skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Let's continue with the series on Evolution by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...
Word count: 1,459
Estimated reading time: 5-10 minutes
During his time on the HMS Beagle, Darwin had a chance to investigate a small chain of islands called the Galapagos. The thirteen islands of the archipelago are the result of volcanic activity, and these islands still exist about 600 miles west of the South American nation of Ecuador (on the equator). Although Darwin was pleased to study a wide variety of plant and animal life on these islands, he concentrated on the finches that lived there. Many science historians credit these birds, now known as “Darwin's finches,” as inspiring Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.
You see, there were (and still are) many different species of finches living in the Galapagos. These species have several common characteristics, but there are specific differences between each species that were of great interest to Darwin.
Certhidea olivacea has a small, slender beak, while Geospiza difficilis has a larger, stouter beak, and G. magnirostris has the largest, stoutest beak of the three. Why do these finches have such different beaks? Well, let's look at what they eat. C. olivacea eats tiny insects. G. difficilis eats eggs that it steals from nests, but it does not use its beak to break them. Instead, it grabs onto something with its beak and then kicks the eggs into a rock. Finally, G. magnirostris eats hard seeds that it must crack with its beak. Each finch seems to have just the right beak for its food source: a small, slender beak for the finch that eats soft insects; a larger, sturdier beak for the one that uses it as an anchor; and the largest, sturdiest beak for the one that uses it to crack hard seeds.
Differences like these fascinated Darwin. You see, the scientists of Darwin's day would have looked at each of these species and assumed that God had designed each one individually and gave each one exactly the beak that it needed to eat the food it was supposed to eat. Darwin, however, imagined something else. He said that other than the beak and a few other differences (size and plumage color, for example), these finches were all remarkably similar. Since they were all so similar, he imagined that they all came from a common ancestor long ago. As the feeding needs of the finches changed, however, this common ancestor began to give rise to many different species of finch, each with a unique beak.
How did Darwin propose that this could happen? Well, he said, look at what happens when any species reproduces. When two people have a baby, for example, the baby has many characteristics in common with his parents. The baby's eye color might be the same as his mother's, and his hair color might be the same as his father's. Nevertheless, the baby usually has some characteristics that do not seem to come from either parent. Some tall professional basketball players, for example, have short parents. Thus, although offspring do tend to resemble their parents, they also have a few characteristics that are quite different from the corresponding characteristics in their parents. It is these differences, Darwin thought, which could be responsible for all of the finches in the Galapagos.
Suppose that long ago, there was only one species of finch living on the islands. If food supplies were to grow scarce, the finches that made up the population of this species would compete with one another for the dwindling food supplies, just as Malthus predicted. When this competition began occurring, any finch that had an advantage would be more likely to win the competition than one who didn't. Thus, suppose a finch was born that had a beak which was stronger than the typical finch. Well, that finch might be able to find a new source of food (hard nuts that other finches couldn't break open, for example). With this new source of food, this strong-beaked finch would most likely win the competition for survival. As it reproduced, then, it would most likely pass on this new, strong beak to at least some of its offspring. Over many, many generations, each time one of these finches was born with an even stronger beak, it would be more likely to survive, because it could continue to find more food than the finches with which it was competing. This competition, combined with the natural differences that arise between parent and offspring, could, over generations, produce a finch whose beak was short and stout, like that of G. magnirostris, even if the original species of finch had a small, slender beak, like that of C. olivacea.
During that same time (or perhaps later), another finch might have been born whose beak was short and stout, but not short and stout enough to break open new seeds. However, perhaps it was short and stout enough to act as an anchor while the finch broke open eggs with its feet. This would make it easier for that finch to get to the nutrition inside of eggs, giving it an edge in the competition to survive. As time went on, this finch would survive and would pass on its basic beak shape to its offspring. Each time a finch was born whose beak was more ideally suited for the task of anchoring the bird while it broke open eggs, the finch would have a better edge in the competition for survival, making it more likely to live and pass its new characteristic on to more and more offspring. Thus, as time went on, the original finch species that lived in the Galapagos and had a beak ideal for eating insects would eventually give rise to two new species of finch: one with a beak ideal for grasping onto objects and another with a beak that was ideal for breaking open hard seeds.
