
A Simple Guide to
Evolution
Evolution is a complex process;
finding out how it works is rather like trying to complete a complicated jigsaw
which has no picture on the box. In the last few hundred years many people have
linked together pieces of evidence and produced some startling images, but the
jigsaw of evolutionary knowledge is still incomplete. There have always been
vigorous arguments about how best to fit the pieces together and even fiercer
arguments on how we should interpret and respond to the images that we are
shown.
Sweden
and revolutionary France
A quick dash from ancient Greece to 18C
The Greek
philosopher
Aristotle (384 to322 BC) had a theory which explained the variety of life
forms: he believed the lowest organisms originated from primeval slime and these
simple beings changed into higher and more perfect types. Man was the
culmination of this process. Aristotle also attempted to classify living things:
his system divided animals into those with red blood and those without, and
divided the red blooded creatures into mammals,
lizards, birds and fish.
The system of classification we
still use today was introduced by
Carl Linnaeus (1707 -1778), a Swedish botanist. He used a Latin
nomenclature, as was the custom of the time, to classify plants and animals, and
gave each species a family name and a species name. He classified plants
according to their reproductive organs; at the time some people were rather
scandalised by his emphasis on the sexual nature of flowers. Classification is
now based on our understanding of the relationships between the species.
Linnaeus’s original conviction that species never changed was later modified
when he observed that the mating of different species could produced hybrids.
The idea of evolution did not occur to him however, and his stance was one of
awe at nature allied to a belief in God. It was not until the eighteenth century
that the idea that species changed over time and that everything that lived,
men, mosquitoes or mushrooms, had the same origin was thoroughly investigated.
The French scientist
Lamark (1744 -1789) was responsible for considerable advances in the
classification of animals. He was a Professor at the Jardin de Plantes in Paris
and worked on worms and insects. He was also the first to think that species
evolved over time; to see clearly that there was a jigsaw to be completed.
Lamark suggested that the use or disuse of a structure would cause it to
increase or decrease in size, and this change could be inherited. The usual
example given to illustrate this is the neck of the giraffe, elongated through
generations of reaching for leaves near the top of trees.
A glimpse at the enlightenment and utopian ideals
The idea of evolution
interested
Erasmus Darwin (1731 -1802) who was a physician, poet and the grandfather of
Charles Darwin. In his work ‘Zoonomia’ (1794-1796) he speculated that all
life had arisen from single living filament. Erasmus Darwin was a Unitarian and
adherent of the views of the Enlightenment. Unitarians believed in God and in
the teaching of Jesus, but did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity as taught
as an article of faith by the established Church of England. The enlightenment,
a philosophical movement which believed that human reasoning was to be preferred
to unquestioning faith, was associated with 'scientific' thinking and often at
odds with the religious establishment of the time.
A clergyman and political
economist called
Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) had a profound influence on evolutionary
thought. He wrote An Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798 as a
response to his father’s attempt to convert him to the ideas of William Godwin
and the Marquis de Concordet. They believed in the perfectibility of human
society, and assumed that humans would naturally progress towards a utopian
society. Concordet was actively involved in the French Revolution (1788 – 1799)
and Godwin was also much influenced by the heady ideals of the time. Thomas
Malthus thought that the utopian ideals of a society in which equality, wealth,
happiness and virtue naturally flourished were incompatible with the facts of
human existence, which he pointed out was regulated by the same laws as the
existence of other animals. He noted that humans had the potential to reproduce
so as to double their numbers every 25 years, as had happened in the newly
colonised America. He thought that it was unlikely that any land could provide
food for this potential increase in population indefinitely. He also considered
the reasons why this potential increase in population did not normally occur,
and pointed out that many of the reasons he listed: war, famine, infanticide,
and late marriage resulted in misery and vice. His views were hotly debated at
the time, and have been very influential since. Darwin and Wallace were
stimulated by his work to consider the mechanisms that regulated animal and
plant populations; Marx and Engels rejected his ideas, as Malthus had rejected
the ideas held by earlier social revolutionaries.
The young Darwin builds on Lyell's geological foundations
Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) is the best known evolutionist of all time. He
studied classics at Cambridge, and at that time a book by
William Paley (1743 -1805), ‘A View of the Evidence of Christianity’
was required reading. Paley’s other famous book ‘Natural Theology: or,
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the
Appearances of Nature’ (1802) introduced the idea that the existence of God
could be inferred from nature: just as anyone would infer from finding a watch
that it had been made by a watch-maker, so anyone examining the wonderful array
of plants and animals on earth could safely infer the existence of a creator.
Darwin was very taken by William Paley’s work, and when he set off on his voyage
around the world on HMS Beagle after he graduated, Charles may well have been a
more orthodox Christian than his free-thinking grandfather Erasmus Darwin.
Charles took on the Beagle the
first volume of ‘Principles of Geology’ by
Charles Lyell (1797 -1875). Lyell revolutionised ideas on geology. It had
been thought that the surface of the earth had been moulded by a few past
catastrophes like Noah’s flood, but that this period of upheaval was over, but
Lyell found evidence that change was continuous over vast periods of time.
Darwin demonstrated that the earth was still changing when he measured an eight
foot uplift in the land after an earthquake in South America. Lyell taught that
"the present is the key to the past", but he
did not apply his theories of continual change to the species that lived on the
ever changing earth, it was left to his younger friend Darwin to do this.
In South America Darwin found
the fossils of extinct creatures and noted their resemblance to current species.
He noted that the variety of birds and animals found on the Galapagos Islands
differed from those on the mainland and that tortoises and finches were
different on each of the islands. He proposed a mechanism by which species
changed over time and devoted many years to finding evidence for it. He called
this mechanism Natural Selection, and explained that as many of the offspring of
all species did not live long enough to breed, those that were the best adapted,
or fittest, would survive in that particular time and situation and pass on
their characteristics to the next generation. Each generation would therefore
be subtly different from the last and varieties would arise, just as varieties
of pigeons, cats and dogs arise from the selections made by breeders. Eventually
these varieties would come to be so different that they would become separate
species. He used the analogy of a tree of life, where everything was descended
from a single ancestor, which formed the tree trunk, extinct species formed the
branches, and current species were at the end of the twigs. Darwin fitted a
number of jigsaw pieces together; William Paley’s ideas didn’t fit, which made
Darwin uncomfortable for a while because it meant that his ideas did not accord
with the conventional religious beliefs of the time.
Evolution and Continental Drift - Wallace and Wegener
Alfred Russel Wallace, (1823 –1913) traveller and collector of natural
history specimens, thought, as Darwin did, that natural selection was the main
engine of evolution, and that geographical separation, as on islands, often
favoured the evolution of species. He noticed that in some southern Indonesian
islands the mammals were marsupials, as in Australia, above a line he mapped
out, (now called Wallace’s Line) the animals were similar those found in Asia.
The reason for this was not understood until the ideas of
Alfred Wegener (1880 -1930) were accepted. He was a German meteorologist
and climatologist who deduced from the evidence of fossils that the continents
had all been joined in one land mass which he called Pangea, and that this mass
had broken up and the continents we know today drifted over the surface of the
planet. Wallace’s line marks the junction between the Asian and Australian
continents, which had been further apart in earlier epochs. Wegener’s theory was
controversial until researches in the 1960s showed that the solid continents did
indeed float on a fluid layer.
Darwin's followers and Victorian philosophies
Darwin thought of man, like all
other species alive then, as situated at the end of a twig of the evolutionary
tree of life, but the philosopher
Herbert Spencer (1880-1903) believed that man was at the top of the tree:
the culmination of the evolutionary process. He and others were so taken by
Darwin’s insights that they decided that evolution shaped society as well as
species, and that society could assist the process of perfecting mankind by
allowing the strongest to dominate the weak. The message of ‘survival of the
fittest’, a term coined by Herbert Spencer, seemed to fit this era of
industrialisation and colonisation. The followers of Darwin took off in various
directions, some using it to justify appalling practices such as eugenics and
the refusal to help the poor. They responded to Darwin's work as though his view
was a complete picture when in fact, as Darwin realised, they were looking at a
half-completed jigsaw. Darwin remarked that he was unable to prevent people
taking his work further than he considered safe.
Mendel the monk to modern genetics
At the time no one knew
anything about the mechanisms through which species passed on characteristics to
the next generation. They have proved to be complex. A German monk,
Gregor Mendel (1822 -1884) began to put together this section of the jigsaw
with researches in which he crossed wrinkled and smooth coated peas. In the
early 1900s scientists found bodies called chromosomes in the nucleus of living
cells, and saw that they split when the cell divided. They found that each sperm
or egg cell contains a split chromosome, and the two halves unite to make a new
nucleus. Genes contain instructions on how to shape the new organism, and in
1953
Crick, Watson and Franklin discovered that genetic material or
DNA had a
spiral structure, a double helix, which unzipped when the cell divided. Since
then the structure of many genes has been worked out. It has proved more complex
than was originally thought to work out exactly how genes will affect the
organism. Some, like Mendel’s genes in peas, have easily recognisable effects
that are inherited in predictable patterns, but some will only show their
effects in certain environmental conditions, or if other genes are present.
Knowing the genetic structure of an organism helps scientists to understand its
evolutionary origin, and this understanding has modified ideas on the
relationships in the evolutionary tree. Genomics is the science that is seeking
to understand these processes; it is advancing rapidly, adding more questions to
be answered as new knowledge adds to our understanding of the complexity of the
relationships between organisms. The
human genome has been sequenced; the
worm genome is being investigated with a view to understanding the effects
of these important organisms on pollution in the soil. Genetic engineering has
potential in many areas, one example is harnessing the strength and elasticity
of
spider silk. It has recently been found that genetic material is not only
inherited, but can
cross the species boundary. This threatens to uproot the idea of the tree of
life, and leave in its place a tangled web.
Co-operation and Evolution - Symbiosis and Niche Construction
In Darwin’s time competition
between individuals and species appeared to be the main driver of evolution, but
in 1970
Lynn Margulis uncovered a different aspect of the jigsaw in her book The
Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. Apart from viruses and bacteria all living
cells are eukaryotic, that is, they have a nucleus. In addition to chromosomes
the nucleus contains mitochondria, which generate energy for the cell, and plant
nuclei also contain chloroplasts, which capture energy from the sun.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts look like bacteria, and Margulis produced evidence
that this was their origin. Her theory, now accepted, is that the first cells
with a nucleus were combinations of different single celled organisms, that is,
two or three cells in one envelope which lived in
symbiosis, a union which benefits all partners. These new symbiotic cells
had advantages that enabled them to develop into the vast array of multi-celled
organisms we see today. Margulis demonstrated that co-operation enabled
evolution to take a monumental leap forward.
There are many other instances
of symbiotic behaviour, lichens, for instance, are composed of fungus and algae
living together in one body. Many insects, bees and ants for instance, succeed
by living co-operatively in colonies. The strategy of forming flocks or swarms
also has benefits for birds and animals, for instance migrating caribou and
mating horseshoe crabs. Evolutionary understanding has been given another
dimension by work on ‘niche construction’ by
Odling-Smee, Laland and Feldman. They point out that living organisms not
only fit into a niche, but also construct their own niches, nests, termite
mounds etc, and that this modification of the environment also alters the
evolutionary dynamic.
Evolution and Religion
The social Darwinists' partial
and controversial take on evolution took hold in late 19C, particularly in the
USA. It's exponents advocated a social programme that lacked humanity, so it was
understandable that religion became the refuge of those appalled by their
views. Evolution, however, does not prove that we should breed a master race or
abandon the poor and weak; it does not prove there is no God; it simply explains
how the various forms of life developed on this planet. A person who believes
that the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth rather than a mythical
explanation of the diversity of life could not accept the truth of evolution,
but in my view, evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God. Evolution
does not attempt to explain how the solar system and the rest of the universe
came into being, or to answer the question as to whether a force lies behind the
universe, or, if there is nothing behind the universe, why anything rather than
nothing exists. Through the ages, religious people of all faiths have affirmed
the essential mystery of the nature of God; evolutionary theory simply makes it
difficult to take refuge in spiritual certainty. A true realisation of the
complexities of evolution also makes it unreasonable to issue dogmatic statements on the human situation.
