How is Darwin still relevant today?

For further information:
7:30 PM, Nov 12, in the Miller Forum (Moyer Hall), Muhlenberg College will host a public lecture by Dr. Warren Allmon, of Cornell University and Director of the Paleontological Research Institute, entitled "Why Darwin Still Matters."

Events Details

Anne Kuebler ‘07
Up until I was 18, I thought that evolution was “just a theory” or “only a theory.” I grew up going to a very fundamental church and while I loved it and still do, I had no idea what else was out there. Nothing else seemed to matter. It wasn’t until college that I started learning about these “theories” of evolution; this absolutely terrified me. What terrified me more was the fact that I was starting to like it because it made sense and there was too much evidence to dispute. I gradually started accepting it and by the time I read On the Origin of Species, I absolutely loved it. One of the most interesting things I learned from that book didn’t even come from the text. It was the fact that that book was only the abstract! Darwin collected an unbelievable amount of data and it all fits beautifully into his theory of evolution through natural selection. Evolution may be “just a theory,” but it is probably the most well-supported and widely accepted theories science has ever seen.

Because of this book I was able to have a very interesting experience the summer after I graduated. I went to Romania with my church and stayed at a Christian orphanage where the children grew up being taught about the Bible and sang Christian songs every night. The people who started the orphanage are from my church so they are also very fundamental, which means the children at the orphanage were only taught about the Bible. There were never any teachings about evolution or science in general. One night, I got into a debate with someone over evolution versus Creation, with the Origin of Species being mentioned no less than twenty times. This debate went on for probably two hours. There was an 18 year old from the orphanage listening to us, and he was completely enthralled by everything we were talking about. He never even knew that evolution existed. After the debate I parted ways with my friend, both of us laughing about how we could not change the other’s mind, at which point the boy from the orphanage came over and sat with me, asking me to basically repeat everything I had said. At first he was apprehensive about the idea of evolution (just like I was) but he said it sounded interesting. I have kept in touch with him the past two years and he now quite possibly knows as much as I do about evolution. He knows all the top scientists and all of their views on evolution and is still asking me tons of questions about it. He, like me, has not lost his faith but evolution just opened up a new way of approaching life and how it works. In my opinion, it makes everything even more beautiful than I already thought it was. I was happy that I could remember specific examples from the Origin of Species to strengthen my arguments and it made me feel good that I could completely understand the debate from both sides. I would never tell someone they are wrong in what they believe, but I like that I am educated enough to defend myself against whoever tries to tell me that I am wrong, or that evolution is “just a theory.”

Jessica Nesmith ‘09
First, I find that I have to constantly remind myself there is both a scientific definition for evolution but also a conventional connotation. Being in the world of biology I have an undeniable bias. However, societal use of evolved means something similar to improvement or betterment over another choice. This is not a wrong use per se but clearly NOT what Darwin intended in the concept. It is the confusion of the two that I think leads most people to misinterpret or misrepresent the original ideas that Darwin proposed. I compare it to the word abstract. In society it is an amorphous idea or concept but the science world interprets abstract as the abbreviated summary at the start of a paper.

Second, and this is more of a fun conversation that my roommate and I used to have, but her favorite thing I ever told her about biology is "A lot of what I find the most amazing is the fact that everything goes right so often. The wrong may be more obvious, but somehow in the vast majority the path is followed." Personally, I contribute that "going right" to boundless processes which were evolutionarily added in as checkpoints and reassurances of the correct assembly before continuing onto the next step. (Not sure if that totally relates but it's something else to consider.)

Becky Giuditta ’07
Even though On the Origin of Species was written 150 years ago, Charles Darwin’s ideas are still considered to be the foundations for the theory of evolution and natural selection.  Darwin’s plethora of examples makes On the Origin of Species a very impressive and convincing work.  There were some things that Darwin had not completely or successfully understood, but this in no way takes away from the overall impact of his theory. In the past 150 years we have made many scientific discoveries and have a much better understanding of things, such as genetics and plate tectonics, as well as the discovery of fossil intermediates, such as Archaeopteryx.  It is amazing how the majority of this knowledge not only doesn’t contradict Darwin’s ideas, but also actually supports it.  With the increased study of the fossil record we have found some of the transitional stages Darwin refers to. Although correct about many points, there were some concepts Darwin was not entirely correct about. He recognized that Lamarkian ideas were not entirely right, yet he did believe in some aspects of use and disuse. Darwin argued that more individuals were born than could survive.  There is a reason Malthus’ theory is considered to be dismal, it creates an idea of a ruthless and soulless struggle, and in some sense Darwin’s theory is dismal as well. The theory of evolution and natural selection not only changed the way we look at biology and other organisms, but altered the way we view of ourselves and the place we have in this universe. The struggle for existence paints a dark picture, which unfortunately includes humans. One of the reasons people consider evolution so controversial is that they believe it conflicts with religious ideas and the way we look at ourselves.  Genesis claims that humans were made in God’s image.  Yet, natural selection does not create a hierarchy of beings, which means that humans are not the end goal, the most advanced or the best.  One of the things that I was most impressed about while reading On the Origin of Species was how little I felt that it conflicted with my personal religious beliefs.  If anything, it further confirmed in my mind that there is a greater being that is putting things in motion.  Darwin explained that natural selection does not have the power to create new variations; it can only act on the variations that already exist in nature.  In my mind that is where God has a place in evolution.  In its introduction Ernst Mayr claims that On the Origin of Species created an intellectual revolution that exceeds those created by Copernicus, Newton and any recent physicist.  Charles Darwin wrote the “book that shook the world”, and even 150 years later we still can feel the rumble.

Jillian Carnrick ‘09
Having taken the Muhlenberg course on Evolution two years ago, I have found that there really is ignorance when it comes to the ideas that Darwin brought up in his book. In my Herbal Medicine graduate studies at Tai Sophia in Laurel, MD discussion on evolution, natural and artificial selection of apples has recently been coming up. The book ‘The Botany of Desire’ by Michael Pollan spends a quarter of the book discussing where the apples we eat today come from. Most forget that all of the red delicious apples you eat all came from the same tree as apples do not grow true to seed, the same as their parent apple tree. It is unfortunate that because of all of this grafting that we are causing a selection to occur. The discussion is then if this is natural selection, artificial selection, or neither. Our class could not decide the answer to this one. This could not be considered natural selection because the trees are not surviving into the next generation but rather being stopped from mating and producing more offspring with the possibility of more successful traits. This is also not artificial selection because even though humans are doing the selecting we are not letting the trees grow to produce any new offspring. What worries me the most about not allowing these trees to freely mate and produce offspring is that there may become a day where the trees have not been allowed to keep up with new diseases or predators through evolving with them and we may just lose all of the trees at once. This would be a substantial loss to both the economy and a food source for many people.

On the other side of things I have had a new personal discovery through studying the relationship of plants and people. As I mentioned above, there is the opportunity with evolution for things to evolve in relationship with each other, either to benefit from each other, for one to live off the other and conversely for one to give nutrients or similar to the other organism. Similarly plants and people can, and have, evolved to mutually help each other. One could say that the apple has evolved so close to humans that it became advantageous for humans to eat apples and distribute the seeds, a benefit to both plant and animal. But why do we eat the apples? They are sweet fruits that we enjoy and give us sustenance. Why then do we eat other plants? Are there plants that we have forgotten that have evolved with us that may also have a sweetness that may be advantageous to us? Could these flavors, chemical compounds, or medicines have evolved to help heal us just as things that infect us have evolved to do so? What evolution has taught me that has had the most effect on my life is knowing how much everything is interconnected and changes proportionately over time and location. It really shows how we are all one system and depend on all those around us for our species, or even our direct family to live into our next generation.

Having read Darwin’s Origin of Species I have found that understanding evolution allows me to see the entire world, specifically our society, in a different light. I think that what I see and how I understand issues that appear in society are methods that would more effectively allow our culture to be more sustainable and live for many more generations. Darwin’s book allows one to see how many different species have lived and died off because another species has outlived them. As many generations of humans pass it will be interesting if we will be a species that kills itself off by destroying all of the resources we need to stay alive. What kind of selection is this? Knowing how so many states are currently in discussion over health care. This system looks all at a disease model similar to how we treat our current environmental system, finding new solutions to our dwindling resources rather than preventing the problems in the first place. This may eventually lead our species to extinction so why are we following this method with our health care. If we worked towards a greater wellness of our community could we not prevent problems before they start creating a more sustainable community? This same discussion is one that is ever turning up at Tai Sophia Institute where our focus is on creating a more sustainable wellness community rather than treating a disease model.

Anonymous ’04
I have been taking a course called Foundations in Wildlife Ecology this semester, and a theme that has come up several times is how progression in recent decades has been slow in this field.  A few authors have suggested that lack of education in/appreciation of the importance of evolutionary theory contributes to this, by influencing the types of questions wildlife ecologists ask (or don't ask) and how results of studies are interpreted. Here's a quote from a paper we read recently that applies: 

"What is different about questions asked by basic biologists compared to those asked by the typical wildlife biologist? I argue that, in general, (1) wildlife researchers do not ask "why" questions or search for ultimate causes (Mayr 1961, 1982), but tend to limit their investigations to proximate relationships; (2) wildlife researchers generally have not had training in evolutionary theory and Darwinian reasoning, or if they have they do not see its value; and (3) wildlife researchers avoid asking questions they feel are outside their discipline."  (Gavin, T. A.  1989.  What’s wrong with the questions we ask in wildlife research?  Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:345-350).

I thought that was suprising because I don't really see that biological phenomenon can be properly interpreted if evolution is taken out of the picture.  It is also interesting because conservation biologists seem to take evolutionary considerations very seriously at pretty much every level.  Two fields closely related but with different approaches.

At any rate, I guess you did your job well.  I recently got some results back from my own research that were somewhat surprising and my first thought was how the results could make sense from an evolutionary stand point for the target species....

Marianne Cataldo ‘07
Honestly, I was not looking forward to reading On the Origin of Species. It is long, Darwin is long winded and I was very busy, but I am really glad I did. I recognized it as a book that changed the direction of science, the way we look at who we are as a species and how we got there.

My first impression on the book was that Darwin was a pretty poor writer. I guess I thought because he was such a great thinker and scientist that the words would have just flowed naturally, but that was not the case with Darwin (gives me hope for my meager writing abilities). Once I got into the meat of the book however, and began to look as his arguments and evidence for his theory I was blown away. Initially I was surprised at the shear quantity of evidence he presented, how simple and logical his observations and subsequent arguments were and how thorough he was in also presenting the weaknesses. Overall, the books ideas were relatively straightforward and easy to follow, if you can get through Darwin’s lengthy descriptions.

The book and its author have received a lot of media attention recently. I feel because of that the real core of theory seems to have gotten lost. When I read this book it really emphasized to me that Darwin was just a person who noticed a pattern and drew a logical conclusion. He was not highly skilled in anyway nor did he have a lot of fancy equipment. He did not have some agenda to destroy religion (in fact he was a very religious man himself); he was just an observant scientist seeking the truth about the world around him. For me it also emphasized that religion and evolution do not to be at ends with each other. Evolution and natural selection are merely a theory for change and how it might have happened. They are not about why life happened or have anything to do with our purpose here, those questions, at least for me are reserved for religion and spirituality. 

 

Beth Irwin ‘07
In thinking about how reading 'Origin' in your evolution class has helped me/shaped my interpretation of Darwin's work, I've leaned that I come across issues/topics involving Darwin and evolution more often than I previously realized.

Academically, Darwin/evolution pops up quite often in my career, as I am a biologist who studies plant chemical ecology, plant pathology, and entomology at a large research institution. I am currently studying plant disease ecology, vector behavior, and mechanisms of parasite host-finding/host-manipulation, all of which have an evolutionary basis and/or implication (or so my academic advisors and I like to think!). We are constantly thinking about how our recent results make sense in light of evolution (whether from the plant, parasite, or pathogen's perspective). Additionally, large universities are great for having diverse seminar presentations by big-name people, and PSU is no exception: over the last few years PSU has hosted seminars on how to design evolution-proof drugs, vaccines, and insecticides (namely, to combat malaria; Andrew Read's work), and famous speakers have been invited to discuss their ideas on Darwin/evolution (Daniel Dennett, Michael Behe). I thoroughly enjoy these presentations because I have read 'Origin' -- I feel I have a better understanding of what they are talking about when they portray Darwin's ideas, and the mechanisms behind the principles (especially helpful for me during Read's evolution-proof malaria seminar).

Outside of my professional life, reading 'Origin' has helped inspire me to continue reading other works that touch on evolution and Darwin ('Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "Finding Darwins' God" by Kenneth Miller, "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, and various recent Scientific American articles dealing with evolution). Reading and discussing 'Origin' firsthand in evolution class enlightened me to the true meaning of Darwin's ideas, rather than his ideas as portrayed by society today. While (sadly) I haven't read 'Origin' since evolution class, I do remember how poetic Darwin's prose was. I remember thinking about how his writing conveyed respect for science and society, despite the seemingly-heretical nature of his work. Hopefully someday (soon) I will get the chance to take 'Origin' off my bookshelf for a refresher.

Matthew Frye ‘04
In 1859 evolution was an idea barely in its infancy. Leading 19th Century scientists had only just begun to discuss a change in species over time, when quite abruptly Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. This text and its profound suppositions would forever change our understanding of the diversity of life on Earth. In it, Darwin put forth that evolution proceeds by natural selection; a deduction made from his keen sense of observation and use of the scientific method. Since its publication, the Origin has had significant and lasting impacts not only on the scientific community, but society in general. “So,” you might ask, “what has this 150 year old text offered a 27 year old graduate student?”
I was first introduced to the concepts of evolution and natural selection as a 10th grade biology student in high school, and later again in introductory biology courses at Muhlenberg College. At that time evolution was a list of key terms to memorize and a few examples to understand for the pending exam. My appreciation for the dearth of information, experimentation, and the profundity of ideas advanced by Darwin improved tremendously in my fourth and final year at Muhlenberg, while taking a course specifically about evolution. It was here, for the first time, that I actually read Darwin’s words, his observations, cleverly crafted arguments and deductions made from the evidence he collected. I must admit that reading this timeless text first hand did very little for my appreciation of 19th century prose with its use of incredibly long and convoluted sentences. Fortunately, students in Evolution were lucky to have an interpreter and guide; Professor Erika Iyengar, who would help decipher and distill the key elements and ideas from On the Origin of Species.
Five years have elapsed since I last turned the pages of my 18th edition, soft-cover 2003 printing of Darwin’s text that “shook the world”. Yet nearly every class I have taken in graduate school, and every discussion I’ve had about biological systems, has in some way referenced an idea articulated by Darwin. Whether learning about the dispersal of aquatic invasive species by movement of waterfowl, or studying the distribution of woody plants and the observed pattern that species found in northern climates are also located on distant mountain tops, as well as discussions of insect host preferences, I consider myself fortunate to know the true origin of these ideas. Ideas that did not first appear in my new biological control or dendrology textbooks, but were rather presented as evidence for evolution by natural selection in 1859.
But outside the realm of academia, creationism is the number one reason we hear of Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Starting with the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 to the more recent Kitzmiller vs. Dover 80 years later, evolution has been under attack by religious groups for decades. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) makes reference to 18 trials in which creationists, individuals who believe that life (especially humans) and all that is contained within the universe was created by a supernatural being, have attempted to remove evolution from classrooms throughout the US. What has come from this is a most important discussion, not about individual rights or beliefs, but about the nature of science. Were Darwin here today, this pioneering figure in the study of biology would champion the discussion about what is science, and what is not. That is, of course, after he recovered from the appalling results of the Gallup Poll released on the eve of his birthday stating that only 4 in 10 people believe in evolution, and that 55% of the 1,018 individuals surveyed could associate his name with the theory of evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx).
One of the arguments made to justify why so few people “believe” in evolution and question science is a lack of understanding of this discipline. Most non-scientists fail to realize that this field of study is actually a process, which begins with observations of natural or experimental phenomena. Based on observations, a scientist constructs a hypothesis, or a tentative explanation of the phenomena, which asserts new predictions about the world. These predictions are tested in carefully designed, replicated experiments. Conclusions are drawn from the results of these experiments, and the hypothesis is either accepted, or rejected, modified based on the new information obtained, and tested again. For this information to be published in a scientific journal, it must first make its way through the peer review process, where other scientists and experts in the field judge the research based on its methodologies, results and conclusions, and whether it has been demonstrated before. After sufficient evidence has been obtained to support a particular hypothesis, it can become a theory. In this way, science as a process is observable, testable (potentially falsifiable), repeatable, and able to predict new facts or events. It is this rigorous process that makes science a truth seeking discipline, and why challenges by intelligent design proponents are flawed.

During my senior year at Muhlenberg, Philosophy of Religion was another influential course in which I participated. Much like reading Darwin’s words for the first time, this course opened my eyes to an idea that has stuck with me ever since. Taking a broad approach to the study of religion, a common goal observed across centuries and continents is a desire to experience the ineffable; to feel a sense of wonder and awe about the world we inhabit. While science may have the tools to explain those feelings as chemical reactions and processes, it is the experience itself, how we interpret it and how it makes us feel that escapes definition. We might conclude from this line of reasoning that science and religion are about two fundamentally different aspects of the human experience, the natural and the supernatural. Yet somehow the importance of Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of the natural world gets lost in the artificial struggle that pits both sides against each other. For me, keeping this in mind is the best way to determine what people believe about religion, what they’ve been told to accept, and whether the theory of evolution can fit into their beliefs system.

As for some final thoughts I have this to offer. Over 175 years ago Charles Darwin served a naturalist on board the H.M.S. Beagle. During the five-year journey of this ship, Darwin was able to observe the natural world and elucidate from these observations the best possible explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This discovery revolutionized the field of biology and has had tremendous impacts worldwide. Yet if Darwin or any other naturalist made this journey today, I question whether he or she would be able to make the same observations and deductions. This has little to do with Darwin’s special talent for observation and more to do with the destruction we have imposed on the natural world. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution we have cleared more land and burned more fossil fuel than ever before in the history of this planet. In the United States alone, it is estimated that only 3-5 % of the available land remains as undisturbed habitat for plants and animals (41.4 % agriculture, 53.6-55.6% cities/suburbia). To make matters worse, one prediction with some empirical evidence suggests a direct 1:1 relationship between the amount of available habitat and species survival. If true, this would mean a major extinction event, perhaps already in motion, is due for all the suitable habitat we have either removed or effectively removed by altering habitat function to suit our own needs. Therefore, in response to my own question about what a 150 year old text can offer, I say an opportunity. Revisiting Darwin’s work presents an opportunity for humans as a species to realize what can and has been lost due to our actions, and an opportunity to make changes that will restore healthy ecosystems to this earth. It presents an opportunity for future scientists to observe, and future generations to enjoy the natural world.

References:
Mayr, E. 2003. Introduction: On the Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. vii-xxvii.
Tallamy, D.W. 2007. Bringing Nature Home: How Native Plants Sustain Wildlife in Our Gardens. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Kelley Bemis ‘07
I've tried writing this Darwin piece a couple times using an official format and it keeps coming out sounding insincere and corny. So given the deadline of 5:00 today, I'm giving up on "official" and just figured I'd type you out a long email letting you know what I think about Darwin and OTOS in a very informal format. Hopefully you'll be able to find something useful in my random stream of consciousness!

So when we started the book in Evolution two years ago, I "believed" in evolution and natural selection - but the terms had no significance in my life. The concepts meant nothing more to me than the Krebs Cycle or carrying capacity - just random topics I memorized for some biology test in the past. But when we started reading Darwin, I felt like someone was explaining the theory to me for the very first time. It was the fist time I remember feeling wonder and awe in a science class since elementary school. In part due to your wonderful teaching and in part due to Darwin's wonderful writing, the simple logic of the theory became suddenly beautiful. I felt like Huxley - "How stupid not have thought of that!" - and after finally understanding, wanting to defend Darwin to the death. Reading OTOS was also the first time I remember being exposed to the wealth of evidence in favor of evolution. If you had asked me why I believe in evolution before taking your class, my honest answer would have been "because a good scientist is supposed to". But when we read and discussed Darwin's book, I felt like all the pieces were falling into place - like I finally got it. Now if someone asked me the same question, I think I could talk for hours about transitional forms, vestigial organs, biogeography, etc. Furthermore, I think OTOS is one of the best examples of scientific reasoning a student can be exposed to. The story of how Darwin came up with the theory - collecting evidence, reviewing, and just thinking logically "Ok, so what explains all of this?" - is inspiring in itself. The fact that one of the greatest scientific theories of all time came from one guy, just being curious and using common sense, is amazing to me. As a student, it makes me feel like maybe one day I could come up with something great too.

And in the two years that have passed since I took your class, the passion for evolution OTOS inspired in me hasn't faded one bit. Now I try to read everything I can get my hands on when it comes to the subject - books, blogs, articles, you name it. I cheer a little every time someone uncovers a new fossil that supports the predictions Darwin made way back in 1859. And conversely, when I hear flawed arguments against evolution or natural selection, it gets under my skin in a way it never did before. I have so much respect for Darwin's ideas that when I hear someone twisting them into something else (especially those who equate Darwin to Hitler!), I feel the urge to throw something at them. Furthermore, while it's probably judgmental and unfair, the truth is belief in evolution has become a measure of intelligence and credibility for me. I stopped watching CNN after they did an entire report on the creation museum in Kentucky without once mentioning that creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. How can I trust a media outlet to tell the truth about political issues when they aren't capable of calling creationism what it really is - a theological belief?? (This goes for all the political candidates espousing intelligent design or arguing against evolution too). It's frustrating to know the vast majority of our country has strong doubts about the validity of evolution - and without ever really bothering to learn the evidence for or against it! I wish everyone would read OTOS before making up their minds but, sadly, I think most people just don't really care.
Finally, reading OTOS has affected me in another profound way that I hestitate to even mention, but, I think, in the end, it's important to talk about. OTOS and all the evolution-themed material I have devoured since has caused me to question many of the religious beliefs I was brought up with. I hate that this feeds into anti-evolutionist arguments but I think it does evolution a disservice to pretend that learning about how humans came about wouldn't start us thinking about why we are here and what purpose we serve. For me, learning more about evolution started me on a journey towards atheism but I think it is important to stress two things. 1) This was personal path for me and one that could have gone very differently for someone else. For some people, like Ken Miller, evolution only serves to strengthen their faith and many people find the beliefs compatible. That just wasn't the case for me. 2) This is not a "bad" thing; I don't feel like I've lost anything. In fact, I see more beauty, wonder, and inspiration in the world around me because of evolution, than I ever did when I believed in a traditional God.
I know these couple paragraphs probably sound like the ramblings of a crazy person but it's hard for me to articulate the profound impact that reading OTOS and studying evolution has had on my life. Suffice to say, I am so grateful that I signed up for that class senior year and I feel more inspired and amazed by science and the world around us because of the effect that Darwin's masterpiece has had on my life.

Matthew Stensland ‘07
I had my last Developmental Anatomy lecture today and the professor ended by saying that the best case for evolution is in the study of human development because one can follow different phylogenies to see how they build on each other. Looking back on the past trimester, I can see what he was talking about. All through human embryological development, structures form and then degenerate. It doesn't make too much sense without an evolutionary perspective: those structures were most likely useful to one of our ancestors but not to us. During urinary system development, the pronephros is transitional and nonfunctional in humans but is active in some marine animals like hagfish. It's kind of funny to think that all of us carry around this genetic history of our past but some of us still insist on debunking evolutionary theory.

Medical school is an obvious place to come across Darwin's theories but what about sitting around and watching a movie? During 300, the movie about 300 Spartans battling massive hordes of Persians in ancient Greece, the opening sequence featured Spartan newborns being inspected for deformities and then being discarded if they were less than perfect. There it was, artificial selection, Darwinism in popular culture.

In my life, Darwinism seems unavoidable and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Medically, it's important for me to be thinking about these things, but it can also be fun to hypothesize about how things came to be and why humans and other organisms act they way they do.

Hope things continue to go well and keep teaching Evolution, it's a great course and biology majors need to be equipped with that information going out into the real world, no matter what field they're in.