This is the mechanism by which Darwin imagined that all species of finch he observed could have originated from a single type of finch long ago. He called this mechanism “natural selection,” because he said that due to the fierce competition which occurred between members of a species, any individual that had a unique characteristic making it more likely to win the competition would be selected by nature to survive. As time went on, these unique characteristics would continue to “pile up” on one another until eventually, a new species was formed.
Darwin, of course, did not stop there. After all, he imagined, if such a mechanism could be responsible for causing finches to develop new beaks, why couldn't that same mechanism allow them to develop longer, stronger wings, longer, sharper talons, and keener eyesight? If that was so, finches could eventually give rise to eagles! These ideas led Darwin to his overall theory of evolution. At one time, Darwin believed, there was a relatively simple (most likely aquatic) life form that existed on earth. Darwin made no speculations about how that life form developed, but others who followed have constructed wild scenarios that try to explain the formation of this organism without the intervention of a supernatural creator. This life form, Darwin assumed, would begin to reproduce and, as is the case today, variations would occur in the reproduction. These variations, guided by the process of natural selection, would eventually “pile up” so as to form new species. These species would, in the same way, give rise to other species. Thus, over eons of time, Darwin believed that this mechanism could explain the existence of all life forms on the planet.
Hopefully you can see how Malthus and Lyell influenced Darwin's thinking. After all, Malthus gave Darwin the idea that individuals within a species compete with one another in order to survive. This led to Darwin's idea of natural selection. Lyell's concept that the present is the key to the past allowed Darwin to speculate that the same variations which we see in reproduction today could, over vast ages of time, be responsible for all of the variations among all of the species that exist on the planet. In other words, Darwin did not dream up this theory on his own. He was influenced by the works of others.
If you remember our discussion of the scientific method, you will recognize that at this point in the story, Darwin's idea was really no more than a hypothesis. Darwin made a bunch of observations and then proceeded to develop an explanation for those observations. Did the concept of evolution through natural selection ever make it past the stage of being a hypothesis? Well, the answer to that is both yes and no. Hopefully you will see what we mean in the next section.
Restrictions on comments state at the end of the introductory post still apply, but comments are ALWAYS welcome!
The following was taken directly from Exploring Creation With Biology by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.
Word Count: 1,693
Estimated minutes to read: 5-10
Because he is such an important figure in the field of biology, it is necessary to look at the life of Charles Darwin in some detail. This will help us gain insight to how he developed his theory, and, hopefully, you might learn a lesson or two from his story.
Charles Robert Dawrin was born in the village of Strewsbury, England on February 12, 1809. Charles Darwin On that same day, far away, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky. Darwin was born into a relatively wealthy family where education and artistic enrichment were stressed. In 1825, he enrolled at the University of Edinburgh, where all the men in his family had been educated. His father wanted him to study medicine, but he was sickened at the first sight of surgery being performed without anesthesia. He also showed little aptitude for the subject, so after two years, he abandoned the study of medicine.
When he left the study of medicine, he transferred to Christ's College in Cambridge, England, to study theology. Contrary to what you might have heard about Darwin, he seemed to be a deeply committed Christian at this point in his life. During this part of his life, he said that he did not “…in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word of the Bible” (Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kettlewell, Charles Darwin And His World, [New York,NY: Viking Press, 1965], 15). Since he considered himself a devout Christian, the study of theology came quite naturally to him, and he graduated with a B.A. in theology, Euclid, and the classics.
Although his degree was in theology, Euclid, and the classics, Darwin developed a keen interest in geology while at Cambridge. Thus, when he had the opportunity to accompany a Cambridge professor, Adam Sedgewick, on a geology field trip in the summer of 1831, he jumped at the chance. While on that field trip, he was offered the position of naturalist on the HMS Beagle, a ship that planned to circumnavigate the globe. Although you might think it unusual for a ship to employ a naturalist, nearly every ship had such a position available. Darwin eagerly accepted the assignment, and that voyage changed both Darwin's life and the face of science forever.
Before that voyage, Darwin had read a book written by Thomas Malthus entitled An Essay on the Principles of Population. In this book, Malthus said that all individuals within a population struggle against other individuals to obtain what is necessary (food, shelter, a mate, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce. While on board the HMS Beagle, Darwin also read some of the works of a controversial geologist named Sir Charles Lyell. Lyell was one of the first scientists who rejected the history of the world as told in the Old Testament and tried to show that the same processes we see at work today could, given eons and eons of time, produce all of the geological features in the world. Geologists often summarize Lyell's idea with the catch phrase “The present is the key to the past.”
Darwin voyaged on the HMS Beagle for five years; during that time, he made many observations. Each time the ship dropped anchor, Darwin collected samples and made observations of the species native to whatever island or land mass he was on. These observations, some of which we will detail later, combined with the ideas of Malthus and Lyell, led Darwin to formulate his theory, which he called “natural selection.” Although his theory was completely formulated by the time he left the HMS Beagle, he did not publish his book for another 23 years. Part of the delay was due to Darwin trying to perfect his work, but most of it was due to his wife, who recognized the devastating effect that his work could have on the church. She pleaded with him not to publish, and he respected her wishes for some time, but in the end, he felt that he had to communicate his ideas to the scientific world. He therefore published The Origin of Species in 1859.
It is important to note that Darwin was a careful, meticulous scientist. He was not the anti-religion crusader that many have made him out to be. If you actually read his work, you will find that it is quite evenhanded. Indeed, Darwin devoted more space to discussing the reasons a scientist might not want to accept his main hypothesis than he did to the discussion of why a scientist should accept it! You will not find that kind of evenhandedness in the majority of scientific writing that occurs today. Indeed, modern scientists (especially evolutionary crusaders) could learn a lot from Darwin's style. Darwin's only real mistake was to allow his faith to erode as a result of the science he pursued on the HMS Beagle.
The best illustration of how Darwin's faith eroded while on the HMS Beagle and the years after can be found by comparing two statements he made. During the earliest part of his voyage, he wrote in his diary that he often bore the brunt of a good deal of laughter “…from several of the officers for quoting the Bible as final authority on some moral point” (Bern Dibner, Darwin of the Beagle, [Cambridge, MA: Burndy Library, 1964], 82). Only a few years after his voyage, however, he stated "...that the Old Testament from its manifest false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian” (Dibner, pp. 82-83). Clearly these are the statements of a man whose faith at first seemed strong but then eroded over time to nothing!
Charles Darwin died in 1882 as the result of a long illness. He died a celebrated naturalist whose views were said to usher in a new age of science. He was buried in Westminster Abbey along with such scientific greats as Sir Isaac Newton and Sir William Thomson Kelvin. There is a myth going around the Christian community that Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. This is a lie, and historians think that it was started by the widow of Sir James Hope, fleet admiral for the Royal Navy. She claims to have visited Darwin shortly before his death and to have heard him recant his theory and ask to be told how he might be saved. Darwin's own daughter Henrietta, however, said, “…[the admiral's widow] was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her....” In addition, she states that “He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier…The whole story has no foundation whatever” (Paul F. Boller and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], 19-20). Although the story of a deathbed recantation by Darwin is appealing to Christians, it is almost certainly a lie and therefore such a story does not, in any way, honor God.
Although this biography was rather long and involved, it was necessary for four reasons. First, it is important that the phony story of Darwin's deathbed recantation not be spread any further. Second, it is important for you to realize that although Darwin's theory has had devastating effects on the faith of many people, Darwin himself was not an antireligion crusader like many evolutionists are today. Darwin was a careful, dedicated scientist who started his career speaking like a Bible-believing Christian. There is not a shred of evidence that he had any intentions of harming the church. He was merely communicating what he thought were the obvious conclusions of science. Third, it shows that even careful use of the scientific method can result in the wrong conclusion. Despite the fact that Darwin did everything right in terms of the science that he did, we can show that although a portion of his theory is valid, the major conclusion is not. Thus, proper use of the scientific method does not guarantee a correct answer!
Finally, a look at Darwin's life can show you how horrible the results are when you put your faith in science. As we stated in Module #1, science is limited and is constantly changing. What we thought were scientific laws less than a century ago are now known to be wrong. Indeed, as you will see in the rest of this module, we now know that most of Darwin's ideas were very wrong. You simply cannot put your faith in something as limited and subject to change as science. Had Darwin realized that, he would not have allowed his faith in the Bible to be eroded, and he might never have championed this errant theory that has had such a devastating effect on the faith of others!
This is the introduction to a ten part series on viewing Evolution through good science.
Because of "issues" in the past, I would like to set some parameters for commenting:
1. No insulting. At all. NONE. Comments doing so will be deleted completely. Watch it.
A. No degrading examples (Einar), and no patronizing tone barely hidden within every sentence (Alex).
B. No attacking people's intelligence or lack of open-mindedness. This debate is not about how ignorant you think your opponent is, it's about the cold hard facts of science.
C. Being insulted by someone's belief does not count as an insult as long as the belief is expressed with civility.
2. If you are going to counter anything being said, please back up your argument with evidence. Posting links is not necessary, but do cite your source, please.
3. If you are asked to give further information, please do so when asked the first time, just out of courtesy.
4. If you think I am being a bossy, controlling, overbearing snot, that is perfectly fine. It will not be the first time someone has thought that. However, the rules still apply ;)
5. Go for it.
So, I’m reading this book called Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s kind of a strange book in that it doesn’t really help you do anything exactly, it just sort of helps you understand things. Basically, it examines some successful people, and tries to figure out exactly what it is that makes them that way. There are some really interesting parts, and some parts that I sort of skimmed. But my favorite part so far was this:
Cultural honor.
Stick with me, please, because I found this to be profoundly eye-opening.
You’ve heard about family feuds and stuff, right? How for generations and generations, families will just fight with each other for reasons they might not even remember?
Well, as Malcolm Gladwell points out, one family doing this is a feud. A ton of families right along the Appalachian doing it is a pattern.
What in the world makes those people so prone to violent out breaks with each other? Did you guess it? Cultural honor. Because the main profession of the mountain areas was livestock and stuff, people honor was very important. I mean, if you were a farmer, you had to rely on other people and get along with your neighbors, but there was never a danger of having your crop actually stolen. When your job was tending sheep or something, people very well could steal your hard work, and it wasn’t necessary to get along with the people around you really.
All you had to protect your livestock and your family was your reputation. Build up your reputation as a tough guy and no one will mess with you. Keep your honor intact.
There are other reasons why culture honor was (and is) such a big thing in those parts. It has to do with heritage.
Back when people were still coming regularly to America, a certain group of people settled in a certain spot: the Scotch-Irish immigrants settled along the eastern/southern US.
That would be “from the Pennsylvania border south and west through Virginia and West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina, and the northern end of Alabama and Georgia.” And that’s where all this “cultural honor” stuff is big. You can steal my stuff, but you can’t insult my mama. That’s how it works here. *clears throat* I mean, there…
Okay, I’m from North Carolina. And when Mr. Malcolm Gladwell started raggin’ on my homeland, I started getting pretty hot inside.
And as I started boiling, I blinked and realized I was proving his point.
Oh.
…
I read on. There was then an experiment described. In the early 1990s, two psychologists decided to get together a bunch of 18-21 year old guys and insult them, see how they would react. They came up with the insult they thought would resonate with them the most. “A—hole.” (I am quoting the book, sorry.)
Here was the experiment set up:
“The social sciences building at the University of Michigan has a long, narrow hallway in the basement lined with filing cabinets. The young men were called into a classroom, one by one and asked to fill out a questionnaire. Then they were told to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and return to the classroom.”
Half the guys were from the states that were high on cultural honor, half of them were not.
“As they walked down the hallway with their questionnaire, a man—a confederate of the experiments—walked past them and pulled out a drawing in one of the filing cabinets. They already narrow hallway now became even narrower. As the young men tried to squeeze by, the confederate looked up, annoyed. He slammed the filing cabinet drawer shut, jostled the young men with his shoulder, and, in a low but audible voice said the trigger word: ‘a—hole.’”
Through different tests that I go into in too much detail, the suspicions were confirmed. Confirmed A LOT. The cultural honor boys were mad. Even though they didn’t act out in violence, their handshakes were firmer than usual, saliva samples revealed that being insulted had raised their levels of testosterone and cortisol (hormones that drive aggression). The guys were also given a short story and told to supply a conclusion. The story had to do with a guy’s girlfriend being come onto by another guy. The cultural honor guys who had been insulted made it end violently, while the guys who lived in other places did not.
IS THAT INTERESTING TO ANYONE ELSE?
I’m going to be perfectly honest with you:
I never thought people reacted any differently.
Call me ignorant, but I thought this was the same everywhere. I had no idea that in other parts of the US, it wouldn’t be natural to react violently to having your honor insulted. I mean, you just don’t do that here. No one gets upset if you steal their stuff, but if you attack their honor, boy, it’s on.
It’s not just guys, it’s girls, too. I mean, I honestly had no idea that it would occur to anyone not to get wild about something like this…I think I’ve already said that :) But you get the idea.
Who knew? I had no idea that culture honor wasn’t the same everywhere. What a cool eye-opener!
Hope you guys found this at least half as interesting as I did :)
“Animal Farm”, written by George Orwell, was published in 1946 just after World War II. The story follows a farm of animals as they rebel against their master. They overthrow the evil Mr. Jones, and begin a new system of government called “Animalism”, founded on the principle that “all animals are equal”. The story first appears to be almost childlike, but it soon becomes obvious that Animalism bears uncanny resemblance to totalitarianism/communism. Orwell proves his point well in this fairytale of symbolic characters: when a government is based on the prospect that all are equal, it becomes inevitable that some will end up “more equal than others”. - Kendra Logan, from the essay "Animal Farm".
Read the book.
"Absolutely power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton
Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.
If freedom reigns, some people will prosper while others will not.
If freedom reigns, people will like "Rachel" better than "Matilda".
If freedom reigns, your house will be bigger than my house.
If freedom reigns, you will fail and I will succeed.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to do average when you should do fabulously.
If everyone is equal, we will be forced to like Rachel and Matilda the same.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to have an average-sized house.
If everyone is equal, you will be forced to succeed whether you like it or not because I did.
Free people are not Equal;
and Equal people are not Free.
I'm studying DNA and genes in biology this week; you know, what makes you, you. Your DNA controls your physical characteristics almost entirely. You can lift weights or something to get stronger, of course, but there's actually a limit to how far you can go. Your DNA determines that limit.
But what about our thoughts and personalities? I've been told that I "act just like my mom" sometimes, but is that because of my DNA, or my mom's influence on me throughout my life? Hmm.
Peoples' personalities are (obviously) very different. I can't figure some people out, and other I understand perfectly. Some people love the color purple, and others (like me) find it a horrible color for whatever reason (sorry, purple-lovers :)). Some love to read, others don't. Some think Obama is the best thing since remote controls, others think it wouldn't hurt him to be a little less like one.
I have often wondered what makes us who we are. DNA to some extent, parental influence to some, God shaping us to some as well, but who are WE?
What is YOU?
I don't mean what do you like. I don't mean when you go shopping and see a cute jacket that is "so you". I mean what are you. Where is the "you" in your body? What makes you, YOU?
If I cut off your finger, is that finger "you"?
Well, yes and no...It's PART of you, but it's not really YOU...
Okay, so you aren't in your finger.
I tend to think people are in their heads. But it's not as if you could dissect someone's brain and find a little piece inside that's "them".
So...what makes us who we are?
It's our minds, yes. Our thoughts. But what are thoughts? Just electric impulses in our brains? How do little electric impulses tell us right and wrong, what to like, how to act? How do little electric impulses make us love to read, or write, or go horseback riding, or paint? How do little electric impulses tell us to be scared, happy, sad, or excited? How do little electric impulses make us love and hate?
Maybe we'll never really know what thoughts are. Maybe people DO know and I just don't yet :) But it's really kind of interesting, isn't it? What separates "you" from "your body"? What are thoughts?
Just something to think about ;)
