Alfred Russel Wallace Charles Darwin Publication of Darwin's theory Evolution Natural selection Intelligent design Argument from poor design Teleological argument Watchmaker analogy Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned Universe Intelligent designer Richard Dawkins Gene-centered view of evolution 1 24 49 57 89 103 133 139 148 153 169 176 183 189 207

Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 213 220

Article Licenses
License 222

Alfred Russel Wallace


Alfred Russel Wallace
Alfred Russel Wallace

Born Died Citizenship Fields Known for

8 January 1823Usk, Monmouthshire, Wales, United Kingdom 7 November 1913 (aged 90)Broadstone, Dorset, England British exploration, biology, biogeography, social reform, botany his co-discovery of natural selection and his work on biogeography

Notable awards Royal Society's Royal Medal (1866) and Copley Medal (1908), Order of Merit (1908)

Alfred Russel Wallace, OM, FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist. He is best known for independently proposing a theory of evolution due to natural selection that prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory. Wallace did extensive fieldwork, first in the Amazon River basin and then in the Malay Archipelago, where he identified the Wallace Line that divides the Indonesian archipelago into two distinct parts, one in which animals closely related to those of Australia are common, and one in which the species are largely of Asian origin. He was considered the 19th century's leading expert on the geographical distribution of animal species and is sometimes called the "father of biogeography".[1] Wallace was one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 19th century and made a number of other contributions to the development of evolutionary theory besides being co-discoverer of natural selection. These included the concept of warning colouration in animals, and the Wallace effect, a hypothesis on how natural selection could contribute to speciation by encouraging the development of barriers against hybridization. Wallace was strongly attracted to unconventional ideas. His advocacy of Spiritualism and his belief in a non-material origin for the higher mental faculties of humans strained his relationship with the scientific establishment, especially with other early proponents of evolution. In addition to his scientific work, he was a social activist who was critical of what he considered to be an unjust social and economic system in 19th-century Britain. His interest in biogeography resulted in his being one of the first prominent scientists to raise concerns over the environmental impact of human activity. Wallace was a prolific author who wrote on both scientific and social issues; his account of his adventures and observations during his explorations in Indonesia and Malaysia, The Malay Archipelago, was one of the most popular and influential journals of scientific exploration published during the 19th century.

Alfred Russel Wallace


Early life
Wallace was born in the Welsh village of Llanbadoc, near Usk, Monmouthshire.[2] He was the seventh of eight children of Thomas Vere Wallace and Mary Anne Greenell. Thomas Wallace was of Scottish ancestry. His family, like many Scottish Wallaces, claimed a connection to William Wallace, a Scottish leader during the Wars of Scottish Independence in the 13th century.[3] Thomas Wallace received a law degree, but never actually practiced law. He inherited some income-generating property, but bad investments and failed business ventures resulted in a steady deterioration of the family's financial position. His mother was from a respectable middle-class English family from Hertford, north of London.[3] When Wallace was five years old, his family moved to Hertford. There he attended Hertford Grammar School until financial difficulties forced his family to withdraw him in 1836.[4] Wallace then moved to London to live and work with his older brother John, a 19-year-old apprentice builder. (In 1979, a plaque A photograph from Wallace's autobiography shows the was placed at 44 St. Peter's Road in Croydon commemorating the building Wallace and his brother John designed and fact that he lived there at one point during this period.) This was a built for the Mechanics' Institute of Neath. stopgap measure until William, his oldest brother, was ready to take him on as an apprentice surveyor. While there, he attended lectures and read books at the London Mechanics Institute. Here he was exposed to the radical political ideas of the Welsh social reformer Robert Owen and Thomas Paine. He left London in 1837 to live with William and work as his apprentice for six years. At the end of 1839, they moved to Kington, Hereford, near the Welsh border before eventually settling at Neath in Glamorgan in Wales. Between 1840 and 1843, Wallace did surveying work in the countryside of the west of England and Wales.[5] [6] By the end of 1843, William's business had declined due to difficult economic conditions. Wallace left in January, aged 20. One result of Wallace's early travels has been a modern controversy about his nationality. Since Wallace was born in Gwent (then called Monmouthshire), Wales, some sources have considered him to be Welsh.[7] However some historians have questioned this because neither of his parents was Welsh, his family only briefly lived in Monmouthshire, the Welsh people Wallace knew in his childhood considered him to be English, and because Wallace himself consistently referred to himself as English rather than Welsh (even when writing about his time in Wales). One Wallace scholar has stated that because of these facts the most reasonable interpretation was that he was an Englishman born in Wales.[8] After a brief period of unemployment, he was hired as a master at the Collegiate School in Leicester to teach drawing, mapmaking, and surveying. Wallace spent a lot of time at the Leicester library where he read An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus and where one evening he met the entomologist Henry Bates. Bates was only 19 years old, but had already published a paper on beetles in the journal Zoologist. He befriended Wallace and started him collecting insects.[9] [10] William died in March 1845, and Wallace left his teaching position to assume control of his brother's firm in Neath, but he and his brother John were unable to make the business work. After a couple of months, Wallace found work as a civil engineer for a nearby firm that was working on a survey for a proposed railway in the Vale of Neath. Wallace's work on the survey involved spending a lot of time outdoors in the countryside, allowing him to indulge his new passion for collecting insects. Wallace was able to persuade his brother John to join him in starting another architecture and civil engineering firm, which carried out a number of

Alfred Russel Wallace projects, including the design of a building for the Mechanics' Institute of Neath. William Jevons, the founder of that institute, was impressed by Wallace and persuaded him to give lectures there on science and engineering. In the autumn of 1846, he, aged 23, and John were able to purchase a cottage near Neath, where they lived with their mother and sister Fanny (his father had died in 1843).[11] [12] During this period, he read avidly, exchanging letters with Bates about Robert Chambers' anonymously published evolutionary treatise Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Charles Darwin's Journal, and Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology.[13] [14]


Exploration and study of the natural world
Inspired by the chronicles of earlier traveling naturalists, including Alexander von Humboldt, Charles Darwin and William Henry Edwards, Wallace decided that he too wanted to travel abroad as a naturalist.[15] In 1848, Wallace and Henry Bates left for Brazil aboard the Mischief. Their intention was to collect insects and other animal specimens in the Amazon rainforest and sell them to collectors back in the United Kingdom. They also hoped to gather evidence of the transmutation of species. A map from The Malay Archipelago shows the physical geography of the Wallace and Bates spent most of their first archipelago and Wallace's travels around the area. The thin black lines indicate year collecting near Belém do Pará, then where Wallace travelled, and the red lines indicate chains of volcanoes. explored inland separately, occasionally meeting to discuss their findings. In 1849, they were briefly joined by another young explorer, botanist Richard Spruce, along with Wallace's younger brother Herbert. Herbert left soon thereafter (dying two years later from yellow fever), but Spruce, like Bates, would spend over ten years collecting in South America.[16] Wallace continued charting the Rio Negro for four years, collecting specimens and making notes on the peoples and languages he encountered as well as the geography, flora, and fauna.[17] On 12 July 1852, Wallace embarked for the UK on the brig Helen. After twenty-eight days at sea, the ship's cargo caught fire and the crew was forced to abandon ship. All of the specimens Wallace had on the ship, the vast majority of what he had collected during his entire trip, were lost. He could only save part of his diary and a few sketches. Wallace and the crew spent ten days in an open boat before being picked up by the brig Jordeson, which was sailing from Cuba to London. The Jordenson's provisions were strained by the unexpected passengers, but after a difficult passage on very short rations the ship finally reached its destination on 1 October 1852.[18] [19] After his return to the UK, Wallace spent eighteen months in London living on the insurance payment for his lost collection and selling a few specimens that had been shipped back to Britain prior to his starting his exploration of the Rio Negro. During this period, despite having lost almost all of the notes from his South American expedition, he wrote six academic papers (which included "On the Monkeys of the Amazon") and two books; Palm Trees of the Amazon and Their Uses and Travels on the Amazon.[20] He also made connections with a number of other British naturalists—most significantly, Darwin.[19] [21] [22]

Alfred Russel Wallace

4 From 1854 to 1862, age 31 to 39, Wallace travelled through the Malay Archipelago or East Indies (now Malaysia and Indonesia), to collect specimens for sale and to study nature. His observations of the marked zoological differences across a narrow strait in the archipelago led to his proposing the zoogeographical boundary now known as the Wallace line. Wallace collected more than 125,000 specimens in the Malay Archipelago (more than 80,000 beetles alone). More than a thousand of them represented species new to science.[23] One of his better-known species descriptions during this trip is that of the gliding tree frog Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, known as Wallace's flying frog. While he was exploring the archipelago, he refined his thoughts about evolution and had his famous insight on natural selection. In 1858 he sent an article outlining his theory to Darwin; it was published, along with a description of Darwin's own theory, in the same year.

An illustration from The Malay Archipelago depicts the flying frog Wallace discovered.

Accounts of his studies and adventures there were eventually published in 1869 as The Malay Archipelago. The Malay Archipelago became one of the most popular journals of scientific exploration of the 19th century, kept continuously in print by its original publisher (Macmillan) into the second decade of the 20th century. It was praised by scientists such as Darwin (to whom the book was dedicated), and Charles Lyell, and by non-scientists such as the novelist Joseph Conrad, who called it his "favorite bedside companion" and used it as source of information for several of his novels, especially Lord Jim.[24]

Alfred Russel Wallace


Return to the UK, marriage and children
In 1862, Wallace returned to the UK, where he moved in with his sister Fanny Sims and her husband Thomas. While recovering from his travels, Wallace organised his collections and gave numerous lectures about his adventures and discoveries to scientific societies such as the Zoological Society of London. Later that year, he visited Darwin at Down House, and became friendly with both Charles Lyell and Herbert Spencer.[25] During the 1860s, Wallace wrote papers and gave lectures defending natural selection. He also corresponded with Darwin about a variety of topics, including sexual selection, warning colouration, and the possible effect of natural selection on hybridisation and the divergence of species.[26] In 1865, he began investigating spiritualism.[27] After a year of courtship, Wallace became engaged in 1864 to a young woman whom, in his autobiography, he would only identify as Miss L. However, to Wallace's great dismay, she broke off the engagement.[28] In 1866, Wallace married Annie Mitten. Wallace had been introduced to Mitten through the botanist Richard Spruce, who had befriended Wallace in Brazil and who was also a good friend of Annie Mitten's father, William Mitten, an expert on mosses. In 1872, Wallace built the Dell, a house of concrete, on land he leased in Grays in Essex, where he lived until 1876. The Wallaces had three children: Herbert (1867–1874) who died in childhood, Violet (1869–1945), and William (1871–1951).[29]

A photograph of A.R. Wallace taken in Singapore in 1862

Financial struggles
In the late 1860s and 1870s, Wallace was very concerned about the financial security of his family. While he was in the Malay Archipelago, the sale of specimens had brought in a considerable amount of money, which had been carefully invested by the agent who sold the specimens for Wallace. However, on his return to the UK, Wallace made a series of bad investments in railways and mines that squandered most of the money, and he found himself badly in need of the proceeds from the publication of The Malay Archipelago.[30] Despite assistance from his friends, he was never able to secure a permanent salaried position such as curatorship of a museum. In order to remain financially solvent, Wallace worked grading government examinations, wrote 25 papers for publication between 1872 and 1876 for various modest sums, and was paid by Lyell and Darwin to help edit some of their own works.[31] In 1876, Wallace needed a £500 advance from the publisher of The Geographical Distribution of Animals to avoid having to sell some of his personal property.[32] Darwin was very aware of Wallace's financial difficulties and lobbied long and hard to get Wallace awarded a government pension for his lifetime contributions to science. When the £200 annual pension was awarded in 1881, it helped to stabilise Wallace's financial position by supplementing the income from his writings.[33]

Alfred Russel Wallace


Social activism
John Stuart Mill was impressed by remarks criticizing English society that Wallace had included in The Malay Archipelago. Mill asked him to join the general committee of his Land Tenure Reform Association, but the association dissolved after Mill's death in 1873. Wallace wrote only a handful of articles on political and social issues between 1873 and 1879, when, aged 56, he entered the debates over trade policy and land reform in earnest. He believed that rural land should be owned by the state and leased to people who would make whatever use of it that would benefit the largest number of people, thus breaking the often-abused power of wealthy landowners in English society. In 1881, Wallace was elected as the first president of the newly formed Land Nationalisation Society. In the next year, he published a book, Land Nationalisation; Its Necessity and Its Aims, on the subject. He criticised the UK's free trade policies for the negative impact they had on working class people.[22] [34] In 1889, Wallace read Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy and declared himself a socialist.[35] These ideas led him to oppose both social Darwinism and eugenics, ideas supported by other prominent 19th-century evolutionary thinkers, on the grounds that contemporary society was too corrupt and unjust to allow any reasonable determination of who was fit or unfit.[36] In 1898, Wallace wrote a paper advocating a pure paper money system, not backed by silver or gold, which impressed the economist Irving Fisher so much that he dedicated his 1920 book Stabilizing the Dollar to Wallace.[37] Wallace wrote extensively on other social topics including his support for women's suffrage, and the dangers and wastefulness of militarism.[38] [39] Wallace continued his social activism for the rest of his life, publishing the book The Revolt of Democracy just weeks before his death.[40] Wallace continued his scientific work in parallel with his social commentary. In 1880, he published Island Life as a sequel to The Geographic Distribution of Animals. In November 1886, Wallace began a ten-month trip to the United States to give a series of popular lectures. Most of the lectures were on Darwinism (evolution and natural selection), but he also gave speeches on biogeography, spiritualism, and socio-economic reform. During the trip, he was reunited with his brother John who had emigrated to California years before. He also spent a week in Colorado, with the American botanist Alice Eastwood as his guide, exploring the flora of the Rocky Mountains and gathering evidence that would lead him to a theory on how glaciation might explain certain commonalities between the mountain flora of Europe, Asia and North America, which he published in 1891 in the paper "English and American Flowers". He met many other prominent American naturalists and viewed their collections. His 1889 book Darwinism used information he collected on his American trip, and information he had compiled for the lectures.[41]

Alfred Russel Wallace


On 7 November 1913, Wallace died at home in the country house he called Old Orchard, which he had built a decade earlier.[43] He was 90 years old. His death was widely reported in the press. The New York Times called him "the last of the giants belonging to that wonderful group of intellectuals that included, among others, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Lyell, and Owen, whose daring investigations revolutionised and evolutionised the thought of the century." Another commentator in the same edition said “No apology need be made for the few literary or scientific follies of the author of that great book on the 'Malay Archipelago'.”[44] Some of Wallace's friends suggested that he be buried in Westminster Abbey, but his wife followed his wishes and had him buried in the small cemetery at Broadstone, Dorset.[43] Several prominent British scientists formed a committee to have a medallion of Wallace placed in Westminster near where Darwin had been buried. The medallion was unveiled on 1 November 1915.

Theory of evolution
Early evolutionary thinking

Wallace's grave in Broadstone Cemetery, Broadstone, Dorset, which was restored by the A. R. Wallace Memorial Fund in 2000. It features a 7-foot (2.1 m) tall fossil tree trunk from Portland mounted on a block of Purbeck limestone.

Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a travelling naturalist already believing in the transmutation of species. The concept had been advocated by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, and Robert Grant, among others. It was widely discussed, but not generally accepted by leading naturalists, and was considered to have radical, even revolutionary connotations.[45] [46] Prominent anatomists and geologists such as Georges Cuvier, Richard Owen, Adam Sedgwick, and Charles Lyell attacked it vigorously.[47] [48] It has been suggested that Wallace accepted the idea of the transmutation of species in part because he was always inclined to favour radical ideas in politics, religion and science,[45] and because he was unusually open to marginal, even fringe, ideas in science.[49] He was also profoundly influenced by Robert Chambers' work Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a highly controversial work of popular science published anonymously in 1844 that advocated an evolutionary origin for the solar system, the earth, and living things.[50] Wallace wrote to Henry Bates in 1845: I have a rather more favourable opinion of the ‘Vestiges’ than you appear to have. I do not consider it a hasty generalization, but rather as an ingenious hypothesis strongly supported by some striking facts and analogies, but which remains to be proven by more facts and the additional light which more research may throw upon the problem. It furnishes a subject for every student of nature to attend to; every fact he observes will make either for or against it, and it thus serves both as an incitement to the collection of facts, and an object to which they can be applied when collected.[49] Wallace deliberately planned some of his field work to test the hypothesis that under an evolutionary scenario closely related species should inhabit neighbouring territories.[45] During his work in the Amazon basin, he came to realise that geographical barriers—such as the Amazon and its major tributaries—often separated the ranges of closely allied species, and he included these observations in his 1853 paper "On the Monkeys of the Amazon".[51] Near the end of the paper he asks the question "Are very closely allied species ever separated by a wide interval of country?"

Alfred Russel Wallace In February 1855, while working in the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo, Wallace wrote "On the Law Which has Regulated the Introduction of Species", a paper which was published in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History in September 1855. In this paper, he gathered and enumerated general observations regarding the geographic and geologic distribution of species (biogeography). His conclusion that "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a closely allied species" has come to be known as the "Sarawak Law". Wallace thus answered the question he had posed in his earlier paper on the monkeys of the Amazon river basin. Although it contained no mention of any possible mechanisms for evolution, this paper foreshadowed the momentous paper he would write three years later.[52] The paper shook Charles Lyell's belief that species were immutable. Although his friend Charles Darwin had written to him in 1842 expressing support for transmutation, Lyell had continued to be strongly opposed to the idea. Around the start of 1856, he told Darwin about Wallace's paper, as did Edward Blyth who thought it "Good! Upon the whole!... Wallace has, I think put the matter well; and according to his theory the various domestic races of animals have been fairly developed into species." Despite this hint, Darwin mistook Wallace's conclusion for the progressive creationism of the time and wrote that it was "nothing very new ... Uses my simile of tree [but] it seems all creation with him." Lyell was more impressed, and opened a notebook on species, in which he grappled with the consequences, particularly for human ancestry. Darwin had already shown his theory to their mutual friend Joseph Hooker and now, for the first time, he spelt out the full details of natural selection to Lyell. Although Lyell could not agree, he urged Darwin to publish to establish priority. Darwin demurred at first, then began writing up a species sketch of his continuing work in May 1856.[53]


Natural selection and Darwin
By February 1858, Wallace had been convinced by his biogeographical research in the Malay Archipelago of the reality of evolution. As he later wrote in his autobiography: The problem then was not only how and why do species change, but how and why do they change into new and well defined species, distinguished from each other in so many ways; why and how they become so exactly adapted to distinct modes of life; and why do all the intermediate grades die out (as geology shows they have died out) and leave only clearly defined and well marked species, genera, and higher groups of animals?[54] According to his autobiography, it was while he was in bed with a fever that Wallace thought about Thomas Malthus's idea of positive checks on human population growth and came up with the idea of natural selection.[55] Wallace said in his autobiography that he was on the island of Ternate at the time; but historians have questioned this, saying that on the basis of the collection registries he wrote at the time, he was more likely to have been on the island of Gilolo.[56] Wallace describes it as follows: It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed much more quickly than does mankind, the destruction every year from these causes must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of each species, since evidently they do not increase regularly from year to year, as otherwise the world would long ago have been crowded with those that breed most quickly. Vaguely thinking over the enormous and constant destruction which this implied, it occurred to me to ask the question, why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, on the whole the best fitted live ... and considering the amount of individual variation that my experience as a collector had shown me to exist, then it followed that all the changes necessary for the adaptation of the species to the changing conditions would be brought about ... In this way every part of an animals organization could be modified exactly as required, and in the very process of this modification the unmodified would die out, and thus the definite characters and the clear isolation of each new species would be explained.[57]

Alfred Russel Wallace


Wallace had once briefly met Darwin, and was one of the correspondents whose observations Darwin used to support his own theories. Although Wallace's first letters to Darwin have been lost, Wallace carefully kept the letters he received.[58] In the first letter, dated 1 May 1857, Darwin commented that Wallace's letter of 10 October which he had recently received, as well as Wallace's paper "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species" of 1855, showed that they were both thinking alike and to some extent reaching similar conclusions, and said that he was preparing his own work for publication in about two years time.[59] The second letter, dated 22 December 1857, said how glad he was that Wallace was theorising about distribution, adding that "without speculation there is no good and original observation" while commenting that "I believe I go much further than you".[60] Wallace trusted Darwin's opinion on the matter and sent him his February 1858 essay, "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type", with the request that Darwin would review it and pass it on to Charles Lyell if he thought it worthwhile.[61] On 18 June 1858, Darwin received the The Darwin–Wallace Medal was issued by the Linnean society on the 50th anniversary of the manuscript from Wallace. While Wallace's essay did not employ reading of Darwin and Wallace's papers on Darwin's term "natural selection", it did outline the mechanics of an natural selection. evolutionary divergence of species from similar ones due to environmental pressures. In this sense, it was very similar to the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to publish. Darwin sent the manuscript to Charles Lyell with a letter saying "he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters ... he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal."[62] Distraught about the illness of his baby son, Darwin put the problem to Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who decided to publish the essay in a joint presentation together with unpublished writings which highlighted Darwin's priority. Wallace had not asked for publication of his essay, but publishing the contents of letters from far-off naturalists was a common event in those times. Wallace's essay was presented to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, along with excerpts from an essay which Darwin had disclosed privately to Hooker in 1847 and a letter Darwin had written to Asa Gray in 1857.[63] Communication with Wallace in far-off Malay was impossible without months of delay, so he was not part of this rapid publication. Wallace accepted the arrangement after the fact, happy that he had been included at all, and never expressed public or private bitterness. Darwin's social and scientific status was far greater than Wallace's, and it was unlikely that, without Darwin, Wallace's views on evolution would have been taken seriously. Lyell and Hooker's arrangement relegated Wallace to the position of co-discoverer, and he was not the social equal of Darwin or the other prominent British natural scientists. However, the joint reading of their papers on natural selection associated Wallace with the more famous Darwin. This, combined with Darwin's (as well as Hooker's and Lyell's) advocacy on his behalf, would give Wallace greater access to the highest levels of the scientific community.[64] The reaction to the reading was muted, with the president of the Linnean remarking in May 1859 that the year had not been marked by any striking discoveries;[65] but, with Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species later in 1859, its significance became apparent. When Wallace returned to the UK, he met Darwin. Although some of Wallace's iconoclastic opinions in the ensuing years would test Darwin's patience, they remained on friendly terms for the rest of Darwin's life. Over the years, a few people have questioned this version of events. In the early 1980s, two books, one written by Arnold Brackman and another by John Langdon Brooks, even suggested that not only had there been a conspiracy to rob Wallace of his proper credit, but that Darwin had actually stolen a key idea from Wallace to

Alfred Russel Wallace finish his own theory. These claims have been examined in detail by a number of scholars who have not found them to be convincing.[66] [67] [68] After the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Wallace became one of its staunchest defenders. In one incident in 1863 that particularly pleased Darwin, Wallace published the short paper "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's Paper on the Bee's Cell, And on the Origin of Species" in order to utterly demolish a paper by a professor of geology at the University of Dublin that had sharply criticised Darwin’s comments in the Origin on how hexagonal honey bee cells could have evolved through natural selection.[69] Another notable defence of the Origin was "Creation by Law", a review Wallace wrote in 1867 for The Quarterly Journal of Science of the book The Reign of Law, which had been written by the Duke of Argyll as a refutation of natural selection.[70] After an 1870 meeting of the British Association, Wallace wrote to Darwin complaining that there were "no opponents left who know anything of natural history, so that there are none of the good discussions we used to have."[71] Differences between Darwin's and Wallace's ideas on natural selection Historians of science have noted that, while Darwin considered the ideas in Wallace's paper to be essentially the same as his own, there were differences.[72] Darwin emphasised competition between individuals of the same species to survive and reproduce, whereas Wallace emphasised environmental pressures on varieties and species forcing them to become adapted to their local environment.[73] [74] Others have noted that another difference was that Wallace appeared to have envisioned natural selection as a kind of feedback mechanism keeping species and varieties adapted to their environment.[75] They point to a largely overlooked passage of Wallace's famous 1858 paper: The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident; and in like manner no unbalanced deficiency in the animal kingdom can ever reach any conspicuous magnitude, because it would make itself felt at the very first step, by rendering existence difficult and extinction almost sure soon to follow.[61] The cybernetician and anthropologist Gregory Bateson would observe in the 1970s that, though writing it only as an example, Wallace had "probably said the most powerful thing that’d been said in the 19th Century".[76] Bateson revisited the topic in his 1979 book Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, and other scholars have continued to explore the connection between natural selection and systems theory.[75] Warning colouration and sexual selection In 1867, Darwin wrote to Wallace about a problem he was having understanding how some caterpillars could have evolved conspicuous colour schemes. Darwin had come to believe that sexual selection, an agency to which Wallace did not attribute the same importance as Darwin did, explained many conspicuous animal colour schemes. However, Darwin realised that this could not apply to caterpillars. Wallace responded that he and Henry Bates had observed that many of the most spectacular butterflies had a peculiar odour and taste, and that he had been told by John Jenner Weir that birds would not eat a certain kind of common white moth because they found it unpalatable. "Now, as the white moth is as conspicuous at dusk as a coloured caterpillar in the daylight", Wallace wrote back to Darwin that it seemed likely that the conspicuous colour scheme served as a warning to predators and thus could have evolved through natural selection. Darwin was impressed by the idea. At a subsequent meeting of the Entomological Society, Wallace asked for any evidence anyone might have on the topic. In 1869, Weir published data from experiments and observations involving brightly coloured caterpillars that supported Wallace’s idea. Warning colouration was one of a number of contributions Wallace made in the area of the evolution of animal colouration in general and the concept of protective colouration in particular.[77] It was also part of a life-long disagreement Wallace had with Darwin over the importance of sexual selection. In his 1878 book Tropical Nature and Other Essays, he wrote extensively on the colouration of animals and plants and proposed alternative explanations for a number of cases Darwin had attributed


Alfred Russel Wallace to sexual selection.[78] He revisited the topic at length in his 1889 book Darwinism. Wallace effect In 1889, Wallace wrote the book Darwinism, which explained and defended natural selection. In it, he proposed the hypothesis that natural selection could drive the reproductive isolation of two varieties by encouraging the development of barriers against hybridisation. Thus it might contribute to the development of new species. He suggested the following scenario. When two populations of a species had diverged beyond a certain point, each adapted to particular conditions, hybrid offspring would be less well-adapted than either parent form and, at that point, natural selection will tend to eliminate the hybrids. Furthermore, under such conditions, natural selection would favour the development of barriers to hybridisation, as individuals that avoided hybrid matings would tend to have more fit offspring, and thus contribute to the reproductive isolation of the two incipient species. This idea came to be known as the Wallace effect.[79] Wallace had suggested to Darwin that natural selection could play a role in preventing hybridization in private correspondence as early as 1868, but had not worked it out to this level of detail.[80] It continues to be a topic of research in evolutionary biology today, with both computer simulation and empirical results supporting its validity.[81]


Application of theory to man, and role of teleology in evolution
In 1864, Wallace published a paper, "The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from the Theory of 'Natural Selection'", applying the theory to humankind. Darwin had not yet publicly addressed the subject, although Thomas Huxley had in Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. He explained the apparent stability of the human stock by pointing to the vast gap in cranial capacities between humans and the great apes. Unlike some other Darwinists, including Darwin himself, he did not "regard modern primitives as almost filling the gap between man and ape".[82] He saw the evolution of man in two stages: achieving a bipedal posture freeing the hands to carry out the dictates of the brain, and the "recognition of the human brain as a totally new factor in the history of life. Wallace was An illustration from the chapter on the application of natural apparently the first evolutionist to recognize clearly selection to man in Wallace's 1889 book Darwinism shows a that...with the emergence of that bodily specialization chimpanzee. which constitutes the human brain, bodily specialization itself might be said to be outmoded."[82] For this paper he won Darwin's praise. Shortly afterwards, Wallace became a spiritualist. At about the same time, he began to maintain that natural selection cannot account for mathematical, artistic, or musical genius, as well as metaphysical musings, and wit and humour. He eventually said that something in "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded at least three times in history. The first was the creation of life from inorganic matter. The second was the introduction of consciousness in the higher animals. And the third was the generation of the higher mental faculties in mankind. He also believed that the raison d'être of the universe was the development of the human spirit.[83] These views greatly disturbed Darwin, who argued that spiritual appeals were not necessary and that sexual selection could easily explain apparently non-adaptive mental phenomena. While some historians have concluded that Wallace's belief that natural selection was insufficient to explain the development of consciousness and the human mind was directly caused by his adoption of spiritualism, other Wallace scholars have disagreed, and some maintain that Wallace never believed

Alfred Russel Wallace natural selection applied to those areas.[84] [85] Reaction to Wallace's ideas on this topic among leading naturalists at the time varied. Charles Lyell endorsed Wallace's views on human evolution rather than Darwin's.[86] [87] However, many, including Huxley, Hooker, and Darwin himself, were critical of Wallace.[88] As one historian of science has pointed out, Wallace's views in this area were at odds with two major tenets of the emerging Darwinian philosophy, which were that evolution was not teleological and that it was not anthropocentric.[89]


Assessment of Wallace's role in history of evolutionary theory
In many accounts of the history of evolution, Wallace is mentioned only in passing as simply being the "stimulus" to publication of Darwin's own theory.[90] In reality, Wallace developed his own distinct evolutionary views which diverged from Darwin's, and was considered by many (especially Darwin) to be a leading thinker on evolution in his day, whose ideas could not be ignored. One historian of science has pointed out that, through both private correspondence and published works, Darwin and Wallace exchanged knowledge and stimulated each other's ideas and theories over an extended period.[91] Wallace is the most-cited naturalist in Darwin's Descent of Man, often in strong disagreement.[92] Wallace remained an ardent defender of natural selection for the rest of his life. By the 1880s, evolution was widely accepted in scientific circles, but Wallace and August Weismann were nearly alone among prominent biologists in believing that natural selection was the major driving force behind it.[93] [94] In 1889, Wallace published the book Darwinism as a response to the scientific critics of natural selection.[95] Of all Wallace's books, it is cited by scholarly publications the most.[96] His last comment came in 1912 on the announcement of the discovery of the Piltdown skull, which Wallace dismissed, correctly as it turned out, saying "it does not prove much, if anything".[97]

In a letter to his brother-in-law in 1861, Wallace wrote: ... I remain an utter disbeliever in almost all that you consider the most sacred truths. I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeated accusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not be governed by the morality of Christianity ... I am thankful I can see much to admire in all religions. To the mass of mankind religion of some kind is a necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction.[98] Wallace was an enthusiast of phrenology.[99] Early in his career, he experimented with hypnosis, then known as mesmerism. He used some of his students in Leicester as subjects, with considerable success.[100] When he began his experiments with mesmerism, the topic was very controversial and early experimenters, such as John Elliotson, had been harshly criticised by the medical and scientific establishment.[101] Wallace drew a connection between his experiences with mesmerism and his later investigations into spiritualism. In 1893, he wrote: I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.[102] Wallace began investigating spiritualism in the summer of 1865, possibly at the urging of his older sister Fanny Sims, who had been involved with it for some time.[103] After reviewing the literature on the topic and attempting to test the phenomena he witnessed at séances, he came to accept that the belief was connected to a natural reality. For

Alfred Russel Wallace the rest of his life, he remained convinced that at least some séance phenomena were genuine, no matter how many accusations of fraud sceptics made or how much evidence of trickery was produced. Historians and biographers have disagreed about which factors most influenced his adoption of spiritualism. It has been suggested by one biographer that the emotional shock he had received a few months earlier, when his first fiancée broke their engagement, contributed to his receptiveness to spiritualism.[104] Other scholars have preferred to emphasise instead Wallace's desire to find rational and scientific explanations for all phenomena, both material and non-material, of the natural world and of human society.[101] [105] Spiritualism appealed to many educated Victorians who no longer found traditional religious doctrine, such as that of the Church of England, acceptable yet were unsatisfied with the completely materialistic and mechanical view of the world that was increasingly emerging from 19th-century science.[106] However, several scholars who have researched Wallace's views in depth have emphasised that, for him, spiritualism was a matter of science and philosophy rather than religious belief.[101] [105] Among other prominent 19th-century intellectuals involved with spiritualism were the social reformer Robert Owen, who was one of Wallace’s early idols,[107] the physicists William Crookes and Lord Rayleigh, the mathematician Augustus De Morgan, and the Scottish publisher Robert Chambers.[106] [108] Wallace's very public advocacy of spiritualism and his repeated defence of spiritualist mediums against allegations of fraud in the 1870s damaged his scientific reputation. It strained his relationships with previously friendly scientists such as Henry Bates, Thomas Huxley, and even Darwin, who felt he was overly credulous. Others, such as the physiologist William Benjamin Carpenter and zoologist E. Ray Lankester became openly and publicly hostile to Wallace over the issue. Wallace and other scientists who defended spiritualism, notably William Crookes, were subject to much criticism from the press, with The Lancet as the leading English medical journal of the time being particularly harsh. The controversy affected the public perception of Wallace’s work for the rest of his career.[109] When, in 1879, Darwin first tried to rally support among naturalists to get a civil pension awarded to Wallace, Joseph Hooker responded: Wallace has lost caste considerably, not only by his adhesion to Spiritualism, but by the fact of his having deliberately and against the whole voice of the committee of his section of the British Association, brought about a discussion of on Spiritualism at one of its sectional meetings. That he is said to have done so in an underhanded manner, and I well remember the indignation it gave rise to in the B.A. Council.[110] Hooker eventually relented and agreed to support the pension request.[111]


Biogeography and ecology
In 1872, at the urging of many of his friends, including Darwin, Philip Sclater, and Alfred Newton, Wallace began research for a general review of the geographic distribution of animals. He was unable to make much progress initially, in part because classification systems for many types of animals were in flux at the time.[112] He resumed the work in earnest in 1874 after the publication of a number of new works on classification.[113] Extending the bird system developed by Sclater—which divided the earth into six separate geographic regions for describing species distribution—to cover mammals, reptiles and insects as

A map of the world from The Geographical Distribution of Animals shows Wallace's six biogeographical regions.

Alfred Russel Wallace well, Wallace created the basis for the zoogeographic regions still in use today. He discussed all of the factors then known to influence the current and past geographic distribution of animals within each geographical region. These included the effects of the appearance and disappearance of land bridges (such as the one currently connecting North America and South America) and the effects of periods of increased glaciation. He provided maps that displayed factors, such as elevation of mountains, depths of oceans, and the character of regional vegetation, that affected the distribution of animals. He also summarised all the known families and genera of the higher animals and listed their known geographic distributions. The text was organised so that it would be easy for a traveler to learn what animals could be found in a particular location. The resulting two-volume work, The Geographical Distribution of Animals, was published in 1876 and would serve as the definitive text on zoogeography for the next 80 years.[114] In 1880, Wallace published the book Island Life as a sequel to The Geographical Distribution of Animals. It surveyed the distribution of both animal and plant species on islands. Wallace classified islands into three different types. Oceanic islands, such as the Galapagos and Hawaiian Islands (then known as the Sandwich Islands) formed in mid-ocean and had never been part of any large continent. Such islands were characterised by a complete lack of terrestrial mammals and amphibians, and their inhabitants (with the exceptions of migratory birds and species introduced by human activity) were typically the result of accidental colonization and subsequent evolution. He divided continental islands into two separate classes depending on whether they had recently been part of a continent (like Britain) or much less recently (like Madagascar) and discussed how that difference affected the flora and fauna. He talked about how isolation affected evolution and how that could result in the preservation of classes of animals, such as the lemurs of Madagascar that were remnants of once widespread continental faunas. He extensively discussed how changes of climate, particularly periods of increased glaciation, may have affected the distribution of flora and fauna on some islands, and the first portion of the book discusses possible causes of these great ice ages. Island Life was considered a very important work at the time of its publication. It was discussed extensively in scientific circles both in published reviews and in private correspondence.[115]


Environmental issues
Wallace’s extensive work in biogeography made him aware of the impact of human activities on the natural world. In Tropical Nature and Other Essays (1878), he warned about the dangers of deforestation and soil erosion, especially in tropical climates prone to heavy rainfall. Noting the complex interactions between vegetation and climate, he warned that the extensive clearing of rainforest for coffee cultivation in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and India would adversely impact the climate in those countries and lead to their eventual impoverishment due to soil erosion.[116] In Island Life, Wallace again talked about deforestation and also the impact of invasive species. He wrote the following about the impact of European colonization on the island of Saint Helena: ... yet the general aspect of the island is now so barren and forbidding that some persons find it difficult to believe that it was once all green and fertile. The cause of this change is, however, very easily explained. The rich soil formed by decomposed volcanic rock and vegetable deposits could only be retained on the steep slopes so long as it was protected by the vegetation to which it in great part owed its origin. When this was destroyed, the heavy tropical rains soon washed away the soil, and has left a vast expanse of bare rock or sterile clay. This irreparable destruction was caused, in the first place, by goats, which were introduced by the Portuguese in 1513, and increased so rapidly that in 1588 they existed in the thousands. These animals are the greatest of all foes to trees, because they eat off the young seedlings, and thus prevent the natural restoration of the forest. They were, however, aided by the reckless waste of man. The East India Company took possession of the island in 1651, and about the year 1700 it began to be seen that the forests were fast diminishing, and required some protection. Two of the native trees, redwood and ebony, were good for tanning, and, to save trouble, the bark was wastefully stripped from the trunks only, the remainder being left to rot; while in 1709 a large quantity of the rapidly disappearing ebony was used to burn lime for building fortifications![117]

