Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Darwin still causing waves after 150 years

by News Daily

Thanks to Stephen Grundy for the link.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/l0466977-britain-darwin/

Darwin still causing waves after 150 years
By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON, Jun. 4, 2008 (Reuters) — Speeches and a scientific meeting next month will kick off 18 months of events to celebrate the impact and lasting legacy of Charles Darwin, whose theories on evolution are still causing waves 150 years later.

It was on July 1, 1858 that papers on the development of animals by Darwin and fellow scientist Alfred Wallace were presented to the Linnean Society in London representing the cream of scientific knowledge. They did not go down well.

"There was very little reaction in the room," Linnean Society librarian Lynda Brooks said on Wednesday. "But the real furore didn't begin until Darwin published 'On The Origin of Species' the following year."

On July 1 this year the society, which still prides itself as the repository of natural history expertise in Britain, will hold a meeting to discuss how much scientific understanding of the controversial theories has developed since then.

The celebrations will cover three significant events in the life of the shy, retiring scientist who shook the world.

February 2009 will be the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the following November will be the 150th anniversary of the publication of "Origin."

"There is a grandeur in this view of life ... that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved," are the concluding lines of the revolutionary book.

Darwin, knowing the reaction he was likely to receive, held back for years from airing and then publishing his theories on the principle of natural selection.

In the end he was stampeded into action by news that Wallace had reached the same conclusions from completely different observations and was about to publish. Both papers were read to the Linneans on the same day.

Darwin's fears were correct. He was pilloried by the scientific and religious establishment of the time.

One famous caricature depicted him with the body of a monkey, so angered were people by the suggestion that they might have descended from the apes rather than having been created in the image of God.

His theories are still rejected by some, notably creationists in the United States, and are less than welcome in the Middle East.

Even in Britain a poll in 2006 showed that only 48 percent of people believed Darwin's evolutionary theories.

The 18 months of events, which include exhibitions and seminars at London's Natural History Museum among others, student exchanges and scientific meetings, will culminate in a three day conference in Egypt in November 2009.

(Editing by Paul Casciato)

Posted: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #188689 by SamKiddoGordon on June 4, 2008 at 11:44 am

First post..

That darn tail of mine doing all they typing again???

God, the original benevolent dictator.

Well, not so benevolent.

Lets hope religion is history and not us when we look to darwins 300th.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

2. Comment #188694 by JLD Calgary on June 4, 2008 at 11:51 am

Anyone know of a really good book that thoroughly explains evolution from top to bottom? One that's easy to read and digest? Naturally, I'm all for Darwin, but I'm still running into people that question evolution's merits. I wouldn't mind having a quick read to lend to them when it comes up (Akin to Sam Harris' A Letter to a Christian Nation, something short, sweet and to the point).

Other Comments by JLD Calgary

3. Comment #188699 by kaiser on June 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

It`s really important that we stop using the word "BELIEVE" in evolution and change it to "ACCEPT" evolution.

Other Comments by kaiser

4. Comment #188703 by mordacious1 on June 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm

JLD
Lot of good books out there. Richard Dawkins is in the process of writing one and I'm sure it will be the best for what you're looking for. If you can wait.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #188709 by Reg on June 4, 2008 at 12:05 pm

JLD
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470117737. Nothing implied, honestly.

Reg.

Other Comments by Reg

6. Comment #188716 by Naturalist1 on June 4, 2008 at 12:11 pm

JLD Calgary...This site is just an excellent overview of current evolutionary knowledge,Very easy to understand.
University of California-Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
enjoy,
Darrell

Other Comments by Naturalist1

7. Comment #188724 by Lucas on June 4, 2008 at 12:24 pm

JLD - I believe Prof. Coyne has worked/is working on this, and...

kaiser - His stress of "accept" over "believe" in his lecture was indeed right on.

Other Comments by Lucas

8. Comment #188729 by riemann on June 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm

@JLD:

Well The Blind Watchmaker comes to mind, by far the clearest exposition of natural selection, i think. Not a short book admitedly, but so very sweet. There's also the "Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald R. Prothero, about which Michael Shermer commented "The best damn book about evolution - period!" But if it's "top to bottom" insight you want, i don't think it gets any better than Maynard Smith's "The Theory of Evolution", not necessarily short or sweet, but definitely to the point. Coping with selection pressures is all about trade offs, you see.. :)) Needless to say, Dawkins' upcoming book bound to be a contender in this category.

