Front page article in Ames Tribune 4 September 2008
The Ichneumonidae
The Ichneumonidae are wasps that sting various other
insects to paralyze them, then deposit their eggs inside their
bodies for the wasp larvae to feed on when they hatch.
“I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I
should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on
all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the
world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should
play with mice.” – Letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860.
The Huxley – Wilberforce Debate
Where: Oxford University, a location unlikely to be receptive to
Darwin’s ideas
What: Annual meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science
When: June 1860 – less than 7 months after the publication of
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, which was the talk of England
Who: Thomas Henry Huxley, 35 years old
Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, 54 years old
Bishop Samuel
Wilberforce (1805 – 1873)
Son of the abolitionist William
Wilberforce. A notable public
speaker, known as “Soapy
Sam.”
A graduate of Oxford (first
class in mathematics and
second in classics).
Became Lord Bishop of
Oxford, a member of the
House of Lords and a Fellow
of the Royal Society.
The BAAS Meeting of June 1860
Saturday, June 30: Session on Darwinism and society; meeting
moved to a larger room to accommodate 700 persons: clergy,
undergraduate students, many brightly-dressed women.
An American, Dr. Draper, from New York, droned on for about
90 minutes “On the Intellectual Development of Europe
Considered with Reference to the Views of Mr. Darwin.”
Three more men spoke but were shouted down in a matter of
only nine minutes, and the crowd then demanded to hear Bishop
Wilberforce, who had been prepared with attacks on Darwin by
Richard Owen.
Wilberforce attacked Darwin’s book as “unphilosophical,” said
Egyptian mummies disproved evolution, and showed why man
was very different from animals.
Continued …
Wilberforce, in a good mood because of the support the
clergy and students were giving him, ad-libbed, turning to
Huxley and asking him whether he was descended from
apes on his grandfather’s side or his grandmother’s.
Huxley remarked to Sir Bejamin Brodie, sitting next to
him, “The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands.”
Huxley rose to answer the bishop after the conclusion of
his speech, saying he “had listened with great attention to
the Lord Bishop’s speech but had been unable to discern
either a new fact or a new argument in it – except indeed
the question raised as to my personal predilection in the
matter of ancestry.”
Huxley’s report of what he said next:
“If then, said I, the question is put to me would I rather
have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly
endowed by nature and possessed of great means of
influence and yet who employs these faculties and that
influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule
into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm
my preference for the ape.”
Pandemonium broke loose among those who heard these
words, and one woman reportedly fainted. Huxley said
the audience listened very carefully to the rest of his
remarks.
Caricatures of Wilberforce and Huxley (Vanity Fair)
The Wilberforce – Huxley debate led to great public
discussion, with sharp divisions between those who insisted
on the truth of revealed scripture and those who believe
Darwin’s theory.
The Bishop of Worcester reported back to his wife what
had happened, since she was not present, and she is said
to have replied to him:
“Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is
not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become
generally known.”
Aside: Mark Twain once wrote that “God created man
because he was disappointed in the monkey.”
The rest of the talks …
Following Huxley, there were talks by several other noted biologists
supporting Darwin: Joseph Hooker, John Stevens Henslow, John
Lubbock.
Then Admiral FitzRoy rose to attack Darwin’s ideas. The
mathematician George Johnstone Stoney later wrote that FitzRoy
stated that he had “often expostulated with his old comrade of the
Beagle for entertaining views which were contradictory to the first
chapter of Genesis,” and asked the members of the audience to
believe revealed scripture instead of a person who was not present at
the Creation. The biologist Julius Carus remembered to Darwin that
“Admiral FitzRoy expressed his sorrows for having given you the
opportunities of collecting facts for such a shocking theory as yours.”
Finally, a number of younger biologists spoke in enthusiastic support
of Darwin’s ideas, and the meeting was over.
Robert FitzRoy’s Career
Entered the Royal Naval College, Portsmouth in February 1818, at
the age of 12.
Entered the Royal Navy in 1819.
Had a brilliant academic career, becoming lieutenant in 1824 (still a
teenager) with an unprecedented 100% score on the examination.
Served during the next few years on the HMS Thetis and the HMS
Ganges, where his talents were quite evident, then on the Beagle
and other ships, eventually becoming a vice-admiral.
Upon his return from the second Beagle voyage he married a very
religious wife to whom he had been engaged – but he had never
mentioned this to Darwin during the five-year voyage.
FitzRoy became more and more of a Biblical literalist as the years
went by, and regretted having brought Darwin on his ship.
Governor of New Zealand
In 1841 the first governor of New Zealand, William Hobson, was
appointed; previously, New Zealand was administered from Australia.
When he died in later 1842, FitzRoy was appointed as the second
governor. He served from December 26, 1843 to November 18, 1845.
Despite being given little military equipment and personnel, he was
supposed to maintain order and protect the Maori as British settlers
poured into the New Zealand, wanting land. The only revenue he had
came from customs duties.
Earlier in 1843 the Maori had killed 22 settlers in the “Wairau Affray
(or Massacre)” and FitzRoy had to investigate it. He did not punish any
of the Maori responsible and became disliked by the settlers, who
basically wanted the Maori exterminated, so FitzRoy’s term was short.
FitzRoy was succeeded by Sir George Grey, who was given adequate
military resources, and governed from 1845 to 1854 and again from
1861 to 1868.
FitzRoy the Meteorologist
FitzRoy retired from active service in 1851, in part
because of ill health.
In 1854 he was made head of a new meteorological office
in the Board of Trade for the purpose of collecting
weather data at sea. This was the forerunner of the “Met
Office” (Meterological Office), which is the United
Kingdom’s national weather service.
FitzRoy invented several
types of barometers for use
by fishermen, and they
continued in production into
the 20th century,
They were marked with
“Admiral FitzRoy’s special
remarks” – such as “When
rising: in winter the rise of
the barometer presages frost.
FitzRoy as meteorologist …
On October 26, 1859 a great storm on the Welsh coast
destroyed the steam clipper Royal Charter, returning from
Melbourne, Australia to Liverpool. About 459 lives were
lost, only 21 male passengers ad 18 male crew members
surviving.
FitzRoy then began developing charts to predict the
weather, calling his system “forecasting the weather,” the
name still used today by weatherpersons around the world.
In 1860 he began providing gale warnings along the
British coast, and in 1863 gathered a lot of information in
his book, The Weather Book.
Death of Robert FitzRoy
April 30, 1865 – FitzRoy, who was depressed, got up in
the morning, went to the bathroom, and slit his throat
with a razor.
He had spent his whole fortune of £6,000 on public
expenditures, leaving his wife and daughter destitute.
However, friends convinced the government to pay back
£3,000, Darwin added another £100, and Queen Victoria
allowed his widow to live at Hampton Court Palace.
Named for Robert FitzRoy:
• Mount FitzRoy, in Argentina and
Chile, at the extreme south end of
South America – an important
tourist attraction.
• Fitzroy River in northern Western
Australia.
• The conifer Fitzroya cupressoides
of the cypress family, probably
South America’s tallest tree (over
45 m high); a specimen in Chile
was determined to be 3622 years
old, the third oldest verified age on
record for a tree.
