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

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

Here is the third part of chapter 13 - entitled The war of existence of the theory of evolution in David Wall's book

A 19th century cartoon depicting Darwin as a monkey

Reservations to the theory in the scientific community

In 1864, Darwin was awarded the highest honor of the Royal Society - the Copley Medal. But in their reasoning for awarding the award, the judges blatantly ignored the theory of natural selection and determined that the award was awarded to him for his achievements in zoological and botanical research (the book "Origin of Species" was presented as a collection of facts).¹

Darwin stated unequivocally: "Nature does not progress in leaps and bounds" (Natura non facit saltum).² If there is a possibility that a new species will evolve at once, the possibility of creation by a higher power cannot be ruled out. On this point, some of his main supporters also disagreed with him. After reading "The Origin of Species" for the first time, Huxley wrote to Darwin: "You have burdened yourself unnecessarily by adopting this principle so completely."³ In a letter to Lyle, Huxley detailed his position on this issue:

I know of no facts to show that the interval between two species must be filled by a series of forms, each occupying a portion of the interval between A and B. On the contrary, in the history of the Anconi sheep and the six-toed family from Malta, one gets the impression that the new form suddenly appeared when it was completely perfect [...] I have a feeling that in the transition from one species to another, Natura facit saltum [that is, species can evolve in a leap].⁴

Between Darwin and his friend Charles Lyle, there was a long-lasting dispute on the issue of evolution versus creation. Darwin tried very hard to convince Lyle to support evolution by way of natural selection, or at least to agree that species changed little by little and were not created as they were: "Personally, of course, I care a lot about natural selection, but it seems to me unimportant, compared to the question of creation versus change [gradual ]”.⁵ Lyle was in no hurry to respond to these pleas. Only in the last chapter of his book "Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man", which appeared thirteen years after "The Origin of Species",⁶ He relented to Yale and related the geological information to the mechanism of natural selection, positively mentioning the possibility of species transmutation:

The theory of transmutation (as first proposed by Lamarck) was rejected, because no causal mechanism was proposed that could cause the necessary refinements. Mr. Darwin, in his theory of variation and natural selection, supplied this causal factor. But the opponents of transmutation came back and claimed that there is no evidence in the fossil world for the supposed transition states. As we see, these proofs are appearing more and more - few and at long intervals between one and the other, as could be expected.⁷

The Duke of Argyll (George Campbell, Duke of Argyll) published a book called "Reign of Law", in which he rejected Darwin's theory altogether. He rejected the attempt to explain the creation of the animal world by the action of natural forces alone, because this leaves no room for supreme supervision - and it is impossible for nature to operate without divine supervision. The laws of nature themselves are the creation of the Creator. He also added a scientific claim against the title of Darwin's book: "To be precise, Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of species, but only a theory about the reasons for the success or failure of the forms that came into the world […] after they were created, and does not even offer the legality [of which] Such new forms are created."⁸

The Duke of Argyll argued in his book that wherever one notices beauty in nature, or a trick intended for a specific purpose, this is proof of divine planning and close supervision of the Creator, without which the world would be in chaos. Argyle seems to have specifically referred to Darwin's book on fertilization in orchids, which has the word "contrivances" in its title. On these and similar reservations of Argyle, Wallace responded, in a detailed article: "The man represents the opinion of many, who, like him, have a great interest in the progress of science, and especially the natural sciences, but they have not delved into nature themselves."⁹
Wallace asked why the intervention of the Creator is needed to develop and perfect a mechanism for attracting insects, which exists in nature in thousands of species of flowers? - After all, all these phenomena can be explained with the help of a few simple rules, such as geometric growth, the war for existence, inheritance and variation, as Darwin showed. The formation of the sophisticated structure of the fertilization mechanisms in orchids can be explained by a selective advantage for both the flower and the insects: natural selection can result in both the elongation of the stem of the moths and the elongation of the spur in the flower, where the nectar is hidden.¹⁰

St. George Miwart

The biologist St. George Jackson Mivart (St. George Jackson Mivart, 1827–1900) was one of the people who gave Darwin the most trouble. Miwart began his studies at Oxford University but had to continue them at a Catholic college after he converted in 1844. Upon graduation, he served as a lecturer at St. Mary's School of Medicine (in Oscot, England) for more than twenty years, and published studies on the anatomy of carnivorous and insectivorous mammals. Some of his articles angered the authorities of the Catholic Church, and in 1855 he was declared excommunicated from the Church. Mivart's book "On the Genesis of Species" appeared in 1871. "Mivart has recently collected all the objections that have ever been raised, by me and by others, against the theory of natural selection, and highlighted them with talent and power that inspire astonishment."¹¹

Unlike many of Darwin's critics and to the displeasure of the Catholic Church he joined, Mivart accepted the idea of evolution - that is, the principle of the gradual development of the animal world - but thought that Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, being his own, could not lead to the creation of species as they appear to us today . An additional, different force was needed to create them, in his opinion.¹² He does not believe that the addition of a higher power incorporates supernatural factors into the theory of evolution, because according to him the concept of creation is not opposed to the concept of evolution. Creation is not an intervention, an act of miracles, in the laws of nature, but is the fulfillment of these laws. A similar opinion was expressed by Chambers in 1844. Miwart saw Chambers as a mouthpiece of Lamarck's teachings.¹³

Miwart raised two main reservations about natural selection being presented as a single mechanism in evolution: a) differences between species can arise suddenly, not gradually. He noted that some of the difficulties (which he detailed in his book) would have disappeared if Darwin had agreed that sometimes there is a sudden change, which leads to the creation of a new species;¹⁴ b) Miwart's main reservation is that it is difficult to agree that the slight changes in the structure of the organs at the beginning of their development had an existential value: "Natural selection completely fails in trying to explain the preservation and development of the initial forms (incipient stages) of the structure - however useful the structure may be in the end".¹⁵

Mivart described dozens of biological phenomena whose evolution, in his opinion, is difficult to explain with the help of natural selection. Darwin devoted two entire chapters in the later editions of his book "The Origin of Species" to answers to Miwart's findings, which were based on a comprehensive knowledge of biology. For example, regarding the giraffe's neck, Mivart makes it difficult: the lengthening of the neck and the growth of the animal's body also require the investment of more energy to maintain the body - does the advantage of the long neck in obtaining food outweigh the disadvantage of having to feed a larger animal? Moreover, if the advantage outweighs the disadvantage, why did the neck lengthen only in the giraffe? After all, there must have been other species of herbivorous animals in the savanna that could enjoy such an advantage.
Darwin replied that the long neck had other advantages besides the ability to obtain food from high branches, such as early detection of approaching enemies. As for the second question, in each region there can exist only one species of animals that can obtain food from a higher place than others. There is no benefit for lower species to extend their necks if there is a higher species around that can take over this food source. "In South Africa, the competition for food in high branches of sedges and other trees must be between giraffe and giraffe, and not [between giraffe] and other species of ungulates."¹⁶

Another case that is difficult to explain with the help of the theory of natural selection is the evolution of whales' beaks, the system of bony protrusions on the jaws that form a network for filtering water and gathering food. Mivart agreed that there is an advantage in refining the gills for the purpose of improving food capture, and the refinement could occur through natural selection. But when the stubble appeared for the first time - what existential advantage could there be for the appearance of initial small bristles on the edges of the jaws? There are no known species of whales with simpler beaks, so they may have evolved all at once rather than gradually.

Darwin's answer is not convincing and seems irrelevant. The only example Darwin could think of comes from poultry. Ducks have a beak that works to filter water and mud, according to the same principle as the beaks in whales. In the goose family there are species with different forms of beaks, in all of which the beak is used for the same purpose of filtering food from the water in different degrees of sophistication. Each of these species is adapted to its habitat, and there is no doubt that the structure of the source brings benefit to each of the species. Although Darwin does not claim that the ancestors of the whales had a mouth with such a margin, why not assume that this type of transitional degrees were also possible among the ancestors of the whales?

In sandal fish (flat fishes, sole) lying on their side on the sea floor, the two eyes are on one side of the body. Miwart agrees that the placement of the two eyes on the upper side of the body has a clear advantage when the fish rests on the bottom, because this position allows good discrimination of approaching enemies. A sudden change from a normal situation - one eye on each side - to a situation with two eyes on the same side, could have been an advantage when the young fish settled on the bottom. But such a sudden change is unacceptable. However, the question arises, what existential value could there be for a slow and gradual change in the position of the eyes?¹⁷

Darwin replied that according to observations of young fish the eyes are on both sides of the head. The fish swim normally for a while and then fall on their side on the bottom. The skull is soft and flexible and they can move the eye at an angle of seventy degrees. In this situation, the young fish has a benefit, and natural selection can add and perfect it.

Footnotes: