Day 13 – 52 Books in 52 Weeks

Well, I ended up doing some writing last night after all… but after my imaginary friend showed up in my writing, I thought it best to hold off a bit. I finished up during little breaks here and there at work today. This one’s kinda long, but hey, I have to make up for yesterday, right?

Anyway, it’s all from The Origin of Species and I can say that I’m very happy that I’m almost done with the book.

Chapter nine, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” I love the fact that if something doesn’t corroborate Darwin’s theory, he assumes other sciences are wrong. Granted, in this case, he was right to a certain extent. I don’t think anyone truly knows how old the Earth is.

The flaw in Darwin suggesting that the Earth was older than what was believed at the time he wrote his theory is that he based it on his theory. That is, he said the Earth was older because his theory of Natural Selection proves it to be older. Yet in order for his theory of Natural Selection to be valid, the Earth must be older than what was believed at the time.

Anyway… he starts off by trying to answer the question of why there aren’t very many fossils of “transitional links” of species to be found in the geological layers that had thus far been dug up. His first argument is that there is, “extreme imperfection of the geological record” (page 292). Of course, there’s no chance that there simply weren’t any “transitional links,” it has to be due to someone else’s misjudgment.

He says himself that, “…so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.”

Then he goes on to say that the intermediate varieties aren’t necessarily from any two species, but instead between one species and an unknown parent, so that the fossil records might not be recognized. But then on page 293, he says, “But the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, but differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day…” Doesn’t that contradict what he just said? Later in that same paragraph, he again states that “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.”

My common sense can’t comprehend that if there was a “truly enormous” number of intermediate links – so much so that it’s “inconceivably great”… surely we’d find more than a handful of fossils to prove Darwin’s theory. Again, he points the finger at geology and I love how he follows it by criticizing someone’s work in geology. “Not that it suffices to study the Principles of Geology, or to read special treatises by different observers on separate formations… a man must for years examine for himself great piles of superimposed strata… before he can hope to comprehend anything of the lapse of time…” (page 293-294).

One of his points tries to prove that the denudation of the Weald must have taken longer than 300 million years. His reasoning is that “The action of fresh water on the gently inclined Wealden district… could hardly have been great” (page 297). He states earlier in the chapter that he doesn’t think fresh water (not tainted with sediment of any type) can erode rock. Which, as we know today, isn’t true. Anyway back to his reasoning. He also suggests that the surface for the Wealden district underwent level oscillations: so it spent millions of years as land, escaping the erosion action of the sea and/or it could have been deeply submerged in which case it escaped the erosion action of the coast waves. Therefore, escaping these things, and the ‘fact’ that rain isn’t going to erode anything… it must be older than 300 million years.

I think it’s good that he is questioning the reliability of the geological record of his time. However, to twist it so that it meets the requirements to validate his theory is wrong.

On the next page he states that,“Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove.” I believe that only a small portion had been explored, but whether or not it was done with “sufficient care” is a relative statement. They didn’t have the technology our generation possesses, but at that time, they were making huge discoveries with what they had.

He continues by giving other theories as to why fossils aren’t found such as sediment not being sufficiently thick or solid enough to withstand erosion. I guess that’s true along waterlines, but I really couldn’t find anything about areas that are inland other than him suggesting that those areas used to be near waterlines but moved inland. In point of fact, the opposite is true. The Pangaea theory states that all of our current continents used to be one big landmass surrounded by ocean. Then due to the fault lines, volcanic activity, etc, they were broken up into the continents we have today. Even to this very day, they continents are still moving. (I’ve been studying a lot of volcanology and have become somewhat versed in this stuff). So Darwin’s theory is blown out there.

But I love his statement at the end of page 301, continuing onto 302, “Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms.” So we’ve gone from blaming geologists to blaming nature itself. I mean, he couldn’t even admit that he might just be wrong.

As he continues to ramble on about how geology and nature have mistreated his theory, he says on page 307, “Geological research… has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine intermediate varieties…” Wait! What? Okay, again, I’m no scientist, but isn’t geology the study of like, well, you know, rocks? Why would a geologist be accountable for “breaking down the distinction between species?” Isn’t that a biologist’s job? But because of this huge error on the geologists’ part, it is now the “gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views” (page 307).

Oh dear!

His response to these gravest of objections to his view, “Hence it will be worth while to sum up the foregoing remarks, under an imaginary illustration.”

I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Dude, seriously!? If I wanted to counter the “gravest objections” to something, I wouldn’t just make up an imaginary illustration. Okay, here, let my imaginary friend tell you about this imaginary situation which will totally prove to you that my theory is sound!

Well, that’s it for the fun of chapter nine, now onto chapter 10: On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings. Let’s start with the first page, paragraph two, the first sentence, “New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters” (page 317). Seems simple enough. But turn back a couple of pages to 315 and he says, “The several difficulties here discussed… the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations…”

So if new species appear slowly why then does he state, just a couple pages before that they appear suddenly? Anyone have a headache yet? I was hoping for another imaginary illustration, but well, there wasn’t one.

On 318 he states, “When a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we have reason to believe that the same identical form never reappears.” Yet back on page 302 he states, “When we see a species first appearing in the middle of any formation, it would be rash in the extreme to infer that it had not elsewhere previously existed.” So again, I’m scratching my head. He states if we find fossils in this formation during this geological time, the species must have first appeared in another previous geological time… but then he says that once a species disappears, it never reappears.

(Takes an aspirin).

Moving on to page 319, he says, “Hence we can see why all the species in the same region do at last, if we look to wide enough intervals of time, become modified; for those which do not change will become extinct.”

Here I raise a couple of questions, or rather point out a couple of things. First is that his theory is based on plants and animals being modified slowly generation after generation over “wide enough intervals of time.” In the 340 pages that I’ve thus far read of this book, he has not mentioned how long that time frame is. He says over and over and over that species change at different rates in different situations in different areas in different climates etc etc etc. (Has to make sure all of his bases are covered).

But how does he explain something like the horseshoe crab which, according to scientists, it has remained unchanged since the Ordovician period (approximately 445 million years ago)? Apparently we haven’t looked at a “wide enough interval of time.” Also, according to the “AnimalBytes” page on the San Diego Zoo website, it says that the tapir has remained unchanged for millions of years.

He does talk about the Tapir and the Horse but he fails to mention that the tapir hasn’t “evolved” in millions of years as his theory would suggest it had.

Well, you know, he hasn’t found his imaginary friend to tell him what to do. So on the next page, he reverts to his talking in circles. “Groups of species…changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree. A group does not reappear after it has once disappeared; or its existence, as long as it lasts, is continuous.”

(Grabs the bottle of Tylenol).

Yup, things can change more or less quickly than others (all relative to the wide interval of time you’re looking at), and a group doesn’t reappear after it’s disappeared or if it does still exist, it is continuous.

Okay, let’s see if he can make me understand this better. What does he say? “…it is clear that as long as any species of the group have appeared in the long succession of ages, so long must its members have continuously existed, in order to have generated either new and modified or the same old and unmodified forms.”

So if a species appears in a succession of ages (but only if its members have continuously existed)… wait… if they didn’t continue then they wouldn’t have appeared in a succession of ages.

(Doesn’t think the Tylenol will be strong enough).

Back to the sentence, “…continuously existed, in order to have generated either new and modified or the same old and unmodified forms.” (Imaginary friend appears) Dude, if I exist and have offspring so my species continues, my kids like, you know, have to be new and improved or be the same as me. Get it?

(Looks at her imaginary friend) But I thought Darwin said all offspring inherit things that improve them in order to weed out the weak, so wouldn’t all of your kids be new and improved?

(Imaginary friend shrugs) I’d explain, but I don’t have the time to show you my research and my fact book. Gotta go play with some amoebas.

I’m just going leave it at that for now and move on to his discussion on the development of ancient forms. “There has been much discussion whether recent forms are more highly developed than ancient” (page 336). Then he goes on to say he’s not going to talk about the subject because naturalists have not defined (to each other’s satisfaction) what the difference is between high and low forms.

Okay, let’s not discuss it. Yet he goes on for two pages as to why he’s not going to discuss it.
Isn’t this fun?

Only four long chapters left to read then I can move onto something else to turn my hair gray.

Happy reading.