.
It had become in vogue for poorly excavated fossils to be put on display
in churches across Europe and America, where the fossils were claimed to be
the human remains of victims of the Great Flood.
In 1731 Johann Jakob Scheuchzer published Sacred Physics which put
forward what he believed was evidence of the Great Flood. The book provided
a natural history of the earth based on a combination of natural
observations and the Biblical account. Scheuchzer was a widely traveled
scholar who had collected fossils from all over the world.
From these fossils he described what he believed to be the fossilized
remains of a human victim of the Great Flood in his book Sacred Physics.
The fossils were later examined by other scientists and found to be the
bones of a giant salamander.
Despite the fact that the majority of natural scientists were out looking
for evidence of creation in the natural world, there were growing doubts
among them. This is because the evidence was pointing in the other
direction. Increasingly varied and complex explanations were proposed to try
and make all of the natural evidence fit into the assumed model of a world
created according to the Biblical account.
It was becoming increasingly apparent that the earth was much older than
the 6,000 years that was calculated from the Bible. The estimated age of
earth the
was continuously being pushed back. In 1778 Georges Leclerc de Buffon estimated the age of the
earth at 74,832. In 1804 leading paleontologist
Georges Cuvier estimated that the fossils he found were "thousands of
centuries" old.
As naturalists traveled around the world, especially to the tropics, the
number and variety of species that were catalogued was increasing beyond the
wildest estimates of men who had grown up and studied in Europe. There was
also an acknowledgment that there were far more "lowly" animals than "high
order" animals. Especially insects.
Increasingly, as well, naturalists were finding life in places that no
human beings had ever been to before.
All of these facts challenged the idea that God had created the world
over a short period of time and that life on earth was created for the use
of man. If life was created for the use of man then why were there so many
insects that hurt man instead of helped him? Why was there so much life in places
where people didn't live? If God loves order and reason and advanced
creatures then why did he create more worms, insects, reptiles, and
amphibians than "higher order" animals such as mammals?
In the tropics naturalists observed that many forms of life, such as leaf
bugs, had developed complex forms and behaviors that helped them hide from
other animals. Life was much more competitive and violent than many
naturalists had originally thought. If God created all life, and God is
good, then why is "life" so "deadly"?
Extinction also played a major role in discussions about life. Christian
naturalists always maintained that extinction didn't exist and that it was
impossible for a species to go extinct because God wouldn't create species
that were not fit. Extinction, they argued, would prove that God was not
perfect, and thus extinction could not occur.
These types of issues were on the minds of many naturalists.
In 1794 Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, published Zoönomia; or, The Laws of Organic Life. Erasmus was a trained physician
who was very active in intellectual pursuits. Erasmus produced several
inventions, he was involved in genealogy, philosophy, and botany, and wrote
several books on a variety of subjects. His book Zoönomia put forward
what was known about disease and germs at the time, as well as ideas about what life
really is, how it formed, and how it has developed over time. In Zoönomia
Erasmus makes references to ideas that resemble evolution and DNA.
Interestingly, Erasmus mentioned both Aristotle and Plato in his work, but
not Epicurus, which was likely due to the fact that the ideas of Epicureans
were still so very little known. Virtually everyone who studied classical
Greek philosophy only studied the Platonic school. The reference to
Aristotle in Zoönomia appears to be a somewhat misunderstood
reference to the quote in Physics where Aristotle actually argues
against evolutionary concepts. The concepts of evolution put forward
by Erasmus, however, were similar to those later put forward by Lamarck. His
view was that animals changed according to their wants, i.e. that a want
could create a change. In the writing below Erasmus refers to mules because
he is talking about the possibility that there were originally a few basic
forms of life and that the variety we see today has come from the
interbreeding of these few basic forms.
"From this account of reproduction it appears, that all animals have
a similar origin, viz. from a single living filament; and that the
difference of their forms and qualities has arisen only from the
different irritabilities and sensibilities, or voluntarities, or
associabilities, of this original living filament; and perhaps in some
degree from the different forms of the particles of the fluids, by which
it has been first stimulated into activity. And that from hence, as
Linnćus has conjectured in respect to the vegetable world, it is not
impossible, but the great variety of species of animals, which now
tenant the earth, may have had their origin from the mixture of a few
natural orders. And that those animal and vegetable mules, which could
continue their species, have done so, and constitute the numerous
families of animals and vegetables which now exist; and that those
mules, which were produced with imperfect organs of generation, perished
without reproduction, according to the observation of Aristotle;
...
All animals therefore, I contend, have a similar cause of their
organization, originating from a single living filament, endued indeed
with different kinds of irritabilities and sensibilities, or of animal
appetencies; which exist in every gland, and in every moving organ of
the body, and are as essential to living organization as chemical
affinities are to certain combinations of inanimate matter.
...
Fourthly, when we revolve in our minds the great similarity of
structure which obtains in all the warm blooded animals, as well
quadrupeds, birds, and amphibious animals, as in mankind; from the mouse
and bat to the elephant and whale; one is led to conclude, that they
have alike been produced from a similar living filament. In some this
filament in its advance to maturity has acquired hands and fingers, with
a fine sense of touch, as in mankind. In others it has acquired claws or
talons, as in tygers and eagles. In others, toes with an intervening
web, or membrane, as in seals and geese. In others it has acquired
cloven hoofs, as in cows and swine; and whole hoofs in others, as in the
horse. While in the bird kind this original living filament has put
forth wings instead of arms and legs, and feathers instead of hair. In
some it has protruded horns on the forehead instead of teeth in the fore
part of the upper jaw; in others tushes instead of horns; in others
beaks instead of either.
...
Another great want consists in the means of procuring food, which has
diversified the forms of all species of animals. Thus the nose of the
swine has become hard for the purpose of turning up the soil in search
of insects and of roots. The trunk of the elephant is an elongation of
the nose for the purpose of pulling down the branches of trees for his
food, and for taking up water without bending his knees. Beasts of prey
have acquired strong jaws or talons. Cattle have acquired a rough tongue
and a rough palate to pull off the blades of grass, as cows and sheep.
Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as the parrot.
Others have acquired beaks adapted to break the harder feeds, as
sparrows. Others for the softer seeds of flowers, or the buds of trees,
as the finches. Other birds have acquired long beaks to penetrate the
moister soils in search of insects or roots, as woodcocks; and others
broad ones to filtrate the water of lakes, and to retain aquatic
insects, as ducks. All which seem to have been gradually produced during
many generations by the perpetual endeavor of the creatures to supply
the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with
constant improvement of them for the purposes required.
...
From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the
warm-blooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they
undergo both before and after their nativity; and by considering in how
minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above described
have been produced; would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great
length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages
before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold
to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living
filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the
power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by
irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus
possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent
activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its
posterity, world without end? - Zoönomia; or, The Laws of Organic Life;
Erasmus Darwin, 1794
The writings of Erasmus serve as a good reference for how thought about
the natural world was developing along the leading edges of the intellectual
community, but the work did not have a popular audience and was not
indicative of the views of the majority of thinkers at the time.
In 1809 Jean-Baptiste Chevalier de Lamarck published Zoological
Philosophy, in which he famously proposed the first testable evolutionary
hypothesis. Lamarck's proposals, while now often ridiculed, were rather
understandable at the time, and also revolutionary in their effect because Lamarck introduced the concept of evolution to a much broader audience than
it had ever been introduced to before. While Lamarck was ultimately wrong
about how evolution works, he was also right about several things, and he
did defend the concept of common descent, i.e. that all living things on earth
are biologically related.
One of the things that Lamarck was correct about, which is generally
overlooked in present day biology, is that there really is no such thing as
a "species". Lamarck was among the first to note that the species concept was a man
made concept, based on the belief that different kinds of animals were
created and are unchangeable. Lamarck corrected this and stated that in
truth no species exists. He acknowledged, however, that the species concept was useful in
describing populations, though it still has to be understood that it is
purely a term used for the convenience of human classification, and does not
reflect an actual reality. On this subject Lamarck stated:
"Throughout nature, wherever man strives to acquire knowledge he
finds himself under the necessity of using special methods, 1st, to
bring order among the infinitely numerous and varied objects which he
has before him; 2nd, to distinguish, without danger of confusion, among
this immense multitude of objects, either groups or those in which he is
interested, or particular individuals among them; 3rd, to pass on to his
fellows all what he has learnt, seen and thought on the subject. Now
the methods which he uses for this purpose are what I call the
artificial devices in natural science, -- devices which we must
beware of confusing with the laws and acts of nature herself.
...
When the interest of studying and knowing nature was felt, these
artificial devices continued to be of assistance in the prosecution of
that study. These same artificial devices have therefore an
indispensable utility, not only for helping us to a knowledge of special
objects, but for facilitating study and the progress of natural science,
and for enabling us to find our way about among the enormous quantity of
different objects that we have to deal with.
...
The artificial devices in natural science are as follows:
(1) Schematic classifications, both general and special.
(2) Classes.
(3) Orders.
(4) Families.
(5) Genera.
(6) The nomenclature of various groups of individual objects.
These six kinds of devices, commonly used in natural sciences, are
purely artificial aids which we have to use in the arrangement and
division of the various observed natural productions; to put us in the
way of studying, comparing, recognising and citing them.
Nature has made nothing of the kind: and instead of deceiving
ourselves into confusing our works with hers, we should recognise that
classes, orders, families, genera and nomenclatures are weapons of our
invention. We could not do without them, but we must use them with
discretion and determine them in accordance with settled principles, in
order to avoid arbitrary changes which destroy all the advantages they
bestow.
It was no doubt indispensable to break up the productions of nature
into groups, and to establish different kinds of divisions among them
such as classes, orders, families and genera. It was, moreover,
necessary to fix what are called species, and to assign special
names to these various sorts of objects. This is required on account of
the limitations of our faculties; some such means are necessary for
helping us to fix the knowledge which we gain from that prodigious
multitude of natural bodies which we can observe in their infinite
diversity.
But these groupings, of which several have been so happily drawn up by
naturalists, are altogether artificial, as also are the divisions and
sub-divisions which they represent. Let me repeat that nothing of the
kind is to be found in nature, notwithstanding the justification which
they appear to derive from certain apparently isolated portions of the
natural series with which we are acquainted. We may, therefore, rest
assured that among her productions nature has not really formed either
classes, orders, families, genera or constant species, but only
individuals who succeed one another and resemble those from which they
sprung. Now these individuals belong to infinitely diversified races,
which blend together every variety of form and degree of organisation;
and this is maintained by each without variation, so long as no cause of
change acts upon them.
...
It is not a futile purpose to decide definitely what we mean by the
so-called species among living bodies, and to enquire if it is
true that species are of absolute constancy, as old as nature, and have
all existed from the beginning just as we see them to-day; or if, as a
result of changes in their environment, albeit extremely slow, they have
not in course of time changed their characters and shape.
...
Thus, among living bodies, nature, as I have already said, definitely
contains nothing but individuals which succeed one another by
reproduction and spring from one another; but the species among them
have only a relative constancy and are only invariable temporarily.
Nevertheless, to facilitate the study and knowledge of so many different
bodies it is useful to give the name of species to any collection of
like individuals perpetuated by reproduction without change, so long as
their environment does not alter enough to cause variations in their
habits, character and shape." - Zoological Philosophy; Jean-Baptiste Lamarck,
1809
This is actually a very important clarification that Charles Darwin later
failed to fully address in his The Origin of Species, which it could be
argued furthered the misunderstanding of the very concept of evolution due
to the use of the species concept. The term species, and the entire
biological classification system, was developed by natural theologians who believed that
the classification system was based on a direct model of God's creation, and
that thus each classification did represent something concrete in
nature. Unfortunately this misunderstanding has still not been fully
addressed in biological education today.
Lamarck went on in Zoological Philosophy to give his explanation
for how life came to be as it is on earth. His explanation basically stated
that all individuals can change a little bit during their lifetime, and that
these small changes are passed on to their offspring. It is important to
note that Lamarck did not believe in the widespread phenomena of extinction,
in part because according to his ideas about how life changed it should
make sense that all life forms can improve themselves, and thus natural
selection did not play an important role in his ideas about evolution, but
the idea of common descent was central to his works.
"Thus to obtain a knowledge of the true causes of that great
diversity of shapes and habits found in the various known animals, we
must reflect that the infinitely diversified but slowly changing
environment in which the animals of each race have successively been
placed, has involved each of them in new needs and corresponding
alterations in their habits. This is a truth which, once recognised,
cannot be disputed. Now we shall easily discern how the new needs may
have been satisfied, and the new habits acquired, if we pay attention to
the two following laws of nature, which are always verified by
observation.
FIRST LAW:
In every animal which has not passed the limit of its
development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually
strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power
proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the
permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it,
and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally
disappears.
SECOND LAW:
All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on
individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their
race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the
predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are
preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided
that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to
the individuals which produce the young.
Here we have two permanent truths, which can only be doubted by those
who have never observed or followed the operations of nature, or by
those who have allowed themselves to be drawn into the error which I
shall now proceed to combat.
Naturalists have remarked that the structure of animals is always in
perfect adaptation to their functions, and have inferred that the shape
and condition of their parts have determined the use of them. Now this
is a mistake: for it may be easily proved by observation that it is on
the contrary the needs and uses of the parts which have caused the
development of these same parts, which have even birth to them when they
did not exist, and which consequently have given rise to the condition
we find in each animal
If this were not so, nature would have had to create as many
different kinds of structure in animals, as there are different kinds of
environments in which they have to live; and neither structure nor
environment would ever have varied.
This is indeed very far from the true order of things. If things were
really so, we should not have the race-horses shaped like those in
England;
we should not have big draught-horses so heavy and different from the
former, for none such are produced in nature; in the same way we should
not have basset-hounds with crooked legs, nor grey-hounds so fleet of
foot, nor water-spaniels, etc.; we should not have fowls without tails,
fantail pigeons, etc.; finally, we should be able to cultivate wild
plants as long as we liked in the rich and fertile soil of our gardens,
without the fear of seeing them change under long cultivation.
Conclusion adopted hitherto [The previously held belief]:
Nature (or her Author) in creating animals, foresaw all the possible
kinds of environment in which they would have to live, and endowed each
species with a fixed organisation and with a definite and invariable
shape, which compel each species to live in the places and climates
where we actually find them, and there to maintain the habits which we
know in them.
My individual conclusion: Nature has produced all the species
of animals in succession, beginning with the most imperfect or simplest,
and ending her work with the most perfect, so as to create a gradually
increasing complexity in their organisation; these animals have spread
at large throughout all the habitable regions of the globe, and every
species has derived from its environment the habits that we find in it
and the structural modifications which observation shows us." - Zoological Philosophy; Jean-Baptiste Lamarck,
1809
The famous example given by Lamarck was that of the giraffe, which he
proposed has evolved over generations with each individual stretching its
neck a little longer to reach higher and higher leaves, and that the small
changes in each individual were passed on to the offspring and thus the
necks of giraffes grew longer and longer.
Lamarck's ideas were put to the test by a number of different experiments,
none of which conclusively supported his hypothesis. The most famous test
performed was one in which the tails of mice were repeatedly amputated in
every generation. After many generations no change in the length of the mice
tails was observed. This made it rather unlikely that use or disuse of an
organ by an organisms had an effect on the form of their offspring.
Despite this, Lamarck's beliefs about evolution retained some support
because it was the best naturalistic explanation at the time for biological diversity and
how well-suited life was to the environment. The majority view in Western
Civilization, however, was still the theological view - that all life had
been created at one time by God and that species were fixed. Indeed
significant arguments against evolution were becoming more widespread before Darwin published his book,
The Origin of Species.
One example of the arguments against evolution that preceded The
Origin of Species was published in the British newspaper The Times
in 1836, which stated that evolution could not have taken place because
various forms of life were present in rock layers. This argument was later
refuted by closer examination of rock layers.
"The investigation of the newer transitionary strata assures us by
their remains of the cotemporaneous existence of the four divisions of
the animal kingdom, vertebrata, mollusca, articulata, and radiala--a
fact which at once and for ever annihilates the doctrine of spontaneous
and progressive evolution of life, and its impious corollary, chance." - The Times, November. 15, 1836
Charles Darwin was born in 1809, seven years after his grandfather
Erasmus had died. Charles grew up during a conservative period in British
and American society, shortly after the Napoleonic Wars. While Charles'
grandfather had been a freethinker, his father was more reserved. This was
true of society in general. The proceeding 100 years of the 18th century
were quite radical and the early 19th century was a period of consolidation
and reservation after periods of dramatic social change.
At the age of eight Charles went off to a leading Christian boarding
school, where he attended until his graduation in 1825. Darwin then went to
Edinburgh University to study medicine to become a physician like his
father. While at Edinburgh he learned about the ideas of Lamarck and other
evolutionary concepts. Charles showed no interest in becoming a physician
however, so in 1827 his father enrolled him in Christ's College at the University
of Cambridge to become a clergyman. In his autobiography Darwin wrote:
"I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard
or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in
all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the
thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care
'Pearson on the Creed,' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did
not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word
in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully
accepted." - The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin; 1887
At Christ's College Charles studied natural history along with many other
doctrinal subjects.
"Again, in my last year I worked with some earnestness for my final
degree of B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little
Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it did at
school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to
get up Paley's 'Evidences of Christianity,' and his 'Moral Philosophy.'
This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have
written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but
not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book
and, as I may add, of his 'Natural Theology,' gave me as much delight as
did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to
learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course
which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me
in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about
Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced
by the long line of argumentation." - The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin; 1887
After passing his final exams, but before leaving the university to
become a full-time clergyman, Darwin enrolled in a geology course run by
Reverend Adam Sedgwick, who was a strong proponent of the idea that all of
nature was divinely designed by God.
In the mean time the captain of the HMS Beagle, Robert FitzRoy, was
preparing to make a return journey to South America as part of a Christian
experiment in social engineering. FitzRoy had taken four native children
from Tierra del Fuego, South America back to England with the intent of
converting them to Christianity and civilizing them so that they could go
back and spread Christianity to their community. On the journey to England
one of the children died, but the three that survived did well in England
and were quite popular. As things progressed, however, two of the teenagers
began having vigorous sexual relations and seemed to be beyond the control
of their hosts. As a result, FitzRoy decided to take them back to their
native lands sooner than originally planned.
In order to make the voyage worthwhile, aside from just taking three
"savages" back to South America, FitzRoy decided to commission a Christian
naturalist to chart the coastline of South America. For this FitzRoy turned
to the University of Cambridge, who recommended Charles Darwin for the
volunteer position.
When Darwin began his voyage on the HMS Beagle he was an orthodox
Christian, but his views changed over time as he came in contact with the
world.
“Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite
orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the
officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the
novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by
this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false
history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign,
etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful
tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos,
or the beliefs of any barbarian.” - The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin; 1887
The voyage of the HMS Beagle took five years to complete. During the
journey Darwin spent most of his time on land studying wildlife and
recording geological features. Darwin also spent time with native peoples,
going on long expeditions inland to survey regions and document the flora
and fauna.
He found many fossils, observed primitive cultures, and documented unknown
organisms.
When they reached Tierra del Fuego the crew left the three Fuegians that they
had previously taken to England believing that they would become missionaries.
Years later, upon later return, FitzRoy learned that one of them had
murdered some white missionaries and that the girl from among them had
become a prostitute for sailors. The native people of Tierra del Fuego are
now completely extinct.
Darwin was almost killed several times on the journey, including when he
got caught up in a genocidal war that was being waged against natives in
Argentina by the
Catholic General Juan Manuel de Rosas.
During the visit to the Galápagos Islands Darwin, with the help of other
crewmembers, collected many different
bird specimens. He cataloged all of them and identified them as best he could. Darwin noticed that life on each of the islands was mostly the
same, but just a little bit different.
From South America the HMS Beagle sailed over to Australia, where Darwin
learned that Christians of the Church of England were hunting the natives for fun and allowing their
dogs to eat them. This upset Darwin, but there was noting he could do about
it. On his journey Darwin was as impressed by the variation that he found in
nature as he was with the variation that he found in human civilization. The
extreme differences in human culture and civilization among the people he came in contact with had a profound
affect on his views about religion
and humanity. After seeing people living in such different levels of
civilization Darwin was inclined to believe that humans had evolved over
time from simpler origins.
Upon returning home in 1836 Darwin was a minor celebrity due to the
publication of some of his notes and the fossils that he had sent back to
England.
Darwin presented his collection of birds to ornithologist John Gould, who
informed him that he had incorrectly identified most of the birds. To
Darwin's surprise, nearly all the small songbirds in his collection were
different types of finches.
After his return, Darwin began formulating his ideas on evolution, however, the concept of
evolution had already been spreading among "non-Christians" by that time. The
concept was highly controversial and deemed blasphemous by The
Church of England, of which Darwin was now a clergyman. Because of this,
Darwin was very reluctant to expose his ideas to his peers and he was not
prepared to publish them.
Instead, Darwin had plenty of work to do documenting his collections and
writing about his journey on the Beagle. Darwin published several works on
geology and zoology which remained non-controversial and he gave various
speeches, but his health was generally poor.
In 1851 Charles Darwin's daughter Annie died at age 10 from a painful
illness. The loss was particularly hard on Charles, and with her death he
lost his last reaming belief in Christianity. His faith had already been
challenged by his findings in the natural world, but after watching his
daughter die a painful death he could not believe that a benevolent God was
watching over the world. With his loss of faith he found a renewed interest
in his concept of natural selection.
After his daughter died Darwin worked on experiments to test his
hypothesis of natural selection. He used plants and pigeons to test how
individuals in a population changed over generations in response to an
altered natural environment. He found that over generations the traits of a
population did change in relation to the different conditions of the
environment in which they existed.
In 1856 Darwin was notified by a friend that the naturalist Alfred
Russell
Wallace had written a paper on species that echoed many of Darwin's beliefs.
His friends prompted him to hurry to publish a paper in order to get
recognition for his ideas before the world passed him by. Darwin listened to
his friends and began work on what would become his most famous book, The Origin of
Species. Throughout the work on his book Darwin corresponded with
Wallace. Eventually Darwin and Wallace co-published two scientific papers
in 1858 titled On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the
Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. This publication received no special reception, in part because it was
not clearly differentiated from the other ideas on evolution that were
floating around at the time.
In 1859, however, Darwin published his monumental book On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life, which became an international
phenomenon.
The basis of what Darwin proposed was this:
1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can
grow to adulthood.
2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the
time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an
environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
4. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are
identical. Variation is rampant.
5. Much of this variation is heritable.
The two guiding forces of evolution proposed by Darwin in The Origin
of Species are "natural selection" and "sexual selection",
although Darwin used the term "descent with modification through
natural selection", which has caused confusion over the years because it
presents natural selection as the "cause" of evolution, which it is not.
"That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of
descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I
have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can
appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and
instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though
analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable
slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless,
this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great,
cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions,
namely, -- that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct,
which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each
good of its kind, -- that all organs and instincts are, in ever so
slight a degree, variable, -- and, lastly, that there is a struggle for
existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of
structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think,
be disputed." - On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection; Charles Darwin, 1859
The biggest problem for Darwin's concept of "descent with modification", guided
by natural and sexual selection, was that no one knew how inheritance worked.
The role of DNA had not yet been discovered, so there was no explanation for how traits could be passed on to progeny.
What initially made The Origin of Species different from other
works was the volume and quality of data that Darwin presented in support of
his arguments. What made Darwin's ideas different from others in the long
run, however, was that new evidence continued to support the basic
principles that he had put forward.
The reaction to Darwin's ideas varied widely among different nations. His
work was primarily published in Western Nations, so the exact reaction of
Asian and Indian culture is difficult to gauge since these cultures were not
a part of the initial "Origin of Species phenomenon".
What is known, however, is that the reaction to The Origin of Species
was more positive in Europe than it was in America. The most favorable
reaction actually came from the Germans, in part because Germany had a
broader freethinkers movement and philosophical materialism had been
relatively widely adopted there. The British were more skeptical, but this
was in part due to the fact that so many works on evolution had already been
published in England. At first Darwin's work was seen as "just another bit
of evolution tripe" by some. Both the French and the Germans were critical
of Darwin's imprecise language however, which often anthropomorphized
nature. Both the French and German schools of science were highly refined
by this point and used very precise language, whereas the English wrote more
in layman's terms.
On the whole, however, the negative reaction from the religious community
was overwhelming.
anti-Darwin cartoon from the 1800s
Though Darwin intentionally avoided discussing the implications of this
ideas in relation to mankind or religion in The Origin of Species, he
did later address these topics in The Descent of Man and Selection in
Relation to Sex, published in 1871.
"Belief in God- Religion: There is no evidence that man was
aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an
Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not
from hasty travelers, but from men who have long resided with savages,
that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of
one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express
such an idea. The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher
one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this
has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects
that have ever existed.
...
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest,
but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower
animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that
this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief
in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and
apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from
a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and
wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been
used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a
rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the
existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more
powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a
beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does
not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by
long-continued culture.
...
He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of
nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work
of a separate act of creation." - The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation
to Sex ; Charles Darwin, 1871
Overall, however, Darwin publicly avoided involvement in religious and
political speculation. What really set Darwin apart from others of his
time, and what has made him such a beneficial figure to modern science, is
that Darwin avoided needless controversy, he was very diligent and detailed
in his studies, and he stayed out of many of the political movements that
adopted positions based on his theories. If Darwin had gotten involved in
politics or broad religious criticism it could not only have significantly undermined his credibility, but it could have put everlasting baggage on
evolutionary theory as well. As it is, however, Darwin was a non-political
man who was as well educated in all of the schools of natural science as
anyone of his time. Darwin's background as a clergyman and his education in
one of the world's best theological schools of natural science served him
well in understanding exactly what the counter arguments against evolution
were, and it can never be said that Darwin was someone who believed in
evolution because he was anti-religious, because the fact is the opposite.
Darwin was initially a religious man who fully believed in the literal truth
of the Bible. It was his careful observation of the real world that changed
Darwin's mind about religion, and Darwin struggled with his religious
beliefs because he wanted to be a pious man. He simply knew that, based on
the facts he observed, Biblical and theological claims could not be
true, and this fact pained him.
The present day "Theory of Biological Evolution" has come a long way since
the days of Darwin. The merger of Darwin's ideas with genetics, which took
place in the 1920s, is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or
neo-Darwinism. Some of Darwin's specific ideas have been rejected
through scientific inquiry, holes in his ideas and evidences have been
filled, and many new avenues of thought and evidence have been
brought to light.
The most significant discovery that has impacted for our
understanding of evolution is the discovery, in the 1950s, of DNA, the molecule that
serves as the instruction set for life. What Darwin and other evolutionists
that came prior to the discovery of DNA were primarily able to do was
present evidence for the historical occurrence of evolution. What these
people were not able to do, however, was fully explain how evolution
actually took place, because they did not know how reproduction and
inheritance actually work. Today DNA itself is at the center of our
understanding of evolution, because DNA is really where evolution
"takes place".
Present day evolutionary theory does, however, still contain the basic
principles that were laid out by Charles Darwin. Those principles are:
Common descent - All life on earth comes from a common ancestry, and
thus all living things are related to other living things.
Modification through reproduction - All living things on earth come
from other living things, and when new livings thing are created there
is a potential for the manifestation of novel traits.
Mechanisms of selection - Living things that survive and
produce offspring generally pass-on the their traits.
These three principles constitute the basis of "The Theory of Biological
Evolution". Having said that, the principle of common descent is a somewhat
contentious issue because total common descent for all life on earth is not
a necessary aspect of evolutionary theory. In theory it could be possible
that there are many different ancestral origins for life on earth, and if
there is life on other planets it is almost certain that that life would have a
different origin, yet we would also expect that that life would have
developed through a process of evolution. Though the evidence does not
suggest this, it could theoretically be possible that life on earth
originated in several different environments and that the current population
of the earth has multiple different origins. If this were true it would not
invalidate "evolutionary theory" in general, but it would invalidate one of the
specific principles of "The Theory of Biological Evolution", because this theory does
state that all livings things on earth have common ancestry.
It is also important to note that The Theory of Biological Evolution only
deals with the development of life from living things, it does not address,
in any way, how life originated. There are evolutionary models that have been
used to explain how life might have originated, but so far there is no
specific explanation for how it did originate. Due to the passage of
time, and our inability to go back in time, it will probably never be
possible to say with certainty exactly how life did originate, but it will
be possible to prove or disprove ways that living cells can naturally form
from non-living organic matter. The import thing to note, however, is that
The Theory of Biological Evolution does not address the origin of life, it
only addresses the subsequent development of life once life existed.
Natural selection is commonly misstated as "the mechanism" of evolution.
This is not true. The root mechanism of evolution genetic change. This
misunderstanding actually comes partly from Darwin, because of Darwin's use
of the term modification "by natural selection". The actual mechanics of how change occurs
were unknown in Darwin's
time. Evolution, again, is the process of change over time. What actually
causes biological change is genetic change. Sources of genetic change
include mutation, sexual recombination, gene flow, and genetic duplication, but the main concept
really is that changes to DNA occur in a variety of ways, and these changes
can result in the expression of new characteristics in organisms.
Sexual Recombination
Gene Flow in Prokaryotes
Genetic duplication, while not shown above, is now understood to play a
major role in evolution by providing "new raw material" for selection and
the replication of major body segments, such as limbs.
These mechanisms for change are always acting. There is a common
misperception that "evolution has stopped" or that "humans are no longer
evolving". This is a misperception based on the incorrect belief that
natural selection "drives" evolution and the idea that natural selection no
longer applies to humans. Both assumptions are wrong. Natural selection does
not drive evolution, genetic change does, and all populations, even the most
technologically advanced human populations, are still subject to natural
selection.
Without any selection pressures whatsoever complex forms would still
evolve. The difference is that in a theoretical environment where there is
absolutely no selection pressure at all, i.e. every living thing that is
produced is able to survive and all living things reproduce at the same
rate, what we would expect to see is a huge diversity of life forms, many of
which would be what would appear to us as "malformed" individuals, i.e.,
what we call "deformities".
It is actually impossible that such a situation could exist, however,
because some genetic changes result in the creation of organisms that are
completely incapable of life or reproduction, even in the most amenable
environment.
The only thing that would actually stop the process of evolution, aside
from total extinction of all life, is
perfect cloning. In the natural world there are many forms of life that
reproduce through "cloning", these primarily being prokaryotic cells, but
genetic changes are still introduced in these populations through mutations,
duplications,
and gene flow. Gene flow is the acquisition of new genes through the taking
in of foreign DNA particles, DNA swapping, and viral DNA exchanges.
As long as new organisms are not identical to their parent(s) then
evolution is taking place.
Genetic change is what causes
biological diversity, but why is it that we see distinct life forms on earth
and why are those life forms so well suited to their environment? This is
where "natural selection" comes in. DNA is the instruction
set for the production of a life form. Through the various mechanisms
mentioned above changes are introduced into the DNA of life forms.
"Natural selection", "sexual selection", "random acts of
nature", and "artificial selection" all constrain the
variation that develops through genetic change. Genetic drift also occurs,
which is when genetic code is neither selected for or against.
Natural selection generally refers to the process by which favorable
traits are "selected for" and negative traits are "selected against" by
nature. "Selection" itself, however, is a loaded word and generally connotes
some conscious act, but this is not the case. Selection in this case is not
active, but passive. To put it simply, if an organism survives and passes on
its genetic traits through reproduction then those traits have been
"selected for". If an organism dies without passing on its genetic traits
then those traits have been "selected against". It can actually be
more complicated than this, because an organism's traits can be selected for
even if it does not procreate, if that organism contributes to the
successful spread of traits that it shares with other members of its
population, for example if an organism dies fighting for the protection of
its family (parents, siblings, cousins, etc.), leading to its family's success.
Natural selection is the process that is seen as responsible for the well-suitedness of organisms to their environment. When an organism displays
traits that confer survival ability to that organism, such as the long beak
of a hummingbird that is used to suck nectar from flowers, those traits are seen as having
been selected for
through natural selection.
Sexual selection can be seen as a form of natural selection, but it
occurs in relation to mates instead of in relation to the "environment".
Traits that increase an individual's ability to attract mates and
successfully produce offspring may arise through sexual selection. Examples of
this are brightly the colored bodies of some fish, birds, and reptiles, instinctive
mating behaviors, emotions like love, etc. Traits that arise through sexual
selection are not necessarily selected for based on a conferred favorability towards
survival, and because of this traits that arise through sexual selection may
have zero or negative fitness qualities. What this means is that traits that
develop through sexual selection may not provide any survival benefit and
they may actually make survival more difficult.
The tail of a peacock is a prime example of this. The plumage of the male
peacock does not help the male peacock survive at all, in fact it makes them
less likely to survive because it is cumbersome. These types of traits can
only develop when organisms are capable of overcoming the negative
attributes of the traits through greater overall fitness, and this may be a
key element of why sexually selected traits are so common, because they
signal to mates that the organism is very fit.
Another important role of sexually selected traits is identification of
viable potential mates. Sexually selective behavior keeps like organisms
together and creates behavioral mating boundaries. These traits provide a way
for organisms to identify mates that they have a high likelihood
of being able to produce viable offspring with.
Genetic drift occurs among traits that are not selected for or against.
Traits that do not impact survival or sexual reproduction are neither
selected for nor against, and thus their frequency in a population can
change
over time in seemingly random ways. Genetic drift can be complicated because
sometimes a trait which is not selected for or against occurs among
individuals in a population that have other traits that are selected for or
against, so even though the specific trait is not being selected for it may
be expressed similarly to a trait that is selected for, at least for some period of
time. Genetic drift typically has the most profound effect on smaller
populations, because a smaller set of traits become determinative to
survival in a smaller population. As a population gets larger the
granularity of selection increases.
In a small population a few traits will be critical, while other traits
will not be selected for or against. For example:
A population of 10 rabbits is placed on an island and 5 of the
rabbits have blue eyes and 5 have brown eyes. Additionally 5 rabbits are
white and 5 rabbits are brown, but these traits are not evenly paired,
meaning that some brown rabbits have brown eyes and some have blue eyes.
The same with the white rabbits
Being white is a strongly negative trait that makes the rabbits less
likely to survive because they are not able to hide from predators.
Blue eyes are slightly less able to deal with the strong sunlight
and are only a very minor negative trait.
In this scenario the blue eye trait may "drift" genetically because the
selective pressure on the white trait is so strong that having blue eyes or
not makes no difference in whether individuals survive and reproduce. The
blue eye trait could actually become dominant in the population even if it
is not a genetically dominant trait, because with such a small population it
could be that the few brown rabbits that are otherwise the most fit in terms
of health, strength, speed, and reproductive rate, happen to have blue eyes. In
their case, even though the blue eyes are a slight disadvantage, the other
factors so far outweigh the blue eye trait that there is no selective
pressure on the blue eye trait.
Over time, however, even if the blue eye trait becomes pervasive (but not
exclusive) the brown eye trait may eventually be selected for once a large
diverse population is stabilized, even if all other environmental conditions
stay the same, because once the population reaches a large enough size, and
there is enough diversity, the granularity of competition will increase to
the point that even the slightest advantage that one individual has over
another will make a difference in rates of survival and reproduction. Once
many individuals exist that are all relatively equal in every other way,
except eye color, then eye color may become a determining factor in rates of
survival.
So-called "random" acts of nature also impact evolution. If, for example, a
major meteor shower strikes the earth and kills several individuals in a
population, or kills an entire population, these individuals may have
actually been very fit in every way and well suited to their environment, and
other individuals that didn't get hit may have actually been less fit, but
nevertheless the ones that get killed can no longer reproduce, so their
traits are not passed on. In reality the use of the term "random" in the
physical sciences is problematic. Random is actually a mathematical concept
and true randomness does not occur in reality because in reality the laws of
nature dictate behavior such that everything that occurs is determined by
some acting force and all things follow the laws of nature. Things do not
occur truly "randomly" in nature. Meteors hitting the earth may
seem "random", but of course this is not a random event as any meteors that
strike earth have been on a collision course with earth for an extremely
long time. These types of events are not "random", they are just "unusual".
It is arguable whether there is such as thing as "artificial selection",
but in general the term is used to describe the conscious breeding of plants
and animals by humans. In general artificial selection and natural selection
work in the same manner to guide the process of evolution. It is important
to note that domesticated animals are evolving just like everything else,
it's just that their evolution is being guided by human choices. Genetic
variation occurs among individuals, and humans select for the traits that
they want, these either being new novel traits or continuous selection for
the same traits in an attempt to keep the traits of a "breed" of static.
Other organisms also selectively "breed" other organisms as well, such as
the leaf cutter ants that cultivate a specific fungus for food. The proper
view is really to consider so-called "artificial selection" a more
complex form of
natural selection.
Evidence for The Theory of Biological Evolution can be classified in
several different ways. There is evidence of common descent, evidence of natural
selection, evidence of modification of traits, and evidence of inheritance.
The evidence for evolution can also be broken down by evidence supporting
the historical occurrence of evolution and evidence that shows evolution is
occurring. While much of the historical evidence for evolution is
interesting and exciting, the reality is that The Theory of Biological
Evolution can be supported almost solely by our understanding and knowledge of
genetics and biochemistry, which shows that evolution is occurring and
cannot but occur. Much of what people think about in terms of
evolution today is still the same old evidence for evolution that was used
by Darwin, things like fossils and comparative morphology, etc., but since
the discovery of DNA the most important facts that we have learned about
evolution come from the study of genetics, molecular biology, and
biochemistry. Again, this is because the genetic code is where evolution
actually takes place.
What we have learned from the study of DNA is that small genetic changes
can result in major changes to the form and structure of organisms. For
example, a single genetic mutation could cause a grass seed from a plant
that came from parents with smooth or hairy seeds to have large spikes, resulting in
the development of the sandspur.
It is not required, as Lamarck and early evolutionists thought, that the
sandspur develop slowly over generations from a smooth seed by gradually
getting longer and longer spikes, but rather the transformation from smooth
or hairy
seeds to spiked seeds can take place in one generation with a single
mutation. This immediate morphological change would not create a "new
species", rather this trait, if it is advantageous, could become dominant in
a population and allow a sub-population to become successful in a new
environment, possibly leading to the development of "new species" over time.
None of the evidences for evolution are claimed to independently "prove
that evolution is true". The support for evolution comes from the
combination of a wide variety of evidences, and the fact that no evidence
exist that contradicts the theory of evolution.
It is also important to understand that The Theory of Biological
Evolution makes many testable predictions. The Theory of Biological
Evolution is actually one of the most expansive, if not the most expansive,
scientific theories. A wide array of predictions and verifications fall
under The Theory of Biological Evolution. Science works by proving
things to be false, not by proving things to be true. A scientific
hypothesis or theory is proven to be false when evidence that contradicts
the hypothesis or theory is found. With science we say that we believe
something is true when there is a means to prove it false and it is not
possible to prove it false. In order for something to be considered true,
however, it has to be testable - we have to have a way to try and falsify it.
To date, over a broad spectrum of disciplines, no evidence has
been found in nature that contradicts evolutionary theory. There are
countless opportunities to falsify evolutionary theory, and in no case has
any evidence been found that does falsify it.
Because of the volume and complexity of the evidence for evolution, I
will only briefly describe the different types of evidences and what they
tell us about life.
The most popularly known evidences for evolution are the evidences for
the historical occurrence of evolution. Evidence that evolution has occurred can be classified
as follows:
Phylogenic Diagrams
Comparative Anatomy
Comparative Genomics
Embryology
Vestigial Organs
Biogeography
Progression in the Fossil Record
Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record
Extinction Recorded in the Fossil Record
Phylogenic Diagrams:
Phylogenic diagrams are used to show relationships between things.
There are certain limitations and problems with using phylogenic
diagrams to map relationships between living things, however, phylogenic diagrams can be used to make general validations of evolutionary theory. The
problem with using phylogenic diagrams to map relationships between living
things is that phylogenic diagrams are based on the assumption that
all relationships are linear and created through reproduction, however we
know that gene flow results in the transfer of genetic material and traits
outside of these assumptions. Having said that, phylogenic diagrams
are still useful to show relationships between living
things, especially among "higher order" animals.
Phylogenic diagrams can be created based on different criteria. If
relationships between things are real, and not just perceived, then we
expect that independently derived phylogenic diagrams, constructed based on
different criteria ,and by different individuals, will resemble one another.
In other words, if many different people, using many different methods,
derive phylogenic diagrams and all of the diagrams agree with each other,
then this is a very strong indication that there are real relationships
between the things being diagramed.
Phylogenic diagrams have been used in biology to map believed
relationships between types of organisms, and through the use of many
different techniques, using many different criteria, by many different
people, these diagrams show extremely strong correlations, indicating that
the organisms being mapped actually are related to each other.
The most significant phylogenic test was when the first phylogenic diagram was made based on genetic code. In 1965, before any such molecularly
based phylogenic diagrams had been developed, a hypothesis was put forward
by Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling that a newly developed molecular
phylogenic diagram would correspond to existing phylogenic diagrams.
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenic tree, as
derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of
organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenic tree constructed on
the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenic trees are
mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best
available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be
furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the
realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with
molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between
lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of
homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of
organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering
an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence
would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead
horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected
twitches that look like life." "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence
in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101. (1965)
Indeed this proved to be the case, so the hypothesis was validated. This
is especially significant because many of the elements used to construct
molecular phylogenic diagrams are elements that are not visibly expressed.
If different phylogenic methods resulted in significantly different
phylogenic diagrams, then that would falsify evolutionary theory, but this
is not the case. The high degree of correlation between all differently
constructed phylogenic diagrams strongly suggests that the perceived
relationships between organisms reflect actual relationships between
organisms.
Below is one example of a high level phylogenic tree of life on
earth.
For the most complete phylogenic tree on the internet see:
Tree of Life
Comparative Anatomy:
Comparative anatomy is one of the first major
lines of evidence that was used to support The Theory of Biological
Evolution. Comparative anatomy reveals that the structure of organisms
follows basic patterns that would be expected if organisms are related to
one another.
Evolutionary theory predicts that if organisms are related then the
anatomy of organisms that are closely related will be closer to one another
than organisms that are less closely related even if they live in a more
similar environment.
This prediction deals with analogous structures and homologues
structures.
Analogous structures are anatomical features that are functionally
similar but anatomically different. For example the fin of a
fish, the fin of a whale, and the wing of a penguin are analogous. The wing
of a bird and a bat are also analogous, as shown below:
Homologues structures are anatomical features that are structurally
similar but functionally different. The diagram
below shows examples of homologues structures.
Evolutionary theory predicts that the structures of organisms will show
greater overall anatomical similarity based on relatedness rather than
function. Notice that the bat wing is more similar anatomically to other
mammals than it is to bird wings, even though bird wings and bat wings
perform more similar functions than, for example, a cat paw and a bat wing.
This indicates that bats are related to cats more closely than they
are to birds, i.e. that bats and cats have a more recent common ancestor
than bats and birds.
Fish, whales, and penguins also provide an excellent example. The
appendages of fish, whales, and penguins all serve the same basic function -
underwater propulsion and guidance. Evolutionary theory predicts that
the overall anatomical structure of whale fins will be more similar to the
structure of other mammal forelimbs than it will be to the structure of penguin
wings or fish fins. The same goes for the others. Evolutionary theory
predicts that the structure of penguin wings will be more similar to the
structure of bird wings than to the structure of fish fins or whale fins,
etc.
This prediction has been tested thousands of times, and in no case has an
exception to it ever occurred. This condition is exactly what evolutionary
theory predicts.
What is important to understand is that in the absence of evolution any
wild combination of features could be expected to be found among organisms.
Evolutionary theory predicts, however, that the only features that can be
expected to exist in an organism are ones that have a precedent in an
ancestor. Obviously gills are superior to the blow holes and lungs that are
found in whales for underwater breathing, but we don't find gills in whales because their more recent ancestors
didn't have gills, they had lungs and breathed air.
Comparative anatomy confirms evolutionary theory by showing that
indeed organisms have features that do have precedents along phylogenic lines.
Comparative Genomics:
Comparative genomics is one of the most
important and rapidly developing fields in evolutionary study today.
Comparative genomics is used in several different ways. The most commonly
thought of example of comparative genomics is the comparison of human DNA to
the DNA of other life forms to determine how similar the DNA is. This is
where we get figures such as "human and chimpanzee DNA are 98% similar."
This type of comparison is just a raw overall comparison. What these types
of raw overall comparisons show us is that: #1 the amount of genetic change
needed to create significantly different life forms is relatively small, and
#2 we can see that organisms that we believe to be closely related do have
DNA that is more similar to one another than organisms that we believe to be
distantly related, which is in line with the predictions of evolutionary
theory.
Comparative genomics is actually essential for understanding human DNA.
When the Human Genome Project was initiated scientists realized that without
something to compare human DNA against all that the decoding of human DNA
would give us is a long listing of As, Gs, Ts, and Cs (the nucleotides that
makeup DNA). We can only get an idea of what these codes mean by comparing
them to sequences of DNA from other organisms, to help locate major
genes and determine which genes are unique to humans. By comparing the DNA of
organisms like yeast, flies, mice, chimpanzees, and humans we can relatively
quickly identify which genes are related to fundamental cellular processes
(because these genes are common to all organisms), and which genes code for
things like the eye (because these genes will only be shared by animals that
have eyes), etc.
Genetics and genomics are fundamentally reliant on the validity of
evolutionary theory. If life on earth has not developed through
evolutionary processes from a common ancestor then the entire science of
genomics wouldn't even be viable.
Comparative genomics can be used in much more sophisticated ways to
provide information about evolution as well based on principles similar to
anatomical analogy and homology. Evolutionary theory predicts that gene
structure and gene function will show patterns of relationships in ways
similar to anatomical structure and function. Many traits can be coded for
genetically in more than one way. What evolutionary theory predicts is that
related organisms will have traits that are coded for in the same way, even
when there are multiple ways to code for the same trait.
A recent study was published that makes of this type of comparison. The
DNA of three distinct populations of cave fish was examined and revealed
that in the three different populations a different mutation to the same
gene that codes for skin pigment resulted in the loss of function for the
gene, resulting in albinism. This indicates that albinism evolved
independently in the different populations. This observation is in line with
the predictions of evolutionary theory, which states that mutations arise
"randomly" and are then selected for or against (or not selected for or
against, in which case there is genetic drift).
Evolutionary theory predicts that when similar traits are evolved
independently the structure that gives rise to those traits will not be the
same - for example, the whale fin vs. the fish fin. In this case the
structure is the DNA itself. Because of the nature of caves we know that
cave organisms all over the world have developed their traits independently
of one another. Cave fish in one cave had to have evolved their traits
independently of cave fish in other caves where the cave populations have
always been separate.
If all cave fish had the same genetic codes for common cave traits (such
as lack of pigment, blindness, feelers, etc.) this would be evidence against
evolution, but that is not the case. Evolutionary theory predicts that these
same traits will exist in different cave fish populations for different
genetic reasons, as the research verifies.
Other studies have shown that organisms retain genes that are no longer
expressed. An excellent example of this are studies that show birds still
possess genes that code for the production of teeth, despite the fact that
birds today do not possess teeth. For more on studies showing that birds
possess genes to produce teeth see:
Embryology provides several different types of
evidences for evolution, however, there is much misunderstanding of the role
of embryology in evolutionary theory because incorrect embryological
hypotheses were popularized back in the 1800s. In the 1800s Ernst Haeckel, a
well known German scientist and supporter of "evolutionary theory", proposed
what he called his "biogenetic law". Haeckel himself was really more of a
Lamarckian evolutionist however. He had been a supporter of Lamarck for
years prior to the publication of Darwin's work on evolution. He never
really got beyond the Lamarckian thinking, as was typical during those
times, and as still continues today because Lamarckian thinking more closely
follows the way that be view the purposeful creation of new functions.
What Haeckel's biogenetic law stated was that organisms developed through
the historical forms of their ancestors. In other words, that if people were
descended from fish, and then reptiles, and then primates, etc., that
a human embryo would go through a fish stage, and then a reptile stage, and
then finally go to its human form.
At the time that this was proposed DNA had not yet been discovered and
developmental biology was still "in its infancy" (so to speak). Haeckle
fabricated some data and drew incorrect conclusions. His work was later
proven to be fraudulent and overturned as false by other evolutionary
biologists. With this, the main embryological evidence that was claimed to
support evolution at the time was disproved in the late 1800s.
Associated with Haeckel's biogenetic law as been the claim that human
embryos have gills. This is false, and it was never a claim that was made by
supporters of evolution, but this claim originated from opponents of
evolution as a means to try and incite outrage by creating a taboo example
of evolutionists "animalizing" people. Human embryos do not have gills, and
the claim that they do has never been a part of the evidence for
evolution. Human embryos do, however, have slits that form and are then
"erased" later in development. These same slits develop into gill
slits in
fish.
Having said all that, there is much about embryology that does provide
evidence for evolution.
One of the best examples of the use of embryology to learn about
evolution, and to create cross disciplinary predictions, is the case of the
development of the mammal ear. In the early 1800s it was observed that the
same two bones in reptilian embryos that later develop into jaw
bones instead develop into ear bones in mammals. This was documented at the
time, but not fully understood. Later, after the acceptance of evolutionary
theory in the later 1800s, scientists interpreted this as evidence of
evolution showing that mammalian ear bones evolved from reptilian jaw bones.
Indeed, the fossil record has subsequently yielded a great many fossils
showing this transition, and the development of the reptilian jaw into the
mammalian ear has become one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting
the historical occurrence of evolution and common descent. The development
of the mammalian ear has proven to be key in understanding the course of
evolutionary history and this will be covered again under the subject of
transitional forms.
Embryological development also provides other evidence for evolution,
such as the common occurrence of the development and later degeneration of
features, such as human "gill slits", a human tail, legs in snakes, and legs
in dolphins and whales.
human embryo at 37 days
cat embryo
dolphin embryo
Here we can see that humans develop a tail, which at its maximum stage of
development makes up about 10% of the length of the embryo and contains
developing vertebrae, muscle tissue, and nerves. Around the eighth week of
gestation the tissues in the tail begin to die off and get reabsorbed into
the fetus. The same is the case for the hind limb buds of the dolphin embryo
(h). The dolphin embryo develops hind limb buds that later die off and are
reabsorbed into the fetus.
Vestigial Organs:
Like embryology, there are many misconceptions
about vestigial organs. Vestigial organs are organs that are less developed
and with a diminished utility compared to equivalent organs in related
organisms. Many opponents of evolution incorrectly define vestigial organs
as "completely useless" organs that have zero functionality. This definition
makes it easier to claim that there are no such things as vestigial organs,
because they claim either that designated vestigial organs have some use, or
that it is impossible to prove that they have no use. Vestigial organs have
never been defined as completely useless by evolutionists however, as
demonstrated by Charles Darwin and other early evolutionists:
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or
utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain
perfectly efficient for the other. ... Again, an organ may become
rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object:
in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper
function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent
breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given." - Charles Darwin 1859
"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless,
such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such
as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." - Charles Darwin 1872
"... for, although the latter [ostrich] does not fly, it still uses
its wings as aids in running swiftly over the African plains and deserts
... Retrogression is, however, not always carried so far as to do away
with a structure altogether ... But not infrequently the degenerating
organ can be turned to account in some other way, and then retrogression
either stops just short of actual elimination, as in the case of the
wings of the ostrich, or so alters and transforms the structure as to
fit it for new functions ..." - August Weismann 1886
"Comparative morphology points not only to the essentially similar
plan of organization of the bodies of all Vertebrates, ... but also to
the occurrence in them of certain organs, or parts of organs, now known
as 'vestigial.'
By such organs are meant those which were formerly of greater
physiological significance than at present." - Robert Wiedersheim 1893
Probably the most straight forward and simple example of organs that can
be demonstrated to be vestigial are eyes with lenses that are covered by
flesh in blind cave animals. Below are examples of different cave organisms
that have vestigial eyes:
Mexican cave fish (b) with its surface dwelling ancestor (a)
Blind cave salamander with vestigial eye
Many different cave organisms have been observed to have semi-formed eyes
that serve no purpose for vision in the dark and are often non-functional.
Since there are many different caves, and the age of the populations in each
of the caves is different, the degree to which these organs have degenerated
is different among different cave populations. Some cave organisms have
almost completely lost their eyes, while some have fully formed but
non-working eyes, while some still have eyes that work, and others have eyes
that are partially covered over by flesh or have other forms of
degeneration. The best examples of vestigialism are cases where the
eye still develops and forms a lens, but the eye is covered over by flesh.
The lens in this case cannot serve any of its initially evolved function, if
any function at all, because the purpose of a lens is to focus light to form
an image, and a lens cannot focus light to form and image if the eye is
covered by flesh. The reason that vestigial organs arise can be the fact
that the function of the organs is no longer selected for, which allows
degenerative mutations to build up unchecked, or the degeneration of the
organ can be positively selected for if the energy used to produce and
maintain the organ can be eliminated or put to better use in another way
that contributes to greater competitiveness. Of course a combination of
these factors can also be at work.
The finding of vestigial organs such as vestigial eyes in cave animals is
completely in line with evolutionary theory. If all cave animals had no sign
of ancestral eyes or any other ancestral organs, but instead they seemed
perfectly designed for life in the dark, this would be evidence against The
Theory of Biological Evolution, but that is not what we find in nature.
One criticism of the use of vestigial organs as evidence of evolution is
that vestigial organs are only signs of degeneration, not the development of
new novel traits. The counter to this, however, is that organisms that
possess vestigial organs also possess other new novel traits. For
example, many cave fish have sensory organs, such as advanced feelers, that
their surface dwelling ancestors do not have, thus possessing both new
traits and degenerated old traits.
Vestigial organs alone also demonstrate descent with modification, as
stated by evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory explains the existence of cave organisms that contain
both vestigial organs and novel traits that were not present in their
ancestors. Cave fish that are both blind with vestigial eyes and have
feelers or other sensory enhancements for sensing in the dark are explained
by common descent from an ancestor that had eyes and the development of new
novel traits that the ancestor did not possess.
Some other examples of vestigial organs are fully formed but unusable
wings on beetles that are covered by the exoskeleton, pollen formation by
dandelions (since dandelions reproduce asexually), vestigial leg bones in
whales, snakes, and legless lizards, and "wisdom teeth" in humans.
Biogeography:
Biogeography deals with the study of species
distribution. Evolutionary theory states that all life is related, and that
types of organisms should only be present where their ancestors were
present.
The fossil record indeed confirms that types of organisms are
geographically constrained and related to the locations of their ancestors.
Any given life form may be able to survive and thrive in a variety of
places, but we only find life forms present where they are related to other
life forms. In other words, a particular species could be successful in
North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Asia, and Africa, but we
don't find that species in all those locations, we only find it in a
location where the fossilized remains of what appears to be its
ancestors exists. We shouldn't find any species where there was not some
means for their ancestors to travel to those locations.
Biogeography has been used to make powerful evolutionary predictions. The
best example is that of ancestral marsupial geographic distribution.
At present the only marsupials that exist live in North America and
Australia, two remotely separated locations. The earliest known fossils of
marsupials were from the Cretaceous period. With the understanding of
continental drift scientists knew that South America, Australia, and
Antarctica were all connected during the Cretaceous period. With this
knowledge scientists predicted that marsupial fossils would be found in
South America and Antarctica, and indeed fossil marsupials were subsequently
found on those continents, but have not been found anywhere else.
One of the most famous predictions made by Charles Darwin was also based
on biogeography: The location for the "origin of man".
"We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at
that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine
stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they
inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we
may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great
region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the
extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa
was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and
chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is
somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African
continent than elsewhere." - The Descent of Man; Darwin 1871
Indeed, all of the oldest humanoid fossils have been found in Africa,
despite searches on other continents. Both modern genetics and paleontology
support the "out of Africa" hypothesis. There is still on-going debate about
at what point human ancestors left Africa and how much of human evolution
took place outside of Africa, but the initial origin of the human lineage
appears to be in Africa, where it was predicted to be by Darwin through the
use of biogeographic principles.
Progression in Fossil Record:
Observed progression of fossil
"complexity" in the fossil record, like comparative anatomy, was one of the
major phenomena that contributed to the development of the evolutionary
theory. The fact that "older" rocks do not hold "more complex" organisms had been
observed for many years, but there was no satisfactory explanation for this.
Fossils are created when minerals replace the organic parts of dead
organisms. People understood that fossils were records of previously living
organisms, and they also understood that newer rock is formed on top of
older rock. In general, the deeper you dig the older the rock is. There are
exceptions to this that have been caused by geologic events such as
earthquakes, but these exceptions can be taken into account.
Evolutionary theory not only explains why this phenomenon occurs, but it
also predicts that the progression of fossil organisms will always be
observed. If, for example, we found a fossil of a human in a Paleozoic rock
layer, that by itself would invalidate evolutionary theory. This principle
is called the Law of Fossil Succession.
Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record:
One of the most contentious pieces of evidence for evolution is the existence of so-called
"transitional forms." Darwin himself started this controversy when he
complained that there were few examples of transitional forms in the fossil
record, nevertheless he predicted that "transitional forms" would be found
if the theory of evolution were true.
The first problem with transitional forms comes from the concept itself.
"Transitional form" implies that the transitional form is not a "species" in
and of itself and that the transitional form is like a short lived bridge
between "two different species". This is not the case. Evolutionary theory
holds that all life is a progression of individuals, and thus, in truth,
every individual that has ever existed since life began is a "transitional
form". Every organism that lives today is a "transitional form".
The concept of transitional forms is still useful however. Evolutionary
theory predicts that every living thing today has traits that are derived
from ancestors, and thus it should be theoretically possible to find
examples of the development of these traits in the fossil record.
Indeed, many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record
since the publication of The Origin of Species; in fact, the
abundance of documented "transitional forms" is staggering and
well beyond what Darwin predicted scientists would be able to find. Transitional forms have
been found showing the development of amphibians from fish, of birds from dinosaurs, of mammals from
early tetrapods, of humans from a common ape ancestor,
and of much more.
There are still several inherent problems with trying to find so-called
transitional forms in the fossil record. The biggest problem is that it's
impossible to verify whether or not a specimen represents an ancestor to
present day life or to any other life form without DNA. The majority of life
forms in the fossil record are probably not ancestors of modern life forms,
they are organisms in lineages that went extinct, but they are nevertheless
members of populations and can tell us about the types and combinations of
features that did exist and were likely to exist among ancestors of modern organisms. The second problem is that the fossil record
is sparse by nature because an extremely small number of the things that
ever lived became fossilized, so we do not have a complete fossil record,
and we never will. By nature, we have to work with a very limited set of
data when working with fossils.
Before going further, however, it is important to understand that
evolutionary theory predicted that many fossils would be found that do not
resemble any living organisms, but that contain features of both extinct
organisms and organisms that are alive today. Indeed many such fossils have
been found.
Recent discoveries have shed light on the evolution of land dwelling
organisms from fish. The transition from aquatic fish to land dwelling
tetrapods with legs has been difficult to discern, but since the 1970s there
have been many fossil finds that have shed light on this transition. Just
recently, on April 4th, 2006, a new find was announced that fills in more
information about the transition of aquatic fish to land vertebrates.
Four legged vertebrates are known as tetrapods. Tetrapods are said to have evolved from fish, but the fish that tetrapods
evolved from were very different from most fish that live today. The vast
majority of boney fish that live today are "ray-finned fish", fish with
delicate rayed fins and a delicate skeletal structure. The fish that
tetrapods evolved from, however, were "lobe-finned fish". These fish had
thick heavy bones and thick boney fins. This distinction is critical for
biologists because there are several fish today that locomote on land, such
as mud-skippers and walking catfish, but these fish are not representatives
of tetrapod ancestors because they are ray-finned fish, and they do not have the
key structures that developed into tetrapod features, such as lungs, wrists,
fingers, etc.
The diagram below shows the evolutionary development of finned fish from
early vertebrates, and of tetrapods from lobe-finned fish.
The above diagram shows the latest understanding of appendage evolution based on
both fossil and genetic data. Appendages are now understood to have evolved
from duplications of the genome and subsequent refining of the duplicated
segments of the DNA through natural selection. Early fish appendages
resemble the structures of tails, and the genetic evidence shows that
appendages evolved from duplications of the genes that coded for tails.
From these early fins evolved the limbs that we now see on land
animals.
Early hypotheses about how legs evolved were based on the idea that fish
similar to the mud-skipper emerged onto land and struggled about with only
a minor ability to walk. Newer evidence, however, shows that legs and the
ability to walk developed among purely aquatic fish, who evolved the ability
to walk before coming out onto land. The first land dwelling vertebrates would
have already been able to walk when they came onto the land.
The diagram below shows two early tetrapods that exhibit a mix of both fish
traits and the traits of land animals. They represent transitional forms
that show the development of legs.
a. Ichthyostega c. Acanthostega
Ichthyostega was an early land dwelling tetrapod whose lineage is believed to have
gone extinct. Acanthostega, on the other hand, is believed to be an
ancestor to modern land animals. Acanthostega lived in the water,
but was able to breath air and use its limbs for walking under the water.
Acanthostega are believed to have lived in shallow water that had
low oxygen content, which is why their ability to poke their head above
water and breath air would have been selected for.
Acanthostega
The recent discovery of Tiktaalik roseae fills a gap between
earlier aquatic fish and limbed tetrapods. It is unclear whether
Tiktaalik roseae spent much time on land, if any, but the specimen
clearly possesses structures that that are transitional between fish and
tetrapods.
reconstruction of Tiktaalik roseae with cast of fossil
The diagram above lists some of the major transitional specimens that
bridge the gap between fish and tetrapods and shows how Tiktaalik roseae
fits into the previous gap that existed between finned fish and the earliest
limbed tetrapods. This diagram is not a phylogenic diagram and is not meant
to indicate that these specimens are linearly related.
Tiktaalik roseae has fin rays, but also has bones that form a
wrist, arm, and precursors to digits.
The features of Tiktaalik roseae that are "fish-like" are its
gills, scales, fin rays, and jaw. Features of Tiktaalik roseae that
are tetrapod-like are its wrist, elbow, neck, head, and ribs.
The lack of gill plates if very significant, because all fish have gill
plates, which prevents them from being able to move their head from side to
side independently of the body. The loss of the gill plates is a significant
step in tetrapod evolution, and this is the earliest specimen that shows the
loss of the gill plates. While showing the loss of the gill plates,
Tiktaalik roseae also retains fin rays, demonstrating clearly that it
is a transitional form between fish and tetrapods.
There are only a few remaining lobe-finned fish today, but they offer
valuable insight into the evolution of land animals. The lungfish is now
considered the fish that is most closely related to land dwelling tetrapods.
Lungfish live in shallow, oxygen poor, environments, and they can breath
air. Lungfish possess "transitional forms" between aquatic fish and
tetrapods, but it is important to note that tetrapods are not descended from
lungfish, just like modern humans are not descended from chimpanzees.
Lungfish demonstrate how the development of lungs and the ability to
breath air evolved while fish still lived in the water, confirming the
conclusions drawn from the fossil evidence.
There is further evidence to support the development of walking among fish
prior to the emergence of tetrapods onto land. There are several species of
ray-finned fish, mostly from the order Lophiiformes, that also
demonstrate the ability to walk under the water. These fish have "legs" that
are obviously composed to ray-fin elements. These fish are not ancestors of
tetrapods, instead they demonstrate convergent evolution. The development of
legs in these fish independently evolved after the split between lobe-finned fish and
ray-finned fish.
Roughback Batfish (Ogcocephalus parvus)
Handfish with eggs (Brachionichthys hirsutus)
Handfish (Brachionichthys hirsutus)
click the image above for video
Lophiiforme fishes demonstrate that walking limbs can indeed
be selected for among purely aquatic fishes. It is also easy to see among the
Lophiiformes that their legs and feet have developed from fins.
Probably the most exciting transitional forms are those linking
birds and dinosaurs. The fossils of Archaeopteryx are the most famous of the
transitional fossils. The Archaeopteryx fossils are historically
significant as well, because the first Archaeopteryx fossil was
found in 1861, just 2 years after the publication of Darwin's The Origin
of Species, and it was seen as a profound validation of evolution that
had shocking effects on society. Many who were skeptical of evolution became
convinced of its truth when the Archaeopteryx fossil was found.
The Archaeopteryx fossils are not the only examples of fossils
that exhibit transitional forms from dinosaurs to birds. Some of the most
well known fossils that display transitional bird characteristics include:
Archaeopteryx - (fossils from ~150 million years ago): Had
asymmetrical feathers, meaning that they could probably sustain flight.
Sinosauropteryx - (fossils from ~135-121 million years ago): Covered
with proto-feathers and with short arms. Is probably not an ancestor of
modern birds, but demonstrates the development of early feather-like
structures among other dinosaurs.
Protarchaeopteryx - (fossils from ~135-121 million years ago): Long,
symmetrical feathers on arms and tail, but it probably could not fly.
Evidence of non-flight utility of feathers, indication of so-called
"transitional" function.
Caudipteryx - (fossils from ~135-121 million years ago): A small,
very fast runner covered with primitive (symmetrical and therefore
flightless) feathers. Evidence of non-flight utility of feathers,
indication of so-called "transitional" function.
Hesperornis - (fossils from ~120-65 million years ago): A large
flightless seabird showing structural similarity to modern flightless
birds, but having a toothed jaw and dinosaur-like skull
Ichthyornis - (fossils from ~99-65 million years ago): Early flying
seabird that had a heavy toothed jaw.
Archaeopteryx
Comparison of Archaeopteryx to dinosaur and chicken.
Caudipteryx showing tail and wing feathers
Sinosauropteryx showing downy-like proto-feathers
Ichthyornis with breast bone and teeth
Hesperornis showing small teeth
It is possible that none of these specimens represent direct
ancestors to modern organisms, but what they do provide is evidence showing
the combination of bird features and dinosaur features, exactly what The
Theory of Biological Evolution predicts that we should find in the fossil
record. In fact, organisms like Sinosauropteryx are significant precisely
because Sinosauropteryx is thought not to be an ancestor of modern birds,
but Sinosauropteryx shows that feathers and feather like structures existed
on a broad spectrum of dinosaurs, making it all the more likely that birds
evolved from dinosaurs.
Recent studies lend cross disciplinary support to the proposition that
birds evolved from a dinosaur or reptilian ancestor by showing that birds
possess dormant genes for the production of teeth.
Another major example of transitional fossils are the
fossils showing transitional forms that "bridge the gap" between reptiles
and mammals. The key evidence used to support the evolution of mammals from
reptiles are fossil sequences that demonstrate how bones from the reptilian
jaw could have developed into the bones of the mammalian ear. This fossil
sequence is further supported by the embryological evidence showing that the
same structures that develop into parts of the lower jaw in reptile embryos
develop into the bones of the ear in mammals.
Sequence outlining reptile to mammal transitional fossils
The sequence above outlines fossil evidence that shows a
likely transitional pathway for the lower jaw of reptile bones to the ear
bones of mammals. There are actually many different transitional forms and
structures in the fossil record that establish pathways between ancient
reptiles and mammals, but the jaw and ear bones provide an excellent example
because #1 jaw and ear bones are commonly preserved, #2 this example
incorporates many different disciplines such as embryology and present day
comparative anatomy, and #3 the transition provides an answer to a complex
question: "how did the mammalian ear form?"
What we also know is that modern day reptiles hear low
frequencies using their lower jaw, which is comprised of three bones.
Vibrations from the lower jaw are transmitted to the single "ear bone" of
the reptiles, the stapes, which transmits the vibrations to the inner ear.
Mammals, however, have three ear bones and a single jaw bone. The
transitional sequences based on the fossil record shown above provide an
explanation for how bones from the reptilian jaw could have evolved into the
mammalian ear.