Other Comments by riemann

9. Comment #188730 by carbonman on June 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm

JLD:

Anyone know of a really good book that thoroughly explains evolution from top to bottom?

The Blind Watchmaker must rank among the best.

Other Comments by carbonman

10. Comment #188731 by noamzur on June 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm

I object to only one thing:

His theories are still rejected by some, notably creationists in the United States, and are less than welcome in the Middle East.

The "Middle East" accepts and welcomes Darwinian ideas in its enlightened and secular parts, and since I originate from there myself I refuse to be branded by the bad apples and stuck in one compartment with them. The fights I have at home are bad enough. Other than that - let the festivities commence!

Other Comments by noamzur

11. Comment #188735 by CanadianRealist on June 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

"Accept evolution" Yes, that does sound so much better! Acceptance based on evidence, as opposed to belief based on.... ????

Funny that those who reject evolution are the ones most likely to make me believe that they are in fact "descended from monkeys"*.

*Yes, I'm well aware that's a misstatement - monkeys are (distant) cousins, not ancestors - but it's their misstatement, not mine.

Other Comments by CanadianRealist

12. Comment #188738 by Bruno on June 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm

"Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald R. Prothero is damn good.

Other Comments by Bruno

13. Comment #188760 by Ole on June 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Anyone know of a really good book that thoroughly explains evolution from top to bottom?

JLD, I would suggest this book, by Carl Zimmer:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/books/evolution/

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

14. Comment #188792 by EvidenceOnly on June 4, 2008 at 2:45 pm

11. Comment #188735 by CanadianRealist

Along the same lines, people who believe in a supernatural being and especially creationists, IDiots, GodDitIt-ists are constantly displaying evidence that they either have not evolved as far as the rest of us or that they are total hypocrites.

They believe that they are made by God in his/her/its image but refuse to make use of this God-given ability to think critically.

Since they also believe that everything exists for a purpose, they should accept that their critical thinking has a purpose as well.

Furthermore, they all believe in a very vengeful God.

It seems therefore very logical to conclude that they are greatly infuriating their God for refusing to use the brains that their God so artfully crafted for them.

But then again, logic is not what they are really good at.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

15. Comment #188809 by JLD Calgary on June 4, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Thanks for the suggestions all. I'm still working my way through The Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene, but when I hit up Chapters there's so many other's that seem interesting it can be a pain to find a simple and short one that still gives you the details.

I actually had someone say that we're "only" 97% similar in DNA to our Chimp cousins... as if he'd be convinced if that number was just a bit higher *laughs* He's also not one to read any length of a normal book, so brevity in novel suggestions is ideal :)

Other Comments by JLD Calgary

16. Comment #188829 by qomak on June 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Ancestor's tale is also pretty good, I prefer that to blind watchmaker; I find blind watchmaker a bit dumbed down for creationists so ancestor's tale has more material.

Other Comments by qomak

17. Comment #188830 by Nova on June 4, 2008 at 5:49 pm

EvidenceOnly:

They believe that they are made by God in his/her/its image but refuse to make use of this God-given ability to think critically.

Since they also believe that everything exists for a purpose, they should accept that their critical thinking has a purpose as well.

Don't you know? Thinking critically isn't God given it's the work of the devil - why do you think the tree Eve took the fruit from was called the Tree of Knowledge?

Other Comments by Nova

18. Comment #188833 by prettygoodformonkeys on June 4, 2008 at 6:03 pm

It takes a long time to soak in, because it changes the person who's reading it. Sometimes who you've changed into has to read it again.

Just read everything you can get your hands on, and don't look for a quick fix.

It took 4.5 billion years, after all.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

19. Comment #188848 by T4Baxter on June 4, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Hi everyone,I love this community of commentators! It's a shame our collective wisdom is wasted on this site... you know, we would serve ourselves better by choosing a specified creationist site, each month. And talk about the issues raised on this site, there! :) not only would it be great advertising for RDF it would give the creationist bloggers something to read that might actually help them in achieving that awesome feeling of joy only found though the most probable understanding of the reality we inhabit! The only comment I want to read on here is where your all gonna be at 'this month' :) I think that would kick colon... oh yeah and we can devastate the pallid arguments we discover wherever we tread.

