Did Weismann refute Lamarckism?

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

Repeatedly you hear the claim that August Weismann refuted Jean Lamarck's evolutionary concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics, by chopping off mouse tails for generations and viola, the tail remained in the subsequent generations despite the fact it was chopped off (how painful!) over and over again.  

However, this is a myth and here is why.

Lamarck taught many things but to simplify one of his core ideas, it is that if a particular organ has not been used over a long period of time, then it will eventually fade away and disappear, like the color of your cloth, it fades away. The difference between the color of the cloth and an organ fading away is the length of time it requires to fade. For Lamarck, he hypothesized that it would've taken an unimaginably long time for that to happen. This is where Weismann himself realized he was mistaken because he did not experiment for a long time (he only lived for 80 years). 

As Stephen Jay Gould mentioned, Weismann did do the experiments but Weismann also noticed it did "little to combat Lamarckism"[1] 

So what made Weismann disagree with Lamarck's view? The answer lies in the understanding of, what we call now, genetic inheritance. For Lamarck's theory to work, the environment must affect the genetic inheritance but according to Weismann, hereditary was passed on to generations without any influence from the environment. Since that is the case, Lamarck's theory becomes futile. However, today, there is a form of Lamarckian resurrection since there is evidence that the environment can affect the DNA and other genetic materials. 

Also, if a short-term experiment can refute a theory that requires a long period of time, then by the same token, Darwinism (and all its forms) would easily be refuted as well since there are no observed large changes. A dog remains a dog no matter how many times a dog is bred. In reality, if the mouse experiment constitutes as evidence against Lamarckism then every other evolutionary theory becomes futile. It's a double-edged sword to use the mouse experiment against Lamarckism.

Reference(s)

[1] Gould, Stephen Jay. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Page 201.  

Adaptationist Vs Spandrels of San Marco

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

To cut to the meat, a debate has been raging regarding whether animals are the product of adaptation or are they partly non-adaptive?

Wait, what is adaptation and what's non-adaptation? Well, keep it simple, in the evolutionary sense, it means that every physical part, every gene, every cell, every everything in an animal or plant is there due to some benefit to the animal or plant and these parts arose due to natural selection which is a process that allegedly "sees"[1] all changes in an animal and either removes them, like a sieve, due to their harmful effect (like being slow) or preserves them due to the benefit they give to the animal. On the other hand, non-adaptive features are any physical parts, any gene, any cell, any anything which would be in an animal or plant that does not harm nor benefit the creature in any way, is just simply there for whatever reason - like beauty. A good example would be the infinite amount of patterns on the butterfly wing. Do the millions of patterns on butterfly wings point to some survival benefit or just a form of beauty?

Those who believe that an animal is composed, at least the majority, of adaptive parts are called: arch-Darwinist, Neo-Darwinist, ultra-Darwinist, adaptationalist or arch-adaptationist[2]

Whilst those who are against the adaptationalist mindset don't really have a name, we'll call them neutralist.

The disagreement isn't whether adaptation is real or not, in fact they all agree adaptation exist, but the disagreement is whether adaptation is as exclusively important as it's been labelled for the last 110 years - beginning with August Weismann calling natural selection Allmacht - a word in German that means All Powerful.[3] Weismann had so much faith in natural selection that the title of his paper was "Die Allmacht der Naturzuchtung" - The All Sufficiency/Powerful of Natural Selection.[4]

Oenothera lamarckiana

At the start of the 20th century, not many believed that adaptation ruled the animal kingdom though it surely played a role (excluding Weismann and his followers of course). Various scientists disagreed with natural selection playing a major role. Hugo de Vries was one of many who were saltationist. de Vries proposed his heretical "mutation theory"[5] where mutation alone can provide the necessary changes for evolution in a rapid form without the need of natural selection or gradualism. de Vries thought that he witnessed such rapid evolution when he sowed the seeds of the evening primrose plant Oenothera lamarckiana and producing 7 different species of Oenothera, namely: gigas, rubrinervis, albida, oblongata, nanella, lata and brevistylis. He described their evolution as,

The result of Hugo de Vries'
experiment. Taken from

de Vries' book "Mutation Theory"

"They came into existence at once, fully equipped, without preparation or intermediates steps. No series of generations, no selection, no struggle for existence was needed. It was a sudden leap into another type..."[6]

Even the founders of Neo Darwinism, were, at the start, neutralist but then for whatever reason changed their position and became arch-adaptationist. Neo Darwinism is the hypothesis that postulates that life evolves gradually, no sudden leap at all & the evolution occurs by extrapolating the series of gradual accumulation of random mutations that we see in our day to day life (it's based on extrapolation since no one has witnessed that such mutations can do what the tree of life needs), that adaptation plays a huge role in the development of life and the unit of selection is the organism (or the gene)[7] In fact this hypothesis is called "orthodox" hypothesis. But plenty of doubt has risen regarding the whole Neo Darwinian paradigm or at least part of it, challenging the orthodox view of life.[8]


So the debate continued from the late 19th century all the way to the 21st century. At one point you had the "Dawkinsites" vs "Gouldites" debate regarding the very question of adaptation.[9] And when Stephen Jay Gould presented his paper The Spandrels of San Marco and the Adaptationist Programme to argue that animals are similar to spandrels - see how the spandrels are natural byproducts of the intersecting of the two triangular shapes? - the group of geneticists in the audience claimed that this was nothing more than a Marxist plot! and they could explain all the features of the snail via adaptation.[10] Apparently it's political to critique adaptation!

I want to share four examples of how adaptationists would think regarding whatever trait is in question. I will go from understandable to utter rubbish.

Imagine you have a skull, especially the neurocranium in your hands. This particular skull has a similar trait like the other skulls on the table: pachyostosis which means thick boned. So if you have a neurocranium with such thick bones, would you somehow think it's due to some survival benefit or just a normal growth of the skull & therefore not really relevant to ponder much on? As an adaptationist, you must have a story on how pachyostosis appeared and indeed professor of anatomy Noel T. Boaz and professor of anthropology Russel L. Ciochon think they have found the answer. Apart from the obvious fact that the skull is here to help the jaw to hold our teeth and protect our brain, this unusual thickness in Homo erectus is allegedly evidence for some onslaught made by H. erectus in the past. They cite Peter Brown's study that Australian aborigines have the thickest skull in modern human population.[11] Brown hypothesizes that the reason behind their thickness is due to their battling to settle issues with the nulla nulla (a wooden club). So, the thin skull humans would be knocked out with the nulla nulla whilst the thick ones would survive. And that is how thick skulls appeared. The authors didn't say that this is the ultimate proof but rather "If Brown is correct" then head bashing might explain the pachyostosis of Homo erectus.[12]

Now, ask this question, why do men like red? A common sense answer is, "first of all not all men like red and those who do simply like it, perhaps connected to some neurological process but we have the choice to like or dislike it". Right? "No", says the evolutionary psychologist. Why? Because redness, allegedly, is an unconscious attraction which reminds us, men, of

 "...red, swollen, fertilizable private parts of a woman back million and millions of years ago"[13]

I don't even have to explain why this is utter nonsense. That is just-so story at its best.

Now ask yourself, why do women like red/pink? Wait, didn't I just say men like red? I did but evolutionary psychologist tend to contradict themselves. The reason being is because allegedly whilst men hunted, women, millions of years ago, went to collect berries and generally speaking, berries are red and because women gathered berries, which are red, that is why women today like red since it's an unconscious reminder of the redness whilst women were the housewives of the heroic ape-man who went to hunt and eventually liked the colour blue (which contradicts the part that men like red)[14]. You think this is nonsense? That's just scratching the surface.

Gould raised two issues against the adaptationists, (1) it's irrefutable, since all you need is a just-so story and if it fails, make a new,

"Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such definable rejection..."[15]

And (2) it's not based on scientific scrutiny since adaptationist use consistency rather than proper explanation to explain the traits that the animals or plants have,

"Often, evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work job well done when they concoct a plausible story. But plausible stories can always be told."[16] 

Even though the debate between arch adaptationists vs neutralists won't end soon, the good thing is to see the unstable reality of how evolution allegedly occurs. Depending on your position, the history of life is seen in a radically different light. It also opens a history of 150 years of debate to enlighten us & the future regarding how and why different evolutionary theories exist, contrary to what many evolutionists claim which is that there are no different theories. Nothing in evolution is stable or straightforward but fluctuating against itself.

References & Notes

1. It must be remembered that natural selection is not a conscious process. It doesn't decide or plan ahead. We simply use the word "natural selection" to explain that weaker animals would die due to their weakness, whatever the weakness is and stronger animals, whatever their strength is, would remain alive and pass their genes to the next generation whilst the weak die before passing their genes & if they do somehow survive, then there's a problem to the welfare of the species.

2. Richard Dawkins was once called arch-adaptationist and ultra-Darwinist, in fact he finds the word "ultra Darwinist" not much of an insult as the coiners intended. Richard Dawkins, 2009, The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, Bantam Press, page 332.

3. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, pages 63, 197-208.

4. Ibid, page 198.

5. Though I haven't read the works of the Japanese scientist まさとし ねい (Masatoshi Nei) but he recently, in 2013, also proposed a "mutation theory" - it sounds quite similar to de Vries, perhaps they are identical. See Masatoshi Nei, 2013, Mutation-Driven Evolution, Oxford Press.

6. Hugo de Vries, 1905, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, page 550 Quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, pages 426 - 427. Just a side note, selection and struggle is one of the same thing.

7. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, chapter 7.

8. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press. Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould, 1972, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative To Phyletic Gradualism, in Models of Paleobiology, pages 82-115. Denis Noble, 2006, The Music of Life: Biology Beyond The Genome, Oxford Press. Michael Lynch: 2007, The Origins of Genomic Architecture. Sinauer Associates, 2006 The Origins of Eukaryotic Gene Structure, Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 450-468. Eric Davidson, 2011, Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology, Development Biology, 357: 35-40. Douglas H. Eric, 2000, Macroevolution Is More Than Repeated Rounds Of Microevolution, Evolution and Development 2: 78-84. Michael Denton, 2016, Evolution: Still a Theory In Crisis. Discovery Institiute Press. Stephen C. Meyer, 2013, Darwin's Doubt, Harper One. David Klinghoffer, 2015, Debating Darwin's Doubt, Discovery Institute Press. James Shapiro, 2011, Evolution: A View From The 21st Century. Also see http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

9. Stephen Jay Gould, 2007, The Richness of Life, Vintage, page 5.

10. Ibid, page 6.

11. Noel T. Boaz & Russell L. Ciochon, 2004, Dragon Bone Hill: An Ice-Age Saga Of Homo Erectus, Oxford Press, page 81.

12. Ibid.

13. Frederick L. Coolidge & Thomas Wynn, 2012, How To Think Like A Neandertal, Oxford Press, page 85.

14. Robert Newman, 2015, The Entirely Accurate Encyclopedia Of Evolution, Freight Book, page 25-26.

15. Stephen Jay Gould, 2007, The Richness of Life, Vintage, page 423, also see page 421.

16. Ibid.

Advice from an old man

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

Leo Tolstoy

Once upon a time a Russian man sent a letter to his children warning them of one of the dangers of believing that evolution by natural selection is true: it provides no purpose in life.

His name is Leo Tolstoy.

He is better known for his famous big fiction book War and Peace.

He sent a letter to two of his children on November 1st, 1910,

Tolstoy's book.

"The views you have acquired about Darwinism, evolution and the struggle for existence won't explain to you the meaning of your life and won't give you guidance in your actions, and a life without an explanation of its meaning and importance, and without the unfailing guidance that stems from it is a pitiful existence. Think about it. I say it, probably on the eve of my death, because I love you."[1]

Sure enough, he loved them and he died 19 days after the letter was sent.

Tolstoy didn't just warn his children about this. He had received two letters from Tarak Das and Tolstoy decided to write a (long) letter called A Letter to a Hindu. In it he explains how science (he meant evolution) is trying to destroy religion to replace it with survival of the fittest - the evolutionary idea that the fittest among the race will conquer whoever he wants whilst the unfittest will die under the fittest. It was due to this letter that Mahatma Ghandi knew Tolstoy.


References

1. Stephen Jay Gould, 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus, Radius, page 327.

Darwin's chance

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

DNA

We've all heard that mutations are random, though that is being disputed today.[1]

But did the father of Social Darwinism, Charles Darwin, believe that mutations, or as Darwin called it "variation" (even though Lamarck used the word "mutation[2]), are random? The surprising answer is no.

Darwin in his Origin of Species made it very clear that variations, "however slight", are not due to randomness or chance. Rather when Darwin does use the word "chance" he simply means that we don't understand the current law(s) that cause mutations. Whether the word "chance" had such a meaning at that time, I can't say but that is how Darwin used it in his works.

If you want to understand whether Darwin did believe in chance or not, shouldn't you go to his work where he discusses such a subject? Of course. Well, chapter V in Origin is called Laws of Variation. In that chapter we expect him to explain his view and he does. The very first sentence says,

"I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations - so common and multiform in organic beings- under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature - had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variations"[3]

Don't forget, the title is called Laws of variation not Randomness of variation. So from the very first sentence Darwin denies chance.  All variations are due to some natural law. Obviously as Darwin repeatedly said, we don't know the laws of variation but he did accept Lamarck's law of use and disuse as one but the rest, we are ignorant of and I bet we are far from understanding the whole picture.

But before you get confused, it doesn't mean he believed that evolution was intelligently guided by some God or creator but rather that these mutations are caused due to some laws. Whether those laws were designed or not is a different story altogether. Darwin was Agnostic when it comes to the design of the Universe and the laws of nature but nevertheless, he did not accept chance or randomness but believed everything was determined.

In November 1860, Darwin sent Asa Gray a letter where he explains that when it comes to the question of design, he is in "hopeless muddle" but the letter says,

"I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design... Again I say I am, & shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle"[4]

When Darwin says that he is inclined to believe that everything is left to the working of chance, he then says "Not that this notion at all satisfies me" meaning, that the idea of pure chance or as he sometimes calls it "brute force" does not satisfy his beliefs.[5]

If you in fact carry on reading the first sentence of chapter V, he carried on saying,

"Nevertheless, we can here and there dimly catch a faint ray of light, and we may feel sure that there must be some cause for each deviation of structure, however slight" (my emphasis)

Which means, that whatever change that occurs, no matter how tiny it is or how irrelevant it is to us, it must have a cause.

And in a letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin informs him that "The formation of a strong variety or species, I look at as almost wholly due to the selection of what may be incorrectly called chance variation or variability"[6]. As Zitzer correctly notices "He never uses "incorrect" to describe design or determinism. He will express doubts about design, but he never outright identifies it as incorrect"[7]

Historical note

This, of course, makes you question. If Darwin denied chance then why were the people at his time and the fathers of Neo Darwinism claiming that he believed in chance? And also constructed Neo-Darwinism based on chance which was taught by the Nazis and in our schools today. There are only two answers I can come up with, 1) they misread him, which is unlikely and 2) due to the rise of anti-religion, atheism and the like required chance as a mechanism because if some law was behind it then, by logic, there is a law-giver. Thus this misrepresentation was a means to increase a hostile environment to religious communities.

Summary

Darwin did not believe in chance. He denied chance completely and doubted design which leads me to say that he was confused about the origin of the Universe and the laws of nature but was very strict and clear that mutations are not random. In this case, he is in line with Lamarck and Chambers when it comes to the source of variations, it's all determined.

If Darwin was alive today, he'd accept James Shapiro's view that mutations are not random or simply followed the footsteps of Lamarck.

References

1. James Shapiro, 2011, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, Ft Press.

2. Jean Baptiste-Pierre-Antoine de Monet de Lamarck, Zoological Philosophy, translated by Hugh Elliot, pages 39, 41-43 and 45.

3. I am very thankful to Leon Zitzer for pointing out that Darwin did not believe in chance. Leon Zitzer, Darwin's Racism, 2016, iUniverse, pages 356-360.  All my information on Darwin's belief on chance vs design is from Zitzer.

4. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 2998. Click here to access the letter.

5. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 2814. Click here to access the letter.

6. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 1997. Click here to access the letter.

7. Leon Zitzer, Darwin's Racism, 2016, iUniverse, page 359.

From Jena to Kent, with love

 السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

Charles Darwin

 I think it's important to establish the reality of the friendship between Charles Darwin and Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel has proven to be a worthy disciple for Darwin in Germany, for if it wasn't for Haeckel's dedication to spread Darwinism, history might have been a little different.

Ernst Haeckel with his wife
 Anna Sethe

It all started when Charles Darwin finished writing his book On the Origin of Species in 1859. Then Heinrich Georg Bronn translated it into German in 1860's under the title "Uber die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch naturliche Zuchtung oder, Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe im's Daseyn". In the same year as it was translated (remember it was translated only after a few months of publication of Origin) Haeckel immediately gobbled the book with "overpowering and lasting impression on me"[1]

Haeckel was actually away in Nice, France, studying jellyfishes and upon his return he gobbled the Origin of Species. After he read it he gave his full admiration to the book in public and Darwin somehow knew that a "first-rate German naturalist (I now forget name!!) who has lately published grand folio has spoken out to the utmost extent on the Origin"[2]

Haeckel sent a letter to Darwin praising the book (Origin) and he also asked Darwin to read his book on radiolaria.[3] Darwin responded happily saying, "Your letters are always most kind. I shall be proud to receive your monograph on the Radiolariae which I saw & much admired in London" [4]

Old Ernst Haeckel

Darwin got the monograph on radiolaria and was amazed by it. He was actually amazed by it due to the minute and most infinite structure in these tiny little animals. I myself was shocked when I knew such things existed after reading Michael Denton's recent book Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. 

Then Haeckel sent a letter (where he explains that he was away, in Nice) to Darwin explaining how overpowering the Origin was upon him and that, "without exaggerating - has occupied my mind every day most pressingly" because evolution by natural selection, which Haeckel firmly understood and comprehended[5] solved all the mysteries that they couldn't solve without evolution. Haeckel gives

Radiolaria

the glad tidings to Darwin that his theory is spreading in German very quickly,[6]  and that the older scientist are as arrogant as ever due to their "long-familiar dogmas" and because of that they have lost the ability to "appreciate without prejudice anything new - even if it should be truth itself..." but "Among the younger scientist" they are "enthusiastic followers" and eventually there will be more "sincere followers" of Darwinism in Germany than in England. Why will there be more sincere followers in Germany than England? Haeckel answers that by saying "overall the Germans seem to me... less fettered by religious and social prejudice than the English". Lectures on evolution were attended by not just the "students of science and medicine, but also by philosophers and historians, and even by theologians". Why historians? Because evolution "opens a new world, for in applying the theory of descent to man (as has been so successfully done by Huxley and Vogt[7]) they will find the way to integrate the history of man into the history of nature". Now Haeckel, after giving Darwin a nice smirk on his face, gives a little information on his own personal life. "I hope you will excuse me if I add a few details regarding to my personal attitude to your theory, for I intend to dedicate my entire life to it and to employ all my energies in its advancement... [and] I have been working on a general history of creation[8] for several years now" which would unite the whole animal kingdom into a tree. "I am only 30 years old, but a stroke of fate has destroyed all prospects of happiness in my life" (his wife Anna Sethe died). "Forgive me... with this long letter... "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks".[9] Then he assures Darwin,

One of the books that Haeckel authored
which Darwin tried to read, because he
struggled to read German.

