First lines: The Origin of Species

Charles Darwin’s theory of descent with modification by natural selection is one of the truly great ideas of humankind has produced. And while he got some things wrong and 150 years of further research continues to modify and refine his theory, his basic premise that all living creatures gradually change over long periods of time still holds true. [1]

That Darwin got things wrong is no big deal. He was (one of) the first to describe the theory of evolution, which would by analogy mean that he was also the one who knew least of evolution. He didn’t know about DNA or transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, and his understanding of genetics was messy. But every scientist since Darwin has been able to use his work as starting point, fill in the blanks, and advance it even further.

The Theory of Evolution, as it stands today, is a fact. It seems to me that the most common objections are based on ignorance of evolution and scientific principles in general. Saying that it’s just a theory is nothing but silly wordplay. Humans did not evolve from apes, apes and humans have a common ancestor, and took their own evolutionary way from there. Likewise, people who claim that evolution isn’t true because no cat has ever evolved into a dog just prove that they lack even a basic understanding of evolution. “Survival of the fittest” does not mean that only the strong (should) survive, but that those organisms that are adapted best to their environment have the best chance to produce offspring. (Also, it wasn’t Darwin who coined that phrase.)

***

Wordle: On the Origin of Species
A Wordle of the Text of The Origin of Species

As for The Origin of Species itself: getting through it required a lot of attention and determination. I’m not too big on non-fiction in general, and some evenings I had to struggle to keep focused on the text. That has nothing to do with Darwin’s writing, which is very clear, and everything with my attention span, which resembles that of a dead goldfish. Following along with John Whitfield’s Blogging the Origin series proved to be a good decision, as it forced me into a realistic schedule, and it provided feedback on what I just read. For example, when I thought that chapter 8 on hybridism was, to put it mildly, a bit tedious, he more or less confirmed what I already thought: Unless you’ve got a jones for Victorian horticulture, you could skip this one and miss nothing. Reading it is like listening to someone describe, one point at a time, an extremely large scatter plot that shows no correlation. So species rarely hybridize. Except when they do. The offspring of such hybrid matings are rarely fertile. Except when they are. While I would have made my way through The Origin on my own eventually, it would have been a lot less fun.

So while it was at times a struggle, in the end, I think it was definitely worth the effort. When Darwin is on to something, he’s very persuasive in making his point. He raises difficulties on his theory, only to come with an elegant explanation later on. To give one popular example, let’s look at what Darwin says about complex organs, such the eye:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

This quote is often used by evolutionary nay-sayers as proof that even Darwin thought that the eye could not have evolved by natural selection. But they (deliberately) leave out the part that follows, in which Darwin he refutes this criticism,

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

And then he delves deeper into how, over a long period of time, the eye could have formed in a series of small steps from a primitive, light-sensitive cell to the human eye, while documenting examples where the steps in between can be found in many animals.

***

As a final note, it could be interesting to note that if you would search the text of The Origin for the word “evolution”, you’d get zero results. The closest Darwin comes is in the very last sentence,

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Book read
Charles Darwin — On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
First line
When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.
  1. I must restate that the last time I encountered a scientific text on biology and evolution was over ten years ago, and I’m by no means an expert on this stuff. So if I mess this up, blame me.

Listen closely

Yesterday, I once again found myself sitting in a theater. As they aren’t common locations for pop/rock concerts over, I started to think that over, and came to the conclusion that I quite like ’em. (Which may be a function of my musical preferences becoming much more mellow.) In the theater, people tend to sit down, shut up and listen. And for someone who doesn’t need to be in the front row and who finds annoying people who annoyingly talk through entire performances very annoying, that’s a blessing. Sure, there are some downsides: sometimes there’s no space to put my legs, you may end up in a crappy seat, there’s no getting away from annoying neighbors, but all in all, nothing I can’t handle.

And yesterday, everything seemed to come together. I had a good seat (lots of room to put my legs in, clear view of the stage, just bit too far to the side for my liking), the sound was great and the band played a fine selection of songs from their current and upcoming album, a song from the album they’re planning to make, and some oldies in a different arrangements. They should play unplugged more often.

BLØF — Alles is liefde (akoestisch)
Seen live
BLØF at the Beatrix Theater, Utrecht on February 9, 2009.
Setlist
Donker hart / Als dit alles over is / Van veraf was het zo mooi / Eilanden / Mooie dag / Streep mijn naam maar weg / Misschien tot morgen / Dansen aan zee / Zo mooi zo mooi / Blauwe ruis // Alles is liefde / Vreemde wegen / Vandaag / Midzomernacht / Meer van jou / Overgave / Omarm / Aanzoek zonder ringen / Eilanden 2 // Encore: Een manier om thuis te komen / Mens / Aan de kust // Encore 2: Zaterdag / Gelukkig

First lines: The Magician

The Magician is the second book in the six-part The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel series, and it is almost as fun as the first one. Like The Alchemyst, the pace is high, there’s an abundant use of myth, and I was unable to put it down. But I got three points I need to mention:

  1. At the end of chapter 18, the titular magician plans to violate rule 16 of the Evil Overlord List: But he’d be sure to ask him … just before he killed him.
  2. In chapter 29 it was good to see that one of the main characters got as fed up with the sulking and whining of her twin-brother as I did. Luckily the story was about to kick into overdrive, leaving him no chance to transform into some emo-dragon-boy.
  3. I thought it was too convenient to kill off a very powerful nemesis who holds a huge debt over one of the protagonists, just after said nemesis awakens the magical powers of said protagonist.

Small issues aside, the book was good fun. Mythical creatures running loose and destroying Paris, an Elder race waiting to be restored to their former power (Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn! anyone?), humans long thought dead … good, good fun.

Book Three, The Sorceress comes out this May. Good.

Michael Scott — The Magician (The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel)
I am dying.

(r)Evolutie?

In het EO-programma ‘t Zal je maar gebeuren verwijst Andries Knevel zijn eerdere uitspraken over de schepping en ‘intelligent’ design resoluut naar de prullenbak met een duidelijke verklaring:

  1. Vroeger geloofde ik dat de schepping in 6 × 24 uur had plaatsgevonden en was ik creationist. Kort geleden geloofde ik nog in Intelligent Design.
  2. Ik herroep al mijn eerdere uitspraken hierover en erken in het verleden mijn kinderen en kijkers op een spoor te hebben gebracht. Daar heb ik spijt van.
  3. Ik kies voor geloofwaardigheid en geloof. Ik zal daarom open en met ieder in debat gaan, gelovig of ongelovig, op zoek naar de waarheid.
  4. Geloof en wetenschap sluiten elkaar niet uit. Ze blijven elkaar versterken. Beiden hebben hun eigen waarheid, zin en geloofwaardigheid.
  5. Ik geloof nog steeds van harte in God de schepper van hemel en aarde en in Jezus Christus als redder en Heer van deze wereld.

Het gevolg laat zich raden: bijbelvaste Christenen zijn not amused. En dat terwijl Knevel al in 2005 de zesdaagse schepping had ingeruild voor het zogenaamde ‘intelligent’ design. Dat hij nu ook daar afstand van neemt, is de logische stap die daar op volgt. Intelligent Design stelt dat het universum en alles daarin zo ingewikkeld in elkaar steekt, dat er wel een intelligente ontwerper aan te pas gekomen moet zijn. Het is niets anders dan een scheppingsverhaal omhuld door pseudo-wetenschappelijk klinkende prietpraat.

Dat Knevel nu openlijk afstand neemt van de schepping in zes dagen en evolutie accepteert—hoewel de zin “Nu geloof ik in evolutie” uit de verklaring verdween—betekent niet dat hij de schepping helemaal afwijst. Hij gelooft immers nog steeds van harte in God de schepper van hemel en aarde, wat hem in het kamp van de theïstische evolutie plaatst. Wat mij vanuit een religieus oogpunt gezien een begrijpelijk standpunt lijkt: er is nog veel onduidelijkheid over het ontstaan van leven, en in theorie is het mogelijk dat een god de boel geschapen heeft en evolutie als instrument ingezet heeft. Wetenschappelijk gezien heb je er weinig aan: het sluit niet aan op de feiten, en ‘god heeft het gedaan’ verklaart niets.

Hoe dan ook, hulde voor Andries Knevel en zijn nieuwe standpunt. Als hij nu nog van zijn irritante maniertjes bij zijn interviews af komt, dan kan het nog wel eens wat met hem worden.

First lines: Fragile Things

Fragile Things is another collection of short stories and poetry by Neil Gaiman. And just like in Smoke and Mirrors, the poetry didn’t do much for me. But as they’re a free bonus to the stories and I don’t have to read them, no big deal. But most of the stories were as wonderful as always.

While I could ramble on for a bit, I won’t. I’ll just put up some links to stories and poems from this book, and let you figure it out for yourself.

If you could only read one, I recommend the first one, which is a cross-over between Sherlock Holmes and H.P. Lovecraft. Unless you believe that The Matrix is all that. In that case, go with Goliath. All that’s now left for me to add is that based on two related stories (Treasures and Keepsakes and The Monarch of the Glen), I think I might need to find myself a copy of American Gods soonish.

Book read
Neil Gaiman — Fragile Things: Short Fictions & Wonders
First line
I think … that I would rather recollect a life misspent on fragile things than spent avoiding moral debt.