Other Comments by T4Baxter

20. Comment #188874 by eggplantbren on June 4, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I have no problem with the word believe and I don't understand why some people think saying "accept" instead makes any difference whatsoever to the actual issue.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

21. Comment #188884 by King of NH on June 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm

I wonder if the USPS will put out a Darwin stamp for the occasion, or if they'll back down to the Christservatives.

Other Comments by King of NH

22. Comment #188885 by mordacious1 on June 4, 2008 at 11:04 pm

King of NH

I thought your idea was a good one, so I went on the USPS site to find out about the Stamp Advisory Committee that decides which stamps to issue. You have to put your suggestion in writing THREE YEARS before the issue date of the stamp. This is to give the SAC time to decide on which stamps to issue and to select a design. I think we missed the deadline. Hopefully, someone had more forethought.

Other Comments by mordacious1

23. Comment #188903 by V'Ger on June 5, 2008 at 1:37 am

I'm still really surprised that so many people reject Darwin's theory - simply because they cannot deal with being descended from an ape.

I just don't understand what the problem is! Not to mention that what they would prefer to have descended from is completely irrelevant.

Other Comments by V'Ger

24. Comment #188905 by Buddha on June 5, 2008 at 1:46 am

For anyone who's already read popular science books on Evolution and wants to dip their toes into more of the meaty technicalities of the subject, I can strongly recommend "Evolution" by Douglas J Futuyma. It's a beautiful undergraduate text that doesn't require too much previous knowledge other than basic high-school biology and maths to get stuck into.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/0878931872/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212655270&sr=8-1

Even if you don't understand it, it's a pretty weighty tome that is perfect for whacking IDiots round the back of the head.

Other Comments by Buddha

25. Comment #188911 by irate_atheist on June 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

Even in Britain a poll in 2006 showed that only 48 percent of people believed Darwin's evolutionary theories.

Scientists show that 50% of the population is less intelligent than average. Give me a break. Srsly.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

26. Comment #188959 by Calilasseia on June 5, 2008 at 3:22 am

Eggplantbren, I can tell you what the problem with using the word "believe" with respect to evolution is.

It allows the creationists and other purveyors of supernaturally inspired nonsense to continue peddling the myth that evidence based science is on the same level as their fairy tales. Which is why every time someone runs that specious notion past me in the forums, I insist upon instant correction thereof.

Evolution is massively supported by evidence from observational reality, and denial of the validity of that gigantic stockpile of evidence is not merely untenable, it is perverse. Conclusions supported by evidence don't require "belief" by definition, because "belief" implies uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. That's why it is important to be precise here, in order to nail every canard erected by the propagandists for reality-denial doctrines.

You can see the duplicity and mendacity at work frequently in the forums, whenever one of the ideological warriors for creationist fantasies decides to post their usual hit-and-run posts or cut-and-paste screeds from disreputable apologetics websites such as AiG - every time, they refer to those who accept the evidence-based, reality-based case for evolutionary theory as either "Darwinists" or "evolutionists", both words deliberately deployed for the specific purpose of propagating the wilfully and mendaciously errant notion that evidence-based science is merely another "doctrine", and by implication, since they seek to propagate the manifest falsehood that their doctrine is somehow "right", that evidence-based science must necessarily be "wrong" when it dares not to genuflect before their worthless doctrine.

Remember, these individuals will resort to duplicitous abuse of discourse with respect to the matter of propagandising for their assertion-laden, evidence-free doctrine with the same ease as you or I breathe.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

27. Comment #188966 by Barry Pearson on June 5, 2008 at 4:14 am

Calilasseia said: Eggplantbren, I can tell you what the problem with using the word "believe" with respect to evolution is. It allows the creationists and other purveyors of supernaturally inspired nonsense to continue peddling the myth that evidence based science is on the same level as their fairy tales.

I don't accept the truth of your statement. I don't accept that use of the word "believe" typically has the effect you claim for it. It doesn't in conversations I have.

Calilasseia said: Conclusions supported by evidence don't require "belief" by definition, because "belief" implies uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions.

