1

Anthropology Week 1 Reading

By Patrick McKim, emeritus professor, Cal Poly, S!",
CA
Part #$ %rom &'eep Water& to &'eep (ime&
Today, the consensus in science is that the present
universe began with a tremendous rush of inflation around
15 [now estimated closer to 12] billion years ago and that
our planet earth was formed approximately 4! billion years
ago "e humans can comprehend durations li#e minutes,
years, decades, and $ suppose even centuries "ith millennia,
our capacity for understanding becomes %uite problematical,
and when we get into stretches of millions of years or more,
we are so far beyond the human scale of time that such
awesome ages are literally incomprehensible &ut to get
some sense of the vastness of time, consider the 4! billion
year existence of the earth in terms of the old '(nglish yard,'
which was the distance from the #ing)s nose to the tip of his
outstretched hand $n this metaphor, the whole of human
history could be erased with a single stro#e of a nail file on
his middle finger*
+ive centuries ago, this was ,ust inconceivable $n
those days, time was still viewed in terms of the human
scale To be sure, the pagan -ree# philosopher .ristotle
/0142022 &34 had held that the universe is eternal, with
neither beginning nor end 5n the other hand, the &ible
clearly states that the universe in general and the earth in
particular had a very definite beginning, and at some point in
the future, will ,ust as definitely end 6aturally, in an age
dominated by theology, it was the &iblical version which
prevailed The whole universe was thought to be ,ust a few
thousand years old $n the 17th century, an $rish bishop
named 8ssher closely examined the genealogies of the 5ld
Testament and concluded that the 3reation occurred in the
year 4994 &3
$t was not until the 11th century that the traditional
view of an earth without history was challenged "hat
stimulated the rise of a new earthly timetable was the
investigation of fossils and strata 6o doubt people had
noticed such phenomena since time immemorial, but it was
only %uite recently that we started to understand their real
nature and their true origins %ossils are the traces or remains
of once2living organisms Thus, fossils include not only the
bones of dinosaurs and wooly mammoths, but also things
li#e footprints, impressions of leaves or feathers, worm
burrows, and even coprolites /a scientific term for fossil
feces4 Strata /singular: stratum4 are the beds or layers of
roc# which can be observed, stac#ed atop one another, on
cliff faces and road cuts
Strata
$n many places, one can observe that the earth)s crust
is composed of a series of distinct layers of roc# The
geologists call them 'strata' ;oo#ing at the earth from a
naively &iblical perspective, the strata might pose something
of a problem That is, if -od made the earth in a single
ma,estic act, why are the strata there at all< "hy isn)t the
earth)s crust2more homogeneous< $f these strata were
produced by natural causes, then how were they formed<
.nd in many instances, we find these roc#s to contain within
them those curious ob,ects we call fossils "here did the
fossils come from< =ow did they get inside the roc#s< $n
order to uncover the secret of strata, we must first solve the
mystery of fossils
%ossils
$n medieval times, the concept of 'fossil' was %uite
different from what it is today $n those days, the term
'fossil' simply meant any ob,ect which had been 'dug up'
=ence, a fossil could be a seashell, a piece of petrified wood
or an ancient tooth (all of which %ualify today as fossils4
&ut the concept of that time also included crystals,
gemstones, roc#s with interesting shapes and human artifacts
such as arrowheads (none of which fit the modern definition
of 'fossil'4 The reason the concept was so vague and
general was that there was very little understanding of how
these 'dug up' things were formed The origin of a %uart>
crystal is fundamentally different from that of a petrified
s#ull but in premodern times, the difference was not
appreciated
.s you might have guessed, one way of explaining
at least some of the 'dug up' ob,ects2 the ones which loo#ed
most li#e parts of organisms2 was to attribute them to the
actions of the -reat +lood of 6oah)s time &ut this inter2
pretation had its problems "hy, for example, do we often
find seashells at the tops of high mountains< "ouldn)t the
+lood have swept them down into the valleys rather than
moving them upwards from their original positions on the
ocean floor< .nd why do we so often find them embedded in
solid stone<
.nother view which had many supporters was the
idea that all 'fossil ob,ects' were shaped by the 'plastic#
2
genius' of the earth)s crust .ccording to this perspective, the
earth was endowed with a capacity to mimic organic and
even human creations . roc# itself could 'grow' things that
loo#ed very much li#e clamshells or fish s#eletons 2 but
according to this explanation, neither the clamshell nor the
s#eleton 'fossils' were the remains of anything that ever
lived on earth To us with our modern mentality, such a
notion may seem absurd &ut the men of these earlier times
were at least as intelligent as you and $, and given the fact
that they did not have, as we do, the benefit of years of
patient and exacting scientific research to depend on, they
surely did as well as could be expected in trying to interpret
