The Atlantic has republished Asa Gray’s review of Darwin’s Origin from 1860. It’s a fascinating read: Asa Gray was a general supporter of Darwin, and the two of them corresponded regularly, and the review is generally positive, pointing out the power of the evidence and the idea. However, Gray is also quite plain about the way the implications of the theory make him very uncomfortable, and you can see him casting about, looking for loopholes.
The prospect of the future, accordingly, is on the whole pleasant and encouraging. It is only the backward glance, the gaze up the long vista of the past, that reveals anything alarming. Here the lines converge as they recede into the geological ages, and point to conclusions which, upon the theory, are inevitable, but by no means welcome. The very first step backwards makes the Negro and the Hottentot our blood-relations; — not that reason or Scripture objects to that, though pride may. The next suggests a closer association of our ancestors of the olden time with “our poor relations” of the quadrumanous family than we like to acknowledge. Fortunately, however,— even if we must account for him scientifically,-man with his two feet stands upon a foundation of his own. Intermediate links between the Bimana and the Quadrumana are lacking altogether; so that, put the genealogy of the brutes upon what footing you will, the four-handed races will not serve for our forerunners;— at least, not until some monkey, live or fossil, is producible with great-toes, instead of thumbs, upon his nether extremities; or until some lucky ‘geologist turns up the bones of his ancestor and prototype in France or England, who was so busy “napping the chuckie-stanes” and chipping out flint knives and arrow-beads in the time of the drift, very many ages ago,-before the British Channel existed, says Lyell,— and until these men of the olden time are shown to have worn their great-toes in a divergent and thumblike fashion. That would be evidence indeed: but until some testimony of the sort is produced, we must needs believe in the separate and special creation of man, however it may have been with the lower animals and with plants.
No doubt, the full development and symmetry of Darwin’s hypothesis strongly suggest the evolution of the human no less than the lower animal races out of some simple primordial animal,— that all are equally “lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited.”
Alas for Gray, his loopholes have been steadily closed.
I do like his conclusion, though — “uncanny” and “mischievous” are great virtues in a theory, I should think.
So the Darwinian theory, once getting a foothold, marches boldly on, follows the supposed near ancestors of our present species farther and yet farther back into the dim past, and ends with an analogical inference which “makes the whole world kin.” As we said at the beginning, this upshot discomposes us. Several features of the theory have an uncanny look. They may prove to be innocent: but their first aspect is suspicious, and high authorities pronounce the whole thing to be positively mischievous.
Yay mischief :) I knew it, Darwin only wrote his theory to discombobulate the god botherers.
“Alas for Gray, his loopholes have been steadily closed.”
You could state that also in another way: Gray listed his requirements for accepting Darwin’s hypothesis. It’s good scientific thinking; mentally related to the concept of falsifiability. Gray predated Popper by several decades!
I wonder who the ‘high authorities’ were.
Watched a wonderful Attenborough (Cheeky Monkeys)on BBC2 last week.
High point for me was monkeys harvesting palm nuts. First peel the nut, then drop on the ground beneath the tree. Leave for several days to mature. Return and tap to gauge ripeness. When ripe, carry some way across the forest to a rock with some depressions in it. Use another rock to break open the nut.
The noise attracts leopards. The monkeys run up a nearby cliff and push rocks off towards the leopard.
Planning, use of tools, use of weapons. Sounds pretty human to me! Yes, loopholes closing.
Mischievous ? cool. nothing like a bit of mischief to make science more interesting!
I am reminded of having seen “Planet of the Apes”
(the 1968 version with Charlton Heston)
In which the byplot of the conflict between Dr Zaeus and Cornelius strongly reminded me of some of the reaction to Origin of Species There were many who called Darwin a Blasphemer. I suppose one could almost look on Dr Cornelius as being the Darwin of the Planet of the Apes.
I like this a lot – Grey is clearly thinking through the implications of the theory, and the things needed to show its validity. That he was obviously a theist says nothing more about him than that Newton was a theist.
Of course, it helps that Grey was quite a eloquent writer too.
Gray predated Popper by several decades
Lassi: The principles of scientific progress through falsifiability were already clearly stated by Christoph Clavius in the 16th century.
I rather like Queen Victoria’s backhanded admission that the other apes (in particular an orangutan) were “disagreeably human”. The (educated) opposers of the theory must nearly all have been similarly (if secretly) uncomfortably aware that it was all too obviously true.
PS When looking for a decent inclusion of the Victoria quote, I found Time’s current accompanying Obama advert to be in rather unfortunate taste though, given the other part of the Asa Gray quote. Not everyone has yet fully accepted the consequences of even that first step looking backwards in time. (NB It would have been a different advert when originally put online.)
That was awesome, and beautifully written. It’s really neat to see, at least through one man’s eyes, what the perceived impact of Darwin’s work was at the time. ‘Twas a very sexy review.
Wow, PZ, this is quite a find.
I’m glad that Asa pointed out, though he seemed dismayed over the issue, while my reaction is joyous, that Darwin’s theory implies a sense of relation to other men, and that it is more significant with regards to tearing down racial barriers than building them up through eugenics.
It’s interesting to see that, even way back then, intelligent design was being discussed.
From Darwiniana (D.T. is debating A.G.):
“It seems to me therefore perfectly evident that the substitution of natural selection by necessity, for design in the formation of the organic world is step decidedly atheistical. It is in vain to say Darwin takes the creation of organic life, in its simplest forms, to have been the work of the Deity. In giving up design in these highest and most forms of organization, which have always been upon as the crowning proof of the existence of an intelligent Creator, without whose intellectual they could not have been brought into being, he takes a most decided step to banish a belief in the intelligent action of God from the organic world.”
Darwiniana: essays and reviews pertaining to Darwinism Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism By Asa Gray
What if Matthew, Wallace, & Darwin had not thought up the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, & nor had anyone else, until modern genetics was discovered. I mean, if DNA had been identified & its function understood before the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection had been formulated.
Would changes in the genome have been more, or less, readily attributed to random mutations? Would the actions of a god acting as an intelligent designer have suddenly seemed ridiculous?
David Hull published a whole book of reactions like this:
Hull, D. L. (1973) Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; reprinted 1983.
I think Gray’s review may be in there too. One interesting pattern: many of the reviews are by mathematicians and physicists. Mathematical physics was well-developed by then. They almost uniformly give negative reviews, saying in effect that “this is just throwing words around, it isn’t a real theory with equations”. 150 years later they look awfully silly.
The very first step backwards makes the Negro and the Hottentot our blood-relations; — not that reason or Scripture objects to that, though pride may.
Nice catch. I think I’ll bring this one up next time someone claims that “Dawinism is inherently racist.”
“Alas for Gray, his loopholes have been steadily closed.
In your dreams.
In fact, they are wider than ever. You guys still cling to a 150 year old obsolete theory. What will it take to bring you up to speed? Do you not read the current papers?
Darwinism is DEAD. Deal with it…
Adrian R. Krainer
Professor
Ph.D., Harvard University, 1986
Posttranscriptional control of gene expression; pre-mRNA splicing mechanisms, fidelity and genetic diseases; alternative splicing; RNA-protein interactions; cancer
email krainer@cshl.edu, phone (516) 367-8417, fax (516) 367-8453
“RNA splicing is required for expression of most eukaryotic protein-coding genes. For many such genes, alternative splicing regulates the production of multiple isoforms. Splicing requires numerous proteins and small RNAs that assemble into a macromolecular machine, the spliceosome. We use biochemical and molecular approaches to study the mechanisms and regulation of splicing.
A major effort in our lab is the identification and characterization of human proteins involved in the two catalytic steps of splicing or in regulating alternative splicing. We study the detailed structure, function, posttranslational modification, and specific RNA-binding or other functional properties of selected protein factors, as well as their subcellular localization and mechanisms of action in vivo. For example, we study the human SR (serine/arginine-rich) and hnRNP (heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein) A/B protein families. The members of these families interact antagonistically to modulate the selection of alternative splice sites. Individual SR proteins, such as SF2/ASF, are also required for spliceosome assembly. We are interested in their mechanism of action and their specificity in the recognition of exonic splicing enhancer and silencer elements, which are important for splice-site selection and splicing efficiency. We have recently demonstrated that SF2/ASF is an oncoprotein.
We also investigate the mechanisms by which single point mutations in exons result in exon skipping, leading to many genetic diseases. In particular, we have focused on the SMN genes, which are involved in spinal muscular atrophy. We are pursuing the rational design of specific compounds to suppress exon skipping, for both mechanistic studies and potential therapeutic applications.
Selected Publications
Karni, R., de Stanchina, E., Lowe, S.W., Sinha, R., Mu, D., and Krainer, A.R. 2007. The gene encoding the splicing factor SF2/ASF is a proto-oncogene. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14: 185-193.
Hua, Y., Vickers, T.A., Baker, B.F., Bennett, C.F., Krainer, A.R. 2007. Enhancement of SMN2 exon 7 inclusion by antisense oligonucleotides targeting the exon. PLoS Biol. 5: e73.
Zhang, Z., and Krainer, A.R. 2007. Splicing remodels messenger ribonucleoprotein architecture via eIF4A3-dependent and -independent recruitment of exon junction complex components. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 11574-11579.
Allemand, E., Hastings, M.L., Murray, M.V., Myers, M.P., Krainer, A.R. 2007. Alternative splicing regulation by interaction of phosphatase PP2Cgamma with nucleic acid-binding protein YB-1. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14: 630-638.
Cartegni, L., Hastings, M.L., Calarco, J.A., de Stanchina, E., and Krainer, A.R. 2006. Determinants of exon 7 splicing in the spinal muscular atrophy genes, SMN1 and SMN2. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 78: 63-77.
There really were no loopholes, since evolutionary theory is what made sense of an upright biped having only a somewhat modified quadruped frame. From the beginning evolution made sense of what was otherwise senseless, and Asa Gray was only making use of inconsequential gaps to deny what was objectively apparent.
At least he had much better excuses than do today’s anti-evolutionists–who still complain the loudest over humanity’s connections with the “animal world.”
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
How does a cut and paste of a Professor’s Bio show that evolution is not a fact?
Are YOU professor Krainer and are YOU claiming that you have evidence that the ToE is wrong?
The (not so) great spirit seems to be playing the “molecular complexity proves design” card. Ho hum, though I do wish trolls would stop misrepresenting real scientific research to support there bullshit.
Another idiot proclaiming “darwinism”. This imagined cult status of darwin is just ridiculous and shows the irrational thinking of the anti-evolutionist.
Modern evolutionary theory, much beyond Darwin’s original, is called the modern synthesis, or just the theory of evolution. If you can’t get your terms straight, the argument presented is just trash.
hehe…
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/09/19/cshl.team.traces.extensive.networks.regulating.alternative.rna.splicing
Funny how this article on the paper discusses evolution and the importance of FOX-1 and FOX-2 proteins.
Excerpt:
Experimental follow-up in the Krainer lab of the predicted binding sites indicated that between one-half and three-fourths of the thousands of computational binding-site predictions–and the corresponding alternative splicing patterns–were correct. The fact that the predicted targets were conserved during evolution across distantly related species suggests the relative importance of Fox-1 and Fox-2 function in many living systems. Indeed, the experiments confirmed that the regulatory networks that govern the actions of the splicing factors are also conserved across species.
Oh no! Genetics is complex, therefore the Theory of Evolution is completely invalidated!!! How easily our fragile house of cards falls. Oh woe are we.
Idiot.
Seriously, it seems there is a very disproportionate number of mentally ill creationist/quack/crank trolls that do drive-bys on this site…more than other similar sites I visit. Why is that? Or are the trolls here just more memorable because of the intensity of their idiocy?
“The very first step backwards makes the Negro and the Hottentot our blood-relations; — not that reason or Scripture objects to that, though pride may.”
This quote could be interpreted two different ways. The first, more accurate interpretation is that, if we travel backwards in time, we can find the common ancestor that genetically unites the races the way a grandparent unites cousins. The second sense implies that, in going back, we discover that we evolved from the “lower” races, which in turn evolved from “lower” apes, and so forth. The “Great Chain of Being” heirarchy from theology (animals –> humans –>angels –> God) is co-opted into a misunderstanding of evolution.
I’m not sure what Asa Gray’s meant by his statement. Even today, a lot of people visualize evolution that second way.
And as long as we’re doing historic quotes re evolution, here is one of my favorites by William James, a complaint about evolution:
“Evolution is a change from a nohowish, untalkaboutable all-alikeness, to somehowish and in-general-talkaboutable, not-all-alikeness, by continuous somethingelsifications and sticktogetherations.”
Ah, DNA and the modern synthesis…
Oops, correction: I just looked again, and it’s Henry James.
Shorter Great Spirit:
“This sounds WAY complicated; even me and my preacher don’t unnerstaind it. Cain’t possibly be random and Godless!!!eleventy1!”
BTW, interesting that Gray quotes the phrase “knapping the chucky-stanes” as if it’s a proverbial phrase. (Chucky-stanes is Scots for wee pebbles) I traced the words to “St Ronan’s Well” by Sir Walter Scott; not even one of his famous ones! Had Gray and Darwin been corresponding about Scott?
Interesting perspective.
You know, to bad Darwin wasn’t a Catholic; he could have been excommunicated; that would have put him in with Gallileo. Unfortunately, it seems that Rome was a little slow on the uptake, so they might have missed it anyway.
I never heard of a racist biologist, but I noticed many creationists are racists. The lying creationists have a lot of nerve to call Darwin a racist. He spoke out against slavery while Christians used the Bible to justify it.
Every human race developed to be good enough to survive in the environment they lived in, and that’s why anyone who understands evolution is very unlikely to be a racist.
@The Great Spirit,
Preach it, brother! You’re absolutely right! Everybody knows that the validity of a theory is based off of how old it is. The 450 year old “heliocentric” “theory”? Tub of trash, that is! The planets are all illusions created by God to trick us. Everything in the solar system revolves around the Earth, based off the gravitational pull from all the teacups and turtles. Geez! I thought everyone knew that, Great Spirit. Guess its just the two of us.
Yes, because the equations have meanwhile been found (Hardy-Weinberg & stuff). In Darwin’s time they were indeed missing.
And then you post some research program about RNA splicing. It appears you don’t understand what that means, because I can’t find the slightest hint at even the tiniest contradiction to the theory of evolution in there.
What is your point? Did you believe you can baffle us with bullshit, LOL?
Because this site gets the most readers.
Don Kane @ 22
Perhaps it’s a good thing Darwin was not a catholic. He might have been excommunicated, but also might have had his books banned and burned. Shudder.
My definition of excommunication: “Banishment from Fantasyland.”
Interesting behavior of the style attribute in a blockquote tag. I suppose I’ll have to go back to appending it to p instead.
Would you count James Watson?
I don’t think Gray’s review is in Hull’s “Darwin and His Critics,” but it is also available on the Darwin Correspondence Project’s website:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/
Notice also that he used the old taxonomic terms Quadrumana (“four hands”: non-human primates) and Bimana (“two hands”: humanity). I think that Quadrumana would have been a better term than Primates — it’s more descriptive and less pretentious.
Or perhaps more simply: Manuta — which I coined from manus “hand”, and the passive-participle suffix -tus, thus meaning “handed”. I’ll let some Latin geeks suggest some better alternative if they can think of one.
I forgot about him.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#Personal_philosophy_and_religious_beliefs
Looks like Euler got you in the “Here’s some fancy-looking bullshit that proves God!” department by about 240 years or so, oh Great Spirit.
Indeed. As I wrote a while back, evolution is what killed the petty, racist ideas of polygenism (that different races were in fact completely different species). To call evolution racist is a bizarre subversion of reality.
Actually, a lot of racists did use (or subvert) this to bolster their views: according to them, Africa was a verdant paradise, so blacks didn’t have to evolve any brains to survive there. They could just lounge around, grab the lush fruits that just hang off of trees, and do nothing all day. Whites, meanwhile, had to adapt to the harsh, unforgiving European environment, and therefore evolved the capacity for civilization.
“The fact that the predicted targets were conserved during evolution across distantly related species suggests the relative importance of Fox-1 and Fox-2 function in many living systems. Indeed, the experiments confirmed that the regulatory networks that govern the actions of the splicing factors are also conserved across species.”
Apparently you think that “conserved” has some evolutionary significance.
“Conserved” simply means that across a wide variety of animal species, pathways sharing a common function, also share a common origin in the biological past. A gene that has remained essentially unchanged throughout evolution is said to be conserved. Conservation of a gene indicates that it is unique and essential. There is not an extra copy of that gene with which evolution can tinker. And changes in the gene are likely to be lethal.
It tells us absolutely nothing about the gene’s origin or the mechanism that produced it. And it’s hardly compelling evidence for darwinism.
It means the structures, processes and systems found in living organisms are very old and have changed little over long periods of time.
The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances. Cosmic Ancestry holds that these processes cannot write useful new genes. Instead, for a species to make evolutionary progress, new genes must first be installed into its genome from outside.
“Are YOU professor Krainer and are YOU claiming that you have evidence that the ToE is wrong?”
No and Yes, in that order.
#37: from outside.
From outside? Do you mean from your magic fairy? I noticed you’re the same moron who said “Darwinism is DEAD.” What Christian creationist organization do you work for? Or do you just copy and paste from Bible websites?
the dead spirit @ 37
Your brain is dead, and that occurred from the inside, devoid of all genomes.
So, new genes come from aliens? Do ‘they’ install new genes in people before or after they anally probe them?
The Great Spirit wrote:
“The Darwinian paradigm holds that copying mistakes and the shuffling of existing genes are sufficient to write the new genes needed for evolutionary advances. Cosmic Ancestry holds that these processes cannot write useful new genes. Instead, for a species to make evolutionary progress, new genes must first be installed into its genome from outside.”
That is not what the “Darwinian paradigm”, by which I suppose you mean the theory of evolution, holds. These sources of genetic variation are augmented by many others.
Cosmic Ancestry is wrong. Useful genetic changes not only do arise from natural processes, with no need for supernatural intervention, but can easily be shown to have done so.
Various mutagenic agents, such as cosmic rays or chemicals in the environment, can & do cause deletions, substitutions, duplications & other changes to sequences of base pairs in the genomes of organisms. Sometimes, under changed conditions, mutations which previously were harmful may become beneficial.
A simple example comes from the “nylon bug”, a microbe which, via mutation, lost the ability to metabolize sugar but acquired the capacity to consume nylon, newly found in its environment. This development occurred between about 1935 & 1975, when the altered Flavobacterium was discovered in the waste water of a nylon factory.
Scientists have been able experimentally to reproduce this naturally occurring evolution in the lab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Might I suggest that you educate yourself as to what the modern synthesis actually holds before commenting upon the fact & theory of evolution?
What the great spirit failed to notice is that the paper was talking about commonalities across species.
It’s MORE evidence for evolution. What a maroon.
STeve C noted:
“What the great spirit failed to notice is that the paper was talking about commonalities across species.
“It’s MORE evidence for evolution. What a maroon.”
It’s certainly evidence for common descent. Evolutionary processes work to conserve old, useful information as well as to favor new useful information. Evolution is a consequence of reproduction. The more we learn about genetics, the better supported is the fact of evolution & the fuller our developing understanding of the natural means by which it happens.
Maroonitunity runs rampant, if not in fact amok!
“An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.” – Wilde
Plenty of scientists including biologists hold (and held) racist viewpoints. How many of them came to hold racist beliefs because of what they learnt of biology I’m not sure. Probably rather few.
Certainly lots of them (scientists and non-scientists alike) attempted to justify their beliefs by appealing to biology and evolution. Of course if Newton’s Laws of Motion could be used to justify segregation/eugenics/etc they’d have used that too.