So What’s So Great About Charles Darwin?
A discussion of the problems and difficulties with the concept of evolution and natural selection that the media rarely mention.
Only someone completely divorced from western scientific thought would be unaware that the year 2009 is the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. This anniversary has been pushed at us by the media and by the scientific community. Special television programmes have been made explaining and praising both Darwin’s life and his scientific ideas. All of this multimedia feast of celebration has assumed that the principal idea of “Origin of the Species”, i.e. “Natural Selection”, is correct. To the best of my knowledge no-one in the media during this excessive mediafest has questioned it. (If some writer has subjected natural selection to proper critical analysis then I apologise for missing his work.)
I find this unquestioning acceptance of natural selection strange because the hypothesis has many difficulties. Those commentators who had the good grace to at least mention these problems tended to describe them only in passing and to minimise them. As a layman, and definitely not a creationist, I read more deeply into these problems and was surprised by what I found.
In the first place if Darwin was correct you would expect species to appear gradually, have a period of stasis and then gradually disappear from the fossil record. This is not what seems to happen. Instead we seem to have periods when many, many new species ‘explode’ into the fossil record. Then we have long periods of stasis before many species disappear as quickly as they appeared and new species ‘explode’ into the fossil record.
This was particularly true in Cambrian times. In the Pre-Cambrian rocks there is very little evidence of life forms – the fossils are sparse. But suddenly, in the Cambrian times the seas were seething with fully-formed, highly-complex life forms. Not what evolution and natural selection would expect! Indeed Stephen J Gould writes in “The Panda’s Thumb”, -
”The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…”
Gould tried to adapt Darwin’s idea by talking about “punctuated equilibrium” in order to explain these explosions of new species. Even so, he may have been describing accurately what had happened but was at a loss to explain why it had happened. Both forms of evolution, however, share more problems.
In the second place if evolution (either form) was the correct explanation we would expect many, many transitional forms between species. But we have none. The traditional explanation for the dearth of these transitional forms is that they were unsuccessful, died out and by bad luck no fossil record of them was left. Darwin, himself, made the point that of all past lifeforms only a tiny percentage died in conditions ripe for their fossilisation. This seems to me to be a poor excuse for the lack of evidence of transitional species. The number of such transitional species must have been huge and so the number of such individual animals must have been truly mindboggling! To have left no fossil record seems incredible!
For a while there were attempts to claim that archaeopteryx was a transitional species. Archaeopteryx was a fossil which looked like a bird at first glance. Only, it had teeth and seemed to have small hooks or claws on the front of the wings. This was claimed to be the intermediate between birds and dinosaurs and to predate the arrival of birds by sixty million years. In 1977, however, archeologists working out of Brigham Young University discovered a bird (identified as a bird beyond all doubt) in rocks of the same period as archaeopteryx. This suggests that archaeopteryx was no transitional creature but just one of the many strange birds alive at that period.
In the third place, one of Darwin’s main interests was pigeon breeding and he cited in “The Origin” how pigeon fanciers would breed pigeons. He carefully described how they would select the features they wanted to emphasise or eliminate and so choose the birds to be mated over the generations. He gave this as evidence of artificial natural selection. I have heard ardent evolutionists cite dog and horse breeding as evidence too. The problem here is that no matter which animal you select, albeit pigeon, dog or horse or any other creature you are talking about causing changes within one species. There is no question of the chosen creature becoming a new species. So Darwin’s claims have no relevance to natural selection or the origin of species!
This takes us to my fourth point and this involves two of the core beliefs of the philosophy of science. Firstly when putting forward a hypothesis or theory more weight should be given to the facts which don’t fit in with it than to the facts which do. This means that evolutionists should be worried by the lack of transitional species and the species explosions. They should be emphasising, when explaining natural selection that these are severe problems for the theory of evolution. They are, however, strangely quiet on the subject.
Secondly, The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, held that science works by falsification. His beliefs were not too dissimilar from those of the logical positivists led by A. J. Ayer. They held that unless you could adequately describe how you could prove your hypothesis to be either true or false then your hypothesis was meaningless. You would be in a scientific sense be talking non sense ( two words non and sense). Popper, himself said
”Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.”
It is very hard to imagine a workable test for evolution. We can breed new varieties of pigeons etc but this is intra species not inter species. Even experiments with fruit flies have not yet bred enough generations to see mutations to a new species and it is unlikely they ever will.
I accept what Popper said about Darwinism not being scientific but he goes on to say that it is certainly useful and points the way to the true scientific story. But i still cannot understand why these qualifications were not made plain when the mainstream media made their programmes lauding Darwinism.
Liked it
10 Responses to “So What’s So Great About Charles Darwin?”
On March 18, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Yep! And I’ve yet to hear of one of us marrying a monkey. Now with anyone who truly believes in Darwin’s theories that we originate from the apes, time would have no factor or barrier even today for us to marry and inter-bred with the species right? Only if you are truly nuts!
Good article. And whatever one does or does not believe,only God knows the truth, and what He says is good enough for me. Until someone can show and prove to me that there is something better and bigger to believe in, I’ll stick to the Almighty, thank you very much.
Really did enjoy and appreciate your summary.
On March 18, 2009 at 3:15 pm
This article shows an incredible misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. While it is true that some of the hypotheses in ‘The Origin of Species’ have been superseded by more modern science, the core of the theory is still sound. The “lack of transitional fossils” is totally false; all fossils, and indeed all living creatures are “transitional”, no matter how slight the change. Speciation (the point at which one species diverges from another, and can no longer, or does no longer, interbreed) has been observed in modern times. There are numerous examples of plants, fungi, insects and fish undergoing speciation events, and even the tiniest amount of research on the author’s part would have shown this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
To address another point, the explosion in the number of fossils found is not necessarily the result of a huge increase in the number of life forms; fossil formation is a relatively unlikely process, we are extremely fortunate to have so many fossils to examine.
To address punctuated equilibrium, I point the author here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
The above video addresses the basic tenants of natural selection via an evolutionary algorithm producing more advanced clocks from simple components, and is interesting in itself, but the reason I bring it up is the summaries of each evolutionary run. “Better” clocks dominate the population very quickly, but obviously only once they form.
Now, Archaeopteryx, despite what you may think, *is* a transitional form between lizard and bird. The fact that other birds were around at the same time does not negate this. It simply shows that it was a particularly successful species, at that time. To place this in a more familiar setting, humans and apes appear to have descended from a common ancestor. That common ancestor no longer exists, but at the time when the first proto-humans were coming into existence, it most certainly was. Evolution isn’t a ‘finger-snap’ from one species into another, it is the gradual change from an inferior form (i.e., a form less suited to surviving in a particular environment), to a superior form. Our common ancestor died out because it was less well suited to surviving than the proto-humans and apes that descended from it.
Finally, and I apologise for the length of this rant, the idea that our artificial selection of pigeons, dogs, horses, etc., constitutes a counter-proof to evolution by virtue of not having speciated these creatures, is utterly bogus. Speciation can take hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of generations, and artificial selection simply has not been around long enough for this to occur on any major level. In addition, artificial selection is not *trying* to speciate these creatures, it is simply trying to alter or enhance some specific features. The one instance of artificial slection that *is* trying to speciate creatures, is in the fruit-fly, and that *has* been successful, as described in the link at the end of my first paragraph.
And for the tl;dr crowd:
Author is wrong, various examples, useful links.
On March 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm
A small correction:
“Speciation can take hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of generations, and artificial selection simply has not been around long enough for this to occur on any major level.”
This was referring to artificial selection of the relatively slow breeding animals: dogs, horses, etc., and not meant to be taken as absolute. Speciation can be influenced to occur in plants and insects fairly quickly, and has been done.
On March 18, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Evolution is not a theory, but a fact. There are organisms in the fossil record (archeopteryx) that don’t exist today, and there are organisms that exist today (horses, homo sapiens) that appear only recently in the fossil record. Thus, species appear and disappear. Today’s horses have only been around for 2 – 4 million years; they were preceded by a series of increasingly “horse”-like animals (from Hyracotherium up to Equus, which includes horses, donkeys & zebras). Thus, species change. The fact of species changing, appearing and disappearing is what the word “evolution” refers to. Anyone who says there is no such thing as evolution may be safely laughed at, just as anyone who says there is no such thing as gravity or cancer. They are simply ignoring plentiful evidence that these things indeed exist.
The scientific theory proposed by Darwin was an attempt to explain some of the underlying mechanisms that cause evolution to occur. He primarily focused on natural selection, and found serious wads of evidence that supported his hypothesis. However, he didn’t get it all. The study of evolutionary biology in the last 150 years has greatly expanded, deepened and strengthened Darwin’s original core concepts. For instance, sexual selection as another force driving species change i.e. you may be the strongest & fittest, but that other fellow with the shiny blue fur seems to get all the ladies!
In this article, you talk about changes occurring within a species versus changes from one species to another. It would be interesting to hear your understanding of the word “species”. Look up “species problem” in wikipedia, it discusses some of the difficulties in trying to pin down this concept. Here’s a thought experiment: take a large group of ordinary pigeons, divide it into two separate populations, then apply artificial selection to the two populations in opposite directions: for instance, select group 1 for bigness, select group 2 for smallness. After 10 generations you’ll probably have a group with more big pigeons and a group with more small pigeons. If you mix them back together, I’m sure they will interbreed and have fertile offspring. However if you select them separately for 100,000 generations (let’s say this takes 100,000 years), I’d expect that you now have two very different birds that would be highly unlikely to successfully breed together and have fertile offspring. Are they still the same species? Horses can breed with donkeys but their progeny is almost always infertile (mules & hinnies). Are horses and donkeys different species? It’s almost as if the two creatures had a common ancestor not so long ago …
On March 21, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Well, everyone has good arguments. All the sides. But here’s a point: is it actually what has happened? Is this a proof that we, humans, used to be monkeys?
No, it simply isn’t.
On April 12, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Interesting. I thought for something to be scientific, it had to be observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution is not. Religion is not. There is no argument for what is “fact” since nobody can prove either idea. What really happens is that everyone makes a choice between the (non) scientific evolution theory or a religious belief, both of which are based on nothing more than faith.
Nobody will ever be able to convince the other side with proof, so just deal. Attempts at disproving will only lead to emotional, irrational responses.
What’s truly amazing to me is the utter lack of acknowledgment of the evolution believers that there are issues with their belief system. If something seems too large to ignore, like the pre Cambrian problem, then they invent yet another unscientific theory to cover the problem.
Keep building that house of cards, guys – I can’t wait to see what’s next. Maybe a new computer model “proving” something…
One prominent scientist held an “open-minded skepticism” regarding various so-called scientific theories and ideas. I’ll stick with that.
On April 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Christie DRC (is that Dumb Republican Creationist?) you haven’t a clue what Evolution is. There is no integrity in commenting on a subject you haven’t studied.
On April 19, 2009 at 12:39 pm
A word with you Paco49er! Whether or not you like it, there are difficulties with the theory of evolution. An evolutionist who denies these difficulties is operating on blind faith – just like creationists – you know, the people you think are dumb. Now, face up to these problems and discuss them intelligently and show me where I am wrong or misguided. That’s what you should be doing instead of insulting people. But perhaps you use insults because you can’t discuss these issues? I wait to find out which it is.
I am neither dumb, nor a creationist nor a Republican. I am not even American so don’t drag me into your creationist/evolution fiasco. I am merely trying to follow the truth wherever it goes and I believe it will probably some form of evolution but I further think that the current ideas are much too simplistic.
On May 9, 2009 at 2:43 am
Why do you want to disprove Darwin if you’re not a creationist? Remember that Darwin was the originator of a theory that has been much refined since his day. He knew nothing of genetics and the fossil record is far more extensive today than it was then. If you’re not offering creationism as an alternative, what are you offering? Even if Evolution can only be considered as a hypothesis; and the evidence points to it being much more than that, you must offer an alternative.
On October 15, 2009 at 7:57 am
If we had genetic material we could show a relationship between these forms. Until the theory of evolution can be proven it must be stated as a theory and not a fact. In recent times evolution is treated as fact. There was a time when the idea that we live on a “flat earth” was treated as fact. Many scholars protested any theory that suggested anything to the contrary. But over time the earth was measured, mapped and the flat earth theory fell flat on its face. The new theory of a round earth was proven and went from the realm of theory to fact. The transition from theory to fact occurred not by faith alone but by hard working proofs. Evolution is a theory that to this date has not been proven 100%. The burden of proof is on those who seek to champion the idea not the skeptics. You can not say “evolution is all we have so until you come up with something better then don’t knock it”, science does not work that way…does it?
Post Comment