Alfred Russel Wallace


Other controversies
Flat Earth wager
In 1870, a Flat-Earth proponent named John Hampden offered a £500 wager (equivalent to about £35000 in present day terms[118] ) in a magazine advertisement to anyone who could demonstrate a convex curvature in a body of water such as a river, canal, or lake. Wallace, intrigued by the challenge and short of money at the time, designed an experiment in which he set up two objects along a six-mile (10 km) stretch of canal. Both objects were at the same height above the water and in a straight line with a telescope he mounted on a bridge. When seen through the telescope, one object appeared higher than the other, showing the curvature of the earth. The judge for the wager, the editor of Field magazine, declared Wallace the winner, but Hampden refused to accept the result. He sued Wallace and launched a campaign, which persisted for several years, of writing letters to various publications and to organisations of which Wallace was a member denouncing him as a swindler and a thief. Wallace won multiple libel suits against Hampden, but the resulting litigation cost Wallace more than the amount of the wager and the controversy frustrated him for years.[119]

Anti-vaccination campaign
In the early 1880s, Wallace was drawn into the debate over mandatory smallpox vaccination. Wallace originally saw the issue as a matter of personal liberty; but, after studying some of the statistics provided by anti-vaccination activists, he began to question the efficacy of vaccination. At the time, the germ theory of disease was very new and far from universally accepted. Moreover, no one knew enough about the human immune system to understand why vaccination worked. When Wallace did some research, he discovered some cases where supporters of vaccination had used questionable statistics. Always suspicious of authority, Wallace became convinced that reductions in the incidence of smallpox that had been attributed to vaccination were, in fact, due to better hygiene and improvements in public sanitation. He also suspected that physicians had a vested interest in promoting vaccination.[120] Wallace and other anti-vaccinationists pointed out that vaccination, which was often done in a sloppy unsanitary manner, could be dangerous.[121] In 1890, Wallace gave evidence before a Royal Commission investigating the controversy. When the commission examined the material he had submitted to support his testimony, they found errors, including some questionable statistics. The Lancet stated that Wallace and the other anti-vaccination activists were being selective in their choice of statistics, ignoring large quantities of data inconsistent with their position. The commission found that smallpox vaccination was effective and should remain compulsory, though they did recommend some changes in procedures to improve safety, and that the penalties for people who refused to comply be made less severe. Years later, in 1898, Wallace wrote a pamphlet attacking the commission’s findings. It, in turn, was attacked by The Lancet, which stated that it contained many of the same errors as his evidence given to the commission.[120]

Martian canals
In 1907, Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to criticise the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of research, consulted various experts, and produced his own scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric conditions.[122] Among other things, Wallace pointed out that spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapour in the Martian atmosphere, that Lowell's analysis of Mars's climate was seriously flawed and badly overestimated the surface temperature, and that low atmospheric pressure would make liquid water, let alone a planet-girding irrigation system, impossible.[123] Wallace originally became interested in the topic because his anthropocentric philosophy inclined him to believe that man would likely be unique in the universe.[124]

Alfred Russel Wallace


Legacy and historical perception
As a result of his writing, at the time of his death Wallace had been for many years a well-known figure both as a scientist and as a social activist. He was often sought out by journalists and others for his views on a variety of topics.[125] He received honorary doctorates and a number of professional honours, such as election to the Royal Society, the Copley Medal, and one honour from the British monarch: the Order of Merit.[126] Above all, his role as the co-discoverer of natural selection and his work on zoogeography marked him out as an exceptional figure. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest natural history explorers of the 19th century. Despite this, his fame faded quickly after his death. For a long time, he was treated as a relatively obscure figure in the history of science.[90] A number of reasons have been suggested for this lack of attention, including his modesty, his willingness to champion unpopular causes without regard for his own reputation, and the discomfort of much of the scientific community with some of his unconventional ideas. Recently, he has become a less obscure figure with the publication of several book length biographies on him, as well as anthologies of his writings. In 2007 a literary critic for New Yorker magazine observed that five such biographies and two such anthologies had been published since 2000.[127] There has also been a web page created that is dedicated to Wallace scholarship.[128]

A portrait of Alfred Russel Wallace is shown above his signature on the frontispiece of Darwinism (1889).

Awards, honours, and memorials
• Among the many awards presented to Wallace were the Order of Merit (1908), the Royal Society's Royal Medal (1868) and Copley Medal (1908), the Royal Geographical Society's Founder's Medal (1892) as well as the Linnean Society's Gold Medal (1892) and their Darwin–Wallace Medal (1908). • Elected head of the anthropology section of the British Association in 1866. • Elected president of the Entomological Society of London in 1870. • Elected head of the biology section of the British Association in 1876. • Awarded a civil pension of £200 a year, in large part due to lobbying by Darwin and Huxley, by British government in 1881. • Elected to the Royal Society in 1893. • Asked to chair the International Congress of Spiritualists (which was meeting in London) in 1898. • In 1928, a house at Richard Hale School (at the time called Hertford Grammar School) was named after Wallace. Wallace attended Richard Hale as a student from 1828–36. • On 1 November 1915, a medallion with his name on it was placed in Westminster Abbey. • He is also honoured by having craters on Mars and the Moon named after him. • A centre for biodiversity research in Sarawak named in his memory was proposed in 2005.[129] • The Geography and Biology building at Swansea University is named after Wallace.

Alfred Russel Wallace • A large lecture theatre at Cardiff University (Main Building 0.13) is named after Wallace.


Writings by Wallace
Wallace was a prolific author. In 2002, a historian of science published a quantitative analysis of Wallace's publications. He found that Wallace had published 22 full-length books and at least 747 shorter pieces, 508 of which were scientific papers (191 of them published in Nature). He further broke down the 747 short pieces by their primary subjects as follows. 29% were on biogeography and natural history, 27% were on evolutionary theory, 25% were social commentary, 12% were on Anthropology, and 7% were on spiritualism and phrenology.[130] An online bibliography of Wallace's writings has more than 750 entries.[22]

Selected books
• Wallace, Alfred Russel (1853) (Biodiversity Heritage Library). Palm trees of the Amazon and their uses. [131]. London. Retrieved 2009-08-20. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1869). The Malay Archipelago. Harper. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1870) (Google Books). Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection [132] (2nd ed.). Macmillan and Company. Retrieved 2008-12-09. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1876) (Google Books). The Geographical Distribution of Animals [133]. Harper and brothers. Retrieved 2008-12-09. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1878) (Google Books). Tropical Nature, and Other Essays [134]. Macmillan. Retrieved 2008-12-09. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1881) (Google Books). Island Life [135]. Harper and brothers. Retrieved 2009-02-28. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1889) (Google Books). Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection, with Some of Its Applications [136] (1912 ed.). Macmillan. Retrieved 2008-12-09. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1889) (Google Books). Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro [137] (1889 ed.). Ward, Lock. Retrieved 2008-12-09. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1905) (Google Books). My Life [138]. Chapman & Hall. Retrieved 2009-02-28.

Selected papers
• 1853: On the Monkeys of the Amazon [139]. Speculates on the effect of rivers and other geographical barriers on the distribution of closely allied species. • 1855: On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species [140]. Wallace's thoughts on the laws governing the geographic distribution of closely allied species and the implications of those laws for the transmutation of species. • 1857: On the Natural History of the Aru Islands [141]. First methodical biogeographic study. • 1858: On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type [142]. Paper on natural selection sent by Wallace to Darwin. • 1859: On the Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago [143]. Contains first description of Wallace Line. • 1863: Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's Paper on the Bee's Cell, And on the Origin of Species [144]. Wallace's defence of the Origin on the topic of evolution of the hexagonal bee cell. • 1863: On the Physical Geography of the Malay Archipelago [145]. Paper on the geography and possible geographic history of Indonesia with concluding remarks on importance of biogeography and biodiversity that are frequently cited in modern conservation circles. • 1864: On the phenomena of variation and geographical distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidae of the Malayan region [146]. Monograph on Indonesian butterfly family with discussion of different kinds of variability including individual variation, polymorphic forms, geographical races, variation influenced by local conditions, and closely allied species.

Alfred Russel Wallace • 1891: English and American Flowers [147]. Contains speculation on how glaciation may have affected distribution of mountain flora in North America and Eurasia. A more comprehensive list [148] of Wallace's publications that are available online, as well as a full bibliography of all of Wallace's writings,[22] has been compiled by the historian Charles H. Smith at the The Alfred Russel Wallace Page [149].


[1] Smith, Charles H.. "Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution of an Evolutionist Introduction" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ chsarwin. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-27. [2] Wilson The Forgotten Naturalist p. 1. [3] Smith, Charles H.. "Alfred Russel Wallace: A Capsule Biography" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ index1. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-27. [4] Wilson pp. 6–10. [5] Raby Bright Paradise pp. 77–78. [6] Slotten The Heretic in Darwin's Court pp. 11–14. [7] "28. Alfred Russel Wallace" (http:/ / www. 100welshheroes. com/ en/ biography/ alfredrussellwallace). 100 Welsh heroes. . Retrieved 2008-09-23. [8] Smith, Charles H.. "Responses to Questions Frequently Asked About Wallace: Was Wallace actually a Welshman, as seems to be increasingly claimed?" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ FAQ. htm#Welsh). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2008-01-20. [9] Shermer In Darwin's Shadow p. 53. [10] Slotten pp. 22–26. [11] Slotten pp. 26–29. [12] Wilson pp. 19–20. [13] Raby p. 78. [14] Wallace My Life pp. 254 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=side& itemID=A237. 1& pageseq=287), 256 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=side& itemID=A237. 1& pageseq=289) [15] Slotten pp. 34–37. [16] Wilson p. 36; Raby pp. 89, 98–99, 120–21. [17] Raby pp. 89–95. [18] Shermer pp. 72–73. [19] Slotten pp. 84–88 [20] Wilson p. 45. [21] Raby p. 148. [22] Wallace, Alfred. "Bibliography of the Published Writings of Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913)" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ bib4. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-06. [23] Shermer p. 14. [24] Slotten p. 267. [25] Shermer pp. 151–52. [26] Slotten pp. 249–58. [27] Slotten p. 235. [28] Shermer p. 156. [29] Slotten pp. 239–40. [30] Slotten pp. 265–67. [31] Slotten pp. 299–300. [32] Slotten p. 325. [33] Slotten pp. 361–64. [34] Slotten pp. 365–72. [35] Slotten p. 436. [36] Slotten p. 437. [37] Wallace, Alfred. "Paper Money as a Standard of Value (S557: 1898)" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S557. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-06. [38] Slotten pp. 366, 453, 487–88. [39] Shermer pp. 23, 279. [40] Wallace, Alfred. "The Revolt of Democracy (S734: 1913)" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S734. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-06. [41] Shermer pp. 274–78.

Alfred Russel Wallace
[42] Slotten pp. 379–400. [43] Slotten p. 490. [44] Slotten p. 491. [45] Larson Evolution p. 73. [46] Bowler & Morus "Making Modern Science" p. 141. [47] McGowan The Dragon Seekers pp. 101, 154–55. [48] Larson pp. 23–24, 37–38. [49] Shermer p. 54. [50] Slotten p. 31. [51] Slotten p. 94. [52] Wallace, Alfred Russel (1855). "On the Law Which has Regulated the Introduction of Species" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S020. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-08. [53] Desmond & Moore Darwin 1991, p. 438;    Browne Charles Darwin: Voyaging pp. 537–46. [54] Wallace My Life p. 361. [55] Slotten pp. 144–45. [56] Slotten p. 144. [57] Wallace My Life pp. 361–62. [58] Marchant, 1916. p. 105 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1593& viewtype=image& pageseq=116) [59] Darwin, Francis, 1887, The life and letters of Charles Darwin p. 95 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=111) [60] Darwin, Francis, 1887, The life and letters of Charles Darwin p. 108 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=124) [61] Wallace, Alfred. "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S043. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-22. [62] Slotten pp. 153–54   Darwin, Francis, 1887, The life and letters of Charles Darwin p. 116 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=132) [63] Browne Charles Darwin: The Power of Place pp. 33–42. [64] Shermer pp. 148–50. [65] Browne Charles Darwin: The Power of Place pp. 40–42. [66] Slotten pp. 157–62. [67] Shermer, Michael. "In Darwin’s Shadow: Excerpt" (http:/ / www. michaelshermer. com/ darwins-shadow/ excerpt/ ). . Retrieved 2008-04-29. [68] Smith, Charles. "Responses to Questions Frequently Asked About Wallace: Did Darwin really steal material from Wallace to complete his theory of natural selection?" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ FAQ. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2008-04-29. [69] Slotten pp. 197–99. [70] Wallace, Alfred. "Creation by Law (S140: 1867)" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S140. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-23. [71] Slotten p. 261. [72] Kutschera, U. (2003-12-19). "A comparative analysis of the Darwin–Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection". Theory in Biosciences 122 (4): 343–359. doi:10.1007/s12064-003-0063-6. [73] Larson p. 75. [74] Bowler & Morus p. 149. [75] Smith, Charles H.. "Wallace's Unfinished Business" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ essays/ UNFIN. htm). Complexity (publisher Wiley Periodicals, Inc.) Volume 10, No 2, 2004. . Retrieved 2007-05-11. [76] Brand, Stewart. "For God’s Sake, Margaret" (http:/ / www. oikos. org/ forgod. htm). CoEvolutionary Quarterly, June 1976. . Retrieved 2007-04-04. [77] Slotten pp. 251–54. [78] Slotten pp. 353–56. [79] Slotten pp. 413–15. [80] Slotten p. 404. [81] Ollerton, J. "Flowering time and the Wallace Effect" (http:/ / oldweb. northampton. ac. uk/ aps/ env/ lbrg/ journals/ papers/ OllertonHeredityCommentary2005. pdf) (PDF). Heredity, August 2005. . Retrieved 2007-05-22. [82] Eiseley, Loren (1958). Darwin's Century. Anchor Book. [83] Wallace Darwinism p. 477. [84] Shermer pp. 157–60.


Alfred Russel Wallace
[85] Smith, Charles H.. "Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution of an Evolutionist Chapter Six. A Change of Mind?" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ chsarw6. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-29. [86] Larson p. 100. [87] Shermer p. 160. [88] Slotten pp. 280–96. [89] Shermer pp. 208–09. [90] Slotten p. 6. [91] Shermer p. 149. [92] Slotten pp. 289–90. [93] Larson p. 123. [94] Bowler & Morus p. 154. [95] Slotten p. 409. [96] Shermer p. 18. [97] Marchant 1916, p. 347 [98] Wallace, Alfred. "1861 Letter from Wallace to Thomas Sims" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ quotes. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-04. [99] Slotten pp. 203–05. [100] Slotten pp. 234–35. [101] Smith, Charles H.. "Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution of an Evolutionist Chapter One. Belief and Spiritualism" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ chsarw1. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-20. [102] Wallace, Alfred. "Notes on the Growth of Opinion as to Obscure Psychical Phenomena During the Last Fifty Years" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S478. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-04-20. [103] Slotten p. 231. [104] Slotten p. 236. [105] Shermer pp. 199–201. [106] Slotten p. 4. [107] Slotten p. 232. [108] Shermer p. 183. [109] Slotten pp. 298–351. [110] Slotten pp. 357–58. [111] Slotten p. 362. [112] Slotten p. 301. [113] Slotten p. 315. [114] Slotten pp. 320–25. [115] Slotten p. 361. [116] Slotten pp. 352–53. [117] Wallace Island Life pp. 283–84. [118] UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Lawrence H. Officer (2010) " What Were the UK Earnings and Prices Then? (http:/ / www. measuringworth. org/ ukearncpi/ )" MeasuringWorth. [119] Shermer pp. 258–61. [120] Slotten pp. 422–36. [121] Shermer p. 216. [122] Slotten p. 474. [123] Wallace, Alfred. "Is Mars Habitable (S730: 1907)" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S730. htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-13. [124] Shermer p. 294. [125] Shermer pp. 292–94. [126] London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 28194, p. 8162 (http:/ / www. london-gazette. co. uk/ issues/ 28194/ supplements/ 8162), 9 November 1908. Retrieved 2009-01-08. [127] Rosen, Jonathan. "Missing Link: Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles Darwin’s neglected double" (http:/ / www. newyorker. com/ arts/ critics/ atlarge/ 2007/ 02/ 12/ 070212crat_atlarge_rosen). The New Yorker Feb 2007. . Retrieved 2007-04-25. [128] "The Alfred Russel Wallace Page" (http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ index1. htm). hosted by Western Kentucky University. . Retrieved 2007-05-13. [129] Sibon, Peter (2005-07-14). "Relishing Wallace's enlightenment" (http:/ / www. cm. sarawak. gov. my/ cm/ cmweb. nsf/ 0/ 47186e7957e667b64825706600087643/ $FILE/ St140705. pdf) (PDF). Sarawak Tribune. . Retrieved 2007-04-09. [130] Shermer pp. 15–17. [131] http:/ / www. biodiversitylibrary. org/ item/ 42833 [132] http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=uGSFcFcSBmkC [133] http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=HmqtZfTfQUMC


Alfred Russel Wallace
[134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=09TeahwIfN0C http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=ghcPAAAAYAAJ http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=jURSAAAAMAAJ http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=iEQTAAAAYAAJ http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=_dYEAAAAYAAJ http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S008. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S020. htm http:/ / people. wku. edu/ charles. smith/ wallace/ S038. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S043. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S053. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S083. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S078. htm http:/ / www. biodiversitylibrary. org/ item/ 38597 http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ S441. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ wallace/ writings. htm http:/ / www. wku. edu/ ~smithch/ index1. htm


• Bowler, Peter J.; Iwan Rhys Morus (2005). Making Modern Science. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06861-7. • Browne, Janet (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging: Volume I of a Biography. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1-84413-314-1. • Browne, Janet (2002). Charles Darwin: The Power of Place: Volume II of a Biography. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-11439-0. • Darwin, Charles. Darwin, F. ed. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter ( Vol. 2. London: John Murray. Retrieved 2007-05-12. • Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. • Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 0-679-64288-9. • Marchant, James (1916). Alfred Russel Wallace: letters and reminiscences ( content/frameset?itemID=F1593&viewtype=image&pageseq=1). New York: Harper & Brothers. • McGowan, Christopher (2001). The Dragon Seekers. Cambridge: Perseus Pub. ISBN 0738202827. • Raby, Peter (1996). Bright Paradise: Victorian Scientific Travellers. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04843-6. • Raby, Peter (2002). Alfred Russel Wallace: A Life. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-10240-5. • Shermer, Michael (2002). In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace. Oxford University press. ISBN 0-19-514830-4. • Slotten, Ross A. (2004). The Heretic in Darwin's Court: the life of Alfred Russel Wallace. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231130104. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1889). "Darwinism, Chapter 15" ( htm). The Alfred Russel Wallace Page ( Retrieved 2007-04-04. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1881). Island Life ( pg=RA1-PR19&lpg=RA1-PR19&dq=Wallace++Island+Life#PRA1-PR10,M1). Google Books (http://books. • Wallace, Alfred Russel (1905). My Life ( lpg=PA2&dq=alfred+russel+wallace). Chapman and Hall, London. Vol. 1 ( content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=A237.1&pageseq=1), Vol. 2 ( frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=A237.2&pageseq=1).

Alfred Russel Wallace • Wilson, John (2000). The Forgotten Naturalist: In search of Alfred Russel Wallace. City: Arcadia/Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty Ltd. ISBN 1875606726.


Further reading
• Fichman, Martin (2004). An elusive Victorian: the evolution of Alfred Russel Wallace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226246132. • Quammen, David (December 2008). "The Man Who Wasn't Darwin" ( 2008/12/wallace/quammen-text). National Geographic (National Geographic Society): 106–33. Retrieved 2008-12-03. • Quammen, David (1996). The song of the dodo: island biogeography in an age of extinctions. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0684800837. • Severin, Tim (1997). The Spice Islands Voyage: The Quest for Alfred Wallace, the Man Who Shared Darwin's Discovery of Evolution. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN 0786705183. • Berry, Andrew (2003). Infinite Tropics: An Alfred Russel Wallace Anthology. London: Verso. ISBN 1859844782. • Crawforth, Anthony (2009). The Butterfly Hunter: The life of Henry Walter Bates. The University of Buckingham Press. ISBN 9780956071613.

External links
• • • • The Alfred Russel Wallace Page ( The Alfred Russel Wallace Website ( The A. R. Wallace Correspondence Project website ( " Missing Link-Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles Darwin's neglected double ( critics/atlarge/2007/02/12/070212crat_atlarge_rosen)" by Jonathan Rosen, The New Yorker, February 12, 2007 The Malay Archipelago illustrated edition at Papua WebProject ( cover.html) Wallace at 100 Welsh Heroes ( Works by Alfred Russel Wallace ( at Project Gutenberg Works by or about Alfred Russel Wallace ( in libraries (WorldCat catalog) BBC article on Wallace and Indonesia's efforts to honor him ( 7847060.stm) National Geographic Magazine, December 2008 - The Man Who Wasn't Darwin (http://ngm. Biography "The Work In Darwin's Shadow" by Joel Achenbach, The Washington Post, February 9, 2009 (http://www.

• • • • • • •

Alfred Russel Wallace


Sister project links
• • • Media related to Alfred Russel Wallace at Wikimedia Commons Quotations related to Alfred Russel Wallace at Wikiquote  Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). "Wallace, Alfred Russel". Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Charles Darwin


Charles Darwin
Charles Robert Darwin

Charles Robert Darwin, aged 45 in 1854, by then working towards publication of On the Origin of Species. Born Died Residence Citizenship Nationality Fields Institutions Alma mater 12 February 1809Mount House, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England 19 April 1882 (aged 73)Down House, Downe, Kent, England England British British Naturalist Geological Society of London University of Edinburgh University of Cambridge John Stevens Henslow Adam Sedgwick The Voyage of the Beagle On The Origin of Species Natural selection Alexander von Humboldt John Herschel Charles Lyell Joseph Dalton Hooker Thomas Henry Huxley George John Romanes Ernst Haeckel Royal Medal (1853) Wollaston Medal (1859) Copley Medal (1864) Signature

Academic advisors

Known for



Notable awards

Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist.[I] He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection. He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[1] [2] The scientific community and much of the general public came to accept evolution as a fact in his lifetime.[3] However, it

Charles Darwin was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution.[4] In modified form, Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.[5] [6] Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science.[7] His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[8] Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838.[9] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[10] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[11] Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[3] In 1871, he examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[12] In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence as a scientist, he was one of only five nineteenth-century non-royal personages from the United Kingdom to be honoured by a state funeral,[13] and was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.[14]


Life of Darwin
Childhood and education
Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on 12 February 1809 at his family home, the Mount.[15] He was the fifth of six children of wealthy society doctor and financier Robert Darwin, and Susannah Darwin (née Wedgwood). He was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his father's side, and of Josiah Wedgwood on his mother's side. Both families were largely Unitarian, though the Wedgwoods were adopting Anglicanism. Robert Darwin, himself quietly a freethinker, had baby Charles baptised in the Anglican Church, but Charles and his siblings attended the Unitarian chapel with their mother. The eight-year-old Charles already had a taste for natural history and collecting when he joined the day school run by its preacher in 1817. That July, his mother died. From September 1818, he joined his older brother Erasmus attending the nearby Anglican Shrewsbury School as a boarder.[16] Darwin spent the summer of 1825 as an apprentice doctor, helping his father treat the poor of Shropshire, before going to the University of Edinburgh Medical School with his brother Erasmus in October 1825. He found lectures dull and surgery distressing, so neglected his studies. He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who had accompanied Charles Waterton in the South American rainforest, and often sat with this "very pleasant and intelligent man".[17] In Darwin's second year he joined the Plinian Society, a student natural history group whose debates strayed into radical materialism. He assisted Robert Edmund Grant's investigations of the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates in the Firth of Forth, and on 27 March 1827 presented at the Plinian his own discovery that black
The seven-year-old Charles Darwin in 1816.

Charles Darwin spores found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech. One day, Grant praised Lamarck's evolutionary ideas. Darwin was astonished, but had recently read the similar ideas of his grandfather Erasmus and remained indifferent.[18] Darwin was rather bored by Robert Jameson's natural history course which covered geology including the debate between Neptunism and Plutonism. He learned classification of plants, and assisted with work on the collections of the University Museum, one of the largest museums in Europe at the time.[19] This neglect of medical studies annoyed his father, who shrewdly sent him to Christ's College, Cambridge, for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the first step towards becoming an Anglican parson. As Darwin was unqualified for the Tripos, he joined the ordinary degree course in January 1828.[20] He preferred riding and shooting to studying. His cousin William Darwin Fox introduced him to the popular craze for beetle collecting which Darwin pursued zealously, getting some of his finds published in Stevens' Illustrations of British entomology. He became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow and met other leading naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as "the man who walks with Henslow". When his own exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity.[21] In his final examination in January 1831 Darwin did well, coming tenth out of 178 candidates for the ordinary degree.[22] Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June. He studied Paley's Natural Theology which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[23] He read John Herschel's new book which described the highest aim of natural philosophy as understanding such laws through inductive reasoning based on observation, and Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of scientific travels. Inspired with "a burning zeal" to contribute, Darwin planned to visit Tenerife with some classmates after graduation to study natural history in the tropics. In preparation, he joined Adam Sedgwick's geology course, then went with him in the summer for a fortnight to map strata in Wales.[24] After a week with student friends at Barmouth, he returned home to find a letter from Henslow proposing Darwin as a suitable (if unfinished) gentleman naturalist for a self-funded place with captain Robert FitzRoy, more as a companion than a mere collector, on HMS Beagle which was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.[25] His father objected to the planned two-year voyage, regarding it as a waste of time, but was persuaded by his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood, to agree to his son's participation.[26]


Voyage of the Beagle
Beginning on the 27th of December, 1831, the voyage lasted almost five years and, as FitzRoy had intended, Darwin spent most of that time on land investigating geology and making natural history collections, while the Beagle surveyed and charted coasts.[3] [27] He kept careful notes of his observations and theoretical The voyage of the Beagle speculations, and at intervals during the voyage his specimens were sent to Cambridge together with letters including a copy of his journal for his family.[28] He had some expertise in geology, beetle collecting and dissecting marine invertebrates, but in all other areas was a novice and ably collected specimens for expert appraisal.[29] Despite repeatedly suffering badly from seasickness while at sea, most of his zoology notes are about marine invertebrates, starting with plankton collected in a calm spell.[27] [30] On their first stop ashore at St. Jago, Darwin found that a white band high in the volcanic rock cliffs included seashells. FitzRoy had given him the first volume of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology which set out

Charles Darwin uniformitarian concepts of land slowly rising or falling over immense periods,[II] and Darwin saw things Lyell's way, theorising and thinking of writing a book on geology.[31] In Brazil, Darwin was delighted by the tropical forest,[32] but detested the sight of slavery.[33] At Punta Alta in Patagonia he made a major find of fossil bones of huge extinct mammals in cliffs beside modern seashells, indicating recent extinction with no signs of change in climate or catastrophe. He identified the little known Megatherium by a tooth and its association with bony armour which had at first seemed to him like a giant version of the armour on local armadillos. The finds brought great interest when they reached England.[34] [35] On rides with gauchos into the interior to explore geology and collect more fossils he gained social, political and anthropological insights into both native and colonial people at a time of revolution, and learnt that two types of rhea had separate but overlapping territories.[36] [37] Further south he saw stepped plains of shingle and seashells as raised beaches showing a series of elevations. He read Lyell's second volume and accepted its view of "centres of creation" of species, but his discoveries and theorising challenged Lyell's ideas of smooth continuity and of extinction of species.[38] [39] Three Fuegians on board, who had been seized during the first Beagle voyage and had spent a year in England, were taken back to Tierra del Fuego as missionaries. Darwin found them friendly and civilised, yet their relatives seemed "miserable, degraded savages", as different as wild from domesticated animals.[40] To Darwin the difference showed cultural advances, not racial inferiority. Unlike his scientist friends, he now thought there was no unbridgeable gap between humans and animals.[41] A year on, the mission had been abandoned. The Fuegian they had named Jemmy Button lived like the other natives, had a wife, and had no wish to return to England.[42]


As HMS Beagle surveyed the coasts of South America, Darwin theorised about geology and extinction of giant mammals.

Darwin experienced an earthquake in Chile and saw signs that the land had just been raised, including mussel-beds stranded above high tide. High in the Andes he saw seashells, and several fossil trees that had grown on a sand beach. He theorised that as the land rose, oceanic islands sank, and coral reefs round them grew to form atolls.[43] [44] On the geologically new Galápagos Islands Darwin looked for evidence attaching wildlife to an older "centre of creation", and found mockingbirds allied to those in Chile but differing from island to island. He heard that slight variations in the shape of tortoise shells showed which island they came from, but failed to collect them, even after eating tortoises taken on board as food.[45] [46] In Australia, the marsupial rat-kangaroo and the platypus seemed so unusual that Darwin thought it was almost as though two distinct Creators had been at work.[47] He found the Aborigines "good-humoured & pleasant", and noted their depletion by European settlement.[48] The Beagle investigated how the atolls of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands had formed, and the survey supported Darwin's theorising.[44] FitzRoy began writing the official Narrative of the Beagle voyages, and after reading Darwin's diary he proposed incorporating it into the account.[49] Darwin's Journal was eventually rewritten as a separate third volume, on natural history.[50] In Cape Town Darwin and FitzRoy met John Herschel, who had recently written to Lyell praising his uniformitarianism as opening bold speculation on "that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others" as "a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process".[51] When organising his notes as the ship sailed home, Darwin wrote that if his growing suspicions about the mockingbirds, the tortoises and the Falkland Islands Fox were correct, "such facts undermine the stability of Species", then cautiously added "would" before "undermine".[52] He later wrote that such facts "seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species".[53]

Charles Darwin


Inception of Darwin's evolutionary theory
When the Beagle reached Falmouth, Cornwall, on 2 October 1836, Darwin was already a celebrity in scientific circles as in December 1835 Henslow had fostered his former pupil's reputation by giving selected naturalists a pamphlet of Darwin's geological letters.[54] Darwin visited his home in Shrewsbury and saw relatives, then hurried to Cambridge to see Henslow, who advised on finding naturalists available to catalogue the collections and agreed to take on the botanical specimens. Darwin's father organised investments, enabling his son to be a self-funded gentleman scientist, and an excited Darwin went round the London institutions being fêted and seeking experts to describe the collections. Zoologists had a huge backlog of work, and there was a danger of specimens just being left in storage.[55] Charles Lyell eagerly met Darwin for the first time on 29 October and soon introduced him to the up-and-coming anatomist Richard Owen, who had the While still a young man, Charles facilities of the Royal College of Surgeons to work on the fossil bones collected Darwin joined the scientific elite by Darwin. Owen's surprising results included other gigantic extinct ground sloths as well as the Megatherium, a near complete skeleton of the unknown Scelidotherium and a hippopotamus-sized rodent-like skull named Toxodon resembling a giant capybara. The armour fragments were actually from Glyptodon, a huge armadillo-like creature as Darwin had initially thought.[56] [35] These extinct creatures were related to living species in South America.[57] In mid-December Darwin took lodgings in Cambridge to organise work on his collections and rewrite his Journal.[58] He wrote his first paper, showing that the South American landmass was slowly rising, and with Lyell's enthusiastic backing read it to the Geological Society of London on 4 January 1837. On the same day, he presented his mammal and bird specimens to the Zoological Society. The ornithologist John Gould soon announced that the Galapagos birds that Darwin had thought a mixture of blackbirds, "gros-beaks" and finches, were, in fact, twelve separate species of finches. On 17 February Darwin was elected to the Council of the Geological Society, and Lyell's presidential address presented Owen's findings on Darwin's fossils, stressing geographical continuity of species as supporting his uniformitarian ideas.[59] Early in March, Darwin moved to London to be near this work, joining Lyell's social circle of scientists and experts such as Charles Babbage,[60] who described God as a programmer of laws. Darwin stayed with his freethinking brother Erasmus, part of this Whig circle and close friend of writer Harriet Martineau who promoted Malthusianism underlying the controversial Whig Poor Law reforms to stop welfare from causing overpopulation and more poverty. As a Unitarian she welcomed the radical implications of transmutation of species, promoted by Grant and younger surgeons influenced by Geoffroy. Transmutation was anathema to Anglicans defending social order,[61] but reputable scientists openly discussed the subject and there was wide interest in John Herschel's letter praising Lyell's approach as a way to find a natural cause of the origin of new species.[51] Gould met Darwin and told him that the Galápagos mockingbirds from different islands were separate species, not just varieties, and what Darwin had thought was a "wren" was also in the finch group. Darwin had not labelled the finches by island, but from the notes of others on the Beagle, including FitzRoy, he allocated species to islands.[62] The two rheas were also distinct species, and on 14 March Darwin announced how their distribution changed going southwards.[63]

Charles Darwin


By mid-March, Darwin was speculating in his Red Notebook on the possibility that "one species does change into another" to explain the geographical distribution of living species such as the rheas, and extinct ones such as the strange Macrauchenia which resembled a giant guanaco. His thoughts on lifespan, asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction developed in his "B" notebook around mid-July on to variation in offspring "to adapt & alter the race to changing world" explaining the Galápagos tortoises, mockingbirds and rheas. He sketched branching descent, then a genealogical branching of a single evolutionary tree, in which "It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another", discarding Lamarck's independent lineages progressing to higher forms.[64]

Overwork, illness, and marriage
While developing this intensive study of transmutation, Darwin became mired in more work. Still rewriting his Journal, he took on editing and publishing the expert reports on his collections, and with Henslow's help obtained a Treasury grant of £1,000 to sponsor this multi-volume Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, a sum equivalent to about £75000 in 2009.[65] He stretched the funding to include his planned books on geology, and agreed unrealistic dates with the publisher.[66] As the Victorian era began, Darwin pressed on with writing his Journal, and in August 1837 began correcting printer's proofs.[67]

In mid-July 1837 Darwin started his "B" notebook on Transmutation of Species, and on page 36 wrote "I think" above his first evolutionary tree.

Darwin's health suffered from the pressure. On 20 September he had "an uncomfortable palpitation of the heart", so his doctors urged him to "knock off all work" and live in the country for a few weeks. After visiting Shrewsbury he joined his Wedgwood relatives at Maer Hall, Staffordshire, but found them too eager for tales of his travels to give him much rest. His charming, intelligent, and cultured cousin Emma Wedgwood, nine months older than Darwin, was nursing his invalid aunt. His uncle Jos pointed out an area of ground where cinders had disappeared under loam and suggested that this might have been the work of earthworms, inspiring "a new & important theory" on their role in soil formation which Darwin presented at the Geological Society on 1 November.[68] William Whewell pushed Darwin to take on the duties of Secretary of the Geological Society. After initially declining the work, he accepted the post in March 1838.[69] Despite the grind of writing and editing the Beagle reports, Darwin made remarkable progress on transmutation, taking every opportunity to question expert naturalists and, unconventionally, people with practical experience such as farmers and pigeon fanciers.[3] [70] Over time his research drew on information from his relatives and children, the family butler, neighbours, colonists and former shipmates.[71] He included mankind in his speculations from the outset, and on seeing an orangutan in the zoo on 28 March 1838 noted its child-like behaviour.[72] The strain took a toll, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits. The cause of Darwin's illness remained unknown, and attempts at treatment had little success.[73] On 23 June he took a break and went "geologising" in Scotland. He visited Glen Roy in glorious weather to see the parallel "roads" cut into the hillsides at three heights. He later published his view that these were marine raised

Charles Darwin beaches, but then had to accept that they were shorelines of a proglacial lake.[74] Fully recuperated, he returned to Shrewsbury in July. Used to jotting down daily notes on animal breeding, he scrawled rambling thoughts about career and prospects on two scraps of paper, one with columns headed "Marry" and "Not Marry". Advantages included "constant companion and a friend in old age ... better than a dog anyhow", against points such as "less money for books" and "terrible loss of time."[75] Having decided in favour, he discussed it with his father, then went to visit Emma on 29 July. He did not get around to proposing, but against his father's advice he mentioned his ideas on transmutation.[76] Continuing his research in London, Darwin's wide reading now included the sixth edition of Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work...[77] Malthus asserted that unless human population is kept in check, it increases in a geometrical progression and soon exceeds food supply in what is known as a Malthusian catastrophe.[3] Darwin was well prepared to see at once that this also applied to de Candolle's "warring of the species" of plants and the struggle for existence among wildlife, explaining how numbers of a species kept roughly stable. As species always breed beyond available resources, favourable variations would make organisms better at surviving and passing the variations on to their offspring, while unfavourable variations would be lost. This would result in the formation of new species.[3] [78] On 28 September 1838 he noted this insight, describing it as a kind of wedging, forcing adapted structures into gaps in the economy of nature as weaker structures were thrust out.[3] By mid December he saw a similarity between farmers picking the best breeding stock and a Malthusian Nature selecting from chance variants so that "every part of newly acquired structure is fully practical and perfected",[79] thinking this comparison "a beautiful part of my theory".[80] On 11 November, he returned to Maer and proposed to Emma, once more telling her his ideas. She accepted, then in exchanges of loving letters she showed how she valued his openness in sharing their differences, also expressing her strong Unitarian beliefs and concerns that his honest doubts might separate them in the afterlife.[81] While he was house-hunting in London, bouts of illness continued and Emma wrote urging him to get some rest, almost prophetically remarking "So don't be ill any more my dear Charley till I can be with you to nurse you." He found what they called "Macaw Cottage" (because of its gaudy interiors) in Gower Street, then moved his "museum" in over Christmas. On 24 January 1839 Darwin was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.[82] On 29 January Darwin and Emma Wedgwood were married at Maer in an Anglican ceremony arranged to suit the Unitarians, then immediately caught the train to London and their new home.[83]
Darwin chose to marry his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.


