Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Darwinmania!

by Oliva Judson

New York Times

The party is about to begin.
Charles Darwin. (Richard Milner / European Pressphoto Agency)


In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species" (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.

But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn't, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn't have a plausible mechanism — he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn't know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.

Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin's big idea. Yet he wasn't the first to discover that, either. At least two others — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five-year voyage around the world.

It was a few months after returning from this voyage that Darwin first began to consider seriously the possibility of evolution, or the "transmutation of species." At this time he knew nothing of Wells's and Matthew's accounts of natural selection; indeed, both accounts languished in obscurity until after the "Origin" was published. (After the "Origin" appeared, Matthew wrote to a magazine to draw attention to his statements on the subject; he then proceeded to put "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection" on the title pages of his books. This annoyed Darwin.)

By 1858, Darwin had spent more than 20 years studying plants and animals and thinking about evolution. He had filled notebook after notebook with his thoughts on how evolution works; he had, in 1844, written a short manuscript on the subject that was to be published in the event of his untimely death; and he had discussed evolution with a few close friends. But he had published nothing. (He had, however, published books on several other subjects, including an exhaustive study of barnacles, both living and extinct.) Then, in June of that year, Darwin received a package from a young man named Alfred Russel Wallace; in the package, Wallace enclosed a brief manuscript in which he outlined the principle of evolution by natural selection.

What happened next is famous in the history of biology. On July 1, 1858, Wallace's manuscript, as well as a couple of short statements on natural selection by Darwin (a segment of the 1844 manuscript, and part of a letter he'd written in 1857), were read at a meeting of the Linnean Society in London. The meeting had been organized by some of Darwin's scientific friends to establish his priority in the discovery.

Of the material presented that night, the manuscript by Wallace is, in some respects, the more impressive: it is clearer and more accessible. Yet it is Darwin we celebrate; it is Darwin who, like a god in a temple, sits in white marble and presides over the main hall at the Natural History Museum in London. Why?

The reason is the "Origin." Without the publication of the "Origin" the following year, the meeting at the Linnean Society could well have passed unnoticed, the Darwin-Wallace statements going the same way as those by Matthew and Wells. Indeed, the meeting had so little impact at the time that, at the end of the year, the president of the Linnean Society said, "The year which has passed has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear."

This is one of my all-time favorite quotations (and I am fond of using it) because it shows how, at the time, little significance was attached to the Linnean Society meeting. We see that meeting as important now because of what happened next: it galvanized Darwin into writing and publishing the "Origin."

And the "Origin" changed everything. Before the "Origin," the diversity of life could only be catalogued and described; afterwards, it could be explained and understood. Before the "Origin," species were generally seen as fixed entities, the special creations of a deity; afterwards, they became connected together on a great family tree that stretches back, across billions of years, to the dawn of life. Perhaps most importantly, the "Origin" changed our view of ourselves. It made us as much a part of nature as hummingbirds and bumblebees (or humble-bees, as Darwin called them); we, too, acquired a family tree with a host of remarkable and distinguished ancestors.

The reason the "Origin" was so powerful, compelling and persuasive, the reason Darwin succeeded while his predecessors failed, is that in it he does not just describe how evolution by natural selection works. He presents an enormous body of evidence culled from every field of biology then known. He discusses subjects as diverse as pigeon breeding in Ancient Egypt, the rudimentary eyes of cave fish, the nest-building instincts of honeybees, the evolving size of gooseberries (they've been getting bigger), wingless beetles on the island of Madeira and algae in New Zealand. One moment, he's considering fossil animals like brachiopods (which had hinged shells like clams, but with a different axis of symmetry); the next, he's discussing the accessibility of nectar in clover flowers to different species of bee.

At the same time, he uses every form of evidence at his disposal: he observes, argues, compares, infers and describes the results of experiments he has read about, or in many cases, personally conducted. For example, one of Darwin's observations is that the inhabitants of islands resemble — but differ subtly from — those of the nearest continents. So: birds and bushes on islands off the coast of South America resemble South American birds and bushes; islands near Africa are populated by recognizably African forms.

He argues that the reason for this is that new islands become colonized by beings from the nearest continents, and that the new inhabitants then begin evolving independently. He then asks: can animals and plants from the continents get to new islands, especially those that are far out at sea? To investigate this, he conducts experiments to see how long seeds from different plants can remain immersed in saltwater and still begin to grow. In short, he tests his reasoning over and over again.