Fitzroya cupressoides
Darwin keeps working on natural selection
Darwin enlisted the help of anyone he could, including his
neighbor, John Lubbock (Lord Avebury):
“I write now in great haste to beg you to look (though I
know how busy you are, but I cannot think of any other
naturalist who would be careful) at any field of common red
clover (if such a field is near you) and watch the hive-bees:
probably (if not too late) you will see some sucking at the
mouth of the little flowers and some few sucking at the base
of the flowers, at holes bitten through the corollas. All that
you will see is that the bees put their heads deep into the
[flower] head and rout about. Now, if you see this, do for
Heaven’s sake catch me some of each and put in spirits and
keep them separate.”
Darwin’s sons were intrigued by their father’s theory of
evolution by natural selection, and quickly became
young Darwinians. Darwin was astonished one day by
Horace’s theory about adders:
“Horace said to me yesterday, ‘If everyone would kill
adders they would come to sting less.’ I answered, ‘Of
course they would, for there would be fewer.’ He replied
indignantly: ‘I did not mean that; but the timid adders
which run away would be saved, and in time they would
never sting at all.’ Natural selection of cowards.”
Henry Walter
Bates (1825 –
1892)
Born in Leicester,
no formal
education after
age 12. Like
William Smith,
Alfred Russel
Wallace, and
Thomas Henry
Huxley, Bates was
an auto-didact.
Bates had various jobs, but read widely and studied nature.
He met Wallace in Leicester and in 1847 they decided to go
to the Amazon River, paying for the trip by sending
specimens back to England and having an agent sell them.
They traveled and collected together for a year, then split up
to cover different ground. Wallace eventually returned to
England in 1852 while Bates remained a total of 11 years,
until 1859.
Bates brought back 14,000 specimens, mostly insects,
including 8,000 new species! He shipped his specimens
back on three different ships, to avoid the calamitous loss
Wallace had experienced, and all three returned safely.
Darwin persuaded Bates (who
was extremely reluctant to
write) to publish information
about his travels and
experiences, and Bates’
wonderful book, The
Naturalist on the River
Amazons [sic], was published
in 1862 by John Murray
(Darwin’s publisher) – a great
naturalist travel book ranking
with Darwin’s Voyage of the
Beagle.
Shown on the right is Figure
32 of Bates’ book.
“I had an amusing adventure one day with these birds [curlcrested toucans]. I had shot one from a rather high tree in a
dark glen in the forest, and entered the thicket where the bird
had fallen to secure my booty. It was only wounded, and on my
attempting to seize it, set up a loud scream. In an instant, as if
by magic, the shady nook seemed alive with these birds,
although there was certainly none visible when I entered the
jungle. They descended towards me, hopping from bough to
bough, some of them swinging on the loops and cables of woody
lianas, and all croaking and fluttering their wings like so many
furies. If I had had a long stick in my hand I could have knocked
several of them over. After killing the wounded one, I began to
prepare for obtaining more specimens and punishing the
viragos for their boldness; but the screaming of their
companion having ceased, they remounted the trees, and before
I could reload, every one of them had disappeared.” – Bates,
Chapter 12
Batesian Mimicry
Bates is best remembered for having discovered the
phenomenon called “Batesian Mimicry,” which is the
evolutionary development in a species of characteristics
which mimic those of a related species which is
unpalatable to predators, so that the predators also avoid
the mimic species. (There is another type of mimicry,
Mullerian mimicry.)
Bates discovered mimicry in butterflies, but it has since
been observed in a wide variety of species, including other
insects, snakes and birds
This is a plate
from a paper by
Bates published in
1862. The
unpalatable
species of
butterflies are on
the second and
fourth rows, and
the mimics are on
the first and third
rows.
Batesian mimicry is an excellent example of evolution, as
Darwin realized, which is why he supported Bates’ book.
1862: Publication of Darwin’s The Various
Contrivances by Which Orchids are Fertilised by
Insects.
Orchids were not just flowers of great beauty created for
the enjoyment of human beings, but flowers of great
complexity whose evolutionary history could be
discerned by the study of how they were pollinated.
Darwin carefully studied his orchids – and many he had
collected and received from acquaintances.
Criticisms of Darwin’s Theory by Scientists
In the early 1860s, following the publication of On the
Origin of Species, attacks on Darwin’s theories began
by real scientists, as opposed to criticisms by
clergymen with little or no training in science.
Some criticisms were by naturalists who had long
believed in creationism and were loathe to change their
opinion. Notable among these were the geologist
Adam Sedgwick and anatomist Richard Owen in
Britain and geologist/zoologist Louis Agassiz in
America, but there were many others as well. Many
scientists became convinced of the reality of evolution,
but not of the role of natural selection.
Then there were the physical scientists …
The Physicists Attack Darwin
Some of the fiercest and most telling criticisms of Darwin – and the
ones that worried him the most – came from the physicists and
engineers.
First, physicists were still very mechanistic and deterministic in those
days, before the discovery of statistical processes like radioactivity
and the development of quantum mechanics or even chaos theory.
They did not like the apparently important role of randomness in
natural selection.
Second, physicists believed the earth’s age could not possibly be as
old as geologists and evolutionists thought and needed, so that there
was not enough time for the gradual processes leading to evolution of
life on earth.
Third, under the currently-accepted theory of blending inheritance
(children’s characteristics a blend of those of their parents) mutations,
however favorable to evolution, would disappear from the population.
The Age of the Earth Controversy
In 1650 Anglican Archbishop Ussher estimated the age of the
earth as 5654 years, created the night before 23 October 4004
B.C.
1779: the French naturalist Buffon (the Comte du Buffon)
estimated the age of the Earth as 75,000 years – much older
than the Biblical estimate. He obtained this age by an
experiment using a small Earth-like globe and measuring its
rate of cooling, and extrapolating to the real Earth.
1856: Hermann von Helmholtz estimates the age of the Earth
as 22 million years, based on his estimate of the time it would
take the Sun to condense to its present size from the original
nebula of gas and dust. Simon Newcomb similarly calculated
an age of 18 million years in 1892.
James Ussher
(1581– 1656)
Anglican Archbishop of
Armagh and Primate of All
Ireland (1625 – 1656).
Born to a prominent AngloIrish family in Dublin.
A gifted and prolific scholar.
Determined (1650 – 1654)
that the world was created at
nightfall preceding 23
October 4004 B.C.
Charles Lyell’s Opinion
Charles Lyell always considered the Earth to be extremely
old. As early as 1830 he had concluded that there must be
a steady internal source of heat inside the Earth in order to
account for the volcanic activity which had been occurring
throughout the whole history of the Earth. He did not
accept the concept of a gradually cooling Earth.
Darwin’s theory of evolution required immensely long
periods of time, much longer than any of the estimates of
the Earth’s age during his lifetime, so he was favorably
disposed towards Lyell’s arguments about the antiquity of
the Earth.
Estimates by William Thompson (Lord Kelvin)
1862: William Thompson (later Lord Kelvin) estimated the
age of the Earth as between 24 million and 400 million
years, by assuming that the Earth was originally a
completely molten ball of rock (held together by
gravitational forces), and then determining the time to the
present from the Earth’s rate of cooling and present
temperature. (He was unaware of heat being produced by
radioactive decay processes, making the time much longer.)
1892: Now Lord Kelvin, he sharpens his estimate to 100
million years using thermal gradients, not realizing that the
Earth’s highly viscous fluid mantle made his calculations
erroneous. Later he revised his estimate to 20 million years.
