* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Final Exam Study Guide
The Selfish Gene wikipedia , lookup
Sociocultural evolution wikipedia , lookup
Natural selection wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District wikipedia , lookup
Creation–evolution controversy wikipedia , lookup
Hologenome theory of evolution wikipedia , lookup
Jewish views on evolution wikipedia , lookup
Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup
Creation and evolution in public education in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Creation and evolution in public education wikipedia , lookup
Hindu views on evolution wikipedia , lookup
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups wikipedia , lookup
Genetics and the Origin of Species wikipedia , lookup
Saltation (biology) wikipedia , lookup
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex wikipedia , lookup
Historical Study B-45: Darwinian Revolution Thomas Henry Huxley -Huxley, an English comparative anatomist, was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Darwin's theory of evolution. The publication of Origins in 1859 completely convinced Huxley of evolution. Although he was slow to accept some of Darwin's ideas, such as gradualism, and was undecided about natural selection as the main mechanism, he was wholehearted in his public support of Darwin. He called himself an agnostic. -Huxley was involved in a famous public debate with Bishop Wilberforce in 1860 at the British Association meeting in Oxford University Museum, and it was a key moment in the wider acceptance of evolution. -We saw a movie clip in class where Mr. Huxley (“Bishop, you are misinformed…) debates with Wilberforce while Professor Owen sits quietly. Darwin doesn’t appear at the public lecture but Huxley tells him what happened retrospectively at his house. In fact, for most of the public controversy, Darwin himself did not engage in public debate. He would write letters and such to defend his views but it was Huxley who did it publicly in person -The debate was a clash between church and science (though there were religious figures such as Kingsley in support of Darwin and prominent scientists such as Owen against) and was symbolic of how public controversy often simplifies and crystallizes issues, exaggerates differences, and makes them black/white. In reality, it’s not an easy divide of right vs. wrong, particularly since most people were quite ambivalent -Huxley also debated with Richard Owen, a comparative anatomist who believed in fixity, over connections (or separations) between primates and mankind, especially the existence of Hippocampus minor in the brain -Huxley’s polemical pictures in “Man’s Place in Nature”—gibbon, orang, chimp, gorilla, man. In that order because he believed humans were closest to gorillas -The debates over Darwin’s theory in the UK were held during a time of great transformations in the country—religion (fragmenting), social structure (fragmenting), finance (diversifying), technology (multiplying), imperial expansion Huxley reading: “Darwin on the Origin of Species” Westminster Review This reading selection is one example of the powerful and adamant defense Huxley gives for Darwin’s theory. He summarizes Darwin’s findings because they have “the merit of being eminently simple and comprehensible in principle” and emphasizes that the “method of inquiry which Mr. Darwin has adopted is not only rigorously in accordance with the canons of scientific logic, but that it is the only adequate method.” Huxley also summarizes Darwin’s response to certain questions that have arisen after the publication of Origins, such as why there are no intermediate between two species. He claims that “there is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin’s method,” that Darwin’s view “steps out of the ranks of hypotheses into those of proved theories,” and that the chapters “have not only no equals, but, so far as our knowledge goes, no competitors” Bishop Samuel Wilberforce Wilberforce was a very strong opponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution and he engaged in public debates with Huxley. He was one of the greatest public speakers of his day and was extremely eloquent. Richard Owen’s extremely hostile anonymous review of the Origin in the Edinburgh Review also primed Wilberforce to write an anonymous one in the Quarterly Review, running to 17,000 words. At the 1860 debate with Huxley, he criticized Darwin's theory, arguing that it was not supported by the facts and that the greatest names in science were opposed to the theory. Nonetheless, Wilberforce's speech is generally only remembered today for his inquiry as to whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that Huxley considered himself descended from a monkey. His manner at the debate was extremely polite because the rudest thing one can do is to be very personal and very polite. Asa Gray Reading: Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology. This is Gray’s review of The Origin of Species for the US audience. He agrees with the concepts of “Variation under Nature” and “Struggle for Existence” that Darwin uses to build his idea of “natural Selection” upon. Gray likes the idea of “Natural Selection” because it “illustrates the advantages of good breeding and makes the most of every creature’s best.” He points out the difficulties that taxonomists have with distinguishing species from varieties and proposes this as a strong point of Natural Selection. Gray says that the problem for human pride is to look back at geological ages and realize that human races are related, then that humans and apes are related. Nevertheless, he says that “the four-handed races will not serve for our forerunners – at least, not until some monkey, live or fossil, is producible with great-toes, instead of thumbs… until some testimony of the sort is produced, we must needs believe in the separate and special creation of man.” “Variation and natural selection may play their part, and so may specific creation also.” Gray now talks about the Zeitgeist of his age, the scientific endeavor, finding connections were there were none believed in physics, chemistry, astronomy and finally biology. He says that “the mind of such an age cannot be expected to let the old belief about species pass unquestioned.” Gray now deals with contemporary Darwin critique in the US (Agassiz): Sterility of hybrids: “As to the sterility of hybrids, that can no longer be insisted upon as absolutely true, nor be practically used as a test between species and varieties.” Permanence of species: Natural Selection does not imply that the parent species has to die. It can “set off a variety now and then.” All lower forms should have evolved to higher ones: This would leave a vacuum behind which would push species to fill it. Gray concludes by warning his readers not to accept Darwin’s theories or the “blind faith” of Darwin’s opponents and hopes for a theistic theory: “We are confident that, if a derivative hypothesis ever is established, it will be on a solid theistic ground… the derivative hypothesis leaves the argument for design, and therefore for a designer. Asa Gray accommodated the new views of Natural Selection and evolutionary theory with his belief. He corresponds with Darwin from 1855, arranges US editions of Origin of Species. He tackles Agassiz on definition of species, ideal types, catastrophes, argues about Origin from 1859. Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural theology 1860: defends the right of science to inquire into origins, but also believes there must be a ‘first cause’ that explains design. He says that variations are subject to natural selection but God plans the result (makes the channel for the stream). He also sees the danger of ‘materialism’ and the atheistic interpretation of Origins. Form his letters to Darwin and Hooker it is clear that he enjoyed defending Darwin’s evolutionary theory and natural selection against Agassiz. The public debate over Evolution in the US illustrates that Darwin was one of the first international stars of science. Darwinism became a worldwide phenomenon. It also shows in the context of the class the different interpretations of science based on religious views, social structure, academic background and national feeling. Louis Agassiz Agassiz was a major opponent of Darwin’s theories at the time of the publishing of The Origin of Species (1859). His definition of species is that of a fixed ‘essence’ originating in the mind of God. He was a proponent of separate creation and thought that there were multiple human species (‘races’) created on different continents (polygenism) and therefore not sharing a common origin. (This led him to defend slavery.) He had several critiques (mentioned in the Gray article) of Darwinism and participated with Gray in public debates on the matter. The public debates show the influence of Darwinism all across the world and illustrate how it was one of the first international public debates. Agassiz was a professor at Harvard and built the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The museum’s architectural features were difficult to adapt to the presentation of Darwin’s theories later on because of his different understanding of origins. Even today they are changing the setup to cope with it. Originally, he emigrated from Switzerland where he studied glaciers and was the first to propose an ice age instead of a flood. This was his major contribution to science that he would never be able to repeat. He was an outstanding teacher, even gave public lectures (something that even professors nowadays look down upon) and a proponent of “hands-on” science. Many of his students went on to teach evolution at colleges all over the US. He tried to explain fossils with multiple ice ages and multiple creations at different times and organized expeditions to find proof against Darwin’s theories. Wallace (+ reading #34) A.R. Wallace (1823-1913) Wallace was the preeminent tropical biologist of his day and founder of the studies of biogeography. He is considered the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a traveling naturalist already believing in the transmutation of species, a concept that had been advocated by Lamarck, and Erasmus Darwin, among others. He was profoundly influenced by Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a work of popular science published anonymously in 1844 that advocated an evolutionary origin for the solar system, earth, and living organisms. Thus, Wallace deliberately planned his field work to test the hypothesis that under an evolutionary scenario, closely related species should inhabit neighboring territories. Wallace and Henry Bates, a leading British biologist, traveled to Brazil and while in the Amazon basin, he realized that geographical barriers often separated the ranges of closely allied species. In 1855, while working in the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo, Wallace wrote “On the Law which has regulated the introduction of species.” In the paper he gathered and enumerated general observations regarding the geographic and geologic distribution of species (biogeography). Wallace’s conclusion that "every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species" has come to be known as the Sarawak Law, which essentially explains the idea of decent with modification. According to his autobiography, Wallace was in bed with a fever when he thought about Thomas Malthus’ idea of positive checks on human population growth, and then came up with the idea of natural selection. Wallace sent Darwin his 1858 essay “On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type,” with the request that Darwin would review it and pass it onto Charles Lyell. Although Wallace’s essay did not employ Darwin’s term “natural selection,” it did outline the mechanics of an evolutionary divergence of species from similar ones due to environmental pressures. Darwin was blown away and sent the manuscript to Lyell. Lyell and Hooker decided to publish the essay in a joint presentation together with unpublished writings which highlighted Darwin's priority. Wallace's essay was presented to the Linnean Society of London on July 1st 1858. Wallace accepted the arrangement and was happy that he had been included at all. Darwin’s social and scientific status was far greater than his, and it was unlikely that Wallace’s views on evolution would have been taken seriously. Wallace’s essay prompted Darwin to publish The Origin of Species in 1859, and after its publication, he became one of its staunchest defenders. In 1889, Wallace published the book Darwinism as a response to the scientific critics of natural selection. Wallace: The Origin of the Human Races and the Antiquity of Man deduced from the Theory of Natural Selection “Man may have been once a homogenous race; but it was at a period of which we have as yet discovered no remains, at a period so remote in his history, that he had not yet acquired that wonderfully developed brain, the organ of the mind, at a period when he had the form but hardly the nature of man, when he neither possessed human speech, nor those sympathetic and moral feelings.” “the differences we now behold in mankind must have been produced before he became possessed of a human intellect or human sympathies. During the long periods in which other animals have been undergoing modification, man’s body will have remained generically the same while his head and brain alone will have undergone modification equal to the animals’.” Argued that different races are different species, and some races are more mentally developed than others. those who are most mentally developed o Europeans on top of hierarchy o Praises Germanic races Germans, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons (doesn’t include Italians, French) Haeckel (+ reading #30) Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) Haeckel was an eminent German biologist, naturalist, and philosopher who discovered, described, and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and coined terms such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology. Although Haeckel's ideas are important to the history of evolutionary theory, and he was a competent invertebrate anatomist most famous for his illustrations of radiolaria, many speculative concepts that he championed are now considered incorrect. Haeckel promoted Darwin’s work in Germany and developed the controversial recapitulation theory- ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny- claiming that an individual organism’s embryonal development (ontogeny) parallels and summarizes its species’ entire evolutionary development (phylogeny). He supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate. At the time that Darwin first published On the Origin…, no remains of human ancestors had yet been found. Haeckel postulated that evidence of human evolution from ape ancestors would be found in the Dutch East Indies, and described these theoretical remains in great detail. He even named the as-of-yet unfound species, Pithecanthropus alalus, and charged his students to go find it. One student did find the remains: a young Dutchman named Eugene Dubois went to the East Indies and dug up the remains of Java Man, the first human ancestral remains ever found. These remains originally carried Haeckel's Pithecanthropus label, though they were later reclassified as Homo erectus. Haeckel did not support natural selection, rather believing in a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics and the idea that organic form is the result of an inner drive towards development, “Entwicklung.” Haeckel’s literary output was extensive: 42 works and numerous scientific memoirs and illustrations. He published numerous books, including General Morphology (1866), Natural history of creation (1868). Haeckel: “Our Ape Ancestors” Division of Apes into Platyrrhines and Catarrhines o Platyrrhines: Apes of the New World – Eastern Apes with flat noses o Catarrhines: Apes of the Old World- Western Apes with narrow noses “Man has just the same characters, the same form of dentition, auditory passage, and nose as all the Catarrhines; in this he radically differs from the Platyrrhines. Phylogenetically, man is a direct blood relative of the Apes of the Old World, and can be traced to a common stem-form together with all the Catarrhines. In his whole organization and in his origin, man a true Catarrhines. The Platyrrhines form a divergent branch of our genealogical tree, and this is only distantly related to the human race.” “The chief advances that effected this creation of man, or his dffierentiation from the nearest related Catarrhines were: the adoption of the erect posture, and the consequent greater differentiation of the fore and hind limbs, evolution of articulate speech, further development of the brain; sexual selection had a great influence on this as Darwin showed.” “The gorilla comes next to man in the structure of the hand and foot, the chimpanzee in the chief features of the skull, the orang in brain development. None of these existing anthropoid Apes is among the direct ancestors of our race.” Need to find intermediate form- the Ape-man. Dubois found the Java Man. Kropotkin, Pyotr (1812-1921)……the “anarchist prince” -wrote “Mutual Aid” in 1903 The fittest are those who cooperate Kropotkin presented an alternative view to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” concept. Kropotkin argued that cooperation and mutual aid among individuals in a species are the most important factors for survival – and not competition. Darwin himself pointed out the importance of cooperation in “numberless animal species” in his article “Descent of Man.” Kropotkin acknowledges that animals compete in nature. However, “mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance” as it develops traits and habits that “insure the maintenance and further development of the species.” Mutual aid is needed for the safety of the individual, rearing progeny, and obtaining food….beetles help one another bury large corpses…crabs protect those that are molting….white-tailed eagles combine forces when hunting Humans could learn from these animals – look at the bees. When some find a new habitat, they’ll guard it until another swarm of bees arrives to settle. Human colonists would have been much more successful if they followed a similar tactic. In geographical context….in Russia, Darwinism without Malthusian competition – so no need for natural selection. - people struggled against the environment but there were no real limitations on population growth or competition…so the argument for natural selection didn’t have a big following in Russia Monogenism Desire to show all human beings come from one source, often biblical One idea is that human beings all came from Adam and Eve, and then diverged into five kinds Philantrhopic, Quaker, missionary aims, anti-slavery Polygenism Belief that there were several different origins for humans, different races have different histories Louis Agassiz, “Diversity of origin of human races,” 1850 - classified racial types as different kinds and mapped racial histories - God created races in places of origin Pro-slavery Many lines of evolutionary development (Karl Vogt, “Lectures on Man,” 1864) - different species evolved from separate places of creation Social Darwinism & Herbert Spencer (+ reading #40) Herbert Spencer - One of the earliest proponents of Social Darwinism, which “is a theory that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies” - Thought about the idea of evolution and progress before the publication of The Origin of Species in this book Principles of Biology (1864) - He termed the phrase “survival of the fittest,” suggesting natural selection, but actually referring to a Lamarckian mechanisms of inheritance - “He believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals; and so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life” Some key quotes from the Spencer Reading: - “Unless the change in the environment is of so violent a kind as to be universally fatal to the species, it must affect more or less differently the slightly different moving equilibria which the members of the species present…That is to say, it cannot happen that those individuals whose functions are most out of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces, will be those who die.” - “But this surivival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest” (and the process of weaker beings dying continues): - On Darwin: “Indeed, when once enunciated, the truth of his hypothesis is so obvious as scarcely to need proof.” - “Just as we seek that each plant bears a multitude of seeds, out of which some two or three happen to fulfill all the conditions required for reaching maturity, and continuing the race: so we see that each species is perpetually producing numerous slightly modified forms, deviating in all directions from the average, out of which most fit the surrounding conditions no better…” Sexual selection From Class: Derived largely from Darwin Descent of Man 1871: human choice pushes races in different directions, hierarchy of racial types, females naturally selected to be weak, protoeugenic thoughts It means that certain traits can be explained by competition between the members of a species. Certain species are “selected” for due to the process of mating or male to male competition or anything of that sort. Survival of the fittest takes over. Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) Steel baron who is regarded as the second richest man in history. While he paid low wages, he became a great philanthropist during the end of his life. His ideas, in relation to the class are: Equates rules of political economy with laws of nature (God’s design) Individual self-interest is socially beneficial Free competition is a necessary law of economics Profit motive the only reliable incentive for action—Carnegie and others believed that the pursuit of profit boosted material and spiritual health of nation. All you have to do here is think of the glory of the free market and apply it in your ID. Relate everything back to the economy. Cesare Lombroso From Class Notes: Criminal anthropology— Cesare Lombroso claimed there were physical stigmata that indicated reversion (atavism) to primitive types, L'Uomo Delinquente (1876) Which makes very little sense. Wikipedia explains it better. Lombroso “stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal"' could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage, or atavistic” He pioneered criminal physiognomy, which means that you can identify possible character and personality traits by looking at people’s faces. Things like large jaws and high cheekbones are bad. This links back to eugenics. Lombroso believed very much in social progress and phrenology. He also believed that degeneration could happen, which supports efforts to “improve” (eugenics). Karl Pearson Karl Pearson (1857-1936) was an English mathematician (particularly interested in statistics). He was both a socialist and a strong eugenics proponent, a mix which might seem paradoxical. He was in many ways the protégé of Francis Galton (Charles Darwin’s cousin, the inventor of the term ‘eugenics,’ and a strong proponent of the eugenics movement). Pearson eventually became a professor of eugenics at the University of London. The Pearson reading is from his 1905 book, National Life: From the Standpoint of Science. In the excerpt assigned, Pearson makes the case for promoting the reproduction of the fittest. He starts out by discrediting the effort to improve society through intervention, noting that, “Nurture and education may immensely aid the social machine, but they must be repeated generation by generation; they will not in themselves reduce the tendency to the production of bad stock. Conscious or unconscious selection can alone bring that about” (p.21). This point very much stems from Darwin’s theory, as the idea that the effects of interventions could be passed on from generation to generation is in essence Lamarckian. He proceeds to note that having races of different capabilities (different qualities of stock) living side by side is inefficient, making a case of the United States. Had Native Americans and colonists shared the land, white men would have been restricted in their ability to innovate, develop, etc. Pearson states that, “In place of the red man, contributing practically nothing to the work and thought of the world, we have a great nation, mistress of many arts, and able, with its youthful imagination and fresh, untrammeled impulses, to contribute much to the common stock of civilized man” (p.25). Pearson acknowledges that his perspective may seem quite belligerent, admitting that the process of the survival of the fittest is expectedly unpleasant for unfit. “The struggle means suffering, intense suffering, while it is in progress; but that struggle and that suffering have been the stages by which the white man has reached his present stage of development” (p.26). He justifies the suffering with the progress that society will achieve as a result. Again, this seems quite counter-intuitive, considering that he was a self-declared socialist who refused knighthood offered by the English Crown because it was contrary to his ideals. If Pearson’s support for eugenics is quite unabashed throughout the excerpt, it’s worth noting that at the end, he does show some reservation. Francis Galton had argued that we could speed up human progress by imposing reproductive restrictions on parents, but Pearson observed that “the all-important question of parentage is still largely felt to be solely a matter of family, and not of national importance” (p.28). However, he then expresses support of “inculcating a feeling of shame in the parents of a weakling,” a pretty harsh stance. Herbert Georges (H. G.) Wells H. G. Wells was an English fiction and non-fiction writer and an outspoken socialist. The readings assigned are chapters 4 and 5 from his fictional work, The Time Machine. In chapter 4, thanks to a time machine, the protagonist has reached the year 802, 701 A.D. He wanders around observing the new environment. He notes that houses and cottages, once characteristic of the English landscape had disappeared, and had been replaced by palace-like mansions. However, some of these were in ruins. He begins hypothesizing about the causes for the ruin, concluding that it is “communism.” That is, the world has reached an incredibly prosperous state, but wealth is shared, thus all houses have been replaced by mansions. As he continues exploring, the protagonist reaches the conclusion that humanity was “upon the wane” (p.340), and provided the following rationale for why: What, unless biological science is a mass of errors, is the cause of human intelligence and vigor? Hardship and freedom: conditions under which the active, strong, and subtle survive and the weaker go to the wall; conditions that put a premium upon the loyal alliance of capable men, upon self-restraint, patience, and decision. People in the future have changed in various ways. They are “slighter,” as the protagonist observes, but beautiful. However, they lack much focus or interest in anything in particular. Basically, they’ve progressed to the point where the forces that drive human effort and ingenuity today have disappeared. As the protagonist notes, “Under the new conditions of perfect peace comfort and security, that restless energy, that with us is strength, would become weakness, Even in our own time certain tendencies and desires, once necessary to survival, are a constant source of failure” (p342). In chapter 5, the protagonist comes to reassess his hypothesis on the development of the world since his day. While he had previously thought that progress and communism had lead to everyone sharing in abundant wealth that negated insecurity and want, he realizes that the world he observes is actually the result of drawn-out capitalism. While wandering around a ruined manor, he spots a beast like creature, which immediately flees when it realizes he has seen it. He follows it to a shaft that leads underground. He has observed many of these shafts spread across the countryside, and comes to realize that the “Morlocks,” the beast-like beings that live below ground, and the “Eloi,” those above ground, are the results of the divergence of humans along aristocracy/bourgeoisie and labor lines. He notes that laborers were, in his day, already spending much of their time underground (factories, etc.), and that as society progressed they came to spend more and more time underground. Some might have been miserable or rebellious, but he Eloi could eliminate those people, so the underground dwellers would have “become as well adapted to the conditions of underground life, and as happy in they way, as the Upper-world people were to theirs.” This idea of adaptation to underground dwelling explains the physical changes observed in the Morlocks. The slightest of the Eloi results from the fact that the Morlocks perfor all the work to sustain the Eloi. Thus, the Eloi have lost their drive and ingenuity. Considering Wells’ socialist background, this is quite an interesting allegory. Originally, it is thought that the sharing of wealth, or “communism,” has accounted for weakened incentives in society. However, it turns out that the flaws of the future world Wells describes result from capitalism taken to its extreme. The story bases itself on Darwinian theory, as conveyed through the evolution of the Eloi and the Morlucks. It raises an interesting consideration: selective pressures like “hardship and freedom” may drive the progress of society, but once such pressures are overcome (if they can be = the pursuit of perfection debate…), what will drive humans to maintain the status they’ve achieved. In the case of the Eloi, security and lack of need for physical labor has made them physically slight and intellectually disengaged. Gregor Mendel (+reading #42) - 1822-1884 - Lived and worked as an Abby in Brno, Czechoslovakia - He was very well trained in botany and mathematics. As a result, he taught a lot of the little children in Brno. - Most famous for his work on peas, but also worked on garden flowers, maize, and bees. o Was seeking was to increase yields. To do so, needed pure lines of peas. - Developed the law of inheritance known as Mendelism (see next term for more information) - His discoveries were published in Brno Natural History Society in 1866, but largely ignored. o Mendel’s discoveries were instrumental in the shift from blending inheritance to the particulate inheritance theory in the 19th century o Why ignored until the 20th Century? Difficult to say Some theories are that Mendel was working in a different paradigm and therefore underappreciated. “Ahead of his time” The journal he published in may have been too obscure His ideas were not important until they were involved in another controversy (Mendelians) - Reading : Experiments in Plant Hybridisation o Highly technical, TFs say not to worry too much about the genetic/science aspect o Basically a description of Mendel’s research in plant hybridization. Describes a variety of experiments he conducted on peas and the results he found (wrinkled, not wrinkled, etc). o Data from these experiments were very perfect, leading modern scientists to suspect foul play Alternative explanation was that Mendel only reported his best data Mendelism - The principles of heredity formulated by Gregor Mendel in 1866. - These principles compose what is known as the system of particulate inheritance by units, or genes. - Two basic laws: o Law of segregation Both parents contribute a part of a gene to make express a trait in their offspring, ensuring variation o Law of independent inheritance - Units of inheritance come in pairs, dominant or recessive Certain characteristics are mutually exclusive (i.e. wrinkled peas vs. smooth peas). Different traits are inherited seperately traits appear in 3-1 ratios. Was bought in as part of the Modern Synthesis, integrating genetics into the theory of natural selection to form a comprehensive theory of evolution o Darwin was lacking the genetic component and he knew it This was rediscovered by Bateson, de Vries, Carl Corren, & E.V. Tschermak o Mendelians o Was used to support Bateson’s beliefs that evolution came in jumps because of all the variations in Mendel’s peas Thought that maybe evolutionary theory was unnecessary because genetics can explain everything. o Used to study “undesirable traits” = support for eugenics Thomas Hunt Morgan (+ “The Particulate Theory of Heredity and the nature of the Gene”) Thomas Hunt Morgan was a 20th century geneticist, best known for his work with Drosophila melanogaster and his research on genes and chromosomes. As a professor at Columbia University, Morgan became increasingly interested in the study of heredity, and he developed a “fly room,” in which he studied mutations in Drosophilia, and specifically those in the chromosomes of their salivary glands. Morgan’s major accomplishment was his demonstration that genes are carried on chromosomes and that they are the basis of heredity. According to Professor Browne, Morgan “brought it all together,” as his work represented the culmination of prior and concurrent genetic research; as a result, his research is considered to be the basis of modern genetics. In his chapter, “The Particulate Theory of Heredity and the nature of the Gene,” of his book, The Physical Basis of Heredity, Morgan presents his evidence for the gene in relation to Mendelian genetics. Morgan concludes that if chromosomes were the most fundamental units of heredity, then there could be no more independent pairs, a hypothesis negated by the observation of the spectrum from full linkage to independent assortment, indicating that there is a more basic unit of heredity than the chromosome (which he calls germ-plasm). Morgan also discusses the manifold effects of each gene; for example, he found that “whatever it is in the germ-plasm that produces white eyes, also produces other modifications as well…such as productivity and viability.” Drosophila Melangosaster Drosophila is a species of fly and is, even today, one of the primary model organisms used in biology. This organism was first extensively studied by Thomas Hunt Morgan, who had numerous specimens in his famous Fly Room at Columbia University. Morgan performed many crosses on these flies and studied various mutations he observed. He ultimately discovered that genes on the same chromosome don’t undergo independent assortment. He also studied their various X-linked mutations, most famously white eye vs. red eye color. Drosophila is a good model organism for genetic study because it is small, reproduces and matures quickly, only has four chromosomes, and has highly visible chromosomes in its salivary glands. As a result, genetic research continues to be performed on this species today. Classical Genetics This term refers to genetic research prior to the arrival of modern biology. Years after Mendel’s work, in 19th century England, two individuals, William Bateson (a biologist) and Hugo de Vries (a botanist) independently discovered Mendel’s paper and saw laws that supporter their theories of jumps (there was not gradual change, such as in plant color, but rather ‘jumps’ in phenotype). Bateson then created a field that he named genetics based on Mendel’s work and the theory of mutations (the field was officially given the name genetics in 1905). Many other individuals, including August Weismann and Thomas Morgan Hunt, are among the classical geneticists, each contributing further knowledge on the nature of chromosomes, genes, and heredity. Eugenics (Positive and Negative) Eugenics as an overarching concept links evolution with human heredity, public health, politics and economic, class, gender, and intelligence. It was supported by the middle/professional classes and medical personnel. It involved using science as a means of halting national decline/degeneration of a country. This stemmed from the perception that there were rising and expanding medical and social problems (i.e. malnutrition, overcrowding, mental disorders, etc.) and the anxiety that continued breeding by the unfit would dilute the country’s population. Positive Eugenics involves encouraging those who are “fit” to breed more, where as Negative Eugenics involves discouraging or preventing those who are “unfit” to breed. In regards to Positive Eugenics, many strategies evolved for encouraging healthy people to breed more. For example, positive eugenics was propagated by using the state fair to promote the “Model Family” and fitter family competitions, conducting better baby contests, or establishing the National League for Physical Improvement. In regards to Negative Eugenics, strategies such as sterilization, birth control, and restrictions on immigration were used to limit the “unfit” from propagating in America or other countries which advocated for Negative Eugenics. Key figures mentioned in the study of Eugenics include the following: Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, Madison Grant, Henry Laughlin, Henry Goddard, and Charles Davenport. Aldous Huxley Aldous Huxley was an English writer, whose Brave New World is one of his most well-known books. He is the brother of Julian Huxley, a noted biologist, and also the grandson of TH Huxley, one of Darwin’s champions. Huxley fits with the themes of this course since he is related to well-known biologists and advocates of Darwin during the time, and also because of his critique of the dehumanizing aspects of scientific progress in Brave New World. This critique reflects some of the reservations toward scientific progress during the time. Brave New World, Chapter 1 [Source: Sparknotes] The novel opens in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. The year is a.f. 632 (632 years “after Ford”). The Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning is giving a group of students a tour of a factory that produces human beings and conditions them for their predestined roles in the World State. Human beings no longer produce living offspring. Instead, surgically removed ovaries produce ova that are fertilized in artificial receptacles and incubated in specially designed bottles. The Hatchery destines each fetus for a particular caste in the World State. The five castes are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Clones produced are predestined to perform identical tasks at identical machines. The fetuses undergo different treatments depending on their castes. The artificial process, says the Director, aims to make individuals accept and even like “their inescapable social destiny.” How Brave New World Relates to the Course The novel can be seen as a critique of the overenthusiastic embrace of new scientific discoveries. The first chapter reads like a list of stunning scientific achievements: human cloning, rapid maturation, and prenatal conditioning. However, the satirical tone of the chapter makes it clear that this technology-based society is not a utopia, but the exact opposite. As the Director says, “social stability” is the highest social goal, and through predestination and rigorous conditioning, individuals accept their given roles in society without question. The caste structure is created and maintained using specific tools, and it is technology that allows the most powerful members of the World State’s ruling Alpha caste to solidify and justify the unequal distribution of power and status. The satirical tone of the text makes it clear that, though social stability may sound like an admirable goal, it can be used for the wrong reasons toward the wrong ends. Thus the chapter appears to link to our study of eugenics, in which humans are trying to scientifically alter the characteristics of the country’s population and maintain good characteristics while suppressing ones that are “unfit.” More broadly, the chapter touches on the concept of hierarchy and how races or classes in society have become prevalent, almost like the caste system in the novel. Henry H. Goddard (1866-1957): think IQ testing, mental retardation, negative eugenics. He served as Director Of Research for the Vineland Training School for the feeble minded in NJ from 1906 to 1918. He translated and distributed the Binet —now Stanford Binet—IQ test in the United States in 1908. He first proposed terms for degrees of mental retardation: moron (IQ 51-70), imbecile (26-50), and idiot (0-25). The Kallikak (kalos=beauty; kakos=bad) family study, published in 1912, concluded that mental retardation was hereditary. He used the results of the study to advocate negative eugenics by segregation or institutionalization of the “feeble-minded.” He supported sterilization but did not publicly advocate it. However, the study was not very rigorous—there was very little testing of individuals before they were labeled “feeble minded”—and the study is now considered psuedoscience. Goddard later acknowledged that there were flaws in the study. He also established an intelligence testing program in Ellis Island, which led to a dramatic increase in deportation, and which contributed to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924. Madison Grant (1865-1937): think eugenics, isolationism. Yale graduate, Columbia law 1890, never married, active in politics (friends with several Presidents) The Passing of the Great Race (1916) stated his theory of “Nordic superiority” and argued for a storng eugenics program in order to save the Nordic race from the other lower races. It was a very influential work of scientific racism, and was often blatantly accused as being little more than racist ideas peppered with amateur science. Hitler and the Nazi euthanasia program justified the Third Reich’s population policies by citing Grant. He advocated racial hygiene, which uses improving the public health as the argument for eugenic policies. He also supported anti-miscegenation laws, which outlawed interracial marriage. His work and advocacy helped to enact the emergency Quota law of 1921 (Johnson Act) which for the first time set a limit on all immigration. He also worked to pass the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act), which further limited the number of immigrants allowed, and permanently excluded all Asian immigrants. He was also an active conservationist, and he was personally responsible for saving several American species from extinction. Harry H. Laughlin (1880-1943): think fierce advocate of compulsory sterilization He was the superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from 1910-1922. He drew up a “model eugenical sterilization law” in 1914, which mandated compulsory sterilization of unfit members of the population, to improve existing sterilization laws in many states. Many states modeled their laws after his model. Carrie Buck, a woman of apparently normal intelligent who was sterilized under the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, despite her appeals that went up to the US Supreme Court. Laughlin provided expert testimony in the Buck v. Bell, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the compulsory sterilization laws. William Jennings Bryan Bryan was a member of the prosecution in the Scopes trial, portrayed in Inherit the Wind as Brady. Known as the “Great Commoner,” he built a populist political career around defending rural America from exploitation and protecting their way of life. He denounced Darwinism as “guesses strung together” and defended creationism. The fact that Bryan and Darrow were both at the center of the case drew massive media attention, and refocused the debate very clearly on a clash between religion and science. Bryan wrote a New York Times article called “God and Evolution”, in which he argued that while evolution could be harmless when applied to animals, it is incredibly dangerous when applied to humans, because it destroys man’s family tree as taught by the Bible and makes him a descendant of the lower forms of life. He points out that no one has discovered the origin of species. He links Darwinism to sexism (arguing that women are not inferior), atheism, and materialism. He finds it impossible to believe that the world came about by chance, and believes that God works all the time (rather than in the past in a deist view). He summarizes his objections by saying that evolution is merely a guess, there is no support in the Bible for it, and there’s no instance observed where a species changed into another. He further clarifies why it is dangerous, by saying that it makes people believe that they can understand everything (by excluding the supernatural and miracles found in the Bible), that it makes them agnostics, and that it is harmful for the children. He also makes the further argument that although atheists have a right to believe what they want, evolution should not be taught in schools paid for by taxpayers, because religion is not taught in school. He also suggests that evolution and atheism is fundamentally un-American. A paleontologist and a zoologist answered Mr. Bryan in the next edition of the newspaper. Clarence Darrow Darrow was one of the primary defense attorneys working with the ACLU in the Scopes trial, portrayed in Inherit the Wind as Drummond. Known for his dramatic performances in legal cases, he was agnostic, opposed religion in public life, and attacked biblical literalism. He was often sharply criticized and attacked, with media portraying him as the Antichrist, though he fended off the hostility. This is indicative of the difficulty of selling evolution to the public, even up to modern day. The fact that Bryan and Darrow were both at the center of the case drew massive media attention, and refocused the debate very clearly on a clash between religion and science. Scopes Trial Initiated by the ACLU’s (American Civil Liberties Union) challenge of Tennessee state legislature that made the teaching of Evolution Theory illegal, the Scopes Trial became one of the defining legal battles of the 1920s (and the 20th century for that matter). Scopes had volunteered to become a martyr for the ACLU’s cause, and the organization brought in big time defense lawyer Clarence Darrow to defend him in a trial against the self-proclaimed representative of the everyman of America, William Jennings Bryan. The trial became an instant spectacle of the day – complete with vendors, caterers, hotels, etc that arose to accommodate the crowd – as a result of a number of factors coming to a head in the 1920s. To start, the development of the media and the press contributed to the widespread attention the trial received; it was some of the first live broadcasting of events at the time. Another issue was the increased accessibility of higher-level education in the 1920s, which made issues regarding the information taught in schools of greater import to a greater number of people. Scopes was, of course, convicted, given that the trial was a question of whether or not he had broken the Tennessee law in question – which he had indeed done. Bryan died a week later. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis After nearly 75 years of the development of the debate behind Darwinism, intellectuals had diverged into roughly three unrelated approaches to understanding evolutionary theory: geneticists, who were focused primarily on the workings of the gene itself; populationists, who were focused on the genetic development of animal populations; and diversificationists, who were mainly concerned with working with the fossil record to better understand how new species arose. Leaders like Ernst Mayr, George Simpson, Geroge Stebbins, and Julian Huxley decided that a synthesis of all these fields would better serve the progress of the understanding of evolutionary theory. Such collaboration was a monumental development in the history of Darwinism, and provided the 20th century platform that would allow for even greater scientific ground to be covered. Inherit the Wind (1960) A good example of the media’s interaction with the historical drama of science, Inherit the Wind was actually a fairly well-received film of the early ‘60s. The movie dramatizes the Scopes Trial, and, while certainly increasing the public understanding of the history behind the debate of evolution, further polarizes the public view of the debate. Theodosius Dobzhansky Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Russian geneticist who tried to link genetics to natural history. After emigrating from Russia to the US, he worked with Morgan, which was significant because other Russian scientists of the time, mainly Lysenko, denounced Western genetics. He wrote a landmark book, Genetics and the Origin of Species, combining the ideas of genetics, chromosomes, and natural selection, in 1937. His ideas identified an evolutionary synthesis that was necessary to reconcile the views of geneticists who looked at variation through chromosome theory, statisticians who looked at gene distributions in populations, and naturalists who were concerned with the origin of new species. Also tried to define species as “that stage of the evolutionary process at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding.” Ernst Mayr Ernst Mayr was a field naturalist who worked in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, where he specialized in classification theory. He created a careful redefinition of species as a breeding population in order to clarify some of the arguments that arose between geneticists, statisticians, and naturalists. Mayr Reading (#51) Many controversies came about because of different species concepts, particularly the line between species and subspecies. He was not satisfied with any previous definitions, including Dobzhansky’s. He defines a few criteria generally used to define species. Morphological characters are descriptive characters such as structure, proportions, color patterns, and so on, that define a species; it is of little value because there is no difference in morphological characters between subspecies and species. Genetic distinctness is of little value because every individual of a species has slightly different genetics. Lack of hybridization is not useful because some species can cross. Thus, none of these three criteria should be used. Mayr’s definition is: A species consists of a group of populations which replace each other geographically or ecologically and of which the neighboring ones intergrade or hybridize wherever they are in contact or which are potentially capable of doing so (with one or more of the populations) in those cases where contact is prevented by geographical or ecological barriers. Mayr’s definition is informed by his background as a taxonomist. Trofim Lysenko He was a Russian biologist and agronomist under Stalin. Lysenko was a disciple of Michurin who worked on the technique of grafting plants. Michurin believed that particles of heredity were all inherited so that if you change the body you change what is inherited – followed Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lysenko tried to use this technique on plants in Russia to help the starving poor. Lysenko denounced Western genetics (and thus capitalist way of understanding nature) to promote Michurinism. Lysenko admired by communist state. People working on genetic theories in Russia were ostracized. Lysenko’s “vernalisation” of wheat dominated in Russia beginning in 1927. With Krushchev’s rise to power in 1953, Russia gradually opens up to the west – Lysenko officially discredited in 1964. Julian Huxley He was an English evolutionary biologist, proponent of natural selection and grandson of T.H. Huxley. He was heavily influenced by his grandfather and the theories of Charles Darwin. He wrote a biology textbook with H.G. Wells. Julian helped with the evolutionary synthesis. Evolutionary change seemed to take place at three different levels: gene mutation, population genetics, and diversification. Julian was one of several people who tried to bring these diverse processes together. Julian also became director of UNESCO (United Nations Education Sciences Culture& Organization) in 1946 and was considered to be the person who brought the “science” to it. The predecessor of this group was the League of Nations – they had not been successful in preventing outbreak of wars. Julian was committed to a secular science where the supernatural did not exist. He was also a humanist and tried to bring these characteristics to biology as well. He believed that the world was self-sustained. Julian Huxley: Evolution, The Modern Synthesis I. The Theory of Natural Selection Biology at the present time is embarking upon a phase of synthesis after a period in which new disciplines were taken up in turn and worked out in comparative isolation. Nowhere is this movement towards unification more likely to be valuable than in this many-sided topic of evolution. Darwin was concerned both to establish the fact of evolution and to discover the mechanism by which it operated and it was because he did both at the same time that he was so successful. He did so with enormous quantities of facts and by starting with a few general principles. David Lack He was a British biologist and protégé of Huxley. He worked on Darwin’s finches and was able to prove that the beaks are differently adapted for food. This was thought to be a myth for a while until Lack proved it to be true in 1947. Prior to this, Morgan-Mendelian genetic theory was on the rise and was not reliant on Darwin’s theory (hence the reason for the supposed myth of Darwin’s finches). Morgan-Mendelian theory was a mutation based theory that did not rely at all on natural selection. The work done by Lack further helped synthesize the evolution theories that were present in that time. Further proof followed later with the peppered moth. Peppered moth evolution serves as a very clear example of natural selection. Lysenko: The Science of Biology Today Lysenko equates the teachings of Weismann to the chromosome theory of heredity. The Michurinian trend (what Lysenko follows) in biology is a materialist trend, because it does not separate heredity from the living body and the conditions of its life. The living body and its conditions of life are inseverable. The Morganists, however, maintain that heredity is isolated, something apart from the mortal living body, from what they call the soma. The Michurinists say that inheritance of acquired characters is possible and necessary. Morganists cannot comprehend this principle so long as they have not fully discarded their Weismannist notions. Heredity is determined by the specific type of metabolism. You need but change the type of metabolism in a living body to bring about a change in heredity. Thus it is possible to obtain plant hybrids by means of grafting. Variety within a plant is generally a quite frequent phenomenon among vegetative hybrids. As the result of grafting, often get organisms that are shaken and therefore prone to vary. “But, as is obvious to anyone, the described Darwinian method of selection has no bearing whatever on the Mendel-Morgan theories.” Weismannism-Morganism does not reveal the real laws of living nature; on the contrary, since it is a thoroughly idealistic teaching (based only on chance and independent of environmental conditions), it creates an absolutely false idea about natural laws. The strength of the Michurinian teaching lies in its close association with the collective farms and state farms, in the fact that it elucidates profoundly theoretical problems by solving important practical problems of socialist agriculture. James Watson He is an American molecular biologist who was co-discoverer of the structure of DNA in 1953. For the longest time, it was uncertain how to reconcile these three things: genetic mutation, population genetics/statistical results, and diversification (as popularized by the Origin of Species). It was finally determined that it is the gene that is responsible for selection. DNA was responsible for carrying the hereditary information that was used in the development and functioning of all living organisms. However, if you want to know why a specific molecule works the way it does, it is important to know its structure. Watson & Crick’s discovery of DNA gave further insight into the selection process that drives the evolution of living beings. Francis Crick (1916-2004) Crick was teleological in his assumption that DNA contained genetic information and that it was helical as opposed to Rosalind Franklin who took a methodological approach to proving the DNA’s helical structure. He and James Watson used the helical assumption and then worked backwards to find the structure of DNA which they first reported in 1953. They collaborated at the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge University. In 1968 they received a Nobel Prize along with Maurice Wilkins for their work in structure and nucleic acids. Crick is also widely known for the use of the term “central dogma” which refers to the oneway flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to proteins and is fundamental principle of modern biology. Although is theory is surely “central” and of little dispute, the use of the word “dogma” implies a sort of unquestionable rule and has drawn criticism. The most significant controversy surrounding Francis Crick is his use of Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray diffraction crystallography photographs to confirm his assumption of the helical structure of DNA. Crick arrived at these photographs before they were published through Franklin’s fellow researcher at King’s college, Maurice Wilkins. Although Franklin’s work was contributed greatly to the discovery of the structure of DNA, she never received formal credit for the discovery. Rosalind Franklin Was methodological in her scientific approaches and was more concerned with careful and accurate analysis of data than the teleological Watson and Crick who used here research to discover the structure of DNA. Her attention is detail may is a prime example of the theme of increasing reductionism of evolutionary theory from the broad philosophical principles of Darwin’s era to the biological minutia of gene theory. Franklins work on DNA at King’s College in London using the process of X-ray diffraction crystallography contributed greatly to the discovery of the structure of DNA yet she has never received the same amount of credit as Watson and Crick nor Wilkins for that matter who was instrumental in revealing her X-ray photographs to Watson and Crick without her consent. Theme of genderism of science. Most all of Franklin’s co-workers were male. The 1987 film The Race for the Double Helix reveals that she felt oppressed by the culture and therefore of ten worked alone and did not socialize. Even if she felt the urge to socialize, she would have found difficulty in doing so as the common rooms and staff dining rooms at King’s were for men only. Was science still an old boys club? Historical context: Wallace v. Darwin. Although Franklin’s research was crucial in the discovery of the structure of DNA, she was not awarded a Nobel Prize. She died before the awards were given of cancer likely caused by exposure to Xray radiation while collecting the data necessary for the discovery of DNA’s structure. Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Race for the Double Helix, 1987 movie Science: Competition, synthesis, genderism. Contextualize with the progression of science of broad philosophical assumption to acute objectivity. Reductionsim: searching for the physical properties of life. Biologization. Is a 1987 dramatization of the discovery of the structure of DNA which is credited to James Watson and Francis Crick who published their findings in 1953 and were jointly awarded a Nobel Prize along with Maurice Wilkins for the discovery in 1962. The movie is based on James Watson’s 1968 book, The Double Helix, which documents not only the discovery of the structure of DNA, but also the personalities, conflicts, and controversy surrounding the work. The most striking controversy is Watson’s use of Maurice Wilkins to gain access to Rosalind Franklin’s Xray diffraction data before it had been published. There are several themes in the movie, the most prominent of which is the competitive nature of science. Watson and Crick worked together and the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge University. Wilkins and Franklin worked at King’s College in London. Watson never saw himself to be in competition with the researchers at King’s as much as he imagined himself in competition with fellow American Linus Pauling. Pauling’s son comes to work at Cavendish as a character in the film and stimulates the competitiveness of Watson by proxy. To be sure Watson and Crick, but Watson especially were motivated by the fame a accolades that would surely be lauded upon the first to discover the structure of DNA. In this competitiveness, however, the synthetic nature of science is revealed. In order to derive their structure, Watson and Crick used the work of Franklin to confirm the helical structure and also the work of Erwin Chargaff to determine the pairing properties of the nucleic bases, adenine pairs with thymine and cytosine pairs with guanine. Rosalind’s character remarks at the end of the film that it truly doesn’t matter who discovered the structure of DNA but that it was discovered. She feels that all scientists are working together in some way. To exemplify the “race” nature of the discovery of DNA, the movie notes that both Pauling and Watson created incorrect preliminary structures of DNA. Pauling’s was helical but involved three strands and ignored the acidic nature of DNA. The erroneous first structure of Watson and Crick was reported in a chapter of The Double Helix to be a result of Watson’s poor note-taking at a presentation by Franklin of her preliminary results. Watson wrote that he was distracted by thoughts of how good Franklin might look if she gave it some effort, a sentiment which any Harvard man may echo in regard to his own female classmates. Wikipedia photos of Franklin reveal her nose to be rather man-ish. This leads us to the last theme of The Race. The film is spares no opportunity to highlight the genderism of science. Most all of Franklin’s co-workers are male. She feel oppressed by the culture and therefore of ten works alone and does not socialize. Even if she felt the urge to socialize, she would find difficulty in doing so as the common rooms and staff dining rooms at King’s were for men only. Was science still an old boys club? Historical context: Wallace v. Darwin. Although Franklin’s research was crucial in the discovery of the structure of DNA, she was not awarded a Nobel Prize. She died before the awards were given of cancer likely caused by exposure to X-ray radiation while collecting the data necessary for the discovery of DNA’s structure. Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Sociobiology: Idea that genetic constitution is influential in our behaviour: “we are our genes”. This means that sociobiologists believe that human behaviour, as well as nonhuman animal behavior, can be explained as the outcome of natural selection. Very controversial because people do not like to think about behaviours (especially human behaviours) deterministically. Critics say for instance that sociobiology justifies racism because it is natural to "favour your kin as distinct from other races". Three Harvard professors, E. O. Wilson (for), Stephen Jay Gould and Dick Lewontin (against), debate about it. Natural History of Rape by Thornhill and Palmer says that rape is (biologically) a natural way to spread genes. Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene (1976), says that the gene is the unit of selection and the organism is just the machine of gene propagation. Edward O. Wilson Professor of entomology at Harvard. Worked on instincts and behaviours of ants. Wrote Sociobiology: A New Synthesis (1975) working through the behaviours of animals and finishes about how this relates to human behaviour. He is criticized for this extrapolation. Colleagues at Harvard and others wrote letter to NY Times saying, for example, that Wilson tries to justify human slavery because of its "universal existence in the biological kingdom." Wilson feels betrayed and responds that their statements were taken our context and are not his opinions. Expand this in On Human Nature (1978). More recently he has changed track to become a conciliatory figure in Creation (2000), saying that animals are not completely selfish and that altruism is also genetically programmed. Finds that humanity is not constrained by genes, more so by the cultural issues created by ourselves. Altruism By definition, altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of others. Debate about how this fits into evolution: survival of the fittest does not immediately imply altruistic behaviour and may actually imply the opposite. Utilitarian philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined term survival of the fittest in 1868) popularized the idea, believing that culmination of progress would be for people to receive most pleasure (utility) from altruism. Russian scientist Peter Kropotkin wrote Mutual Aid (1903), suggesting that the right way to interpret Darwinism is that altruism, not competition, is key. Richard Dawkins, "selfish gene" Overarching themes and context: Genes in society in the age of 20th century reductionism— this was when “biology suddenly went public” and the idea of an organism was continually reduced into a simple matter of genes. Much public and scientific controversy arose over this new dogma. Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins is a British scholar who pushed for a new arena of understanding for the field of evolutionary biology. He was the author of the 1976 book The Selfish Gene, in addition to the 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. His contribution to the genes in society debate fell within the realm of the sociobiologists. He was particularly famous for introducing the ideas of the gene as the primary unit of selection, and ruling out group selection—essentially making the organism a “gene-survival machine.” He used powerful metaphors to help make his ideas relatable to society as a whole—a means of making his theory more widely viable. Such metaphors included genes as policy makers, brains as the executive, and God as a “blind” watchmaker—a slap in the face to Paley’s watchmaker analogy. He stops short of making the claim that such selfishness is good; he merely states that the “selfishness” of the gene is inbuilt and natural. Dawkins is one of the modern class of “new atheists”—a class of unapologetic atheists who are staunchly against religion and aren’t afraid to “come out of the closet” and admit it. “The Selfish Gene” Dawkins used The Selfish Gene (1986) to outline his gene-centered perspective on evolution. Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have actual motives or will – only that their effects can be accurately described as if they do. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level. This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships (when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes). Proponents argue that the central point, that the gene is the unit of selection, usefully completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Charles Darwin before the basic mechanisms of genetics were understood. Critics argue that it oversimplifies the relationship between genes and the organism, and many find the view that genes are just using organisms as vehicles for survival offensive. Stephen Jay Gould Stephen Jay Gould was an American biology professor at Harvard, and stark antisociobiologist and anti-creationist. Using his model organism of expertise (the land snail), he believed in punctuated equilibrium (short blooms of rapid evolutionary diversification followed by long periods of steady stasis), not gradualist evolution as originally conceived by Darwin. However, Gould was not anti-Darwin, but instead put forth his theories as proposed revisions to certain mechanistic details of evolutionary theory. As much as he was a scientist, he was a social activist with strong left-wing views. He spoke out against E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology with Lewontin. An objection to sociobiology was that if certain mental and behavioral traits had a genetic basis, they could lead to racist interpretations. He is also well known for introducing the term ‘spandrel’, to denote evolutionary ‘hitchhikers’, physical features of an organism which themselves are not necessarily under natural selection, but has arisen with other selected characteristics. Creation Science Creation science is an approach used to prove creationism and disprove evolution through scientific arguments. Creation science is a good example of popular science (versus elite science) insofar as it contains elements of scientific thought and appeals to a large group of people, but generally does not meet standards of scientific evidence. Creation science is largely propagated through the Internet and other media sources. Key players include George McCready Price (offered $1000 prize for proof of the relative age of a fossil), Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research), Michael Behe (bacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity), Harun Yahya (Turkish Atlas of Creation). The 1981 McClean vs. Arkansas case directly pitted evolution science versus creation science, in which evolution science prevailed. The argument was that without religious overtones, creation science was simply a collection of unverified statements – not science. Creation science (and its defeat) represents a considerable shift from more traditional objections to evolution, attacking evolution on a scientific basis, not a theistic one. Henry M. Morris (1918 – 2006) Morris is from Texas, and has a degree in engineering. He lived and worked at the University of Virginia as a professor of engineering, until he was obliged to resign because of publishing and supporting creation research. He published a book named The Genesis Flood in 1961. In this book, he suggested that the only way to determine the true age of earth is for God to tell us, and the fossils do NOT provide the evidence. He said that God tells us the earth is a thousand years old. Morris is one of the founders of Creation Research Society, founded in 1963. He is also a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, founded in 1970. At the Institute for Creation Research, he put great efforts into expanding the institutional structure for creation science. He generated the Center for Christian Leadership. He also offered Degree programs on unconventional astronomy, biology, and geology. Morris was not a Seventh Day Adventist. But he believed in creation science, and was a young earth Creationist. Institute for Creation Research (San Diego, 1970) The institute is a center for creation research. It was founded by Henry Morris in 1970, and includes the Museum of Creation & Earth History which recreates the fossil records according to the days of the Creation. The museum displays cases such as human skulls, and the text reinterprets these remains in a biblical way. In this institute, Morris established the Center for Christian Leadership, and offered Degree programs such as astronomy, biology, and geology. These programs are offered in a creationoriented way. Reading #55 First Half: Creation Research Institutes Institute for Creation Research (ICR): Founded by Henry Morris. The work of the ICR encompassed three ministries: research, writing, and speaking. Despite its name, the institute conducted little research. One of the employees said that “Henry looks at this whole thing as a sort of missionary effort rather than a scientific one.” Even though with little research, the ICR published a lot of books to spread the idea of Creation Science. Debates between creationists and prominent evolutionists were frequently held on university campuses, and this helped the ICR to directly reach more audiences. In 1981, the ICR announced a program offering graduate degrees in various creationoriented sciences to provide an academic setting where creationist students would be free from discrimination. The first catalog for the new graduate school includes four M.S. degrees: in biology, geology, astro/geophysics, and science education. Because of both internal instability and external vulnerability, the graduate school barely survived its first decade of life. With its graduate program in jeopardy and creation science under a constitutional cloud, the ICR began recultivating old-fashioned biblical creationism, and launched a series of Back to Genesis seminars. This attracted huge crowds and raised a lot of money. Henry Morris institutionalized Creation Science in some fundamentalist Baptist colleges such as the Liberty Baptist, where it later on initiated a new extradepartmental unit called the Center for Creation Studies, where it has the world’s largest Creation museum. As Henry Morris got older, beset by declining energy and failing eyesight, he turned to his son John D. Morris for counsel and administrative assistance. John Morris later became his successor. Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) The Geoscience Research Institute is run by the Seventh-day Adventist church. Compared to the ICR, the GRI does more active research, and it gave birth to modern flood geology. Responding to the concerns of Adventist science teachers about the absence of qualified earth scientists in the denomination, church leaders set up a Committee on the Teaching of Geology and Paleontology. The set the roots of the GRI. Two scientists in the institute, Hare and Ritland, argued for greatly extending the age of the earth from thousands to billions of years and for drastically reducing the number of fossil-bearing strata deposited by the flood, which is in direct contradiction to the Bible. Hare and Ritland wanted to use the new institute as a vehicle for moving their church to a more scientifically defensible position. In 1962, Ritland wrote an unpublished paper on “Problems and Methods in Earth History,” and pointed out that a careful study of the sedimentary strata indicated that multiple catastrophes, not just Genesis flood, had sculpted the crust of the earth. Thus to continue defending flood geology would “only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God.” Hare did research on amino-acid ratios in marine shells, and the results indicated that life had been on earth far longer than traditionally allowed by Adventists. When he reported this to the church leaders, he was told that “the primary purpose of the GRI was to read, write and study to look for inconsistencies in the evolutionary writings that appear, rather than do original research.” In 1970, Ritland published a book named A Search for Meaning in Nature: A New Look at Creation and Evolution. In this book, he mentioned that the fundamental question was not creation versus evolution but “whether the earth is a product of accident or of plan and design.” He conceded that fossil record did not rule out the possibility of some kind of evolution, and privately, he had come to accept the antiquity of life on earth and to see Noah’s flood as a local event of limited geological significance. The later leaders of the institute positioned the GRI to devote itself to salvaging what it could of flood geology. As a result, the staff scientists who resisted the deluge found themselves without a platform and eventually without a job. Intelligent design – a movement that supports the theory that some features and processes of the universe and of living things are too complex to have come about by natural selection, so much so that might have come about some other way, most likely a designer that might or might not be God. Intelligent design attempted to avoid being associated with creationism, which was being increasingly marginalized scientifically; rather, ID attempted to establish itself as a valid alternative scientific theory to natural selection, and pushed for legal acceptance in public school curricula. ID represents a modern instance of conflict between religion and evolution theory. Unlike creation science, ID reflects an attempt by its proponents to establish legitimacy as a valid, debatable theory, using evolution’s own tools – the tools of science. The split between ID and creation science is also indicative of how fractured and complicated the anti-evolution movement has become. Michael Behe – part of the intelligent design movement, Behe introduced the idea of irreducible complexity in the book Darwin’s Black Box. This is basically the idea of a system composed of several interacting parts contributing to the main function, in which the removal of any one part causes the function to stop working. He uses the bacterial flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex biological mechanism. Intelligent designers use the irreducible complexity argument to question the universal applicability of natural selection, claiming that natural selection could produce irreducibly complex systems, which are present in nature. Behe’s publication represents one of ID’s first significant steps into the public outside of being a marginalized faction, as Darwin’s Black Box was the first pro-ID or pro-creationist book published by a trade publisher. Ultimately, ID was able to build on the attention generated by these and other publications and events to establish in the minds of many that a valid controversy existed about Darwinism. ‘Intelligent Design’ in ‘The Creationists’ p. 451 I. The mid-1990s was characterized by a shift in attention from scientific creationism to intelligent design (ID). ID claimed to take a more scientific approach than creationism; it attempted to ideologically avoid creationism’s emphasis on flood geology, and instead seek evidence that a designer, possibly but not necessarily God, was involved in life’s origins. II. Origins A. The Mystery of Life’s Origin – written in 1984 by three Protestant Scientists, Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Featured a forward written by Dean H. Kenyon, professor at San Francisco State University and coauthor of a major textbook on chemical origins to life. B. Evolution: Theory in Crisis – written in 1986 by Michael Denton, arguing that evidence of divine design exists in nature C. The Blind Watchmaker – opposition book written in 1986 by Richard Dawkins, denouncing creationism and dismissing Genesis, as well as religion in general. Ultimately Dawkins’ outspoken criticism may have indirectly benefited ID by drawing media attention to it III. Pandas and People, the first book to explicitly promote ID, was published in 1989. Written as a supplement to high school biology textbooks, and originally conceived to promote creation science, it was revised to be an ID book after the 1987 Supreme Court decision against teaching creation science. IV. Darwin on Trial – written by Phillip E. Johnston in 1991, a law professor at UC Berkeley, criticizing evolution. Specifically, he criticized the assumption that naturalism was the only legitimate way of doing science, which unfairly limited the range of possible explanation and ruled out from the start any consideration of theistic factors. A. Wedge strategy formulated by Johnson to penetrate this “materialist” philosophy. B. Johnson and ID under heavy attack from all sides, including creation scientists, who dislike ID for not emphasizing the Bible enough, not incorporating flood geology, and not directly mentioning Genesis or God. Simultaneously, ID tried to stay away ideologically from creationism C. Stephen Jay Gould and Daniel C. Dennett both condemn Darwin on Trial V. “Big tent” conferences in 1992, 1993 during which many antievolutionists gather VI. Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC) founded to overthrow “scientific materialism” VII. Darwin’s Black Box – written by Michael Behe in 1996. This was the first major instance of a trade press to publish a work supporting ID or creationism. In it, he advanced the theory of “irreducible complexity”, in which he described processes and functions complex enough to involve several parts that he claimed could not have evolved because that function could not have been possible without all parts present. VIII. William Dembski hoped to spark an “intellectual revolution” that would rewrite the rules of science to allow the inclusion of supernatural explanations of phenomena. IX. Meanwhile, some ID proponents tried to introduce ID to public schools, with limited success. A. Rodney LeVake removed from teaching biology for exposing students to ID and irreducible complexity; sued repeatedly but never won B. Roger DeHart removed from teaching biology for using Of Pandas and People. C. Minor success in Kansas, when Kansas State Board of Education voted to delete teaching violation, big bang and long geological ages from recommended science standards. This was rescinded and then reinstituted, and called for teachers to challenge evolution in the classroom. D. Mirecki affair – chair of religious studies department at University of Kansas deposed for crude remarks, course on “Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies” cancelled; later claimed that he was beat up – big embarrassment for progressives in Kansas E. Ohio Board of Education approved a lesson plan aimed to teach students to think about evolution critically; this was ultimately rescinded F. School board of a small town in Wisconsin voted to teach students strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory; later a bill passed to require science instruction to be confined to material both “testable as a scientific hypothesis and describe[ing] only natural processes.” X. Santorum amendment, which called for students to learn about controversy surrounding evolution, proposed but then downgraded XI. ID involved in a series of mishaps with the Smithsonian Institution A. Peer-reviewed ID journal article turned out to have been guided through the review process by a research associate at the Smithsonian that was interested in creation science/ID. B. Discovery Institute announces that Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History was cosponsoring an ID movie; Smithsonian bows out of co-sponsorship XII. Dover decision (2005) determines that ID is not science and that it is unconstitutional to teach it in public schools XIII. Controversy over the position of Catholics over evolution and design; Pope John Paul II believed that evolution was “more than just a hypothesis” in 1996; later Pope Benedict XVI expressed his support for the idea that the universe was a result of an “intelligent project” XIV. Ultimately ID was successful in creating the impression that there existed a serious scientific controversy about Darwinism, despite some lingering confusion still about the distinction between ID and creation science. This was reflected in media headlines. Scientific attacks on ID helped to draw more widespread attention to it. Irreducible complexity also known as (IC) is used by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have emerged from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations. Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution. Accordingly, the debate on irreducible complexity concerns two questions: whether irreducible complexity can be found in nature, and what significance it would have if it did exist in nature. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, (the other one is specified complexity) The argument was created by Michael Behe and he defines a system as irreducible complex when it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.” Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by creationists, particularly intelligent design proponents. Many scientists call it a pseudoscience. Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District This was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prior to the case, the School Board instituted the following principles that would be taught to 9th grade biology: Students will learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution. Emphasize Darwin’s theory is just a theory, and it has gaps for which no evidence has been found. ID is an alternative explanation of the origin of life. A book “Of Pandas and People” will be available to any student interested in learning about ID. It is not mandatory. Encourage students to keep an “open mind” and leave the discussion of the Origin of Life to individual students and their families. Teaching of Darwin’s theory is for standards-based assessments. The plaintiff argues that Argue that ID’s “master intellect” or designer is really just God, making it no different from religion. No viable alternative other than God—or space aliens and timetraveling cell biologists—have been proposed. They use this to argue that ID is no scientific. They then provide a number of arguments and historical references to ID’s development as a scheme by Christians to push creationism under the guise of ID. They criticize the book “On Padas and People” by the same logic. Argue that the change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred around 1987, after the Supreme Court’s Edwards decision. Plaintiff’s main argument: ID is creationism relabeled. The court found that “the [School] Board’s ID policy violates the Establishment Clause.” By doing so the court found that ID is not science and “cannot uncouple itself from creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” The court preemptively defends against being labeled an “activist” court and softens the ruling suggesting that ID should continue to be “studied, debated, and discussed” but just not in schools as an alternative to evolution.