He is also, in some respects, surprisingly far-seeing. The "Origin" does not just expound natural selection. It contains a wealth of additional ideas and hypotheses, some of which Darwin went on to elaborate in other books. Among them: sexual selection. This is the idea — and it remained controversial until recently — that males in many species are burdened with showy ornaments like enormous tails because the females of their species have, by repeatedly picking the showiest males as their mates, caused them to evolve them that way.

This is not to say that the "Origin" is flawless, or that Darwin was right in every respect. It isn't, and he wasn't. Nor is the book a definitive account of how evolution works. It wasn't even definitive in his lifetime: he published six editions, revising, sometimes heavily, from one to the next. (In the third edition, which appeared in 1861, he introduced a historical sketch in which he discusses his precursors, including Matthew and Wells.) Yet his knowledge of the natural world is so immense, and the scrutiny to which he subjects his ideas is so thorough and scrupulous, that the "Origin" presents a grand new vision of the world. A vision that, as far as possible given the knowledge available at the time, he worked out in every detail. A vision that changed the world forever.

Let's party!

**********

NOTES:

The historical events described here can be found in any biography of Darwin; I drew on Janet Browne's — Knopf, in two volumes, "Voyaging" (1995) and "The Power of Place" (2002). The anecdote of Matthew annoying Darwin can be found on page 109 of "The Power of Place"; the quotation from the president of the Linnean Society can be found on page 42 of the same volume.

Many thanks to Dan Haydon, Horace Judson, Gideon Lichfield, Dmitri Petrov, Elizabeth Pisani and, especially, Jonathan Swire, for insights, comments, arguments and suggestions.

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #195254 by esuther on June 18, 2008 at 1:26 am

Great article. So where can I get one of those Darwin teeshirts?

Other Comments by esuther

2. Comment #195256 by 8teist on June 18, 2008 at 1:31 am

 avatarWallace and Darwin started a journey of discovery for all of us ,which will never end ,and for which I am eternally grateful . I never cease to be amazed by science and the natural world .
I love this site .My thanks to Richard Dawkins and his Foundation.

Other Comments by 8teist

3. Comment #195257 by Enlightenme.. on June 18, 2008 at 1:33 am

 avatar^^Results 1 - 10 of about 680,000 for darwin t shirt. (0.18 seconds)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

4. Comment #195288 by Barry Pearson on June 18, 2008 at 2:31 am

 avatarThe next 18 months will be interesting! They will also leave behind lots of material which will be used in arguments about Creationism for the next decade or more.

Here is a useful list of activities:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/2009.html

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

5. Comment #195297 by Szkeptik on June 18, 2008 at 3:07 am

So it begins...

Other Comments by Szkeptik

6. Comment #195299 by stereoroid on June 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

 avatarThis article illustrates why it's not enough to have an idea, or even to write it down. We celebrate Darwin not just for his ideas, but for his synthesis of disparate influences in to a deep and coherent body of knowledge, the practical work he put in to support the ideas, and his ability to communicate them effectively. The difference between Darwin and his predecessors is the difference between Knowledge and Information, you might say. 8)

Other Comments by stereoroid

7. Comment #195327 by Alter_GX on June 18, 2008 at 4:25 am

 avataresuther -
Try these sites for T's
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/darwin
http://evolvefish.com/fish/shirts.html

Other Comments by Alter_GX

8. Comment #195331 by Animavore on June 18, 2008 at 4:31 am

 avatarRamadan for atheists.
Am I they only person who sees this whole Darwin celebration as akin to some sort of religious celebration. It's no wonder creationists call us atheists 'Darwinists'. No one is celebrating Einstein or Newton or even Pastuer.
I for one will have nothing to do with this I mean, fair enough, his theory of evolution is one of the most important in science but to celebrate it to me, seems as ridiculous as wearing one of those gay 'A' t-shirts promoted on this site. Even when debating with Christians I usually avoid Darwin as much as possible and go more for the historic factors or attack the silly and obvious myths.
Sorry friends but, this is one cat you ain't gonna herd.

Other Comments by Animavore

9. Comment #195337 by rod-the-farmer on June 18, 2008 at 4:40 am

 avatarRe 8. Comment #195331 by Animavore

I think the reason some wish to celebrate Darwin is that his work has helped us define what we are. A-theists. Pasteur et al. did not have anywhere NEAR the effect on our view of the world. Pretty much single-handedly Darwin disposed of the need for religion. All the graphs I have seen indicate that loss of faith around the world took a huge jump with the publication of "Origins". It allowed the common man to read for himself how Darwin came to his conclusion of natural selection. In addition to all this is the growth of the right-wing fundie political pressure groups in the U.S. The celebration is in large part a response to this.