'fossil ob,ects' To ma#e my point, ,ust imagine yourself in
the shoes of a 15th century man or woman, loo#ing at a
piece of 'petrified wood' ?ou might compare it to a piece of
'real' wood and notice that both have similar characteristics
li#e the 'grain' and 'growth rings' &ut now try burning
them The 'real' wood goes up in flames, but the 'petrified
wood' does not because it contains no combustible material
.nd then you might recall that you found that bit of
'petrified wood" encased within a larger nodule of stone*
Steno
$t too# many years and re%uired the efforts of many
very bright and dedicated people to achieve the
understanding of fossils and strata which we en,oy2 and ta#e
for granted today @ust one of the heroes of this tale was a
Aane whose name was 6iels Btensen, but he is better #nown
to modern readers by the name of Bteno /1!0121!1!4 $ have
chosen him for special mention because he made important
contributions to our understanding of both fossils and strata
"hile living in $taly, Bteno had occasion to
encounter 'fossil ob,ects' #nown as glossopetrae /in ;atin,
the word means 'tongue2stones'4 Bteno, as a trained
anatomist, was able to identify them as shar#)s teeth &ut
what is even more important is that the 'tongue2stones' led
him to ponder how a hard, stony ob,ect li#e a glossopetra
came to be embedded within an e%ually hard roc# .fter
thin#ing about the problem of solids within solids, Bteno
came to the conclusion that the fossil itself /in this case, the
shar#)s tooth4 had originally been surrounded by soft
material li#e mud, and only later did the soft mud harden and
change into stone Bince most people in Bteno)s day assumed
that roc#s had always been roc#s, this was %uite a
remar#able conclusion
Bteno was convinced that solid roc#s had once
been fluid material, such as mud, silt or sand This led him to
a basic insight regarding the origin of strata =e formulated
the !a) of Superposition, which states that strata are
deposited hori>ontally on top of one another Thus, strata
were not formed simultaneously, but rather represent a series
of geological events +urthermore, since we do not always
find strata in their original hori>ontal position, the sloping,
tilting and sometimes twisted configuration of strata must
represent events which occurred after the original deposition
of material .s far as Bteno was concerned, the formation of
strata and the inclusions of fossils were explainable by
reference to the worldwide +lood described in the &oo# of
-enesis
%lood *eology
$n the 17th and early 11th centuries, science and
religion were seen by most thin#ers /especially in (ngland4
as being mutually confirming systems of #nowledge Bome
even wrote of the 'Two &oo#s of Cevelations'2 the &ible, or
the Word of -od, and 6ature, or the Works of -od Bince
both had been the product of the same Aivine $ntelligence, it
seemed inconceivable that there could be any real incon2
sistencies between them Bo it is not surprising that we see
men li#e $saac 6ewton, @ohn Cay, Thomas &urnet and others
wor#ing to show that the new science would not contradict
but confirm the truths of Bcripture, and even provide a
deeper understanding of &iblical verities
+or a while, at least, this confidence in the Two
&oo#s appeared to be admirably supported by the new
science of geology The earth)s strata could be attributed to
the Aeluge, and the fossils explained as the remains of the
unfortunate victims of -od)s wrath &ut by the late 11th
century, %lood *eology2 the school of thought which sought
to attribute virtually all the roc#s and fossils to a single deep
water event began to run into serious difficulties .s the new
sciences of geology and paleontology began to develop, it
became increasingly difficult to attribute the entire
'geological column' to the &iblical Aeluge Deople wor#ing
in these fields began to discover that many strata were of
terrestrial /as opposed to a%uatic4 origin They were also
finding that the fossil record reflected a highly patterned
sequence of life forms and communities, indicating that not
all organisms of the past lived contemporaneously
Catastrophism
Bo near the end of the 11th century, +lood -eology
ceased to be the dominant school of thought in the earth
3
sciences /although some still held to it4 .t this point,
catastrophism came to hold center stage 3atastrophism was
based on the notion that the earth)s history had been
characteri>ed by periods of stability which were occasionally
punctuated by geological catastrophes /eg volcanic
eruptions, earth%ua#es and floods4 of enormous proportions
The past, in a sense, was viewed as having consisted of a
number of 'worlds,' each of which had been created and
destroyed in se%uence
3atastrophism was primarily a geological
perspective, but it also had a paleontological dimension The
greatest of the catastrophists, Baron *eorges Cu+ier
/17!E211024, was not only a meticulous student of strataF he
is also recogni>ed as 'the father of vertebrate paleontology'
3uvier astounded people of his time with his ability to
reconstruct ancient animals from fragmentary fossil remains,
which he was able to do because of his great #nowledge of
comparative anatomy =e was able to demonstrate that many
of the fossils he examined were similar to, but also %uite
distinct, from the animals on earth today That is, 3uvier
proved that some animals of the past had become extinct!
This was %uite a shoc# to many of his contemporaries $t had
long been assumed that -od had originally created a
perfectly continuous series of organisms, and for many, the
notion that the -reat 3hain had brea#s or gaps in it was
simply unthin#able 6evertheless, 3uvier, with the support
of the facts, prevailed and extinction was accepted as an
integral part of the earth)s history Bo, ,ust as ;innaeus)
'hierarchical' system of classification undermined the -reat
3hain of &eing, so also 3uvier)s discovery of extinction
challenged the doctrine of Dlentitude
.lthough 3uvier)s ideas helped bring about the
demise of +lood -eology and some aspects of the prevailing
creationist views, he was by no means an evolutionist =e
believed that each species was 'fixed' upon creation &ut his
creationist stance was not due to any unwillingness to depart
from &iblical literalism Cather, it was because his studies in
anatomy led him to an idea which he called the correlation
of parts To 3uvier, each organism was a finely tuned system
of integrated organs and structures =e believed that the
integration /or 'correlation'4 of each structure within the
total system was so exacting that change in any part would
undermine or destroy the functions of the whole Thus,
3uvier considered the evolutionary speculations of some of
his contemporaries /most notably, another +renchman named
;amarc#4 to be totally unwarranted
.nother problem for +lood -eology stemmed from
the finding that the fossils were not ,ust randomly distributed
through the series of strata which might have been expected
from ,ust one global +lood $nstead, as time went on and
more studies were done, it became increasingly apparent that
the fossil record had a decidedly nonrandom character That
is, one group of roc#s would contain a certain assemblage of
fossils, while the group of strata above it would have %uite a
different assemblage of fossils This patterned and se%uential
arrangement was not ,ust an anomaly found here and there
Cather, same general pattern was to be found everywhere
This is not the sort of evidence one would expect to be
produced by ,ust a single world2wide hydraulic cataclysm
8ltimately, the discovery of this orderly, se%uential
arrangement in the fossil record resulted in the establishment
of what is #nown as the geological column The geological
column represents the temporal order of appearances and
disappearances of life forms in the fossil record $t ta#es
account of the empirical facts that trilobites are never found
in the same deposits as whales and dinosaurs are never found
in the same strata as humans
The catastrophists were not, as they are sometimes
depicted, a crowd of blind reactionaries who were trying to
defend the &ible2 and particularly 6oah)s +lood2 against an
onslaught of new facts To be sure, catastrophists were
3hristian believers, but more importantly, they were men
who were strongly committed to scientific empiricism They
were 'literalists,' but in the scientific and geological2 not the
&iblical2 sense Cemember, as was pointed out above, that
the fossil record showed a very strong se%uential pattern
3ertain #inds of fossils were typically found together in the
same series of strata, while %uite a different assemblage
would be characteristic of the group of strata below or above
it Ceading the roc#s 'literally,' they seemed to say that
groups of organisms existed for a certain period of time in
rather stable communities, but these communities were
abruptly replaced now and then by new and different
communities This was an interpretation of the strata and
fossils which did not depend on Bcripture, but it was also
one which could be at least broadly harmoni>ed with it The
earth had experienced a series of ma,or catastrophes2 and,
perhaps, a succession of separate creations as well2 and since
humans appeared only at the 'top' of the geological column,
one could say /as in fact 3uvier did4 that the most recent of
those great cataclysms had been the -reat +lood of -enesis
To summari>e, the catastrophists carried on the old
4
tradition of creationism &ut they showed that +lood
-eology /which was an attempt to harmoni>e the new
geology and paleontology with a simple rendering of
-enesis4 simply did not fit the facts 3atastrophism demon2
strated that the age of the earth must be somewhat greater2
3uvier spo#e in terms of 'some thousands of centuries'2
than the !,999 years or so claimed by the &iblically minded
Becondly, they showed that the stratigraphic and fossil
records could not be forced into a single massive cataclysm,
and thirdly, they established extinction as a 'fact'
6evertheless, while the correspondences between Bcripture
and the earth sciences were strained by catastrophism, they
were not entirely destroyed Bcience could still be seen to be
at least broadly consistent with =oly "rit
.lthough catastrophism provided answers to
geological %uestions far more effectively than the simplistic
+lood -eology, it was /at least in hindsight4 fatally flawed
To the catastrophists, the record of the roc#s indicated that
the earth)s crust had been shaped by a number of devastating
cataclysms which were entirely beyond the scale of their
own experience They were convinced that the disasters of
the past had caused extinctions, redistributed the world)s
plants and animals and reshaped the lay of the land To be
sure, they #new that earth%ua#es, floods and volcanic
eruptions occurred in the present, but they also #new that
such events were very limited in their conse%uences Bo
while they could observe and analy>e present day geological
processes, they could not directly connect these phenomena
to the world2shattering catastrophes of bygone days Thus,
their science was limited by their own assumptions and inter2
pretations
,niformitarianism
$n the early years of the 1Eth century, a new school
of geological thought began to develop The leading figure
here was a Bcotsman named Charles !yell /17E7211754
;yell did not read the roc#s in the 'literal' fashion
characteristic of the catastrophists $nstead, he emphasi>ed
the observation of the geological processes that ma#e2 and
unma#e2 the roc#s "hereas the catastrophists could only
draw a wea# lin# between processes observable today and
the roc#s themselves, ;yell based his interpretations on the
notion that the present is the key to the past- that is, the
natural processes such as erosion and sedimentation which
can be observed today must have been responsible for
shaping the earth in the past This new approach in geology
came to be #nown as uniformitarianism, in reference to the
assumption that the laws of nature operate uniformly
throughout time and space That is, the laws of physics wor#
in exactly the same way in the farthest galaxy as they do in
our own, and the laws of genetics were no different ten
million years ago than they are today
3onsider, for example, the -rand 3anyon =ere, we
can observe strata which total over a mile in thic#ness ;et
us assume that the processes by which material is deposited
to form such strata in the present were li#e the processes
which formed these roc#s in the past ;et us also assume that
the forces of wind and water by which roc#s are worn away
nowadays also were ,ust as in the past 5nce we grant these
assumptions, then it follows that it must have ta#en a very
long time to create such an enormous thic#ness of strata "e
would also have to recogni>e that the processes of erosion
must have wor#ed over vast ages in order to cut a mile2deep
swath in those strata $n other words, the -rand 3anyon,
when viewed from the perspective of uniformitarian geology,
would have to be incredibly ancient (ven the few hundreds
of thousands of years for the age of the earth accepted by the
catastrophists are dwarfed by the awesome deep time of
uniformitarianism
6ot only did ;yell)s brand of geology vastly extend
the age of the earth, but it also engendered a view of change
which mar#edly contrasted with that of the catastrophists $n
catastrophism, geological changes were seen as occurring in
sporadic revolutionary episodes of massive scale, creating in
a single event a whole new landscape $n uniformitarianism,
change was seen as a continuous process of slow, steady and
%uite unspectacular alteration
"hile ;yell)s geology stood in strong contrast to
3uvier)s, ;yell, li#e his +rench counterpart, remained a
creationist 6evertheless, uniformitarian geology can truly
be said to have opened the way for the idea of organic
evolution, for it provided one element that was a necessary
prere%uisite to formulating a scientific theory of biological
transformation That element was deep time. .s we shall see,
Aarwin)s theory of biological evolution was one which
re%uired enormous stretches of time to do its wor#
Kel+in-s Challenge to 'eep (ime
&y the middle of the 1Eth century, uniformitarian
geology had become the orthodox view in the earth sciences
The uniformitarians constructed an image of the earth as
almost indefinitely ancient 5ne of the founders of this
5
school, @ames =utton, remar#ed that the earth seemed to
have 'no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end' "e
had practically returned to an .ristotelian view of an eternal
universe
&ut in the last couple of decades of the century, the
'deep time' of the uniformitarians was called into %uestion
by one of the greatest physicists of the age "illiam
Thomson /who in later life was named ;ord Gelvin4
pioneered a then2new field called thermodynamics, which
examines the relations between heat and mechanical energy
Gelvin set about to calculate the age of the earth by
determining the rate at which the earth has cooled from its
original molten state to its present temperature =e
concluded that our planet was between 199 and 299 million
years old, a figure which was viewed by many /including
3harles Aarwin himself4 to be insufficient to allow the
modern diversity of organisms to evolve by the #ind of
processes Aarwin had proposed
Gelvin, by the way, was not an all2out
antievolutionist &ut, li#e so many other people of both past
and present, he was offended by the absence of purpose and
direction in natural selection =e preferred an evolution
guided by Aivine "isdom, which he considered to be %uite
compatible with a relatively young earth
There was nothing wrong with Gelvin)s
understanding of the physics of heat loss, and his
calculations were about as accurate as they could have been
=owever, Gelvin turned out to be wrong ?ou see, he
assumed /%uite properly, for there was no reason at the time
to thin# otherwise4 that only the original heat of the earth
was being dissipated and that no additional source of heat
was present &ut at the turn of the 29th century, ,ust at the
end of Gelvin)s life, an additional source of heat, loc#ed
within the atom, was discovered
The presence of radioactivity /the emitting of
energy from within atoms4 as a significant source of heat put
an end to Gelvin)s assessment of the age of the earth
&ecause of radioactivity, the earth must be cooling at a
considerably slower rate than Gelvin thought .s a result,
deep time, threatened by Hictorian physics, was rescued by
the physics of the 29th century Today, we believe the earth
to be about 4! billion years old2 more than 29 times as old
as the 299 million year maximum allowed by Gelvin
!ate ./th Century *eology
.s $ explained, in the early 1Eth century,
uniformitarian geology won out over catastrophism &ut in
fact, the uniformitarians went too far They tended to see not
only natural laws operating the same throughout space and
time, but natural processes occurring uniformly as well .s a
result, they considered that the scale and severity of
volcanoes, earth%ua#es, floods and other cataclysms had
been no greater in the past than what we have seen in the last
few centuries
"e now #now this to be wrong There actually
have been catastrophes in the past that have far outdone any
we have seen in recent times +or example, the volcanic
eruption that created the ;ong Halley 3aldera near the
3alifornia26evada border was greater by magnitudes than
any historically recorded eruption, and near the end of the
Dleistocene, the 3hanneled Bcablands of eastern "ashington
were created by a flood vastly more devastating than any
#nown in human chronicles
.s you have no doubt heard, one of the most
discussed and debated ideas in present2day science is the
claim that the abrupt extinction of dinosaurs /and many other
groups4 resulted from a collision between the earth and an
asteroid or comet The #mpact 0ypothesis holds that when
this astral body struc# the earth, a tremendous amount of
debris was thrown up into the atmosphere This, in effect,
'turned out the lights' for a time, leading to massive and
widespread extinctions
This digression serves to indicate that late 29th
century geology is no longer strictly guided by
