The Dispersal of Darwin

From Stages of Succession:

What is even more depressing is how easy it is for religious topics to sneak into the National Curriculum. This is the specification for Edexcel GCSE Science, the qualification UK students take at age 16:

Students will be assessed on their ability to:

• Demonstrate an understanding of the principles of natural selection, to include:
  - How individuals within a species can have characteristics that promote more successful reproduction (survival of the fittest)
  - How, over generations, the effects of natural selection result in changes within species and the formation of new species from genetic variants or mutants that are better adapted to their environment
  - How species that are less well-adapted to a changing environment can become extinct
• Explain how fossils provide evidence for evolution
• Discuss why Charles Darwin experienced difficulty in getting his theory of evolution through natural selection accepted by the scientific community in the 19th century

Is that last point a bad thing? Surely there were scientific critiques of Darwin’s theory – on the age of the earth and the time needed for evolution to occur, on Darwin not having an answer for the mechanism for inheritance, etc. Not sure that having students “Discuss why Charles Darwin experienced difficulty in getting his theory of evolution through natural selection accepted by the scientific community in the 19th century” is sneaking religious topics into the National Curriculum. There is a history to Darwin and his theory, one that should definitely be part of the teaching of the science part of it. Darwin’s theory was not accepted by all, based on scientific and religious grounds. Students should learn that, as well as that evolution is accepted by a vast majority of scientists today, and the dissent comes from largely religious groups, some of which masquerade their critiques as “science.”

Due in December:

In the Light of Evolution: Essays from the Laboratory and Field

Edited by Jonathan Losos

Summary: In the Light of Evolution is a collection of essays by leading scientists, including Edmund Brodie III, James Curtsinger, Ted Daeschler, Douglas Emlen, Harry Greene, Luke Harmon, Hopi Hoekstra, Daniel Lieberman, Jonathan Losos, Axel Meyer, Teri J. Orr, Naomi Pierce, David C. Queller, Neil Shubin, David Reznick, Michael Ryan, and Marlene Zuk. The book also includes essays by science writers Carl Zimmer, Andrew Berry, historian Janet Browne, and a foreword by journalist David Quammen. As David Quammen says in his foreword, the book collects “reports from the field, plainspoken descriptions of lifetime obsessions, hard-earned bits of wisdom, and works in progress, pried loose from some of the most interesting, eminent researchers in evolutionary biology….” It is a book “for readers who are fascinated by evolutionary biology and who desire to understand better the day-by-day, speciesby-species, ecosystem-by-ecosystem texture of its practice as a scientific profession.”

The Amazon listing is calling it In the Light of Evolution: Essays from Leading Evolutionary Biologists for whatever reason…

Henry Sidgwick (May 31, 1838–August 28, 1900)

From the journal Biology and Philosophy (June 2010):

Methods of ethics and the descent of man: Darwin and Sidgwick on ethics and evolution

Lillehammer, Hallvard

Abstract Darwin’s treatment of morality in The Descent of Man has generated a wide variety of responses among moral philosophers. Among these is the dismissal of evolution as irrelevant to ethics by Darwin’s contemporary Henry Sidgwick; the last, and arguably the greatest, of the Nineteenth Century British Utilitarians. This paper offers a re-examination of Sidgwick’s response to evolutionary considerations as irrelevant to ethics and the absence of any engagement with Darwin’s work in Sidgwick’s main ethical treatise, The Methods of Ethics. This assessment of Sidgwick’s response to Darwin’s work is shown to have significance for a number of ongoing controversies in contemporary metaethics.

The September 2010 issue of Biology and Philosophy looks at the Tree of Life:

The tree of life: introduction to an evolutionary debate
Author(s): Maureen A. O’Malley, William Martin & John Dupré
PP: 441 – 453

The attempt on the life of the Tree of Life: science, philosophy and politics
Author: W. Ford Doolittle
PP: 455 – 473

The series, the network, and the tree: changing metaphors of order in nature
Author: Olivier Rieppel
PP: 475 – 496

Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?
Author: James Mallet
PP: 497 – 527

Ernst Mayr, the tree of life, and philosophy of biology
Author: Maureen A. O’Malley
PP: 529 – 552

Microbiology and the species problem
Author: Marc Ereshefsky
PP: 553 – 568

The myth of bacterial species and speciation
Author(s): Jeffrey G. Lawrence & Adam C. Retchless
PP: 569 – 588

Natural taxonomy in light of horizontal gene transfer
Author(s): Cheryl P. Andam, David Williams & J. Peter Gogarten
PP: 589 – 602

Evaluating Maclaurin and Sterelny’s conception of biodiversity in cases of frequent, promiscuous lateral gene transfer
Author: Gregory J. Morgan
PP: 603 – 621

Symbiosis, lateral function transfer and the (many) saplings of life
Author: Frédéric Bouchard
PP: 623 – 641

Lifeness signatures and the roots of the tree of life
Author: Christophe Malaterre
PP: 643 – 658

Gene sharing and genome evolution: networks in trees and trees in networks
Author: Robert G. Beiko
PP: 659 – 673

Testing for treeness: lateral gene transfer, phylogenetic inference, and model selection
Author(s): Joel D. Velasco & Elliott Sober
PP: 675 – 687

Trashing life’s tree
Author: L. R. Franklin-Hall
PP: 689 – 709

On the need for integrative phylogenomics, and some steps toward its creation
Author(s): Eric Bapteste & Richard M. Burian
PP: 711 – 736

For the sake of getting these links out there, I’m just copying my tweets here:

#1 – Hey, Discovery Institute, he’s referring to you when he says “stupid people’s brains”: http://bit.ly/9VBS6p #Darwin #evolution

#2 – Re: my last tweet, more: http://bit.ly/av9Hls & http://bit.ly/bmz8v6 / @PZMyers has his say: http://bit.ly/b0LtEE #Darwin #evolution

And so what if this crazy guy was obsessed with Darwin, does that discredit the science. Absolutely not. This is really getting old.

Piers Hale, an historian of science at the University of Oklahoma, taught over the summer a month-long Study Abroad course in Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands: HSCI 4970/5970 Charles Darwin and Galapagos: Solving the “mystery of mysteries.” Undergraduate students took both a zoology course in evolutionary ecology and a course on the history of evolutionary thought. Plus, exploring the places and following in the footsteps… not a bad way to get some credits! Piers hopes this can become a regularly offered course.

He has been posting pictures on his Facebook page, so I share here some Darwin-specific shots with his permission.

Here’s a shot from the University of San Francisco in Quito, Ecuador, of Darwin and Wallace (George will like this one):

Darwin bust:

Darwin bust:

Darwin statue:

Charles Darwin:

The bay where the Beagle dropped anchor 15 September 1835:

The bay where the Beagle dropped anchor 15 September 1835:

Avenue 12th February, San Cristobal:

An iguana for Darwin:

That Darwin bust again, nice sunset:

Convention center named after Darwin:

On the grounds of the Charles Darwin Research Station on Santa Cruz Island:

I’m jealous…

The Darwin Correspondence Project’s “Darwin and Gender” project has a Twitter feed: @DarwinWomen, “Charles Darwin’s women correspondents speak out!”

BBC News: Charles Darwin’s ecological experiment on Ascension isle

Science, Reason and Critical Reasoning: Modern Science Map (I’m sure there’s much that could be said about the way this is set up, but I’m just going to enjoy the awesomeness of it and not try and find any mistakes, misses, etc.).

Guardian science blogs (via Noticing/Science)

Four Nails in Darwin’s Coffin, oh my!

The 27th edition of Carnival of Evolution has just been posted at 360 Skeptic. Click here to get yer fill.



From 2002 at the AMNH, via NCSE,

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Jai of From the Hands of Quacks is, like me last year, seeking information about the use of history of science blogs. She has put together an informal survey for either history of science bloggers themselves or those who read history of science blogs. It will only take a few moments, so I would appreciate your participating!

Here’s her post, and the survey page.

Also, if you could link to the survey on your blogs, Facebook, or retweet my tweet, I’m sure she would be delighted…

From Situating Science | Science in Human Contexts:

Revisiting Evolutionary Naturalism: New Perspectives on Victorian Science and Culture

Node Workshop
May 6 – 7th, 2011
York University, Toronto, Canada

Ever since the 1970’s, when Robert Young and Frank Turner treated T. H. Huxley, John Tyndall, and their allies as posing an effective challenge to the authority of the Anglican clergy, scholars have found the term “scientific naturalism,” or “evolutionary naturalism,” to be a useful shorthand for referring to an influential group of like-minded elite intellectuals. But over the years, questions have been raised about the cohesiveness and the cultural status of scientific naturalism. Is the term elastic enough to include both the idealist and romantic Karl Pearson as well as the hard-nosed materialist Charles Bastian? Just how powerful were the scientific naturalists if they disagreed amongst themselves on key issues, and if, as many recent studies have suggested, they were confronted by a host of effective opponents in addition to Anglican clergymen, including North British physicists, Oxbridge trained gentlemen of science, self-trained popularizers of science, philosophical idealists, spiritualists, feminists, anti-vivisectionists, and socialists? Indeed, how far were the practices and writings of scientific naturalists actually shaped by their interchanges with such myriad opponents?

In this workshop we hope to explore new perspectives on the British scientific naturalists, re-examining their interactions with each other and with other groups within the larger culture. Speakers include Ruth Barton, Peter J. Bowler, Gowan Dawson, James Elwick, Jim Endersby, George Levine, Bernard Lightman, Ted Porter, Evelleen Richards, Joan Richards, Michael Reidy, Jonathan Smith, Robert Smith, Matthew Stanley, Michael Taylor, Frank Turner, and Paul White. The workshop will take place at 320 Bethune College, York University, Toronto, Canada on May 6th and 7th, 2011. It is sponsored by York University, SSHRC, and by Situating Science.

Barton, Dawson, Elwick, Lightman, Reidy, and Stanley are all part of the John Tyndall Correspondence Project. I’m hoping to attend.

Stephen Jay Gould‘s collections of Natural History essays were some of the first books about evolution I explored in high school. It’s nice to hear his voice. The NCSE posted this video of Gould discussing creationism & fossils while reminsicing on his involvement in McLean v. Arkansas (1981):

He also has with him a few really old books. When seeing him interviewed from his office in various documentaries, I always thought his library would be awesome to look through:

From the New York Times of January 24, 1986:

TV WEEKEND; ‘SMITHSONIAN WORLD’ TRACKS SCIENTIFIC SLEUTH

By JOHN CORRY

”SMITHSONIAN WORLD” has always been a good series. ”On the Shoulders of Giants,” the episode tomorrow night, is one of its best. Indeed, it is everything that a program about natural science is supposed to be. It will be shown on Channel 13 at 8 o’clock.

For one thing, it’s intelligent; for another, it’s wonderfully entertaining. It spends most of its time following a young scientist, David Steadman, who looks in passing like the actor Kris Kristofferson, as he scrambles around the Galapagos and Cook Islands.

Mr. Steadman, trained in ornithology, biology, geology and zoology, is looking for fossils. That might not sound like much fun to watch, but it is. The photography is wonderful. Mr. Steadman’s venues – beaches, forests, rock formations, caves – are unspoiled. We may not be able to visit, but this is the next best thing.

Moreover, the production has a feeling of playfulness. ”Smithsonian World” has always suggested that science isn’t a bad way of life. ”On the Shoulders of Giants” is positively overt about this. Thus, David McCullough, the knowledgable, intelligent and utterly-at-ease host of the program, watches Mr. Steadman sift through old bones.

”You’ve really got a good job, don’t you?” he says.

”I don’t complain,” Mr. Steadman replies.

How could he? We see him hobnobbing with marine iguanas, sea lions and giant tortoises. It’s a terrific job. Among other things, he’s proved that the giant rice rat and giant ground finch really existed.

The thread running through the program, as reflected in its title, is that Mr. Steadman is building on the work of Charles Darwin. This is no mere gimmick. Whereas Darwin, who began thinking about evolution when he visited the Galapagos in 1835, was on the islands only once, Mr. Steadman has been there seven times. Among other things, he has reclassified some of Darwin’s old evidence, and identified species that have vanished since Darwin’s visit.

The program, whose executive producer is Martin Carr, also visits Darwin’s old home, the British Museum, Tahiti and Mangaia. This last is a rugged, rocky outpost of the Cook Islands, and is home to some 1,200 Polynesians. ”On the Shoulders of Giants” savors some of their culture: dancing, churchgoing and stories of a ferocious, warlike past. This is a rewarding and well-done production.

Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education, you can read an excerpt from Ian McCalman’s Darwin’s Armada: Four Voyages and the Battle for the Theory of Evolution here, it’s a PDF!

From Claire Inman of the Linnean Society:

Darwin’s family tree rediscovered

The Galton-Darwin-Wedgwood pedigree, first exhibited in 1932, has been found in the archives of Truman State University

A poster of the Galton-Darwin-Wedgwood pedigree was prepared by Harry Hamilton Laughlin, Director of the Eugenics Record Office of the Carnegie Institute, and exhibited at the Third International Congress of Eugenics in 1932 at the American Museum of Natural History.

A photograph of this poster has been discovered in the archives of Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri alongside a photograph of a poster of a collection of rare Darwin family photographs, assembled by Leonard Darwin. The original posters have not been located.

Professor Tim Berra FLS, The Ohio State University, has made this information and associated images available to Darwin scholars world-wide in a paper in volume 101, Issue 1, September 2010 of The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Professor Berra said “The newly available pedigree and photographs open a window into the family life of Charles Darwin, the man. He was a husband, brother, father and grandfather, and, along the way, he also had the greatest idea ever had by the human mind.”

The Galton-Darwin-Wedgwood family is descended from the prominent 18th century doctor Erasmus Darwin; Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the pottery firm Josiah Wedgwood and Sons and Samuel John Galton, an arms manufacturer. The family contains at least ten Fellows of the Royal Society, several artists and poets and of course Charles Darwin who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution and transformed the way we think about the natural world and our place in it.

Here’s a link to the paper mentioned.

an image from the article

What would Darwin say to today’s creationists? w/ Eugenie Scott:

Via T. Ryan Gregory (blog / Twitter / Evolver Zone)

Today in 1858, the Linnean Society published the Darwin and Wallace papers read before the society that previous July 1st:

“On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection,” By Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S.., & F.G.S., and Alfred Wallace, Esq. Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell, F.R.S., F.L.S., and J.D. Hooker, Esq., M.D., V.P.R.S., F.L.S., &c.

Go to the Linnean Society website for:

‘The reading of the Darwin and Wallace papers: an historical “non-event”‘ By J. W. T. MOODY, F.L.S., J. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. (1971) 5 (6): 474-476

About the Darwin-Wallace Paper

The Darwin-Wallace Paper (complete)

Happy reading!

Oh, the image above is Wallace’s copy of the published papers, with handwritten comments about On the Origin of Species on the right, taken on my visit to the Natural History Museum, London in November 2009:

1860. Feb.

After reading on Darwin’s admirable work “On the Origin of Species”, I find that there is absolute nothing here that is not in almost perfect agreement with that gentlemans facts & opinions.

His work however touches upon & explains in detail many points which I had scarcely thought upon, – as the laws of variation, correlation of growth, sexual selection, the origin of instincts & of neuter insects, & the true explanation of Embryological affinities. Many of his facts & explanations in geographical distribution are also quite new to me & of the highest interest.

AR Wallace [signed] … Amboina

Much more about Wallace’s annotated copy of this publication can be had in chapter 4 of Natural Selection and Beyond: The Intellectual Legacy of Alfred Russel Wallace, edited by Charles H. Smith and George Beccaloni.

Not new, but I just came across this from the June 2008 issue of Science as Culture:

The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel

Matthew J. Tontonoz

Abstract To many observers, the recent evolution wars in the US seem a revival of the historic 1925 Scopes trial, with William Jennings Bryan cast as the intellectual forbearer of today’s creationists and proponents of intelligent design. This paper argues against drawing too close a parallel between these two episodes. Using Bryan’s unread closing remarks as a key to his views, this revisionist historical work argues that Bryan opposed evolution primarily for political and ethical reasons—reasons that have been lost to historical memory. Bryan’s overarching concern was the threat to society posed by extrapolations of evolutionary doctrine—namely, Social Darwinism and eugenics. His commitment to the Social Gospel put him at odds with the concept of natural selection being applied to humans. This view of Bryan differs from the one with which we are most familiar. Our faulty historical memory largely reflects the caricatured view of Scopes spawned by the movie Inherit the Wind, a view that, furthermore, reinforces an unhelpful positivistic view of science.

Beck: “I am not a history teacher.” No shit, Sherlock.

On his program today, Beck espoused the anti-evolutionist claim that Darwin is somehow responsible for racism; he seems to imply that Darwin can be traced to the practice of slavery in America. Slavery, however, was an institution that predated Darwin’s birth and one which he was revolted by (during the Beagle voyage and, as some historians have argued, led to his developing a theory of evolution with common descent). He surprises his viewers with the historical connection between abolitionist Wedgwood with his famous image “Am I Not a Man and a Brother? and his grandson Charles Darwin. Darwin was…. wait for it… “the father of modern-day racism.” Yes, a famous abolitionist had a famous racist for a grandson. But, Darwin was himself a passionate abolitionist, and any claims of racism must be taken in context of the time he lived.

In the beginning of this segment (at this link), Beck urged his viewers to go out and read and get the information for themselves. Why, then, Beck, do you depend on misleading anti-evolutionist propaganda about Darwin and don’t go out and read about it for yourself? Here’s two suggestions: Voyage of the Beagle and Darwin’s Sacred Cause.