"Hoping, dear Sir, that your health will improve and that it will allow you for many years yet to continue the battle for truth and against human prejudice, I remain with the most sincere e
steem, yours truly devoted | Ernst Haeckel"

Darwin, who by now was very happy, "Hurrah", with such a long and lovely response finds himself writing a letter to Joseph D. Hooker saying, "By the way, I had a grand letter this morning from a very good German Zoologist E. Haecke, who maintains that all the best of the younger men are enthusiasts for natural selection, & that Germany will soon beat England in this respect. Hurrah & Farewell | Ever yours | affectionately | C. Darwin"[10]

You can almost taste the happiness felt by Darwin.

A week later Darwin writes a response back to Haeckel thanking him for his praise and feels "grieved to hear that you have suffered any heavy calamity" and in that letter Darwin gives a picture of himself to Haeckel (the modern way of sending a picture via Whatsapp) and asks Haeckel to "send me your photograph, as I should much like to possess a copy".[11]

Another book authored by Haeckel which
also Darwin tried to read but faced
difficulties.

You can almost imagine Haeckel flying to the moon that he has a personal photo of Darwin in his own hands from a man he venerates so much. So he rushes to his collection of photos and takes out a photo so dear to him with a broken heart because the photo didn't just contain Haeckel but also the woman who was the happiness of his life[12] and sends it to Darwin. However, before sending it to Darwin, the photo was accompanied by a letter. The letter was written a month later and then sent to Darwin. Darwin receives it. The letter says,

"With this letter I send you at your request my photograph, as a small return for the highly desirable and valuable present which you made me of your own portrait. I cannot, however send you only a photograph of myself, but it must be accompanied by the portrait of my wife, who was the happiness of my life and cherished for the name "Darwin" just as high an admiration and reverence as I do. I was only granted to live one and a half years in most happy union with this woman who was highly gifted in every respect. On the 16th of February this year a typhoid fever tore her away from me in a few hours, on the very day I completed my thirtieth year. With the clarity of understanding and warmth of feeling that only women of Germanic stock possess, she shared everything with me, especially in my love of nature and truth. She was so enthusiastic about your theory of descent, that she constantly encouraged me to work on it further and in the most loving manner often called me her German "Darwin-mann"

Haeckel's fake embryo drawings.
Embryo's do not look like this at all,
at least in the first and second line.

Poor Haeckel, but at least he was called "German Darwin" by his wife before she died. On 16th February, it was Haeckel's birthday (as the letter says) and the death of his wife but also the day he received the award for his work on radiolaria. What a day. No wonder he called it "stroke of fate".

Haeckel buckles up and carries on saying,

"The history of the theory of descent is also extremely interesting and I witness with great joy, how even a long time ago, the greatest German philosophers and thinkers have a prior proclaimed this theory to be the only possible way of understanding the origin of species. But you, through the epoch-making discovery of "Natural Selection" and "Struggle for life", have for the first time provided the concrete proof for that abstract statement. The most beautiful expression of this was given by our greatest poet, Goethe..." 

And Haeckel finishes his letter by expressing gratitude.[13]

Darwin of course responds back thanking him and also explaining to him his personal life. So Darwin explained to him how he reached the conclusion that he expressed in the Origin. He said,

"When I joined the "Beagle" as Naturalist I knew extremely little about Natural History, but I worked hard. In South America three classes of facts were brought strongly before my mind: 1stly the manner in which closely allied species replace species in going Southward.

2ndly the close affinity of the species inhabiting the Islands near to S. America to those proper to the Continent. This struck me profoundly, especially the differences of the species in the adjoining islets in the Galapagos Archipelago. 3rdly the relation of the living Edentata & Rodentia to the extinct species. I shall never forget my astonishment when I dug out a gigantic piece of armour like that of the living Armadillo.

Reflecting on these facts & collecting analogous ones, it seemed to me probable that allied species were descended from a common parent. But for some years I could not conceive how each form became so excellently adapted to its habit of life. I then began systematically to study domestic productions, & after a time saw clearly that man's selective power was the most important agent. I was prepared from having studied the habits of animals to appreciate the struggle for existence, & my work in Geology gave me some idea of the lapse of past time. Therefore when I happened to read "Malthus on population" the idea of Natural selection flashed on me. Of all the minor points, the last which I appreciated was the importance & cause of the principle of Divergence. I hope I have not wearied you with this little history of the "Origin".... With sincere respect | Believe me my dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin".[14]

After some letters being exchanged, they remained silent until Haeckel hears the news from Huxley that Darwin is ill. So Haeckel sends a letter feeling sorry for Darwin and wanting Darwin to remain "with us and science for a long time yet". He assures Darwin that he is making lectures called "on Darwin's theory" with the university theater being packed, in fact he says that Dawin's theory was "most popular of all lectures". Unfortunately Haeckel hadn't yet finished the book because he's a professor now doing all these lectures and stuff, so he tries his best to finish it quickly. He finally says "Whenever I write to you, dear Sir, I must reiterate my warmest thanks for the unfailing inspiration and the vigorous stimulus that your classical theory gives me. Ever since the death of my most dearly beloved wife put an end to and destroyed my emotional life, all I have left is the aspiration to employ the keenest intellect in understanding the true nature
and continuity of natural things. This aspiration occupies me in my hermit-like existence day and night, and I owe this aspiration solely to your work. May you long remain in vigorous health, so as to witness the reform of biology which you began, and to enjoy the fruits of your great intellectual achievement. This is the most heartfelt with of your sincerely devoted | Ernst Haeckel."[15]