Charles Darwin


Preparing the theory of natural selection for publication
Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection "by which to work",[84] as his "prime hobby".[85] His research included animal husbandry and extensive experiments with plants, finding evidence that species were not fixed and investigating many detailed ideas to refine and substantiate his theory.[3] For fifteen years this work was in the background to his main occupation of writing on geology and publishing expert reports on the Beagle collections.[86] When FitzRoy's Narrative was published in May 1839, Darwin's Journal and Remarks was such a success as the third volume that later that year it was published on its own.[87] Early in 1842, Darwin wrote about his ideas to Charles Lyell, who noted that his ally "denies seeing a beginning to each crop of species".[88] Darwin's book The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs on his theory of atoll formation was published in May 1842 after more than three years of work, and he then wrote his first "pencil sketch" of his theory of natural selection.[89] To escape the pressures of London, the family moved to rural Down House in September.[90] On 11 January 1844 Darwin mentioned his theorising to the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, writing with melodramatic humour "it is like confessing a murder".[91] [92] Hooker replied "There may in my opinion have been a series of productions on different spots, & also a gradual change of species. I shall be delighted to hear how you think that this change may have taken place, as no presently conceived opinions satisfy me on the subject."[93] By July, Darwin had expanded his "sketch" into a 230-page "Essay", to be expanded with his research results if he died prematurely.[95] In November the anonymously published sensational best-seller Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation brought wide interest in transmutation. Darwin scorned its amateurish geology and zoology, but carefully reviewed his own arguments. Controversy erupted, and it continued to sell well despite contemptuous dismissal by scientists.[96]

Darwin completed his third geological book in 1846. He now renewed Darwin's "sandwalk" at Down House was his [94] a fascination and expertise in marine invertebrates, dating back to his usual "Thinking Path". student days with Grant, by dissecting and classifying the barnacles he had collected on the voyage, enjoying observing beautiful structures and thinking about comparisons with allied structures.[98] In 1847, Hooker read the "Essay" and sent notes that provided Darwin with the calm critical feedback that he needed, but would not commit himself and questioned Darwin's opposition to continuing acts of creation.[99] In an attempt to improve his chronic ill health, Darwin went in 1849 to Dr. James Gully's Malvern spa and was surprised to find some benefit from hydrotherapy.[100] Then in 1851 his treasured daughter Annie fell ill, reawakening his fears that his illness might be hereditary, and after a long series of crises she died.[101] In eight years of work on barnacles (Cirripedia), Darwin's theory helped him to find "homologies" showing that slightly changed body parts served different functions to meet new conditions, and in some genera he found minute males parasitic on hermaphrodites, showing an intermediate stage in evolution of distinct sexes.[102] In 1853 it earned him the Royal Society's Royal Medal, and it made his reputation as a biologist.[103] He resumed work on his theory of species in 1854, and in November realised that divergence in the character of descendants could be explained by them becoming adapted to "diversified places in the economy of nature".[104]

Charles Darwin


Publication of the theory of natural selection
By the start of 1856, Darwin was investigating whether eggs and seeds could survive travel across seawater to spread species across oceans. Hooker increasingly doubted the traditional view that species were fixed, but their young friend Thomas Henry Huxley was firmly against evolution. Lyell was intrigued by Darwin's speculations without realising their extent. When he read a paper by Alfred Russel Wallace on the Introduction of species, he saw similarities with Darwin's thoughts and urged him to publish to establish precedence. Though Darwin saw no threat, he began work on a short paper. Finding answers to difficult questions held him up repeatedly, and he expanded his plans to a "big book on species" titled Natural Selection. He continued his researches, obtaining information and specimens from naturalists worldwide including Wallace who was working in Borneo. The American botanist Asa Gray showed similar interests, and on 5 September 1857 Darwin sent Gray a detailed outline of his ideas including an abstract of Natural Selection. In December, Darwin received a letter from Wallace asking if the book would examine human origins. He responded that he would avoid that subject, "so surrounded with prejudices", while encouraging Wallace's theorising and adding that "I go much further than you."[105]

Darwin was forced into swift publication of his theory of natural selection.

Darwin's book was half way when, on 18 June 1858, he received a paper from Wallace describing natural selection. Shocked that he had been "forestalled", Darwin sent it on to Lyell, as requested, and, though Wallace had not asked for publication, he suggested he would send it to any journal that Wallace chose. His family was in crisis with children in the village dying of scarlet fever, and he put matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker. They decided on a joint presentation at the Linnean Society on 1 July of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection; however, Darwin's baby son died of the scarlet fever and he was too distraught to attend.[106] There was little immediate attention to this announcement of the theory; the president of the Linnean Society remarked in May 1859 that the year had not been marked by any revolutionary discoveries.[107] Only one review rankled enough for Darwin to recall it later; Professor Samuel Haughton of Dublin claimed that "all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old."[108] Darwin struggled for thirteen months to produce an abstract of his "big book", suffering from ill health but getting constant encouragement from his scientific friends. Lyell arranged to have it published by John Murray.[109] On the Origin of Species proved unexpectedly popular, with the entire stock of 1,250 copies oversubscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 22 November 1859.[110] In the book, Darwin set out "one long argument" of detailed observations, inferences and consideration of anticipated objections.[111] His only allusion to human evolution was the understatement that "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".[112] His theory is simply stated in the introduction: As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.[113] He put a strong case for common descent, but avoided the then controversial term "evolution", and at the end of the book concluded that:

Charles Darwin 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.[114]


Responses to the publication
The book aroused international interest, with less controversy than had greeted the popular Vestiges of Creation.[116] Though Darwin's illness kept him away from the public debates, he eagerly scrutinised the scientific response, commenting on press cuttings, reviews, articles, satires and caricatures, and corresponded on it with colleagues worldwide.[117] Darwin had only said "Light will be thrown on the origin of man",[118] but the first review claimed it made a creed of the "men from monkeys" idea from Vestiges.[119] Amongst early favourable responses, Huxley's reviews swiped at Richard Owen, leader of the scientific establishment Huxley was trying to overthrow.[120] In April, Owen's review attacked Darwin's friends and condescendingly dismissed his ideas, angering Darwin,[121] but Owen and others began to promote ideas of supernaturally guided evolution.[122] The Church of England's response was mixed. Darwin's old Cambridge tutors Sedgwick and Henslow dismissed the ideas, but liberal clergymen interpreted natural selection as an instrument of God's design, with the cleric Charles Kingsley seeing it as "just as noble a conception of Deity".[123] In 1860, the publication of Essays and Reviews by seven liberal Anglican theologians diverted clerical attention from Darwin, with its ideas including higher criticism attacked by church authorities as heresy. In it, Baden Powell argued that miracles broke God's laws, so belief in them was atheistic, and praised "Mr Darwin's masterly volume [supporting] the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature".[124] Asa Gray discussed teleology with Darwin, who imported and distributed Gray's pamphlet on theistic evolution, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[123] [125] The most famous confrontation was at the public 1860 Oxford evolution debate during a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, where the Bishop of Oxford Samuel Wilberforce, though not opposed to transmutation of species, argued against Darwin's explanation and human descent from apes. Joseph Hooker argued strongly for Darwin, and Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion.[123] [126]

During the Darwin family's 1868 holiday in her Isle of Wight cottage, Julia Margaret Cameron took portraits showing the bushy beard Darwin had grown by 1866.

Even Darwin's close friends Gray, Hooker, Huxley and Lyell still expressed various reservations but gave strong support, as did many others, particularly younger naturalists. Gray and Lyell sought reconciliation with faith, while Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education,[123] aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists. Owen's claim that brain anatomy proved humans to be a separate biological order from apes was shown to be false by Huxley in a long running dispute parodied by Kingsley as the "Great Hippocampus Question", and discredited Owen.[127]

An 1871 caricature following publication of The Descent of Man was typical of many showing Darwin with an ape body, identifying him in popular culture as the leading author [115] of evolutionary theory.

Charles Darwin Darwinism became a movement covering a wide range of evolutionary ideas. In 1863 Lyell's Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man popularised prehistory, though his caution on evolution disappointed Darwin. Weeks later Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature showed that anatomically, humans are apes, then The Naturalist on the River Amazons by Henry Walter Bates provided empirical evidence of natural selection.[128] Lobbying brought Darwin Britain's highest scientific honour, the Royal Society's Copley Medal, awarded on 3 November 1864.[129] That day, Huxley held the first meeting of what became the influential X Club devoted to "science, pure and free, untrammelled by religious dogmas".[130] By the end of the decade most scientists agreed that evolution occurred, but only a minority supported Darwin's view that the chief mechanism was natural selection.[131] The Origin of Species was translated into many languages, becoming a staple scientific text attracting thoughtful attention from all walks of life, including the "working men" who flocked to Huxley's lectures.[132] Darwin's theory also resonated with various movements at the time[III] and became a key fixture of popular culture.[IV] Cartoonists parodied animal ancestry in an old tradition of showing humans with animal traits, and in Britain these droll images served to popularise Darwin's theory in an unthreatening way. While ill in 1862 Darwin began growing a beard, and when he reappeared in public in 1866 caricatures of him as an ape helped to identify all forms of evolutionism with Darwinism.[115]


Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany
More detailed articles cover Darwin's life from Orchids to Variation, from Descent of Man to Emotions and from Insectivorous Plants to Worms Despite repeated bouts of illness during the last twenty-two years of his life, Darwin's work continued. Having published On the Origin of Species as an abstract of his theory, he pressed on with experiments, research, and writing of his "big book". He covered human descent from earlier animals including evolution of society and of mental abilities, as well as explaining decorative beauty in wildlife and diversifying into innovative plant studies. Enquiries about insect pollination led in 1861 to novel studies of wild orchids, showing adaptation of their flowers to attract specific moths to each species and ensure cross fertilisation. In 1862 Fertilisation of Orchids gave his first detailed By 1879, an increasingly famous demonstration of the power of natural selection to explain complex ecological Darwin had suffered years of illness. relationships, making testable predictions. As his health declined, he lay on his sickbed in a room filled with inventive experiments to trace the movements of [133] climbing plants. Admiring visitors included Ernst Haeckel, a zealous proponent of Darwinismus incorporating Lamarckism and Goethe's idealism.[134] Wallace remained supportive, though he increasingly turned to Spiritualism.[135] The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication of 1868 was the first part of Darwin's planned "big book", and included his unsuccessful hypothesis of pangenesis attempting to explain heredity. It sold briskly at first, despite its size, and was translated into many languages. He wrote most of a second part, on natural selection, but it remained unpublished in his lifetime.[136]

Charles Darwin


Lyell had already popularised human prehistory, and Huxley had shown that anatomically humans are apes.[128] With The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex published in 1871, Darwin set out evidence from numerous sources that humans are animals, showing continuity of physical and mental attributes, and presented sexual selection to explain impractical animal features such as the peacock's plumage as well as human evolution of culture, differences between sexes, and physical and cultural racial characteristics, while emphasising that humans are all one species.[137] His research using images was expanded in his 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, one of the first books to feature printed photographs, which discussed the Punch's almanac for 1882, published evolution of human psychology and its continuity with the behaviour of animals. shortly before Darwin's death, Both books proved very popular, and Darwin was impressed by the general depicts him amidst evolution from chaos to Victorian gentleman with assent with which his views had been received, remarking that "everybody is [138] the title Man Is But A Worm. talking about it without being shocked." His conclusion was "that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system–with all these exalted powers–Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."[139] His evolution-related experiments and investigations led to books on Insectivorous Plants, The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom, different forms of flowers on plants of the same species, and The Power of Movement in Plants. In his last book he returned to The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms. He died at Down House on 19 April 1882. He had expected to be buried in St Mary's churchyard at Downe, but at the request of Darwin's colleagues, William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society) arranged for Darwin to be given a state funeral and buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.[140] Only five non-royal personages were granted that honour of a UK state funeral during the 19th century.[13] Darwin was perceived as a national hero who had changed thinking, and scientists now accepted evolution as descent with modification, but few agreed with him that "natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification".[141] In "the eclipse of Darwinism" most favoured alternative evolutionary mechanisms, but these proved untenable, and the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis with population genetics and Mendelian genetics from the 1930s to the 1950s brought a broad scientific consensus that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. Research and debate has continued within this frame of reference.[4]

Darwin's children

Charles Darwin


Darwin and his eldest son William Erasmus Darwin in 1842. Darwin's Children William Erasmus Darwin Anne Elizabeth Darwin Mary Eleanor Darwin (27 December 1839–1914) (2 March 1841–23 April 1851) (23 September 1842–16 October 1842)

Henrietta Emma "Etty" Darwin (25 September 1843–1929) George Howard Darwin Elizabeth "Bessy" Darwin Francis Darwin Leonard Darwin Horace Darwin Charles Waring Darwin (9 July 1845–7 December 1912) (8 July 1847–1926) (16 August 1848–19 September 1925) (15 January 1850–26 March 1943) (13 May 1851–29 September 1928) (6 December 1856–28 June 1858)

The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. Charles was a devoted father and uncommonly attentive to his children.[7] Whenever they fell ill, he feared that they might have inherited weaknesses from inbreeding due to the close family ties he shared with his wife and cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He examined this topic in his writings, contrasting it with the advantages of crossing amongst many organisms.[143] Despite his fears, most of the surviving children and many of their descendants went on to have distinguished careers (see Darwin-Wedgwood family).[144] Of his surviving children, George, Francis and Horace became Fellows of the Royal Society,[145] distinguished as astronomer,[146] botanist and civil engineer, respectively. His son Leonard went on to be a soldier, politician, economist, eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.[147]

Religious views

In 1851 Darwin was devastated when his daughter Annie died. By then his faith in Christianity had dwindled, and he had stopped going to [142] church.

Darwin's family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism, while his father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding school were Church of England.[16] When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.[21] He learnt John Herschel's science which, like William Paley's natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.[23] [24] On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an

Charles Darwin authority on morality.[148] He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution,[45] and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".[47] By his return he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid.[148] In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.[81] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[149] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[125] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[150] [151] Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[152] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[142] He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[153] [154] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[81] [153] The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[155] His last words were to his family, telling Emma "I am not the least afraid of death – Remember what a good wife you have been to me – Tell all my children to remember how good they have been to me", then while she rested, he repeatedly told Henrietta and Francis "It's almost worth while to be sick to be nursed by you".[156]


Political interpretations
Darwin's fame and popularity led to his name being associated with ideas and movements which at times had only an indirect relation to his writings, and sometimes went directly against his express comments.

Darwin was interested by his half-cousin Francis Galton's argument, introduced in 1865, that statistical analysis of heredity showed that moral and mental human traits could be inherited, and principles of animal breeding could apply to humans. In The Descent of Man Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, "the noblest part of our nature", and factors such as education could be more important. When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals.[157] Galton named the field of study "eugenics" in 1883, after Darwin's death, and developed biometrics. Eugenics movements were widespread at a time when Caricature from 1871 Vanity Fair Darwin's natural selection was eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, and in some countries compulsory sterilisation laws were imposed, the most famous of which were in Nazi Germany. It has been largely abandoned throughout the world.[V]

Charles Darwin


Social Darwinism
Taking descriptive ideas as moral and social justification creates the ethical is-ought problem. When Thomas Malthus argued that population growth beyond resources was ordained by God to get humans to work productively and show restraint in getting families, this was used in the 1830s to justify workhouses and laissez-faire economics.[158] Evolution was seen as having social implications, and Herbert Spencer's 1851 book Social Statics based ideas of human freedom and individual liberties on his Lamarckian evolutionary theory.[159] Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of explanation. He thought it "absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another" and saw evolution as having no goal, but soon after the Origin was published in 1859, critics derided his description of a struggle for existence as a Malthusian justification for the English industrial capitalism of the time. The term Darwinism was used for the evolutionary ideas of others, including Spencer's "survival of the fittest" as free-market progress, and Ernst Haeckel's racist ideas of human development. Darwin did not share the racism common at that time: a point examined by the philosopher Antony Flew, who is at pains to distance Darwin's attitudes from those later attributed to him.[160] Darwin was strongly against slavery, against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people.[161] [VI] Darwin's views on social and political issues reflected his time and social position. He thought men's eminence over women was the outcome of sexual selection, a view disputed by Antoinette Brown Blackwell in The Sexes Throughout Nature.[162] He valued European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised. Darwin's theories presented this as natural, and were cited to promote policies which went against his humanitarian principles.[163] Writers used natural selection to argue for various, often contradictory, ideologies such as laissez-faire dog-eat dog capitalism, racism, warfare, colonialism and imperialism. However, Darwin's holistic view of nature included "dependence of one being on another"; thus pacifists, socialists, liberal social reformers and anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin stressed the value of co-operation over struggle within a species.[164] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature.[165] The term "Social Darwinism" was used infrequently from around the 1890s, but became popular as a derogatory term in the 1940s when used by Richard Hofstadter to attack the laissez-faire conservatism of those like William Graham Sumner who opposed reform and socialism. Since then it has been used as a term of abuse by those opposed to what they think are the moral consequences of evolution.[166] [158]

Charles Darwin


During Darwin's lifetime, many geographical features were given his name. An expanse of water adjoining the Beagle Channel was named Darwin Sound by Robert FitzRoy after Darwin's prompt action, along with two or three of the men, saved them from being marooned on a nearby shore when a collapsing glacier caused a large wave that would have swept away their boats,[167] and the nearby Mount Darwin in the Andes was named in celebration of Darwin's 25th birthday.[168] When the Beagle was surveying Australia in 1839, Darwin's friend John Lort Stokes sighted a natural harbour which the ship's captain Wickham named Port Darwin: a nearby settlement was renamed Darwin in 1911, and it became the capital city of Australia's Northern Territory.[169] More than 120 species and nine genera have been named after Darwin.[170] In one example, the group of tanagers related to those Darwin found in the Galápagos Islands became popularly known as "Darwin's finches" in 1947, fostering inaccurate legends about their significance to his work.[171]

Darwin's work has continued to be celebrated by numerous publications and events. The Linnean Society of London has commemorated Darwin's achievements by the award of the Darwin–Wallace Medal since 1908. Darwin Day has become an annual celebration, and in 2009 worldwide events were arranged for the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species.[172] Darwin has been commemorated in the UK, with his portrait printed on the reverse of £10 banknotes printed along with a hummingbird and the HMS Beagle, issued by the Bank of England.[173]

In 1881 Darwin was an eminent figure, still working on his contributions to evolutionary thought that had had an enormous effect on many fields of science.

Darwin was a prolific writer. Even without publication of his works on evolution, he would have had a considerable reputation as the author of The Voyage of the Beagle, as a geologist who had published extensively on South America and had solved the puzzle of the formation of coral atolls, and as a biologist who had published the definitive work on barnacles. While The Origin of Species dominates perceptions of his work, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals had considerable impact, and his books on plants including The Power of Movement in Plants were innovative studies of great importance, as was his final work on The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms.[174] [175]


  Darwin was eminent as a naturalist, geologist, biologist, and author; after working as a physician's assistant and two years as a medical student was educated as a clergyman; and was trained in taxidermy.[176]

  Robert FitzRoy was to become known after the voyage for biblical literalism, but at this time he had considerable interest in Lyell's ideas, and they met before the voyage when Lyell asked for observations to be made in South America. FitzRoy's diary during the ascent of the River Santa Cruz in Patagonia recorded his opinion that the plains were raised beaches, but on return, newly married to a very religious lady, he recanted these ideas. (Browne 1995, pp. 186, 414)   See, for example, WILLA volume 4, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Feminization of Education [177] by Deborah M. De Simone: "Gilman shared many basic educational ideas with the generation of thinkers who matured

Charles Darwin during the period of "intellectual chaos" caused by Darwin's Origin of the Species. Marked by the belief that individuals can direct human and social evolution, many progressives came to view education as the panacea for advancing social progress and for solving such problems as urbanisation, poverty, or immigration."


  See, for example, the song "A lady fair of lineage high" from Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida, which describes the descent of man (but not woman!) from apes.

  Geneticists studied human heredity as Mendelian inheritance, while eugenics movements sought to manage society, with a focus on social class in the United Kingdom, and on disability and ethnicity in the United States, leading to geneticists seeing this as impractical pseudoscience. A shift from voluntary arrangements to "negative" eugenics included compulsory sterilisation laws in the United States, copied by Nazi Germany as the basis for Nazi eugenics based on virulent racism and "racial hygiene". (Thurtle, Phillip (Updated 17 December 1996). "the creation of genetic identity" [178]. SEHR 5 (Supplement: Cultural and Technological Incubations of Fascism). Retrieved 2008-11-11 Edwards, A. W. F. (April 1, 2000). "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" [179]. Genetics 154 (April 2000): pp. 1419–1426. PMID 10747041. PMC 1461012. Retrieved 2008-11-11 Wilkins, John. "Evolving Thoughts: Darwin and the Holocaust 3: eugenics" [180]. Retrieved 2008-11-11.)

  Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior, and said of his taxidermy tutor John Edmonstone, a freed black slave, "I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man".[17] Early in the Beagle voyage he nearly lost his position on the ship when he criticised FitzRoy's defence and praise of slavery. (Darwin 1958, p. 74 [181]) He wrote home about "how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character." (Darwin 1887, p. 246 [182] ) Regarding Fuegians, he "could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man: it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal, inasmuch as in man there is a greater power of improvement", but he knew and liked civilised Fuegians like Jemmy Button: "It seems yet wonderful to me, when I think over all his many good qualities, that he should have been of the same race, and doubtless partaken of the same character, with the miserable, degraded savages whom we first met here."(Darwin 1845, pp. 205, 207–208 [183]) In the Descent of Man he mentioned the Fuegians and Edmonstone when arguing against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species".[184] He rejected the ill-treatment of native people, and for example wrote of massacres of Patagonian men, women, and children, "Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?" (Darwin 1845, p. 102 [185])

[1] Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-199-23084-6. "In The Origin, Darwin provided an alternative hypothesis for the development , diversification, and design of life. Much of that book presents evidence that not only supports evolution but at the same time refutes creationism. In Darwin's day, the evidence for his theories was compelling but not completely decisive." [2] Glass, Bentley (1959). Forerunners of Darwin. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. iv. ISBN 0801802229. "Darwin's solution is a magnificent synthesis of evidence...a synthesis...compelling in honesty and comprehensiveness" [3] van Wyhe 2008 [4] Bowler 2003, pp. 338, 347 [5] The Complete Works of Darwin Online - Biography. (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ biography. html) Retrieved on 2006-12-15 Dobzhansky 1973 [6] As Darwinian scholar Joseph Carroll of the University of Missouri–St. Louis puts it in his introduction to a modern reprint of Darwin's work: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works

Charles Darwin
that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world...It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." Carroll, Joseph, ed (2003). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview. p. 15. ISBN 1551113376. [7] Leff 2000, About Charles Darwin (http:/ / www. aboutdarwin. com/ darwin/ WhoWas. html) [8] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 210, 284–285 [9] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 263–274 [10] van Wyhe 2007, pp. 184, 187 [11] Beddall, B. G. (1968). "Wallace, Darwin, and the Theory of Natural Selection" (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ n1gh3n4474th3385/ fulltext. pdf) (PDF). Journal of the History of Biology 1 (2): 261–323. doi:10.1007/BF00351923. . [12] Freeman 1977 [13] "BBC NEWS : Politics : Thatcher state funeral undecided" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ uk_news/ politics/ 7538482. stm). BBC News. 2008-08-02. . Retrieved 2008-08-10. [14] Leff 2000, Darwin's Burial (http:/ / www. aboutdarwin. com/ darwin/ burial. html) [15] John H. Wahlert (11 June 2001). "The Mount House, Shrewsbury, England (Charles Darwin)" (http:/ / darwin. baruch. cuny. edu/ biography/ shrewsbury/ mount/ ). Darwin and Darwinism. Baruch College. . Retrieved 2008-11-26. [16] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 12–15 Darwin 1958, pp.  21–25 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=21) [17] Darwin 1958, pp.  47–51 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=48) [18] Browne 1995, pp. 72–88 [19] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 42–43 [20] Browne 1995, pp. 47–48, 89–91 [21] Darwin 1958, pp.  57–67 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=59) [22] Browne 1995, p. 97 [23] von Sydow 2005, pp. 5–7 [24] Darwin 1958, pp.  67–68 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=69) Browne 1995, pp. 128–129, 133–141 [25] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 105 — Henslow, J. S. to Darwin, C. R., 24 Aug 1831" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-105. html). . Retrieved 2008-12-29. [26] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 94–97 [27] Keynes 2000, pp.  ix–xi (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1840& pageseq=12) [28] van Wyhe 2008b, pp. 18–21 [29] Gordon Chancellor; Randal Keynes (October 2006). "Darwin's field notes on the Galapagos: 'A little world within itself'" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ EditorialIntroductions/ Chancellor_Keynes_Galapagos. html). Darwin Online. . Retrieved 2009-09-16. [30] Keynes 2001, pp.  21–22 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1925& viewtype=text& pageseq=53) [31] Browne 1995, pp. 183–190 [32] Keynes 2001, pp.  41–42 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1925& pageseq=73) [33] Darwin 1958, pp.  73–74 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=75) [34] Browne 1995, pp. 223–235 Darwin 1835, p.  7 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1& viewtype=text& pageseq=7) Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 210 [35] Keynes 2001, pp.  206–209 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1925& pageseq=138) [36] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 189–192, 198 [37] Eldredge 2006 [38] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 131, 159 Herbert 1991, pp.  174–179 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=A342& pageseq=16) [39] "Darwin Online: 'Hurrah Chiloe': an introduction to the Port Desire Notebook" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ EditorialIntroductions/ Chancellor_fieldNotebooks1. 8. html). . Retrieved 2008-10-24. [40] Darwin 1845, pp.  205–208 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F14& viewtype=text& pageseq=218) [41] Browne 1995, pp. 244–250 [42] Keynes 2001, pp.  226–227 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1925& pageseq=258) [43] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 160–168, 182 Darwin 1887, p.  260 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 1& viewtype=text& pageseq=278) [44] Darwin 1958, p 98–99 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1497& viewtype=text& pageseq=100) [45] Keynes 2001, pp.  356–357 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1925& pageseq=388) [46] Sulloway 1982, p. 19 [47] "Darwin Online: Coccatoos & Crows: An introduction to the Sydney Notebook" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ EditorialIntroductions/ Chancellor_fieldNotebooks1. 3. html). . Retrieved 2009-01-02. [48] Keynes 2001, pp.  398–399 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1925& pageseq=430).


Charles Darwin
[49] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 301 — Darwin, C.R. to Darwin, C.S., 29 Apr 1836" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-301. html). . [50] Browne 1995, p. 336 [51] van Wyhe 2007, p.  197 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=A544& pageseq=21) [52] Keynes 2000, pp.  xix–xx (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1840& pageseq=22) Eldredge 2006 [53] Darwin 1859, p. 1 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=16) [54] Darwin 1835, editorial introduction (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ EditorialIntroductions/ Freeman_LettersOnGeology. html) [55] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 195–198 [56] Owen 1840, pp.  16 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F9. 1& pageseq=26), 73 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F9. 1& pageseq=83), 106 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F9. 1& pageseq=116) Eldredge 2006 [57] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 201–205 Browne 1995, pp. 349–350 [58] Browne 1995, pp. 345–347 [59] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 207–210 Sulloway 1982, pp. 20–23 [60] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 346 — Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, C. S., 27 Feb 1837" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-346. html). . Retrieved 2008-12-19. proposes a move on Friday 3 March 1837, Darwin's Journal (Darwin 2006, pp.  12 verso (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=side& itemID=CUL-DAR158. 1–76& pageseq=22)) backdated from August 1838 gives a date of 6 March 1837 [61] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 201, 212–221 [62] Sulloway 1982, pp. 9, 20–23 [63] Browne 1995, p. 360 "Darwin, C. R. (Read 14 March 1837) Notes on Rhea americana and Rhea darwinii, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1643& viewtype=text& pageseq=1). . Retrieved 2008-12-17. [64] Herbert 1980, pp.  7–10 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1583e& pageseq=9) van Wyhe 2008b, p. 44 Darwin 1837, pp.  1–13, 26, 36, 74 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=side& itemID=CUL-DAR121. -& pageseq=1) Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 229–232 [65] UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Lawrence H. Officer (2010) " What Were the UK Earnings and Prices Then? (http:/ / www. measuringworth. org/ ukearncpi/ )" MeasuringWorth. [66] Browne 1995, pp. 367–369 [67] Keynes 2001, p.  xix (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1925& pageseq=21) [68] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 233–234 "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 404 — Buckland, William to Geological Society of London, 9 Mar 1838" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-404. html). . Retrieved 2008-12-23. [69] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 233–236. [70] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 241–244, 426 [71] Browne 1995, p. xii [72] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 241–244 [73] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 252, 476, 531 Darwin 1958, p.  115 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=119) [74] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 254 Browne 1995, pp. 377–378 Darwin 1958, p.  84 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=86) [75] Darwin 1958, pp.  232–233 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1497& viewtype=text& pageseq=238) [76] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 256–259 [77] Darwin 1958, p.  120 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=124) [78] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 264–265 Browne 1995, pp. 385–388 Darwin 1842, p.  7 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1556& viewtype=text& pageseq=39) [79] "Darwin transmutation notebook E p. 75" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=CUL-DAR124. -& pageseq=63). . Retrieved 2009-03-17. [80] "Darwin transmutation notebook E p. 71" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=CUL-DAR124. -& pageseq=61). . Retrieved 2009-03-17. [81] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Belief: historical essay" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ content/ view/ 130/ 125/ ). . Retrieved 2008-11-25.


Charles Darwin
[82] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 272–279 [83] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 279 [84] Darwin 1958, p.  120 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=124) [85] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 419 — Darwin, C. R. to Fox, W. D., (15 June 1838)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-419. html). . Retrieved 2008-02-08. [86] van Wyhe 2007, pp.  186–192 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=A544& pageseq=10) [87] Darwin 1887, p. 32. (http:/ / www. gutenberg. org/ catalog/ world/ readfile?fk_files=39003& pageno=32) [88] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 292 [89] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 292–293 Darwin 1842, pp.  xvi–xvii (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1556& pageseq=18) [90] Darwin 1954, p.  114 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=118) [91] van Wyhe 2007, pp.  183–184 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=A544& pageseq=7) [92] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 729 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., (11 January 1844)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-729. html#back-mark-729. f6). . Retrieved 2008-02-08. [93] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 734 — Hooker, J. D. to Darwin, C. R., 29 January 1844" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-734. html). . Retrieved 2008-02-08. [94] Darwin 1887, pp.  114–116 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1452. 1& pageseq=132) [95] van Wyhe 2007, p. 188 [96] Browne 1995, pp. 461–465 [97] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 814 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., (7 Jan 1845)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-814. html#back-mark-814. f5). . Retrieved 2008-11-24. [98] van Wyhe 2007, pp. 190–191 [99] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 320–323, 339–348 [100] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 1236 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 28 Mar 1849" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-1236. html). . Retrieved 2008-11-24. [101] Browne 1995, pp. 498–501 [102] Darwin 1954, pp.  117–118 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=121) [103] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 383–387 [104] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 419–420 [105] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 412–441, 457–458, 462–463 [106] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 466–470 [107] Browne 2002, pp. 40–42, 48–49 [108] Darwin 1958, p.  122 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1497& viewtype=text& pageseq=126) [109] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 374–474 [110] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 477 [111] Darwin 1859, p 459 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=477) [112] Darwin 1859, p 490 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=506) [113] Darwin 1859, p 5 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=20) [114] Darwin 1859, p 492 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=508) [115] Browne 2002, pp. 373–379 [116] van Wyhe 2008b, p. 48 [117] Browne 2002, pp. 103–104, 379 [118] Darwin 1859, p.  488 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F373& pageseq=506) [119] Browne 2002, p. 87 Leifchild 1859 [120] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 477–491 [121] Browne 2002, pp. 110–112 [122] Bowler 2003, p. 186 [123] "Darwin and design: historical essay" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ content/ view/ 110/ 104/ ). Darwin Correspondence Project. 2007. . Retrieved 2008-09-17. [124] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 487–488, 500 [125] Miles 2001 [126] Bowler 2003, p. 185 [127] Browne 2002, pp. 156–159 [128] Browne 2002, pp. 217–226 [129] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 4652 — Falconer, Hugh to Darwin, C. R., 3 Nov (1864)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-4652. html). . Retrieved 2008-12-01. [130] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 4807 — Hooker, J. D. to Darwin, C. R., (7–8 Apr 1865)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-4807. html#mark-4807. f8). . Retrieved 2008-12-01.


Charles Darwin
[131] Bowler 2003, p. 196 [132] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 507–508 Browne 2002, pp. 128–129, 138 [133] van Wyhe 2008b, pp. 50–55 [134] Darwin Correspondence Project: Introduction to the Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 14. (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ content/ view/ 32/ 38/ ) Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2008-11-28 [135] Smith 1999. [136] Freeman 1977, p.  122 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=A1& pageseq=123) [137] Darwin 1871, pp.  385–405 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F937. 2& pageseq=402) Browne 2002, pp. 339–343 [138] Browne 2002, pp. 359–369 Darwin 1887, p.  133 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1452. 3& pageseq=145) [139] Darwin 1871, p.  405 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F937. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=422) [140] Browne 2002, pp. 495–497 [141] Bowler 2003, pp. 222–225 van Wyhe 2008 Darwin 1872, p.  421 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F391& pageseq=449) [142] van Wyhe 2008b, p. 41 [143] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 447. [144] Leff 2000, Darwin's Children (http:/ / www. aboutdarwin. com/ darwin/ Children. html) [145] "List of Fellows of the Royal Society / 1660 - 2006 / A-J" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080609050919/ http:/ / royalsociety. org/ trackdoc. asp?id=4274& pId=1727) (PDF). Archived from the original (http:/ / royalsociety. org/ trackdoc. asp?id=4274& pId=1727) on June 9, 2008. . Retrieved 2009-09-16. [146] O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Charles Darwin" (http:/ / www-history. mcs. st-andrews. ac. uk/ Biographies/ Darwin. html), MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, University of St Andrews, . [147] Edwards, A. W. F. 2004. Darwin, Leonard (1850–1943). In: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press. [148] Darwin 1958, pp.  85–96 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1497& viewtype=side& pageseq=87) [149] von Sydow 2005, pp. 8–14 [150] von Sydow 2005, pp. 4–5 [151] Moore 2006 [152] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Darwin and the church: historical essay" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwin-and-the-church-article). . Retrieved 2009-01-04. [153] Letter 12041 (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-12041. html) — Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879 [154] Darwin's Complex loss of Faith (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ commentisfree/ belief/ 2009/ sep/ 17/ darwin-evolution-religion) The Guardian 17-Sept-2009 [155] Moore 2005 Yates 2003 [156] Darwin, Emma (1882). "[Reminiscences of Charles Darwin's last years. (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=side& itemID=CUL-DAR210. 9& pageseq=16) CUL-DAR210.9"]. . Retrieved 2009-01-08. [157] Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 556–557, 572, 598 Darwin 1871, pp.  167–173 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F937. 1& pageseq=180), 402–403 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F937. 2& pageseq=419) "Corespondence between Francis Galton and Charles Darwin" (http:/ / www. galton. org/ letters/ darwin/ correspondence. htm). . Retrieved 2008-11-08. [158] Wilkins 1997 Moore 2006 [159] Sweet 2004 [160] Flew, Antony (1997). Darwinian Evolution (2 ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction. ISBN 1-56000-948-9. "...there seem to be absolutely no grounds for pillorying Darwin as a racist. On the contrary... he shared...principled hatred...for Negro slavery" [161] Wilkins 2008, pp. 408–413 [162] Vandermassen, Griet (2004). "Sexual Selection: A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial" (http:/ / ejw. sagepub. com/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 11/ 1/ 9). European Journal of Women's Studies 11 (9): 11–13. doi:10.1177/1350506804039812. . Retrieved 2009-11-24. [163] Barta, Tony (2 June 2005). "Mr Darwin's shooters: on natural selection and the naturalizing of genocide" (http:/ / www. informaworld. com/ smpp/ section?content=a713721865& fulltext=713240928). Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 39, Issue 2. Routledge. pp. 116–137. doi:10.1080/00313220500106170. . Retrieved 2009-05-20. [164] Paul 2003, pp. 223–225 [165] Bannister 1989


Charles Darwin
[166] Paul 2003 Kotzin 2004 [167] FitzRoy 1839, pp.  216–8 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F10. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=267) [168] Leff 2000, Darwin's Timeline (http:/ / www. aboutdarwin. com/ timeline/ time_04. html) [169] "Territory origins" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060918153343/ http:/ / www. ipe. nt. gov. au/ whatwedo/ landinformation/ place/ origins/ palmdarwin. html). Northern Territory Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Australia. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. ipe. nt. gov. au/ whatwedo/ landinformation/ place/ origins/ palmdarwin. html) on 2006-09-18. . Retrieved 2006-12-15. [170] "Charles Darwin 200 years - Things you didn't know about Charles Darwin" (http:/ / www. darwinfacts. com/ ). . Retrieved 2009-05-23. [171] Sulloway 1982, pp. 45–47 [172] Shapin, Steven (7 January 2010). The Darwin Show (http:/ / www. lrb. co. uk/ v32/ n01/ steven-shapin/ the-darwin-show). London Review of Books. . Retrieved 2010-01-25 [173] http:/ / www. bankofengland. co. uk/ banknotes/ current/ current_10. htm [174] Balfour 1882 van Wyhe 2008 Anonymous 1882 [175] Brummitt, R. K.; C. E. Powell (1992). Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 1-84246-085-4. [176] Desmond, Moore & Browne 2004 [177] http:/ / scholar. lib. vt. edu/ ejournals/ old-WILLA/ fall95/ DeSimone. html [178] http:/ / www. stanford. edu/ group/ SHR/ 5-supp/ text/ thurtle. html [179] http:/ / www. genetics. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 154/ 4/ 1419#The_Eclipse_of_Darwinism [180] http:/ / scienceblogs. com/ evolvingthoughts/ 2006/ 09/ darwin_and_the_holocaust_3_eug_1. php [181] http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=76 [182] http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1452. 1& pageseq=264 [183] http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F14& viewtype=text& pageseq=218 [184] Darwin 1871, pp.  214 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F937. 1& pageseq=227), 232 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F937. 1& viewtype=text& pageseq=245). [185] http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F14& pageseq=115


• Anonymous (1882). "Obituary: Death Of Chas. Darwin" ( onthisday/bday/0212.html). The New York Times (21 April 1882). Retrieved 2008-10-30. • Balfour, J. B. (11 May 1882). "Obituary Notice of Charles Robert Darwin". Transactions & Proceedings of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh (14): 284–298. • Bannister, Robert C. (1989). Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-566-4. • Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23693-9. • Browne, E. Janet (1995). Charles Darwin: vol. 1 Voyaging. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 1-84413-314-1. • Browne, E. Janet (2002). Charles Darwin: vol. 2 The Power of Place. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-7126-6837-3. • Darwin, Charles (1835). Extracts from letters to Professor Henslow ( frameset?itemID=F1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1). Cambridge: [privately printed]. Retrieved 2008-11-01. • Darwin, Charles (1837). Notebook B: (Transmutation of species) ( frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR121.-&pageseq=1). Darwin Online. CUL-DAR121. Retrieved 2008-12-20. • Darwin, Charles (1839). Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. Journal and remarks. 1832–1836. ( frameset?itemID=F10.3&viewtype=text&pageseq=1). III. London: Henry Colburn. Retrieved 2008-10-24. • Darwin, Charles (1842). "Pencil Sketch of 1842" ( frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1556&pageseq=33). In Darwin, Francis. The foundations of The origin of species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844. (

Charles Darwin viewtype=text&pageseq=1). Cambridge University Press. 1909. ISBN 0548799989. Darwin, Charles (1845). Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the world, under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy, R.N. 2d edition (http:// London: John Murray. Retrieved 2008-10-24. Darwin, Charles; Wallace, Alfred Russel (1858). "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection". Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3: 46–50. Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ( pageseq=1) (1st ed.). London: John Murray. ISBN 1435393864. Retrieved 2008-10-24. Darwin, Charles (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication ( content/frameset?itemID=F880.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1). London: John Murray. ISBN 1419186604. Retrieved 2008-11-01. Darwin, Charles (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex ( EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_TheDescentofMan.html) (1st ed.). London: John Murray. ISBN 0801420857. Retrieved 2008-10-24.