uniformitarianism Today catastrophes play a considerable
role in our thin#ing about earth history
6
Part ##$ (he Process of 1+olution
Predar)inian 1+olution
Toward the end of the 11th century, the traditional
@udeo23hristian cosmology was being challenged at almost
every turn The geocentric model in astronomy, placing the
earth at the center of the entire universe, was long since
discarded +lood -eology, which for a time seemed so
reasonable, was being undermined by a more detailed
examination of strata and fossil se%uences .nd it was
beginning to appear that the &iblical chronology indicating a
universe but a few thousand years old would have to be
revised (ven the old notion of 'the fixity of species' was
being reconsidered
5ne of the first people to raise the banner of
significant organic transformation was a +renchman,
@ean &aptiste Dierre .ntoine de Ionet 3hevalier de
!amarck /17442112E4 ;amarc# formulated a rather
complex theory of evolution which included a number of
componentsF however he is primarily identified today with
,ust one idea: the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
.ccording to this notion, traits which are developed in the
course of one)s lifetime are transmitted to one)s offspring
+or example, if the short2nec#ed ancestors of giraffes
engaged in nec#2stretching activities as they reached for
leaves at higher and higher levels on trees, their descendants
would be born with slightly longer nec#s This idea, though,
is apparently invalid, since changes in the 'soma' /bodily
cells4 have never been found to effect changes in the 'germ
line' /genes4
;amarc#ism has never been scientifically
substantiated, but it has always had adherents ever since its
inception almost 299 years ago Drobably the main reason
for this perennial appeal is that the idea implies a significant
contribution of 'free will' to the evolutionary process That
7
is, it encourages the idea that organisms create themselves
through their own purposeful activities .s we shall see,
Aarwinism tends to portray a more deterministic or
'fatalistic' view of evolution
The early evolutionary theories of ;amarc# and
others were widely discussed between the end of the 11th
and the middle of the 1Eth centuries $n this era, the 'fixity of
species' was doubted by more and more people &ut the
prevailing opinion on the topic was always that evolution, in
the large sense, was hypothetical and unproven .nd then
something happened
What 'ar)in 'id
5n 6ovember 24, 115E, a boo# was published
which stunned Hictorian society "hen one (nglish lady
heard about it, she reportedly exclaimed, '5h dear* ;et us
hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray it will not
become generally #nown*' (ven today, more than a century
later, we are still in the process of ad,usting to the astounding
implications of that boo# $ts ma,or thesis, li#e all profound
ideas, was remar#ably simple: it suggested that all of organic
nature2 and this includes humans2 is entirely natural The
boo# was entitled n the rigin of !pecies by "eans of
#atural !election, or, $he %reservation of &avoured 'aces
in the !truggle for (ife. "e usually call it $he rigin or $he
rigin of !pecies. $ts author was a shy, reclusive, and rather
sic#ly (nglish gentleman named 3harles Cobert Aarwin
/119E211124
$n $he rigin, Aarwin had two ma,or ob,ectives
+irst, he wanted to show that evolution is a reality- that is,
evolution /essentially, the transmutation of species4 does
occur and can explain the biological diversity we see in the
world today Becondly, he wanted to describe how the
process of evolution ta#es place $n other words, Aarwin
showed that evolution does exist and then he went on to
describe a theory of how it wor#s by means of a process he
called 'natural selection'
.s $ indicated above, Aarwin did not invent the idea
of evolution The old idea of the 'fixity of species' had for
some time been doubted by many scientists and other
thin#ers +or a couple of generations before Aarwin)s time,
men such as &uffon, ;amarc#, and even (rasmus Aarwin
/3harles) grandfather4, had suggested that organisms may not
always remain ,ust as they are Bo the idea of the
transmutation of species was 'in the air' in the middle of the
1Eth century The essential facts were there, and those facts
were #nown to a great many educated people &ut until
Aarwin came along, no one had ever organi>ed the evidence
into a systematic, comprehensive case for evolution Bince
115E, no rational and informed person has ever been able to
ma#e an effective case for denying the reality of evolution
$he rigin was enormously successful in
establishing evolution as a 'fact'2 in supporting the idea with
such an enormous weight of evidence that to deny it would
be perverse &ut the processual aspect of Aarwin)s argument
was not so successful at that time $n Aarwin)s lifetime, there
were many who re,ected his claim that the primary
mechanism of evolutionary change was his process of
'natural selection' They preferred to invo#e ;amarc#ism
and other non2darwinian forces instead Today, natural
selection is almost universally endorsed by scientists, but it
too# almost three2%uarters of a century for this acceptance to
be achieved
'ar)in-s 1arly 2ears
3harles Aarwin was born in 119E =is father was a
very successful physician &ecause of the fortunate
circumstances of his birth, Aarwin never had to be
concerned about ma#ing a living because the family fortune
insured that we would never be in need of the material
necessities of life .s a boy, he showed no particular talent,
and his father at times expressed despair at what might come
of such a lad "hen 3harles was in his teens, his father sent
him to study medicine at the 8niversity of (dinburgh, but
this plan did not wor# out and 3harles returned home again
Bhortly after that, he enrolled at 3ambridge 8niversity =is
'ma,or' was theology, but the courses that really captured his
attention were in biology and geology =e did graduate, but
he had no interest in becoming a parson $t loo#ed for a
while as though he might spend the rest of his life doing
little more than 'riding to hounds'
(he 3oyage of the HMS Beagle
Bhortly after his graduation, however, a remar#ably
fortunate event occurred =er Ia,esty)s 6avy was
organi>ing a voyage that was to chart some previously
unmapped coastlines $ts mission was also to include the
collection of geological and biological specimens 5ne of
Aarwin)s former professors #new about the expedition, and
made arrangements for the young man to ,oin, originally as a
'companion' for the ship)s captain, but later on as the ship)s
naturalist /who was responsible for the scientific
8
collections4
$n 11012 Aarwin was then ,ust 22the )"! *eagle
set out on its historic expedition .t the time, Aarwin was a
creationist &ut in the course of this long voyage, his views
were profoundly changed 3harles ;yell)s great wor#,
%rinciples of +eology, had ,ust been published Aarwin read
it aboard ship with great interest, and was 'converted' to the
then2new geological uniformitarianism =e spent time ashore
in Bouth .merica, hard at wor# collecting roc#s, fossils and
modern plants and animals +airly early on, he began to
notice some rather distinctive patterns in the facts what he
was accumulating =e observed, for example, that there were
a number of anatomical correspondences between a giant,
extinct mammal called a glyptodont and the modern
armadillo =e also noted that as he moved southward in
.rgentina, characteristic organisms of the northern region
were often replaced by organisms which were very similar,
yet %uite distinct Thus, Aarwin began to pu>>le over 'a
succession of types' in space and time 5ther observations
contributed to his growing doubts about creationism =e
wondered why the same basic organ 2 the wing of a steamer
duc# would be used as a paddle, while the penguin used its
wing as a fin and the rhea used it as a sort of sail< 3ould it
be that these were natural modifications from some ancestral
form<
. bit later on, the )"! *eagle came to the
-alapagos $slands Aarwin noticed there were reptiles, birds
and various plants which were similar to, yet different from,
ones he had observed on the mainland &ecause these
'(nchanted $sles' /as they have sometimes been called4 lie at
a great distance from Bouth .merica, the nearest land mass,
he began to consider the possible importance of isolation
There were finches on the islands, and Aarwin began to
suspect and he turned out to be right2 that distinct types of
finches were endemic to particular islands in the archipelago
=e was also impressed at how the local people could identify
the varieties of huge tortoises according to the islets on
which they lived The transmutation of species was
becoming increasingly apparent to Aarwin, and he wrote in
his noteboo# that this evidence 'would undermine the
stability of species'
$n 5ctober of 110!, nearly five years after setting
out, the *eagle doc#ed again in an (nglish port &y this
time, Aarwin was completely sure that evolution was real,
but his cautious nature restrained him from any public
announcement of his convictions =e felt that he needed to
show not only that evolution occurs, but how it occurs as
well .s to describing the process of evolution, he had some
ideas, but he was not yet prepared to put together a
developed argument Bo he wor#ed and waited
.fter his return to (ngland, Aarwin became active in
scientific circles and soon established himself as a scientist
of some note $n 110E, he published a very widely read boo#
on the voyage of the &eagle22 but he did not tout his new
opinions on evolution $n that same year, he married his
cousin, (mma "edgewood =is health was already in
decline, so the couple soon left the bustle of ;ondon life and
retired to a house in Gent .lthough he was in a rather sic#ly
state for the rest of his life and he died in 1112 2 he somehow
found the energy to continue to wor# &y the 1159s, he was
recogni>ed as one of the leading biologists in (ngland
Alfred Russel Wallace
5ver a period of years, Aarwin had developed and
honed his theory of evolutionary process2 the theory of
natural selection &ut although he had the theory formulated
as early as 1101, he refrained from going public with it "as
it because he felt he needed more facts< Aid he doubt that he
had it %uite 'right<' Btephen @ay -ould maintains that
Aarwin delayed because he #new that such an
uncompromisingly materialistic theory of biological
transmutation would generate a great deal of unhappiness
&ut in any case, Aarwin procrastinated
$n @une 1151, something happened which forced his
hand =e received a letter from a younger (nglishman,
.lfred Cussel "allace /112021E104, who was at the time in
the Autch (ast $ndies /now $ndonesia4 Aarwin had never
met "allace, but he #new of his wor# =e #new, for example
that the younger man had endorsed evolution in a paper in
11552 but so had many other writers &ut this letter was
something else $ts contents included a short paper
describing a theory of the process by which evolution might
occur "hat was most shoc#ing of all was that the ideas
"allace set forth were virtually identical to the
/unpublished4 views of Aarwin himself* $n a letter to ;yell,
Aarwin said, '$ never saw a more stri#ing coincidenceF if
"allace had my manuscript s#etch written out in 1142, he
could not have made a better short abstract*'
Aarwin naturally feared that his procrastination
would result in the loss of credit for wor#ing out the theory
he had wor#ed on so long &ut as it turned out, "allace
graciously accepted an arrangement which gave Aarwin
9
priority while ac#nowledging "allace as well .t a scientific
meeting in @uly 1151, brief papers by both men were
presented Then, "allace bided his time while Aarwin
arranged for the publication of $he rigin. ;ater on, "allace
published his own views on evolution
'ar)in-s Case for 1+olution
$n $he rigin, Aarwin argued two related cases The
argument which generated the greatest controversy was his
theory of natural selection =is other brief, demonstrating the
reality of evolution22 or, as he called it, 'descent with
modification'2 was almost immediately accepted by all but a
few who read the boo#
&y 115E many naturalists were already suspecting
that biological transmutations did ta#e place and that species
were not 'fixed' &ut until Aarwin did the ,ob, no one had
put together a tightly reasoned argument for organic
evolution Those who had attempted to do so /most notably
(rasmus Aarwin, ;amarc# and Cobert 3hambers4, had
offered cases that were, for one reason or another, seriously
flawed &ut the earlier writers did not have as much data at
their disposal, nor did they possess the careful and rigorous
mentality of a 3harles Aarwin
Iost of all, Aarwin noticed that there were
distinctive patterns in the evidence from geology,