I like how he says that his only aim in life is to pursue knowledge because he's the same man who drew fake embryo drawings. Nevertheless, Darwin responds back saying that there was no surprise that he hadn't published his work and basically ends it with "With the most sincere respect & good wishes believe me my dear Sir yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin" [16]

Then after some more letters being exchanged between them (nothing of importance) Haeckel asks Darwin if he could meet him personally. "At last one of my fondest wishes is to be fulfilled. I hope to be able to meet and talk to you shortly... I am only in London for a short time, as I will be going on the next steamship to Madeira and Tenerife where I will stay the winter and conduct zoological research.

My ""generelle Morphologie der Organisem, based on Darwin's reformed theory of descent" is now finished and you will receive it in the next couple of weeks... I may soon, perhaps,tell you more about it in person. Hopefully I will find you in the best possible health. With the most excellent admiration I remain yours with wholehearted devotion | Ernst Haeckel"[17]

Darwin responds with a yes and explains to Haeckel how to reach his house.[18]

Even though there are more letters exchanged between them but I hope I have made it clear that the friendship between Haeckel & Darwin was a close one. At one point Darwin gave Haeckel £100 for financial support. Haeckel tells Darwin he's going to get married to Agnes Huschke (didn't Haeckel say he had no more emotion and only cared about pursuing knowledge?) among other things. In fact Darwin honoured Haeckel by mentioning him in his own book Descent of Man, where Darwin said,

"This last naturalist [Haeckel], besides his great work, Generelle Morphologie (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay [Descent] had been written, I should probably never have completed it."[19]

Rather than making this article, as long as it is, a long one, I think it's better to stop here and contemplate on the fact that Darwin was a huge influence on Haeckel but as we all should know, Haeckel used evolution to promote extermination on the "lower races". This friendship only produced a vehemently racist person. A racist German Darwin.

And one more fact before you go, Haeckel was writing most of his letters from Jena, in fact he was a professor for one year in the University of Jena and he died in 1919. Do you know who else was a professor in the University of Jena? Hans F. K. Günther. Do you know who appointed Günther, in 1930, in that University in the first place? Adolf Hitler. Do you know who attended Günther's inaugural lecture? Adolf Hitler.


Note

All letters from Haeckel to Darwin are in German. The translation is provided by Darwin Correspondence Project,


References

1. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4555. Click here to access the letter.

2. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4047. Click here to access the letter.

3. The letter is actually missing but the response that Darwin gives proves that Haeckel praised the book and asked Darwin's opinion on his work on radiolaria.

4. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4361. Click here to access the letter.

5. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4422. Click here to access the letter.

6. In fact Hugh Falconer in 1861 sent a letter to Darwin telling him that his theory was everywhere in Italy and Germany because Falconer was travelling, for research. Falconer said, "My Dear Darwin, I have been rambling through the north of Italy and Germany lately. Every where have I heard your views, and your admirable essay canvassed...". Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 3914. Click here to access the letter.

7. See my previous article on Carl Vogt's racism. Vogt draws a table (which Darwin derives his answers from) about the heads sizes of different races of man. The race with the smallest head are closer to apes whilst the English, with the biggest head, are superior. Click here. As for Huxley, a very close friend to Darwin and a racist, you can read Adrian Desmond's biography of Huxley.

8. His book that he was making is called Generelle Morphology (1866). He then published "The History of Creation" published in 1868, with a second editionNaturliche Schopfungsgschichte.
in 1870. The original name is

9. Gospel of Matthew 12:34.

10.  Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4561. Click here to access the letter.

11.  Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4569. Click here to access the letter.

12. I think the photo above is the photo that he sent to Darwin, though I am not 100% sure.

13. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4586. Click here to access the letter.

14. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4631. Click here to access the letter.

15. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4934. Click here to access the letter.

16. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 4947. Click here to access the letter.

17. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 5248. Click here to access the letter.

18. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter number 5224. Click here to access the letter.

19. Darwin, The Descent of Man, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, page 5.

Monkeys are wiser than men

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

I thought I had to share these unbelievable parts/facts in the book by Charles Darwin Descent of Man.

The sentences are from chapter 1. That chapter is dedicated to explaining the similarities between humans and monkeys (not apes). Darwin hypothesises that if similarities exists between two creatures then that means they had a common ancestor (even though there are major flaws and one of it is the fact that homology assumes that similarities are due to common descent. It doesn't prove it nor can it prove it but we'll follow the logic. Read more on the problem here). So Darwin wanted to show similarities not just in bodily structure and brain structure but even with the taste buds. Darwin said,

"Many kinds of monkeys have a strong taste for tea, coffee, and spirituous liquors: they will also, as I have myself seen, smoke tobacco with pleasure"[1]

Howling monkey

Then Darwin shared,

"Brehm asserts that the native of north-eastern Africa catch the wild baboons by exposing vessels with strong beer, by which they are made drunk. He has seen some of these animals, which he kept in confinement, in this state; and he gives a laughable account of their behaviour and strange grimaces. On the following morning they were very cross and dismal; they held their aching heads with both hands, and wore a most pitiable expression: when beer or wine was offered them, they turned away with disgust, but relished the juice of lemons"[2]

And finally,

"An American monkey, an Ateles, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus was wiser than many men" [3]

Unbelievable but very amusing facts. Monkeys are wiser than men.

References

1. Charles Darwin, 1874, 2nd edition, The Descent of Man, Penguin Classics, page  23. Darwin also has a reference at the end of the sentence and the reference states, "The same tastes are common to some animals much lower in the scale. Mr A. Nicols informs me that he kept in Queensland, in Australia, three individuals of the Phaseolarctus cinereus; and that, without having been taught in any way, they acquired taste for rum, and for smoking tobacco."

2. Ibid, page 23-24. Darwin referenced it with "Brehm, 'Thierleben', B. i. 1864, s. 75, 86. On the Ateles, s. 105. For other analogous statements, see s. 25, 107.

3. Ibid, page 24.

Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

This name (in the title) sounds like some commander or soldier from the past and you're right. Jean Baptiste Lamarck is a truly forgotten man of our time, in fact he's only known by the "long giraffe neck eating leaves from trees" man. Even Subboor, in his recent debate, mentioned that. But far from that, Lamarck was actually quite different from who we think he is or what our textbooks say about him.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Let me be frank, I can not speak French but I have read a bit of his translated work about his hypothesis and I noticed the obvious connection between Lamarck and Charles Darwin.

Lamarck was born on 1st August 1744, long before Darwin. Later in his life, Lamarck devised his hypothesis of how evolution occurred. His hypothesis was rejected despite his fame on the work on invertebrates (he coined that word -  so blame him if you hated that word in your high school). It was rejected so much that he was rejected by people and he died blind with his 2 daughters serving him in his old age. He published his hypothesis in the month of "flowering"[1] but I guess he didn't get a flowery end.

Lamarck was born in a family that was devoted to military but Lamarck was sent, by his father, to Jesuit College for ecclesiastical (relating to church) career. He never liked it. After his father died, Jean left the Jesuit College and became a soldier to fight in the battle of Fissingshausen - but lost. His fellow officers were all killed. Later on he stopped engaging in war and went to Monaco (very little tiny place next to France where rich people live and pay no tax - so called "equality") and in Monaco, his comrade physically lifted Lamarck from his head! What a fool. His lymphatic glands (in the neck) caught inflammation and thus he was forced to leave his position as a lieutenant (which he had been promoted to).  After this, due to his health not being good, he worked in a bank. He then took a course in medicine and met Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Lamarck preferred, in fact loved, botany than medicine and so he left medicine for it. Anyway, in 1781, Lamarck received a commission to visit botanical gardens and institutions in Germany, Hungary and Holland. He collected rare plants and made notes for Jardin du Roi botanical garden in Paris. Then, Museum d'Histoire Naturelle was founded. Lamarck was the chairman of zoology in Naturelle. As a chairman, he threw botany to one side and studied invertebrates and published 7 volumes on them in his Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans vertebres (1815-1822). He also published a book on meteorology but nothing important was in it and he published Philosophie Zoologique. With his meteorology book, which, according to the people at the time contained ridiculous speculation and so he was ridiculed at the time. But with his Zoologique book which is based on natural history, he went to the emperor Napoleon and handed him his book (perhaps Lamarck's motive in giving Napoleon his book was to get his fame back since he was ridiculed?). However Napoleon said:

"What is this? said the Emperor. "Is it your absurd Meteorologie with which you are disgracing your old age? Write on natural history, and I will receive your works with pleasure. This volume I only accept out of consideration for your grey hair. Here"[2] (Napoleon stated as he handed the book to someone else, perhaps his servant).

The book was about natural history but Lamarck didn't say that, he just cried.

Today Lamarck's hypothesis, is more or less forgotten, but it was much more than just inherited acquired characteristic, which simply means, whatever a person acquires during his life time, like, bigger muscles, this acquired characteristic is inherited to his descendants; thus the muscles of the children would improve. Or the famous giraffe neck. Giraffes stretch their necks, this characteristics is inherited to other giraffes and eventually over long period of time, giraffes have long necks.His hypothesis had two main principles: (1) inherent progress and (2) adaptation in environment. That is for life after it appearance. So where did life itself come from? Lamarck believed that it naturally appeared from molecules,

"Life and organisation are products of nature, and at the same time results of the powers conferred upon nature by the Supreme Author of all things and of the laws by which she herself is constituted: this can no longer be called in question. Life and organisation are thus purely natural phenomena, and their destruction in any individual is also a natural phenomenon, necessarily following from the first"[3]

Inherent progress

Ornithorhyncus (or Platypus).
An animal with "duck mouth"(a bird
characteristic) with a body of a mammal
but also lays eggs whilst mammals,
like humans, don't lay eggs.
Perfect creation, a wonder to ponder over.

Lamarck believed that not only life is spontaneous (life from non-life) but after life's appearance, it naturally evolves, hence, inherent progress. Thus, because life is constantly evolving from non molecules, it means that there is no such thing as extinction since life according to Lamarck is like a ladder and there is always a creature evolving to the new stage. So imagine a ladder with 10 steps, and life steps on the first step and then another life appears spontaneously and also steps on the first step of the ladder but by the time the second life hits the first step, the first life is already on the second step of the ladder and so on. Thus each step is occupied and therefore no such thing as extinction occurs. So why do we have a clear cut distinction between, say mammals and birds? Such a big gap must not exist. Lamarck tried to solve this by pointing to the fact that we still haven't discovered or identified all creatures on Earth. But when we find them, then we can fill the gaps. But Lamarck didn't just blame the lack of discovery but he postulated an example which "proves" his hypothesis. He used the Ornithorhyncus (Platypus) as proof that here is a mammal with a characteristic of a bird. Lamarck called them (with Echidna) "Animals intermediate between birds and mammals"[4]

Echidna.
Also a mammal but lays eggs.

Adaptation in environment

Lamarck believed that animals can also change due to the environment they live in. The reason why a giraffe has a long neck he argued was due to the fact that trees are a little long, and so the giraffes must stretch their necks in order to reach the trees (couldn't the giraffe just eat from the ground?) and therefore this stretch is gradually increasing the length of the neck by the mechanics that he postulated and called inherent acquired characteristics. Due to the fact that the environment in which the animal resides in - the adaptation changes slowly too, it logically means that animals too change slowly,

"Not only is this the greatest marvel that the power of nature has attained, but it is besides a proof of the lapse of a considerable time; since nature has done nothing but by slow degrees"[5]

Depending where you live, that would, in a Lamarckian worldview, determine whether you will use certain body parts or not. This is where his "law of use and disuse" comes in. So if a fish lived in a cave which is dark, the fish won't use it's eyes, thus based on the law of use and disuse, the eyes will eventually disappear in the future generations since it's not using the eye. Which is why Lamarck said that environment (and therefore the mode of life) controls the body.[6] Lamarck used the eyes of the mole as an example. He said "Yet the mole, whose habits require a very small use of sight, has only minute and hardly visible eyes, because it uses that organ so little"[7]

Even though this is a very summarized explanation of Lamarck's hypothesis, you can, nevertheless see gradualism, adaptation and evolution in it, which is from where Charles Darwin got some of his ideas from. Of course Darwin got his ideas from others too but Lamarck's works no doubt influenced Darwin, especially when Darwin read Lamarck's work via Charles Lyell's critique of Lamarckism in Principles of Geology volume 2 and owning Philosophical Zoology.[8]

By comparing Lamarck's evolutionary ideas and Darwin's evolutionary ideas we see very clear cut similarities and the differences between them are fairly small. Both accepted gradualism (geology and biology), evolution, environmental adaptation and the law of use & disuse. The difference is that according to Lamarck, environmental adaptation is a force that is second to the inherent progress whilst Darwin postulated adaptation as the force itself that made all the diversity. Lamarck accepted inherent progress whilst Darwin accepted adaptation as the factor that causes evolution, so Darwin rejected inherent progress.

Summary

There is no doubt that Lamarck's ideas are very similar to Darwin's and therefore I conclude that Lamarck was one of the factors that influenced Darwin. Of course Robert Chambers & Erasmus Darwin and other evolutionists influenced Darwin as well but it seems clear that Lamarck influenced him a great deal.

Note: Yes Lamarck did use the giraffe as an example, that was not made up. Lamarck said,

"It is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe (Camelo-pardalis): this animal, the largest of the mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of the trees and to make constant effort to reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's fore-legs have become longer than its hind legs, and that its neck lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without standing up on its hind legs, attains a height of six meters (nearly 20 feet)"[9]

That's the only time he spoke about giraffes. He spoke about adaptation much more, in fact a whole chapter is dedicated to it called "Of the influence of the environment on the activities and habits of animals",  but giraffes are the only thing we know of his hypothesis. I guess Lamarck answered my question "couldn't the giraffe just eat from the ground?" when he said "it is obliged to browse on the leaves of the trees and to make constant effort to reach them" but what about the animals that don't have long necks? They still coexist with giraffes...

The cause of his blindness (for 10 years until he died) was suggested to be due to his hard work involving looking through the microscope too much - a legend that deserves respect.

و الله اعلم


References

[1] Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Harvard, page 170 and Stephen Jay Gould, 2001, The Lying Stones of Marrakech. Vintage, page 115.

[2] Translation by Hugh Elliot of Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique. Hugh Elliot, 1963, Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals, Hafner Publishing Company, page xxi.

[3] Ibid, page 236.

[4] Ibid, page 166.

[5] Ibid, page 50.

[6] Ibid, page 106.

[7] Ibid, page 116.

[8] Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Harvard, page 195

[9] Hugh Elliot, 1963, Zoological Philosophy: An exposition with regard to the natural history of animals, Hafner Publishing Company, page 122