Of particular concern to many, however, are fossils showing
transitional forms between man and a common ape ancestor. Ever since Darwin
predicted the discovery of ancestral human fossils that would show the
transition of man from an ape-like ancestor to modern form, scientists, as
well as hobbyists and fame seekers, have combed the planet, especially
Africa, Europe, and Asia, looking for fossils that might be the remains of
our evolutionary ancestors. As predicted, thousands of such specimens have
been found, several of which are high quality specimens.
Below is a series of skulls believed to be from the recent human
family tree. Not all of the skulls are believed to be direct ancestors of
modern humans. The first skull is actually that of a modern chimpanzee. The
exact classifications of the skulls are listed below. Those in bold are
thought to be direct ancestors of modern humans.
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 MYA
(C) Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 MYA (D) Homo habilis,1.9 MYA
(E) Homo habilis, 1.8 MYA (F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 MYA
(G) Homo erectus, 1.75 MYA (H) Homo ergaster 1.75 MYA
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, 300,000 - 125,000 YA
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 70,000 YA
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 60,000 YA
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 45,000 YA (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon 30,000 YA
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Below is a phylogenic tree showing relatively recent human
evolution based on currently known fossil and genetic evidence.
For further reference the skulls of several modern primates are compared
to modern human below.
Clearly, the skulls of modern primates are more significantly different
from the skulls of modern humans than fossil skulls of potential human
ancestors.
The image below contains some of the best skull examples of
believed direct human ancestors. Click on the image to see a larger version
that includes the skull of a modern chimpanzee (believed to be our closest
"living relative") for reference. What you will see is that these presumed
"transitional forms" are significantly different from that of the chimpanzee
and are all much closer in form to modern humans than the skulls of any
living organisms today, yet they are distinctly not the same as modern
human either, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.
All of the hominid fossil skulls above clearly show
transitional forms between an old extinct common ape ancestor and modern
humans, and these skulls represent only a small fraction of the fossil
evidence. There is not only more fossil skull evidence, but there is also a
lot of other skeletal evidence showing transitional forms for the spine,
pelvis, hand, foot, etc.
Equally important to the understanding of human evolution are artifacts
left behind by human ancestors of the past. By looking at a combination of
the fossil evidence and archeological evidence we can draw conclusions about
how mentally, culturally, and technologically sophisticated human ancestors
were.
What is perhaps most important about ancient tools, however, is that
tools and cultural practices have been found in association with hominid
species that scientists believe have gone extinct and are not direct
ancestors of humans, such as Homo erectus and Homo
neanderthalensis.
Tools and culture of early hominids:
2.5 - 2.6 MYA - Oldest known tools comprised of chipped rocks.
Makers of tools unknown. Location: Africa
2-1.5 MYA- Bone tools used for digging. Tools found with Australopithecus robustus. Location: Africa
1.7 MYA - Olduwan stone tools found among the remains of "Homo"
habilis. Location: Africa
1.5 MYA - Stone hand axes used. Tools found with Homo erectus.
Location: Africa
1.5 MYA - Possible first known use of fire by either Australopithecus robustus or
Homo erectus. Location: Africa
1.36 MYA - Oldest known stone tools used in China. Believed to have been made by
Homo erectus. Location: China
300,000-500,000 YA - First definitive evidence of controlled use of
fire. Location: Europe, Asia
225,000 YA - Oldest evidence of burial behavior. Fifteen
Neanderthals found "buried" together in cave. Location: England
200,000 YA - Possible mass grave of 32 individuals of species Homo heidelbergensis. Location: Spain
125,000 YA - Evidence of widespread use of controlled fire.
Location: Africa
70,000 YA - Oldest known example of art. Location: Africa
70,000 YA - Oldest personal grave, belonging to Homo neanderthalensis.
Location: Europe
40,000 YA - Oldest "ritual" burial of Homo Sapiens
, "Mugno
Man". Location: Australia
While this is only a small sampling of the pertinent data relating to
cultural and technological development, what is clear is that sophisticated
tools were created, fire was used, and burial was practiced before Homo
sapiens even existed. Finds of fossil hominid bones and tools together
confirm that hominid species that likely went extinct long before Homo
sapiens existed were already making and using tools. Regardless of any
dating questions, fossil bones that do not match the form of modern humans
have been found with tools, with use of fire, and in burials, proving that
regardless of any dating questions "non-humans" did these things.
The archeological evidence and fossil evidence both support The Theory of
Biological Evolution in relation to the development of humans. The evidence
clearly shows that non-human organisms had sophisticated stone tools and
that the practices that we associate with "being human" also evolved over
time. There are still "gaps" in our knowledge of the exact process by which
humans evolved, and gaps in our knowledge of our exact ancestors, but there
is not any evidence that contradicts the premise that humans evolved by the
same processes that other animals evolved. That humans have evolved over
time is now beyond question among the scientific community based on the
evidence, but there is still much to be learned about the specifics of how humans
evolved.
Extinction Recorded in Fossil Record:
Another one of the major observations that contributed to early
evolutionary theory was the observation of life forms in the fossil record
that bore no resemblance to any living things. Darwin paid special attention
the role of extinction in The Origin of Species. One of the major
reasons that so much attention was paid to extinction in the development of
evolutionary theory is that creationists claimed that extinction was contrary
to the Bible. The creationist view was based on the belief that the world
and all life has been basically the same since the creation of the universe
by God. They claimed that the creation was perfect so it would not make
sense for species to go extinct, because that would mean that God's creation
was not perfect. As evidence of extinctions became more prevalent, however,
the explanations for extinction were adjusted by creationists. Creationists
then explained fossils of organisms that no longer exist as evidence of the
Great Flood.
There are two different classifications of extinctions: Total
extinction, where the genetic lineage of a "species" goes extinct, and
pseudo extinction, where a "species" evolves into another "species" and the
parent "species" no longer exists. The genetic lineage continues in the case
of pseudo extinction. Today scientists estimate that 99.9% of all "species" that have ever
existed are now extinct.
Evolutionary theory predicts that we should expect there to be many
extinctions, because life is constantly changing and there is a constant
struggle for survival. Furthermore, the naturalistic view of life recognizes
that life is what it is and survives if it can. The naturalistic view does
not hold that there is any special purpose or design to life and recognizes
that there
is no such things as "perfection" in nature. If nature was "perfect" then
of course one would not expect there to be extinctions. Creationists argued
that it was impossible for any species to go extinct well into the 20th
century, which is one of the major reasons that Christian fundamentalists
have traditionally been opponents to environmentalism, dating back to the
1800s. Fundamentalists argued that God would not allow species to go
extinct, and that man was not capable of destroying God's creation, so to
worry about such things was absurd. The evidence, of course, has been
overwhelmingly to the contrary.
While the historical evidence strongly suggests that evolution has
occurred, The Theory of Biological Evolution cannot be supported by the
historical evidence alone. Indeed the most critical support for The Theory
of Biological Evolution is the evidence that shows evolution is
occurring, and the demonstration of how evolution occurs.
Evidence that evolution is occurring can be classified as follows:
Observation of heritable genetic change
Observation of the development of novel traits
Observation of changes in gene frequency in populations
Observation of "speciation"
Observation of heritable genetic change:
Gregor Mendel, an
Austrian Monk, is considered the first person to have demonstrated
inheritance. Mendel's work on inheritance was published in 1866, but was
essentially unknown. His work was later rediscovered in 1900 and, after some
dispute, became the basis of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Mendel's work, however,
and the demonstration of general inheritance, did not demonstrate heritable genetic
change because it was not demonstrated that novel traits arose. Mendel's
works showed how inheritance worked, but it did not show that "new traits"
could arise and be inherited.
In 1910 -1911 Thomas Hunt Morgan demonstrated the creation of genetic
change and the inheritance of genetic change. Morgan conducted research
using the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. He bombarded the
population with X-rays and looked for novel traits. Eventually he discovered
a "white eye" mutation out of a population of flies that all had red eyes,
and had all had red eyes for many generations. After many generations a fly with white eyes
emerged, demonstrating the development of novel traits.
The mutation had occurred in a male fly. Morgan carefully bred the white
eyed fly with a red eyed fly and found that none of the flies in the second
generation had white eyes. He then cross bread the second generation flies
and found that some of the males had white eyes, demonstrating both the
inheritance of genetic changes and the phenomenon of sex linked
inheritance. This led Morgan to conclude that genes were located on specific
chromosomes. By this time chromosomes had been discovered, though the
structure of DNA itself was not yet known.
This experiment showed that new traits could arise in a population and
that those traits could be passed on to decedents, exactly what evolutionary
theory predicted.
This still did not give a full picture of genetic change however. In
order to really understand genetic change one needs to know what "genes"
are and how they are passed on. This information came with the
discovery of the structure of DNA.
It was not actually established that DNA is the carrier of genetic
information until 1943. Oswald Theodore Avery conducted experiments with
bacteria that isolated DNA as the "transforming principle" that carried
traits. DNA was discovered in the mid 1800s, but no one knew what it was.
Once the actual genetic material was discovered by Avery, then work began on
trying to figure out the exact structure of the material and how it worked
to transfer traits.
At this time the concept of DNA as a carrier of "information", that
could be read like a script, had not yet been conceived. People knew that
the DNA molecule was what caused characteristics to appear, but how it did
this people had no idea.
In 1948 it was determined that DNA had some type of helix structure by
using X-ray diffraction, but the exact structure could not be determined.
By the early 1950s there was an extensive race among scientists to
discover the structure of DNA. In 1953, based on a variety of other
experimental data, James Watson and Francis Crick of England published their
proposal for the structure of DNA in the journal Nature, along with separate
publications in the same journal by Rosaland Franklin and Maurice Wilkins,
whose work was instrumental to Watson and Crick.
First sketch of proposed DNA structure by Francis Crick
Structure of DNA
Once the structure of DNA was confirmed the
root mechanism of evolution became apparent. Indeed, once the structure and
function of the DNA molecule was recognized it became obvious that it was
impossible for evolution not to occur. It was only once the structure of DNA
was determined that people fully recognized what it was and how it worked.
Shortly prior to the determination of the structure of DNA people knew that it
contained "genetic material", they knew that it had something to do with the
traits expressed in an organism, but they didn't realize that this one
molecule was a complete set of instructions for creating a life form. They
also did not understand how the genetic material could both be faithfully be
copied, while also allowing for the introduction of changes.
Showing how DNA is copied
Once the structure was known it became obvious how DNA was
copied, and it was easy to surmise, in general terms, how changes to the
code could naturally occur. Since that time many studies have shown in great
detail exactly how DNA is copied and exactly how changes naturally arise in
DNA. The structure and function of DNA is the single most important
discovery to support
The Theory of Biological Evolution.
DNA is what makes sense of the entire theory; it is the
central piece of evidence that explains how evolution happens.
Knowing what we now know about DNA, we know that it is impossible for evolution
not to happen. The structure and function of DNA makes evolution, change
over time, inevitable.
Observation of the development of novel traits:
Novel
traits are any characteristics that have not been present in a lineage of
individuals in the past. Novel traits are the result of mutations to the DNA
that affect characteristics of the individual. The development of novel
traits has been observed many times in the lab, by animal and plant
breeders, and, more difficultly, in the wild. Of course it is more difficult
to determine if a trait is new in the wild, but cave populations provide
excellent specimens for studying the development of novel traits in wild
populations due to the relative ease of proving common descent and showing
that certain features have developed after the separation of a group from an
original population.
As for domesticated organisms, breeders have been able to
identify and isolate many different novel traits in plants and animals. The
identification and isolation of novel traits is an essential part of
domestic breeding. Some examples of novel traits that have been isolated in
domestic pigeons, known as "fancy pigeons", are shown below. These birds
have been specifically selected by breeders for their "radical" physical
characteristics.
All of the pigeons shown above are from breeds of pigeons
that are decedents of the common pigeon, known to pigeon breeders as the
"wild type" ancestor, shown below:
Breeders of all types of organisms, from plants to fish to
birds to dogs etc. are continuously identifying new traits that arise in
their breeding populations, demonstrating the present occurrence of the
development of novel traits.
Observation of changes in gene frequency in wild populations:
Evolution is fundamentally understood to be a change in gene frequencies of
populations over time. Therefore, showing that changes in gene frequencies of
populations can currently be observed is an important element of verifying
evolutionary theory and showing that evolution is occurring.
"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that
populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not
adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve
by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene
flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic
variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic
changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be
advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification
comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution
of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes,
continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great
magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels
(genera, families, and so forth)." - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology,
Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
"In fact, evolution can be
precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a
gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology,
5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Changes in gene frequencies among domestically bred populations are
obviously easy to observe and document. Any time a breeder selects for a
specific trait among a population they are changing the gene frequencies of
the population. If a dog breeder has a population of dogs with brown eyes,
and then a blue eye mutant emerges and they select for the blue eye trait so
that they develop a breed of all blue eyed dogs, this is an example of
changing gene frequencies in a population.
An example of an experiment that verified a change in gene
frequency over time through natural selection in a controlled environment
was performed by Bruce Wallace in 1963 showing that the frequency of a
detrimental allele declined in a population of fruit flies at predicted
rates. Many other such experiments have been performed.
Monitoring gene frequencies is most accurately performed by
taking genetic samples from random sets of individuals in a population over
a period of time and recording the rate of occurrence of alleles among the
individuals in the set. A change of gene frequency in the population is
detected when the rate of occurrence of alleles is significantly different
from one period of time to the next.
Monitoring of gene frequencies is a common practice in
ecology and various other population sciences. That gene frequencies change
in wild populations has been observed and verified by thousands of
independent studies.
Observation of "speciation":
The issue of
speciation is very contentious, as I will explain in the next section,
however, according to the standard accepted biological definitions of
"species" and "speciation", a number of speciation events have been observed,
both in the wild and in captivity. The biological definition of a species
is a population of breeding or potentially breeding individuals.
I am simply going to address some of the reported instances
of "speciation" here, and I will address the details of so-called
"speciation" in the next section.
Speciation by Polyploidy and/or Hybridization:
Sexually reproducing organisms generally have a set of two
for every chromosome, one that came from the mother and another that came
from the father. This makes most sexually reproduced organisms "diploid",
meaning that they have two copies of each chromosome. It is possible,
however, for organisms to have more than two copies of a chromosome, and
these cases are called "polyploidy", meaning that organisms have "many"
copies of each chromosome.
The polyploid condition can arise instantly during the
formation of gametes (sperm or egg) and through a variety of other ways,
including hybridization (pairing of two different species).
When a ployploid organism is produced, it is generally
unable to reproduce with any other organisms of its kind unless they also
have the same number of chromosomes. Polyploids with an odd number of
chromosomes, such as 3 or 5, etc. are not able to reproduce under any
circumstance.
The condition of polyploidy arises relatively commonly in
plants. This is for a variety of reasons, including how plants make gametes,
and the volume of gametes that plants produce, as well as the frequency of
hybridization. It is estimated about between 20% and 30% of all plant
species are polyploids. Polyploids also exist among animals, but they are
much more rare.
What makes polyploidy significant for plants is that many
plants can self-fertilize, so even when a spontaneous occurrence like this
happens and there are no other polyploids around, the plant can at least
"mate with itself". Also, due to the relatively high occurrence of
polyploidy in plants, there are cases when multiple independent occurrences
of polyploidy happen so that a plant can "find a mate". In the case of trees
that lives for hundreds or thousands of years, if a polyploid is created and
there are no other ployploid mates for the tree immediately, as long as
another polyploid is crated in the region from the same original species
some time over the next hundreds or thousands of years the two can
potentially "mate". This makes the chances for polyploids "finding" mates
pretty high.
Since the polyploids are only able to breed with plants that
have the same chromosome count, each time a polyploid plant is created with
a new chromosome count that did not previously exist among its parent
species, a new species is formed, because the new plant can no longer mate
with any of the other plants of its kind, aside from other polyploids with
the same chromosome count. This new polyploid now goes down its own
independent "road of evolution". The genetic changes in the new polyploid
lineage will accumulate distinctly from the genetic changes in the parent
lineage, leading to further and further divergence over time.
Polyploidy has also been observed to occur among plant
hybrids, both in the wild and under human control. In this case, two
different species of plants are crossed with each other and none of the
diploid offspring are able to reproduce, but some of the polyploids are
capable of reproduction among themselves. This results in the creation of a
new species from a hybrid. None of the polyploids are able to reproduce with
plants from either of the ancestral species, but they can reproduce with
each other.
Speciation by polyploidy has been recoded among plants many
times, some examples are listed below:
In 1928, the Russian plant geneticist Karpechenko produced a new
species by crossing a cabbage with a radish. Although belonging to
different genera (Brassica and Raphanus respectively), both parents have
a diploid number of 18. Fusion of their respective gametes (n=9)
produced mostly infertile hybrids.
However, a few fertile plants were formed, probably by the
spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went
on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a
complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes.
Fusion of these gametes produced vigorous, fully-fertile, polyploid
plants with 36 chromosomes. (Unfortunately, they had the roots of the
cabbage and the leaves of the radish.)
These plants could breed with each other but not with either the
cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species.
Cover of Science magazine that contained published articles on the
Karpechenko species
There are hundreds of other human induced hybridization
examples like the one above. An example of the natural occurrence of this
same type of speciation by hybridization has been observed among wildflowers
that were introduced to the United States from Europe. Three species of
wildflowers called goatsbeards, from the genus Tragopogon, were
introduced to America about 150 years ago in different locations. Two of the
species are Tragopogon dubios and Tragopogon porrifolius,
shown below:
Tragopogon dubios
Tragopogon porrifolius
Over time the range of the different species expanded and the different
species came into contact with one another. These different species
regularly crossed with each other to produce sterile hybrids, however, within
the past 60 years a different polyploid hybrid of these two species has been
observed that is capable of reproducing among itself. This hybrid is not
capable of breeding with either of its ancestral species, and can only
reproduce among its own kind. This plant has been classified as a new
species, Tragopogon mirus, with a common name of remarkable goatsbeard.
Tragopogon mirus
Tragopogon mirus is recognized by the US Department of
Agriculture. The US Department of Agriculture lists the information on this
species as follows:
Genus:Tragopogon Family:Asteraceae (alt. Compositae). Nomen number: 100555 Place of publication: Amer. J. Bot. 37:497. 1950 Comment: an amphidiploid of origin T. dubius × T.
porrifolius Name verified on: 17-Nov-1993 by Systematic Botany Laboratory.
Last updated: 25-Jan-2002 Species priority site is: Western Regional PI Station (W6). Accessions: 3 in National Plant Germplasm System.
There are actually many examples of naturally occurring
reproductive plant hybrid species, Tragopogon mirus just provides an
example of a reproductive hybrid species that we know has recently developed
in the wild.
Although polyploidy is rare among animals, it has been
observed. Several species of polyploid insects, amphibians, reptiles, fish,
and birds have been observed, and recently a polyploid species of rat was
discovered as well, being the first known example of a polyploid mammal.
Every case of polyploidy presumably results in "instant speciation" by
virtue of the fact that the polyploid organisms are not capable of mating
with their "parent species".
Recently a diploid hybrid cross between two species of fly
was discovered that is believed to have developed within the past 250 years.
Rhagoletis Lonicera was discovered to be a new hybrid species in
2004. Genetic tests show that the Lonicera fly is a hybrid cross of
Rhagoletis zephyria (snowberry maggot) and Rhagoletis mendax
(blueberry maggot). Lonicera fly is believed to be a recently developed
hybrid species in part because its host plant is a recently introduced
invasive species from Asia. The study on Lonicera fly was first published in
the journal Nature in 2005.
Controlled Speciation without Polyploidy (Standard forms
of sexual speciation):
Erneso Paterniani conducted a 5 year speciation experiment
using maize, the results of which he published in 1969. Paterniani was able
to reduce the intercrossing of two varieties of maize from 46.7% to 3.4%. He
achieved this by planting two different varieties of corn side by side in a
field and then replanting only the non-crossed seeds for each generation. In
other words, he never planted the seeds that were the product of crosses
between the two different varieties. Doing this for only five years he was able
to almost completely eliminate interbreeding even though the two different
types of corn were planted right next to each other. The experiment was not
continued past the 5th year, but it clearly demonstrated the ability for
barriers to breeding to develop among populations.
There are several examples of speciation events among
laboratory fruit flies (Drosophila). This is because Drosophila is commonly used for genetic study and has been used in the
laboratory for almost 100 years. In order to put "speciation events" in
perspective, however, it has to be noted that the closest known relative to
Drosophila melanogaster is Drosophila simulans,
which looks very similar and is believed by scientists to have
diverged from Drosophila melanogaster about 2 to 5 million
years ago. These two different species are still able to produce sterile
hybrids in the lab, thus demonstrating the difficulty of "creating distinct
species" over short periods of time. If two species of Drosophila look
fairly similar and can produce sterile offspring, and these are believed to
be divergent by 2+ million years, the challenge of producing two distinct
species from one population in a lab in the matter of tens of years is
obvious. Indeed Drosophila melanogaster is capable of producing
hybrids with species that it is believed to be separated from by as much as
20 million years.
In addition, while Drosophila melanogaster is a
great specimen for genetic studies, it is a poor specimen for speciation
research, because the qualities that make Drosophila melanogaster
good for genetic study are the same qualities that reduce the likelihood of
speciation events within the species. The reason that Drosophila
melanogaster is useful for genetic study is that it has a very simple
genome. The fly only has 4 pairs of chromosomes, compared to 24 in humans,
and it has a very "compact" genome without much "junk DNA". Organisms with
very short lifespans that that have high reproduction rates and intense
reproductive competition tend to have very "efficient" reproductive systems.
Evolutionary theory explains this by stating that the size of the genome is
actually a trait that is selected for by natural selection in these cases,
causing such organisms to have genomes without much "excess" DNA. This
quality is what makes Drosophila melanogaster a good subject
for genetic study, but by the same token it reduces the amount of genetic
material that is likely to undergo "successful" mutations, because there is
not much excess DNA in Drosophila melanogaster and the DNA that
is there is very "finely tuned". Likewise, the small number of chromosomes
reduces the likelihood of the development of chromosomal breeding barriers.
So, basically, fruit fly populations are not very susceptible to
genetic change - we expect fruit flies to maintain their genetic
integrity fairly well.
Organisms with large genomes are actually much better suited
to speciation experiments than Drosophila melanogaster, but
despite all of this, the fact that Drosophila melanogaster is
the primary organism for genetic study means that it has had the most study
in the lab and has often been used for speciation experiments.
A variety of different speciation experiments have been
performed with Drosophila melanogaster. These experiments have
typically not been designed to test if speciation can occur,
but rather these have typically been experiments to test different ways that
speciation might occur. Speciation among Drosophila has been
determined by the inability to produce fertile offspring with a parent
population, while having the ability to produce fertile offspring among the peer
population, and/or "assortative mating" behavior, meaning that individuals
choose to mate with only their "own kind". Both accidental speciation and
intentionally caused speciation has been observed with Drosophila in
the lab.
There have been at least eight reported cases of laboratory
speciation of Drosophila that have had papers published about them.
The most well documented example of the creation of new species in the
laboratory was performed by W.R. Rice and G.W. Salt in the 1980s. Fruit
flies, Drosophila melanogaster, were bred using a maze with three
different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed
into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight
exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups.
After 35 generations the two groups and their offspring would not breed
with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.
This experiment was published in The American Naturalist in 1988;
"Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental
evidence".
Wild Speciation without Polyploidy (Standard forms of
sexual speciation):
As difficult as it is to observe speciation events in
laboratory conditions, it's even more difficult to directly observe
"speciation" in the wild. There are advantages to looking for
speciation in the wild however. The conditions for speciation are, somewhat
obviously, more prevalent in the wild, where there are large diverse
populations. One problem with many lab speciation experiments is that the
populations being used in the experiments are small populations of
genetically similar individuals.
In the wild the populations are much larger and there is
much more variability, both genetically and often environmentally as well.
Several different "speciation" studies on wild populations have been
published recently, and these studies are still on-going.
Anolis lizards are one subject of major speciation
studies. Study of Anolis lizards have used both field experiments as
well as genetic and morphological studies of existing Anolis
populations in the Caribbean.
There are about 138 recognized species of Anolis lizards
among the islands of the Caribbean. Phylogenic studies indicate that these
138 species have developed relatively recently from as few as two colonizing
species from the mainland that initially colonized the islands less than 20
million years ago. The diversity of Anolis lizards in the Caribbean
is concluded to be a result of relatively recent speciation from an
initially small variety of species; 2-4 species have become 138 species.
Map showing number of Anolis species per island
Anolis luteogularis, Cuba
Anolis cristatellus, Puerto Rico
Anolis angusticeps, Bahamas/Cuba
Anolis bahorucoensis, Hispaniola
Anolis allisoni, Cuba
Anolis distichus, Hispaniola
In 1977 an experiment was begun to study extinctions using small
populations of Anolis lizards that were introduced onto small
islands in the Bahamas that had no native lizard populations. The introduced
lizards were from a common population. Contrary to the intent of the
experiment, the populations of lizards did not die out. Instead they
survived and have since become the subjects of adaptive evolution and speciation
studies.
Anolis sagrei
Comparative studies of these lizard populations began being published in
2001. The studies found significant morphological, behavioral, and genetic
divergence among the populations and from the ancestral population. The
differences were observed to be adaptive, and they followed patterns of
adaptive differentiation, though to a lesser degree, found among other
species of Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.
Studies of these populations are still on going. These studies include
research to make associations between the morphological changes and genetic changes, as well as speciation studies. The populations are now being
closely monitored and are important for studies of adaptive evolution and
speciation.
Two major examples of observed "speciation in action" in the wild are
well known examples of "ring species". One of these ring species is a
salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii) from California, the other is a
song bird (Phylloscopus trochiloides) from central Asia. There are
23 reported ring species that are being studied, these two are just the most
well known examples.
A "ring species" is a "ring" of populations which contains subgroups that
can and do interbreed as well as subgroups than cannot and/or do not
interbreed, but the non-breeding subgroups do and/or can interbreed back to
a common subgroup. The illustrations below provide a simpler visualization
of this phenomenon.
Ensatina eschscholtzii picta
Ensatina eschscholtzii eschscholtzi
Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi
The salamander ring species from California,
Ensatina eschscholtzii, has been extensively studied and shows
several different examples of speciation in action among different
subgroups. The origin of this population is believed to be in northern
California, from where it has migrated both north into Oregon and south into
Southern California. Populations of the species have become isolated and
subsequently re-contacted each other several times at various points.
Historical biogeographic
interpretation for the Ensatina complex. Five zones of
secondary interaction are shown. 1, Interaction of klauberi
and eschscholtzii. 2, Complex interaction between
northern and southern platensis and of these
interactors with xanthoptica in the central Sierra
Nevada. 3, Interaction of oregonensis and northern
platensis in the Lassen Peak area. 4, North Bay interaction
of oregonensis and xanthoptica. 5, South Bay
interaction of oregonensis and xanthoptica and
of xanthoptica and eschscholtzii.
-
Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina
complex - David B. Wake
While originally viewed as one big ring, recent studies suggest that this
ring species actually contains several "sub-rings". In other words, there
appears to be more than one "speciation event" taking place among this
species.
Another well studied ring species is that of the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus
trochiloides).
West Siberian greenish warbler (P. t. viridanus)
East Siberian greenish warbler (P. t. plumbeitarsus)
"Our results show how gradual divergence in a trait involved in mate
choice leads to the formation of new species," Irwin wrote in the team's
Nature report.
The colored bars on the wings of the two groups of birds that coexist
in Siberia also differed markedly, Irwin found. One group wears a single
yellow bar on each wing, while the other bears two - another key to
sexual selection, he says.
All those differences, and especially the fact that the two groups of
birds in Siberia do not interbreed, provide the most defining evidence
that the two songbird populations have become truly separate species,
Irwin and Price agree.
"They act like separate species, and the genetic evidence supports
that conclusion," Irwin said. "In central Siberia today, the original
species has definitely become two species."
...
"What Darren Irwin has found with his warbler ring species and what
we have found with our Ensatina ring are two compelling pieces
of evidence for true speciation," Wake concluded. - Evolving Before Our Eyes; San
Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2001
Many of the terms we currently use to describe life were developed prior
to the establishment of evolutionary theory. As has been mentioned, this
is the case with the system of classification that is used in biology
(Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). This system of
classification was developed by Carolus Linnaeus during the mid 1700s.
Linnaeus also promoted the idea of "race". In both cases Linnaeus believed
that these classifications represented static and concrete aspects of nature
that could be considered unbending laws of classification. A famous saying
of Linnaeus was "God creates, Linnaeus classifies".
Interestingly, Linnaeus had originally classified whales as fish and bats
as bird, but he later changed their classifications to that of mammals. This
was the first official recognition that whales were not fish and bats were
not birds. Linnaeus also classified humans among the primates, which did
upset the religious establishment and resulted in attacks on him from the
church.
The entire system of Linnaean taxonomy, however, was based on the
principle of classification by visual recognition of physical traits.
Linnaeus and other naturalists believed that all species were distinct and
were thus easily recognizable, and that there was no such thing as
"speciation" or the progression of "one species" into "another species".
For Linnaeus each species was an unchanging product of divine creation.
Linnaeus was not aware of microorganisms nor, of course, was he aware of
DNA or even the concept of genetics.
The concept of "a species", however, really does not reflect reality. The species
concept is an old, pre-evolutionary, concept that in truth cannot be
satisfactorily applied to our current understanding of biology. The problem
for biologists, however, is that the Linnaean classification system was
strongly established by the time evolutionary theory became accepted and the
Linnaean system of taxonomy is relatively simple to use.
The result is that biologists
have tried and shoehorn reality into a model that simply does not
fit.
Darwin himself recognized this, and recommended that the term species be
done away with, despite the fact that he used the term in the title of his
most famous book, which itself has resulted in great confusion and, in my
opinion, poured fuel on "species" fire. In The Origin of Species
Darwin stated:
When the views entertained in this volume on the origin of species,
or when analogous views are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee
that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history.
Systematists will be able to pursue their labours as at present; but
they will not be incessantly haunted by the shadowy doubt whether this
or that form be in essence a species. This I feel sure, and I speak
after experience, will be no slight relief. The endless disputes whether
or not some fifty species of British brambles are true species will
cease. Systematists will have only to decide (not that this will be
easy) whether any form be sufficiently constant and distinct from other
forms, to be capable of definition; and if definable, whether the
differences be sufficiently important to deserve a specific name. This
latter point will become a far more essential consideration than it is
at present; for differences, however slight, between any two forms, if
not blended by intermediate gradations, are looked at by most
naturalists as sufficient to raise both forms to the rank of species.
Hereafter we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the only distinction
between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known,
or believed, to be connected at the present day by intermediate
gradations, whereas species were formerly thus connected. Hence, without
quite rejecting the consideration of the present existence of
intermediate gradations between any two forms, we shall be led to weigh
more carefully and to value higher the actual amount of difference
between them. It is quite possible that forms now generally acknowledged
to be merely varieties may hereafter be thought worthy of specific
names, as with the primrose and cowslip; and in this case scientific and
common language will come into accordance. In short,
we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists
treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations
made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall
at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and
undiscoverable essence of the term species. - The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin
The biggest problem with understanding "speciation" is really the concept
of "species" itself. There really is no such thing as "a species". What the
evolutionary model tells us is that life is a continuum and every living
thing
is related. The species concept is based on the idea that different
"species" are not related.
What the evolutionary model tells us is that if every animal that ever
lived were to be arranged in order of their genealogy it would be
impossible for the most part (with some exceptions in cases of hybridization,
etc.) to make any determination of what is "a species". Darwin made
this observation in The Origin of Species:
"Extinction has only separated groups: it
has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on
this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite
impossible to give definitions by which each group could be
distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as
fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a
natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be
possible." - The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin
What Darwin is saying here is that individuals within every lineage would
blend together, but the branches of diverging lineages would still be able
to be classified.
Some illustrations may help to explain this, but one of the major
problems with trying to use illustrations to understand species and
speciation is that real life is infinitely more complex than any reasonable
illustration can represent.
The image below shows four skeletons in the ancestral lineage of the
modern whale.
These skeletons are individuals from populations. The bar above the
whales represents a segment of populations over time from which these
individuals would have come from. In the diagram each pixel (dot) can
represent an individual. The diagram, however, fails to fully demonstrate
the concept of speciation because of its narrow focus. A more accurate image
would show many different branches and multiple different forms developing
from the same ancestral populations with a less uniform gradation.
The question that we can ask based on this diagram, however, is: Where
along the top bar is a new species formed?
Most people today still view "species" in the same way that biologists
did prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory, as distinct
morphological units. It's something that you look at and recognize as
significantly different from something else. So, when most people think about
"speciation", they imagine that at some point animal A gives birth to animal
B, at which point, a "new species" comes into existence, but that simply
isn't how it works. As has been said, with the exception of some
hybridization examples, there never is a case in which a "new
species" is born.
Unlike the pre-evolutionary view of "species" as distinct units, the term
"species" can only be applied today in a relative way. The term is really an
attempt to classify something in a way that, as Lamarck said, does not
actually represent reality. It's a way for humans to classify things for
convenience, but it's not a "real" classification.
The image below attempts to illustrate the concept of "change over time"
as it relates to "speciation". The top of the image is the present day and
the bottom of the image is some time in the past. In this example there are
two populations that would be recognized as different "species" today, the
blue branch that reaches present day and the green branch that reaches
present day. All other parts of the tree represent populations that existed
in the past.
Press the "Show Fossil Record" button to see a representation of
fossilized specimens from the populations represented in the tree. As you
can see, the fossil record inevitably has gaps and there are not fossils
representing every different branch of the tree.
If the changes in color represent variation, where can we say that
"speciation" occurs. Looking at the fossil record, every dot of a different
color would probably be classified as a "different species", but as we can
see if we look at the full tree, these dots aren't isolated and distinct
individuals, they are elements of gradual transitions.