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin – a photograph and a
painting
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907)
Irish physicist, noted for his work in Thermodynamics,
but also in other fields of physics.
Became a professor (of “natural philosophy”) at the
University of Glasgow, where his father had been a
professor of mathematics, in 1846, at the age of 22.
Made Baron Kelvin in 1892, the River Kelvin being the
river that passes through the campus of the University of
Glasgow.
Developed the absolute temperature scale named after
him, the Kelvin scale (0 K is absolute zero).
Huxley’s attacks on Thomson’s calculation
First, Huxley pointed out Thomson’s assumptions on
which his calculation was based, and said they might be
wrong. The theory of the sun’s heat – that it was an
initial quantity being continuously dissipated – might be
wrong, and there might be a continuous new source of
heat inside the earth, perhaps some unknown chemical
activities.
Second, a smaller age of the earth was not necessarily
fatal to the theory of natural selection, that biological
change might be occurring faster than currently
supposed. After all, the biological clock of evolution
depended on the geological clock associated with
sedimentary deposits – and that might be erroneous.
Huxley’s attacks on Kelvin’s calculation ….
Third, impressive mathematics doesn’t automatically
strengthen an argument:
“I do not presume to throw the slightest doubt upon the accuracy
of any of the calculations made by such distinguished
mathematicians… But I desire to point out that this seems to be
one of the many cases in which the admitted accuracy of
mathematical processes is allowed to throw a wholly inadmissible
appearance of authority over the results obtained by them.
Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite
workmanship, which grinds you stuff of any degree of fineness;
but, nevertheless, what you get out depends upon what you put in;
and as the grandest mill in the world will not extract wheat-flour
from peascods, so pages of formulae will not get a definite result
out of loose data.” I.e, “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Other Estimates
1895: John Perry, modeling the Earth with a convective
mantle and a thin crust, estimates the age of the Earth as 2 to
3 billion years.
Darwin’s son, George H. Darwin (University of Cambridge),
theorizing that the Earth and Moon had broken apart when
they were molten, estimated that tidal friction would have
given the Earth its present 24-hour day in about 56 million
years. Not helpful to his father’s theory!
1899-1900: John Joly (University of Dublin) estimated the
oceans as being 80 to 100 million years old, based on their
current salinity and the rate at which they accumulated salt
through erosion.
The Reputations of Lyell & Darwin
Charles Lyell died in 1875 and Charles Darwin in 1882, at a
time when the accepted estimates of the age of the Earth
were so much shorter than their estimates based on geology
and biology, that their reputations suffered. If their theories
needed an Earth far more ancient than the Earth could
possibly be, their theories must be wrong.
Geologists decided the old theory of catastrophism gave a
better explanation of geological changes in the past, and
biologists, while generally believing in evolution, were
mostly reluctant to accept Darwin’s ideas about natural
selection and gradualism.
Kelvin was considered a greater scientist than either Lyell or
Darwin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Radioactivity and Radioactive Heating of the
Earth Imply an Older Earth
1896: Discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel
1898: Marie and Pierre Curie discover the radioactive
elements polonium and radium.
1903: Pierre Curie determines that a gram of radium
produces enough heat in one hour to melt a gram of
ice.
1903: George Darwin and John Joly point out that the
heat generated by radioactivity would affect estimates
of the age of the Earth, making it much older than the
current estimates. Darwin’s son redeems himself!
Radiometric Dating
The discovery of radioactivity
eventually led to the concept of
radiometric dating, that is,
dating a rock sample by
comparing the abundance of
naturally-occurring radioactive
isotopes in the sample with the
abundance of its decay products,
together with knowledge of the
decay rates of the isotopes
involved. Much of the early
work was done by the New
Zealand physicist Ernest
Rutherford, who taught at
various universities in Canada
and England, and his students.
Ernest Rutherford in 1908
Rutherford measured the concentration of helium, from
radioactive alpha decay in a rock, and determined its age
as 40 million years, assuming that no helium escaped from
the rock and that the decay rate of radium determined by
Ramsay and Soddy was accurate. These assumptions
were in error, as it happens, but radiometric dating became
more precise in succeeding years.
Giving a talk about his measurement and its implications
for the age of the Earth, contradicting Lord Kelvin, he
discovers that Kelvin has come to his talk.
Rutherford reports:
… continued
“I came into the room, which was half dark, and
presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and
realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my
speech dealing with the age of the earth, where my
views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast
asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the
old bird sit up, open an eye, and cock a baleful glance
at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said,
'Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the earth, provided
no new source was discovered. That prophetic
utterance refers to what we are now considering
tonight, radium!' Behold! the old boy beamed upon
me.”
Arthur Holmes (1890 – 1965)
The difficulties of dating by radiometric methods,
particularly after isotopes were discovered and
complicated matters, caused many physicists to stop
using the method. Arthur Holmes (1890 – 1965)
persisted, focusing on lead isotopes, and in 1911
estimated the age of the earth as at least 1.6 billion years.
In 1927 he published The Age of the Earth, estimating it
as 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.
Holmes was the author of some popular, well-known
geological textbooks which touted the theory of
continental drift (which led to plate tectonics) when no
other geologists believed in it.
Claire Cameron Patterson
The first really accurate determination of the age of the earth,
the value currently accepted, was made by C. C. Patterson
(1922 – 1995), who was born in Mitchellville, Iowa and
educated at Grinnell College, the University of Iowa, and the
University of Chicago.
In 1956 C. C. Patterson, using lead isotope methods, produced
an accurate age of 4.55 billion years, which has not changed
significantly since then: the current range of estimates is 4.53
to 4.58 billion years. For this purpose he used meteoritic
material from Arizona’s Canyon Diablo meteorite, formed at
the beginning of the Solar System.
Patterson was also famous for his work on lead in the
environment.
Blending Inheritance
In the days before anything was understood about genetics, little
was known about inheritance other than that a child inherited
characteristics from both of its parents, in equal or
approximately equal amounts.
The generally-accepted theory was that inheritance was a blend
of the characteristics of the parents: children of two short
parents were short, children of two tall parents were tall, and
children of one short and one tall parents were intermediate in
height, and so forth. A red-flowered plant crossed with a whiteflowered plant would have pink flowers.
Darwin seems to have thought that a favorable mutation – a
mutation that gave an animal or plant some advantage in the
struggle for survival – would increase in frequency over time
(and, in fact, it does).
Fleeming Jenkin’s Criticism of Darwin
Fleeming Jenkin (1833 – 1885) was a remarkable scientist who
became a professor of engineering at several universities,
including the University of Edinburgh. He was the inventor of
the telpherage (the first aerial tramway) and played a key role
in the laying of underwater cables in several parts of the world.
He was also the first to draw a graph of economic supply and
demand, in a paper presented in 1870.
Jenkin, in a review of Darwin’s book published in The North
British Review in 1867, pointed out that blending or “soft”
inheritance would inevitably lead to the disappearance of
favorable sports (mutations) in a population, suggesting that
Darwin’s theory of natural selection was faulty. This criticism
stung Darwin, who tried to save the situation with an odd and
incorrect genetic theory.
Fleeming Jenkin at
work in his
laboratory.
After his sudden
death at the age of
52, his family had
a memoir written
by Robert Louis
Stevenson.
Mendelian Genetics
Today it is known that inheritance is not “soft” but
“particulate.” Genes are inherited from both parents, and
together the genotype (the set of a person’s genes)
determines the phenotype (the characteristics of the
individual), but generally in a complex manner.
The particulate nature became evident in the genetic studies
on peas carried out from 1855 to 1863 by the Austrian
monk Gregor Mendel, presented at a scientific meeting in
1865, and published in 1866 in the Proceedings of the
Natural History Society of Brünn, where they lay mostly
neglected until rediscovery in 1900. No, he never sent his
paper to Darwin, who supposedly left it unopened.
Above: Mendel. Left:
Simple Mendelian
inheritance
July 1868 – Visit to
Isle of Wight
Darwin’s daughter
Henrietta convinced her
father to take a vacation
on the Isle of Wight at
Dimbola Lodge, the home
of Julia Margaret
Cameron. He met Alfred
Lord Tennyson there and
was photographed by Julia
Cameron; this photograph
appears to have been his
and his family’s favorite
photograph.
Julia Margaret Cameron (1815 – 1879)
Julia Margaret Cameron
was born in Calcutta to a
British official of East
India Company and
married Charles Hay
Cameron 20 years her
senior. When he retired in
1848 they moved back to
England and eventually
bought property on the Isle
of Wight.
In 1863, when she was 48, Julia Margaret Cameron was
given a camera as a present from her daughter, and
immediately began taking large numbers of pictures,
both portraits and posed pictures based on religious
themes or literary works. She was very forceful in
convincing people to sit for her.
Many of her portraits are considered the best (and are
sometimes the only) portrait of a particular individual.
Her photographic career lasted essentially from 1863 to
1875, when the Camerons moved to Ceylon, where there
was no market for Julia’s photographs and no chemicals
readily available.
Julia Margaret Cameron’s photograph of the great
Shakespearean actress Ellen Terry (at age of 16).
Portraits by Julia Margaret
Cameron of Alfred Lord
Tennyson, Sir John Herschel,
Thomas Carlyle, and her niece
Julia Jackson (mother of the
writer Virginia Woolf and the
artist Vanessa Bell).
1866: Darwin and Religion
From time to time persons wrote to Darwin and asked
about his views on religion, which he was reluctant to
discuss, but he usually answered.
In 1866 a woman wrote to ask him if his theory about
the origin of species was compatible with a belief in
God, and Darwin wrote to her, “It has always
appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the
immense pain and suffering in this world as the
inevitable result of the natural sequence of events, i.e.,
general laws, rather than from the direct intervention
of God.”
1869: Henry James visits the Darwins
In 1869 Henry James, only 26 and not yet a famous writer,
was invited to lunch with a friend at the Darwins. James
wrote to his family that the Darwins’ carriage met them at
Bromley Station and they “rolled quietly along through a
lovely landscape, between springing hedges and ivycrowned walls – ineffably verdurous meadows and tenderbursting copses … fine old seats and villas … Darwin’s
house is a quiet old place … We lunched and spent an hour
and a half seeing the old man, his wife and his daughter.
Darwin is the sweetest, simplest, gentlest old Englishman
you ever saw … He said nothing wonderful and was
wonderful in no way but in not being so.”
Huxley: 1864 to 1870
From 1864 to 1870, despite many other demands on his time,
Huxley published 39 papers, the most important one tracing the
development of birds from reptiles. Previously, these two groups
of animals were regarded more or less as opposites:
• Reptiles were heavy and cold-blooded and they crawled.
• Birds were light and warm-blooded and they flew.
Huxley showed that many extinct reptiles had characteristics of
modern birds, and many extinct birds had characteristics of
modern reptiles. He proposed three groups of vertebrates:
• Mammals
• Sauroids (birds and reptiles)
• Ichthyoids (fish and amphibians)
Archaeopteryx specimen at Berlin Museum
From Solnhofen limestones in Bavaria, Germany
Maps showing area of Solnhofen limestones in
Bavaria,
where the Archaeopteryx specimens were found.
Running for Election to the London School Board
During the 1860s, many British educators and politicians
supported a national system of elementary education, and Huxley
was especially vocal on this score, arguing that “the masses should
be educated because they are men and women with unlimited
capacities of being, doing, and suffering, and that it is as true now,
as it ever was, that the people perish for lack of knowledge.”
In 1870 Gladstone’s government passed an Education Act that
provided for the immediate establishment of a London School
Board, to consist of 49 members.
Huxley decided to run, not just by himself, but “running with a
trade-unionist and carpenter William Cremer on a dream ticket,
scientific training and artisan opportunity.” – Huxley: From
Devil’s Disciple to Evolution’s High Priest by Adrian Desmond
(1994, 1997).
Huxley did not raise much money or campaign, but in an
election address did say:
“It seems to be the fashion for candidates to assure you that
they will do their best to spare the poverty of the Ratepayers. It
is proper, therefore, for me to add that I can give you no such
assurance on my own behalf… my vote will be given for that
expenditure which can be shown to be just and necessary,
without any reference to the question whether it may raise the
rates a halfpenny.”
Surprisingly, Huxley won a seat on the board, coming in
second in Marylebone (entitled to 7 seats) only to Elizabeth
Garrett, Britain’s first female doctor. Huxley became
Chairman of its Scheme of Education Committee, which set
educational policy for London and, eventually, all of Britain.
Huxley’s Scheme of Education
Children need physical training with healthy exercise.
All pupils must be educated in domestic economy so they know
how to make the best use of the money they earn.
Students must be taught the elementary laws of conduct, which,
surprisingly, included reading the Bible (for its literary merit and
morality).
Subjects taught must include elementary science, drawing and
modelling and music.
In 14 months Huxley attended 170 committee meetings, traveled
all over Britain, spoke to important Church and State leaders,
drafted many documents, solicited witnesses for hearings – and
destroyed his health, requiring 3 months of rest in the
Mediterranean in 1872.
A question that occurred to me on reading about this:
Who was William Cremer, Huxley’s carpenter running
mate?
What became of him?
Was he ever heard from again? Desmond, in his
biography of Huxley, never mentions him again.
Was there anything special in the man, that might have
attracted Huxley’s attention?
The answers are quite surprising!
(William) Randal Cremer (1828 – 1908)
William Randal Cremer (1828 – 1908)
• Born in Fareham (near Portsmouth) to a poor working family
• Raised (with two siblings) by his mother in great poverty after
his father deserted the family
• Apprenticed to building trades at age 15 and became a carpenter
• Moved to London in 1852 and became active in workers’ affairs
• Instrumental in creation of the Amalgamated Society of
Carpenters and Joiners
• Elected to London School Board in 1870 with T. H. Huxley
• Elected Liberal Member of Parliament for Haggerston 1885 –
1895 and 1900 – 1908
• Noted pacifist and supporter of arbitration in international affairs
Achievements of Sir William Randal Cremer:
• In 1887 presented a proposal to President Grover Cleveland for
an Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty (signed in 1897)
• Co-founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1889, with
members from eight countries including UK and France.
• Instrumental in first steps towards the creation of a “High Court
of Nations” in The Hague
• Co-founder of the International Arbitration League.