A good challenge to evolution deniers is to ask if they have read "Origins".

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

10. Comment #195342 by Barry Pearson on June 18, 2008 at 5:00 am

 avatar
Animavore said: Am I they only person who sees this whole Darwin celebration as akin to some sort of religious celebration. It's no wonder creationists call us atheists 'Darwinists'. No one is celebrating Einstein or Newton or even Pastuer.
Yes they did!

Google search of celebration of Einstein:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Einstein

Google search of celebration of Isaac Newton:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Isaac Newton

Google search of celebration of Pasteur:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Pasteur

And try Google search of celebration of Shakespeare's birthday:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celebration of Shakespeare's birthday

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

11. Comment #195346 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 5:16 am

 avatarComment #195342 by Barry Pearson

I think we should celebrate Wohler, a great scientist, and the person who showed that biology was chemistry, and vitalism was false.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #195350 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 5:30 am

 avatarJust a note on the t-shirts:
Richard Dawkins said that if we purchase items through this website, the RDFoundation gets a kickback.
Could we get a link to Darwin t-shirts from this site?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

13. Comment #195353 by PrimeNumbers on June 18, 2008 at 5:37 am

 avatarI just had to do some heavy math to optimize a matrix of 9 numbers. So I tried a genetic algorithm, starting with a random population, and breeding the fittest pair of parents each time, with some random mutation thrown in. In no time at all I had the code working producing superb results, much better than I was getting using a more traditional, intelligently designed approach.

So I think evolution wins over intelligent design once again! There's no proof of the power of evolution like proving it to yourself.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

14. Comment #195362 by Dhamma on June 18, 2008 at 5:51 am

 avatarScience dammit, why can't they allow you to be logged in for at least a couple of hours? I began writing and then I got a 30 minute call and then I resumed writing. When I pressed submit you only notice you were not logged in any longer, and the text isn't saved in any cache either.

Please RD.net, change it.

Anyway, I hope atheists will really make themselves heard during the festivities!

Other Comments by Dhamma

15. Comment #195366 by Dhamma on June 18, 2008 at 5:56 am

 avatarPrimenumbers: Was this a computer program you wrote?

If so, would you mind giving a link to it?

I think it's possible to make pretty persuasive software with certain algorithms to make the evolution appear very logical - even for the religious.

Other Comments by Dhamma

16. Comment #195384 by Lightnin on June 18, 2008 at 6:24 am

No one is celebrating Einstein or Newton or even Pastuer.


What about Koch, or Jenner or Lister or Semmelweis? Damn it if there was a day to celebrate the biologists who have not only contributed to our understanding of the natural world, but have made practical benefits that have saved literally hundreds of millions of lives, I'd be the first in line.

Oh and so I'm not completely biased towards biology, what about Haber? Sure, nitrogen fixation pretty much allowed WWI to go ahead, but BILLIONS have the potential to eat (although sadly, not all of them do) because of his work.

Oh and by the way Animavore, comparing any and every action of a group to religion is a fairly infantile pejorative to make if you fail to properly qualify it, it's why you hear it so often from theistic apologists.

I actually agree with you that Darwin isn't so essential to atheism, my interest lies in the fact that is the core principle for everything I study (Biology Major).

Other Comments by Lightnin

17. Comment #195413 by riemann on June 18, 2008 at 7:27 am

Just a note on the t-shirts:
Richard Dawkins said that if we purchase items through this website, the RDFoundation gets a kickback.
Could we get a link to Darwin t-shirts from this site?


I was just thinking the same thing. It would also be very cool if Richard worked out a way to make his famous "Evolution: The greatest show on earth, the only game in town." t-shirt available for sale for this occasion. It could even be a good idea, till the end of celebrations, to offer them free of charge as a gift to those who buy stuff from/via our site. Wonder if that's feasible? In any case the resurrection of that endangered t-shirt would be a very Darwinian event indeed, in both senses.

Other Comments by riemann

18. Comment #195415 by Mr. Flibble on June 18, 2008 at 7:28 am

 avatarDhamma: The loss of your writing is due to HTTP timeouts. It is unlikely that RD.net can change those timeouts unless they have their own dedicated apache server. And even if they do, changing the timeouts can cause performance problems. This is just conjecture mind you - as I am NOT the admin for RD.net. However, I have set the timeouts for other sites. So the timeout values may or may not be within their control.