Looking at organisms in the present day, all that we see are two distinct
organisms, blue and green. They are clearly different from one another, and
don't "appear" to be related. Through the fossil record we can piece
together some
of relationships based on morphology, but the fossil record will never fully show
the gradual transitions of the development of life.
The term "species" as it is understood by biologists is actually a
completely different concept than the "traditional" concept of a "species".
Today, because of evolutionary theory, biologists view a "species" as a
population of breeding or potentially breeding individuals. This is really
using the word species in a completely different way than how it was used by
Linnaeus; its actually a complete redefinition of what "a species is".
This redefinition actually creates many problems. The new definition of
species, a.k.a. the biological definition of species, is really just a term
that defines breeding or potentially breeding populations, however it has
been wrongly believed by many, including some biologists, that we are "more
accurately determining what a species is". This is false. We are simply
using an established word in a different way, to describe something
completely different than what the term originally described.
The Linnaean concept of a species is "a morphologically distinct form of
life that was created by God". The biological concept of species is "a
population of breeding individuals". Unfortunately, our current
classifications of "species" are a mix of both the old and new
classification systems. The way that we label species today is still not
uniform, we use a mix of the Linnaean concept and the modern biological
concept.
When most people think about "speciation" they are looking for a process
that will produce a "new species" according to the Linnaean concept of what
a species is. This is never going to happen, because the Linnaean concept of
a species isn't even valid.
Biologists really shoot themselves in the foot by continuing to even use
the word species. The word is still used because it is so ingrained in the
culture, but by the same token this is also the problem. The fact of the
matter is that "a species" is whatever we say a species is. We have some
standards for naming "species", but, aside from mating tests, it's a mostly
subjective process.
Even the biological definition of "a species" is highly flawed, and it
shouldn't be called "species". All it is is an indication that individuals
are part of the same breeding population, but there are many problems with
this. The problems with this concept of "species" are:
It's not practically testable in most cases, even among living sexual organisms
It can never be applied to dead organisms
It can't be applied to asexual organisms
It does not deal well with geographically isolated but genetically
compatible populations
There are many different things that contribute to
breeding boundaries, and breeding boundaries can exist between organisms
that are more genetically similar than other organisms that have greater
genetic differences. For example, there are many different "species" of song
birds that look almost identical and have very little genetic variation
between them, yet there are also dogs as different as the Chihuahua and
Great Dane which can interbreed. The two birds below are classified as
different species, which do not interbreed, despite the fact that their
ranges overlap.
Western Meadowlark
Eastern Meadowlark
Captive breeding experiments found that they can produce offspring, but
very few of the eggs are viable and hatch, though some do.
Breeding boundaries can exist for a number of reasons. Breeding
boundaries are typically categorized as either pre-mating or post-mating
boundaries.
Pre-mating boundaries include:
Geographic isolation
Mating preferences (organisms choose mates based on certain
characteristics, such as color, song, size, smell, etc.)
Physical incompatibility of sex organs (penis does not pair with
vagina, etc.)
Different mating schedules (different timed release of gametes among
things like corals, plants, etc.)
Post-mating boundaries include:
Different numbers of chromosomes
DNA from one parent is not able to fully pair with other
parent DNA during fertilization and mitosis
Interestingly enough, though, even organisms with different numbers of
chromosomes can breed in some cases. The results of post-mating boundaries
include sterile offspring, terminally deformed offspring, or no
fertilization at all.
The term species is especially problematic when dealing with asexual
microorganisms such as prokaryotes. Not only do such microorganisms
reproduce directly through cell division, making each individual essentially
"its own species", but there is a tremendous amount of DNA transfer among
vastly different types of prokaryotes. The concept behind the biological
definition of "species" is that a species is a population of individuals
among which genes can be shared and transferred. When we look at
microorganisms, however, we see that genes get transferred in many different
ways, though not through reproduction, so the entire "species concept"
breaks down.
So-called "hybridizations" illustrate other problems with the "species"
concept and also provide strong evidence for common descent as well.
There are many sexual animals, not to mention plants, that we call different
species, but which can nevertheless breed and produce offspring. In some cases
these offspring are fertile and can themselves produce offspring.
Male
Liger (Lion+Tiger)
Many of the cats can interbreed. There are over a dozen different
combinations of different cat "species" that can breed and produce
offspring. Several of these crosses produce fertile offspring. Female Ligers,
for example, are usually fertile, but male Ligers are not.
Many of the canines can interbreed as well. Wolves, Coyotes, and Dogs can
all interbreed, typically producing fertile offspring. Several other types
of canines can interbreed with other canine "species" as well, such as
Jackals.
Zebras and Horses can interbreed, and Bison, Yaks, and domestic Cows can
also interbreed.
Bison and Cows produce fertile offspring when they interbreed and are now
a widely farmed breed called Beefalo.
One of the most interesting crosses is the recently produced cross of a
Camel and a Llama, called a Cama.
Scientists suspected that it would be possible to cross a Llama and a
Camel based on evolutionary predictions. The Llama is from South America and
weighs an average of about 165 pounds, whereas the Camel is from the Middle
East, halfway around the world, and weighs an average of almost 1,000
pounds. From the traditional view of "species", and based on the model of
"separate creation", there would be no reason to think that a Llama from
South America and a Camel from the Middle East would be able to breed.
The evolutionary model, however, states that all organisms are related, and
evolutionary biologists determined through the study of fossil evidence,
comparative morphology, and genetics that Llamas and Camels are closely
related, meaning that they have a "recent" common ancestor. Genetic
studies also show that both Camels and Llamas have 74 chromosomes.
Based on the knowledge that these animals have a recent common ancestor
scientists believed it would be possible to cross breed them, and it is
indeed possible to cross breed them.
The more proper way to view the organisms that we see in the world today
is not as "distinct species", but as genetic islands, with the historical
ancestry of all organisms beneath the water, out of sight. The difference in
how we view life and how we view land is really very similar. Islands and
continents can be viewed as completely separate, isolated bodies of land,
unconnected to one another, but we know, because we we can trace the
foundations of land under the water, that all land is indeed
connected.
The same is the case with life, but tracing what's "under the water" is
just much more difficult because what's "under the water" in this case is in
the past, so we can't directly observe it.
Time and death are what creates the isolation of "species". If not for
the death of ancestors, all life would be like currently observed "ring
species".
Having discussed the problems with the species concept, the concept of
"race" is even more problematic. Certainly the Linnaean concept of species
is completely invalid. We can use the term "species" to discuss genetically
isolated populations, but this does not really have the same meaning that
many people think of when they think of "species". The concept of "race",
however, is completely invalid as well. Race simply does not exist, there is no
such thing. Race, like species, is a concept that was developed before the
acceptance of the theory of evolution and well before our modern knowledge
of genetics.
The pioneers of race concepts believed that the different "races" were
unrelated, i.e. that "Blacks", "Whites", "Orientals", and "Aboriginal
Americans" were all
separately created, and that only "Whites" were descendants of "Adam and
Eve". Others believed, as some Mormons still do, that non-Whites are the
descendants of Cain, the Biblical character who fled the Garden of Eden
after murdering his brother, whom the Bible stated would be "marked" for
eternity.
Furthermore, "race" was viewed as a single unchanging unit. The race
concept came about before any knowledge of genetics.
What we know now is that all people, indeed all organisms, are made from
collections of genes. All humans have the same genes. In fact all life
shares
mostly the same genes.
For each of our genes we have different alleles. An allele is basically a
variant of a gene. For example, there is a gene that controls eye color. The
different alleles of this gene cause eyes to be blue, brown, green, grey,
etc. (This is a very simplified explanation)
What we call a "race" is just a certain collection of alleles. These
alleles can be rearranged and crossed in any number of ways however, and
how we have chosen to categorize allele groups is purely a matter of human
choice. In fact, the real genealogy of humans does not match the ways in
which race has historically been defined.
We can demonstrate the meaninglessness of race with a simple example.
Lets just take a few common traits and use a very simplified system to
represent different alleles for these traits and show how we have identified
these traits with so-called "race".
Skin color
Eye color
Nose Type
Hair Type
White
(L)ight
(B)lue
(N)arrow
(S)traight
Black
(D)ark
(Br)own
(W)ide
(K)inky
Oriental
(L)ight
(Br)own
(W)ide
(F)ine
So, lets categorize the following examples:
A person's DNA is made up of the following alleles: L-B-N-S
We would call that person "White".
Now take this example: L-Br-W-F
Easy enough, that person is an Oriental.
What about this: L-Br-N-K
What "race" is this person?
The fact is that, for the most part, all of our alleles can be mixed and
matched in any combination. Due to geographic isolation certain alleles have
become concentrated in different populations. We have recognized the
physical manifestation of certain combinations of alleles and simply labeled
those combinations "a race".
There is no Black race, nor White race, nor any other race, there are
just various combinations of alleles, which we have chosen to label based on
a few observed traits, such as skin color and eye shape, etc.
Using genetics we are now able to identify the geographic origin of an
individual's ancestors, and through this it is possible to determine if
someone has African, European, Asian ancestry, etc., and many people have
called these tests that "identify race", but that is not accurate. These
tests just identify alleles, and we associate those alleles to what we call
races. For example, if we did a genetic test and found that someone from the
above example had the K allele, we would be able to say that they had a
"Black", ancestor, but we would more accurately say that they had an
ancestor from Africa. That same person, however, could also have a N allele,
showing that they also have an ancestor from Europe, or a "White" ancestor.
In America today approximately 25% of people who identify themselves as
"Black" have some European ancestry.
A genetic test can show that a person's DNA matches what we typically
call a "Black" person or a "White" person, for example a test can find an
allele combination of L-Br-W-F, but the understanding of DNA that makes such
tests possible is the same understanding that completely does away with the
very concept of "Black" and "White" altogether.
People, indeed all organisms, are not single units, they are made up of
thousands of "parts" (genes), which can be mixed and matched in an endless
variety of ways.
Viruses are the most well know form of subcellular replicating entities.
Known subcellular replicators include:
Viruses
Viroids
Satellites
Plasmids
Transposons
Prions
All of these subcellular replicators require cells for replication. They
also follow the Darwinian model of descent with modification and natural
selection.
Most viruses today are thought to have old ancestries, almost as old as
cells, or perhaps even older. Unlike cell based life, however, which is thought to have a single
common ancestry, the evidence strongly indicates that not all viruses are related. There appears to be multiple
independent origins of viruses, indeed various viruses have probably originated by
completely different means.
Some viruses are DNA based, while others are RNA based, and there are
even more fundamental variations among viruses as well.
How viruses originated is still not completely certain, but there are
several likely possibilities. Some of the ways that viruses may have originated
include:
Genetic reduction of a cellular parasite to a non-cellular parasite
Spontaneous creation by cells when a mutation creates a piece of DNA
or RNA that codes for endless replication
Detachment of mobile genetic units, such as transposons, from the
core DNA
The ancestors of RNA viruses could have existed prior to the
development of DNA based life
There are several evolutionary principles that are important for
understanding subcellular replicators. In brief, the evolutionary
process can be both additive and reductionist in nature. There is often
selective pressure to reduce the size of the genetic code and eliminate
unneeded elements because this means that copies of the code can be made
faster and with fewer resources so the rate of replication for smaller
pieces of code will be faster and thus the smaller pieces of code will
"overpopulate" larger ones. This applies to both cellular and subcellular
evolution.
Under some conditions reduction of genetic code is the primarily
selected characteristic. Viruses and other subcellular replicators are often
observed to become less complex through generations as they become more
efficient. What allows subcellular replicators to become increasingly "less
complex" is the fact that a large part of their "life cycle" is performed by
their host cells.
As the host cells for subcellular replicators become more complex, the
subcellular replicators are able to shed genetic code that performs
redundant functionality to code that exists in the host cell.
This view of viruses holds that the viruses we see today could be vastly
less complex than the original ancestral "viruses".
Viroids are nothing more than small loops of RNA. Viroids are much
smaller than viruses and have no protein coat. They are essentially just
small loops of RNA that are quickly and endlessly replicated when they are
in the right environment. Cells are typically the right environment,
but viroids can be replicated in test tubes as well.
Satellites, or virusoids, are basically viroids that depend on the
existence of a virus for their replication and spread. Satellites are small
pieces of RNA that replicate and get encapsulated into the protein capsule
of a "helper virus". In some cases, the virus cannot be reproduced without
the satellite, in other cases the satellite is more like a parasite of the
virus.
Plasmids are "autonomously" replicating segments of DNA that can become
integrated into "host" DNA. In some cases plasmids can even affect the
behavior of their host, causing the host bacteria to join with other
bacteria and inject copies of the plasmid. Some plasmids can kill cells,
while others can be beneficial.
Transposons are segments of DNA that replicate and move about the DNA of
a cell. They are typically thought of as segments of DNA that only operate
within a cell, though there is some evidence that they may somehow be able
to spread from one organism to another. Transposons are also called "selfish
DNA". They are replicated and move about the genetic code with no apparent
function for the "host" organism. They do have an
indirect effect of mixing up the genetic code, however, and increasing the
rate of genetic change.
Prions are the first known replicators that have no nucleic acids -
they are made only of protein. Prions were discovered in the 1980s, and
are now known to be the cause of several infectious diseases, including
mad-cow disease. Known prions are often the products of proteins found in
brain tissue, and thus the diseases caused by prions are brain related
diseases. A major problem with prion caused diseases is that proteins are
much more difficult to destroy than nucleic acids. DNA and RNA are
relatively easy to breakup, but proteins are much more resistant and long-lasting. Scientists are not completely certain how priors replicate.
A major misconception about viruses and other subcellular replicators is
that they are "active", or that they "do things". With few exceptions, all
of these subcellular replicators are completely inert. There are some
viruses that have limited metabolic activity for brief periods, and which do
take brief action, but, for the most part, viruses do nothing. Some viruses
do absolutely nothing and just get taken in by cells, but there are viruses
that will actively attach themselves to cells and inject their genetic code.
These types of viruses can be thought of as being like a "mouse trap". They
are set to be activated, and upon being triggered they can "fire" an action,
but this is the limit of their capability.
The replication of viruses is completely determinative, but the terms
that are often used to describe how viruses are replicated are terms that we
associate with "free will" concepts. The use of terms like "hijack" or "take
over the cell's machinery" to describe the replication of viruses are highly
misleading and anthropomorphic. They anthropomorphize both the virus and the
cell. Cells are not conscious, nor are viruses, so the idea that a cell can
be "forced to do something against its will" is a complete fallacy, because
cells have no will.
A cell is an enclosed unit in which chemical work takes place. The work done in the
cell is done by "the cell". Cells basically have "instructions" to take
genetic code (DNA or RNA) and perform actions with it based on the
structure of the code. When a piece of DNA or RNA is in a cell, the cell
will take that piece of code and either integrate it back into the nucleus,
replicate it, or transcribe/reverse transcribe it.
Most "viruses" don't "do" anything. When the viral code enters a cell, the
cell takes the code and starts performing the instructions in the code. The
cell simply treats viral DNA or RNA the same way that it treats other DNA or
RNA in the cell, with the exception that in some cases the virus codes for
enzymes that are not typically present in a cell, which causes different
behavior than normal, but again, this proceeded the way any chemical
reaction proceeds.
Subcellular replicators are really passive agents, the cells are the ones
that actually reproduce them. "Viruses" themselves have no active role in
their own construction. At the time of virus reproduction the original
"virus" doesn't even exist. Viral DNA is typically either integrated into
the nucleus of the cell, or viral RNA is actively being copied or
transcribed in the cell.
If you think of a factory where workers take instructions handed to them
on an assembly line and execute the instructions, then a virus would be like
a set of instructions that tells the worker to produce another copy of the
same set of instructions. When the worker produces those instructions he
then reads them and follows them, so he again makes another copy, and just
keeps doing that over and over again. Since cells are "mindless", they are
not capable of judging whether or not they should follow instructions. Cells
are just complex "bags of chemicals" and the reactions take place according
to the basic laws of chemistry without any "guidance", hence the reason that
things like viruses exist. Cells cannot make "decisions" about whether a set
of instructions are "good" or not, they simply execute whatever instructions
are present in the cell.
For more on viruses and subcellular replicators see:
Subcellular Life Forms (note that I do not agree with this author's
characterization of viruses, etc. as "life forms")
The implications of Darwinian evolution are significant and extend well
beyond the boundaries of biology. Evidence that Darwin had correctly
described the fundamental processes by which life has developed challenged
all of the fundamental assumptions of 19th century Western Civilization,
which had been built on almost 2,000 years of Christian ideology.
Darwin's primary advocate, Thomas Huxley, perhaps best stated the
implications of evolution:
For the notion that every organism has been created as it is and
launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the conception of
something which may fairly be termed a method of trial and error.
Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet with
surrounding conditions which suit them and thrive; the many are unsuited
and become extinguished.
According to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired
straight at a mark; according to Darwin, organisms are like grapeshot of
which one hits something and the rest fall wide. For the teleologist an
organism exists because it was made for the conditions in which it is
found; for the Darwinian an organism exists because, out of many of its
kind, it is the only one which has been able to persist in the
conditions in which it is found. Teleology implies that the organs of
every organism are perfect and cannot be improved; the Darwinian theory
simply affirms that they work well enough to enable the organism to hold
its own against such competitors as it has met with, but admits the
possibility of indefinite improvement. But an example may bring into
clearer light the profound opposition between the ordinary teleological,
and the Darwinian, conception.
Cats catch mice, small birds and the like, very well. Teleology tells
us that they do so because they were expressly constructed for so
doing--that they are perfect mousing apparatuses, so perfect and so
delicately adjusted that no one of their organs could be altered,
without the change involving the alteration of all the rest. Darwinism
affirms on the contrary, that there was no express construction
concerned in the matter; but that among the multitudinous variations of
the Feline stock, many of which died out from want of power to resist
opposing influences, some, the cats, were better fitted to catch mice
than others, whence they throve and persisted, in proportion to the
advantage over their fellows thus offered to them.
Far from imagining that cats exist 'in order' to catch mice well,
Darwinism supposes that cats exist 'because' they catch mice well--mousing
being not the end, but the condition, of their existence. And if the cat
type has long persisted as we know it, the interpretation of the fact
upon Darwinian principles would be, not that the cats have remained
invariable, but that such varieties as have incessantly occurred have
been, on the whole, less fitted to get on in the world than the existing
stock.
If we apprehend the spirit of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then,
nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it
is commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. So far from being a "Teleologist
in the fullest sense of the word," we would deny that he is a
Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we should say that, apart
from his merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most remarkable
service to philosophical thought by enabling the student of Nature to
recognize, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to purpose which
are so striking in the organic world, and which Teleology has done good
service in keeping before our minds, without being false to the
fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the universe. The
apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the
Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis. - CRITICISMS ON 'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES';
Thomas H. Huxley, 1864
The ultimate implication of evolution is that we live in a world that has
not been designed for a purpose, but rather that life exists simply because
it does. This implication has, of course, been recognized by everyone who
understands evolution. It was understood by the ancient Greeks, by the early
Christians, and by people today.
The concept of evolution has proven to be one of most significant
revolutions in human thought in all of human history. What makes
evolutionary theory so significant is its ability to solve problems and make
predictions that were previously unsolvable via traditional views of the
world. Not only is evolutionary theory able to develop models that solve
significant problems, but it has also revolutionized the way that we view
the world and ourselves.
It is important here to clearly distinguish the difference between "The
Theory of Biological Evolution" and "evolutionary theory" in general. The
Theory of Biological Evolution deals strictly with the evolution of life on
earth after the origin of life. The Theory of Biological Evolution does not
pertain to how life originated in the first place. Furthermore, the Theory
of Biological Evolution deals strictly with genetic evolution.
Darwinian theory in general, however, deals with any system in which
there is "descent with modification", competition, and "natural selection"
where processes are "undirected" or "undesigned".
Evolutionary theory is now applied in many different fields of study,
including economics, linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and
cosmology.
Evolutionary theory has been used to propose explanations for the
development of matter and the universe, the origin of life, the development
of language, the development of morals, the development of culture, the
development of religion, animal and human behavior, and capitalistic
economic models.
Physicists and cosmologists have used evolutionary models to explain the
development of gravitational matter, 3 dimensional space, our universe
as a whole, and galaxy systems. The following article, published in
Nature on June 2, 2005, is one example of how evolutionary theory is
used in developing models for the development of the universe:
Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and
quasars
Linguists have used evolutionary models to understand the development of
the various languages that exist in the world today. Just like "species",
languages change over time, expand their ranges, and flourish or go extinct.
Darwin himself recognized this fact and used languages as an example for
explaining general evolutionary theory.
It may be worth while to illustrate this view of classification, by
taking the case of languages. If we possessed a perfect pedigree of
mankind, a genealogical arrangement of the races of man would afford the
best classification of the various languages now spoken throughout the
world; and if all extinct languages, and all intermediate and slowly
changing dialects, had to be included, such an arrangement would, I
think, be the only possible one. Yet it might be that some very ancient
language had altered little, and had given rise to few new languages,
whilst others (owing to the spreading and subsequent isolation and
states of civilisation of the several races, descended from a common
race) had altered much, and had given rise to many new languages and
dialects. The various degrees of difference in the languages from the
same stock, would have to be expressed by groups subordinate to groups;
but the proper or even only possible arrangement would still be
genealogical; and this would be strictly natural, as it would connect
together all languages, extinct and modern, by the closest affinities,
and would give the filiation and origin of each tongue. - The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin
It is important to understand here that we are not discussing the
evolution of the biological capacity to use language, but rather the
evolution of languages themselves. This is an example of non-biological
evolution. We know now that there is no biological component of language,
meaning that Chinese do not have a genetic capacity for Chinese language,
nor do British people have a genetic capacity for English, etc. Humans have
a biological capacity for language in general, though this may not be a
capacity specifically for "language", but rather a more general capacity for
pattern recognition and abstract thinking, which humans have used to create
language, among other things.
Both Darwinian and non-Darwinian (directed and undirected) evolutionary models can be used to understand the development and spread of
languages themselves however, which takes place through the medium of the
human mind and writing.
Languages, like organisms, demonstrate common descent, "mutation", and
selection. Also like organisms, both "natural selection" and
"artificial selection" have taken place on languages, and the equivalent of
"genetic drift" takes place with language as well. A major component of how
a language evolves and survives, of course, has to do less with the language
itself, and more to do with the underlying humans who use and spread the
language. For example, is English becoming the dominant language in the
world today because of the characteristics of the language itself, or
because of the economic dominance of English speaking peoples, who carry
that language with them? In this way a language is like a virus. A
virus evolves itself, but the spread of a virus also depends on the spread
of its host.
The chart below traces the evolution of the word "snow" among several
different Indo-European languages.
The evolution of language is in some ways more complex than biological
evolution because it is a "second tier" of evolution taking place on top of
the biological tier of evolution.
Below is a language phylogeny that uses the underlying biological tier of
human migration to aid in the reconstruction of a language phylogeny.
Moral codes, culture, and religion are all aspects of human society, and
perhaps the societies of other organisms, that are now explained via memetic
evolution. Memes can basically be considered "ideas". The term meme was
coined by Richard Dawkins to explain ideas that replicate. Since that time
memes have gained acceptance as a way to model many aspects of societies via
evolutionary means.
Even prior to the use of the term "meme", however, there was considerable
discussion of the development of moral codes and religions according to
Darwinian principles. Joseph McCabe, a prominent materialist and
evolutionary philosopher, discussed the evidence for the Darwinistic
evolution of morals themselves.
"Unquestionably there was in the mind of practically all men an
imperious sense of moral law. Men might defy it, but they did not deny
it. And it did not come from revelation, since it was just as strong
amongst civilized peoples beyond the range of Christianity, or before
the Christian Era. It was a great reality, and it had to be explained.
But until the idea of evolution arose again, there was no possibility
of explaining it, at least fully. Some of the Greeks and the Deists
could see how closely this law was related to the social interests of
man. Justice, truthfulness, and self-control are obviously desirable
social qualities. But there were parts of the law, like sexual purity,
that seemed to have no social significance; and it was not at all clear
how even the law of justice, however useful it was, came into existence.
So the law was taken as a great fact, existing in the scheme of things
apart from man, and "intued" by him through a special faculty which he
called his "conscience."
The entire situation was changed when the truth of evolution was
proved.
…
Evolution has made all this mysticism superfluous; and it is the only
explanation of moral law in which you can put any confidence, because it
is the only theory which takes into account all the facts of the moral
life.
…
The philosophers do not even explain, or candidly confront, all the
facts of the moral life of civilized people. One of the most striking
features of normal moral ideas is that the approval or censure of an act
is overwhelmingly proportionate to the social value or social injury of
the act. Wherever religion or superstition has perverted the conscience,
you get very extraordinary notions of sin: amongst the different castes
of Hindus, for instance, and amongst savages. You get mortally serious
rules about washing, sneezing, coughing, excreting, wearing hats, and so
on. But in proportion as men rise toward a rational order -- an order
prescribed by rational consideration only, not by blind subservience to
tradition -- the ideas of the moral and immoral come to coincide more
and more with human and social interests.
Why is justice the fundamental and essential moral law? It is a vital
regulation of social life. Why is murder the greatest crime? It is the
gravest social delinquency. And so on. It would be a remarkable
coincidence if this mystic law of the philosophers and the theologians,
existing before man existed, and surviving when he disappears, just
happened to agree so well with the social interests of the observers of
the law themselves!
…
But all this will become clearer. For the moment I am only pressing
the social nature of moral law because it is essential to the
evolutionary theory of it.
…
But the man who studies morality in the light of evolution is not
troubled by these verbal contradictions. They are just what he expects
to find. Ask three travelers to a certain region whether the natives
have government, shops, churches, or art. One will say "no," one "yes,"
and the third "a sort of government," etc. We more advanced peoples
attach meanings to our words which do not apply to the corresponding
culture of the natives. It is entirely in harmony with evolution. In
Australia the highest authorities on the natives have assured me that
they have "no religion and no morals"; and they have then assured me
that the natives have an elaborate belief in spirits, especially the
spirits of certain remote and very powerful ancestors, and a relatively
high code of character.
It is religion and morals in the making. It is from first to last, a
massive testimony to evolution. Everything in the world testifies to it.
Everything in the world is illumined by it.
Hence we cannot expect to put our finger on a point in the history of
the race and say: Here religion begins, there morality begins. They rise
gradually, with a long dawn.
…
Let us take the Golden Rule in its proper and more or less practical
form: Act toward others as you would have them act toward you. It is a
most admirable principle. It puts the Utilitarian theory of morality in
a nutshell. It is so obvious a rule of social life that one is not
surprised that few ever said it. It is not profound. It is common sense.
If you do not want lies told you, don't tell them. If you want just,
honorable, kindly, brotherly treatment from Cyrus P. Shorthouse or James
F. Longshanks, try to get it by reciprocity.
Rather a good word, is it not, reciprocity? Well the famous and
Agnostic Chinese moralist Confucius gave that as the Golden Rule six
hundred years before Christ was born, and nearly two hundred years
before the Old Testament, as we have it, was written!
…
Moral-law is social law. We have the whole story of its evolution
before us. We have studied tribes without moral ideas, tribes with a
dull glimmer of moral sentiment, and tribes with a moral code in every
stage of development. We have put these tribes in the strict order of
their degree of culture -- as is, unfortunately, very rarely done -- and
this corresponds to the various chronological stages in the evolution of
humanity." - The Human Origin of Morals, Joseph
McCabe, 1926
Morals certainly are ideas that provide, ostensibly, some social value.
Any society in which a moral against murder of the members of that society did
not exist would of course be less likely to survive and be successful than a
society with such a moral. Any
society that has a moral against theft would have had a selective advantage
over societies in which there is no moral against theft.
Using memes to understand morals provides a fuller model for the
development of the moral ideas that we observe in the world today, and can
help to explain why there are so many seemingly nonsensical and repressive
morals as well.
Memes can be viewed as ideas, and taken to the fullest extent, memes can
be seen "genes" that code for the actual proteins in the brain that store ideas.
Means of communication are how memes propagate. Means of communication
can include spoken language, writing, art, music, simple observation, etc.
Memes present another layer of evolution on top of biological evolution.
Memes arise from material conditions, either from other memes or from the
brain's observation of the environment, which can give rise to new memes.
Memes develop through a process of either directed or undirected mutation and are selected for
by "natural selection".
The mind is seen as the vector for memes. Memes that convey some
beneficial quality to the vectors that they occupy have an increased
likelihood of survival and propagation. Therefore, memes, in the form of
morals, which convey ideas that are socially beneficial, such as opposition
to murder and theft, are more likely to be retained in a society and to
spread. Societies without these memes would have less selective advantage,
and thus they would be more likely to die out, and their memes along with
them.
If memes can be seen as similar to genes, however, then one meme would
simply be one gene, while an entire conceptual framework, such as a religion
(a meme complex or memeplex), would be seen as similar to an entire piece of
DNA.
Just as is the case with the biological evolution of organisms, where
genetic drift can play a major role in the propagation of genes, "memetic
drift" can play a major role in the propagation of memes that are a part of
meme complexes as well.
In other words, many deleterious memes or memes that have no effect, can
become bundled into meme complexes that contain a few primary memes which
are advantageous, and thereby "piggyback" on the propagation of the meme
complex.
This is commonly observed with religion. Religions are typically
extensive meme complexes that incorporate a wide body of memes. While some
of the memes that make up the religion may produce beneficial traits for a
society in which the memes reside, many other memes may have either no
impact or they may have a detrimental impact, but the negative effects of
the memes in the meme complex may be outweighed by the beneficial effects of
the other "positive" memes.
Furthermore, some of the memes that have a detrimental impact on the
society may serve to reinforce the retention and spread of the beneficial
memes.
Creationism can be seen as a detrimental meme that persists because it
supports the morality memes of the Christian religion.
It should not be assumed, though, that memes have to be beneficial to the
individual vector in order for the memes to spread, not at all, but memes
that provide beneficial traits have one type of selective advantage because
a meme that benefits the individual increases its chance of survival.
Comparisons between social humans and social insects offers more insight
into how memes can affect behavior. Social insects are very different from
humans because all insects in a hive or colony are produced by a single
queen, and thus they all share the same genetic code. An important aspect of
social insect behavior is self-sacrifice - fighting and dying for the
colony. Self-sacrifice of worker insects has been selected for through
evolution because the workers are really genetic extensions of the queen.
They themselves cannot replicate, but they can increase the likelihood of
spreading their own genes by sacrifice, because their genes don't replicate
through them, they replicate through the queen.
A similar phenomenon exists among humans, but instead of actual genes
influencing sacrificial behavior, memes do. Sacrificial behavior among
humans actually has both genetic and memetic components, and it is likely
that memes take advantage of the genetic tendencies for sacrificial
behavior. Humans have genetic coding that promotes sacrificial behavior in
order to protect family members, especially offspring, because protecting
family members through sacrifice can still increase the likelihood of the
propagation of the individual's genes that are shared by other family
members, who have many of the same genes.
Why, however, would people sacrifice themselves for causes, beliefs,
nations, or other groups? Much of this has to do with memes. Just as
sacrificial behavior has been genetically selected for among social insects
because the actual genes are not propagated by the worker insects, but
rather by the queen, humans engage in sacrificial behavior that has zero
genetic benefit because they are being driven to sacrifice by memes, not
genes. Humans sacrifice their genes to defend or propagate ideas (memes),
showing that in many respects memes are more powerful than genes in
controlling human behavior.
Answering the question, however, of why it is that most religions or
codes of conduct have a fundamental core of beliefs that they all seem to
share is quite the same as answering the question of why there are
fundamental genes that all organisms share, such as the genes that code for
transcription factor, which is needed to transcribe RNA to make proteins.
These genes are highly conserved and shared by all life because they are
highly useful to all life. The same is the case with memes. Memes that are
highly conserved, such as memes for morals against murder, are common among
many different meme complexes because they are highly conserved because they
are useful across populations.
We observe the same characteristics in meme complexes that we observe in
organisms as well, and meme complexes follow that same general rules of
Darwinian evolution: Descent with modification, competition, and "natural
selection". This is also why societies, i.e. the collections of vectors that
express the traits of memes, act very similar to organismic life itself.
Just as life is a highly competitive struggle for survival, in which we
see many examples of aggression and conquest, so too do memes
propagate the traits of aggression and conquest. Memes that induce their
vectors (humans) to be aggressive, militant, and evangelical will naturally
out-compete other memes that induce their vectors to be peaceful and
forgiving. When looking at the history of religion, what we see is that the
religions that are the most successful today are religions, i.e. meme
complexes, that have historically exhibited aggression, militancy, strong
devotion, engendered a willingness to fight and die on to spread the
beliefs, and been highly evangelical.
The process of natural selection dictates that aggressive memes will
naturally out compete passive memes, but memes can be aggressive without
inducing physically aggressive behavior. Aggressive just means memes that
compel their own replication, by whatever means.
Laissez-faire capitalism is an economic model that follows the Darwinian
model of "descent with modification", competition, and "natural selection"
in an "undirected" environment. Although Adam Smith was not a "capitalist",
and the term "capitalism" did not exist during Adam Smith's life, elements
of Smith's market concepts clearly foreshadowed Darwinian ideas. In
addition, Charles Darwin himself was highly influenced by the 19th century
economist Thomas Malthus. Indeed parallels between the study of human
economy and the "economy of nature" have long been observed and studied.
Economics actually deals with many of the same fundamental concepts as
biology and ecology.
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of
the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the
formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by
which to work". - Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1876
Like Darwin, Smith was a materialist thinker, who developed a materialist
economic model based on ideas of competition, self-interest, and natural
selection, arguing that an "undirected" economy could perform fine because
of the principles of natural selection and self-interest, however Smith
argued that self-interest was only viable as long as it served the greater
social good.
Smith's ideas on economics were further extended by others during the
19th and 20th century to develop an even more Darwinian economic model -
laissez- faire capitalism, in which the concept of "social good" was
abandoned. What is important to note here is that Darwin's evolutionary
model was intended to explain the facts of nature, and Darwin was not fond
of many of the qualities that he found in nature. Darwin was not an advocate
of using his evolutionary models as value systems.
The economic model of laissez-faire capitalism is that of an undirected
economy, where economic actors compete for resources and compete to develop
the most effective means of gaining a profit. Those actors that are most
successful at gaining a profit survive to pass on their capital and
characteristics. Laissez-faire capitalism essentially proposes that
economies be allowed to evolve through naturalistic processes.
It is important to note, however, that evolutionary models demonstrate
that many "negative" characteristics naturally arise through Darwinian
processes. The Darwinian model of evolution is a model of how the natural
world operates, and it explains why there are so many negative aspects of
the natural world, such as brutality, domination, competition, struggle,
etc. The Darwinian model does not in any way justify these things, or make
comments about them, it only explains why they exist.
Basing social or economic models on Darwinian principles, as laissez-
faire capitalism does, inevitably leads to the expression of the same types
of traits that are the products of Darwinian evolution, which include both
"positive" qualities and "negative" qualities.
Not only have the physical structures of organisms evolved over time, but
the behaviors of organisms are products of evolution as well, and that
includes human behavior. Evolution provides powerful explanations for
various aspects of human behavior and cognition.
Before approaching evolutionary explanations for human behavior, however,
one must first understand the material basis of reality and how the human
brain perceives reality.
We do not directly perceive reality, what we experience is a model of
reality that is constructed in the mind. There is a real material reality
that is external to the mind. Our sensory organs detect various aspects of
the material world and then create signals that are sent to the brain, which
the brain uses to construct a model based on the signals. The model that the
brain constructs is generally in sync with the external reality, so that we
are capable of interacting with the external world through our mental model.
Color, sound, smell, taste, and sensation are not "real". These are not
things that exist in the material world outside of the mind. No object has
color, or smell, or taste, etc. There is no such thing as "sound". "Sound"
does not travel at all, what travels are compression waves in a medium, such
as air or water. The molecules of the medium get compressed and move based
purely on the laws of nature in deterministic ways. The waves do not "have a
sound", our brains create the sound. Different people and different
organisms can, and do, model these waves in completely different ways.
There is significant evidence that dolphins and bats visually model their
sonar, so that they perceive visual images from the reception of their sonar
sound waves.
The same is the case with all of our other senses. Color is a purely
mental construct, it is not objectively real. There are many different
electromagnetic waves traveling throughout the universe and bombarding the
material world. Our eyes are capable of detecting a small rage of these
waves. A certain range of waves, which we call the "visible spectrum",
triggers a response in the cells of human eyes, which then send electronic
signals to the brain, which then uses those signals to create a model. Every
individual organism detects a slightly different range of electromagnetic
waves.
The brain uses "color" to represent different wavelengths, but what
really exists is not color, it is just different frequencies of
electromagnetic waves bouncing off objects. The image below is a picture of
a dog taken using a typical visible light camera. Below that is a picture of
the same dog taken using an infrared camera. The infrared image uses
"visible light colors" to represent infrared wavelengths.
The image below is an image of a man holding a trash bag taken using a
typical visible light camera. Below that is an image of the same man taken
using an infrared camera. Again, visible light colors are used to represent
the infrared wavelengths. Both of these images are equally valid models of
the same reality.
The image below shows the same flowers as seen using visible light and as
seen using ultra violet light. The ultraviolet image, like the infrared
image above, has been transformed into a visible light representation. Most
insects can see ultraviolet wavelengths.
What is important to understand here is that all "color" that we
visualize is just a mental representation of a wavelength. Take the image of
the man's hand in a bag above. In that image a wavelength of 900 nanometers
is converted to about 640 nanometers so that we can see it. In that same
image 825 nanometers is converted to about 700 nanometers. By using a lower
wavelength to represent the infrared wavelengths it allows us to visualize
infrared information.
Does ultraviolet light have a color? No. No light has any color.
If we suddenly became capable of seeing ultraviolet light our brains would
have to invent a new color to represent it if we were to be able to
distinguish it from other wavelengths. Color is not a property of the real
world, it is only a creation of the mind, that our mind uses to create a
model of reality.
"Taste" and "smell" are ways that our brains model chemical properties of
the environment. Taste and smell, like color and sound, are purely
fabricated by the mind. Nothing has an inherent taste or smell. Taste and
smell are not real, they are literally figments of our imagination.
olfactory system
Humans can differentiate about 10,000 different chemicals using smell.
Molecules that are present in the air enter our nose and bind to receptors
in our nasal cavity. If our cells have receptors for these molecules then
signals are transmitted to the brain indicating which receptors have been
triggered. The brain then creates a sensation to register the signal.
How we perceive smells is somewhat instinctive and somewhat learned. In
other words, how we perceive chemicals can change in relation to our
experiences.
The important thing to understand is that nothing has an inherent smell.
The world is composed of chemicals and our olfactory system is a system that
informs us about chemicals that it comes into contact with. Different people
can perceive completely different smells in response to the exact same
chemicals. In most cases, however, there is a high degree of similarity
between how all people perceive to the same chemicals. A high degree of
correlation between how different people perceive a smell is an indication
of a common genetic basis for the perception of that smell.
Taste works in basically the same way that smell does.
taste bud
Our tongues contain five basic types of chemical receptors, which we call
"taste buds". We say that these taste buds can taste "sweet", "sour",
"salt", "bitter", and "umami" (savory). The taste buds are not really detecting these
"flavors", however, what they are detecting is the presence of certain
chemicals, our brain then creates the flavor in our imagination.
The "sour" taste buds, for example, detect the presence of acidity by
detecting free H+ ions. When hydrogen ions come in contact with the sour
taste buds on the tongue those cells send a signal to the brain indicating
that they have been triggered.
Umami, a taste bud classification that is less well known in the West, is
a receptor for amino acids (proteins), and is triggered by meats. In the
West we usually refer to this taste as savory.
Understanding the material basis of perception is critical for
understanding the evolution of thought, behavior, and perception.
By understanding that the qualities that we attribute to our experiences
are not products of the external world, but instead are the products of our
minds, we can then understand why we perceive things the way that we do.
For example, why do certain things stink and other things smell good? You
have to understand that nothing has an inherent smell before you can
understand why something smells good or bad to us. How we perceive smell is
a product of evolution. For example, why does feces, especially human feces,
smell bad to us?
It's not because feces inherently stinks, it's because our brains have
evolved to perceive certain chemicals in feces negatively.
Volatile chemicals emanate from feces and become airborne, where those
chemicals are detected by our nose. Feces,
especially human feces, is a very common carrier of diseases that can affect
humans. Coming into contact with feces dramatically increases an
individual's chance of contracting diseases and therefore dying. A negative
perception of the chemicals commonly found in feces
results in affecting an individual's behavior so that they shun feces. The
process of evolution selects for individuals who have a negative perception
of feces because these individuals have a higher rate of survival as
compared to individuals who do not have a negative perception of feces.
Individuals who either don't smell the chemicals in feces, or who find
those chemicals to be attractive, would be more likely to come in contact
with feces, and thus they would be more likely to contract a disease and
die.
Now, if we compare the human perception of the chemicals in feces to the
perception of these same chemicals by flies, then we can conclude that feces
probably smells good to flies. When a fly detect the chemicals in feces it most likely creates a pleasurable
perception to the fly. This is because feces is a source of food for flies.
Flies, since they are insects, are not generally vulnerable to mammalian
diseases, so mammalian feces poses no health risk to them. Instead, the organic
molecules in feces are a source of nutrition for flies.
Perceptions drive behavior. The ways in which aspects of the material
world are perceived have been produced and selected for through the process
of evolution. Negative perceptions discourage individuals from interacting
with an object or encourage individuals to take action to remove an object
from the vicinity, etc. If something smells bad, tastes bad, sounds bad, or
looks ugly, then an individual will tend to remove him or her self from its
presence, kill the offending animal (in the case of spiders, bugs, etc. for
humans), or spit the object out and not eat it, etc.
If an object looks appealing, tastes good, sounds pleasant, smells good,
etc., then an individual will tend to seek that object out, eat that object,
encourage the growth of the object, live in proximity to that object, etc.
So, our perceptions and our tastes have been shaped through a process of
natural selection. Nothing is objectively ugly, pretty, pleasant, or
unpleasant, etc. There are, however, certain commonalities in how we
perceive things because we have a common evolutionary history and because we
are all generally subjected to the same evolutionary pressures. There is
always variation however, so every individual's tastes are not completely
shaped by natural selection. Our tastes are generally shaped by evolution,
but there is also on-going variation so that some individual's tastes will
have recent "mutations", which have not yet been selected for or against.
Additionally, tastes can also be impacted to some degree be experience.
Cigarettes may initially smell bad to a person for example, but once they
get addicted to them then they will begin perceiving the smell of cigarettes as pleasant.
Aspects of perception that we commonly agree on are typically things that
are either very old in evolutionary history, and/or things that have been
strongly affected by selective pressure.
For example, people, and almost all animals, tend to view symmetry as
aesthetically pleasing and asymmetry as "ugly". This is because
animals are generally symmetrically constructed. Virtually all animals are either radially symmetrical, such as starfish, or bilaterally
symmetrical, such as chordates, arthropods, and other "higher order"
animals. Symmetry not only facilitates utility, but it is genetically
efficient as well, because you don't have to have a gene for the left side
and ride side of your body, you just have one set of genes that gets
duplicated. We don't have genes that code for our left arm and right arm, we
have one set of genes that codes for an arm and that set codes for both
sides.
Due to the symmetry of animals we perceive symmetry as healthy, and we
also recognize symmetry as a pattern of living things. Therefore, when we
detect symmetry in the environment our brain assumes that it represents an
organism and tries to distinguish what it is. In other words, symmetry is an
indication that something is more than just a "random" object like a rock or
other feature of the landscape.
When the brain detects symmetry it is alerted and pays special attention
to the symmetrical pattern. An example of this can be seen in the ink blots
below:
If you cover the image on the right and just look at the image on the
left, it doesn't look like much of anything, it just looks like a blob. Your
brain does not make any assumptions about this image. If you look at the
image on the right, however, it looks like something. Your brain tries to
make sense of it and match it to a known pattern because your brain assumes
that this is some kind of organism (this is a gross generalization).
Symmetry in organisms is a general indicator of health and fitness, which
is why we find symmetry aesthetically pleasing. Because we find symmetry
aesthetically pleasing we are more attracted to symmetrical mates. By being
attracted to symmetrical mates we tend to find healthy mates. Those people
who find symmetry aesthetically pleasing will be more likely to find healthy
mates and therefore more likely to successfully pass on their genes,
therefore attraction to symmetry has been selected for through natural
selection.
individual with Neurofibromatosis
individual with Neurofibromatosis
individual with Proteus Syndrome
John Merrick, the "Elephant Man"
Physical asymmetry in animals is heavily associated with detrimental
genetic conditions and infectious diseases which is why finding physical
asymmetry repulsive has been selected for. Those individuals who are
repulsed by physical asymmetry are more likely to shun asymmetrical
individuals, and are thus less likely to contract diseases or mate with
someone who has a genetic "defect".
What about taste? Why do certain things taste good to us and other things
taste bad to us? Again, like has been said before, the taste of a substance
is in our head, it is not an objective quality of the substance. Our tastes
have been heavily affected by natural selection to guide our behavior in
beneficial ways. It is important to understand, however, that our senses are
really quite limited.
The three main attractive tastes that we have are sweet, salty, and unami
(savory). The two negative tastes that we have are bitter and sour. Sour is
actually a complicated taste because sour is a taste response that results
from the detection of acidity.
There are two basic cases in which we come into contact with acidity,
either in fruits or in spoiled meat. Therefore, the detection of acidity has
to generate two different responses in people depending on the context. When
acidity is detected in the presence of sugars then we have a positive
attraction to sour. When acidity is detected by itself, however, without any
sugar present, then we have a negative reaction to sour.
We react positively to sour when it is accompanied by sweet because this
combination is associated with fruits, but sour (acidity) by itself, without
the presence of sugars, is a common indicator of rotten food.
When fruits rot the sugars are consumed by bacteria leaving only the "sour
taste". When meats rot the acidity also increases. In addition to rotten
foods, sour by itself is also an indicator of unripe fruits as well, because
the sugars in the fruit have not yet developed. Fruits do not become less
acidic as they ripen, they just develop more sugars, which changes the
perception of sour in humans, and other animals.
We react negatively to bitter because the compounds that trigger the
bitter taste buds are commonly found in poisonous plants, thus our ancestors
who had a negative perception of bitter were selected for because they
shunned many poisonous foods.
One of the most influential flavors on our behavior is, of course,
sweetness. Our sweet taste buds detect sugars, and the main sources of
sugars in the natural world are fruits. Sugars are also commonly found in
honey. Sugar is found in both fruit and honey because sugar is an energy
storing compound, similar to fat, so sugars are common in substances that
are used for feeding the offspring of plants and insects.
A fruit is basically a plant placenta. Fruit is the substance that
surrounds the seeds of a plant. Plants produce fruits because they provide
nutrients and energy for the seeds that they contain, basically acting as a
type of fertilizer. The fruit allows the seeds to germinate and grow faster
than a bare seed alone. This gives the seeds of trees that produce fruits a
selective advantage over trees that do not produce fruit. The fast growing
and highly competitive nature of trees in the tropical areas is one of the
reasons why there are so many tropical fruits, because seedlings in the
tropics have to be able to grow very fast if they are to survive.
Bees produce honey for basically the same reason that plants produce
fruits. Honey is an energy and nutrient rich substance that bees feed to
their offspring to promote growth. Bees produce the honey from plant
products, so the sugars and nutrients in the honey originate in the plants.
Fruits and honey don't just contain sugar, they also contain many
different vitamins and minerals. Our taste buds cannot detect the vitamins
and minerals, but in the natural world virtually every sugary substance is
also rich in vitamins and minerals, because every sugary substance in the
wild is produced by an organism to be a food source for its offspring. Sweet
products in nature are basically the plant and insect equivalent of milk.
Fruit is basically the milk of the plant. It's a highly nutritious substance
that is provided to offspring that are not yet capable of collecting their
own nutrients.
Our brains, through millions of years of evolution, have associated
sweetness with nutrition. This is somewhat of an anthropomorphic description
of what has happened, because there is no conscious association
between sweetness and nutrition, but individuals who were able to detect
sugars and were heavily attracted to them tended to seek out and eat fruits
and honey, which gave them more energy and nutrition, which increased their
chances of survival. So, a "sweet tooth" evolved because it encouraged
beneficial behavior in the natural environment in which our ancestors
evolved.
"Sweetness" is only a detection of sugar, but it also indirectly guided
individuals to consume other nutritious substances, such as vitamins and
minerals.
The "sweet tooth" is a very crude mechanism. The "purpose" of the sweet
tooth is to direct the behavior of individuals to eat nutritious foods, but
we are not really capable of actually determining how nutritious a substance
is. The "sweet tooth" mechanism only worked in a beneficial way in the
natural environment because sweet foods in nature are also nutritious foods.
In our modern world, however, sugar is used to make non-nutritious foods
more attractive. Our taste mechanisms are crude, so we can't really tell if
something is actually good for us or not, all we can do is detect sugar. As
far as our brains are concerned, a sweet food is a healthy food. Our
instincts basically work on the premise that the sweeter something is the
better it is for us, but that is not true when people specifically engineer
sweet foods that have no nutritional value.
This gets to the heart of a major issue that has created conflict for
humanity for thousands of years, and that is the issue of desires.
Traditionally, virtually all religions have viewed human desires as
something negative. The Christian religion explains desires as "temptations
by the devil".
Actually, however, our desires have evolved over millions of years, being
shaped by natural selection. Desires affect behavior. Our desires have
evolved to direct an individual's behavior in ways that increases their
chance of survival and procreation, thereby passing on their genes.
The problem with human desires, however, is that they have evolved in a
completely different context than the world that civilized humans have lived
in for the past 10,000 years. Many of our behavioral desires are deeply
ingrained behavioral mechanisms that have been a part of our ancestral
psyche for millions and millions of years, going far back in our
evolutionary history to the time when our ancestors were fish and even
before. Some of our strongest desires, of course, relate to food and sex,
because behaviors related to these things are completely fundamental to
life.
Animals desire to eat because eating sustains the body. Certain things
"taste good" because, through a process of undirected mutation, some of our
ancestors had desires for things that happened to be healthy for them. These
ancestors survived the best, and were thus selected for, passing on their
taste preferences.
Sex is, of course, one of the most essential aspects of life. Without
reproduction the chain of life ends and genes don't get passed on. Those
individuals with strong sex drives engage in more sex, and therefore have
more progeny, passing on their genes.
There are interesting implications to this. Humans historically evolved
in small family groups millions of years ago and remained in these groups
basically until the dawn of civilization. One of the earliest beginnings of
"civilization" was the coming together of larger groups of people, who
spanned more than single family units. When multiple family units
began living in close contact with one another then sex became more
complicated.
When people only lived in small family groups sex drive created very few
conflicts because potential mates were fairly rare and people didn't live in
a state of long term mate "ownership" among other individuals who
had different "ownership". Early human groups were likely similar to lion
prides today, large groups of females with one dominant male. An entire lion
pride is basically one extended family, where everyone is closely related.
When larger groups of people began living together, however, people were
exposed to multiple potential mates on a constant basis, and conflict over
mates increased.
This created the need for regulation of sexual desires in order to
protect the collective interests of the group.
One of the ways that sex was regulated in some cases was that sexual
features were covered up. Some of the primary sexual features of people are
the breasts and hips of women. We distinguish males from females in part by
the recognition of the female breast. When the male brain views female
breasts chemicals are released in the brain and a pleasure sensation actually occurs. The fact that men get pleasure
from viewing the female form causes men to seek out females. This desire
mechanism was
pretty effective when people lived in small groups in the wilderness, but
when people began living in large groups, and were thus surrounded by people
at all times, these desire stimulators became problematic. In some
civilizations, therefore, they covered the breast and other sex organs, which
actually removed the features that triggered the pleasure stimulators in the
male brain, thereby reducing the stimulation of those pleasure centers in
the brain.
This caused another problem, however. The human brain, and other animal's
brains for that matter, works in such a way that when a needed "resource" is
scarce, the desire for that resource increases. The evolutionary advantage
of this is quite easy to see. If a person has a diet that is deficient in
protein, then their desire for protein will increase, causing them to seek
out protein. Likewise, if a male's
"female form" detectors are rarely triggered, then the brain will "assume"
that there is a rarity of females, and thus when the brain does see a female
form the desire to "have that female", i.e. the desire to mate, will be even
stronger.
The result is that by covering the sex organs in some civilizations the
desires for sex actually increased, leading to further social problems and
causing a never ending escalating loop in those societies, who then sought
to cover the female form more, which causes stronger desire buildup, which
creates more need to remove the females from the males, etc., as the sexual
desires just continue to escalate.
What is important to understand is that our desires today are still
largely psychological vestiges from millions or hundreds of thousands of
years ago. As humans we have dramatically changed our environment, so that
our desires no longer correspond, necessarily, to the beneficial behaviors
which they initially evolved to promote. The human desire for sweet food,
for example, was highly beneficial before humans began engineering their own
foods. Now, however, our desires don't serve the purpose of leading us to
healthy food, now we create sweet food simply for the purpose of satisfying our
desires, and the food that we create is not necessarily healthy because it
is cheaper to simply create food that has high quantities of sugar and
nothing else, or to create food with a high volume of fat, etc. By doing so we
satisfy our desires, but we don't serve the purpose of the desires.
Evolutionary theory and research helps us to understand many other
aspects of human behavior as well.
Emotions are the most basic types of behavioral mechanisms. Emotions are
hormone based systems that generally work by creating strong desires, which
indirectly affect behavior. When organisms act on emotions they are not
consciously acting in direct relation to outside circumstances, they are
acting in relation to internal hormones, which have been triggered via
relatively crude mechanisms in response to some stimulus.
Take the emotion of fear for example. Fear is a very basic emotion. When
an organism, such as a mouse, goes out into an open space in the daylight,
their brain detects the surrounding conditions, and a certain hormone is
automatically produced that causes the animal to have an unpleasant feeling.
In reaction to the unpleasant feeling the animal moves to a location
where they no longer have the unpleasant feeling.
Mice have now been genetically engineered to be fearless. The genes that
produce the essential hormone for the fear reaction were disrupted and the
mice no longer have any fear. Instead of avoiding open spaces
they will happily go into open spaces and feed or sleep there, with none of
the normal fear. Of course, in the wild such mice would quickly be eaten,
i.e. naturally selected against.
Love is another emotion that has recently been studied, both in animals
an people. Studies of the hormone oxytocin show that oxytocin is
instrumental in love and trust emotions. How strongly people feel love is
based on how much oxytocin they produce, and likewise, how much they trust
someone is based on how much oxytocin their body produces. Experiments show
that the administration of oxytocin via nasal spray significantly increases
how much individuals trust what they are told and put confidence in others.
Oxytocin is also released to the brain after having sex and after giving
birth. It is an important hormone for emotional bonding.
Hormones that induce individuals to find pleasure in the company of
others, i.e. love, have been selected for because they increase the chance
of sexual intercourse and further increase the chance that sexual partners
will work together to successfully raise their progeny. Likewise, love for
progeny increases the chance that the parent will protect and care for the
progeny, leading to the successful propagation of their genes. Love for other
members of your "group" evolved when our ancestors lived in family units so
that forming love bonds to others in the group increased the likelihood
of spreading your genes by helping others who shared the same genes. Now,
however, we are able to induce that same love response for non-family
members, typically through a number of social "tricks".
In the past individuals identified "members of their genetic group"
subconsciously by their appearance, sound, and behavior. People recognized
their family members as the people who looked the most like themselves,
sounded the most like themselves, and acted the most like themselves.
Today, people still tend to naturally trust those people who look, sound,
and act like themselves, a product of our ancient evolution. Some techniques that can stimulate trust and harmony are to use uniforms so that everyone
looks similar, to speak with a similar accent, and to share common
activities.
These things trigger the evolved mechanisms that identify people
genetically close to ourselves, whom we then naturally trust and love. This
is one reason why uniforms are so effective in developing highly cooperative
units, because the uniforms create a natural sense of "family" since
everyone looks similar.
Trust can be beneficial because there can be advantages from cooperation,
but cooperation requires trust so that one is not taken advantage of. The
brain subconsciously detects various behaviors of others and releases
oxytocin based on certain evolved criteria and patterns, such as eye
movements, perspiration, pulse rate, body language, etc. People also
naturally trust individuals who are more similar to themselves than individuals who
are less similar, again because historically individuals who were more
similar were more closely related genetically.
Various superstitions and religions are not products of biological
evolution, but the capacity for or tendency towards superstitions and
religious beliefs are products of biological evolution, similar to the way
that languages are not biologically evolved, but the capacity for language
is.
A recent study compared how both humans and chimpanzees learn. The
study found that humans learn by imitation, while chimps learn more by
understanding motivations. The study showed that humans imitate behaviors to
achieve a result even when those behaviors are unnecessary, while chimps do
not imitate such behaviors. Chimpanzees will understand which behaviors are
necessary and only imitate behaviors that are necessary. If they can determine
that the behaviors are not necessary then they will not copy them.
These results contradicted the expectations of the researches, who
believed that humans would be more capable of determining how to perform
actions, but not only does evolutionary theory provide an explanation for
this behavior, the evolution of this behavior may explain many aspects of
human social behavior.
As humans began engaging in increasingly complex behaviors, such as tool
making, the benefit of strict imitation increased. With complex behaviors it
became increasingly difficult to determine the intent of behaviors and
difficult determine which behavior were necessary and which ones weren't.
As a result, those individuals who imitated others were able to learn more
new techniques and be more successful.
This learning mechanism created a problem though, because humans began
simply associating actions with outcomes instead of understanding cause and
effect relationships. This mechanism is likely to be largely responsible for
the development of superstition in humans beings.
Superstition is defined as follows:
su·per·sti·tion n.
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not
logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of
the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
This exactly describes the behavior exhibited in the learning study. The
chimpanzees did not display superstitious behavior, while the human children
did. The human children continued to follow practices that had no impact on
the outcome of events just because they saw others perform those actions.
This can be seen as the origin of ritual and superstition.
It is easy to see how the association of sequences of events to outcomes
results in ritual and superstition. If, for example, one early human watched
another human making a tool, and during the process of making the tool the
other person stood up and turned around in a circle then sat back down and
continued, then the watcher would likely integrate that behavior into his
tool making process.
Of course turning around in a circle has no impact on the outcome of
making a tool, but because humans learn by imitation this type of practice
would become integrated into the tool making process and believed to be
critically important. As counter intuitive as it seems, humans may actually
be more irrational than other animals. Humans certainly have greater problem
solving abilities that other animals, but humans also show a greater
propensity for misdirected behavior as well. The propensity of humans to
find patterns and learn behaviors expresses itself in many different ways,
not all of which are advantageous or logically correct.
Humans are much more likely to make associations between events than
other animals are, but the associations that humans make are both correct
and incorrect. In other words, humans are also more likely to make incorrect
associations between events than other animals are. While an animal may not
make any association between two events at all, a human is more likely to
make an association, but the association made by the human will not
necessarily be correct.
The human mind searches out for all kinds of patterns, correlations, and
associations, sometimes drawing correct conclusions, and sometimes drawing
incorrect conclusions.
The evolution of human intelligence is also very much a subject of study.
A commonly asked evolutionary question is: "How has human intelligence
developed beyond what is needed to out-compete other animals?"
There is a very strong correlation between social animals and
intelligence. This is because the basic role of intelligence is predicting
future events, and predicting future events in a social setting requires
understanding the behavior of the other individuals in your social group as
well as predicting group behavior as a whole.
Furthermore, one of the main points that Darwin made was that individuals
are not only in competition with "other species", but they also compete with
members of their "own species". The biggest competition for humans are other
humans, and therefore there is very strong selective pressure on human
intelligence to select for increasingly intelligent individuals.
In fact it could be said that humans compete against members of their own
species more than any other species does. Humans literally prey upon one
another, and the most significant determinant in the predator prey
relationship among humans is intelligence. One of the most intellectually
challenging cognitive processes is deception, because deception requires
making significant determinations about the intentions, understanding, and
behavior of the one that your are deceiving.
Deception is so challenging because it requires putting one's self in
another individual's position, and then predicting how they will predict
your behavior. One has to predict someone's perceptions and then predict
their predictions in order to engage in behavior that will cause the other
individual to perceive the things that you want them to perceive.
Cooperation is also intellectually challenging for similar reasons.
Cooperation requires taking more factors into consideration than simply your
own persona factors. This is why there is a very strong correlation between
intelligence and social animals. All of the most intelligent animals are
social animals.
What is important to understand is that much of human
intelligence and behavior has evolved in the social context.
Many aspects of human behavior evolved while our ancestors lived in
smaller family based groups that were in intense competition with each
other. In this context we can understand why people today still retain so many
conflict based behaviors.
In the debates over evolution the roles of science and religion are often
discussed. It is commonly claimed by many, mostly by those supporting
religion, that science and religion play two completely different roles and
answer questions in two different domains. Proponents of this line of
thinking state that there are certain questions that "science can't answer",
and they state that these are the questions that fall under the domain of
religion.
This line of reasoning is factually incorrect. First of all, most
religions have historically promoted themselves as complete worldview
systems, that answer all questions. The Abrahamic religions of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam have certainly positioned themselves historically as
religions that answer all questions, including questions about history, the
nature of existence, life, morality, the future, and "life after
death".
It has only been within the past 200 years or so that Christians have
begun stating that there is a separate role for religion and empirical
observation. The challenge to the role of religion, in Western Civilization,
as an institution that could correctly answer questions about reality began,
of course, with Galileo during the Renaissance when he advocated the
teaching that the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the Christian
teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Over the years thousands of people were imprisoned, tortured, and/or
killed for upholding or promoting empirical observations that contradicted Christian
scripture.
As scientific observations have continued to demonstrate beyond any doubt
that many religious claims are false, some advocates of religion have
reformed the claims of religion and attempted to separate religion from
claims that have the potential of being proven false by science.
As humans we try, by various means, to understand the world around us and
answer questions that we have about it.
Religion, philosophy, and science all purport to be means by which people
can answer questions about life and understand the world.
What exactly are the means by which these different institutions answer
questions and inform us about life?
Religion:
Divine revelation
The study of information that was divinely revealed to someone else
Philosophy:
Through logic and argumentation
Science:
Empirical observation
The testing of hypotheses
Peer review of methods, data, and conclusions
The basis of religion is divine revelation. Arguably not all religions
rely on divine revelation, but most traditional religions do claim that
divine revelation is the basis for their knowledge.
This presents several problems. First of all, no one has ever shown that
there is such a thing as divine revelation. There is not any religion whose
claims of divine revelation present information that could not have been
known by other completely natural means. In addition to that, many
statements that are claimed to be knowledge from divine revelation have
been proven dramatically false.
One of the primary "proofs" of divine revelation that has been embraced
by many different religions is "the fulfillment of prophecies".
The problem with using so-called "prophecies" to prove that "a religion
is true", is that: #1 people can make correct predictions by purely natural
means, #2 people can make predictions that later come true purely by chance,
#3 many prophecies are vague and can be interpreted in many different ways,
#4 many prophecies that are claimed to have come true are in fact fake and
were either written after the fact, or the supposed predicted event never
really happened.
In addition to all of these things, a prophecy can never prove an
unrelated statement correct. Many religionists, for example, state that
because prophecy A came true, now they believe in all of the other claims
made by the religion or "prophet", even though those statements have no
relationship to prophecy A. In this case, people simply believe that some
person or religion "has the power of divine knowledge", and thus believe
everything that that person or religion says.
Beyond the issue of whether or not so-called "divine revelation" is even
valid, the next problem for religion comes from the fact that it relies
purely on an external input for information, which is beyond the control of
those asking the questions.
How does religion answer new questions? Theologians can study ancient
texts and look for clues, or they can pray for more "divine revelation", but
there isn't anything they can actively do to find an answer themselves,
without deferring to philosophy or science. Either "God tells you the
answer", or else you are just exercising human reasoning to answer the
question. You might do this within a framework that is defined by the
religion, but the conclusions are still completely human drawn conclusions
that have no merit beyond other conclusions made by other people. In fact,
religious frameworks have historically been shown to limit people's thoughts
and prevent them from correctly answering questions.
Philosophy and science, on the other hand, are acknowledged as purely
human endeavors. We view philosophy today somewhat differently than the
ancient Greeks and Romans did. The ancient Greeks did not have the word
science. For them "philosophy" included the concepts that we label as
science today. For the ancient Greeks philosophers were both abstract
thinkers as well as people who made empirical observations and performed
tests.
Today, however, we relegate philosophy purely to the realm of logic,
argumentation, and abstract thinking. Philosophy is used to answer questions
by thinking about them logically and discussing the conclusions with others
to see if they agree.
Science is a methodology that is used by people in an attempt to answer
questions through empirical observation and naturalistic reasoning. The
scientific method has been developed based on a few major premises:
We can only know what we can observe
People's powers of observation are imperfect
There are laws of nature that are consistent throughout space and
time, and thus conclusions drawn from experiments or observations in the
present can be used to develop explanations for things that occurred in
the past and can be used to make predictions about the future
These premises are significant. Science acknowledges that we can only
know what we can observe, but by the same token we can never fully trust our
observations. This makes science a necessarily social endeavor. Science
requires the verification of one person's observations by other people. If
multiple people can agree that they observe the same thing, then we agree that the observation
may be classified as "objectively real". Science
acknowledges that people are flawed and seeks to work around this problem by
requiring that observations and conclusions be agreed upon by more than one
person.
Religion, on the other hand, often places extreme importance on claims
made by individuals that are incapable of being verified by anyone else.
Religionists often see the fact that other people are not capable of
verifying a claim as proof that the claim is "divine" or "supernatural".
The question now becomes, do science and religion play two different
roles and answer two different types of questions?
Actually no, this is not the case. Religions have traditionally claimed
that they are holistic systems that answer all of the types of questions
that humans can ask. Furthermore, in order for a religion to answer any
questions it has to demonstrate an ability to answer some questions.
The common claim now is that "there are some questions that are too big
for science", or that "there are some questions that science will never be
able to answer", and that these question are the questions that "only religion
can answer".
This is quite significant because people who hold this view are basically
admitting that religion can never compete with science as an authority in
answering questions. By stating that religion can answer questions that
science is not capable of answering, what is being said is that religion can
make claims as long as we don't think those claims will ever be capable of
being proven false by science.
The reality of this claim is even more dubious though. How can an
institution answer "the big questions" when it has not even proven that it
can answer small questions?
Exactly what questions has any religion provided definitive answers for?
People have been fighting over the meanings of religions for thousands of
years, there is still no agreement even among religious people of the same
religion, and many religious claims have been proven definitively false.
Scientific claims, on the other hand, reach increasable levels of agreement,
are consistent across cultures and nationalities, and people do not fight
over them.
As has been said, the basis of religion is divine revelation. The
supposed key revelations of most traditional religions have occurred
hundreds or thousand of years ago. If the truth was correctly revealed
thousands of years ago, then why do these questions still persist, and in
what way can people today come to a better understanding of a truth that was
revealed thousands of years in the past, of which we have only indirect
knowledge today and are unable to verify by any means?
Quite simply, answers are not going to be provided in such a way.
Furthermore, the idea that "some questions cannot be answered by science"
is also dubious. What are we really talking about here? "Science" is just a
process that is used by people. The real way to state this proposition is
that "there are some questions that cannot be answered by people."
This may indeed be true, but we will never know what types of questions
we can't answer until we try to answer them, and even then there is always
the prospect that we will be able to find answers in the future.
Many people try to define a boundary between "science" and "religion".
People commonly state that religion deals with questions of morality and
meaning, whereas "science" can only answer questions about structures and
materials. This view presupposes that morality and meaning are not
structures and materials. The reality, however, as we are discovering with
science, is that things like morality and meaning and values can be greatly
elucidated with science. From a material basis we are learning about how the
mind works, how people perceive and assign value, and how morals evolve, and
facts about these things are being established in the same way that we
establish facts about planetary orbits and chemical reactions.
People are organic material beings, and as such we can be studied on an
organic material basis. There are no questions that are "beyond science"
that are not also beyond every other means of inquiry. If a question cannot
be answered by science then it simply cannot be answered in any objective
way, and indeed there are such questions, but these questions are no more
capable of being "answered" by religion.
The idea that there is some boundary between "science" and "religion" is
a false claim that is perpetrated either by scientists who wish to avoid
controversy by appeasing religionists or by religionists who wish to try and
define some region into which they can hide from the illumination of
scientific inquiry.
The power of religion comes from the unknown. As long as there is an
unknown then there will be some source of power that religions can exploit
to claim superiority of knowledge over others. If no one understands
something then you are free to claim that you do understand it, and if your
understanding comes "from God" then you can't explain it, you can only hold
it as a source of authority that remains out of reach to the "common
people".
The power of science, however, comes from its openness, and its ability
to transform public understanding, and to help illuminate the world for
everyone. Likewise, science presents the possibility that any person can
participate in finding answers to questions.
Today, because of science, we have answers to questions that people were
not even able to ask 200 years ago, much less 2,000 years ago or more.
We
will continue to find more answers and continue to ask more questions, and
that process will go on at least as long as people exist.
Today the actual worldview of Christianity has been greatly distorted
because of the fact that so much of the fundamental Christian worldview is
in direct conflict with what are now scientifically established facts.
A fundamental claim by people of faith, however, remains that the
Christian religion is a source of "divine knowledge", which is beyond mortal
challenge because this knowledge has come directly to humanity from God
himself. Today most Christians restrict these claims of divine knowledge to
issues of morality and values, but there are still a significant number of
people who believe that elements of Christian mythology, such as the story
of creation and the "Great Flood", contain factual truths that have been
passed on to people by God. Many people either take these stories literally
or see them at least as a framework for factual events.
Perhaps, some people believe, the world was not created exactly like the
account in Genesis, but the world and life was still created by God in a way
that reflects the theme of the creation story in Genesis.
Let us compare the actual views of Christianity about the
world to naturalistic views of the world.
Claims about truth and the world that are fundamental to Christianity are
listed below with a few examples. In all cases the examples listed as just a
small sample from Christian literature:
The greatest and most reliable source of knowledge is divine
revelation. A source of divine revelation is proven to be accurate by virtue
of prophecies.
Numbers 12:
5 Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance
to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped
forward, 6 he said, "Listen to my words:
"When a prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal myself
to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams."
Note: Compare this to the views of Epicurus:
"Dreams have no divine character nor any prophetic power, but they
originate from the inflow of sensory images." - Epicurus of Samos, 342-270 BCE
James 3:
13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good
life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if
you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast
about it or deny the truth. 15 Such "wisdom" does not come down from
heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. 16 For where you have
envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil
practice.
17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then
peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,
impartial and sincere.
"Where, then, is wisdom? It consists in thinking neither that you
know all things, which is the property of God; nor that you are ignorant
of all things, which is the part of a beast. For it is something of a
middle character which belongs to man, that is, knowledge united and
combined with ignorance. Knowledge in us is from the soul, which has its
origin from heaven; ignorance from the body, which is from the earth:" - Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE) (Early Christian founder)
"I will therefore set forth the system of the world, that it may
easily be understood both when and how it was made by God; which Plato,
who discoursed about the making of the world, could neither know nor
explain, inasmuch as he was ignorant of the heavenly mystery, which is
not learned except by the teaching of prophets and God;... But since God
has revealed this to us, and we do not arrive at it by conjectures, but
by instruction from heaven, we will carefully teach it, that it may at
length be evident to those who are desirous of the truth, that the
philosophers did not see nor comprehend the truth; but that they had so
slight a knowledge of it, that they by no means perceived from what
source that fragrance of wisdom, which was so pleasant and agreeable,
breathed upon them." - Divine Institutes, Book VII; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE) (Early Christian founder)
"For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements
by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood;" - The City of God; Saint Augustine of Hippo
(354-430 CE) (Early Christian founder)
"Nor, however, are we so arrogant as to boast that the truth is
comprehended by our intellect; but we follow the teaching of God, who
alone is able to know and to reveal secret things. But the philosophers,
being destitute of this teaching, have imagined that the nature of
things can be ascertained by conjecture. But this is impossible; because
the mind of man, enclosed in the dark abode of the body, is far removed
from the perception of truth: and in this the divine nature differs from
the human, that ignorance is the property of the human, knowledge of the
divine nature." - On the Anger of God; Lactantius (3rd century
EC) (Early Christian founder)
The earth is stationary and does not move around the sun.
Psalms 93:
1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.
Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
...
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
...
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.
"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of
astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun
to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism,
in opposition to the teaching that the earth moves around the sun
"[Galileo Galilei is commanded] in the name of His Holiness the Pope
and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether
the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and
that the earth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any
way whatsoever, verbally or in writing." - Cardinal Bellarmin; Inquisitional decree to
Galileo Galilei, 1616
"Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the
trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself
according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of
having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the
divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the centre of the world
and does not move from east to west,..." - Papal Condemnation of Galileo Galilei, 1632
Things were created by God for the benefit of man.
Genesis 1:
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and
the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the
ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of
the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will
be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the
birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the
ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green
plant for food." And it was so.
All life on earth is the product of distinct acts of
creation.
See Genesis 1 and 2, as well as many other Christian writings.
God has directed the life and history of mankind.
Acts 17: 24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord
of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And
he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he
himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From
one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole
earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places
where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek
him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far
from each one of us.
God's creation is perfect and well-ordered.
James 1:
16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17 Every good and perfect gift
is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who
does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth
through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all
he created.
2 Samuel 22:
31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He
is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
Deuteronomy 32:
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A
faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
"And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of
the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and
by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered
creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial
discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the
venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge
you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the
rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the
irradiating voice of the Word!" - Refutation of All Heresies; Hippolytus (~230
CE) (Early Christian founder)
See also: The book of Genesis and other Christian
writings
God's creation was perfect, but has since been in decay
(often attributed to the corruption of sin).
Romans 8:
20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice,
but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the
creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought
into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains
of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we
ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we
wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Things can only exist on the top side of the earth because
things would fall off the bottom side. There could not be people on the
other side of the earth.
"CHAPTER 24 -- OF THE ANTIPODES, THE HEAVEN, AND THE STARS.
How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to
our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one
so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher
than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent
position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and
trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to
the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned
among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging
fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error
must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same
manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of
their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they
necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they
fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in
agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they
placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of
those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they
ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or
false.
What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the
antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the
west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same
quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what
contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west
to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in
every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its
immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore,
from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the
midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself
must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round,
which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also
were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same
appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise
aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were
so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of
the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity
of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended
antipodes.
But if you inquire from those who defend these marvelous fictions,
why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they
reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to
the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as
we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist,
smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the
heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it
is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not
that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain,
which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the
work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let
it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the
others may be understood." - Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius
(~250-325 CE)
"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the
opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men
who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing
it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information;
they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the
concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of
it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void
of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be
believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form,
it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not
completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there
should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of
its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies,
teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might
have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of
ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that
one first man." - The City of God; Saint Augustine of Hippo
(354-430 CE)
All of civilized humanity was united at one time, until "God
confounded their tongue" and scattered them across the lands in order to
prevent them from building a tower that could reach into heaven. (Languages
are separately created, they did not evolve)
Genesis 11:
1 Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words. 2 And it
came to pass when they traveled from the east, that they found a valley
in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another,
"Come, let us make bricks and fire them thoroughly"; so the bricks were
to them for stones, and the clay was to them for mortar. 4 And they
said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in
the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered upon
the face of the entire earth". 5 And the Lord descended to see the city
and the tower that the sons of man had built. 6 And The LORD said, "Lo!
[they are] one people, and they all have one language, and this is what
they have commenced to do. Now, will it not be withheld from them, all
that they have planned to do? 7 Come, let us descend and confuse their
language, so that one will not understand the language of his
companion". 8 And the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of
the entire earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore, He
named it Babel, for there the Lord confused the language of the entire
earth, and from there the Lord scattered them upon the face of the
entire earth.
There is no such thing as atoms. Claiming that the universe
is made up of atoms is heresy against God.
"For even granting that there are atoms, and that these strike and
shake each other by clashing together as chance may guide them, is it
lawful for us to grant also that atoms thus meeting in fortuitous
concourse can so make anything as to fashion its distinctive forms,
determine its figure, polish its surface, enliven it with color, or
quicken it by imparting to it a spirit? -- all which things every one
sees to be accomplished in no other way than by the providence of God,
if only he loves to see with the mind rather than with the eye alone,
and asks this faculty of intelligent perception from the Author of his
being. Nay, more; we are not at liberty even to grant the existence of
atoms themselves, for, without discussing the subtle theories of the
learned as to the divisibility of matter, observe how easily the
absurdity of atoms may be proved from their own opinions. For they, as
is well known, affirm that there is nothing else in nature but bodies
and empty space, and the accidents of these, by which I believe that
they mean motion and striking, and the forms which result from these.
Let them tell us, then, under which category they reckon the images
which they suppose to flow from the more solid bodies, but which, if
indeed they are bodies, possess so little solidity that they are not
discernible except by their contact with the eyes when we see them, and
with the mind when we think of them. For the opinion of these
philosophers is, that these images can proceed from the material object
and, come to the eyes or to the mind, which, nevertheless, they affirm
to be material. Now, I ask, How these images flow from atoms themselves?
If they do, how can these be atoms from which some bodily particles are
in this process separated? If they do not, either something can be the
object of thought without such images, which they vehemently deny, or we
ask, whence have they acquired a knowledge of atoms, seeing that they
can in nowise become objects of thought to us? But I blush to have even
thus far refuted these opinions, although they did not blush to hold
them. When, however, I consider that they have even dared to defend
them, I blush not on their account, but for the race of mankind itself
whose ears could tolerate such nonsense." - Saint Augustine to Dioscorus (410 CE)
"In the Beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth.
1. IT is right that any one beginning to narrate the formation of the
world should begin with the good order which reigns in visible things. I
am about to speak of the creation of heaven and earth, which was not
spontaneous, as some have imagined, but drew its origin from God.
...
Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of
the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms,
and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the
nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce
births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency
to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by
these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin
and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say "In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Deceived by their
inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the
universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against
this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words,
enlightens our understanding with the name of God; "In the beginning God
created." What a glorious order!" - Hexaemeron Homily I; Basil of Caesrea (4th
Century) (Early Christian founder)
"I. IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE OF THE SCHOOL OF EPICURUS WHO DENY THE
EXISTENCE OF A PROVIDENCE, AND REFER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE TO
ATOMIC BODIES.
Is the universe one coherent whole, as it seems to be in our own
judgment, as well as in that of the wisest of the Greek philosophers,
such as Plato and Pythagoras, and the Stoics and Heraclitus? or is it a
duality, as some may possibly have conjectured? or is it indeed
something manifold and infinite, as has been the opinion of certain
others who, with a variety of mad speculations and fanciful usages of
terms, have sought to divide and resolve the essential matter of the
universe, and lay down the position that it is infinite and unoriginated,
and without the sway of Providence? For there are those who, giving the
name of atoms to certain imperishable and most minute bodies which are
supposed to be infinite in number, and positing also the existence of a
certain vacant space of an unlimited vastness, allege that these atoms,
as they are borne along casually in the void, and clash all fortuitously
against each other in an unregulated whirl, and become commingled one
with another in a multitude of forms, enter into combination with each
other, and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it; yea,
more, that they construct infinite worlds. This was the opinion of
Epicurus and Democritus; only they differed in one point, in so far as
the former supposed these atoms to be all most minute and consequently
imperceptible, while Democritus held that there were also some among
them of a very large size. But they both hold that such atoms do exist,
and that they are so called on account of their indissoluble
consistency.
...
Well, but I suppose they will reply that the varying conjunctions of
the atoms account fully for differences so great in the matter of
duration. For it is maintained that there are some things that are
compressed together by them, and firmly interlaced, so that they become
closely compacted bodies, and consequently exceedingly hard to break up;
while there are others in which more or less the conjunction of the
atoms is of a looser and weaker nature, so that either quickly or after
some time they separate themselves from their orderly constitution. And,
again, there are some bodies made up of atoms of a definite kind and a
certain common figure, while there are others made up of diverse atoms
diversely disposed. But who, then, is the sagacious discriminator, that
brings certain atoms into collocation, and separates others; and
marshals some in such wise as to form the sun, and others in such a way
as to originate the moon, and adapts all in natural fitness, and in
accordance with the proper constitution of each star? For surely neither
would those solar atoms, with their peculiar size and kind, and with
their special mode of collocation, ever have reduced themselves so as to
effect the production of a moon; nor, on the other hand, would the
conjunctions of these lunar atoms ever have developed into a sun.
...
But even though men like these--and miserable men they are, however
they may believe themselves to be righteous--may choose not to admit it,
there is a mighty Lord that made the sun, and gave it the impetus for
its course by His words. O ye blind ones, do these atoms of yours bring
you the winter season and the rains, in order that the earth may yield
food for you, and for all creatures living on it? Do they introduce
summertime, too, in order that ye may gather their fruits from the trees
for your enjoyment? And why, then, do ye not worship these atoms, and
offer sacrifices to them as the guardians of earth's fruits?" - Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century)
(Early Christian founder)
"CHAP. XVII.--DOCTRINE OF ATOMS UNTENABLE.
But you will say, according to the opinion of Epicurus, that
successions of atoms coming in a ceaseless course, and mixing with one
another, and conglomerating through unlimited and endless periods of
time, are made solid bodies.
...
CHAP. XVIII.--THE CONCOURSE OF ATOMS COULD NOT MAKE THE WORD.
Then, in the next place, if they are ceaselessly borne about, and
always coming, and being added to things whose measure is already
complete, how can the universe stand, when new weights are always being
heaped upon so vast weights? And this also I ask: If this expanse of
heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms,
how did it not collapse while it was in construction, if indeed t the
yawning top of the structure was not propped and bound by any stays? For
as those who build circular domes, unless they bind the fastening of the
central top, the whole falls at once; so also the circle of the world,
which we see to be brought together in so graceful a form, if it was not
made at once, and under the influence of a single forth-putting of
divine energy by the power of a Creator, but by atoms gradually
concurring and constructing it, not as reason demanded, but as a
fortuitous issue befell, how did it not fall down and crumble to pieces
before it could be brought together and fastened? And further, I ask
this: What is the pavement on which the foundations of such an immense
mass are laid? And again, what you call the pavement, on what does it
rest? And again that other, what supports it? And so I go on asking,
until the answer comes to nothing and vacuity!
CHAP. XIX.--MORE DIFFICULTIES OF THE ATOMIC THEORY.
...
Thus it is sufficiently shown that the bodies of the world are not
consolidated by the union of atoms; and that insensible bodies, even if
they could by any means concur and be united, could not give forms and
measures to bodies, form limbs, or effect qualities, or express
quantities; all which, therefore, by their exactness, attest the hand of
a Maker, and show the operation of reason, which reason I call the Word,
and God." - Recognitions Book VIII; Pope Clement of Rome
(2nd century) (Early Christian founder)
"CHAP. XIX.--EPICURUS; ADOPTS THE DEMOCRITIC ATOMISM; DENIAL OF
DIVINE PROVIDENCE; THE PRINCIPLE OF HIS ETHICAL SYSTEM.
Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all. He
supposed, as originating principles of all things, atoms and vacuity. He
considered vacuity as the place that would contain the things that will
exist, and atoms the matter out of which all things could be formed; and
that from the concourse of atoms ... derived existence, and all the
elements, and all things inherent in them, as well as animals and other
(creatures); so that nothing was generated or existed, unless it be from
atoms. And he affirmed that these atoms were composed of extremely small
particles, in which there could not exist either a point or a sign, or
any division; wherefore also he called them atoms.
...
The opinions, therefore, of those who have attempted to frame
systems of philosophy among the Greeks, I consider that we have
sufficiently explained; and from these the heretics, taking occasion,
have endeavored to establish the tenets that will be after a short time
declared.
...
I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those
causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous
phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the
Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have
transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar
doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies." - Refutation of All Heresies; Hippolytus (2nd
century CE) (Early Christian founder)
Desire and irrationality are produced by the devil to tempt
people into sin.
James 1:
13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot
be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted
when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then,
after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is
full-grown, gives birth to death.
Ephesians 4:
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off
your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to
be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new
self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully
to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 "In your anger
do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27
and do not give the devil a foothold.
1 John 3:
8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been
sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to
destroy the devil's work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to
sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because
he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God
are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what
is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his
brother.
"Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All sin, however,
is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the devil, from
whom sin proceeds; and it is extraneous to God, to whom also the
irrational is an alien principle. The diversity, then, between these two
elements arises from the difference of their authors." - A Treatise on the Soul; Tertullian (2nd
century CE) (Early Christian founder)
Diseases are caused by demons or from a corruption of the
soul by sin, and are treated spiritually.
Acts 10:
37 You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee
after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of
Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing
good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God
was with him.
Matthew 8:
1 When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. 2
A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are
willing, you can make me clean."
3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he
said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. 4Then Jesus
said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to
the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."
...
16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to
him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.
17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He
took up our infirmities and carried our diseases."
Matthew 9:
32 While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could
not talk was brought to Jesus. 33 And when the demon was driven out, the
man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing
like this has ever been seen in Israel."
Matthew 10:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not
go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather
to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, preach this message: 'The
kingdom of heaven is near.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse
those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received,
freely give.
"Let us pray for our brethren exercised with sickness, that the Lord
may deliver them from every sickness and every disease, and restore them
sound into His holy Church." - Apostolic Constitutions -Book VIII (4th
century CE)
"For if every sickness and every infirmity, which our Saviour then
healed among the people, refers to different disorders in souls, it is
also in accordance with reason that by the paralytics are symbolised the
palsied in soul, who keep it lying paralysed in the body; but by those
who are blind are symbolised those who are blind in respect of things
seen by the soul alone, and these are really blind; and by the deaf are
symbolised those who are deaf in regard to the reception of the word of
salvation. On the same principle it will be necessary that the matters
regarding the epileptic should be investigated. Now this affection
attacks the sufferers at considerable intervals, during which he who
suffers from it seems in no way to differ from the man in good health,
at the season when the epilepsy is not working on him. Similar disorders
you may find in certain souls, which are often supposed to be healthy in
point of temperance and the other virtues; then, sometimes, as if they
were seized with a kind of epilepsy arising from their passions, they
fall down from the position in which they seemed to stand, and are drawn
away by the deceit of this world and other lusts. Perhaps, therefore,
you would not err if you said, that such persons, so to speak, are
epileptic spiritually, having been cast down by "the spiritual hosts of
wickedness in the heavenly places," - Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew - Book
XIII; Origen (2nd century CE) (Early Christian founder)
"And Thaddaeus said: No doubt you have heard of what has taken place
in Jerusalem about Jesus Christ, and we are His disciples, and witnesses
of the wonderful things which He did and taught,... And He sent us in
His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the
nations, that those who were baptized, having had the kingdom of the
heavens preached to them, would rise up incorruptible at the end of this
age; and He gave us power to expel demons, and heal every disease and
every malady, and raise the dead.
And the multitudes having heard this, brought together their sick and
demoniacs. And Thaddaeus, having gone forth along with his disciples,
laid his hand upon each one of them, and healed them all by calling upon
the name of Christ." - The Acts of Thaddaeus (250 CE)
When Christianity emerged as a religion it presented itself as a complete
explanation for everything in the world. The Christians claimed that they
knew more than anyone else about how the universe operated, and they knew it
because they were told by God. The Christians claimed to have divine
knowledge about how the universe worked, and they claimed that they based
their understanding of the universe on divine scripture.
When the Christians eventually took power in Rome they closed the
schools that contradicted Christian teachings, they burned books and
libraries, and they imprisoned or otherwise punished those that taught
things that contradicted their beliefs.
The traditional view that the Bible represents the extent of knowledge
that exited in the world at the time - that the beliefs of Christians were
no less advanced than anyone else at the time - is completely false. At the
time that Christianity rose to power Greece and Rome were highly civilized
places with a level of knowledge that would not again be known in Western
Civilization until the 17th to 20th centuries (after works of the Greeks had
been rediscovered and disseminated).
The Christian religion makes many fundamental claims, and constructs a
very well defined model of the universe. We can observe and test this model
to see if it is correct or not.
The Christian view of the world tells us that the material world is evil
and corrupt, and that humans cannot learn from observing the material world.
We can only learn by spiritual means, by revelation or the study of divine
scripture, which is an infallible source of knowledge. The divine scripture
tells us that sickness is caused by demon possession, the earth is fixed and
immovable, that God designed and created all things, and that the languages
of man have been divided by God.
Furthermore, the Christians used scripture and "Christian logic" to
denounce the idea that the earth was round, that the earth existed in a
vacuum, and that the universe is made up of atoms. The Christians
claimed that it would be impossible for there to be people "on the other
side of the earth".
Naturalistic views of the world, however, are very different from
Christian views of the world. The scientific understanding of the world that
we have today validates the fundamental views of the ancient Greeks whom the
Christians denounced. The Greeks and Romans determined, through careful
study, that the world is indeed made up of atoms ("small invisible particles
of different weights that combine in various ways to makeup the form of the
material world"). Since the Greeks that developed atomic theory denied that
the universe was created by a god, and proposed natural explanations for the
development of the universe and life, their teachings were all classed as
heresies by the Christians.
Looking at the real world, however, leaves a lot to be answered by the
Christian belief system. In addition to traditional Christian beliefs, the
Christian based "Intelligent Design" movement in America proposes a
pseudoscientific explanation for the development of life which claims that
life is too complex to have arisen naturally on its own through an unguided
process, therefore it must have been "designed" by "some " creator. This
movement actually presents more philosophical challenges to explaining life
than does the traditional Christian system.
Traditional Christianity explains negative aspects of life through
concepts such as original sin and the devil. Christians claim that God is
all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but it is obvious that
there is much strife in the world, so Christians explain this away by
claming that humans brought these troubles onto themselves when Eve ate
forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Other Christians see the problems in
the world as being created by the devil.
This is extremely important in relation to the Christian explanation of
disease, because Christians believed that everything that God created was
good, and that disease was not a part of God's creation, but rather that it
was an affliction of the soul. We now know, however, that disease is caused
by organisms such as viruses and bacteria. The belief that God created all
things then would require that God created these diseases.
Intelligent Design, however, claims that it is a scientific view,
separate from religion; but without religion it offers no way to explain the
many negative aspects of life. If life were "intelligently designed", then
the designer would either have to be a sadistic, perverted, malicious
designer that intentionally created a horrifying system that depends on
suffering for its perpetuation, or the designer would have to be not very
intelligent, or one has to fall back on mythology in order to explain the
strife of the world.
Naturalistic worldviews, however, are fully capable of explaining the
strife that we see in the world without resorting to mythology or jumping
through philosophical hoops.
Let us observe the real world and examine both Christian and naturalistic
explanations for the strife that we see.
Do 20,000 people die from starvation each day because God does not love
them? Do they die because Eve ate forbidden fruit thousands of years ago and
God is punishing every generation of man because of that? Is the devil
causing starvation? Do these people deserve to starve because they don't
love God? If starvation has some religious cause, then why do animals also
starve for all the same reasons that people starve? Are animals sinners
also? Is God bringing wrath to animals, which, as far as Christian theology
is concerned, don't even have souls?
The naturalistic explanation for mass starvation is, of course, the fact
that, as Malthus and Darwin explained, organisms tend to produce more
offspring than can survive. There is no God that is looking out for life on
earth, life struggles for survival.
What about "strange freaks of nature", such as those people who are born
with a rare trait that cause them to grow hair all over their head or
body? Prior to Darwin, people explained this by saying that it was either
random or it was punishment from God. Darwin, on the other hand, argued that
these traits were the result of undirected mutation and, critically, that
they were inheritable.
What of hideous birth defects such as these, are these the work of God or
an intelligent designer? It is still commonly said by many people today that
"everything happens for a reason", and that deformed people are put on earth
by God to teach some kind of lesson. What lesson is there to be learned from
these birth defects? Does God really make some women gorgeous so that they
can become successful porn stars or easily marry millionaires, and
also decide to make some people hideously deformed in order to teach the
beautiful people to be thankful that they aren't ugly and despised by
society? Is God trying to make us more tolerant by producing severe
deformations?
What about the fact that many birth defects result in death of the
infant? A recent study found that 6% of all babies born worldwide have
sever genetic birth defects. 3.3 million infants die each year from genetic
birth defects. These figures do not include miscarriages, which would more
than double these numbers.
Is God punishing the parents or the infants? This has been going on
throughout history, have we learned the lessons yet? If God makes deformed
people to "teach us lessons", then why do we see the same patterns of
deformities in animals? What lessons are the animals supposed to learn from
birth defects?
The evolutionary explanation for birth defects is that undirected genetic
variation results in a wide range of traits, some of which end up being
beneficial to individuals and some of which are detrimental. This process is
unguided and these traits are inheritable. Those with detrimental traits
tend to have fewer offspring, while those with beneficial traits tend to
have more, resulting in the fact that the majority of people have beneficial
traits, but there is constant variation, resulting in the on-going
expression of detrimental traits.
Furthermore, the repulsion that we tend to have towards these birth
defects is itself an evolved behavior. Being repulsed by "deformation"
decreases the integration of maladaptive traits into the gene pool. As we
have also developed compassion and, through science and technology, the
ability to treat and care for such individuals, we now recognize that we can
safely care for these individuals and are learning to help them instead of
being repulsed by them, as is the biological instinct.
Birth defects are fairly rare, but what about the fundamental and
pervasive aspects of life?
tongue parasite that consumes fish from the inside out
amoeba attacking a paramecium
From the "lowest order" to the "highest order", life is fundamentally
based on killing and consuming other organisms. Is this a system created by
a loving God or an "intelligent designer"? Plants are essentially the only
organisms that don't depend on killing others for their survival, but even
plants are in fierce competition. Many different types of plants produce
toxins, not only for self defense against animals and fungus, but also in
order to kill other plants. Many types of trees have toxins in their leaves
that retard the growth of plants that are of a different "species".
The fact of the matter is, however, that life is fundamentally based on,
not just killing, but theft. The way that life works, at the cellular level,
is that cells do work to collect organic molecules, which are needed,
ultimately, to make copies of DNA. The cells also need organic molecules to
build their own structures, which are support systems for the copying of
DNA. Acquiring organic molecules from the environment requires work, i.e.
metabolic activity.
The primary root source of organic molecules on earth today is plants,
which are able to produce organic molecules through the use of solar energy.
The plants use photosynthesis to do work to combine carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen, and other elements into the molecules needed to create their
bodies and make copies of DNA. Non-photosynthetic organisms are not capable
of collecting enough raw organic molecules from the environment on their
own, so they rely on stealing the products of the work done by the plants.
An entire chain of non-photosynthetic organisms has evolved that kill other
organisms because it is chemically more efficient to steal the organic
molecules from them than it is to collect them themselves. In fact it would
be impossible for animals to exist without this theft.
In other words, every organism is a package of organic molecules. Each
one of those packages of molecules has been assembled through the work
needed to acquire the molecules. When an organism consumes another organism
what it is doing, chemically, is taking the work that has been done by that
organism.
Life is fundamentally constructed on this process. To claim that a loving
god, or an "intelligent designer", created this system is itself beyond
belief, unless you believe that the designer of the system is sadistic,
cruel, and places no value on life.
Observation of the natural world reveals that the system of life places
no value on life. Individuals place value on life. Primarily, individuals
place value on their own life, which itself is a product of evolution
because individuals that value their own life are most likely to survive and
produce offspring, thereby making more copies of their DNA.
The naturalistic worldview simply acknowledged life as we see it. We did
not create life; we did not chose the nature of life. We simply exist in a
system that is ultimately outside of our control. Acknowledging the
realities of life does not mean that one likes those realities, or that one
glorifies those realties; it is simply recognition of reality as it is.
Religions attempt to create an illusion of life that presents life as
something more desirable to the believer. Religions tell people what they
want to believe about life, not the truth about life.
The Christian view of the world is that the world is constant,
well-ordered, and controlled by God. The Christian view of nature has been
used to provide support for Christian views on law and morality. Christians
have always claimed that the constant and fixed quality of the natural world is
evidence of the constant and fixed quality of all of God's systems,
including God's laws and moral codes.
What we have learned in the past 200 years is that the world is not fixed
at all, but rather the world is constantly changing. Not only is life
evolving, but the continents are shifting, sea levels rise and fall, and the
world used to be vastly different than it is today, populated by largely
different life forms, with largely different environmental conditions. The
universe is expanding, galaxies are forming and being destroyed, the earth
is orbiting around the sun, which is itself flying through space inside our
galaxy, which is itself spinning and changing and flying through space.
Every new discovery in the past 150 years, since Darwin proposed that
life developed through an undirected process, has indicated that the world
is even less directed than had previously been imagined. New discoveries and
models constantly show that natural systems are more complex than previously
thought. Every time people attempt to define the boundaries of life or of
systems we later learn that the boundaries are not so simple to define and
that there are many different ways in which systems can naturally develop.
Biological evolution is a perfect example. For the first 100 year after
Darwin evolution was seen as a fairly straight forward process. Organisms
mate, they produce offspring, and their traits get passed on to the next
generation. The "evolutionary tree of life" was seen as a fairly simple
ladder.
The more that we learn the more we see that the tree of life is extremely
complex, there are many side branches that went extinct, and the path "to
humans" is convoluted and layered.
In addition we see that there are many different ways for DNA to be
changed and passed on. Not only is DNA passed on to organisms through
reproduction, but there are many different ways that DNA "travels" through
populations, including viruses, cell to cell transfers, and
acquisition of DNA floating out in the environment.
Life is not a "simple" or "well-ordered" system, it is a complex and
undirected system. Naturalistic worldviews take life as it really is. The
Christian worldview imagines life as some people wish it to be.
Many of the opponents of evolution claim that evolution is not supported
by science or that evolution is provably false. Some also claim that
Biblical scripture is superior to scientific observation for determining
facts, or that there can be no facts which contradict scripture, so if a
conclusion is drawn from observation that contradicts scripture then the
conclusion must be wrong. Many of these people want "criticisms of
evolution" to be taught in schools. The problem, however, is that there are
not any legitimate criticisms of evolution. We cannot teach children things
that are provably incorrect just to try and undermine a science that some
people feel contradicts their religious beliefs.
Some of the most significant or commonly heard criticisms of evolution are
listed below and addressed:
The theory of evolution contradicts the story of
Genesis in the Bible, but science supports the story of Genesis. Genesis is
compatible with science, it is evolution that is incompatible with science.
Though many Christians claim that science and the Bible are compatible,
literal creationists correctly recognize that the story of creation in the
Bible is fundamentally incompatible with our current knowledge of the
universe and life on earth. These creationists correctly point out
that there is no way to harmonize the Biblical story of creation with
scientific knowledge.
As the article linked above demonstrates, even if one assumes that the
"days of creation" mentioned in the Bible equate to millions of years in
reality, the description of creation still radically contradicts accepted
scientific explanations. For example, the Bible states that a water covered
earth is the first thing that God created, and that the sun, moon, and stars
were not created until the fourth day.
Scientific vs. Biblical account
No matter how many years you stretch the days out to, the Biblical story
of creation still contradicts scientific knowledge. In fact, if you assume
that each day of creation can be equated to millions of years, then you have
to explain how it is that plants survived for millions of years on earth
before the sun existed. Clearly, the story of creation in the Bible is
simply irreconcilable with modern science.
Literal Creationists, however, acknowledge that the story of creation is
irreconcilable with science, but thy claim that the Bible trumps empirical
observation, a claim that goes back to the origins of Christianity, and a
view that directly led to the downfall of Western Civilization after the
Christians came to power in Rome.
Evolution is scientifically impossible because it violates
the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Evolution does not, in any way, violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The origin of this claim comes from Scientific Creationism,
published by Henry Morris in 1974. In Scientific Creationism Morris
stated:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is particularly important in this
discussion, since it states that there exists a universal principle of
change in nature which is downhill, not uphill, as evolution requires.
(p 38)
For the evolution of a more advanced organism, however, energy must
somehow be gained, order must be increased, and information added. The
Second Law says this will not happen in any processes unless external
factors enter to make it happen. (p 40)
Because this claim has been so thoroughly refuted it has become less
popular among anti-evolutionists over the past few years, but it is still
widely used, as can be seen on this prominent anti-evolution website:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics.html
The Second Law of Thermodynamics specifically states:
The entropy of any totally isolated system not at thermal equilibrium
will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
Entropy is basically the amount of unavailable energy in a system.
Entropy has also been interpreted as "disorder" in some cases. What the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is essentially stating is that differences in
energy in a closed system tend towards equilibrium. Basically, if you took a
completely thermally sealed box that had an internal air temperature of 50
degrees and you placed a hot piece of metal into the box, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics states that the temperature of the air and the metal will
tend towards equilibrium until they reach the same temperature, at which
point no more work can be done in the system without outside input.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say anything about downhill or
uphill and it doesn't say anything about information. Most importantly,
however, the Secondly Law of Thermodynamics discusses closed systems,
and the earth is not a closed system. The energy from the sun provides a
constant external source of energy to the earth, without which life would
indeed not be possible on earth.
The earth is not a "totally isolated system" and therefore this argument
based on the Second Law is completely warrantless, but the problems with
this claim really go beyond the fact that the sun supplies energy to the
earth, because the Second Law really does not have anything to do with how
molecules are organized, which is one of the other major claims of the
anti-evolutionists.
In fact, most things become "more organized" as they lose energy, not
less organized. Almost all solids are more organized than gases of the same
matter. Cooling water vapor from a gas to a solid results in the development
of a "more organized" structure. Indeed, many anti-evolutionists go so far
as to claim that everything in nature can only get less organized, i.e. that
decay is the only natural process. This seems like quite a bizarre argument
if one wishes to defend a supreme creator, as this would indicate that God
created a highly flawed and degenerative universe.
If you leave a car out in natural conditions, it will rust and decay.
In the same way, without an intelligent organization all the systems in
the universe would decay. This is an incontrovertible law. -
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics.html
If this were true then it would mean that the formation of snowflakes
from water vapor requires the on-going supernatural intervention of God to
create each snowflake, and that the formation of snowflakes, crystals,
bubbles, etc., all violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously, this is not the case.
The most amusing fact about this argument, of course, is that all
"supernatural" activity would not only violate the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, but every natural law.
It is mathematically impossible for life to have naturally
formed without intelligent guidance.
This is one of the more common claims against evolution - that the
"spontaneous formation of life" (ambiogenesis) is so mathematically
improbable as to be considered impossible.
There are many sources for this claim, some include:
The first big problem for this claim is that it doesn't do one single
thing to undermine The Theory of Biological Evolution, because The Theory of
Biological Evolution is not about how life originated, it is about how life
developed from the first living cells. Nothing about this claim challenges
the evidence for evolution. Even if one were to suppose some "supernatural"
origin of life, one would still have to conclude that life evolved from that
starting point based on the existing evidence for evolution (comparative
morphology, comparative genomics, embryology, the fossil record, etc.).
Having said all of that, the so-called mathematical calculations used to
"prove" that it's impossible for life to naturally form are completely
worthless, as shall be demonstrated.
All claims about the probability of certain organic structures developing
"by chance" completely leave out all of the facts about reality and instead
treat atoms like simple numbers. The most common phrase used to describe the
improbability of life developing on its own is the question: "What is the
chance that monkeys banging on a typewriter are going to produce
Shakespeare?"
Monkeys banging on typewriters have nothing in common with the chemical
processes that give rise to structures however. Nature does not
operate randomly, it operates according to constant laws, which always
dictate behavior.
Assuming that monkeys bang at "random", there would be no greater chance
that a money would hit the letters ABC in sequence than that they would hit
JDW in sequence, but the chemical world does not work that way. Atoms have
properties. What are the chances that the following atomic structure would
form "randomly", H2O? No different that the formation of HCN or N3
or O3 or H3 or C2H if you consider atoms to
operate randomly, but atoms do not operate randomly, and the formation of
water is not only more likely than the formation of those other chemicals
under certain conditions, but some of those combinations aren't even
possible (at least without the proper ionic notation). This is because atoms
have properties, they don't operate "at random".
Furthermore, probabilities change based on conditions. For example, the
"odds of being struck by lightening" are 576,000 to 1, but these odds go up
if you are in a lightening storm, and they go up even further if you are
outside in a lightening storm, and they go up even further if you are
touching a metal flag pole in a lightening storm.
The chances of "getting attacked by a shark" are low, but they are
impossibly low if you are on top of a mountain, while they are very high if
you are swimming off the coast of South Africa in the middle of bloody
water. Simply stating that the chance of X occurring in the universe is Y
is, for the most part, a completely useless statement.
Anti-evolutionist claims of probabilities demonstrate the uselessness of
their own calculations. For example:
Some example probabilities:
1. SETI Message in the movie Contact - 1 in 10^339
2. Single ticket winning a 6 number lotto - ~1 in 10^7
3. Formation of the minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules
for the smallest
theoretical life - 1 in 10^119,879 (Rough Estimate)
Interestingly, the linked article discusses physical laws when talking
about contingency and then throws out the effect of physical laws when
discussing complexity.
This example treats the formation of a set of protein molecules like a
lottery number, however lottery numbers and chemicals are nothing alike.
Numbers do not have properties. Lets say that my 6 digit lottery number is
123456. If the number 1 is drawn then the chance that the next number will
be 2 is the same as the chance that it will be 0,1,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9.
However, when a chemical reaction takes place the formation is not random at
all. When carbon comes into contact with other atoms, such as oxygen or
nitrogen or hydrogen, it will react with those atoms in a set way, and if a
carbon ion comes into contact with water it will form CH4 every
time. As chemical reactions proceed, the chance of the next step in the
reaction being X is never random, which is exactly why we have a science of
chemistry.
The chance specified in the example above for the "random" formation of
239 protein molecules is simply a mathematical calculation that treats every
atom in the equation like a simple number, as if molecules were lottery
tickets.
What are the chances of a snowflake "randomly" forming?
Trillions and trillions of snowflakes spontaneously form every year,
without the need of any supernatural intervention. Why? Because the
properties of water are such that under the right conditions snowflakes will
inevitably form. What is the chance that the structure above would be formed
naturally without any "intelligent design"? If one calculates the odds of
this occurring the same way that anti-evolutionists calculate the odds of
life forming then one would come up with an equally impossible number. The
calculation would take the number of atoms in the snowflake, and then take
the number of atoms in the universe, and then use a constant to determine
the number of chance interactions these atoms have, and then calculate the
chance that these random interactions would result in this near perfectly
symmetrical pattern. The anti-evolutionist calculations basically ask, "What
is the chance that if I threw a handful of sand grains on the floor that
they would happen to fall into a pattern that resembles a snowflake?"
But that's not how snowflakes form, they aren't the products of simple
random arrangements of atoms; they are the products of atoms whose
properties dictate that under the right conditions these patterns will
arise. The conditions under which snowflakes form are rare. They require
that there must be vaporized water in an existing cloud system, a certain
density and composition of air, and temperatures in which vaporized water
will directly crystallize. Snow does not fall on the other plants in the
solar system any more than life exist on the other plants in the solar
system (that we know of), does this show that there has to be a supernatural
reason for the formation of snow on earth? Of course not, it just means that
the conditions for snow are right on earth, while they are not right on the
other plants.
What are the chances of a snowflake forming anywhere in the universe?
Low, but at present on earth a limited set of conditions persists so that
snowflakes form trillions and trillions and trillions of times. The
occurrence of phenomena is all about the right conditions. If those
conditions exist then the "chance" of a phenomenon occurring approaches
100%.
Snowflakes are examples of forms that appear to have been designed, which
nevertheless have formed without intelligent guidance an almost infinite
number of times on earth, with each formation being independent of the
others. In the case of life, the unguided formation of life only had to
happen one time, and from that point on it was self perpetuating. Snowflakes
don't self-perpetuate, each one has to develop independently. If one is to
look at chance the way that anti-evolutionist do, the chance that trillions
upon trillions of snowflakes would form is much lower than the chance that
just one cell would form. But, of course, this itself is an absurd game,
because, as we know, the real world doesn't work that way. Molecules and
chemical structures are not numbers and lottery tickets, and the chance of
the "random" formation of any given protein or component of life cannot be
calculated with any mathematical equation that we can develop, because
knowing the chance of something happening requires knowing the variables
that have to be fed into the equation, and right now we simply don't know
enough to accurately perform such a calculation.
Furthermore, snowflakes are the products of near spontaneous formation,
but life is not. The formation of life is the product of a process, in which
each step in the process provided the basis for the next step. The formation
of spherical rocks can be used as an example of processes in nature.
The almost perfectly spherical rocks above were all formed naturally,
without any "intelligent design", yet what are the chances of this
"randomly" occurring? The chances of this randomly occurring are next to
zero, but there are millions of such round rocks on earth because they don't
randomly form. Spherical rocks do not spontaneously form, and they
only form under the right conditions. The formation of a spherical rock is a
process that can take thousands of years in nature. A spherical rock is not
the product of atoms randomly coming together in a spherical shape.
Spherical rocks on earth come from parts of the earth's crust, which then
have to be broken up into a smaller rough chunks, and those rough chucks have
to then be shaped through a process to become round.
A spherical rock is vastly simpler than a cell, but it is nevertheless an
example of the formation through a natural process of an object that appears
to have been designed. Calculating the chance that various mineral atoms
would come together to create a round rock completely misses the
understanding of how round rocks actually form.
More claims by anti-evolutionists that it is mathematically impossible
for life to have formed naturally:
"10 to the 18th seconds = 31.7 billion years, assuming 31,536,000
seconds per year. Even if an awesome 1,000 trillion random combinations
could be tried every second each year for 30 billion years (i.e., 10 to
the 33rd trials), the remaining odds would still be an enormous 10 to
the 39,967th to 1 against the formation of the necessary genes, based on
Hoyle's 10 to the 40,000th figure."
"The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating program
of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here
on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order… Quite a few of my
astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they
become interested enough to calculate for themselves, instead of relying
on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point."
"By adding up the energy content of all the chemical bonds in a
'simple' bacterium and comparing this to the energy content at
equilibrium of the constituent atoms from which it was formed, Morowitz
calculated the probability of this cell to be 10 to the -10 to the 11th,
that is, one chance out of a number formed by writing the number one
followed by 100 billion zeroes! That number is so large that it would
require 100 thousand volumes of 500 pages each just to print! Yet, the
improbability of the existence of a single-celled organism, in
comparison to inanimate matter, is of that order of magnitude. Are there
natural processes at work that could enable this monstrous improbability
to be overcome? Of course not. In fact, increase the probability a
quadrillion times (one followed by 15 zeroes) and the probability would
still be only one out of one followed by 99 billion, 999 million, 999
thousand, 985 zeroes!"
The above examples demonstrate how absurd the calculations performed by
anti-evolutionists are. Mathematicians and astronomers are not biologists or
chemists. What are the formulas that they used? Who are these
mathematicians and where is their published work? If they are already
professional scientists then they would have published other papers and
would positioned to publish a paper demonstrating this mathematical
impossibility. How can they possibly calculate the chance of something
occurring when we don't even know the conditions in which it would occur?
For example, how do we arrive at the raw chance that a person will get
struck by lightning? We do this using the number of observed
lightning strikes per year, the number of observed people struck by
lightening per year, and the number of observed people on the
planet. Performing this calculation requires knowing the rate at which the
lightning strikes occur. Since we don't even know what the conditions were
on earth billions of years ago it's impossible to perform any calculation
about the chance that life formation would naturally occur.
Without taking into consideration all of the physical properties of atoms
it is impossible to make a blind calculation about the chance that certain
structures would form.
How does adding up the energy content of chemical bonds and then
comparing that to the energy content of the separate atoms "at equilibrium"
tell us anything? It doesn't. That's a completely futile exercise. All that
tells us is the amount of work that has to be done in order to form the
cell, it tells us nothing about the chance that the cell would form, and
even if it did do that, no one is claming that a modern bacterial cell
spontaneously generated at any time.
Despite all of their attempts to sound scholarly and technical, what all
of the people making these calculations prove is how very little they
understand science or reality. These people either genuinely have no
comprehension of how the world works, or they are being intentionally
deceptive and trying to concoct statements that they believe will impress
people of lesser education.
In any case, these calculations demonstrate an extreme failure to address
the facts of evolution. Even if these calculations were true, which they are
not, they do nothing at all to address the observed evidence in support of
evolution.
Darwin predicted that we would find thousands of
transitional fossils if his theory was true, yet we have found few or none.
This statement, while frequently made by anti-evolutionists, is false on
two counts. Firstly, we have found thousands of transitional fossils that
fall into the lineages of hundreds of different transitions, and secondly
Darwin never claimed that we would find many transitional fossils in the
first place. In fact, Darwin went to great lengths to explain why he thought
that the fossil record would not contain many of the transitional forms that
his theory presumes to have existed.
Here is what many anti-evolutionists claim:
The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the
innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic
record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them.
Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms between major groups
of organisms, yet the few transitions that are suggested are surrounded
in controversy.
The most interesting thing about these claims is that it is very easy to
verify what Darwin said about the fossil record:
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have
existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
crust of the earth?
...
[L]ooking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true,
numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species
of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very
process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often
remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links.
Consequently evidence of their former existence could
be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall
in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and
intermittent record.
...
The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now
occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of
natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the
places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as
this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the
earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and
every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection
which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I
believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
In the first place it should always be borne in mind
what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly
existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to
avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between
them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms
intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor;
and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from
all its modified descendants.
...
On the poorness of our Palaeontological collections.That our Palaeontological collections are very
imperfect, is admitted by every one. The remark of that admirable
Palaeontologist, the late Edward Forbes, should not be forgotten,
namely, that numbers of our fossil species are known and named from
single and often broken specimens, or from a few specimens collected on
some one spot. Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been
geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the
important discoveries made every year in Europe prove. No organism
wholly soft can be preserved. Shells and bones will decay and disappear
when left on the bottom of the sea, where sediment is not accumulating.
I believe we are continually taking a most erroneous view, when we
tacitly admit to ourselves that sediment is being deposited over nearly
the whole bed of the sea, at a rate sufficiently quick to embed and
preserve fossil remains.
...
One remark is here worth a passing notice. During periods of
elevation the area of the land and of the adjoining shoal parts of the
sea will be increased, and new stations will often be formed; all
circumstances most favourable, as previously explained, for the
formation of new varieties and species; but during such periods there
will generally be a blank in the geological record. On the other hand,
during subsidence, the inhabited area and number of inhabitants will
decrease (excepting the productions on the shores of a continent when
first broken up into an archipelago), and consequently during
subsidence, though there will be much extinction, fewer new varieties or
species will be formed; and it is during these very periods of
subsidence, that our great deposits rich in fossils have been
accumulated. Nature may almost be said to have
guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking
forms.
...
It should not be forgotten, that at the present day, with perfect
specimens for examination, two forms can seldom be connected by
intermediate varieties and thus proved to be the same species, until
many specimens have been collected from many places; and in the case of
fossil species this could rarely be effected by palaeontologists. We
shall, perhaps, best perceive the improbability of our being enabled to
connect species by numerous, fine, intermediate, fossil links, by asking
ourselves whether, for instance, geologists at some future period will
be able to prove, that our different breeds of cattle, sheep, horses,
and dogs have descended from a single stock or from several aboriginal
stocks; or, again, whether certain sea-shells inhabiting the shores of
North America, which are ranked by some conchologists as distinct
species from their European representatives, and by other conchologists
as only varieties, are really varieties or are, as it is called,
specifically distinct. This could be effected only by
the future geologist discovering in a fossil state numerous intermediate
gradations; and such success seems to me improbable in the highest
degree.
...
One other consideration is worth notice: with animals and plants that
can propagate rapidly and are not highly locomotive, there is reason to
suspect, as we have formerly seen, that their varieties are generally at
first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and
supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected
in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of
discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of
transition between any two forms, is small, for the successive changes
are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot. Most
marine animals have a wide range; and we have seen that with plants it
is those which have the widest range, that oftenest present varieties;
so that with shells and other marine animals, it is probably those which
have had the widest range, far exceeding the limits of the known
geological formations of Europe, which have oftenest given rise, first
to local varieties and ultimately to new species; and this again would
greatly lessen the chance of our being able to trace the stages of
transition in any one geological formation.
...
I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely
imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically
explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have
been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of
specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as
nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must
have passed away even during a single formation; that, owing to
subsidence being necessary for the accumulation of fossiliferous
deposits thick enough to resist future degradation, enormous intervals
of time have elapsed between the successive formations; that there has
probably been more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more
variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the
record will have been least perfectly kept; that each single formation
has not been continuously deposited; that the duration of each formation
is, perhaps, short compared with the average duration of specific forms;
that migration has played an important part in the first appearance of
new forms in any one area and formation; that widely ranging species are
those which have varied most, and have oftenest given rise to new
species; and that varieties have at first often been local. All these
causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record
extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not
find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and
existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. - The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin
It is obvious from Darwin's writing that he never predicted that we would
find lots of transitional fossils. Darwin actually dedicated an entire
chapter of The Origin of Species to the discussion of why we should
not expect to find transitional fossils. In fact, it can very safely be
argued that we have found many more transitional fossils than Darwin
predicted we would find, so indeed the very opposite of this
anti-evolutionist claim is true.
We have found more transitional fossils than Darwin predicted, not less.
There are no transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx is
just a different kind of bird.
Anti-evolutionists commonly claim that there simply are no fossils of
transitional forms at all. They state that all fossils are of "distinct
species", believing that a transitional fossil should be some kind of
incompletely formed animal. This is not what transitional forms are though.
There are actually two types of transitional forms, specific features that
are physically intermediate between other features, and whole organisms that
contain a mix of features from different taxa.
An example of the first case are the transitional forms that support the
evolution of the mammal ear.
Starting with the ends of the spectrum we have reptiles and mammals.
Reptiles have a jaw bone with three bones and a single ear bone, while
mammals have a single jaw bone with three ear bones. Fossils of
cynodonts, for example, provide us with an example of jaw and ear
structures that are half way between those of mammals and reptiles.
The second type of transitional form is an organism that possess a mix of
traits from different taxa, such as Archaeopteryx. Of course, both
types of transitional forms can be present in one specimen. A specimen may
contain a mix of traits that look the same as examples found in different
taxa, as well as traits that are themselves intermediate between traits
found in different taxa.
The difficultly in drawing relationships between organisms via
transitional forms can easily be demonstrated with the use of currently
existing animals that we know for a fact are related. Dogs make the perfect
example.
We know for a fact that all domestic dogs are genetically related to one
another, i.e. that they all have a common ancestry (the common point of
ancestry may go back prior to domestication).
Let us take a look at the skulls of some modern dogs (Note that these
skulls are not to scale):
Saluki - 5,000 YO breed from Arabia
Great Pyrenees - 4,000 YO breed from France
Rottweiler - 2,000 YO breed from Germany
Pekingese - 2,000 YO breed from China
Pug - 500 YO breed from China
Cocker Spaniel - 500 YO breed from China
Collie - 500 YO breed from Europe
French Bulldog - 200 YO breed from France
Boxer - 200 YO breed from Germany
Boston Terrier - 200 YO breed from America
We know for a fact that all of these animals are related, and we know the
general ancestry of all of these breeds, yet even within this one species,
i.e. the domestic dog, we are not capable of putting together a completely
smooth transitional sequence of individuals from 5,000 years ago to today
that shows a smooth progression of a skull like that of the Saluki to one
like that of a Pug or Boston Terrier. Why? For one thing it's because no such
progression ever existed. Some evolutionary changes result in significant
physical transformation, for which their was no physiological transition. A
small change to DNA and result in a large change to morphology.
Arguably, the fossil Hominid skulls that we have collected spanning the
last 6 million years bare a closer resemblance to each other, and show a more
clear progression, than what we can even piece together today to show the
lineages of the domestic dog.
If we cannot put together a clear transitional sequence to the finest
detail showing the transitional forms from Wolf to Chihuahua, animals that
we know are related to each other with 100% certainly, then how can we be
expected to put together even more finely tuned sequences that span millions
of years? Using transitional fossils to support The Theory of Biological
Evolution does not require that level of detail, and it will never be
capable of being attained.
Look at the level of change that has occurred in dogs over the past 5,000
years. In many cases, we are lucky to find fossil specimens of suspected
relatives that are within a million years of each other. In such an amount
of time a tremendous amount of change can take place.
Here is what anti-evolutionists have to say about transitional forms:
"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains,
or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." - Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, 1988
What exactly does one expect a "partially evolved" brain, "partially
evolved" eye, or "partially evolved" leg to look like? By all accounts
we can look out among the currently living creatures of the planet and find
examples of "partially evolved" eyes, brains, and legs.
Partially evolved leg
Series of partially evolved eyes
Partially evolved brain in earthworm
"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature
becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms
between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example,
"the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a
fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional
forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has
been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." - Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, 1988
The blanket statement that no transitional links or intermediate forms
have been found is just plain false, and has been false since the time that
Darwin originally published The Origin of Species. The recent finds
of various specimens including Tiktaalik roseae provide examples of
fossils with part fins and part feet. There are now over a dozen different
kinds of specimens from the Devonian period that show various transitional
forms between fish and land animals.
Diagram of Tiktaalik roseae limbs
"The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the
famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can
usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type
of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a
true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." - Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern
Christian
"Another alleged reptilian feature of Archaeopteryx was its
possession of teeth. If this is a feature derived from a reptilian
ancestor, and toothed birds subsequently evolved into toothless birds,
then the fossil record should produce intermediates documenting the
gradual loss of teeth in birds. Not one single intermediate has ever
been discovered. Some fossil birds have teeth some did not. That this
should be true is not surprising since this is true of all other classes
of vertebrates - fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. Furthermore,
following the notion that the absence of teeth denotes a more 'advanced'
state, then the duck-billed platypus and the spiny anteater, mammals
that do not have teeth, should be considered more advanced or highly
evolved than man, yet in many other ways, as previously mentioned, the
duck-billed platypus and spiny anteater could be considered the most
primitive of all mammals. Thus, the possession or absence of teeth
proves nothing about ultimate ancestry." - Gish, D. T. Evolution: Challenge of
the Fossil Record, 1985
The only way that someone can call Archaeopteryx a "true bird"
is if one bases the definition of a bird purely on the existence of feathers
and nothing else. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is more reptilian
than bird like by far. In fact we now know that other Archaeopteryx
fossils that lacked feathers, which were found prior to the 1861 find that had the feather
impression, were originally classified as reptiles. A comparison of the
skeleton of Archaeopteryx to those of birds and dinosaurs shows
that Archaeopteryx does not look skeletally like a present day
bird.
Comparison of Archaeopteryx to dinosaur and chicken.
To claim that the presence of teeth in Archaeopteryx "proves
nothing about ultimate ancestry" is simply ridiculous. Present day birds do
not have teeth. This feature is neither more "advanced" nor "primitive", it
is simply representative of the current form that birds have. The lack of
teeth has likely been selected for in birds because a beak weights less than
a jaw with teeth.
As far as fossils showing a "gradual loss of teeth" is concerned, first
of all, the fossil birds and birdlike creatures that we have found with
teeth certainly have smaller teeth than their other dinosaur kin, and
secondly of all, teeth were probably lost through mutations that resulted in
the lack of tooth expression. In other words, out of a batch of offspring
some of them simply never developed teeth at all, loosing teeth in a single
generation. This is highly likely because present day birds still have genes
that code for the production of teeth, but these genes do not get expressed
because some trigger mechanism to initiate tooth development does not occur
in birds. This type of mutation typically occurs as a single disruptive
mutation that happens in one generation.
Toothless individuals would be selected against in many populations, but
in certain situations, like among anteaters or birds, these mutations were
selected for because they had an advantage. The loss of teeth could have
occurred independently multiple times among the early bird ancestors, or all
modern birds could be descended from one branch where teeth were lost.
To claim that Archaeopteryx only displays a mix of "fully
formed" features from different classes, such as the fully formed feathers
of birds and fully functional teeth of reptiles, is also ridiculous.
The forelimbs of Archaeopteryx are clearly neither fully like the
wings of modern birds nor fully like the arms of dinosaurs. The forelimb
structure itself is transitional between a dinosaur limb and a bird wing.
Anti-evolutionists make further arguments, typically based solely on the
Archaeopteryx fossils, that there is no fossil evidence for the
evolution of feathers, claiming that there are no "transitional feathers" in
the fossil record.
A major problem with this claim is that Archaeopteryx isn't the
only fossil specimen with feathers. In fact, over the past 10 years hundreds
of different "feathered dinosaurs" have been found in China. In fact, many
of the specimens found in China show that many types of dinosaurs which had
previously not been thought to have had feathers, actually did have
feathers. Feathers were much more common among a wide range of organisms
than previously thought.
The China finds highlight a critical issue with the fossil record, which
is how fickle and unclear the fossil record can be. The feathered specimens
found in China all come from one major sight that was produced because of a
volcanic eruption. This goes to the heart of how selective and fickle the
fossil record is, because many of the same "species" of dinosaurs have been
found in other places all over the world, but their feathers were never
preserved at these other locations.
Fossilization takes place in a variety of different ways. The common type
of fossilization that takes place via mineral replacement or via impressions
in heavy mud or sand is not sufficient to preserve delicate features such as
feathers. Hence the reason that many features, such as feathers, seem to
appear out of nowhere in the fossil record.
The feathers of Archaeopteryx were also preserved in a rare
find-grained sandstone formation in Germany. Many other fossils of
Archaeopteryx have been found without the feathers preserved. Adding to
the problem of tracing the evolution of feathers through the fossil record
is that it's highly likely that many of the early stages of feather
development were probably more delicate and even less likely to be
preserved.
According to The Theory of Biological Evolution we do expect to find
fossils that that bridge morphological gaps between taxa, but because of
both the imperfections of the geologic record and the fact that some
morphological changes are not gradual, we do not expect that we will ever be
able to fully construct a smooth transitional series linking every modern
species to fossil ancestors.
The existence of transitional fossils is exactly what evolutionary theory
predicts, but the existence of any such fossils contradicts creationist
expectations. Clearly, fossils of birds with teeth is in line with
evolutionary predictions, but not in line with creationist expectations.
Darwin was a racist and
evolutionary theory supports racism, exploitation, violence, and the idea
that might makes right.
This is one of the more complex claims made by many opponents of
evolution that gets into a variety of social and historical issues that are
far beyond the scope of biology and evolution.
Claims have been made that everything from racism to the Holocaust are
products of "evolutionary thinking". The claim has also been made,
erroneously, that Darwin was a "racist".
The following view is representative of many anti-evolutionist views on
what they believe is implied by the theory of evolution.
Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society
would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and
would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It
would even destroy others if possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by
natural selection with the destruction of the weak and the free domain
of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than
necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People
exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural
selection. source:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid7.htm
Actually evolutionary theory comes to the opposite conclusion, which is
that societies with the most cooperation will flourish and perform the best.
Evolution offers a valuable model for understanding why it is that self
interest often conflicts with social interests.
All that The Theory of Biological Evolution can do is seek to explain the
world as it is. The theory of evolution is not a value system nor do
evolutionary biologists claim that social systems should be based on natural
systems. There was a movement in the
early 1900s called "Social Darwinism", which did claim that certain groups
or individuals were entitled to dominate society, but Darwin had nothing to
do with this and in fact these views are not at all supported by
evolutionary theory.
From a social perspective evolutionary theory explains why we
see conflict, competition, domination, and hierarchy in social groups, as
well as why we see cooperation, compassion, and altruism. Evolutionary
theory does not put forward any values, it does not claim that competition
is good or bad, it just observes its existence and reports the results of
it.
Most significantly, though, what Darwin and many other evolutionary
theorists have observed is that the processes of nature often produce what
we consider to be negative attributes, such as aggression, violence, and
domination. In understanding why these traits exist we can be better
prepared to mitigate them.
The irony of this criticism of evolution is that evolutionary theory is
what informs us about these negative qualities so that we can learn how to
overcome them. Why do people fight? Why do we have wars? Why have we had
slavery? Why have a few people dominated societies for the past thousands of
years? Why are people instinctively repulsed by people with
deformities?
These are all questions that religions have sought to answer for years.
The Christian explanation for these negative traits is that they have been
caused by a mythological event that took place in the Garden of Eden, when
Eve ate a fruit, thereby defying the commandments of God, and leading to a
curse on humanity for the rest of time.
Such an explanation does nothing to help us learn about things such as
social conflict and understand how to overcome it.
Nature is not a model for society, that is one of the things
that we learn the most from evolutionary theory. We learn, through
evolutionary theory, that many of the problems that have long been
associated solely with human society are in fact ubiquitous in nature, that
indeed natural processes propagate these problems.
In the social sense evolutionary theory reinforces the belief of many
religions, including Christianity, that as humans we are in a struggle to
overcome the products of our inherent nature. People do have an inherent
nature that is a product of our natural evolution, which took place in a
very competitive and hostile environment of scarce resources.
Evolutionary studies provide us with many examples of how natural
selection leads to qualities that we don't like. A recent study showed that
sexual competition in bats can lead to lower brain sizes because as sexual
competition increases natural selection selects for bats that have larger
testicles, and therefore higher sperm counts. The increase in sperm
production comes at the expense of brain size, as both use the same types of
proteins. This is a prime example of how evolution does not always produce
traits that we value.
As well as helping to understand the negative aspects of life, Darwin
also sought to explain the cooperative and beneficial aspects of nature. Darwin
dedicated whole chapters of his works to the discussion of cooperation in
social animals and people. For example:
With mankind, selfishness, experience, and imitation, probably add,
as Mr. Bain has shown, to the power of sympathy; for we are led by the
hope of receiving good in return to perform acts of sympathetic kindness
to others; and sympathy is much strengthened by habit. In however
complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high
importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it
will have been increased through natural selection; for those
communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic
members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin,
1871
It has further been suggested that Darwin was a racist and that Darwinian
ideas are responsible for the rise of extreme racism in the 20th century,
including the racism of the Nazis.
In 2001 the Louisiana State Legislature put forward a bill to reject the
teaching of "Darwinism" based on the claim that Darwin and his teachings are
racist and that they led directly to the ideology of Nazism.
WHEREAS, empirical science has documented an indisputable commonality
among all people groups, or races, and has demonstrated that normal
variations in the human gene pool account for our differences, of which
racial differences are a trivial portion; and
WHEREAS, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution,
promoted the justification of racism, and his books On the Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection: or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man postulate a
hierarchy of superior and inferior races; and
WHEREAS, Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of
Darwin and those he influenced, such as German zoologist Ernst Haekel,
to justify the annihilation of millions of purportedly racially inferior
individuals.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does
hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby
reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and
classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby
condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify
and approve racist practices.
These claims are based on major historical distortions and outright
fallacies.
Charles Darwin actually combated many of the racist views of his day with
scientific evidence, showing that both the popular beliefs about race and
those held by many other scholars were wrong.
Common beliefs about humans during the 1800s included the beliefs that:
Whites, Blacks, American Indians, and Asians are all different
species
The races are static and created by God, and should thus never be
mixed
There are superior and inferior races and the superior whites have
the right to dominate the inferior blacks and Indians
There are distinct delineations between the races
Different races are not related to each other
Interbreeding of races leads to degeneration
God originally created civilization, and that whites have stayed
true to God, and thus maintained civilization, but the darker races have
degenerated and lost civilization as they have become more savage and
further from the word of God (This was published by Archbishop Whately
and the Duke of Argyll )
Regarding this last item, the view was advanced among Catholics during
the 1800s that mankind can never raise himself up, so it must mean that we
started out civilized and have degraded.
One must be struck with the similarity between the discussion above, from
1869, and the current discussions of intelligent design.
In contrast to these views on race Darwin showed that:
People cannot be classified as different species
All races are related and have a common ancestry
All people come from "savage" origins
The different races have much more in common than was widely
believed
The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and that
there is greater variation within races than between races
Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for
ill effects
Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between
the races
Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together
An initial point of misconception about Darwin's views on race comes from
the full title of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Natural
Selection: Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.
It is important to note here that "race" was a term that was more often used
to discuss plants and animals at this point in history than it was to
describe people. In fact, Darwin avoided much discussion of people in
The Origin of Species and only used the word "race" a few times, in
each of these cases referring to plants or animals.
Having alluded to the subject of reversion, I may here refer to a
statement often made by naturalists-namely, that our domestic varieties,
when run wild, gradually but certainly revert in character to their
aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be
drawn from domestic races to species in a
state of nature. I have in vain endeavoured to discover on what decisive
facts the above statement has so often and so boldly been made.
...
Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in
some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not
improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to
cultivate, during many generations, the several races,
for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however,
some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor
soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the
wild aboriginal stock.
...
When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic
animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied
together, we generally perceive in each domestic race,
as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.
Domestic races of the same species, also,
often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that,
although differing from each other, and from the other species of the
same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an
extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another,
and more especially when compared with all the species in nature to
which they are nearest allied. - The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin, 1858
It is often pointed out that Darwin frequently used the term "savages"
when discussing the tribal people whom he wrote about. In his use of the
term savages, however, Darwin was simply using the standard lexicon of his
time. To claim that Darwin or evolutionary theory had anything to do with
racism, or that racism didn't exist prior to evolutionary theory, is a major
distortion of the facts. Prior to Darwin many Europeans viewed themselves as
somehow different from all other peoples. The belief that Europeans were the
direct descendants of Adam and Eve, while all other races were descended from
Cain, was popular. This belief is still doctrine in some Christian faiths,
though most people no longer believe it. Many Europeans also believed that
Africans and Native Americans were separate "subhuman" species. Darwin argued
against the popular belief that different "races" had different origins, or
that the different races were separately created, or that whites were
created superior by God. Darwin showed that all people are related, a
remarkable statement for his time. He also freely admitted to having had
sexual relations with a black women, something else unheard of in his time.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in
colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their
whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble
each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so
unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable
that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally
distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or
greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity
between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes
and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three
races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living
with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of
character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was
with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works
can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between
the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown
by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting,
painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual
comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their
features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same
emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when
contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct
species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with
bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of
mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone
arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and
manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this
fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar
inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by
archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such
as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and
customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I
remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other
parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty
hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some
remarkable event, or for burying their dead.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small
details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic
races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an
argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus
endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same
species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races
of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of
resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and
mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all
have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from
progenitors who had these same characters. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin;
1871
Genocidal wars against the Natives of the Americas had been taking place
since the 1500s. Slavery existed long before Darwin, and America's race
based slave system was well entrenched before Darwin was even born. Darwin
was an ardent abolitionist in fact. He was a member of several abolitionist
organizations, and he wrote frequently about the injustices of slavery and
defended the intelligence of blacks on several occasions.
I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I
authentically heard of; -- nor would I have mentioned the above
revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the
constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable
evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper
classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated, and they
have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers
will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must
indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer
reaching his master's ears.
...
It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of
slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused
not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin;
but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of
the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another
land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the
slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put
themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect,
with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever
hanging over you, of your wife and your little children -- those objects
which nature urges even the slave to call his own -- being torn from you
and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and
palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves,
who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes
one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our
American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and
are so guilty: - The Voyage of the Beagle; Charles
Darwin, 1839
In a letter to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who formed and led the first
black regiment in the American Civil War, Darwin wrote:
My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black
Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very
great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well
of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have
been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their
character and mental powers so ably discussed. - Letter from Darwin to Thomas Higginson,
February 27, 1873
While on the voyage of the HMS Beagle Darwin wrote:
I was told before leaving England that after living in slave
countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am
aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is
impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such
cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I
never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous
countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of
Hayti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population,
it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place. - Letter from Darwin to J.S. Henslo, March 1834
When Darwin was eighteen he recorded his acquaintances with a black man
in England, whom he spent time with. His notes were later published in his
autobiography.
