Sal Cordova is a fascinating example of the danger facing anyone who ignores Pope's advice "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Sal's latest bungling of knowledge comes when he wonders:
Is evolution of antibiotic resistance by bacteria an example of Darwinism? Such a claim is very suspicious since Darwinism deals mainly with the origin of species.
Answering this question would be easy of "Darwinism" existed in some meaningful sense. But it doesn't. Evolutionary biologists don't refer to ourselves as "Darwinists" any more than physicists call themselves "Newtonists" or "Einsteinists."
If we assume that Sal is referring to evolutionary biology as "Darwinism," it's trivially easy to show that evolution below the species level is a major part of that ongoing and successful research program. Open a recent issue of Evolution and you'll find all the evidence you care for.
If Sal means only that Darwin dealt "mainly with the origin of species," that still doesn't cut it. After all, his most famous work is called: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. It's hard not to see antibiotic resistance as "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life," isn't it? What Darwin showed was that selection, a process used by animal and plant breeders from the dawn of humanity, has the ability to describe the patterns of speciation we see in the world around us.
There's a part of me that wishes people would spend less time talking about Darwin for the reasons I described above. Darwin was a great biologist, but modern biology owes great debts to many later biologists, and it's a shame that Wallace doesn't get his share of the credit. Nonetheless, the story of how Darwin came to appreciate the power of natural selection is a useful guide to helping people make those same leaps today.
Elements of evolutionary thinking can be gleaned from various parts of the scientific literature of the early 19th century, and back into the 17th century. Various mechanisms had been proposed, few reasonable, which could explain how new species could form from existing species. Darwin's leap was understanding that speciation itself does not have to be a separate process from other phenomena that are commonplace and well-understood. Pigeon-fanciers, dog breeders and the other hobbyists he learned from were using principles of selection to produce enormous changes in morphology in relatively short order already, Darwin recognized how those forces could explain speciation. If more people understood how Darwin made that leap, perhaps more would appreciate the ideas that followed.
The insight he gained from the Galapagos can best be appreciated as an example of how to learn the basic concepts of evolutionary biology. He had collected various specimens on the islands, which he gave to the great naturalist John Gould at the British Museum. Darwin had not labeled species by specific island, in part because they seemed to belong to so many families of birds. When Gould discovered that they were all finches which had specialized on particular ecological niches, Darwin began to see things differently. Using the better records kept by other members of the Beagle's crew, he was able to see how different species existed on different islands.
That realization, coupled with what he and everyone else knew about the power of selection, suggested something powerful to him. A finch or two from the mainland, being blown out to the islands, would face a very different set of pressures than it would have on the mainland. Its surviving offspring would represent a very different set of selective pressures. Over time, those pressures would make the population descending from those first migrants extremely different from their ancestors. Indeed, a process of evolution exactly like what we see with antibiotic resistance would ultimately produce one population very different from the parent species.
Isolation on each of the islands of the Galapagos would allow that pattern to repeat, producing the collection of finches which seemed to represent so many families of birds. Each species would be the result of normal processes of selection acting on a different population. If pigeon fanciers could produce such gaudy results in a single person's lifetime, surely nature could do the same over much greater swaths of time.
On seeing that, patterns of species distributions he'd seen elsewhere began to make sense, and the beginnings of modern evolutionary biology were sown.
- Log in to post comments
Regarding Wallace, I named the cell culture incubators in our lab. One of which is Wallace. Wallace is either sat upon by, or supporting, Darwin.
The other two Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan, FYI.
What Cordova might be trying to equivocate, is that antibiotics resistance would be mere "microevolution", which the Bible kinda allows, of at least doesn't explicitely forbid,
while the Creation of new "kinds" is definitively Macroevolution, which is the apanage of Designer, alongside with Rainbows, Burning Bushes, and Murrains.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but in regards specifically to the phrase "origin of species" (as opposed to races or varieties), didn't Darwin mean the origin of *new* species from pre-existing older ones?
Cordova's phrasing almost makes it sound as if Darwin was seeking the origins of life which, as I understand it, he wasnt'.
Tristero, I think _Arthur is right that Sal is trying to create an arbitrary and incorrect distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. One can never be sure, alas. You are correct that Darwin was not talking about the origin of life (etiobiology as John calls it). The closest Darwin came to that are some rough sketches in a letter which he never published.
Josh,
Thanks.
I think one of the biggest mistakes Evolutionists (or at least people who believe in evolution) make is to overemphasize the work of Darwin, thereby marginalizing other Evolutionists and creating a sort of cult for Darwin and Darwinian Evolution. Darwin was a great observer of the natural world, and Evolution is of course the best theory we have as to how life adapts, but as scientists we must remember that nothing, not even Darwin and Evolution, is safe from further scrutiny and the input of others. Darwin may be the primary figure of evolution and the one to popularize the phrase, but what we know as evolution today is of course a team effort. By deifying Darwin and his theory, we make our thought as rigid and superficial as any creationist.
You're dreaming, Kyle.
The overwhelming majority of biologists and other scientists in related branches, like say, paleontology or medecine, akwnowledge the current Theory of Evolution as scientifically correct and well grounded in scientific evidence. Most of them have never read by book written by Charles Darwin.
Darwin is merely the founder of biological science, the theory he proposed having given the framework to understand how living creatures relate to each other, biologically.
Darwin theory was incomplete in itself, lacking Mendel's notion of "gene" and a specific method of genetic inheritance of traits. Mendel work itself was incomplete, lacking the key notion of "mutations".
There's no "overemphasitation" of "the work of Darwin". He set the ball in motion, and, as it was demonstrated over and over again, he sent it in the right direction.
Darwin knowledge was primitive compared to the tools we have now, in particular DNA amplification technology.
That being said, Creationists always attack Darwin, and Darwinists, and try to attack the science of Darwin book written 1859, with the childish notion that if they find an error in Darwin texts, all the scientific knowledege in biology acquired in the past 150 years will be wiped off, somehow.
Scientitst are particularly irked by those attacks, not out of reverence for Charles Darwin, but because the argumentation they're based on is so ludicrously wrong. Darwin bashers seem to think if they can speculate a character weakness in Darwin, for example he was atheist, or gay, or a witch, they can undermine his scientific work. Come on, grow up.
They attack Darwin, because they have managed to convince themselves that the scientific theory set forth by Charles Darwin, and embraced by all current biologists, conflicts with their interpretation of Scripture, thus undermining their Faith in God.
They can't have that, thus they know Darwin is wrong. Nature is all wrong.
all they have to do is to prove Darwin wrong, and their Faith will be strenghtened.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they need do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, because today they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about the contents of the so-called 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, 'according to the evolutionists,' and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
James, the issue of the origin of life is a fascinating topic, but it isn't what evolutionary biology is about. I'd suggest reading Robert Hazen's Gen-e-sis for a look at what researchers in that field are up to.
I'd like to ask you a question though. Assuming that scientists do create life in the lab using only pre-biotic chemicals, will that cause you to reject the nonsense that AiG puts out? Will it change your mind in any real way about these issues, or will you find a different basis for rejecting evolutionary biology and other aspects of science?
This isn't meant as a criticism, I'm just curious how you think about these issues. I suspect that life will be created in the lab within my lifetime, and I'd like a preview of the discussion that will follow.
As it stands, I'm aware of AiG's attempts to respond to evolution, and I don't find their "evidences" accurate, let alone scientifically compelling. I hope you'll look at Hazen's book, and at Carl Zimmer's books on evolution for a more accurate account of current thinking about origins of life and biology, respectively.
"I think one of the biggest mistakes Evolutionists (or at least people who believe in evolution) make is to overemphasize the work of Darwin, thereby marginalizing other Evolutionists and creating a sort of cult for Darwin and Darwinian Evolution. Darwin was a great observer of the natural world, and Evolution is of course the best theory we have as to how life adapts, but as scientists we must remember that nothing, not even Darwin and Evolution, is safe from further scrutiny and the input of others. Darwin may be the primary figure of evolution and the one to popularize the phrase, but what we know as evolution today is of course a team effort. By deifying Darwin and his theory, we make our thought as rigid and superficial as any creationist."
Whoa! Whoa Whoa Whoa! I'm not a usual poster, but this screams, positively screams, "WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING." What is this "We" business you speak of, Kyle?
I'm not sure exactly what Kyle had in mind, Mike, but perhaps he was trying to make a distinction between "Evolution" and "Darwinian Evolution," or "Neo-Darwinian Evolution." Darwin wasn't the first to suggest that present species had descended from more ancient species. Larmarck beat him on that one. But Darwin offered a more plausible mechanism: Natural Selection acting upon Variation.
The question is, how do Variations arise? Neo-Darwinism suggests that the main way is by random mutation of genes. But not all biologists accept this. Lynn Margulis is perhaps the best known biologist to reject it. She denies knowing of even one present species that came about this way. I'm not a biologist, so I'm not qualified to enter into this debate. But if progess is to proceded in Evolutionary Biology, it might help if they at least more clearly define their terms, making a clear distinction between "Evolution" and "Neo-Darwinian Evolution."
As an IDist (or IDiot or IDolater or whatever label you feel comfortable pinning on me), I also think it's important to make a distinction between the origin of life and how life developed (or evolved) into its present forms. Unfortunately, too many IDists fail to make this distinction.
I should make it clear that Margulis is neither an IDist, nor friendly to ID. She believes that Evolution has occurred, but suggests a different mechanism than Neo-Darwinism. She calls it "symbiogenesis."
It is wrong and not just a bit silly to claim that there are no instances of speciation by neo-Darwinian mechanisms. I'm not sure where Margulis would have said that, but unless she has lots of careful caveats, the statement is wrong. Check out Schluter's work on sticklebacks or speciation in Rhagoletis on different fruit trees.
It's also not precise to say that Margulis rejects "random variation of genes." No one rejects that that happens we can watch it happen in the lab and measure these changes between parents and children, or between cancerous and non-cancerous cells. Symbiogenesis is an additional mechanism, beyond the neo-Darwinian synthesis, by which symbiotic relationships between cells result in a descendant which combines the two cells, or elements of them, completely. Margulis distinguishes herself from "neo-Darwinists" because she adds a mechanism, not because she rejects the existence of others. At least that's my understanding of her thinking.
Yes, as far as speciation goes, Margulis seems to fudge a bit. I think she would say that what most biologists regard as species are really just minor variations (but I may be misunderstanding her).
And I didn't say that she "reject" random mutations of genes. She just doesn't think it is the major mechanism for evolution. She thinks it plays a minor role, in fine-tuning the organism to its environment.
Her views are spelled out in detail in her 2002 book, "Acquiring Genomes." There's a foreword by Ernst Mayr. He doesn't endorse her views, but says, if I remember correctly, that it might be time for biologists to look for other mechanisms of evolution.
Biologists can and do look for new mechanisms of evolution. Margulis was right about symbiogenesis for mitochondria and chloroplasts, but probably wrong for a wide array of other cases.
I don't know that many people would disagree that species are minor variations. When they get to be major variations, they get to be different genera, families, orders, etc. There's not really any good evidence that process by which that novelty arises isn't an accumulation of the same forces working at the species level. I haven't read her book, and last time I check, our libraries didn't have a copy, so I don't know what counts as a "minor" variation. Mammalian hair and milk production? Feathers in birds? All easily explained by random variation and selection.
The transition from prokaryote to eukaryote seems to have involved symbiogenesis. Other than that, the evidence for her claims is sketchier than sketchy, I think.
For James Collins: I am assuming that you are unable to comprehend science at all and will reply accordingly. Your scientific illiteracy is truly of the jaw-dropping, mind-numbing variety. Your "heroes" at AiG are arguably the most brain dead dimwits the world has ever seen. Their irrational notions of "creation science" are far beyond pathetic and stupid. Given your scientific illiteracy and your worship of AiG, you have no business attempting to post anything on a science blog. The only "benefit" you will recieve for your effort is to generate more well-deserved contempt for yourself and the morons at AiG. Your "science" is an insult to real science, and your evangelical AiG-type "religion" is an insult to all mainstream religions. You and your kind would do well to heed Mark Twain: It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. You certainly get full credit for removing every bit of doubt.
IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION YOU HAVE MORE FAITH THAN THOES WHO BELIEVE IN THE BEGINING GOD CREATED
there has never been any evidence the life can come from non life , instead we see life begets life
no transitional forms in the fossil record. 98 percent of life living today has been found "fully formed" along with extinct animals.instead we see the bibical model cats have cats dogs have dogs monkeys have monkeys and humans have humans. darwin said that there would be more transitions than fully formed if his theory was true
at 20 billion years to get to the point we are now, there should be over 3 million genetic changes a second. yet there are none to speak of , there are mutations wich is a loss of information and harmfull to the creature.
animals rot they dont get slowly covered up by surroundings. fossils are from a rapid covering sealing it from contact with elements that decompose degratable material. fossils can be found of animals giving birth or in process of giving birth. how is this ? how was that moment frozen in time
jelly fish have been fossilized how can a soft jelliton creature last long periods of time to slowly get covered up? they cant, unless rapidly covered
clams around the world have been fossilized as whole clams both parts top and botom when clams die the shell seperates as youll find on any beach.
multa strata fossils going through multiple levels. explain that?
its called hydrological sorting mixing diffrent elements in flowing water and they will aoutomatically seperate in to there own kind making diffrent strata.
at the supposed 20 billion years to know the amount of stars calculated there should be 31,000 stars form every secondwe see stars die but never born.
Language sanscript has upto 500 variations on a single word
thats complicated no language on earth can beat the number 12 , we are devolving
from the architecture of the pyrimads in egept to the aqua ducts of rome and numerous other structures are superior to todays capabilitys
fossils are result of the great flood
and it says in 2nd peter. in the last days men would profess to be wise saying i came from that rock or tree denying that God had created them and the great flood.
evolution is a a 17 century idea that was disprooven in the 1800
in darwins time they thought mice grew out of trash, and flies from rotting or stinky material and frogs from mud which where all disprooven in the early 1800s
evolution is fairy tale that has no proof , just people who say could have been , might of , popular opinion,could have, possibly,
its all speculation and they (evolutionist)will fight all the way because it is a religous beliefe that they hope and pray for. Dont trust man all men are lyars seeking after there own lusts.