My solution to this (as I am used to it occurring) is to always copy my text to my clipboard if concerned about a timeout.

However, a better solution is to use firefox, which caches that data. (Use the back button to retrieve it)

Other Comments by Mr. Flibble

19. Comment #195417 by Dhamma on June 18, 2008 at 7:33 am

 avatarMr. Flibble:

Oh, I had no idea about this. I'm on several other forums where I never get logged out, so I thought it was just some sort of security reason they did it.

I am using firefox though, it still doesn't save it in the cache when I press back (I've activated the cache I need for it).

Other Comments by Dhamma

20. Comment #195454 by jimbob on June 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

I'd like to see a dual celebration since Abraham Lincoln was born on the same day.

Other Comments by jimbob

21. Comment #195482 by Ultraviolet G on June 18, 2008 at 10:06 am

"Religious" celebration!?? Quite the opposite: us humans like to have celebrations and festivals whether birthdays, the Olympics, Magic Chocolate Bunny Rabbit Day (sorry), the World Cup, New Orleans Jazz festival, etc. The difference with religious festivals is that they are based on supernatural and false premises sometimes forced upon participants upon pain of death. But community festivals can help us live together, we can have fun, and nobody has to get their genitals mutilated for mythological reasons. And in the case of Darwin's anniversary, we can improve our education too. win-win.

But more to the point: Animavore, your avatar is that grotesquely morally compromised, mediocre, commercial garbage "Garfield". So fuck you.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

22. Comment #195567 by mordacious1 on June 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm

My town does the 4th of July up big. Religious celebration, or just a way to remember the Declaration? People dress up as the signers, are they religious icons? Come on.

I hate this: You can't celebrate anything without it being called religious. On my birthday...I AM GOD! What's wrong with that? Bring GOD beer, be quiet, GOD is watching football.

Other Comments by mordacious1

23. Comment #195568 by cerad on June 18, 2008 at 1:35 pm

 avatarKind of glad that Darwin won out over Wallace. Imagine trying to pronounce Wallaceism or Wallaceist.

Other Comments by cerad

24. Comment #195853 by Goldfish_flakes on June 18, 2008 at 10:59 pm

 avatarI'm really excited about this! I want a T-Shirt!
Yes, please RD.net...give us a link so that you will get a part!

Other Comments by Goldfish_flakes

25. Comment #195857 by Lightnin on June 18, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Kind of glad that Darwin won out over Wallace. Imagine trying to pronounce Wallaceism or Wallaceist.


They hurt just to look at!

Other Comments by Lightnin

26. Comment #195889 by ridelo on June 19, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #195346 by Steve Zara on June 18, 2008 at 5:16 am


I think we should celebrate Wohler, a great scientist, and the person who showed that biology was chemistry, and vitalism was false.


Yeah, Wohler! The man who first synthesised ureum (the main substance of piss) from inorganic materials and so showed that you didn't need a living organism to make organic chemicals. Or how great ideas originate from humble beginnings.

Other Comments by ridelo

27. Comment #197447 by hyposcada on June 22, 2008 at 4:11 am

A nicely written article, but it is a shame that one of Olivia's favourite quotations is the erroneous and poorly informed statement made by the President of the Linnean Society in 1859 i.e. that "The year which has passed has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear."! Not only was he incorrect (see the extract from Darwin expert Janet Browne's book on my website: http://wallacefund.info/faqs), but his quote has repeatedly been used to denigrate Wallace's contribution by people who clearly want to 'big-up' Darwin.

Scientific discoveries do not need to be published in book form in order to convince people of their reality - indeed most are published in the form of relatively short scientific articles. Judging by the attention which the 1858 paper received between its publication in August 1858 and the publication of Darwin's Origin in November 1859 it seems unlikely that it would have disappeared into obscurity (unlike Patrick Matthew's book for example).

Anyway, neither Darwin's nor Wallace's efforts actually convinced 'the Victorian mind' for very long:- natural selection as an explanation for evolutionary change became very unpopular amongst biologists from the 1880's until the "modern synthesis" in the late 1930's - a period which has been named "The eclipse of Darwinism" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism).

Natural selection became accepted by the biological community as the main mechanism of evolutionary change in the 1930's, not because of the (by then) old fashioned arguments and out-of-date information in the Origin, but due to the development of population genetics. Thus the ultimate triumph of the theory of natural selection in the twentieth century had in reality little to do with the Origin, despite popular misconceptions to the contrary.

Other Comments by hyposcada
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE