An evening in the Wood's Hole MBL Library
by Wesley R. Elsberry
The library of the Marine Biological Laboratory at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution represents almost an embarrassment of riches for the student
interested in the historical side of evolutionary science. Many of the
most referenced book titles are physically present here, as well as a variety
of lesser known, but intriguing, works.
I'll delve into a few that I looked at during my visit. Some I have
comments sprinkled in quotes, others or mostly just quotes I found interesting.
Richard Goldschmidt. 1940. The material basis
of evolution. New Haven, Yale University Press.
"The problem of evolution as a whole consists of a number of
subproblems, with some of which we are not concerned here at all. There
is, first, evolution as a historical fact. With all biologists we assume
that evolution as such is a fact."
Goldschmidt is a popular whipping boy of SciCre obscurantists, mainly for
his phrase, "the hopeful monster." However, as the quoted text above indicates,
Goldschmidt was not sympathetic to the creationist position.
"Microevolution. This term has been used by Dobzhansky (1937)
for evolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime
as opposed to macroevolution, on a geological scale. It will be one of
the major contentions of this book to show that the facts of microevolution
do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution. The latter term
will be used here for the evolution of the good species and all the higher
taxonomic categories."
Goldschmidt's definition of microevolution and macroevolution is, so far
as I know, unique. At least, I was not able to locate the Dobz hansky reference
to microevolution, and no other definition that I have seen (and I have
seen quite a few) relate microevolution to observation time. Goldschmidt's
definition of macroevolution has definite problems, since species have
been observed to arise within human lifetimes.
"bridgeless gaps"
Goldschmidt's hypothesis was that the fossil record demonstrates a pattern
of speciation which gives the appearance of "bridgeless gaps." This, he
contends, also demonstrates that microevolutionary change was incapable
of explaining speciation events.
Goldschmidt notes that nematodes, among other metazoans, display eutely.
That is, the number of cells for particular organs is invariable in each
species. This is offered as another evidence that speciation is not accomplished
by the insensible accumulation of minute variation, but rather is due to
abrupt large-scale developmental changes.
"Good species" is not clearly defined, by my skimming of Goldschmidt's
work. My inference is that the term applies to well characterized species.
"Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species
nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified
blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first
step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires
another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations."
"At the lower level of macroevolution, evolution of species, genera, and
even families, there is still available some information based upon collaboration
of genetics and taxonomy." "We frequently encounter the idea that life
phenomena are infinitely more complicated than those of inorganic nature
and that they therefore cannot be understood on the same basis. Applied
to evolution, this outlook would mean that one has to look for very complicated
features, preferably such as require a metaphysical interpretation. I cannot
agree with this. If life phenomena were not based on very simple principles,
no organism could exist; if embryonic development were not controlled by
a few simple basic properties and laws of matter, an organiqsm could never
be developed in a series of processes unrolling with the precision of clockwork.
If evolution had not been made possible by relatively simple features inherent
in the material basis of organization, it would never have occurred."
Goldschmidt was convinced that small genetic changes in developmental pathways
would be sufficient to generate new species. This mode of change would
explain the paucity of fossils demonstrating the speciation process nicely.
SciCre boosters often equate Goldschmidt's hypothesis with the Eldredge/Gould
punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. There are some major differences. Goldschmidt
proposed a mechanism to describe how macroevolutionary change could come
about, but left alone trying to pin down the pattern and rate of change.
Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, does not describe a mechanism,
but does describe the expected and observed pattern and rate of macroevolutionary
change.
Goldschmidt may well be considered the more daring theorist, since he
proposed his mechanism well before the definitive characterization of DNA
as the main chemical basis of heredity. Therefore, his mechanism was formulated
in the absence of biochemical data on the properties of inheritance. This
also meant that our neat characterizations of the transcription of mRNA
and protein synthesis were not available.
Goldschmidt's hypothesis, as stated by Goldschmidt, is exclusive. The
gradualist perspective was held by Goldschmidt to be incapable of producing
change at the species level or above. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other
hand, does not exclude the possibility of gradual accumulation of variation
leading to speciation, but rather states that this mode of speciation is
rare.
Peter J. Bowler. 1984. Evolution: the history
of an idea. University of California Press.
"The philosopher Karl Popper has gained his reputation through
his efforts to find a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.
Realizing that no generalization can be proved by collecting positive examples,
Popper has argued that science must must be based not so much on the search
for truth as on the detection of error (1959). A true science exposes all
its hypotheses to the test of experiment by formulating them in such a
way that any inconsistency with nature will be exposed as soon as possible.