• (Sole) winner of the 1903 Nobel Peace Prize; he donated his
prize of £8,000 to the International Arbitration League
• Knighted in 1907
• Other honors: French Légion d'honneur, Norwegian
Knighthood of Saint Olaf
Huxley in 1873
After his three-month vacation in 1872, Huxley quickly became
too busy again, working hard but acceding to too many
demands on his time and energy. His friends became very
alarmed, and Lady Lyell prevailed on Emma Darwin to have
Charles do something to help Huxley, whose financial situation
was not good
Darwin decided to raise money for Huxley from his friends; 18
persons contributed a total of £ 2,100 – a very large sum, about
two years salary for Huxley. But he also had to convince
Huxley to accept the money, and everyone feared he wouldn’t.
On April 23, 1873, Darwin sent a letter to Huxley; Emma
Darwin was especially apprehensive, telling her sister, “He sent
off the awful letter to Mr. Huxley today, and I hope we may hear
tomorrow. It will be very awful.”
“My Dear Huxley – I have been asked by some of your friends
(eighteen in number) to inform you that they have placed through
Robarts, Lubbock and Company, the sum of £ 2100 to your account
at your bankers. We have done this to enable you to get such
complete rest as you may require for the re-establishment of your
health; and in doing this we are convinced that we act for the public
interest, as well as in accordance with our most earnest desires. Let
me assure you that there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance
amongst us. If you could have heard what was said, or could have
read what was, as I believe, our inmost thoughts, you would know
that we all feel towards you, as we should to an honoured and much
loved brother. I am sure that you will return this feeling, and will
therefore be glad to give us the opportunity of aiding you in some
degree, as this will be a happiness to us to the last day of our lives.
Let me add that our plan occurred to several of your friends at
nearly the same time and quite independently of one another. – My
dear Huxley, your affectionate friend, Charles Darwin.”
As William Irwine wrote in Apes, Angels and Victorians, “It
was not awful at all. Deeply touched and somewhat humbled,
Huxley accepted.”
Huxley’s “rest” began with a trip to France with Joseph
Hooker, acting as nurse. Hooker realized that Huxley was
suffering from severe mental depression, until Huxley came
across a History of the Miracles at Lourdes at a bouquiniste’s
stall in Paris, and enjoyed himself finding natural causes for all
the visions and cures reported therein. Afterwards they visited
many geological sites and anthropological museums
When Hooker returned to England Huxley was joined by his
wife and 12-year-old son Leonard, whom he discovered to be a
very clever young man. Trying to tell Leonard about glaciers,
his son said he already knew all that from John Tyndall’s book
on glaciers.
Huxley humor: June 1, 1876 speech to academicians
“The recent speculation of biology leads to the conclusion
that the scale of being may be thus stated – minerals, plants,
animals, men who cannot draw, artists. … We have long
been seeking, as you may be aware, for a distinction between
men and animals. The old barriers have long been broken
away. Other things walk on two legs and have no feathers,
caterpillars make themselves clothes, kangaroos have
pockets, …, beavers and ants engineer as well as the
members of the noblest of professions. But … man alone can
draw or make unto himself a likeness. This then, is the great
distinction of humanity, and it follows that the most preeminently human of creatures are those who possess this
distinction in the highest degree.”
Huxley visit to the United States
In 1876 (the centennial year) Mr. and Mrs. Huxley took a
“second honeymoon” to the US, finding the country wild
with excitement at their visit, whose main purpose was to
be the opening speaker for the new Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore (a choice criticized by religious
commentators). In his talk Huxley opposed entrance
examinations to universities, preferring to weed students
out as they proved deficient in ability or motivation.
Huxley also went to Tennessee to visit his eldest sister,
Eliza Scott, and was prevailed up to give a talk – so he
worked up a talk on the geology of Tennessee.
Huxley tried not to accept payments for his lectures, but
wound up with a £600 profit on the trip.
Huxley, Iowa
Huxley, Iowa, which was platted out in 1881, was
apparently named for Thomas Henry Huxley.
The town’s web site and some other sources say that the
man who platted the town, a railroad and land executive
named S. S. Merrill, was Huxley’s nephew. This does not
seem possible. No Huxley relatives seem to have the
name Merrill; Huxley’s only sibling living in America, his
eldest sister Eliza (“Lizzie”), had married a man named
Salt who had changed his name to Scott.
Huxley studies the dog family (1879 – 1880)
In 1879 and 1880 Huxley became fascinated with
investigating the Canidae, the dog family, dissecting and
studying the anatomy of dogs, wolves, jackals, foxes –
many specimens begged from friends in other parts of the
world.
His conclusion was that dogs had a dual origin: big dogs
descended from wolves and small dogs from jackals. In
recent years it has become clear, especially from DNA
evidence, that there is a single origin, and that all dogs are
modified wolves.
Huxley concluded from his dog studies that taxonomy
should not focus on concepts such as species and
varieties:
“The suggestion that it may be as well to give up the
attempt to define species, and to content oneself with
recording the varieties of pelage [skin covering: hair, fur,
wool, etc.] and stature which accompany a definable type
of skeletal and dental structure in the geographical
district in which the latter is indigenous, may be
regarded as revolutionary; but I am inclined to think that
sooner or later we shall have to adopt it.”
Huxley’s Death in 1895
On June 29, 1895, at the age of 70, Huxley died of a heart
attack (after contracting influenza and pneumonia),
survived by his wife, who lived several more decades and
was able to help celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth
of Charles Darwin in 1909.
Huxley was buried in North London at St. Marylebone
(now East Finchley) Cemetery, in a small family plot that
he had bought when his first son, Noel, died of scarlet
fever in 1860; Huxley's wife is also buried there. No one
was invited to the burial, but two hundred people turned
up, including such notables as Joseph Hooker, Joseph
Lister, and Henry James.
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation
to Sex (1871)
This two-volume work is considered Darwin’s second
great book on evolution. It is really two works printed
together: a book about the evolution of humans (The
Descent of Man, 7 chapters) and a longer book (Selection
in Relation to Sex, 14 chapters) about sexual selection.
When the manuscript was presented to the publisher, John
Murray, Darwin was asked to remove one passage only –
a passage that suggested that females could enjoy sex – a
no-no for the Victorian Age.
Arguments in The Descent of Man
Although the fact of evolution seemed to indicate that
humans were part of the animal world, mostly closely
related to apes like the chimpanzees and gorillas, many
scientists (notably, Alfred Russel Wallace) did not believe
the human mind could have evolved from ancestors
common to humans and apes. Darwin’s book was
intended to address this, by showing that supposedly
purely human faculties (moral reasoning, sympathy
towards others, appreciation of beauty and music, etc.)
were to be seen in other animals, notably apes, albeit not
as highly developed as in humans.
These are embryos, at an early stage of development,
of eight different animals.
In alphabetical order, they are chicken, cow, fish,
humans, pig, rabbit, salamander, and tortoise.
Can you tell which is which?
The same embryos at a later stage of development.
The Problem of Human Races
Many 19th century scientists considered different races to
be different species of humans. In particular, African
blacks were a different species which some Englishmen
considered closer to apes than to Europeans.
Darwin felt humans constituted only one species, and that
racial differences (skin color and hair texture) were
superficial differences: persons belonging to different
races were simply variants.
Today, DNA studies show that Darwin was correct.
Darwin correctly surmised that humans originated in Africa.
Current family
tree of hominids
The last common
ancestor of humans
and chimpanzees
was about 5 to 7
million years ago.
Anatomically and
behaviorally
modern humans
emerged about
200,000 years ago.
Sexual Selection
Darwin defined sexual selection (first mentioned in On the
Origin of Species) as the selection of certain traits by
competition between members of a species, the “struggle
between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for
the possession of the other sex.”
“Sexual
selection depends on the success of certain
individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the
propagation of the species; whilst natural selection depends
on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the
general conditions of life. …
Sexual Selection (continued)
“The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between
individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to
drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining
passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between
the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm
those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no
longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable
partners. This latter kind of selection is closely analogous
to that which man unintentionally, yet effectually, brings to
bear on his domesticated productions, when he preserves
during a long period the most pleasing or useful individuals,
without any wish to modify the breed.”
Indian blue peacock
An albino peacock – selected against because very
visible to predators and not attractive to female mates.
Stalk-eyed fly (fly family Diopsidae)
Many of Darwin’s contemporaries considered the theory
of sexual selection to be ridiculous. Alfred Russel
Wallace considered it one of his great accomplishments in
evolutionary theory to have disproved the “female
choice” aspect of the theory.
In the late 1960s, however, biologists resuscitated the
theory and carried out some experiments which definitely
proved that sexual selection did occur. Today, Darwin’s
theory is generally accepted as correct, but not by
everyone.
Long-tailed Widowbirds (Birds of Stanford, 1988)
“There is evidence that female birds of some species (e.g.,
Marsh Wrens, Red-winged Blackbirds) tend to choose as mates
those males holding the most desirable territories. In contrast,
there is surprisingly little evidence that females preferentially
select males with different degrees of ornamentation. One of
the most interesting studies involved Long-tailed Widowbirds
living in a grassland on a plateau in Kenya. Males of this
polygynous six-inch weaver (a distant relative of the House
Sparrow) are black with red and buff on their shoulders and
have tails about sixteen inches long. The tails are prominently
exhibited as the male flies slowly in aerial display over his
territory. This can be seen from more than half a mile away.
The females, in contrast, have short tails and are
inconspicuous. …
Long-tailed Widowbirds (Birds of Stanford, 1988)
“Nine matched foursomes of territorial widowbird males
were captured and randomly given the following
treatments. One of each set had his tail cut about six
inches from the base, and the feathers removed were then
glued to the corresponding feathers of another male, thus
extending that bird's tail by some ten inches. A small piece
of each feather was glued back on the tail of the donor, so
that the male whose tail was shortened was subjected to
the same series of operations, including gluing, as the
male whose tail was lengthened. A third male had his tail
cut, but the feathers were then glued back so that the tail
was not noticeably shortened. The fourth bird was only
banded. …
Long-tailed Widowbirds (Birds of Stanford, 1988)
“Thus the last two birds served as experimental controls
whose appearance had not been changed, but which had
been subjected to capture, handling, and (in one) cutting
and gluing. To test whether the manipulations had
affected the behavior of the males, numbers of display
flights and territorial encounters were counted for
periods both before and after capture and release. No
significant differences in rates of flight or encounter were
found. …”
Long-tailed Widowbirds (Birds of Stanford, 1988)
“The mating success of the males was measured by
counting the number of nests containing eggs or young in
each male's territory. Before the start of the experiment the
males showed no significant differences in mating success.
But after the large differences in tail length were
artificially created, great differentials appeared in the
number of new active nests in each territory. The males
whose tails were lengthened acquired the most new mates
(as indicated by new nests), outnumbering those of both of
the controls and the males whose tails were shortened. The
latter had the smallest number of new active nests. The
females, therefore, preferred to mate with the males having
the longest tails.”
Sexual
Selection
at work
among
humans!
1872
In 1872 Darwin published the 6th and last edition of The
Origin of Species – the only major revision – and a new
book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and
Animals.
The 6th edition of The Origin of Species is usually not
preferred to the first edition. Much of it is taken up with
Darwin’s attempts to answer critics and to try to come up
with explanations for which he had no observational or
experimental evidence.
The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals
This is often considered the fourth great book by Darwin,
along with Voyage of the Beagle, On the Origin of Species,
and The Descent of Man. It has many illustrations of
people and animals displaying various emotions. This
subject had interested Darwin ever since the birth of his
first child in 1839. This book is essentially the beginning
of the discipline of evolutionary psychology.
1874
In January, a spiritualist séance was held at the home of his
brother Erasmus. Charles, Emma, and Etty attended, along
with George Eliot and her partner G. H. Lewes – the latter,
like Charles, very skeptical. Charles, who found it hot and
tiring, left “before all these astounding miracles, or
jugglery, took place… The Lord have mercy on us all, if we
have to believe in such rubbish.” One of Emma’s nieces
thought Darwin was not very open in this matter, and
Emma, more open to spiritualism, wrote to her that “he is a
regular bigot.”
During the year Darwin published second editions of The
Descent of Man and of his monograph on coral reefs.
1875
Darwin published Insectivorous Plants in 1875. It had the
shortest title of any of his books – just two words.
On November 3 he appeared before the Royal Commission
on Subjecting Live Animals to Experiments, stating that he
was not a physiologist and had never performed an
experiment on a live animal, but believed that prohibiting
such experiments “would be a very great evil.” He favored
the use of anesthetics whenever possible in such an
experiment, and believed that it would nearly always be
possible to use anesthetics.
1876
During the summer of 1876 Darwin began to write an
autobiography for his children and future grandchildren.
“I know that it would have interested me greatly to have read
even so short and dull a sketch of the mind of my grandfather
written by himself, and what he thought and did, and how he
worked.”
In September Darwin’s first grandchild, Bernard Darwin
(who became a golfer and golf writer), was born to Francis
and Amy Darwin. Amy died in childbirth and Francis and the
baby came to live with his parents at Down House. Francis
became Darwin’s secretary and botanical assistant and, after
his father’s death, published his autobiography and letters.
March 11, 1877 – Visit from Gladstone
On March 11, 1877, Darwin was paid a visit by several
notables who walked over from the home of John Lubbock,
Lord Avebury, who was a Liberal M.P. They included William
Gladstone, Huxley, Lyon Playfair, Lubbock, and John Morley
(who had reviewed The Descent of Man). Morley wrote in his
diary that Gladstone had bored everyone for two hours by
reading aloud from the proofs of his latest pamphlet on
Turkey, and that Darwin and the others couldn’t get a word in
edgewise. Consequently, unsurprisingly, Gladstone had felt
that Darwin was not a particularly good conversationalist.
Darwin, however, was ecstatic at having met such a great man.
Gladstone did ask Darwin if he thought America would in the
future play a greater role in the world than Europe, and
Darwin had answered in the affirmative.
Another book
In July 1877 Darwin, with the assistance of his son
Francis, published The Different Forms of Flowers on
Plants of the Same Species. This was a very technical
monograph describing what happened when mating
occurred between flowers of exactly the same king and
when mating occurred between different flowers.
In 1878, 1879, and 1881 Francis paid visits of a few
months each to the laboratory of the experimental botanist,
Julius Sachs, near Würzburg, learning about the first-class
scientific equipment and procedures employed by Sachs.
He tried unsuccessfully to convince his father he needed
new equipment at Down House – but Darwin preferred to
make do with simpler equipment and ingenuity.
The Bradlaugh – Besant Scandal
In early 1877 the noted atheist author Charles Bradlaugh and
the sexual freethinker Annie Besant published a pamphlet on
contraception, touted as a solution to over-population
problems. They were arrested and charged with obscenity,
and Bradlaugh wrote to Darwin seeking his support, thinking
Darwin would be likely to agree with his ideas. No!
“I have not seen the book in question but for notices in the
newspaper. I suppose that it refers to means to prevent
conception. If so I should be forced to express in court a very
decided opinion in opposition to you & Mrs. Besant. … I
believe that any such practices would in time lead to unsound
women and would destroy chastity, on which the family bond
depends; & the weakening of this bond would be the greatest
of all possible evils to mankind.”
1877
On November 17, 1877 Darwin was awarded an honorary
LLD degree from Cambridge University. Darwin had his
distinctive long white beard and a magnificent red cloak,
and was accompanied by Emma. There was a large crowd
present, including raucous undergraduates, who dangled a
monkey below which was a large ribboned ring,
presumably the “missing link.”
From notes he had taken 1839 – 1841 on his first child,
William Darwin, he published an article entitled “A
Biographical Sketch of an Infant” in the journal new
psychological journal Mind, after reading an article by
Hippolyte Taine about his daughter’s first 18 months.
Mr. Rich
In 1878 a wealthy bachelor lawyer named Anthony Rich,
saying he greatly admired Darwin, wrote to him that he
planned to leave his whole fortune to Darwin. Darwin was
not sure that this was not a practical joke by someone, so
he asked Huxley to go visit Mr. Rich and check on him.
Huxley found Mr. Rich to be respectable, liberal, interested
in science, and childless, living in a very fine home.
Darwin then met with Rich and tried unsuccessfully to talk
him out of his plan, as he was already well-off, but he
finally agreed to let Mr. Rich leave his fortune to Darwin’s
sons (which is what happened, after Rich outlived Darwin).
Mr. Rich was also impressed by Huxley and left him his
house, the one Huxley had admired.
1879
In 1879 Darwin published a translation (by W. S. Dallas) of
a biography of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, written in
German by Ernst Krause, “With a Preliminary Notice by
Charles Darwin.”
This led to an attack by Samuel Butler (the author of
Erewhon and The Way of All Flesh, grandson of Darwin’s
old headmaster at Shrewsbury, Dr. Samuel Butler) because
the English translation contained some materials not in
Krause’s German original, materials that Butler thought
had been plagiarized from his recent book, Evolution Old
and New, which criticized Darwin and said his ideas came
from Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck.
In Evolution Old and New, Samuel Butler wrote;
“Buffon planted, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck
watered, but it was Mr. Darwin who said ‘That fruit is
ripe’ and shook it into his lap.”
Darwin, his family, and his friends discussed Butler’s
surprisingly vicious attacks and decided it would be
best not to respond. There is a long discussion of this
incident in an Appendix to Darwin’s Autobiography.
Butler wrote several books on evolution, espousing
ideas (like teleological evolution) that are not accepted
today. Erewhon and The Way of All Flesh are better
books.
The Servants at Down House
The Darwins typically had six to twelve servants,
including a butler (Joseph Parslow, who retired in
1875 and died in 1898), a head gardener, a coachman,
a groom, a footman, a cook (the same one nearly 30
years), housemaids, a lady’s maid, a parlourmaid, a
laundry maid, etc.
It was apparently a happy household: many servants
stayed with the Darwins for decades, enjoying
working for them.
Comments by servants …
John Lubbock once asked the gardener about Darwin’s
health, and was told: “Oh! My poor master has been
very sadly. I often wish he had something to do. He
moons about in the garden, and I have seen him stand
doing nothing before a flower for ten minutes at a time.
If he only had something to do I really believe he would
be better.”
Darwin’s grandson Bernard (the golfer and golf writer)
remembered a new nurse saying, “It’s a pity that Mr.
Darwin hasn’t something to do like Mr. Thackeray. I’ve
seen him watch an ant-heap for a whole hour.”
1880: Another book
In November 1880 Darwin published The Power of
Movement in Plants, based on his own observations and
experiments, mostly in his own greenhouse. His son
Francis had helped with the work and in writing the
book, and had unsuccessfully tried to get his father to use
more modern scientific equipment like Julian Sachs in
Germany, with whom Francis had worked.
Darwin’s work was partly correct, but some of his
experiments could not be reproduced, and Sachs thought
poorly of Darwin’s work.
1881
In August 1881, Darwin’s older brother Erasmus died,
and was buried in the Downe churchyard.
The same year Darwin – active to the end of his life published his last – and apparently best-selling – book:
The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of
Worms, with Observations on their Habits.
Other activities: Gave money to Kew Gardens for
publication of the Index Kewensis; arranged a civil list
pension for Wallace; defended the right of scientists to
experiment on live animals.
The Earthworm Book
After writing his book on earthworms, Darwin took the manuscript
in person to his publisher, John Murray, not knowing if it was
worth publishing or if Murray would be interested in it. According
to Murray, Darwin said something like: “Here is a work which has
occupied me for many years and interested me much. I fear the
subject of it will not attract the public, but will you publish it for
me?”
Murray probably also had his doubts, so it was a surprise to
everyone concerned that it became Darwin’s most popular book,
selling much faster than any of his other works, and bringing him a
lot of attention.
“I am driven almost frantic by the number of letters about worms;
but amidst much rubbish there are some good facts &
suggestions,” Darwin wrote.
In April 1881 Darwin wrote to Professor Holmgren
at Uppsala (Sweden) with his views on vivisection,
which was being discussed in Sweden. An excerpt:
“I have all my life been a strong advocate for
humanity to animals, and have done what I could in
my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago,
when the agitation against physiologists
commenced in England, it was asserted that
inhumanity was here practised and useless
suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think
that it might be advisable to have an Act of
Parliament on the subject. …
1881 Letter to Professor Holmgren, continued …
“I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed,
such as would have removed all just cause of
complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists
free to pursue their researches—a Bill very different
from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to
add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal
Commission proved that the accusations made against
our English physiologists were false. From all that I
have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of
Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals,
and if this be the case I should be glad to hear of
legislation against inhumanity in any such country. …
1881 Letter to Professor Holmgren concluded ….
“On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot
possibly progress except by means of experiments
on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction
that he who retards the progress of physiology
commits a crime against mankind. Any one who
remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a
century ago must admit that it has made immense
progress, and it is now progressing at an everincreasing rate.”
1882 – Darwin’s Last Year
Early 1882: Darwin is weaker and can hardly work at
all, but manages to write a few papers.
One day, feeling better, he went to visit George
Romanes, who was not home, and suffered a heart
attack. The butler, seeing that Darwin looked ill, tried
to get him to come in. But Darwin insisted on going
back home alone, taking a cab. He recovered, but in
March suffered another heart attack. The end
approached when he had another on April 15, and went
to bed for good.
The last photograph taken of Charles Darwin
The Death of Charles Darwin
Darwin died at Down House on 19 April 1882, at the age
of 73.
Darwin’s final words, to his wife Emma, as reported by his
daughter Henrietta (who was present):
Remember what a good wife you have been.
Although he had asked to be buried at Down House, and
Emma and the children favored that, he was instead buried
at Westminster Abbey in London on 26 April 1882.
Thomas Henry Huxley, one of the pallbearers, later
regretted this when he found out Darwin had asked to be
buried at Down House.
Funeral of Charles Darwin in Westminster Abbey
Darwin’s Last Paper
Darwin’s last paper is a nice example of his writing
style, and while at first it does not appear to be
particularly important or interesting, it has a fascinating
sequel.
The article, entitled “On the dispersal of freshwater
bivalves,” appeared in the April 6, 1882 issue of Nature
– just days before Darwin’s death.
ON THE DISPERSAL OF FRESHWATER BIVALVES
“The wide distribution of the same species, and of closely-allied
species of freshwater shells must have surprised every one who has
attended to this subject. A naturalist, when he collects for the first
time freshwater animals in a distant region, is astonished at their
general similarity to those of his native European home, in
comparison with the surrounding terrestrial animals and plants.
Hence I was led to publish in Nature (vol. xviii. p. 120) a letter to me
from Mr. A. H. Gray, of Danversport, Massachusetts, in which he
gives a drawing of a living shell of Unio complanatus, attached to the
tip of the middle toe of a duck (Querquedula discors) shot on the
wing. The toe had been pinched so hard by the shell that it was
indented and abraded. If the bird had not been killed, it would have
alighted on some pool, and the Unio would no doubt sooner or later
have relaxed its hold and dropped off. It is not likely that such cases
should often be observed, for a bird when shot would generally fall on
the ground so heavily that an attached shell would be shaken off and
overlooked.
“I am now able to add, through the kindness of Mr. W. D.
Crick, of Northampton, another and different case. On
February 18 of the present year, he caught a female
Dytiscus marginalis [the great diving beetle], with a shell of
Cyclas cornea clinging to the tarsus of its middle leg. The
shell was .45 of an inch from end to end, .3 in depth, and
weighed (as Mr. Crick informs me) .39 grams, or 6 grains.
The valves clipped only the extremity of the tarsus for a
length of .1 of an inch. Nevertheless, the shell did not drop
off, on the beetle when caught shaking its leg violently. The
specimen was brought home in a handkerchief, and placed
after about three hours in water, and the shell remained
attached from February 18 to 23, when it dropped off, being
still alive, and so remained for about a fortnight while in my
possession.
“Shortly after the shell had detached itself, the beetle
dived to the bottom of the vessel in which it had been
placed, and having inserted its antennæ between the
valves, was again caught for a few minutes. The species of
Dytiscus often fly at night, and no doubt they generally
alight on any pool of water which they may see; and I have
several times heard of their having dashed down on glass
cucumber frames, no doubt mistaking the glittering surface
for water. I do not suppose that the above weight of 6
grains would prevent so powerful an insect as a Dytiscus
from taking flight. Anyhow this beetle could transport
smaller individuals; and a single one would stock any
isolated pond, as the species is an hermaphrodite form.
“Mr. Crick tells me that a shell of the same kind, and of about the
same size, which he kept in water ‘extruded two young ones, which
seemed very active and able to take care of themselves.’ How far a
Dytiscus could fly is not known; but during the voyage of the Beagle a
closely-allied form, namely, a Colymbetes, flew on board when the
nearest point of land was forty-five miles distant; and it is an
improbable chance that it had flown from the nearest point.
“Mr. Crick visited the same pond a fortnight afterwards, and found on
the bank a frog which appeared to have been lately killed; and to the
outer toe of one of its hind legs a living shell of the same species was
attached. The shell was rather smaller than in the previous case. The
leg was cut off and kept in water for two days, during which time the
shell remained attached. The leg was then left in the air, but soon
became shrivelled; and now the shell being still alive detached itself.”
Who was “Mr. W. D. Crick, of Northampton”?
His full name was Walter Drawbridge Crick, and he
lived from 1857 to 1903. He was a shoe manufacturer
who was also an amateur geologist and
palaeontologist.
He was the grandfather of Francis Crick (1916 –
2004), Nobel-Prize-winning co-discoverer (with James
Watson) of the double-helix structure of DNA.
Darwin on His Religious Belief
“Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I
remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers
(though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it
was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had
gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from
its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel,
the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God
the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than
the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.
The question then continually rose before my mind and would not
be banished, – is it credible that if God were now to make a
revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with
the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with
the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible. …
“By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite
to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which
Christianity is supported, – that the more we know of the fixed
laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, – that the
men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost
incomprehensible by us, – that the Gospels cannot be proved to
have been written simultaneously with the events – that they differ
in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to
be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; – by such
reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or
value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in
Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false
religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire
had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New
Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in
part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and
allegories. …
“But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; – I feel sure of
this for I can well remember often and often inventing daydreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and
manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which
confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the
Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope
given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice
to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate,
but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no
distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second
that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed 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. …
“Although I did not think much about the existence of a
personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I
will here give the vague conclusion to which I have been
driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails,
now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.
We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful
hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an
intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There
seems to be no more design in the variability of organic
beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the
course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the
result of fixed laws. …
“At the present day the most usual argument for the
existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep
inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by
most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos,
Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner
and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God,
or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God. There
are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with
any truth to believe in what we call God: they believe
indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler
and Herbert Spencer have shown, how such a belief would
be likely to arise. …
“That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes.
Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by
imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the
number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of
all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without
any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of
knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our
finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our
understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not
unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of
millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?
This very old argument from the existence of suffering against
the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong
one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering
agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been
developed through variation and natural selection. …
“Nothing is more remarkable than the spread of scepticism or
rationalism during the latter half of my life. Before I was
engaged to be married, my father advised me to conceal
carefully my doubts, for he said that he had known extreme
misery thus caused with married persons. Things went on pretty
well until the wife or husband became out of health, and then
some women suffered miserably by doubting about the salvation
of their husbands, thus making them likewise to suffer. My father
added that he had known during his whole long life only three
women who were sceptics; and it should be remembered that he
knew well a multitude of persons and possessed extraordinary
power of winning confidence. When I asked him who the three
women were, he had to own with respect to one of them, his
sister-in-law Kitty Wedgwood, that he had no good evidence,
only the vaguest hints, aided by the conviction that so clearsighted a woman could not be a believer.”
A Death-Bed Conversion?
1915: Appearance in print in an evangelical Christian
publication of the “Lady Hope Article,” in which a Lady
Hope claimed to have spoken to Darwin shortly before
his death, and found that he had renounced his theory of
evolution and expressed his belief in Christianity.
This was a hoax. Those present on Darwin’s last day
say nothing of the sort happened, and Lady Hope was
not there anyway, and if she had been one of the many
who visited Down House while Darwin was alive, he
could not have said anything of the sort.
Agnosticism
Thomas Henry Huxley was reluctant to call himself an
atheist because he was convinced the non-existence of
God was unproveable. So he invented the word
“agnostic” to describe someone who didn’t know
whether God existed or not, yet doubted that he did. He
applied the word to himself and to Darwin, as well as
many of his friends.
Darwin accepted this characterization. In his
autobiography, he wrote:“The mystery of the beginning
of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be
content to remain an Agnostic.”