• Darwin, Charles (1872). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ( pageseq=1) (6th ed.). London: John Murray. ISBN 1435393864. Retrieved 2009-11-01. • Darwin, Charles (1887). Darwin, Francis. ed. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter ( Freeman_LifeandLettersandAutobiography.html). London: John Murray. ISBN 0404084176. Retrieved 2008-11-04. • Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora. ed. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins. • Darwin, Charles (2006). "[Darwin's personal 'Journal' (1809-1881) ( EditorialIntroductions/vanWyhe_JournalDAR158.html)"]. In van Wyhe, John. Darwin Online. Retrieved 2008-12-20. • Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. • Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James; Browne, Janet (2004). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/7176. • Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March 1973). "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" ( The American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129. Retrieved 2008-11-04. • Eldredge, Niles (2006). "Confessions of a Darwinist" ( eldredge-confessions-darwinist/). The Virginia Quarterly Review (Spring 2006): 32–53. Retrieved 2008-11-04. • FitzRoy, Robert (1839). Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, Volume II ( frameset?itemID=F10.2&viewtype=text&pageseq=1). London: Henry Colburn. Retrieved 2008-11-04. • Freeman, R. B. (1977). The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (http:// Folkestone: Wm Dawson & Sons Ltd. ISBN 0208016589. Retrieved 2008-11-04. • Hart, Michael H. (2000). The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. New York: Citadel. ISBN 0891041753. • Herbert, Sandra (1980). "The red notebook of Charles Darwin" ( frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1583e&pageseq=1). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History).

Charles Darwin Historical Series (7 (24 April)): 1–164. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Herbert, Sandra (1991). "Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author" ( content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A342&pageseq=1). British Journal for the History of Science (24): 159–192. Retrieved 2008-10-24. Keynes, Richard (2000). Charles Darwin's zoology notes & specimen lists from H.M.S. Beagle. (http:// Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521465699. Retrieved 2008-11-22. Keynes, Richard (2001). Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary ( frameset?itemID=F1925&viewtype=text&pageseq=1). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521235030. Retrieved 2008-10-24. Kotzin, Daniel (2004). "Point-Counterpoint: Social Darwinism" ( html). Columbia American History Online. Retrieved 2008-11-22. Leff, David (2000). "" ( Retrieved 2008-12-30. Leifchild (19 November 1859). "Review of `Origin'" ( frameset?viewtype=image&itemID=CUL-DAR226.1.8&pageseq=1). Athenaeum (1673). Retrieved 2008-11-22.


• • •

• Miles, Sara Joan (2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design" ( ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53: 196–201. Retrieved 2008-11-22. • Moore, James (2005). "Darwin — A 'Devil's Chaplain'?" ( darwin/moore-devilschaplain.pdf) (PDF). American Public Media. Retrieved 2008-11-22. • Moore, James (2006). "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin" (http://speakingoffaith. American Public Media. Retrieved 2008-11-22. • Owen, Richard (1840). Darwin, C. R.. ed. Fossil Mammalia Part 1. The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. London: Smith Elder and Co. • Paul, Diane B. (2003). "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics". In Hodge, Jonathan; Radick, Gregory. The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Cambridge University Press. pp. 214–239. ISBN 0-521-77730-5. • Smith, Charles H. (1999). "Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man, and Evolution: An Analytical Essay" ( Retrieved 2008-12-07. • Sulloway, Frank J. (1982). "Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend" ( Finches.pdf) (PDF). Journal of the History of Biology 15 (1): 1–53. doi:10.1007/BF00132004. Retrieved 2008-12-09. • Sweet, William (2004). "Herbert Spencer" ( Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-12-16. • Wilkins, John S. (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: Does evolution make might right?" (http://www. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-11-22. • Wilkins, John S. (2008). "Darwin". In Tucker, Aviezer. A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 405–415. ISBN 1-4051-4908-6. • van Wyhe, John (27 March 2007). "Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?" ( Notes and Records of the Royal Society 61: 177–205. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171. Retrieved 2008-02-07. • van Wyhe, John (2008). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch" (http://darwin-online. Darwin Online. Retrieved 2008-11-17. • van Wyhe, John (2008b). Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theories of Evolution. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd (published 1 September 2008). ISBN 0-233-00251-0.

Charles Darwin • von Sydow, Momme (2005). "Darwin – A Christian Undermining Christianity? On Self-Undermining Dynamics of Ideas Between Belief and Science" ( von_Sydow_(2005)_Darwin_A_Christian_Undermining_Christianity.pdf). In Knight, David M.; Eddy, Matthew D.. Science and Beliefs: From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science, 1700–1900. Burlington: Ashgate. pp. 141–156. ISBN 0-7546-3996-7. Retrieved 2008-12-16. • Yates, Simon (2003). "The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood" ( hope.html). TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2006-12-15.


External links
• The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online – Darwin Online (; Darwin's publications, private papers and bibliography, supplementary works including biographies, obituaries and reviews • Works by Charles Darwin ( at Project Gutenberg; public domain • Darwin Correspondence Project ( Full text and notes for complete correspondence to 1867, with summaries of all the rest • Works by Charles Darwin in audio format ( darwin&status=all&action=Search) from LibriVox • Charles Darwin (,_Charles//) at the Open Directory Project • Works by or about Charles Darwin ( in libraries (WorldCat catalog) • Archival material relating to Charles Darwin ( asp?ID=P7461) listed at the UK National Register of Archives • Darwin 200: Celebrating Charles Darwin's bicentenary (, Natural History Museum • A Pictorial Biography of Charles Darwin ( • Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist ( •  Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). "Darwin, Charles Robert". Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press. • The life and times of Charles Darwin, an audio slideshow, The Guardian, Thursday 12 February 2009, (http:// (3 min 20 sec). • CBC Digital Archives: Charles Darwin and the Origins of Evolution ( science_technology/natural_science/topics/3696/) • Darwin's Volcano ( - a short video discussing Darwin and Agassiz' coral reef formation debate • Darwin's Brave New World ( - A 3 part drama-documentary exploring Charles Darwin and the significant contributions of his colleagues Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley and Alfred Russel Wallace also featuring interviews with Richard Dawkins, David Suzuki, Jared Diamond and Iain McCalman. • A naturalists voyage around the world ( Account of the Beagle voyage using animation, in English from Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris. • Video and radio clips ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation • Anonymous (1873). Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day ( wiki/Cartoon_portraits_and_biographical_sketches_of_men_of_the_day/C._R._Darwin,_F.R.S.). Illustrated by Waddy, Frederick. London: Tinsley Brothers. pp. 6–7. Retrieved 2010-12-28. rue:Чарлз Дарвін

Publication of Darwin's theory


Publication of Darwin's theory
The publication of Darwin's theory brought into the open Charles Darwin's ideas of evolution through natural selection, the culmination of more than twenty years of work. Thoughts on the possibility of transmutation of species which he recorded in 1836 towards the end of his five-year voyage on the Beagle were followed on his return by findings and work which led him to conceive of his theory in September 1838. He gave priority to his career as a geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian ideas, and to publication of the findings from the voyage as well as his journal of the voyage, but he discussed his evolutionary ideas with several naturalists and carried out extensive research on his "hobby" of evolutionary work.[1] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when he received an essay from Alfred Russel Wallace who was in Borneo, describing Wallace's own Darwin, as photographed in 1860, was still clean shaven at this time. theory of natural selection, prompting immediate joint publication of extracts from Darwin's 1844 essay together with Wallace's paper as On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection in a presentation to the Linnaean Society on 1 July 1858. This attracted little notice,[2] but spurred Darwin to write an "abstract" of his work which was published in 1859 as his book On the Origin of Species.[3]

Darwin's ideas developed rapidly from the return in 1836 of the Voyage of the Beagle. By December 1838 he had developed the principles of his theory. At that time similar ideas brought others disgrace and association with the revolutionary mob. He was conscious of the need to answer all likely objections before publishing. While he continued with research, he had an immense amount of work in hand analysing and publishing findings from the Beagle expedition, and was repeatedly delayed by illness. Natural history at that time was dominated by clerical naturalists who saw their science as revealing God's plan, whose income came from the Established Church of England. Darwin found three close allies. Books by the eminent geologist Charles Lyell had influenced the young Darwin during the Voyage of the Beagle and he then befriended Darwin who he saw as a supporter of his ideas of gradual geological processes with continuing divine Creation of species. By the 1840s Darwin became friends with the young botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker who had followed his father into the science, and after going on a survey voyage used his contacts to eventually find a position. In the 1850s Darwin met Thomas Huxley, an ambitious naturalist who had returned from a long survey trip but lacked the family wealth or contacts to find a career and who joined the progressive group around Herbert Spencer fighting to make science a profession, freed from the clerics. Darwin made attempts to open discussions about his theory with his close scientific colleagues. In January 1842 Darwin sent a tentative description of his ideas in a letter to Lyell, then prepared a "Pencil Sketch" of his theory. He worked up his "Sketch" into an "Essay" in 1844, and eventually persuaded Hooker to read a copy in January 1847. By September 1854 Darwin's other books reached a stage where he was able to turn his attention fully to Species, and from this point he was working to publish his theory. In 1856 he was still bringing his friends round towards accepting evolution as a process, and was far from convincing them about the mechanism, but then Wallace's entry into the discussion brought a new urgency to publication.

Publication of Darwin's theory


In the spring of 1856 Lyell was shaken by a paper on the "introduction" of species published in Annals and Magazine of Natural History written by Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist working in Borneo. This started Lyell rethinking his opposition to evolution, and he tipped off Darwin who appears to have taken little notice of Wallace's guarded comments at this point. Darwin was now working out a strategy for presenting his theory, and he finally spelt out the full details of Natural Selection to Lyell. While Lyell could not fully accept this, he urged Darwin to publish to establish priority. Darwin was now torn between the desire to set out a full and convincing account, and the pressure to quickly produce a short paper. He ruled out exposing himself to an editor or counsel, as would have been required to publish in an academic journal. On 14 May 1856 he began a "sketch" account. By July Darwin had decided to produce a full technical treatise on species. Lyell seemed to be coming round to Darwin's ideas, but in private was agonising over the social implications if humans had animal ancestry, particularly now that race was becoming an issue, with Robert Knox describing races as different species and warning of racial wars. Hooker's verdict on the growing manuscript was "incomparably more favourable" than Darwin had anticipated, while Darwin tried to put over the point that "external conditions do extremely little", it was the selection of "chance" variations that produced new species. Darwin's experiments on how species spread were now extended to considering how animals such as snails could be carried on birds' feet, and seeds in birds' droppings. His tenth child, Charles Waring Darwin was born on 6 December apparently without his full share of intelligence, renewing fears of inbreeding and hereditary defects, a topic that he covered in principle in his book. On 23 February 1857 the Darwins were visited for lunch by Robert FitzRoy, who had been the captain of HMS Beagle during Darwin's voyage, together with his second wife, his first wife and his only daughter having died. Darwin's cousin William Darwin Fox remained a mainstay, warning him against overworking on his huge book and recommending a holiday, but Darwin was immersed in his experiments and his writing. "I wish I could set less value on the bauble fame, either present or posthumous... yet, if I know myself, I would work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my Book would be published for ever anonymously."

Struggle for existence
Alfred Tennyson wrote his great poem "In Memoriam A.H.H." which introduced the phrase "Nature, red in tooth and claw", and Darwin worked on The Struggle for Existence. A discussion with Thomas Huxley on how jellyfish might cross-fertilise got the witty response that "the indecency of the process is to a certain extent in favour of its probability". Darwin passed Huxley's remark on to Hooker with the comment, "What a book a Devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!",[4] apparently a reference to the nickname given to the Radical Revd. Robert Taylor who had visited Cambridge on an "infidel home missionary tour" when Darwin was a student there (though the term goes back to Chaucer's Parson's Tale). Working class militants were seizing on the popularity of gorillas (which were now appearing in travelling menageries) to trumpet man's monkey origins. To crush these ideas, Richard Owen as President-elect of the Royal Association announced his authoritative anatomical studies of primate brains showing that humans were not just a separate species, but a separate sub-class. In July1857, Darwin commented to Hooker, "Owen's is a grand Paper; but I cannot swallow Man making a division as distinct from a Chimpanzee, as an ornithorhynchus from a Horse: I wonder what a Chimpanzee wd. say to this?".[5] Darwin pressed on, overworking, until in March 1857 illness began cutting his working day "ridiculously short". He took a fortnight's water treatment at the nearby Moor Park spa run by Dr. Edward Lane, and this revived him. Wallace had contacted Darwin earlier and was now working for him, sending domestic fowl specimens from Indonesia. Darwin wrote to Wallace from the spa "I can see that we have thought much alike & to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions...This summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first note-book, on

Publication of Darwin's theory what way do species & varieties differ from each other...I am now preparing my work for not suppose I shall go to press for two years...I have slowly adopted a distinct & tangible idea,– whether true or false others must judge". On his return a cold and social pressure set back the recovery. He had to return to the spa, finishing "variation" in July and posting pages to Huxley for checking.


Asa Gray and the young guard
Others helped with providing information, including Asa Gray on American plants. Darwin wrote to Gray saying that he had "come to the heterodox conclusion that there are no such things as independently created species – that species are only strongly defined varieties. I know that this will make you despise me". An intrigued Gray admitted to his own belief that there was some law or power inherent in plants making varieties appear, and asked if Darwin was finding this law. Realising that Gray had not grasped what he was suggesting, Darwin sent him a letter on 5 September 1857 giving a brief but detailed account of his views. He included a copy made by the schoolmaster of his draft book which he had named Natural Selection. Gray responded, warning against personifying natural selection which simply described ways of winning life's race rather than being "nature's guiding hand". Darwin asked Gray to maintain secrecy. The young guard of naturalists were now putting the "mode of creation" openly on the agenda, even in addresses to the Geological Society, but Darwin wanted his case to be fully prepared. Joseph Dalton Hooker, John Tyndall and Thomas Huxley now formed a group of young naturalists holding Darwin in high regard, basing themselves in the Linnean Society of London which had just moved to Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, near the Royal Society. Huxley had not yet understood natural selection despite Darwin's hints about pedigree and genealogical trees. Huxley's attention was focussed on defeating the dominant orthodoxy of the arrogant Owen.

The country squire
Darwin's attention turned from pigeons to seedlings, experimenting with subjecting plants to conditions which might produce variation. His family helped with this and with tracking bees, experimenting (unsuccessfully) to try to find out what would influence their flight path. His wife Emma Darwin was now known throughout the parish for helping in the way a parson's wife might be expected to, and as well as providing nursing care for her own family's frequent illnesses she gave out bread tokens to the hungry and "small pensions for the old, dainties for the ailing, and medical comforts and simple medicine" based on Dr. Robert Darwin's old prescription book. Charles Darwin also took on local duties, increasing his social standing by becoming a Justice of the Peace and a magistrate. To accommodate the needs of his large family and accommodate visiting cousins further house extensions got under way. In November he escaped the worries for a week's recuperation at Dr Lane's Moor Park spa.

Human origins, Wallace encouraged
Darwin planned through mid-1857 to write the descent of human beings in Chapter 6 of Natural Selection. Had he included sexual selection which he first described in 1856, he would have omitted female choice which he developed later, and would have instead concentrated on male competition.[6] As Darwin pressed on with his Natural Selection manuscript in December 1857, Wallace wrote to ask if it would delve into human origins. Sensitive to Lyell's fears on this, Darwin responded that "I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is the highest & most interesting problem for the naturalist". He encouraged Wallace's theorising, saying "without speculation there is no good & original observation", adding that "I go much further than you". Huxley used his March 1858 Royal Institution lecture to claim that structurally gorillas are as close to humans as they are to baboons. He added "Nay more I believe that the mental & moral faculties are essentially & fundamentally the same kind in animals & ourselves". This was a clear challenge to Owen's lecture claiming human uniqueness,

Publication of Darwin's theory given at the same venue. In a subsequent lecture Huxley stated that if there was a solution to the problem of species, it "must come from the side of indefinite modifiability", an indication that he was moving towards Darwin's position. In June he used his lecture at the Royal Society to attack Owen's "etherial archetype". Having gained a foothold in science with the aid of the Westminster Review group led by John Chapman and Herbert Spencer, Huxley was out to dislodge the domination of science by wealthy clergymen– led by Owen– instead wanting to create a professional salaried scientific civil service. To Spencer, animal species had developed by "adaptions upon adaptions". Huxley was using arguments on origins to split science from theology, arguing that "it is as respectable to be modified monkey as modified dirt".