Scientific hypotheses are "falsifiable" -- while the pseudosciences deliberately
make their statements so vague that no counter-instance can ever be found.
Measured by this standard, Popper insists (1974), Darwinism turns out to
be untestable and hence unscientific. At best it constitutes a 'metaphysical
framework' for formulating properly testable theories." "This latest source
of opposition comes from a new approach to taxonomy or systematics known
as cladism. The term "clade" was introduced by Julian Huxley in 1957 to
denote a branch of the evolutionary tree. The new technique of classification
was pioneered by Willi Hennig (translation 1966), who insisted that the
attempt to represent evolutionary relationships should concentrate on the
process of branching, ignoring any changes that were not associated with
an act of splitting. The name "cladism" was introduced by one of the movement's
critics, Ernst Mayr, and reluctantly was accepted by Hennig's followers."
"Hennig argued that arrangement of living forms into groups should take
into account only the order of branching in the evolutionary process. Clearly,
orthodox evolutionary classification itself takes this into consideration,
and all evolutionists recognize that the cladistic method offers a more
precise way of representing some of the relationships that interest them.
An evolutionist, however, also takes into account other factors, principally
the degree of change that a line of development undergoes." "The opponents
of Darwinism have always dismissed the theory as a blindly accepted dogma,
its weaknesses ignored by a brainwashed biological profession. Yet we have
seen (chapter 9) that Darwinism has been challenged seriously before. The
wealth of alternatives being considered both inside and outside science
today shows quite clearly that there is no academic conspiracy to protect
modern evolutionism." "Finally, in response to the modern accusation that
evolution is unfalsifiable, it can be pointed out that even Popper has
recanted many of his earlier claims, while the cladists represent only
a handful of biologists with a very narrow definition of science."
Challenges to Darwinism:
-
Germ plasm concept -- August Weismann. 1880's This pretty much kills pangenesis,
which had been adopted by Darwin.
"Weismann's theory had a crucial implication for evolution:
it made Lamarckism impossible. The parent's body does not *produce* its
germ plasm; it merely transmits it. Changes in the body due to use or disuse
are not reflected in the germ plasm and therefore cannot be inherited."
It was Weismann, by the way, who performed those experiments which trimmed
the tails off mice, and demonstrated that the young of de-tailed mice still
had tails, even after many generations. Lamarckists criticized these experiments
since Weismann was imposing change upon the mice, rather than allowing
the naturally occurring directionality of change to arise on its own. This
was generally held not to be a very good counter-argument.
-
Biometry -- Francis Galton. Galton introduced the concept of "regression"
as a process which would limit the effect of selection. SciCre-ists really
like the idea of regression, or "reversion to type." This is still a major
part of SciCre argumentation found in ICR sponsored or published apologetics.
-
Mendelian genetics. For quite some time, the rediscovery of Mendel's work
was considered to be the conclusive nail in the Darwinian coffin, killing
off the idea of natural selection as Darwin proposed it. Since by the publication
of the sixth edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species," Darwin had almost
inextricably bound natural selection with his hypothesis on the mechanism
of heredity, "pangenesis," this view was quite understandable. However,
by the early 1940's, the neo-Darwinian synthesis had met and addressed
the criticisms of the Mendelists.
-
Neo-Lamarckism. Supported by natural theology, popular in America at the
turn of the century. Spencer supported neo-Lamarckism. "Against selection
itself Spencer [1893] used an argument that had considerable force when
measured against the pregenetical selection theory (Ridley, 1982a). He
pointed out that when a new structure evolved, all the rest of the body
would have to accommodate the new development. Thus a series of variations
would be required to adjust the overall structure in a manner correlated
to the new organ. What would be the chance of all these variations appearing
together at the right time, if the species had to depend on random variation?
Selection might explain the changes in a single organ, but not an integrated
transmutation of the whole body." Lamarckism, as Spencer pointed out, could
provide an explanation for the integrated development or elimination of
organs. This was seen to be a weakness of natural selection. "The law of
"acceleration of growth" was first published in Cope's "On the origin of
genera" of 1867 (reprinted in Cope, 1887) and in Hyatt (1868). According
to this law, evolution progresses by a series of sudden additions to the
growth of the individual. At certain points in time, every individual in
a species begins to exhibit a new phase of growth that advances all to
the form of a new species. To make room for this addition, the old adult
form is compressed back to an earlier phase of growth, hence the "acceleration"
of growth to accommodate an extra stage before maturity. Cope denied that
evolution on a small scale is a branching process, claiming instead that
each genus represents a group of species that have reached the same point
in the historical development of their group. Their close relationship
is not a sign of common descent but of identical position in the scheme
of development." "Cope postulated a growth-force named "bathmism;" concentrated
in those parts of the body most in use, it developed them at the expense
of other areas. By the last decade of the century, this Lamarckism had
been developed to considerable depth (Cope, 1887, 1896; Hyatt, 1880, 1884,
1889)." Referring to the case of the midwife toad: "Was the india ink added
by someone wishing to preserve the original marks, or was it deliberate
sabotage, perhaps a Nazi plot to discredit evidence hostile to their racial
theories? Koestler certainly has suggested that Kammerer's experiments
may have been genuinely successful, although others think he was simply
dishonest. (Aronson, 1975)."