By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with
Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did
excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit
with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man. - Autobiography of Darwin, 1887
Darwin did objectively document many cultural aspects of various
primitive societies, and these writings are often referred to today as
"racist". It must be remembered that Darwin traveled to some of the most
remote areas of the world, and he came into contact with more different
primitive cultures than just about any human being that ever lived. He
traveled around the world at a time when there were still many tribes on the
earth that had never come into contact with Europeans, and Darwin was in
many cases the only white person these people had ever seen, and in others
he was the only white person who had ever come to live among them and study
them. Unlike other Europeans of his time, who took positions of domination
over the natives that they came into contact with, Darwin lived among dozens
of different groups of natives throughout South America and Australia. This
was unheard of, and many people considered him unwise to put himself in what
they believed to be such danger, and indeed it was dangerous. Some of these
tribes were cannibals and many of them regularly killed outsiders.
Tribal cultures are often idealized today, but Darwin was simply
documenting the facts about the tribes that he lived among. Darwin did have
a generally positive view of civilization and a negative view of tribal
culture. The things that he did not like about tribal culture were his
observations that tribal people were more likely to enslave women, be
distrustful of outsiders, have wars amongst each others, practice
cannibalism, torture animals, torture people, engage in self mutilation, and
not show kindness to those outside of their own family group.
Darwin did objectively document these facts about the cultures that he
lived among, and he also made special note of cultures that had what he
considered to be positive qualities as well, such as openness, honesty, and
love of others. In fact, Darwin noted that cultures were more different than
races were, something astonishing for his time. Darwin's views and
interactions with primitive tribes can perhaps best be summed up by his
closing remarks from The Descent of Man:
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is
descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be
highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are
descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing
a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten
by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind—such were our
ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint,
their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and
their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful.
They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what
they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every
one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native
land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood
of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would
as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his
dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old
baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his
young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who
delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises
infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no
decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not
through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and
the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally
placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the
distant future. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin;
1871
Darwin did make distinctions between race and culture, and in The
Descent of Man Darwin made it clear that he was discussing both
biological evolution and cultural evolution. Darwin discussed the evolution
of human cultures and used primitive tribes to discuss how man developed
from a "savage" to a civilized state, but he actually refuted the belief
that people from savage tribes were biologically inferior, which was the
common belief of his day.
Today many people read Darwin's books out of context, so when terms like
savages or negroes are used it seems as if Darwin was racist, however it is
instructive to put Darwin in context. A perfect example would be to compare
the words of Darwin to his contemporary Abraham Lincoln. Both Darwin and
Lincoln were born on the same day, and Lincoln was elected president two
years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. The Lincoln
- Douglas debates offer an excellent look into views on race that were held
in America at the time because race was so often discussed in the debates,
and these debates offer an example of what the highest representatives of
American culture had to say about race at the time.
"While I was at the hotel today, an elderly gentleman called upon me
to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality
between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not
proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as
the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes
in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor
ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and
political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am
not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes,
nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white
people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and
political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do
remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and
I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive
that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro
should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not
want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.
[Cheers and laughter.]" - Abraham Lincoln; Fourth Presidential Debate
with Stephen Douglas, September 18, 1858
It is important to note here that the views of Stephen Douglas were even
more racist than Lincoln's, and that both men enjoyed popular support for
their racist views. Note that Lincoln received applause for his remarks. The
fact is that essentially all Europeans were racist in the 1800s by today's
standards.
"For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form.
[Cheers.] I believe this Government was made on the white basis.
["Good."] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white
men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining
citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of
conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ["Good
for you!" "Douglas forever!"]
...
Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be
the equal of the white man. ["Never, never!"] If he did, he has been a
long time demonstrating the fact. [Cheers.] For thousands of years the
negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all
latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has
been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an
inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position." - Stephen Douglas; First Presidential Debate
with Abraham Lincoln, August 21, 1858
To claim that Darwin and evolutionary teachings are responsible for
racism or the belief that whites are superior to blacks is completely
inconsistent with the historical facts. Darwin, in fact, was on the leading
edge of the opposition to racism.
Compare the comments of Lincoln and Douglas to those of Darwin:
As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into
larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that
he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the
members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him.
This point
being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his
sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed,
such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or
habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look
at them as our fellow-creatures. Sympathy beyond the confines of man,
that is, humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest
moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards
their pets. How little the old Romans knew of it is shewn by their
abhorrent gladiatorial exhibitions. The very idea of humanity, as far as
I could observe, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This
virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise
incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely
diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as
this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads
through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes
incorporated in public opinion.
The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognise that
we ought to control our thoughts, and "not even in inmost thought to
think again the sins that made the past so pleasant to us." Whatever
makes any bad action familiar to the mind, renders its performance by so
much the easier. As Marcus Aurelius long ago said, "Such as are thy
habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the
soul is dyed by the thoughts." - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man,
1871
Here, of course, we see the use of the term "savages" by Darwin, but it
is obvious that what Darwin was saying was that the greatest moral good is
the development of inclusiveness, an advanced humanist view that went well
beyond the popular beliefs of his day. Darwin was saying that the highest
moral code is to break down social barriers between the races, between the
nations, and even between man and animal. He noted that this was not
something that was originally natural among people, but that this view tended
to increase with advances in civilization.
Darwin made it clear in his work that culture in many cases transcended
biology. Contrary to the popular opinion of his day, Darwin stated that all
people were much more a like than what it initially appeared, and that
"savages" were only savages because of culture, not because they were
biologically inferior.
To claim that such a man was a defender or promoter of racism is truly
abhorrent. Furthermore, to claim that evolutionary theory is responsible for
the ideologies of Nazism and the Holocaust is a claim of grave historical
revisionism.
Violent and institutional discrimination against Jews dominated European
society ever since the first days that Christians came to power in Rome.
Starting with the Emperor Constantine, laws against Jews were enacted and
the Christian Emperors, as well as the influential Christian theologians such
as Saint Augustine, blamed Jews for the ills of society and called Jews the
"killers of Christ".
315: Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended
religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this
edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to
proselytize.
325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter
from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond
measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs
of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious
people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the
Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire
dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of
the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost
certainly blinded."
337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage
of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.
339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.
343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful
[for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be
partakers of their impiety." 5
367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people
who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as
brothels.
379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of
synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the
state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.
380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue;
he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."
415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that
Egyptian city.
415: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas
Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand
the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."
In 1543 Martin Luther, the German founder of Protestantism, published a
book titled The Jews and Their Lies, in which he advocated the complete
expulsion of Jews from Europe. In this book Martin Luther stated:
"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools
and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man
will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done
in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we
are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public
lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For
whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware
of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed,
were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right
before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify,
and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as
if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well
know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed
and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their
synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like
the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in
our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in
captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and
Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy
are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to
teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have
justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews
captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he
commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses
clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord."
Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's
obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this
poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us
captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc,
inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his
devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and
therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways
be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business
in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or
the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them,
and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and
put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that,
as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than
usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess.
Such money should now be used in no other way than the following:
Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred,
two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may
suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the
support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or
feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with
God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe,
a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews
and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their
brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it
is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat
of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind
the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting
blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our
sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their
pants." - The Jews and Their Lies; Martin
Luther, 1543
When the Nazis came to power they taught in school that Jesus was not a
Jew because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that therefore it was
appropriate to be a Christian and still hate Jews. The Nazis made wide use
of religious references in their program, and they made
appeals to racism on a religious basis.
"Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is
solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he
is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but
that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's
handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were
made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their
faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation
and God's Will.
...
The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature,
is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but
their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the
goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at
most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity,
endurance, etc., of the individual specimens.
...
The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always
the following:
Lowering of the level of the higher race;
Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning
of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.
To
bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against
the will of the eternal creator.
...
With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in
wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus
stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the
racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he
himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back
from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale.
It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always
with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white
race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from
its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master. For
a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be
enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over
bastards and bastards alone." - Mein Kampf; Adolf Hitler, 1925
Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow
God's ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the
German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must
realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and
that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God
and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the
community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, but rather a deep
faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a
consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and
between God and the live of the people and the fatherland. The National
Socialist state will promote such a deeply religious educational system.
We want parents to support and strengthen this by honesty and by good
example.
All of these ideas are in direct contradiction to evolutionary theory and
to the views of Darwin. Not only did the racist ideology of the Nazis not
have anything to do with Darwin, but the ideology was in fact based on the
very views that Darwin had taught against and refuted with scientific
evidence. Nazism represented everything completely the opposite of
Darwin's personal beliefs and the opposite of evolutionary theory.
Contrary to the belief that there is such a thing as "fixed" or
"distinct" races, Darwin showed that there are no such clear distinctions
between people at all:
Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he
perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly
variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro
slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The
same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races.
It may be doubted whether any character can be named
which is distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even
within the limits of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in
character, as has been often asserted. Hottentot women offer certain
peculiarities, more strongly marked than those occurring in any other
race, but these are known not to be of constant occurrence. In the
several American tribes, colour and hairiness differ considerably; as
does colour to a certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly,
in the Negroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some
races; and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists have
learnt by dearly bought experience, how rash it is to attempt to define
species by the aid of inconstant characters.
But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races
of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other,
independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having
inter-crossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other
animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable
judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as
two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach),
six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering),
fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton),
sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.
This diversity of judgment does not prove that the
races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate
into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear
distinctive characters between them. - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man,
1871
Darwin successfully refuted the many claims of his day that people were
composed of separate species, he refuted the belief that there were distinct
races, and he showed through careful observation that there was a great deal
of variety among all people, despite the fact that most whites believed that
"all negroes look the same".
Darwin concluded that all people have a common ancestry, that we are all
more alike than we are different, and that even the "savages" of the world
were greatly underestimated in their abilities by whites.
Yes, the language of some of Darwin's work on race is crude by today's
standard, but it was revolutionary in its opposition to the established
ideas of the day, which held that the "savages" were inferior and had no
hope of ever living in a state of equality with whites.
Instead of being criticized as a racist, Darwin should rightfully be
honored as one of the leaders of opposition to racism, who showed through
his careful study, and through his theory of evolution, that we are indeed
all related and that the key to social success as a species lies in
extending our cooperation, love, sympathy, and assistance to people of all
races and all nations. If Darwin had any social message, that, certainly,
was it.
Below are quotes from opinion pieces about evolution taken from various
sources over the past year. The quotes presented are generally in opposition
to the idea of evolution.
If evolution were true, how could there be morals? People should be
able to do what they want when they want to. What is the purpose of life
if evolution were true? Our sole reason for existence would be to better
the human species, but that doesn’t do anything good for us. We just
die, and most people will be forgotten in a few hundred years anyway. We
wouldn’t enjoy the benefits of evolution, if there were any.
Thankfully, as Hovind proved, there had to be a creator, and he made
all life for a purpose: humans, plants, the earth and animals. Man was
made for the glory of God, and no one’s life is useless or pointless. It
is up to people whether or not they choose to believe that, but it is
still truth nonetheless.
Here we see one of the main arguments against evolution. This argument
against evolution really has nothing to do with the evidence or with facts,
instead it has everything to do with what a person wants to believe to
fulfill their beliefs about life. Interestingly, as is common with
religions, the individual claims that improving life on earth "doesn't do
anything good for us."
I would like both Ralpha R. Weigand and Darren Allen to tell me the
meta-purpose that is to be derived from evolution.
In addition, if life is nothing more than progressive mutations, as
implied in Stephen Jay Gould's work, then how is value determined? From
within or from without?
Intelligent design or creationism, that is, the belief in a God-centered
universe, has purpose and value inherent within a God who is sovereign.
And for those who may question my last statement, may I suggest that you
read His Word and perhaps Revelations may reveal the truth to
aforementioned conclusion.
Like the individual above, this person chooses not to believe in
evolution because it challenges their value system, not because of the
evidence. While religionists often lament "relativism", nothing can be more
relativistic than thinking that truth is determined by what you want to
believe.
Since long before Galileo ran afoul of the church for suggesting
Copernicus was right about planets and motion, and in many famous cases
afterwards, science and religion have been at odds. Calm spirits and
secure intellects, of course, understand there need not be an argument.
Science and religion are different creatures on different missions -
science trying to uncover what things are and how things work, religion
trying to answer why anything is here to uncover at all.
This is a popular fallacy that is espoused by many people who try to
minimize or eliminate the conflicts between science and religion. These
people erroneously claim that there is no conflict between science and
religion, or that they both serve completely different purposes for society.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Religions have always viewed
answering questions about "what things are and how things work" as an
integral aspect of their purpose. It has only been since Galileo
proved the Church wrong beyond a shadow of any doubt that religion began
retreating from this role in Western Civilization. The Christian religion,
however, like most other religions, based its authority to answer questions
about "the afterlife" on its ability to prove that it was correct about this
life.
If a religion is incapable of answering questions that we can observe
here and now, why on earth would anyone presume that the same religion
contains answers to questions about things we can't observe?
I think both Creationism and Evolutionism should be taught in both
public and private/religious schools. Classes like history are trying
harder and harder to eliminate bias and teach both sides of a story, why
shouldn't science do the same? Students have the right to be informed on
sides of an issue and then to choose which one to believe. School
systems and religious leaders shouldn't fear the teaching of two
viewpoints when we have come so far in embracing our diversity.
Yes, it would be perfectly fine to teach about creationism, intelligent
design, and evolution in school; the problem, however, is the way in which these subjects
could be taught. The people who want creationism and intelligent design
taught in school would only be happy if they were taught as
factually correct. The biggest reason that creationism is not discussed in
schools is not because we don't want to introduce religion into schools, but
rather it is because many parents would sue schools and raise hell if their
children were taught direct criticisms of creationism.
The safest thing for any school to do is simply to avoid the subject of
creationism. If creationism is brought up, then it would have to be
addressed academically, in which case, you are going to have to criticize
it, in which case you are going to get sued for infringing on people's
religious beliefs. Parents would start pulling their children out of the
pubic schools and would rebel against the school system if the school system
taught the truth.
Nothing would suit biology teachers more than to be able to honestly
discuss creationism in schools, but the problem is that this would be too
controversial. What the opponents of evolution want is for schools to teach
criticisms of evolution and teach creationism or intelligent design as if
they were true, without criticizing them. They don't want equal treatment,
they want unequal treatment - criticism of evolution and advocacy of
creationism. Every school board that proposes changes to the curriculum to
encourage criticism of evolution, should also require criticism of
intelligent design and creationism.
"We as a nation have been deceived," said Cartwright, who teaches her
sons that "there is no proof for evolution." Cartwright wishes local
schools would take a cue from the school board in Kansas.
...
Personally, she said, "I believe in the creation as it is in the
Bible."
The Cartwrights' two oldest sons, Tanner, 14, and Tyler, 12, have
taken their mother's lesson a step further.
In July, the boys started their own ministry called Soldiers of the
Cross. Their mission is to disprove the theory of evolution to other
children.
"We prove to them that the dinosaurs haven't been here for millions
of years," Tanner said. They even use model dinosaurs during their
presentations. "When we talk about dinosaurs, that really gets the
little kids going."
Tanner said he just wants other children to know the truth. If they
are being taught the evolution theory in public school, "I would advise
them to look at all the angles before they make their own conclusion,"
he said.
How does a public school system in a democracy deal with a situation
where there are people who hold these views? A major problem that our public
schools have is that teachers have their hands tied behind their back on
issues of religion. If students convince other studies that the Bible is
literally true, what can a teacher do to address the issue? Not much really,
unless they want to get sued. With many parents on school boards and in PTA
committees who believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge,
there is constant pressure on schools to bow to religious beliefs.
The writer does not know what is happening in the study of science
today. It is evolution that is on shaky ground. Evolutionists are so
"one track minded" that they refuse to recognize the new findings in the
scientific world. The writer states that in the past "brave thinkers
made observations and did experiments to prove their theories." That is
what is happening with scientists today who are Christians. They are
showing that evolution is just a theory and not a fact. Evolution cannot
be proven and neither can creation. However, the new findings and
evidence today tend to show that the world is young and not old and
evolutionists need even more faith than creationists because the facts
do not prove evolution.
The writer does not know about the many new discoveries by scientists
who are Christians. Many books, tapes and DVDs are available, and if the
writer has viewed any and apparently still maintains his position, then
he is typical of "one track minded" evolutionists. All we Christians are
asking is that the findings and evidence be presented, then let the
student make up his or her mind as to which is believable. Isn't this
the scientific way? And please, don't let your anger lead you to use
labels such as "fanatics."
Again, how does a free society deal with a situation such as this, where
millions of people are led to believe things which are provably false? One
thing is for certain, one of the largest money making industries in the
world is religion and religion related industries - book publishing,
"creationism DVDs", and the like. There really is little or no profit motive
to teaching evolution. Factual understanding of the world provides a public
benefit that can have real economic benefits for a nation, but supporting
religion provides immediate private profits to churches and the peddlers of
religious memorabilia. Businesses are able to generate billions of dollars a
year in revenue by feeding on the religious mindset, as this religious
customer demonstrates. There is certainly a much stronger profit motive for
promoting Biblical beliefs than there is for promoting scientific
understanding.
Fifth, human intelligence is far beyond what is need to hunt and
gather in a jungle or savannah. The intelligent design concept is
compatible with evolution, since once DNA exists, it can evolve as it
mutates while species come and go via natural selection. ID should only
claim that some particular mysteries cannot be plausibly answered by
pure evolution. ID claims that human DNA was deliberately manipulated to
create super-intelligence. PE claims that this intelligence evolved,
although we don’t yet know why evolution created enough intelligence for
human beings to be able to solve quadratic equations.
We don't know any of these explanations, so the truly scientific
stance is to acknowledge our ignorance. Those who claim that only PE or
ID can be true go beyond what is warranted by logic and evidence. It
seems to me that the controversy over what to teach can be resolved by
admitting ignorance and the possibility of either set of hypotheses.
Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is why human beings have not
recognized the universal ethic by which we would live in harmony,
equally sharing the bounty of nature while respecting the individual
sovereignty of each person. Will pure social evolution lead to peace, or
would this require Intelligent Intervention? If it never comes about, is
humanity doomed? This is the greatest mystery of all.
Talk about hubris. Here we have an editor claiming that certain things
are known or unknown and waxing philosophical about issues that are actually
well explained by evolutionary theory. The thing about people like this is
that they don't like the answers that evolution presents, so they claim that
we don't have the answers.
Human intelligence has evolved beyond what is needed by people to compete
with other animals because, as Darwin pointed out 150 years ago, members of
the "same species" are in competition with each other. Humans literally prey
on each other. We are social animals whose greatest competition is with
other humans, and our competition with each other is what has provided the
context for selective pressure for intelligence beyond what is needed simply
to hunt and gather.
Furthermore, the level of intelligence of people from the most advanced
civilizations and people who are still living naked in the jungles of South
America is basically the same. The vast differences that we see in
civilizations are not a product of biological differences, they are a
product of social differences. Even in the most advanced civilizations only
a small fraction of people are actually "very intelligent". The vast
majority of people do not understand how 99% of the technology that we have
works, nor do they understand the fundamental principles upon which the
world operates. Even among the most intelligent people no individual can
explain how more than a small fraction of our technology actually works.
Most people in the world can't solve quadratic equations (not that that is a
particularly difficult math problem).
As for the issue of why people "have not recognized the universal ethic":
First of all, it's because there is no universal ethic. Second of all, the
reason that people don't live in peace and harmony is because we have
evolved, like all other animals, to be competitive. Our evolutionary
development is the reason why we have conflict. Evolution produces a context
of competition and struggle, that is the point of what we learn about
ourselves from understanding evolution.
The things that he brings up are not great mysteries at all. There are
completely obvious explanations for them if you understand evolution. There
is a difference between answers that you want to hear and answers that are
the truth. The truth is often not what you want to hear, but it is
nevertheless impossible to change, and it is the only basis for
understanding the world and using that understanding to make improvements.
By contrast, Darwinist theory claims that the design in nature is not
real but only apparent, a product of blind, mechanical forces. As
arch-Darwinian Richard Dawkins said in a recent Salon interview,
evolution produces "the illusion of design." The implication for
science, as Richard Rorty elaborates so clearly, is that truth is not
"out there" to be discovered but is merely a social construction. Such
postmodernist notions threaten to undercut the scientific enterprise.
...
Fourth, ID will win because it recovers the unity of truth. Edward
Purcell in The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism
and the Problem of Value explains how Darwinism led to a
naturalistic worldview--one in which the natural sciences were elevated
to the only form of objective knowledge while "theological dogmas and
philosophical absolutes were at worst totally fraudulent and at best
merely symbolic of deep human aspirations." In other words, Darwinism
lent scientific support to the fact/value dichotomy, where religion and
morality are dismissed as merely subjective and private, or even
outright false.
I'm not sure what an "arch-Darwinian" is, but the idea that either
science or evolutionary theory support postmodernism is a complete reversal
of the facts. Darwinian evolution is a "modern" idea. Postmodernism is in
large part a reactionary ideology against science and evolutionary theory,
which claims effectively that there is no objective reality. That there is
an objective reality is a fundamental underpinning of science. Dawkins is
certainly not a postmodernist, nor has he ever argued that there is not an
objective truth. If Dawkins didn't believe in an objective truth then he
wouldn't bother discussing evolution in the first place. His statement about
the "illusion of design" does not in any way contradict science.
Secondly, Darwinism didn't lead to a naturalistic worldview, naturalistic
worldviews existed for thousand of years before Darwin and had been regaining
acceptance in Western Civilization during the 200 years prior to
Darwin. The single biggest contributor to naturalistic worldviews is atomic
theory. Yes, however, evidence of evolution did provide more evidence that
the Christian worldview was fundamentally flawed and incorrect, and indeed
evolutionary theory, along with other scientific and historical evidence,
now explains the very nature of religion itself and how religion itself has
evolved and is indeed "outright false".
Morals and religion are not, however, "private", they are explicitly
social, and their evolution can only be explained via social mechanisms.
Relegating religion to the private sphere is an attempt to limit its harm to
society, not a claim that it is a personal phenomenon.
The notion that the origin of the universe has a naturalistic
explanation is a fairly recent development, and one that is not
supported by the evidence. Science should follow the evidence wherever
it leads, rather than ruling out the possibility of an intelligent
designer because of an anti-supernatural bias.
This statement is completely false, as has been demonstrated throughout
this document. The notion that the origin of the universe has a naturalistic
explanation preceded Christianity. The fact that so many people in America
and the world today fail to understand this is a testament to the degree to
which Western society is still unable to come to grips with the facts of
history. If our schools taught the truth about history and science then
these types of misconceptions would be eliminated, but the truth is
politically unacceptable in America.
The topic of evolution vs. creation today should be a real concern,
weighing on the minds of every God-loving Christian. But, sadly, I have
found that most Christians and non-Christians alike have fallen victim
to the propaganda and lies used in the teaching of evolution. First, I
would like to point out that not all scientists believe in evolution.
Nor do they all believe that evolution is the foundation on which
science itself should be based. Evolution is simply a theory. What
bothers me is that the constant bombardment of this theory as fact has
changed the way Christians must think in order to believe in the Bible.
I, as a Roman Catholic, have learned that even my own religion has
accepted this theory and has incorporated the idea that God guided
evolution to where it is today. I am here to tell all Christians that
there is no sound evidence that would suggest that the King James
version of the Bible is not literally true and accurate, and to let them
know that we don’t need to incorporate the evolution theory into our
beliefs any longer. I believe that every good Christian should defend
the fact that God made things perfect from the very beginning.
I find it interesting that a Catholic is claiming that the King James
Bible is the source of ultimate truth. One has to wonder, is this person
aware that the King James Bible is a Protestant revision of Catholic
scripture that was written in part to strengthen opposition to Catholicism
in England?
At any rate, this is, I would guess, a voting citizen. How can we
function in a democracy with people like this? Every poll tells us that
there are more people in America who share the beliefs of this person than
there are who believe in Darwinian ("unguided") evolution.
Bravo, Charley Reese ("Both evolution and intelligent design are
theories of how life began." Nov. 21). Finally, someone with nationwide
exposure has the guts to tell the truth!
The theory of evolution is a secular fairy tale. There is no
scientific proof of evolution whatsoever. There is no proof that the
universe evolved naturally by chance over time.
Since creation cannot be observed or replicated in a laboratory,
science is not a trustworthy place to seek answers about the origin of
humanity.
Evolution is a mere theory, and a constantly changing one at that. If
accepted at all, it must be taken by sheer faith.
Again, we have a likely voter. How does an open society deal with such
people? This does reveal a common theme among opponents of evolution
however, which is not to address the evidence for biological evolution, but
rather to jump to the origin of the universe. The Theory of Biological
Evolution makes no claims about the origin or development of the universe.
This ladies and gentlemen begs the question of President Tilghman:
Has the theory of evolution ever been proven any more than that other
theory – of intelligent design?
...
Because love simply cannot be scientifically defined, or
formularized, or analyzed, is no reason to try to deny its existence.
Yes, the theory of evolution has volumes of facts that support it, while
intelligent design has only a claim that certain things are too complex to
have evolved.
As for love, it actually can be defined, formularized, and analyzed, and
it has been. Love is an emotion that has been studied, is understood,
and now the biological pathways for the love emotion are being documented
and analyzed at the chemical level. Evolutionary theory explains love and
allows us to understand what it is and why it exists. Love is a bonding
emotion that evolved because it increases the likelihood of procreation and
successful raising of offspring, and love is an emotion that is likely
shared among all organisms that form pair bonds and care for their
offspring. As we isolate the genes that code for the biological pathways
that are essential to the love emotion in humans, we will be able to compare
those genes to the genes found in other animals and verify which other
animals also feel love.
I enjoy the debate in your Opinion section concerning intelligent
design and its role in the science class. The real issue, however, is
not whether intelligent design should be taught in science.
Rather, the debate should focus on how evolution has been placed
alongside physics, genetics, chemistry and the other credible sciences
that have met the burden of proof of the scientific method.
Evolution has not come close to meeting the requirements of science.
Many of its assumptions and conclusions must be accepted by faith to
have any scientific credibility. It is not, as in the manner of real
science, observable and measurable.
This is another of the growing claims against evolution, that evolution
is a faith based concept for with no evidence to support it. This is an
attempt by religionists to try and put the theory of evolution on common
footing with the story of Genesis or other creation myths.
In fact, no one knows if evolution is in irreconcilable conflict with
the Biblical account of Earth's creation. On the surface, conflict seems
apparent. But because religion teaches that the ways of God are
unknowable, it's quite possible that science eventually could fill in
the gaps. Again, nobody knows.
Yes, people on both sides of the issue are aware that the theory of
evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation. People who
claim otherwise are just kidding themselves to try and make it possible to
continue believing in Christianity while also accepting scientific facts.
Any respectable study of the issue, however, shows that the assumptions that
are drawn from the Genesis model are completely at odds with the assumptions
of evolution, hence the reason that this has been an issue of controversy
for 2,000 years. Ever since the Christians took over in Rome 1,700 years ago
they have been using force, both physical and social, to enforce their view
on society.
Supporters said exposing students to different viewpoints will create
lively classroom debate.
"Do you think you come from a monkeyman?" said Rep. Tad Jones,
R-Claremore. "Did we come from slimy algae 4.5 billion years ago or are
we a unique creation of God? I think it's going to be exciting for
students to discuss these issues."
This is a typical approach for many opponents of evolution. The appeal is
to people's emotions and desires, not to the facts. To claim that an
appropriate way to teach children is to ask them if they believe that they
are descended from slime or from God is ridiculous. Asking children what
they want to believe is not educating at all. Education involves passing on
knowledge, not postmodernist nonsense.
There are other interesting aspects of this comment however. It seeks to
play on an evolved human desire to link one's heritage to a powerful member
of society. God, obviously, is considered the highest member of society by
many people. One could ask people if they would rather believe that their
great great grandparents were British royalty, or if their great great
grandparents were chimney sweeps. Most people would rather believe that they
are related to royalty.
It is quite possible, however, to present the story of human evolution
from "slime" in a much more positive and compelling light. Not that doing so
proves one thing or another, but if the tactic of evolution opponents is to
try to influence people with stories, then the true story of human evolution
can only be described as "truly the greatest story ever told".
Yes our ancestors do include "monkeymen", "fish", and "slime". We are
alive today because our ancestors struggled to survive and propagate against
the odds, and the story of how we have developed over billions of years of
struggle is perhaps the most compelling and fascinating story that ever
could be known.
Richard Dawkin's recent book, The Ancestor's Tale is one example
of a book that attempts to tell the story of the rise of humans from "slime":
The Ancestor's Tale
The Theory of Biological Evolution is supported by a tremendous amount of
evidence. Opposition to evolutionary theory is primarily driven not by
scientific principles, nor from any attempt to explain the origins of life,
but rather by the desire to support a system of values and morals.
Many opponents of evolution believe that their religion is essential to
providing them with a purpose in life and that religion is essential for the
support of morality and the rule of law, despite the fact that the
overwhelming evidence shows that the rule of law and human rights are more
highly adhered to in less religious societies.
Religionists also correctly recognize that the validity of a religion is
tied to its ability to correctly provide answers about life. If a religion
is wrong about many of the fundamental claims that it makes then its
credibility is undermined.
The Theory of Biological Evolution does significantly undermine the
credibility of the Christian religion because it is fundamentally
contradictory to the Christian explanation of origins.
Attempts to reconcile Christian theology and science only serves to
undermine science and lend continued support to a system of theology that is
provably false.
The majority of people in Western society are largely unaware of how much
the fundamental assumptions of Western society have been influenced by
Christianity, and the fact that many other cultures today, as well as many
of the cultures of the past, do not share the same assumptions that Western
society does.
Many of the traditional assumptions of Christianized Western society, that the earth is
unchanging, that people are distinctly separate from animals, that the earth
was created a few thousands year ago, that people are fundamentally
"sinful", etc., are not held by the cultures from Asia, Africa, or the
Natives of the Americas. It is ironic that The Theory of Biological
Evolution came from Western society, because the fundamental assumptions of
Christianized Western society are the most at odds with evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory has been readily accepted in Asia because it does not
conflict with the fundamental beliefs of most Asian cultures. Evolutionary
theory is actually more compatible with just about every culture than it is
with Christian culture.
The pre-Christian Greek and Roman basis of Western Civilization is
ultimately what provided the framework for the development of science,
atomic theory, and evolutionary theory in the West during The Enlightenment
and post-Enlightenment eras. As the ideas that were developed by the Greeks
began to re-emerge in the West they influenced whole new generations of
people, thousands of years later, who once again began developing an
understanding of the world from a material basis.
The Greek materialism that had been almost completely erased by the
Christians was rediscovered and reconsidered during The Renaissance, which
led to a revitalization of society and a re-embracing of rationalism,
materialism, and empiricism, leading to the development of modern science.
Modern science is based fundamentally on the Greek principles that were
explicitly declared heretical by the early Christians, which is why there
has been such conflict between science and Christianity, and why science has
seemed to reveal so many things that contradict Western assumptions.
The Theory of Biological Evolution is one of the most comprehensive of
all scientific theories. It incorporates many different lines of evidence
from many different disciplines and relies on an almost infinite number of
pieces of evidence. There are many questions that remain about the specifics
of how evolution on earth has historically proceeded, but there is
no question among scientists that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and
fundamentally explains the diversity and characteristics of all life on
earth.
Bibliography:
Origin Mythology
Baldick, Julian. Animal and Shaman - Ancient Religions of Central Asia.
Washington Square: New York University Press, 2000.
Rosenberg, Donna. World Mythology - An Anthology of the Great Myths and
Epics. 3rd edition. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC Publishing Greoup, 1999.
Warner, Rex Intro. Encyclopedia of World Mythology. New York, New
York: Galahad Books, 1975
Mesopotamian and Mediterranean Origin Belief
Rosenberg, Donna. World Mythology - An Anthology of the Great Myths and
Epics. 3rd edition. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC Publishing Greoup, 1999.
Wasilewska, Ewa. Creation Stories of the Middle East. United Kingdom:
Jessica Kingsley, 2000.
Evolutionary Concepts in Ancient Greece
Mayor, Adrienne. The First Fossil Hunters - Paleontology in Greek and
Roman Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Russo, Lucio. The Forgotten Revolution - How Science was Born in 300 BC
and Why it Had to Be Reborn. Roma, Italy: Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, 1996.
Lloyd, G.E.R. Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections - Philosophical
Perspectives on Greek and Chinese Science and Culture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
The Early Christian Fight Against Naturalism
Knight, K. The Fathers of the Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/.
Russo, Lucio. The Forgotten Revolution - How Science was Born in 300 BC
and Why it Had to Be Reborn. Roma, Italy: Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, 1996.
Darwin
Glick, Thomas F. editor. The Comparative Reception of Darwinism.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1974, 1988.
Current Theory of Biological Evolution
Coyne, Jerry A., Orr, H. Allen. Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates, 2004.
Culver, David C. Adaptation and Natural Selection in Caves - The
Evolution of Gammarus minus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1995.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Evolution and the Meanings
of Life. New York, NY: Simon &Schuster, 1995.
Glassman, Bruce editor. Evolution. Farmington Hills. MI: Thompson
Gale, 2005.
Evolution Beyond Biology
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Evolution and the Meanings
of Life. New York, New York: Simon &Schuster, 1995.
Note: Bibliography only includes resources that were not already
linked or referenced within the body of the article.
- March 5, 2006
To
bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against
the will of the eternal creator.