There is more discussion on the impact of evolution
on religion in
Evolution and Religion
.
Debates and developments in recent evolutionary science
In the past people have thought
of evolution as a provisional theory because evolution is too slow to be
observed, but patient field studies have shown examples of organisms evolving in
the short term, for instance,
mussels in the eastern US and
finches in the Galapagos.
In
the early 1900's scientists believed that the effect of natural selection had
been overstated and that
mutation was more important. Arguments have raged as to whether
evolution proceeds steadily or has periods of intense activity, dubbed
'punctuated equilibrium' by
Stephen Jay Gould. Scientists have become
over-excited by their own work and made unreasonable claims: possibilities are
treated as certainties, ‘breakthroughs’ announced in a great buzz only to come
to a crushing dead end. Evolutionary psychology, which seeks to explain
behaviour by reference to ancient evolutionary pressures is a controversial
expansion of evolutionary theory; and given that our knowledge of the pressures
exerted on early
hominids and and our understanding of human psychology are incomplete, any
conclusion reached by evolutionary psychologists needs to be carefully
evaluated.
Working out the relationships
between species and the complex mechanisms of evolution has been a story of
fervent human curiosity and of the wish to understand the world as it really is,
but sometimes the wish to know the truth has strained against the wish to
believe in what is desired; some scientists
have even convinced themselves that theirs is the only way of seeing the world.
Arguments which should be logical and evidence-based become acrimonious
and personal, generating clouds of steam but no light. Science is influenced by
the values of society as all science has to be funded by society, and
scientific understanding influences contemporary philosophy and sociology. Our
knowledge of
evolution is continually being enriched with new ideas and evidence and our
understanding is constantly changing.
Responding to current knowledge of evolution and genetics
The proper interpretation and
response to the new pictures on the jigsaw will be debated by those with an
interest in promoting theories of government, religion and environmental
concerns. The way that our society reacts to modern evolutionary ideas, for
instance, in the way we use genetics, or how we act now that we begin to
understand the web of connections between all living things will depend on which
messages are chosen out of the complexity on offer. ‘Survival of the Fittest’ is
the slogan that most people think of when evolution is mentioned, often with
distaste as it is connected with ideas of domination and eugenics, but other,
equally true, but very different, slogans could be invented: ‘Symbiosis is
Success’ for instance: co-operation for mutual benefit was a powerful force in
the momentous changes of evolution, and has also been a powerful force in
civilisation. It is as though conflict and co-operation are two sides of the
same coin, or, to continue the jigsaw analogy, as though pictures have been
painted on both sides of the jigsaw. It could also be argued that the mechanisms
of evolutions are so complex that the puzzle of evolution is more like a Rubik’s
cube, a three dimensional puzzle involving interactions between the organism,
its genetic inheritance, the physical environment and other living organisms.
I hope that this short article
on a complex subject will encourage people to think about and take part in the
debates on evolution and genetics. While scientists carry on carefully fitting
together pieces in the ever expanding jigsaw and showing us new and dazzling
images, and philosophers think of new ways in which the images can be
interpreted, everyone should be prepared to think about how to take the best
way forward in their light. Human instincts, feelings, ethics and judgement
should be applied to the results of scientific evidence, understanding always
that the complete picture of evolution and the tangled interaction between
species lies beyond our vision.
You may print
any work by Anne Bryan on this or any other page of the web site for your own use or to pass
on to a friend, and you may also quote Anne's work in assignments
as long as the source is acknowledged. Please don't copy anything from this web
site into
magazines, newsletters or other web sites without
permission or acknowledgement. Ask for permission by
E
mail