-
Orthogenesis -- a conjecture related to Lamarckism. "The crucial difference
is that the trends of orthogenesis are not adaptive. Far from being a positive
response to the environment, they represent a nonutilitarian force that
can in some cases drive the species to extinction. In this there is a similarity
to Hyatt's concept of racial senility." "A famous case was that of the
recently extinct "Irish elk", thought to have died out because its antlers
became too large as a result of an internal trend (Gould, 1974b). It seemed
as though the trend that produced the antlers, perhaps originally for some
useful purpose, had acquired a momentum of its own that had carried it
far beyond the point of utility. This "overdevelopment" theory of extinction
became widely popular among non-Darwiniam paleontologists in the early
twentieth century." "Strong support for orthogenesis came from the Russian
biologist Leo S. Berg (translation 1926), but perhaps its best known exponent
was the American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn." aristogenesis
-- Osborn's own term for orthogenesis. Mendelism was originally viewed
as an alternative to selection.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francisco J. Ayala,
G. Ledyard Stebbins, & James W. Valentine. 1977. Evolution. W.H. Freeman
& Company. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
"As Mayr (1942, 1963) has pointed out, the title of Darwin's epoch-making
book is mistaken; although he entitled it _Origin of Species_, Darwin wrote
about organic evolution as a whole. Similarly, definition of evolution
that emphasize the transsecific aspect are also misleading, since they
draw attention away from those phases of subspecific evolution that can
most easily be studied experimentally and quantitatively. (Equally inadequate,
but for the opposite reason that they neglect the transspecific aspects
of evolution, are definitions such as that of Wright (1942): "Evolution
is the statistical transformation of populations.")" While Dobzhansky et
alia decry Wright's definition, his viewpoint seems to hold the largest
sway among biologists as a group. The recently posted primer withh text
from both Chris Colby and Larry Moran reflect viewpoints closer to Wright's
than to Dobzhansky et al. "Organic evolution is a series of partial or
complete and irreversible transformations of the genetic composition of
populations, based principally upon altered interactions with their environment.
It consists chiefly of adaptive radiations into new environments, adjustments
to environmental changes that take place in a particular habitat, and the
origin of new ways for exploiting existing habitats. These adaptive changes
occasionally give rise to greater complexity of developmental pattern,
of physiological reactions, and of interactions between populations and
their environment." "This being the case, the history of evolutionary theory
during the three decades that followed the rediscovery of Mendel's laws
is one of the most extraordinary paradoxes in the history of science. Far
from lending strength to Darwin's theory of natural selection, the first
decades of Mendelian genetics were largely responsible for a temporary
decline in Darwin's reputation among biologists. Anti-selectionist works,
such as A.F. Shull's textbook on evolution (1936) and _The Variations of
Animals in Nature_ by G.C. Robson and O.W. Richards (1936), became standard
reading for many undergraduate and graduate students in biology, and many
professors told their students that "Darwinism is dead," by which they
meant that natural selection could not be regarded as a major agent of
evolutionary change." "Fisher's book _The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection_
(1930) was the first systematic attempt in the English language to harmonize
Darwin's observations on natural variation with Mendelian particulate genetics."
"The modern synthetic theory as a generally accepted way of approaching
problems of evolution was born in 1937 with the pblication of Dobzhansky's
_Genetics and the Origin of Species_." "There is an asymmetry between falsifiability
and verifiability of universal statements that derives from the logical
nature of such statements. A universal statement can be shown to be false
if it is found inconsistent with even one singular statement, i.e., a statement
about a particular event. But, as was pointed out in the discussion of
induction, a universal statement can never be proven true by virtue of
the truth of particular statements, no matter how numerous these may be."
Colin Patterson. 1978. Evolution. Trustees
of the British Museum (Natural History), Publication Number 783. "No doubt
other revolutions are in store, and whether we choose to follow Popper's
or Kuhn's understanding of science, the one lesson we can learn from both
these thinkers is that today's theory of evolution is unlikely to be the
whole truth. Yet today's neo-Darwinian theory, with all its faults, is
still the best that we have. It is a fruitful theory, a stimulus to thought
and research, and we should accept it until someone thinks of a better
one." Patterson happens to be a transformed cladist. This group believes
that paleontological inference is pretty worthless for determining relationships
involving questions of ancestry.
Daniel R. Brooks & E.O. Wiley. 1986. Evolution
as Entropy: toward a unified theory of biology. The University of Chicago
Press. ISBN 0-226-07581-8 From the preface: "That organisms have evolved
rather than having been created is the single most important and unifying
principle of modern biology. Theories regarding the causal mechanisms of
evolution are not so important in "proving" its reality. The fact that
scientists put forward theories means that they accept this reality. Confused
creationists frequently think that if they can "disprove" Darwin's theory
of natural selection they can "disprove" evolution. But of course this
is untrue -- even if they succeeded they would only be disproving *a theory*
and not *the process*. Thus, any theory of importance should be closely
scrutinized because it affects the way evolutionary biologists conduct
their research." "In this book we will develop the idea that evolution
is an axiomatic consequence of organismic information and cohesion systems
obeying the second law of thermodynamics in a manner analogous to, but
not identical with, the consequences of the second law's usual application
in physical and chemical systems. By "axiomatic" we mean that the results
are necessary consequences or outcomes." "If evolution is an axiomatic
consequence of certain biological processes following the second law, then
current theories of the evolutionary process must necessarily be incomplete
because they are theories of proximal cause." Brooks and Wiley claim to
be practitioners of "phylogenetic systematics," which appears to be another
term for "cladistics". "The founder of this approach, the late German entomologist
Willi Hennig, was interested in formulating a "general reference system"
for classifying organic diversity. His choice was a system based on genealogy.
Hennig reasoned that no matter what proximal changes organisms or species
might experience, the one thing that would never change is their genealogies."
"Our attention was progressively drawn to discussions of inherent order
in development (e.g., Lovtrup 1974) and comparative morphology (e.g., Riedl
1978). An article by Farris (1979) concerning the information content of
phylogenetic systematic analyses led us to information theory. When it
was discovered that phylogenetic systematic techniques select the minimum
entropy configuration of information in a set of observations about organisms
(Brooks 1981a), our search focused on finding a connection among history,
information, and minimum entropy configurations." "In chapter 2, we attempt
to show that the expected outcome of historical constraints on the action
of the second law in biological systems is self-organization. The axiomatic
behavior of living systems should be increasing complexity and self-organization
*as a result of, not at the expense of*, increasing entropy." Brooks and
Wiley sum up their opinion of the current state of the neo-Darwinian synthesis
(with the caveat that they believe no such synthesis actually exists).
In an enumerated point, they say: "3. Heritable characters may be changed
by a variety of mutational events. The earlier in development a mutation
occurs, the greater its effect but the less its probability of being successful
(i.e., of resulting in a viable and fertile individual)." I would definitely
replace "occurs" in the above with "is expressed". "Many of the controversies
in evolutionary biology (neutralism vs. selectionism, the relative importance
of competition, gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium) concern the relative
importance of phenomena rather than whether the phenomena are real." "We
are dissatisfied with the current state of evolutionary theoriz ing, not
because we think it is all wrong, but because (1) we do not believe that
a truly integrated theoretical framework has been developed and (2) there
are certain aspects of the evolutionary process that have yet to be integrated
into any framework. We recognize four major items of unfinished business.
1. Evolutionary theory has never fully come to grips with the underlying
causal laws of chemistry and physics. 2. Developmental biology has not
been successfully integrated into the theoretical framework. 3. Existing
evolutionary theory has failed to provide a rationale for the existence
of higher taxa (groups of species produced by descent) that is consistent
with our knowledge of phylogeny and population genetics. 4. Existing evolutionary
theory has failed to provide what we would consider to be a robust explanation
of the relationship between form and function in evolution. We do not believe
these shortcomings are resolvable within the current theoretical framework.
We seek to provide a new framework, one that will incorporate certain parts
of the old framework and include those aspects of evolution not now adequately
explained. We will now examine these shortcomings in some detail." "Statistical
entropy of a simple system may be given as: S = k ln omega where omega
is the set of accessible microstates to the system (the "macrostate")."
"We suggest an alternative theoretical framework for biological evolution,
based on four principles: 1. The principle of irreversibility. 2. The principle
of individuality. 3. The principle of intrinsic constraints. 4. The principle
of compensatory changes."
Steven M. Stanley. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern
and Process. W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-7167-1092-7
Michael Ruse. 1979. The Darwinian revolution. University of Chicago
Press. ISBN 0-226-73164-2
Theodosius Dobzhansky. 1937. Genetics and
the origin of species. Columbia University Press. "During the seventy-seven
years that have elapsed since the publication of the theory of natural
selection, it has been the subject of unceasing debate. The most serious
objection that has been raised against it is that it takes for granted
the existence, and does not explain the origin of the hereditary variations
with which selection can work. Those who advance this objection fail however
to notice that in doing so they commit an act of superogation: the origin
of variation is a problem entirely separate from that of the action of
selection. The theory of natural selection is concerned with the fate of
variations already present, and the merits and demerits of the theory must
be assessed accordingly." "Skeptics may contend that if the change in the
environment is wrought directly or indirectly by man, the resulting selection
is no longer "natural." Anyone who is prepared to reject the evidence on
these grounds has no choice but to do so; a similar objection is applicable
to any experimental work."
Edward O. Dodson & Peter Dodson. 1976. Evolution:
process and product. Second Edition, D. Van Nostrand COmpany. ISBN 0-442-22164-9
"Man does not even play so useful a role in the study of evolution as might
be wished, because he is not available for laboratory experimentation to
the extent that other animals are and because primitve man was rarely fossilized,
though apparently more frequently fossilized than other primitive primates.
However, the student of evolution belongs to an egocentric species, so
a chapter on the evolution of man will be included in this book." In recounting
Darwin's autobiography, Dodson notes that during Darwin's Cambridge years
he was fond of Paley's work. Under the heading "Macroevolution", "A long
controversial tenet of the modern synthesis was that the processes of microevolution
which produce subspecies also produce species and higher groups when continued
over long reaches of time." This is pretty clearly demarcating micro-e
as below species and macro-e as species and above. A figure lists some
vestigial characters of man: nictitating membrane muscles to move ears
hair on body pointed canines third molar segmental muscles on abdomen vermiform
appendix pyramidalis muscle caudal vertebrae
Louis T. More. 1925. The dogma of evolution. Princeton
University Press. "It should be borne clearly in mind that the sentimental
humanitarianism of Rousseau was the seed from which grew our modern scientific
philosophy of brotherly love and eugenics, when fertilized by the pleasant
and altruistic doctrine of Malthus." The sarcasm content of the above approaches
unity. "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent
on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature. The enormous
and complicated phenomena of life do not admit of solution by inductive
reasoning; it is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable
with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his arguments is
contradicted by facts." Note the time of publication of More's diatribe:
1925. This is pretty much coeval with the Scopes trial in Tennessee, and
at the nadir of Darwin's critical reputation due to the encroachments of
the alternatives previously mentioned by Bowler. "It is but too evident
that time is slowly justifying this opinion and that ultimately Darwin's
reputation will rest on his botanical work rather than on his hypotheses
of natural selection and pangenesis; the value of the former is already
fading and the latter is totally discredited." More was premature in declaring
Darwin's theory of natural selection to be dead; Fisher's work which formed
the beginning of the neo-Darwinian synthesis would be published just about
five years later. "There are, perhaps, some cases where important scientific
work is not linked to metaphysics; but, certainly, the theory of natural
selection is not one of them; its failure is largely due to its foundation
of false philosophy." The philosophical component of the theory of natural
selection is pretty slim. The worth of an idea in science is not related
to its moral or ethical implications, whether those implications are rightly
or wrongly derived. "Huxley immediately saw the futility of the idea [pangenesis]
and begged Darwin not to emphasize it, lest such an explanation of evolution
by natural selection would lower the probability of the larger theory and
retard the great work of its acceptance; but Darwin clung to pangenesis
with the blind affection of a parent for a defective child." It is pretty
clear that actually positing testable mechanisms is risky business. It
is also obvious that Darwin was unafraid to do so. Would that Darwin's
modern batch of critics had the same intellectual courage as the man whose
work, and sometimes character, they decry. "It is almost incomprehensible
that the world, and particularly the biologist, has not taken into account
this inherent inability of Darwin to think on abstract questions and is
still willing, because he was a genius in one field, to follow him as a
guide in all fields." This may be perhaps the truest statement which More
has generated. By the test of generality of application, it certainly shows
promise. I tried it out on this set of names, replacing "Darwin" in the
original with each, and it held up just fine: Henry Morris, Duane Gish,
Dmitri Kousnetsov, John Morris, Ken Ham, Barry Setterfield, Thomas Barnes,
Harold Coffin, and Steve Austin. This book appears to have been recently
updated and republished as _Darwin on Trial_. ;-)
Back to Evolution vs. SciCre