I don't accept the truth of the last part of your statement. If you had made that claim about the word "faith", I would accept it. But, in everyday English, there isn't a consensus that this is what "belief" means. In fact, my reading of dictionaries is that "belief" and "believe" are fairly neutral about the degree of evidence available - they are really describing a state-of-mind, which may have arisen from overwhelming evidence, or from little or none.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe

Conclusions supported by evidence still typically need people believe them to act upon them. (Because action needs a suitable state-of-mind). If you draw a conclusion supported by evidence, it may still be a wrong conclusion, and future evidence, or different ways of interpreting the same evidence, may lead to different conclusions in future. Science is like that.

And PLEASE don't respond by trying to convince me of the amount of evidence for evolution by natural selection. I've believed for well over 20 years that it (alone) accounts for adaptation in living things around us. And because I believe that, I have been prepared to act upon it, for example by following the instructions carefully when using antibiotics to reduce the risk of helping the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (Or by not demanding antibiotics unnecessarily).

Calilasseia said: That's why it is important to be precise here, in order to nail every canard erected by the propagandists for reality-denial doctrines.

Yes, and precision will not be achieved via a single word. In fact, "accept" appears to have a variety of meanings, some of which are unsuitable for current purposes.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accept

You go on to give examples of misleading and indeed malicious distortions of words, such as "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc. But you didn't justify your criticism of "belief" or "believe" in that. I simply don't accept your statement that "belief" and "believe" are the wrong words, and even dangerous words, to use in this situation. You would have to provide more evidence than you have to cause me to believe you, or to accept your statements.

I stand by what I said elsewhere:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2665,The-Challenge-of-the-New-Creationism,Jerry-Coyne#187919

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

28. Comment #188968 by KRKBAB on June 5, 2008 at 4:29 am

You people don't get it, do you? A book for the MASSES to explain the Theory of Evolution (not evolution) will have to be MORE dumbed down than The Blind Watchmaker. Please don't be in denial about HOW simplistic it should be for the right percentage of the WORLD'S population to finally get it. I'm living proof! Seriously though, there should be several books on several levels- but clearly a VERY simple read (let's not go overboard here) should be available if not just for the masses, but also for a primer to get people (the public) to want to learn more. ALSO- I think one of the best ways to get Christians (at least) see the light of reason, is to focus the hell out of the major elephant in the room. The fact that (as an earlier person posted) thirst for knowledge is associated with being "tempted" by the devil. SURELY this has to be under a HUGE spotlight when-ever there is any debate between Christians and rational thinkers (i.e. skeptics).

Other Comments by KRKBAB

29. Comment #188970 by Grumpy Max on June 5, 2008 at 4:37 am

JLD:

I'd second Qomak in recommending The Ancestor's Tale. Not only does it give an account of evolution in the broadest sense, but individual chapters provide lots of fun detail on all sorts of things- what constitutes "speciation", how exactly petrification of fossils occurs, and so on. And there's lots of cool sidetracks into the anatomy and behaviour of specific animals. I annoyed the hell out of my wife when I was reading it because I kept nudging her and saying "Ooh! Listen to this bit about the platypus..." and so on every fifteen minutes.

Other Comments by Grumpy Max

30. Comment #188977 by j.mills on June 5, 2008 at 5:25 am

I think KRKBAB (#28) has a point. Stuff like The Ancestor's Tale is fascinating to us pop-science gluttons but intimidating to those who don't even read their own Bible.

For my money, the best Dawkins book for beginners is River Out Of Eden, which was written for the Science Masters series of introductory texts. Even that isn't a pocket-sized tract that could be handed out at the door of the temple. The Ladybird Book of Natural Selection is what we need! :)

Other Comments by j.mills

31. Comment #189016 by 5keptical on June 5, 2008 at 8:01 am

I like the following succinct response to the cretinists dodge that scientists need as much faith as the

"I don't have to believe, I can check!"

I don't have to have faith that a building will stand up... I can measure and test and determine. I can even go back and redo each of the experiments and findings of decades of engineers and scientists that are used to construct that building. The same goes for evolution.

And you, mr faithhead could do so as well - if you made the effort. Therein lies the difference.

Other Comments by 5keptical

32. Comment #189028 by Haymoon on June 5, 2008 at 8:29 am

Some years ago BBC TV did a very good series on Darwin. I think it was called "Voyage of the Beagle" but I'm unsure of that.

It would be good to see it again

Other Comments by Haymoon

33. Comment #189054 by Border Collie on June 5, 2008 at 9:40 am

JLD Calgary ... read "Origin" ... If I can do it, you can do it. Don't look for quick, easy answers ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

34. Comment #189060 by Barry Pearson on June 5, 2008 at 10:01 am

There is no ideal book. It IS a big subject, and different people want/need to pursue their own paths, which may be different from anyone else's. (I would tend to ask "do you want to understand the basic mechanisms, or do you want to know where we came from, or something else?" Then I would suggest different books accordingly, such as "The Selfish Gene" or "The Ancestor's Tale", or whatever).

Here is a thought for a "game". You download it onto your PC, and you play with it. You can explore the evolutionary tree, focus on graphics showing the core algorithm of natural selection, study fossils, view fast-motion graphics of morphological changes in different parts of the evolutionary tree, and lots more.

You can navigate from one view to another. For example when you have seen the graphics for the evolution of Aves, you can get back to the evolutionary tree, navigate to Arthropoda and watch crabs evolve.

I'm influenced by the diagrams in Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". He shows the evolution of limbs according to a common plan, or jaw bones, or how small(ish) differences at the development stage between sharks and humans can be magnified into large differences in the adults. This revealed to me, with much greater clarity than other books, images of the steady morphological changes down (up?) the evolutionary tree. Imagine a split screen where travel along the tree is accompanied by gradual changes of images of jaw bones or limbs. (Or DNA!)

Problems with hyper-documents like that tend to be that they are not generalised. Some evolutions might be shown graphically, but not in a generalisable way. You might see limbs evolve in parts of the tree but not others. Each part of the "game" may have to be specially created. The bits and pieces might tend to be added ad hoc.

What would make this "game" generalisable would be a comprehensive schema accommodating all of these aspects, with different parts of the whole supported by metadata compatible with the schema. Then the "game" could be updated as new material was developed, and suddenly new paths would become available. "Anyone" could develop new material conforming to the schema and accompanied by the metadata.

Perhaps this all exists? Perhaps only an on-line, rather than a down-loadable, could be achieved? Perhaps it would cost too much?

Imagine a multi-dimensional Wiki, with a published schema and specified metadata, in which experts in various topics could contribute their bits of the whole. Some would provide the graphics engines. Some would extend the tree. Some would provide the DNA sequences.

The science of biology, including evolution, is building this picture in the form of scientific papers, articles, books, models, etc. It has been doing so for a VERY long time. The standards concerned are relevant to scientists working in the field, who are prepared to do the work of searching for papers, and spending a significant part of their lives trying to build their own personal comprehensive "games" of how this all fits together. But this is only accessible 2nd or 3rd hand (or worse) to the rest of us.

Why can't I say to some service "build me the evolutionary tree for Aves, showing limb development and corresponding DNA changes along the tree"? Part of the answer is "because we don't yet have all the information". But even where we do, I still can't say that to any service, because the service doesn't exist.

If science is only for a minority, it doesn't matter. If science is for all of us, we need such services.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

35. Comment #189065 by JLD Calgary on June 5, 2008 at 10:37 am

Border Collie: JLD Calgary ... read "Origin" ... If I can do it, you can do it. Don't look for quick, easy answers ...

Oh don't worry about me, I'm an avid reader and love these big novels, it doesn't take me long to go through them.

I've just found that certain individuals, the kind that aren't sold on evolution that I'm trying to find a short book for to explain this concept, are not the types to read very often and most of the materials are daunting to them. Such is expected though right?

Btw: T4Baxter has a really interesting idea. Does the RDF members ever go to creationist or any other type of misinformed forums to discuss logic, reason and evidence? I would love to read/participate in more informal forum debates.

Members of this forum usually trip over each other in agreement, usually… 

Other Comments by JLD Calgary

36. Comment #189232 by Christopher Davis on June 5, 2008 at 10:02 pm

I've seen a coloring book on evolution for sale in Barnes & Noble. That's probably a good place for your average 'fundie' to start.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

37. Comment #203334 by BigJohn on July 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm