What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Nov. 24 2009 - 3:17 am | 226 views | 1 recommendation | 6 comments

Happy 150th Anniversary On the Origin of Species!

November 24, 1859, 150 years ago today, saw the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. All 1,250 copies of the initial print run of the book were scooped up by readers eager to see the British naturalist going rogue with his radical new theory of evolution. Every since then much has been written about what, exactly, evolution is.

In his 1988 book, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, the late Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, arguably the greatest evolutionary theorist since Darwin, employed technical definition: “Evolution is change in the adaptation and in the diversity of populations of organisms.” Adaptation and diversity are evolution’s dual nature, “the ‘vertical’ phenomenon of adaptive change and the ‘horizontal’ phenomenon of populations, incipient species, and new species.” And I’ll never forget Mayr’s definition of a species, because I had to memorize it in my first course on evolutionary biology: “A species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations reproductively isolated from other such populations.” In his classic 1982 book, The Growth of Biological Thought, Mayr outlines five general tenets of evolution, followed by five specific points about how natural selection works.

1. Evolution: Organisms change through time. Both the fossil record of life’s history, and nature today document and reveal this change.

2. Descent with modification: Evolution proceeds via branching through common descent. Offspring are similar to but not exact replicas of their parents. This produces the necessary variation to allow for adaptation to an ever-changing environment.

3. Gradualism: Change is slow, steady, and stately. Given enough time, evolution accounts for species change.

4. Multiplication of speciation: Evolution does not just produce new species; it produces an increasing number of new species.

5. Natural selection: The process of evolutionary change, co-discovered by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, operates in the following manner:

A. Populations tend to increase indefinitely in a geometric ratio: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024…

B. In a natural environment, however, population numbers stabilize at a certain level.

C. Therefore, there must be a “struggle for existence” because not all of the organisms produced can survive.

D. There is variation in every species.

E. In the struggle for existence, those individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well adapted. This is known as differential reproductive success.

This process of natural selection, when carried out over countless generations, gradually leads varieties of species to develop into new species. Within the natural selection paradigm, points A, B, and D are observations, C and E are inferences. C follows from A and B, and E follows from all three observations. In Darwin’s own words in On the Origin of Species, here are his observations that led to his inference:

A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.

And here is his inference:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were.”

Natural selection operates primarily at the local level. It is the process of organisms struggling to survive and reproduce in order to propagate their genes into the next generation. In his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, the Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins succinctly defined evolution as “random mutation plus non-random cumulative selection.” Dawkins especially emphasizes the nonrandom element in the process in order to counter the myth that evolution is completely random, as in the creationists’ specious argument that evolution is the equivalent of a warehouse full of parts randomly assorting themselves into a jumbo jet. If evolution were truly random there would be no biological jumbo jets. Genetic mutations and the mixing of parental genes in offspring may be random, but the selection of genes through the survival of their hosts is anything but random. Out of this process of self-organized directional selection emerges complexity and diversity.

That is the power and beauty of natural selection as the driving process behind evolution, and so let us today celebrate 150 years of this glorious book.


Comments

6 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    I am intrigued by the beauty, clarity and simplicity of this article, and your article on CNN.com. Why do we still call it the “theory” of evolution? The very term itself fuels those who reject evolution.
    I was educated in religious schools for my initial 12 years, and even then, back in the dark ages of the 50’s and 60’s we were taught the rudiments of evolution and natural selection as scientific fact, not fiction or theory, without any hint of incompatability with religious belief or lack thereof.
    Kudos to you.

    • collapse expand

      This point is one I’ve heard before and I’m of two minds about it.
      First thought is that, obviously, a scientific theory is completely different in definition from a non-scientific theory. There is a part of me that is annoyed at how scientific knowledge has fallen so low that this is not better known or understood by the masses. This same part is the one thinking that science shouldn’t change its terminology, rather that society should be better educated.

      The other half is that language is often imprecise, but its also the only means we have of conveying our ideas. In a situation as important as teaching evolution, science may be better served accepting the inevitable and redefining what it now calls “theories,” if for no other reason than to ensure its precepts are more clearly understood. On a related note though, it is interesting (and often pointed out) that there is no elaborate definition/explanation required when one refers to the theory of gravity. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that ID propaganda is, by nature, so narrow in scope. Otherwise, school boards across America could have fun filling the first half of science textbooks, with all sorts of disclaimer stickers and warnings.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  2. collapse expand

    I didn’t know this. Awesome.

    Question, which “theory” is more impressive: Darwin’s evolution or Newton’s gravity?

    If forced to chose, I go with Newton. Darwin (and other scientists) have filled in some many of the gaps that all that’s left is to figure out how specifically this works at the genetic level. But Newton’s theory is so off the wall that he had to A)invent a new math to explain it, and B) other scientists have had to invent other dimensions and we still can’t fully explain how gravity works at the subatomic level.

    Because gravity is still more of an “incomplete” theory than evolution, I feel that makes it more complicated and thus, marginally more impressive to come up with it in the first place.

  3. collapse expand

    Thanks for a well written and deft explanation of natural selection. Well done Dr. Shermer.

  4. collapse expand

    Celebrate natural selection and evolution and hope science and religion can coexist better in the future

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    Dr. Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and editor of Skeptic.com, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University. His latest book is The Mind of the Market, on evolutionary economics. His last book was Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design, and he is also the author of The Science of Good and Evil and of Why People Believe Weird Things. He received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University (1991). He was a college professor for 20 years, and since his creation of Skeptic magazine he has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, and Larry King Live (but, proudly, never Jerry Springer!).

    See my profile »
    Followers: 180
    Contributor Since: November 2009