paleontology, biogeography, anatomy and embryology $n all
cases, these patterns were demonstrably consistent with a
hypothesis of 'descent with modification' $f such patterns
had been present in only one or two of these areas, Aarwin
may not have succeeded in converting science to evolution
Anatomy and 1m4ryology
The 'hierarchical' system of classification pioneered
by ;innaeus was well established by Aarwin)s day and the
-reat 3hain of &eing was all but dead Aarwin recogni>ed
that the degrees of similarity and difference upon which
;innaean taxonomy was based could reflect degrees of
relatedness. $n other words, the homologous characteristics
which are shared by members of any group exist because
they) are all descended from a common ancestor who
possessed those traits Aarwin also #new that this pattern
was replicated in embryology 5rganisms which were most
similar to one another in terms of their anatomy were also
most similar in their ontology, or the development of the
individual organism
Biogeography
Aarwin recogni>ed that the distribution of plants and
animals also provided support for his idea of 'descent with
modification' =e was acutely aware of how a 'succession of
types' in space was consistently exhibited in all areas of the
globe +or example, he #new that organisms that inhabited
the high .ndes of Bouth .merica were more similar to plants
and animals living in the lowlands of that continent than they
were to the plants and animals of the (uropean .lps
Bimilarly, he #new from his experience on the voyage of the
&eagle that while the physical conditions of 6ew Bouth
"ales in .ustralia were very similar to the climate and
altitude of parts of (urope, the organisms inhabiting those
two areas were mar#edly different $ have already mentioned
how Aarwin was impressed by the 'succession of types' /of
finches and tortoises in particular4 in the -alapagos $slands
.s early as the 1109)s, he was beginning to consider the
possibility that there had been some original tortoises and
finches that reached the (nchanted $sles and had
subse%uently given rise to the variety of genera, species and
subspecies he himself had observed
Paleontology
6ot only is there a 'succession of types' in spaceF a
similar 'succession' occurs through time .lthough the
number of fossils #nown in Aarwin)s day was considerably
smaller than our modern sample, it was nevertheless
irrefutable by the 1159s that there existed a very strong
pattern of succession in the fossil record The fossils of the
remote past were, by and large, less similar to modern forms
than were the fossils of the more recent past Aarwin showed
that the 'succession of types' in space was consistent with
the 'succession of types' in time $n .ustralia, for example,
fossil forms overtime become increasingly li#e the
organisms living in .ustralia today, and these organisms are
notably different from those living in (urope or 6orth
.merica
*eology
Aarwin maintained that ultimately, all forms of life were
descended2 with modification2 from 'one or a few original
forms' &ut if the earth were but a few thousand years old,
there would be little chance that such enormous diversity
could be produced through natural processes in so short a
time &ut Aarwin had confidence2than#s to
uniformitarianism2 that the earth was almost indefinitely
10
ancient The establishment of Aeep Time by ;yell and other
geologists gave Aarwin the temporal latitude that is re%uired
by any theory of naturalistic evolution
6one of the essential facts on which Aarwin based
his demonstration of the reality of evolution were discovered
by Aarwin himself The facts had been discovered by a
number of other naturalists over a long period of time &ut
until 3harles Aarwin came along, no one had ever ta#en
those facts and put them together into a coherent and
systematic argument for organic evolution &ut, as we shall
see, Aarwin)s establishment of the idea that biological
evolution does occur was only one of his great
achievements =e also constructed a theory of evolutionary
process, and it was for this reason that he will ever be
remembered as one of the most powerful thin#ers in the
history of the human species
(he (heory of 5atural Selection
.lthough 3harles Aarwin recogni>ed that a number
of factors might contribute to change in organisms, he
considered one process to be paramount =e called that
process natural selection. $n brief, the theory wor#s as
follows:
1 3ariation
Aarwin recogni>ed that in any sexually2reproducing species,
no two individuals are ever exactly ali#e . considerable
amount of 'variation' is always present +or example, in a
human population, we would observe variation in terms of
s#in color, hair texture, height, blood type, and so on "e
might also notice variation in hair styles, but in natural
selection, the only variations that really count are those
which can be passed on biologically to ensuing generations
. Superfecundity
5rganisms have a tendency to over2reproduce, or a capacity
for 'superfecundity' They tend to lay more eggs or produce
larger litters than what could be supported by the
environment &oth Aarwin and "allace credited Thomas
Ialthus) famous
'(ssay on Dopulation' for this element of the theory
6 Struggle for Sur+i+al
$f there are more eggs being laid or more babies being born
than the environment can support, it is inevitable that a
situation of competition or a 'struggle for survival' among
individuals must ensue $n a world of limited resources,
some will come out winners while the remainder will be
flushed away into oblivion
7 Sur+i+al of the %ittest
$n the competition that ta#es place, who wins and who loses
is not at all random Cather, those who survive and
reproduce /on average4 will be the individuals who happen
to possess what Aarwin called 'favorable variations' That
is, those who happen to possess characteristics which are
ever so slightly more suited to the environments in which
they occur will be in a privileged position +or example, in
the .rctic, bunnies that have slightly longer or thic#er fur
will have an advantage over those whose fur is shorter or
thinner
.s these factors interact over a short period, small
but observable changes can occur in a population &ut if this
process is free to run for generation after generation, over
stretches of millions of years, enormous divergences from an
original condition can be generated $ hope you can see now
why 'deep time' was such an important prere%uisite to
Aarwin)s theory
()o Kinds of Selection
=e pointed out that natural selection is analogous to
the #ind of selective breeding practices used to develop
higher mil# yields in cows or a faster2maturing variety of
mai>e That is, in both cases, individuals with certain traits
are favored, or 'selected,' and these become the breeding
stoc# for the next generation, while the individuals without
those desirable characteristics are eliminated
&ut natural selection is different from selective
breeding in some important respects +irst, in selective
breeding, there is a conscious, rational, purposeful agent2 the
breeder2 who directs the enterprise $n contrast, natural
selection involves nothing of the sort 6atural selection is a
process which involves no predetermined purpose or
direction, and while its products may create the appearance
of intentional design, it is appearance only
Becondly, in selective breeding, the agent of
selection /the breeder4 selects on the basis of what she or he
desires =owever, as Aarwin stressed, natural selection acts
only for the benefit of the organisms themselves
Thirdly, selective breeding by a human agent ta#es
place over a brief stretch of time .t any given time, there is
a very limited amount of variation on which the breeder can
operate &ut since new variations are constantly being
produced, over vast amounts of time natural selection
ultimately has a great deal more variation to wor# with, and
thus can effect much greater changes than can selective
11
breeding
(he #mportance of 3ariation
. process of selection can easily bring about
changes in organisms &ut the degree of change possible is
always limited by the variations available at any given time
Without variation, selection simply cannot occur, and yet,
selection is a process that operates to reduce the amount of
variation present!
$magine that we have a population of tree frogs, and
that this population contains a fair amount of variation with
regard to s#in coloration, blood proteins and other
characteristics .ssume also that natural selection is acting
on this population, so that 'unfavourable variations' are
gradually eliminated &ut now assume that no new
variations are being produced Ao you see what will
happen< 8ltimately, the variation will be reduced to a single
set of traits "hen this happens, selection will be powerless
to generate any further change*
.s this hypothetical case shows, the capacity of
natural selection to ma#e ma,or changes in the long run
depends on the constant creation of new variations The
ultimate source of all such variation is genetic mutation
-enetic mutation occurs whenever there is an alteration of
the genetic material, deoxyribonucleic acid /A6.4 6otice
that whenever a mutation occurs, a 'variation' that was not
previously present comes on stage 6otice also that mutation
and selection have opposite effects: Belection acts to reduce
variation, while mutation serves to increase it
. great many mutations are selectively neutral,
which is to say that the evolutionary fitness of the carriers of
these mutations is neither positively nor negatively affected
$n other words, a selectively2neutral mutation is one which is
'ignored' by selection
5f course some mutations have negative fitness
conse%uences Buch mutations may cause death at an early
age, or they might interfere with the ability of the organism
to find a suitable mate These mutations will be eliminated
by selection fairly %uic#ly &ut some other mutations will
have positive fitness conse%uences The bearers of these new
variations will live longer and produce more offspring, thus
transmitting more of their characteristics to their
descendants This is what we mean when we say they are
'favored' by natural selection
'ar)inian and !amarckian 3ariation
The necessity of a source of new variation is
essential to any concept of organic evolution, including both
Aarwinism and ;amarc#ism &ut these two theories have
very different ideas as to how variation arises $n the
;amarc#ian view, the origin of variation is a 'directed'
process That is, new variations arise out of the 'needs' and
the purposeful activities of the organism $n this view, the
origin of variation is anything but 'random'
.ccording to the Aarwinian perspective, variation is
created through an 'undirected' process Hariations are not
induced by the needs or activities of the organism $nstead,
new variations arise in a manner that is random with respect
to the environment. That is, mutations are occurring in a way
that is unrelated to whatever might be useful or adaptive to
the organism Iutations, as $ pointed out, may have either
positive or negative fitness conse%uences2 or, they may be
selectively neutral
$magine, for example, a population of bunnies living
in an area where the climate was becoming colder $t would
be adaptive for them to ac%uire a thic#er fur $n the
;amarc#ian version, thic#er fur will appear essentially auto2
matically in response to the need to adapt to changing
conditions &ut in the Aarwinian scenario, a new gene for
thic# fur is no more li#ely to appear than one for a thinner
coat =owever, if it should happen that a new thic# fur
mutation occurs, then natural selection will favor it, and that
variation will become more common in future generations
(he &Blind Chance& #ssue
5ne of the most common misunderstandings /or
misrepresentations*4 of natural selection is to e%uate it with
&lind 3hance &ut this conception is incorrect $t is certainly
true that the overall process of natural selection includes an
element of what we could call &lind 3hance That is, to say
that mutations /which, you will recall, are the ultimate
source of all variation4 occur 'at random with respect to the
environment' is tantamount to saying that the evolutionary
force of mutation is, essentially, the factor of chance
=owever, the other element in the total process, the element
of selection itself, is %uite the polar opposite of random. $t
may be &lind 3hance that accounts for whether or not a
thic# fur mutation pops up in our hypothetical bunny
population, but it is the nonrandom force of natural selection
that determines whether or not this, or any other new
variation, is preserved and spread throughout the population
12
Cather, it is the material demands that any environment
ma#es of the organisms that inhabit it that account for the
long2term survival of variations