Hayadan > Chapters in the history of the theory of evolution about the ideas and those who conceived them - Chapter 13 - Part II

Chapters in the history of the theory of evolution about the ideas and those who conceived them - Chapter 13 - Part II

Here is the second part of chapter 13 - titled the war of existence of the theory of evolution in the book of David Wall

"A knight strikes a bishop" SG Gould's version (1994) of the debate with Wilberforce

To the book page (and purchase option) on the Magnes Publishing website

Wilberforce's Critical Essay

The evolutionist Stephen Gay Gould, during his stay at Oxford in 1970, pored over newspaper clippings and other material from that period, and came to the conclusion that the reporting of the debate in 1860 is not objective - perhaps because of the editing of the material by Francis Darwin - and does not create a correct picture of the opposition of Samuel Wilberforce, the opponent of Huxley in the public debate, for Darwin's theory of evolution. Gould points out that Wilburforce did leave the debate with his hand on the bottom, but not because Huxley convinced the audience to agree with Darwin, but because
Schuylperforce behaved in an "ungentlemanly" manner when he resorted to a mocking personal attack on Huxley.¹

About two weeks before the public debate with Huxley, Bishop Wilberforce published a large critical article on Darwin's "Origin of Species". Reading this article reveals a different picture of the criticism that the bishop leveled at the book and its author. The text of Wilberforce's lecture at the famous conference has not been preserved, but reading his article shows that Wilberforce read Darwin's book carefully, and indeed he had a fatal criticism of several important aspects of Darwin's theory, as he promised. Darwin himself read the review and admitted, in a letter to Hooker, that the bishop had noticed all the book's weaknesses and presented them convincingly.²

At the beginning of his speech, Wilberforce, mockingly, praised Darwin for his interesting writing. He extensively quoted trivial stories that Darwin included in his book - such as the connection between the care of cats by the women in the villages and the abundance of mice, wild bees, flowers and clover crops, or the relationship between the aphids and the ants which they "milk" and the phenomenon of the ants being "slave traders". But immediately after the praise he declared his opposition to Darwin's main arguments,³ And he detailed the main points of the theory that he disagrees with - the theory of natural selection, the driving force behind the changes in the living world. According to this theory:

Man, the creeping creatures, and the vegetation on the earth, are all direct descendants of one being, whose descendants were simply modified by the action of recognizable natural forces, [and produced] all the variety of animals around us. Mr. Darwin identifies the cause of propagation and improvement - which he needs to explain the development of new forms - in the principle of natural selection. ⁴

First and foremost, Wilberforce harshly attacked Darwin's use of examples of artificial selection by man - as a model for what happens in nature. As a striking example of Darwin's erroneous conclusions, as he sees it, the bishop cited the reliance on the cultivation of the pigeon species, which Darwin described in great detail, and claimed that there is no similarity between the cultivation by man and the process that can occur in nature. Darwin did not provide any facts that could support his position, that new species are created in nature from existing variants:

All this is a very nice story, especially for pigeon lovers. But does this advance us even one step towards establishing his supposed claim, that variations are nothing but species in the making, or to his stated position that a species with distinct characteristics can be considered a species in the making? We decisively emphasize that not even one fact, or even a hint in this direction, is presented.⁵

In his book, Darwin emphasized the enormous differences in the form and characteristics of the various domesticated breeds of dogs, as an example of the cumulative effect of selection - and claimed that a similar process could occur in nature, and with greater success. But, Wilberforce argued, there is no sign that artificial selection by man has resulted in the creation of a new species of animal (Wilberforce quotes extensively from the books of the authoritative anatomist Richard Owen on this matter). The giant Newfoundland dog recognizes without difficulty any of the dwarf breeds as a member of its species, and behaves differently towards it than a fox, jackal or wolf: "The philosopher can learn an important lesson from the behavior of the animal: despite the variation, the characteristic features of the species are evident and the animal notices them without difficulty."⁶

Wilberforce very strongly attacked the idea of natural selection. Darwin built his entire theory on the assumption that if an individual is found that differs from others in some feature that gives it an advantage in the war for existence, this individual will multiply and have a good chance of succeeding. But this assumption has nothing to rely on: observing the results of cultivation does not reveal such variants.

Every variant cultivated by man is useful to man, but there is not even the shadow of a basis for the conclusion that such variants will ever bring any benefit to the animal as an animal: in their excessive development they only become more and more useful to man himself. And hence nature, as is her custom with monsters, always tends to erase these deviations and return to the original form.⁷

Darwin's theory is based entirely on an assumption that is not supported by any fact, just like the stories of the Thousand and One Nights, the bishop wrote. Such an approach is contrary to everything accepted in the natural sciences:

In the name of all true philosophy, we protest against this way of treating nature—a totally dishonorable way which degrades [the natural sciences] and lowers them from the heights of their present status […] to the simple status of an unlimited amusement of the imagination, without the basis or regime of observation. […] In the stories "A thousand nights and nights" we do not protest when Amina splashes water on her husband and turns him into a dog. But we cannot throw wide open the lofty gates of reason in the temple of scientific truth to genies and wizards of literature.⁸

Wilberforce especially complained about Darwin's words regarding the status of man and his relationship of origin with other animals - this is completely contrary to the words of the Supreme Creator of nature: "In the beginning, he openly declares that the scheme of the operation of natural selection includes man himself, as well as the animals around him . We must say right away that such an idea is completely incompatible, not only with individual expressions in God's words about the matter of the natural sciences [...], but with the entire reference to the moral and spiritual status of man."⁹
Relying on Richard Owen's publications on the classification of mammals, from which he quoted extensively, Wilberforce concluded that the anatomical differences between man and apes, and the geographical distribution of the human races, rule out the possibility that man evolved from primates: "Man is not, and cannot be, an improved species of monkey. He is a unique and special creature, a unique representative of the series and the subclass to which he belongs. In this I believe, claims Owen, the possibility of the transformation of an ape into a human is completely eliminated."¹⁰
At the end of the long article Wilberforce referred to the religious aspect of his criticism of the "Origin of Species". He portrayed himself as having an objective, non-zealous approach, and saw his criticism as objective criticism:

Our readers have no doubt noticed that we objected to the claims we dealt with purely on a scientific basis. We did this because we are convinced that this is the only way to test the truth or falsity of these claims. We do not show any sympathy to those who oppose any facts, assumed facts or any conclusion arising from them, just because it seems to them that they contradict what is said in the Holy Scriptures. [But] it is no less important to examine [these facts] scientifically, and to highlight errors when they tend to limit the glory of God in the act of creation, or to downplay the importance of the relationship between nature and God. This is the kind of error that Darwin's speculations lead directly to - perhaps without meaning to.¹¹

The difficulties that Darwin noticed

Darwin was aware of the difficulties his theory encountered. In the later editions of his book he described the difficulties in detail and offered explanations for them. One of the main difficulties is the lack of transitional forms between species. If new species are formed gradually by the accumulation of small changes over a long period of time, why are fossil individuals not found in intermediate states? After all, every collection of fossils should have been rich in such animals.

Darwin's critics often attacked him on this matter. Darwin's explanation consists of four answers:
A) The geological record is much less complete than people think. Only a tiny part of the world has been studied geologically, and in large areas - which could possibly contain fossils of the intermediate forms - no fossils were looked for at all.

b) Only animals from certain groups could be preserved or leave traces in the rocks - for example those that had a calcareous skeleton or hard bones, such as molluscs or vertebrates.

c) Many species that changed became extinct without leaving descendants. Natural selection works by replacing existing forms with forms that are superior to them in terms of fitness, and an animal that is slightly different from the mother form of the species is expected to be less fit than her. Natural selection will quickly eliminate most of the "intermediate forms".¹²

d) The duration of time in which changes occurred was certainly short compared to the periods in which there was no change in the composition of the fauna, and therefore the probability of finding fossils of intermediate forms is small. (This possibility has been raised again by modern paleontologists.)¹³

Another difficulty that Darwin pondered over was transmutation: how can one species change and become another species with different habits and a different way of life, without the change being fatal to it? Darwin offered several possibilities. Changes during evolution can be small, and will accumulate slowly and gradually, so that the modified organ will continue to function. There are also cases where two organs are used in the same function (both the swim bladder and the gills are used for breathing in fish) - one of them can change without affecting the animal's function, meaning that the animals that have been changed can continue to exist.
As an example, Darwin described how flight could have evolved in bats. The difficulty is that intermediate forms in the evolution of bats are unknown: all the facts are taken from flying squirrels, a completely different group of animals. Darwin argued that the possibility that the development in bats was similar to that in squirrels should not be ruled out. The model seen by Darwin as possible is a gradual improvement of the skeletal structure while perfecting the ability to fly, from feeding from tree to tree to active flight, so that each of the intermediate forms is adapted to a specific habitat.

The question of how sophisticated organs such as the eye in humans and vertebrates were formed greatly troubled Darwin. The eye was used as one of the proofs of the planning of the world by the Creator.¹⁴ Darwin found no simple way to explain how the sophisticated eye could have evolved gradually. On the face of it, it is inconceivable that all intermediate forms had a selective advantage, but even if the public thinks otherwise, Darwin was still convinced that the eye is a product of natural selection:

The assumption that the eye, with all its unique refinements, adjusting the focus to different distances, regulating the amount of incoming light, correcting the distortions in form and color [when light passes through the lens] - [the assumption] that all of these could have been created by natural selection - I openly admit - seems somewhat absurd extreme [However] when it was first said that the sun was fixed in place and the world revolved [around it], the common sense of the human race declared that this idea was false. In science you can't trust the opinion of the majority. The old saying "vox populi, vox dei" has no validity in science.¹⁵

To show that there is a possibility that the eye did indeed develop through natural selection, it is necessary to: a) find animals with less sophisticated eyes; b) show that these organs in those animals are indeed used as organs of vision; c) show that changes in the structure of the eye are inherited; d) to show that these organs are useful to their subjects in the war of existence. At least the first two sections have supporting facts. ¹⁶ But not all the known facts support the gradual development of the eye: the sophisticated eye of squids is not of the same origin as in mammals, and does not fit into a model of gradual development.¹⁷

How could traits that have no importance in terms of the survival of their subjects develop through natural selection? This difficulty preoccupied Darwin (and his critics) quite a bit. It seems that Darwin was not sure that his explanation was plausible. Traits can be important to an organism without us noticing their importance. Conversely, properties can be unimportant to the organism - such as the arrangement of the leaves in a plant - even though they are important to us (for example, because they are convenient for sorting organisms). Such traits may not have evolved through natural selection, and appear due to correlation with other traits, or for reasons we do not know. At the beginning of the evolution of vertebrates, the skin covering could have been scales, feathers or hair with the same degree of efficiency - and yet the mammals are covered with hair, the birds with feathers and the reptiles with scales, and not because of a different existential advantage in each class.¹⁸

In his book on mate choice¹⁹ Darwin offered an explanation for the evolution of one type of trait that does not have a direct effect on fitness: the differences in color and pattern between males and females of the same species (sexual dimorphism). Darwin proposed that the driving force in the evolution of such traits was the advantage of dominant males, in competition with other males, for obtaining females.

Footnotes: