evolve

Is the Universe Expanding or is it an illusion?

kaykiser

Is the universe expanding from a Big Bang or is it a misinterpretation of the redshift of light?

The Big Bang and the expanding universe probably are illusions that fit the progressive agenda of an ever evolving universe.

It also closes the door on the infinite series of cause and effect that requires a first cause outside the system to get it started, aka God/ creator/ overarching, pre-existing force.  If time itself began with the Big Bang, there can be no “before,” thus cutting off any consideration of a first cause.

The Big Bang theory is based on three things:

1.) An interpretation of the redshift of light from other galaxies as speed of recession,

2.) One of many solutions to Einstein’s field equations that favored an expanding universe. Einstein’s own solution included a cosmological constant that resulted in a non-expanding universe.

3.) The Cosmic Microwave Background (or CMB) interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang.

Redshift is really the shift of the dark absorption lines of elements to longer, redder, wavelengths. Hydrogen is usually used because of its abundance.

Before discussing redshift to distance let me set the stage. It’s the 1920s.

Before telescopes were powerful enough to see individual stars in other galaxies, our galaxy was assumed to be the entire universe and galaxies were assumed to be clouds of glowing gas called nebulae (meaning clouds) within our galaxy.

We now estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Cepheid variable stars with the same variability period had been determined to be the same brightness everywhere, which made them a “standard candle” to determine distance, first in our galaxy and then in other galaxies. When individual stars were first seen in other galaxies, using the most powerful telescope of the time, nebulae were identified as other “island universes,” aka galaxies.

Redshift of galaxy cluster (right) vs. solar spectrum

Redshift of stars in our galaxy were determined to be caused by their speed moving away from us. The faster, the greater the redshift by the Doppler Effect, where light is “stretched” by the speed of the source.

Redshifts in nebulae (nearby galaxies) were known to be greater than redshifts within our own galaxy.

Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift to distance relationship for nearby galaxies, based on Cepheid variable stars within them. By this he calculated that farther is redder.

Because the redshift from nearby stars in our galaxy had been recognized as indicating their speed away from us, this new redshift was assumed to mean speed of recession of galaxies.

Hubble noted that the redshift to distance relationship was only linear if he assumed fixed, not receding galaxies.

He was also uncomfortable with the extreme speeds calculated from redshift which were rapidly approaching the speed of light with increasing distance.

His redshift to distance calculations resulted in very small universe with a “Big Bang” point of origin only 2 billion years ago, which is less than the calculated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. Later adjustments extended it to 13.7 years ago, which is still only 3 times the age of the earth.

He spent the rest of his life trying to convince others that they were wrong about redshift meaning speed of recession.

Today’s redshift calculations exclude nearby galaxies as being affected by gravity of the Local Group of galaxies.

Cosmological and relativistic terms have been added to the calculations, so the relationship is no longer linear

A redshift of 1, as a simple ratio, is equal to the speed of light; we now have redshifts greater than 8.

This made it necessary for cosmologists to assume that space itself between galaxies is expanding faster than the speed of light, the upper limit of speed for ordinary matter.

 Fritz Zwicky, a contemporary of  Hubble, proposed that the red shift is from loss of energy by gravitational interaction over time that fits observations better than other non-speed related theories.

To be a valid theory, the redshift must occur uniformly for the entire spectrum and not blur or obscure distant objects by scattering light. All theories based on repeated collisions in space do not fit these requirements.

History rewritten: Modern cosmologists claim Zwicky’s theory was about collisions. His original paper[1] discussed collision related theories and eliminated them in favor of gravitational influence over time and distance.

More recently Steven Weinberg and others have raised speculation that mirrored Zwicky’s theory of gravitational influence over time causing red shifts, but they were not ready to abandon the expanding universe paradigm.

“The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light…in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.” Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler,  quoted in “Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered,” by Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg, Sky &Telescope, February 1993 issue.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is interpreted as the far red shifted afterglow of the Big Bang. However, the temperature of thinly dispersed matter in space as a result of residual starlight was earlier calculated and predicted by Guillaume, (5 K < T < 6 K),26 Eddington, (T = 3.1 K), Regener and Nernst, (T = 2.8 K), McKellar and Herzberg, (T = 2.3 K), Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, (1.9 K < T < 6.0 K) based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion.[2]  Penzias and Wilson experimentally found the cosmic microwave background radiation to be consistent with a temperature of 2.7 K. Gamow, who had claimed to be the originator of the Big Bang Theory, also erroneously claimed he had been the first to predict the background temperature and claimed the result as evidence for the Big Bang. However, his estimate was not only not the first, but was 7 K with an upper limit of 50K.

Did Einstein really say his cosmological constant (for a non-expanding universe) was his biggest mistake? 

The so-called Einstein quote that his cosmological constant was the “biggest blunder” of his life was only claimed by George Gamow  in 1970, 15 years after Einstein died.

Einstein’s friends and research associates denied it but claimed that, if he said it, it was a joke. (the polite way to avoid calling Gamow a liar.)

Conclusion: If the universe is not expanding from a Big Bang, it can be far larger and much older than the Big Bang theory allows. The observable universe, observed back to approx. 13.5 billion years, may be a small corner of a much grander universe, which could allow more time for formation of galaxies and larger structures without the proposed dark matter influence. Exotic inventions such as expanding space, dark energy and dark matter may not be necessary.  Recent work using  near-infrared data from the Spitzer space telescope to more accurately estimate mass of numerous galaxies explains galaxy rotation speeds without resorting to exotic dark matter.[3]

 

[1] Original Report: “On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space,” By F. Zwicky, Norman Bridge Laboratory Of Physics, California Institute Of Technology,  August 26, 1929

[2] History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson” A. K. T. Assis, Instituto de Fisica “Gleb Wataghin” Universidade Estadual deCampinas 13083-970 Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brasil M. C. D. Neves Departamento de Fisica Universidade Estadual de Maringa 87020-900 Maringa, PR, Brasil

[3] “The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies,” by Stacy S. McGaugh and Federico Lelli, Department of Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, James M. Schombert, Department of Physics, University of Oregon (Dated: September 21, 2016)    arXiv: 1609.05917v1 astro-physics. GA

Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

Darwin, Pangenesis & Acquired Characteristics

kaykiser

Darwin’s Claims

Worker ants of various castes and two large queens
Leaf Cutter Ants – Worker ants of various castes and two large queens

Darwin thought cells were simple bags of gel.  He knew nothing of DNA or any other cellular structures.  He believed that inheritance was through “Gemmules” that each cell shed and that traveled to the gametes (sperm and egg).  Since each cell “voted” it was called pangenesis. He believed that the life experiences of the parents were passed on to their offspring in this way. He believed evolutionary incremental changes occurred by passing these life experiences on to subsequent generations.

Darwin’s Dilemma

Colony insects were a problem for Darwin.  If life experiences were passed on, how does a queen ant, who has never experienced foraging for food, pass on the behavior of the worker ants who hunt for food and bring it back to the colony?

His theory of evolution taught that use and disuse along with adaptation to environmental changes experienced by parents were passed on and were responsible for the changes seen between species by gradual changes over time, coupled with natural selection aka survival of the fittest.  How is this any different from J-B Lamarck’s theory of acquired characteristics, which was discredited as having no foundation?  Did acceptance for Darwin’s theory and not Lamarck’s have more to do with politics and marketing than science?

Modern Evolutionary Biologists’ Dilemma

Obviously, modern evolutionary biologists found pangenesis and inheritance of acquired traits embarrassing, so, in the early 20th century they changed the theory to include genetics with an emphasis on natural selection and called it Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis. Later, they included DNA and an unsupported assumption that mutations over time gradually built up structures well before they were functional.  Although Darwin is still revered as if he had everything right, this form of Evolutionary theory is grossly different from the original Darwinian theory except for the assumption of natural selection and unlimited gradual changes producing new species over time.

 

Darwinian Evolution: Science or Philosophy? part 2

kaykiser
michelangelo-sistine-chapel-adam
Adam by Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel

To be scientific, a theory must deal only with the matter or processes with which we can or possibly could interact, it must be verifiable, falsifiable and testable, and it should predict future outcomes based on experimental data. What question could possibly be asked to make Evolution falsifiable? Until recently we would say None. As we have seen, Evolution allows for survival of Panchronic species throughout time, but also allows for change through slight modifications. Neither can falsify the philosophy, so it is not science by this criteria.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.”

— Charles Darwin

“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

— Charles Darwin

What about the biochemical complexity? If you include that, and allow that some structures or processes could not possibly be built up through generations of gradual change, could that falsify Evolution? Potentially, yes. The almost infinitely complex biochemistry of the cell, rather than supporting Evolution, is the greatest challenge to it. The more that we discover about the biochemistry of processes within living things, the less likely it is that undirected Evolution is the only or any explanation at all. Since each gradual step in a series of changes would have to make the organism more fit than its predecessors many generations before the resulting structure fills the function it will ultimately perform, any step that is not advantageous would not be selected, according to the theory.

OK, then if each step would exist well before the ultimate function, wouldn’t there be in each organism on earth a lot of junk DNA or nonfunctioning proteins or organs? The answer seems obvious: yes. Do we find this?   No. As for the proteins that perform all of the functions of the cell, useless or interfering material is usually only found in defective cells causing disease, e.g. PKU or Sickle Cell. Useless enzymes are quickly destroyed if they are formed at all. Enzymes are only produced in response to current needs as defined by a complex system of feedback communication within the cell.

As for DNA, we don’t know yet whether there are actual proto-genes lurking there. Genes, which are sections of DNA wrapped around companion proteins (Histones), are separated by sections of so-called “junk” DNA (Introns) for which we, as yet, know next to nothing about their functions. Could Introns be the missing nonfunctioning proto-genes? Possibly, and that is the assumption of some Evolutionists. But remember that any “junk” must also have a survival advantage over predecessors, so it must function in some way. Regardless of what you may have read in the popular press, we are just scratching the surface on understanding the DNA code (or codes).

The only sections we really know anything about are those that encode for proteins ( about 1%) used as either structural elements or enzymes that perform various cell functions, along with certain signals such as start, stop, zip and unzip used in replication or repair. We don’t even understand why the units encoding for certain enzymes are broken up into sections, sometimes on separate genes along the DNA strand or why the RNA that is assembled from the DNA template is usually cut and/or rearranged before it carries the instructions from the nucleus to the ribosomes where the proteins are assembled from component amino acids. Development is another important area where we lack understanding. How does a fertilized egg differentiate to form a complete creature? We can describe what happens at each step, but have yet to formulate a comprehensive theory of how the instructions are timed, given and received. Much research is being done in this area, but results are sketchy and incomplete at this time.

Intelligent Design and Creationism(s)

If Evolution is a philosophy or belief system and not fully science, what about Intelligent Design, and what is it anyway? Intelligent Design (ID), like Evolution, is a philosophy that uses science as its basis. It is a theory that the very complexity and improbability of the universe and life processes necessarily implies an intelligence or greater principle behind it all. ID does not say what (or who) that intelligence is or connect it with any particular faith based belief system. ID proponents accept the possibility that some of Evolution’s claims are true, but challenge the validity of other conclusions, particularly unguided chance as the only source of biological progress.

If gradual assembly, step by step, of complex systems, from DNA to hearts, by random chance is statistically impossible or implausible, it rules out chance as a cause. That leaves necessity and design as possible causes. ID contends that the very implausibility and complexity strongly imply that some intelligence (design) or as yet undiscovered guiding principle (necessity) must be at work to overcome the statistical barriers. Necessity fits in with the Progressive philosophy of inevitable progress built into the universe. NeoDarwinian Evolution states that life and the universe only LOOK designed[1]. ID is the most significant challenger to Evolutionary theory at this time and some of the observations and experimentally derived facts could eventually lead to falsification or at least modification of Evolution as it is defined today.

The media tend to lump ID and Creationism together because the Evolutionists associate them in an attempt to discredit ID. ID accepts all scientific facts, whether it is the age of the universe and the ages assigned to the fossil record or biochemical or astronomical knowledge. ID acknowledges the appearance of design and infers that it necessarily implies an intelligence or guiding principle. The implication is that of purpose, not blind purposeless chance. This teleological[2] view is one of the things that makes ID a philosophy, not a hard science. However, most of the proponents are competent scientists who use valid scientific principles in scientific studies into the validity or lack of validity of Darwinian Evolution’s random chance claims. Whether Darwinian Evolution or ID is (more) valid, is a matter of opinion at this point. Expressed differently, ID could be an attempt to falsify Evolution as arising only from random chance.   Statistical arguments of the improbability of random processes explaining life and complexity are quite convincing. Note that progressivism, espoused by Darwinians, also implies teleology because everything is believed to be naturally progressing toward perfection.

Biblical Creationism comes in two major forms: Young Earth and Old Earth. Young Earth Creationism declares that the universe and the earth were created some 6000 years ago in seven twenty-four hour days by a strictly literal interpretation of Biblical Genesis. Old Earth Creationism accepts the ages of the universe, the earth and the fossil record and interprets the Biblical Genesis account somewhat more figuratively than literally. As such, it is closer to Intelligent Design, but specifies the God of the Bible as the intelligence responsible for it all. A subdivision within Old Earth Creationism is one that assumes a literal seven day creation (or seven epochs) after the initial billions of years needed to form the universe and prepare the earth for that event. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1 is assumed to contain all of the history of the universe, the earth and the fossil record that had already taken place before the creation event that formed modern humans. This is sometimes called the Gap Theory, especially by its opponents. I tend to fall into the Old Earth camp, based on scientific probabilities and evidence, while leaving the length of the seven “days” as an open question. The same word is used for a 24 hour period and for an indefinite time period as “in the day of Moses.” “These are the Generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” – Genesis 2:4. Also, in 2 Peter 3:8[3] it is obvious that they did not limit a “day” to 24 hours.

It is easy to see that Creationism, based not on science but Biblical texts, is different from both Evolution and Intelligent Design. While it is true that some who believe in Intelligent Design are also Old Earth Creationists, it is not true for many of ID’s technologically and scientifically astute proponents. As a matter of fact, many proponents of Creationism, especially Young Earth Creationists, oppose Intelligent Design as a distortion and means of explaining away the literal interpretation of Biblical texts that they hold to be infallible. Questioning the literal interpretation of Genesis in this way is seen by them as opposing all of God’s truth in His word. In their opinion, rejection of literal seven day creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is tantamount to saying the Biblical texts, in their entirety, cannot be trusted to be true.   In their opinion, rejection of literal seven day creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is tantamount to saying the Biblical texts, in their entirety, cannot be trusted to be true. However, the actual text does not exclude longer periods or preparatory periods occurring before the seven days described except by assumptions of interpretation.  As a Christian, I believe in the literal interpretation as God’s inspired word, but recognize that our own understanding may be biased by preconceived assumptions not actually in it. As a scientist, I have to believe reliable scientific data, but question its reliability and some of the projections and philosophical assumptions.

Conclusions:

So, where does that leave us? We have three basically different philosophies for the development of the complexities of life, at least two of which base their beliefs on scientific inquiry and knowledge. Which is correct? The jury is still out. Neo-Darwinists see Intelligent Design, with its underpinnings of biochemical complexity and probability theory, as the greatest threat to their beliefs and rightly so. Rather that embrace Evolutionary philosophy and all its claims, ID proponents critically examine the evidence for and against guided and unguided development, including the incredibly complex biochemical nature of life and statistical probabilities of unguided or chance development of complex molecules, structures and functions. If Evolution is a robust theory and the aim is truth, such a challenge should be welcomed as a further development of understanding Evolution. The vitriol with which Evolutionists attack ID proponents can only be interpreted as religiously defending dogma that they feel may be vulnerable.

[1] Richard Dawkins defines biology as “… the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed.”

[2] Teleological definition: (Gk tele or telos = end, purpose) 1a: the study of evidences of design in nature; a doctrine that ends are immanent in nature; 1c: a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes; 2: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose; 3: use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena.

[3] “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8

Evolution: Setting the Stage Part 4

kaykiser1 Comment
Charnia Pre-Cambrian fossil
Charnia Pre-Cambrian fossil

Evolution from the Beginning

When Charles Darwin published On the Origen of Species in 1859 evolutionary theories had been around for a long time. The third century BC Greek philosopher Epicurus derived a form of evolutionary theory from Democretus’ atomic theory. Lucretius, first century BC Roman poet, proposed it as a logical necessity of naturalism in order to explain life arising from nature alone without divine intervention. It was resurrected in the Renaissance through the Age of Enlightenment in a number of forms. See the table.

Charles Darwin had been introduced to evolutionary theories through his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a physician, inventor and poet. See an evolutionary verse in the box below. Erasmus Darwin was a friend of William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge and their contemporaries who admired his poetry. Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein after reading of his galvanic experiments on animals. He was an advocate of evolution by acquired characteristics, a theory later popularized by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and which was still later discredited as having no viable mechanism. Charles’ family was wealthy, being associated with the Wedgwood fortune. Both sides of the family were Unitarian free thinkers, but the Wedgwood side leaned toward Anglican, at least socially. In this environment and later through his brother Erasmus’ circle of friends, Charles was exposed to the intellectual elite of the day.

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves

Was born and nurs’d in ocean’s pearly caves;

First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,

Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;

These, as successive generations bloom,

New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;

Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,

And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

— Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature, 1803

 

 Evolution theories before Darwin (click to follow link)

Charles’ father Robert was a physician and wished for Charles and his older brother Erasmus Alvey Darwin to follow suite. The brothers attended medical training together at the University of Edinburgh. Erasmus graduated as a physician, but was retired on a pension at age 26 by his father because of his frail health. He spent the rest of his life entertaining the intellectual elite. Charles did badly in medicine, probably because his interests lay elsewhere. While there, he studied with naturalist Robert Edmund Grant who was a proponent of Lamarck’s acquired traits evolutionary theory and homology, a belief that similar form meant common ancestry. He learned stratigraphic geology from Robert Jameson and also studied plant classification and taxidermy.

Later, his father sent him to Christ’s College where he received a BA in theology. His father had procured a position for him as an Anglican pastor, but Charles never was ordained and did not practice. More interested in natural history, he studied botany and geology and aspired to travel for study in the tropics, a popular avocation of young men of independent means. One of his professors, John S. Henslow, got him an unpaid position on the HMS Beagle as gentleman’s companion to Captain Robert FitzRoy on a voyage to map the coastline of South America. Darwin spent his time collecting fossils, plants and animals from South America to the Galapagos Islands to Polynesia. Because Professor Henslow popularized the collections he sent back before his return, Darwin was a celebrity when he arrived home.

When Charles returned from his five year around the world trip in 1836, he published detailed journals of the trip, as well as other scientific books, and delivered papers to the Geological, Geographical and Zoological Societies. He spent another twenty years studying barnacles, pigeon breeding and similar subjects. He never addressed Evolution in any of these publications. He did not publish On The Origin of Species for 23 years! Supposedly he did not publish earlier because he feared reprisals, but being of independent means, being recognized as an authority in his field, and actively dialoging with leaders of the day about other theories of transmutation of species, this seems to be a thin excuse invented by later authors. This excuse was never alluded to in his book. Instead, he described working on it steadily over all those years and that he chose to publish his “abstract” (On the Origin of Species) due to failing health, although he said it would take three or four more years to complete his work.

It wasn’t until Alfred Russell Wallace, a naturalist and admirer, sent Darwin his observations and theory of Evolution while still away on a voyage to the Malay Archipelago and Borneo, that Darwin’s theory was (hurriedly?) presented and published, establishing primacy over Wallace. To his credit, when his friend Charles Lyell presented the joint papers[1] to the Linnaean Society, Darwin acknowledged Wallace as co-founder of the theory. Claiming to have sat on his theory for over twenty years, he rushed to publish On the Origin of Species which he described as an unfinished manuscript without supporting facts, acknowledgements or references[2]. This state was little improved even in the Sixth (and last) Edition, which was only minimally changed from the first edition except for historical recognition of others before him and attempts to address some of the most important scientific criticisms.

I have always wondered whether Wallace was the true originator of a theory that Darwin had overlooked in his own observations, although he had written letters to Joseph Hooker and Asa Gray earlier hinting at an evolutionary theory. Did Wallace provide the link that brought all his speculations together? Because he was backed up by his friends Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell in his claim of primacy, we may never know. It is sure that the scientific reputation of Wallace declined, while Darwin’s grew. It is interesting to note that Wallace later rejected the theory as lacking both mechanism and sufficient evidence. Others have also speculated about Wallace being the true originator of the theory.

[1] Presented as On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. It was composed of two papers, Wallace’s On the Tendencies of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type and Darwin’s Abstract Extract from an Unpublished Work on Species along with Abstract of a Letter to Asa Gray (to establish primacy).

[2] On the Origin of Species, first edition, Introduction, paragraph 3 & 4.

Evolution, Setting the Stage, Part 3

kaykiser1 Comment
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin

Darwin’s circle of friends and mentors was largely composed of the intellectual elite of the day, many of whom embraced progressivism, socialism, atheism or agnosticism and various other popular philosophies of the day. Darwin himself stated in some of his correspondence that one of his goals was to do away with religion.

…hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true: for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

— Darwin, letters

After the initial presentation of a paper to the Royal Society, the philosophy, (theory), of Evolution was published in the popular press, much like other popular philosophies of the day, not in scientific journals. Its arguments were more philosophical than scientific, offering little evidence other than similarity of forms between fossil and living animals, and observations that the existing forms were well suited to their functions, both of which had been widely accepted earlier. Contrary to popular accounts, from the beginning, many people in academia, the sciences, philosophy and the clergy enthusiastically embraced the new philosophy of Evolution. To the clergy, it was the means whereby God had created our world.   To the anti-religion elite, it meant God could be replaced altogether, along with any inconvenient moral limitations.

Championed more like a political campaign than a scientific theory, after some early opposition by other scientists it became accepted by the dominant elite, so that scientists had to either adopt it or become obsolete. Any opposition was branded as ignorance or religious tyranny in heated debates where Evolution proponents used a straw man[1] argument in which they presented Darwinian Evolution versus creation ex nihilo of each species.  Most people of the time recognized that changes had taken place,  so that their logical arguments actually involved a lack of scientific evidence for the theory as presented.

In some respects, that picture has prevailed to this day. It is this political tactic that has been repeated in other areas of science to promote new theories, to squash opposition to them and for junior scientists to unseat senior scientists from positions of authority. That is why progressivism and Darwinism, aka Evolution, is so important to later scientific philosophies and developments.

“I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous — You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved.  Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?”

— Adam Sedgewick, noted geologist who had taught Darwin, after reading Origin of Species

The theory of Evolution was based on the economic philosophy of Thomas Malthus whose book, An Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798, predicted that population would outgrow food supplies resulting in starvation. Like Malthusian philosophy, the mechanism of Evolution, survival of the fittest through natural selection, depended on competition for scarce resources as the basis of survival. In the introduction to the first edition of On the Origin of Species[2], Darwin explains Evolution as “this is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms[3].”

At the time, there were two opposing theories about the development of the earth. One was catastrophism; the other was uniformitarianism. Catastrophism, supported by Georges Cuvier, the father of paleontology, proposed that the earth had gone through repeated sudden upheavals. Uniformitarianism, promoted by Charles Lyell, geologist and friend of Darwin, proposed an earth where no major changes had taken place except gradual modification over vast periods of time. Darwin had taken the first volume of Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology, on his voyage around the world. Needless to say, Darwin favored Lyell’s position. Later, Darwin accepted Lyell’s theory as supporting his claims of gradual changes over vast periods of time. Cuvier, who had died before Darwin’s time, had opposed uniformitarianism and the earlier evolutionary theories, to be discussed in the next post.   Evolution needed long eons of time for the proposed changes to take place, so uniformitarianism was the chosen philosophy that would facilitate it.

It is interesting to note that until the late twentieth century, uniformitarianism was the accepted dogma[4]. Today, as the best explanations for the fossil record and evolutionary changes, long periods of uniformity interspersed by brief catastrophic events of various sorts are favored. Thus, catastrophism is favored along with elements of uniformitarianism in the form of plate tectonics, formerly known as continental drift[5] which had been rejected earlier. The renewed interest in catastrophism was fostered by the recognition of meteorite strikes and craters as a prehistoric reality that would fit past mass extinctions best.

I have witnessed the acceptance of catastrophism, widespread meteorite craters and plate tectonics, since the 1970s. When I first started my independent studies into science and earth’s mysteries, catastrophism, widespread meteorite craters and continental drift were considered fringe theories. Serpent Mound, an earthwork by the prehistoric Hopewell culture in southern Ohio, is on the edge of an ancient four mile wide weathered meteorite crater. When I first visited Serpent Mound in the early 1980s, the visitor center still had the display claiming it was a crypto-volcanic crater. Although the strata were of dolomite and other sedimentary limestones with no hints of volcanic rock, the prevailing theory proposed an underground gas explosion caused by cryptic or hidden volcanism. Since that time, over 200 meteorite craters have been identified, most of them not readily recognizable due to weathering or other obscuring forces, including the one off the coast of Yucatan that is credited with the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous era.

The re-acceptance of these theories is an example of how science should work. In science, inconsistencies in current theories are met by new data, and questions are answered by formation of new theories or acceptance of once rejected old ones. That is not to say that politics had nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the plate tectonics theory was pushed through in the popular press in the same way that Darwinian Evolution was. Established geologists that did not immediately go along with the theory were publicly ridiculed and defamed in a way that could only be described as scandalous. It was a scientific revolution in geological circles.

 [1] Straw man argument is one where an easily defeated weaker premise is substituted for the real opposition view in order to appear to win the argument, i.e. the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument

[2] Complete title and subtitles of the book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London, 1859.

[3] Introduction, paragraph 8, describing Chapter 3, Struggle for Existence.

[4] Dogma – established opinion put forth as authoritative, especially without adequate grounds.

[5] Alfred Wegener, 1912, and earlier proponents.

Did Darwin steal his theory of Evolution?

kaykiser

After his trip around the world on The Beagle, Darwin waited 23 years to present his theory of Evolution.  The myth is that he sat on the theory out of fear of repercussions. However, when Charles Darwin published On the Origen of Species in 1859 evolutionary theories had been around for a long time.  There were at least a dozen evolutionary theories, including one by Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century that were openly debated among scientists.

Alfred Russel Wallace 1862 - Project Gutenberg eText 15997
Alfred Russel Wallace 1862

It wasn’t until Alfred Russell Wallace, a naturalist and admirer, sent Darwin his observations and theory of Evolution while still away on a voyage to the Malay Archipelago and Borneo, that Darwin’s theory was (hurriedly?) presented, acknowledging Wallace as co-discoverer, and published, establishing primacy over Wallace.  Was Wallace the true originator of a theory that Darwin had overlooked in his own observations?  Did Wallace provide the link that brought all his speculations together?  Darwin’s claims were backed by his friends Charles Lyle and Joseph Hooker, so we may never know the truth.  It is sure that the scientific reputation of Wallace declined, while Darwin’s grew.  It is interesting to note that Wallace later rejected the theory as lacking both mechanism and sufficient evidence.

Darwin’s Problem with Ants

kaykiser

Darwin’s Claims

Worker ants of various castes and two large queens
Leaf Cutter Ants – Worker ants of various castes and two large queens

Darwin thought cells were simple bags of gel.  He knew nothing of DNA or any other cellular structures.  He believed that inheritance was through “Gemmules” that each cell shed and that traveled to the gametes (sperm and egg).  Since each cell “voted” it was called pangenesis. He believed that the life experiences of the parents were passed on to their offspring in this way. He believed evolutionary incremental changes occurred by passing these life experiences on to subsequent generations.

Darwin’s Dilemma

Colony insects were a problem for Darwin.  If life experiences were passed on, how does a queen ant, who has never experienced foraging for food, pass on the behavior of the worker ants who hunt for food and bring it back to the colony?

His theory of evolution taught that use and disuse along with adaptation to environmental changes experienced by parents were passed on and were responsible for the changes seen between species by gradual changes over time, coupled with natural selection aka survival of the fittest.  How is this any different from J-B Lamarck’s theory of acquired characteristics, which was discredited as having no foundation?  Did acceptance for Darwin’s theory and not Lamarck’s have more to do with politics and marketing than science?

Modern Evolutionary Biologists’ Dilemma

Obviously, modern evolutionary biologists found pangenesis and inheritance of acquired traits embarrassing, so, in the early 20th century they changed the theory to include genetics with an emphasis on natural selection and called it Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis. Later, they included DNA.  Although Darwin is still revered as if he had everything right, this form of Evolutionary theory is grossly different from the original Darwinian theory except for the assumption of natural selection and unlimited gradual changes producing new species over time.