Darwin was throwing himself into his work and his book on Natural Selection was well under way, when on 18 June 1858 he received a parcel from Wallace. It enclosed about twenty pages describing an evolutionary mechanism, an unexpected response to Darwin's recent encouragement, with a request to send it on to Lyell. That day, Darwin wrote to Lyell: Some year or so ago you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the 'Annals,' which had interested you, and, as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to-day sent me the enclosed, and asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance–that I should be forestalled. You said this, when I explained to you here very briefly my views of 'Natural Selection' depending on the struggle for existence. I never saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory. I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what you say.[7] There were differences, though these were not evident to Darwin on reading the paper. Wallace's idea of selection was the environment eliminating the unfit rather than cut-throat competition among individuals, and he took an egalitarian view of the Dayak natives he was among, while Darwin had seen the Fuegians as backwards savages, albeit capable of improvement. It had come at a bad time, as his favourite retreat at Moor Spa was threatened by Dr Lane being put on trial accused of adultery, and five days later Darwin's baby Charles Waring came down with scarlet fever. Darwin's first impression had been that though it meant losing priority, it would be dishonourable for him to be "induced to publish from privately knowing that Wallace is in the field", but Lyell quickly responded strongly urging him to reconsider. Darwin's reply of 25 June was a plea for advice, noting that the points in Wallace's sketch had been fully covered in his own Essay of 1844 which Hooker had read in 1847, and that he had also set out his ideas in a letter to Asa Gray in 1857, "so that I could most truly say and prove that I take nothing from Wallace. I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my general views in about a dozen pages or so. But I cannot persuade myself that I can do so honourably... I would far rather burn my whole book than that he or any man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit". He added a request that Hooker be informed to give a second opinion.[8] Darwin was overwrought when baby Charles Waring Darwin died on 28 June, and the next day acknowledged Hooker's letters saying "I cannot think now on the subject, but soon will." That night he read the letters, and to meet Hooker's request, though "quite prostrated", got his servant to deliver Wallace's essay, the letter to Asa Gray and "my sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it". He left matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker, writing "Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me to care at all about priority." [9]

Publication of Darwin's theory


Publication of joint paper
Lyell and Hooker agreed on a joint paper to be presented at the Linnean Society – Lyell, Hooker and Darwin were all fellows of the society and council members, and Hooker had been closely involved in reviving the fortunes of the society and running its journal. Other venues were either inappropriate, or in the case of the Zoological Society of London, potentially hostile under the leadership of Richard Owen. It was now time for the summer break but, as they knew, its meeting had been postponed due to the death of former president Robert Brown on 10 June 1858, and the Council had arranged an extra meeting on 1 July.[10] At the last minute, late in the evening of 30 June, Lyell and Hooker forwarded the Wallace and Darwin papers to the Secretary John Joseph Bennett, to be read at the meeting the next day. Mrs. Hooker had spent the afternoon copying out extracts from the handwritten documents Darwin had sent with his letter of the previous night, presumably chosen by Hooker to suit the verbal presentation, and Lyell and Hooker wrote a short introductory letter.[11] The papers entitled respectively On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, incorporated Wallace's pages; and extracts from Darwin's 1844 Essay and his 1857 letter to Gray. At the meeting the Secretary read the papers out, before going on to six other papers, and there was no discussion of them at the end of the meeting, perhaps because of the amount of business that had been dealt with including an obituary notice for Robert Brown given by Lyell, or possibly due to reluctance to speak out against a theory supported by the eminent Lyell and Hooker. Thomas Bell, who had written up the description of Darwin's reptile specimens from the Beagle expedition, presided over the meeting. He apparently disapproved, and in his annual presidential report presented in May 1859 wrote that "The year which has passed has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear".[2] [12] However, the Vice-President promptly removed all references to immutability from his own paper which was awaiting publication.[13] As might be expected, the joint paper alerted those subscribers who met the argument for the first time in print, and whose minds were prepared by prior struggles with the species question. Alfred Newton, who held the chair in Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at Cambridge from 1866 to 1907, wrote this: "I sat up late that night to read it [the Linnean Society paper]; and never shall I forget the impression it made upon me. Herein was contained a perfectly simple solution of all the difficulties which had been troubling me for months past. I hardly know whether I at first felt more vexed at the solution not having occurred to me than pleased that it had been found at all" (he was not alone in that thought!—see T.H. Huxley). Newton remained a Darwinian for the rest of his life. (Wollaston 1921 p112; see also Newton 1888) While the meeting took place, Darwin was attending his son's funeral. His family moved to his sister-in-law's in Sussex to escape the fever, which eventually killed six children in the village of Downe. It had been a frightening and miserable fortnight, but he was "more than satisfied" with the outcome of the meeting. He then took his children to the seaside at the Isle of Wight and pushed ahead with an "abstract" of Natural Selection which again began growing to book size. He returned to the Moor Park spa with stomach ailments. Wallace's reaction, delivered in January 1859, was that he was gratified to have spurred Darwin into making the announcement and that it would have caused him "much pain & regret" if his papers had been published on their own, without Darwin's papers. Darwin was still sensitive on the point, and assured Wallace that he "had absolutely nothing whatever to do with leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought was a fair course of action". He responded to Wallace's enquiry about what Lyell thought of the theory by saying that "I think he is somewhat staggered, but does not give in and speaks with horror [of] what a job it would be for the next edition of "The Principles" [of Geology] if he were "perverted". But he is most candid and honest, and I think he will end up by being "perverted"." Lyell was still struggling to come to terms with the idea of mankind, with immortal soul, originating from animals, but "Considering his age, his former views and position in society, I think his conduct has been heroic on the subject."

Publication of Darwin's theory


Publication of the "Origin of Species"
Darwin was now working hard on an "abstract" trimmed from his Natural Selection, writing much of it from memory. The chapters were sent to Hooker for correcting as they were completed, which led to a minor disaster when a large bundle was put by accident into the drawer Hooker's wife used to keep paper for the children to draw on. Lyell made arrangements with the publisher John Murray, who had brought out the second edition of The Voyage of the Beagle. Darwin fretted, asking "Does he know all the subject of the book?", and saying that to avoid being more "un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable" he did not discuss the origin of man, or bring in any discussion about Genesis. Unusually, Murray agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen, and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. He anticipated printing 500 copies. Darwin had decided to call his book An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties through Natural Selection, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually reduced to the snappier On the Origin of Species through Natural Selection. The full title reads On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, with races referring to varieties of domestic and wild organisms and not to human groups. By the end of May, Darwin's health had failed again, but after a week's hydrotherapy he was able to start correcting the proofs. He struggled on despite rarely being able to write free of stomach pains for more than twenty minutes at a stretch, and made drastic revisions which left Murray with a huge £72 bill for corrections. Murray upped the print run to 1,250 copies, with a publication date in November. A copy was sent to Lyell, with a "foolishly anxious" Darwin hoping that he would "come round". An eager Lyell gave Darwin "very great kudos", though he was still concerned that "the dignity of man is at stake". One of Lyell's relatives commented that it was "sure to be very curious and important... however mortifying it may be to think that our remote Title page of the first edition of On the Origin of Species. ancestors were jelly fishes". Darwin was "sorry to say that I have no 'consolatory view' on the dignity of man. I am content that man will probably advance, and care not much whether we are looked at as mere savages in a remotely distant future." On 1 October Darwin finished the proofs, suffering from fits of vomiting. He then went off for a two month stay at Ilkley Wells House, a spa in the town of Ilkley. He was joined by his family for a time of "frozen misery" in the unusually early winter. Darwin wrote "I have been very bad lately, having had an awful 'crisis' one leg swelled like elephantiasis – eyes almost closed up – covered with a rash & fiery Boils; but they tell me it will surely do me much good – it was like living in Hell." On 2 November he was pleased to receive from Murray a specimen copy bound in royal green cloth, price fifteen shillings. Nine days later, still at the spa, he wrote notes to go with the complimentary copies, disarmingly anticipating their reactions: to Asa Gray "there are very many serious difficulties", to the Revd. John Stevens Henslow "I fear you will not approve of your pupil", to Louis Agassiz "[not sent in] a spirit of defiance or bravado" and to Richard Owen "it will seem 'an abomination'.", amongst others. For Wallace's copy he wrote "God knows what the public will think".

Publication of Darwin's theory


The Origins of Species goes on sale
On the Origin of Species was first published on 24 November 1859, priced at fifteen shillings. The book had been offered to booksellers at Murray's autumn sale on 22 November, and all available copies had been taken up immediately. In total, 1,250 copies were printed but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers' Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale.[14] By then the novelist Charles Kingsley, a Christian socialist country rector, had sent Darwin a letter of praise having been given a review copy: "It awes me...if you be right I must give up much that I have believed", it was "just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made." In the second edition Darwin added these lines to the last chapter, with attribution to "a celebrated author and divine". See the reaction to Darwin's theory for developments following publication, in the context of his life, work and outside influences at the time.

[1] van Wyhe 2007, p. 184, 187 [2] Keynes 2000, p.  318 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1840& viewtype=text& pageseq=355) [3] Olivia Judson (June 17, 2008). "Darwinmania! - Evolution - Opinion" (http:/ / judson. blogs. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 06/ 17/ darwinmania/ index. html). New York Times Blog. . Retrieved 2008-06-18. [4] "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 1924 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 13 July (1856)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-1924. html#back-mark-1924. f2). . Retrieved 2008-12-05. [5] "Letter 2117 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 5 July (1857)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-2117. html). Darwin Correspondence Project. . [6] Moore, James and Desmond, Adrian 2004, pp. xxxi–xxxiii [7] Darwin 1887, p.  116 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=132) [8] Darwin 1887, p.  117 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=133) [9] Darwin 1887, p.  119 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F1452. 2& viewtype=text& pageseq=135) [10] Browne 2002, p. 35 [11] Browne 2002, p. 40 [12] Browne 2002, p. 40–42 [13] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 470. [14] Freeman 1977

Note that this article is largely based on Desmond and Moore's book, with commentary summarised in other words and quotations (or extracts from quotations) repeated verbatim. • Browne, E. Janet (1995), Charles Darwin: vol. 1 Voyaging, London: Jonathan Cape, ISBN 1-84413-314-1 • Browne, E. Janet (2002), Charles Darwin: vol. 2 The Power of Place, London: Jonathan Cape, ISBN 0-7126-6837-3 • Darwin, Charles (1842 (published 1909)), "Pencil Sketch of 1842" ( frameset?itemID=F1556&viewtype=text&pageseq=1), in Darwin, Francis, The foundations of The origin of species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Retrieved on 2006-12-15 • Darwin, Charles (1845), Journal of Researches ([[The Voyage of the Beagle ( content/frameset?itemID=F14&viewtype=text&pageseq=1)])] (Second ed.), London: John Murray Retrieved on 2006-12-15 • Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ( pageseq=1), London: John Murray (The Origin of Species) Retrieved on 2006-12-15 • Darwin, Charles (1887), Darwin, F, ed., The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. (, London: John

Publication of Darwin's theory Murray (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin) Retrieved on 2006-12-15 Darwin, Charles (1958), Barlow, N, ed., The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow. (http://, London: Collins (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin) Retrieved on 2006-12-15 Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3 Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (2004), "Introduction", in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Penguin Group, ISBN 978-0-140-43631-0 Freeman, Richard B. (1977), "On the Origin of Species" ( Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html), The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (2nd ed.), Folkestone, England: Dawson, ISBN 0712907408, retrieved 2009-08-15 Keynes, Richard (ed.) (2000), " June – August 1836 ( frameset?itemID=F1840&viewtype=text&pageseq=23)", Charles Darwin's zoology notes & specimen lists from H.M.S. Beagle., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Retrieved on 2006-12-15 Moore, James (2006), "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin" (http://speakingoffaith., Speaking of Faith (Radio Program), American Public Media Retrieved on 2006-12-15


• • •

• Newton, Alfred. Early days of Darwinism. Macmillan's Magazine #340, 1888. • van Wyhe, John (2006), Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch ( uk/darwin.html) Retrieved on 2006-12-15 • van Wyhe, John (27 March 2007), "Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?" ( van_Wyhe_2007_Mind_the_gap_did_Darwin_avoid_publishing_his_theory.pdf) (PDF), Notes and Records of the Royal Society 61: 177–205, doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171, retrieved 2008-02-07. • Wollaston A.F.R. Life of Alfred Newton. Dutton, N.Y. 1921

Further reading
• The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online – Darwin Online (; Darwin's publications, private papers and bibliography, supplementary works including biographies, obituaries and reviews. Free to use, includes items not in public domain. • Works by Charles Darwin ( at Project Gutenberg; public domain • Darwin Correspondence Project ( Text and notes for most of his letters



Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits.[1] A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.[2] [3] [4] [5] Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution. One is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms that differ in one or more inherited traits.[1] Another cause is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.[6] [7] A notable result of evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Speciation stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth.[8] [9] [10] [11] It is thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time (see gradualism) or rapidly from one long static state to another (see punctuated equilibrium). The scientific study of evolution began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species evolve.[12] The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, palaeontology, and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.[13] The synthesis became a major principle of biology as it provided a coherent and unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[14] [15] [16] Evolution is currently applied and studied in various areas within biology such as conservation biology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology, paleontology and medicine. Moreover, it has also made an impact on traditionally non-biological disciplines such as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy and psychology.

History of evolutionary thought
The roots of naturalistic thinking on biology can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek philosopher Anaximander.[17] Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars treated the Genesis creation myth as allegory and believed that natural organisms were unstable and capricious, but the Protestant Reformation inspired Biblical literalism and a natural theology in which species were static and fixed. As emerging science explored mechanical philosophy in the 18th century, proto-evolutionary ideas were set out by a few natural philosophers such as Pierre Maupertuis in 1745 and Erasmus Darwin in 1796.[18] The word evolution itself (from the Latin evolutio, meaning "to unroll like a scroll") was initially used to refer to embryological development; its first use in relation to development of species came in 1762, when Charles Bonnet used it for his concept of "pre-formation", in which females carried a
Around 1854 Charles Darwin began writing out what became On the Origin of Species.

Evolution miniature form of all future generations. The term gradually gained a more general meaning of growth or progressive development.[19] The first published modern use of the word has been attributed to the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal in 1826, edited by Robert Jameson but arguably authored by Robert Edmond Grant.[20] The Bible-based Ussher chronology of the 1650s had calculated creation at 4004 BC, but by the 1780s geologists assumed a much older world. Wernerians thought strata were deposits from shrinking seas, but James Hutton proposed a self-maintaining infinite cycle. Georges Cuvier's paleontological work in the 1790s established the reality of extinction, which he explained by local catastrophes, followed by repopulation of the affected areas by other species. He held that species were fixed, and marginalised the ideas of the biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck about transmutation of species which were only taken up by radicals. Geologists such as Adam Sedgwick adapted Cuvier's catastrophism to show repeated worldwide annihilation and creation of new fixed species adapted to a changed environment, initially identifying the most recent catastrophe as the biblical flood. In opposition to this view, Charles Lyell adapted Hutton's concept into a stricter uniformitarianism which strongly influenced the young geologist Charles Darwin during the Beagle expedition. Darwin initially followed Lyell's idea of repeated "centres of creation" of fixed species, but questioned Lyell's views and in 1836, near the end of the voyage, he expressed doubts that species were fixed. Darwin formulated his idea of natural selection in 1838 and was still developing his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a similar theory, and both were presented to the Linnean Society of London in separate papers.[21] At the end of 1859, Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and presented evidence leading to increasingly wide acceptance of the occurrence of evolution. Debate about the mechanisms of evolution continued, and Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by natural selection.[22] Like Lamarck, he still thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[23] a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[24] In the 1880s, August Weismann's experiments indicated that changes from use and disuse were not heritable, and Lamarckism gradually fell from favour.[25] [26] More significantly, Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation. In 1865 Gregor Mendel found that traits were inherited in a predictable manner.[27] When Mendel's work was rediscovered in the 1900s, disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early geneticists and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution. Yet it was the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's pioneering work on the fundamentals of genetics (of which Darwin and Wallace were unaware) by Hugo de Vries and others in the early 1900s that provided the impetus for a better understanding of how variation occurs in plant and animal traits. That variation is the main fuel used by natural selection to shape the wide variety of adaptive traits observed in organic life. Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists rejected gradual natural selection, their rediscovery of and subsequent work on genetics eventually provided a solid basis on which the theory of evolution stood even more convincingly than when it was originally proposed.[28] The apparent contradiction between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel's work was reconciled in the 1920s and 1930s by evolutionary biologists such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and particularly Ronald Fisher, who set the foundations for the establishment of the field of population genetics. The end result was a combination of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary synthesis.[29] In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues and the subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become core parts of evolutionary biology and have revolutionised the field of phylogenetics.[13] In its early history, evolutionary biology primarily drew in scientists from traditional taxonomically oriented disciplines, whose specialist training in particular organisms addressed general questions in evolution. As evolutionary biology expanded as an academic discipline, particularly after the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, it began to draw more widely from the biological sciences.[13] Currently the study of


Evolution evolutionary biology involves scientists from fields as diverse as biochemistry, ecology, genetics and physiology, and evolutionary concepts are used in even more distant disciplines such as psychology, medicine, philosophy and computer science. In the 21st century, current research in evolutionary biology deals with several areas where the modern evolutionary synthesis may need modification or extension, such as assessing the relative importance of various ideas on the unit of selection and evolvability and how to fully incorporate the findings of evolutionary developmental biology.[30] [31]


Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits – particular characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example, eye colour is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents.[32] Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.[33] The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behaviour of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[34] As a result, many aspects of an organism's phenotype are not inherited. For example, suntanned skin comes from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, suntans are not passed on to people's children. However, some people tan more easily than others, due to differences in their genotype; a striking example are people with the inherited trait of albinism, who do not tan at all and are very sensitive to sunburn.[35] Heritable traits are known to be passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information.[33] DNA is a long polymer composed of four types of bases. The sequence of bases along a particular DNA molecule specify the genetic information, in a manner DNA structure. Bases are in the centre, surrounded by phosphate–sugar chains in a similar to a sequence of letters spelling out a sentence. Before a cell double helix. divides, the DNA is copied, so that each of the resulting two cells will inherit the DNA sequence. Portions of a DNA molecule that specify a single functional unit are called genes; different genes have different sequences of bases. Within cells, the long strands of DNA form condensed structures called chromosomes. The specific location of a DNA sequence within a chromosome is known as a locus. If the DNA sequence at a locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this sequence are called alleles. DNA sequences can change through mutations, producing new alleles. If a mutation occurs within a gene, the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism.[1] However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are controlled by multiple interacting genes within and among organisms.[36] [37] Developmental biologists suggest that complex interactions in genetic networks and communication among cells can lead to heritable variations that may underlay some of the mechanics in developmental plasticity and canalization.[38] Recent findings have confirmed important examples of heritable changes that cannot be explained by direct agency of the DNA molecule. These phenomena are classed as epigenetic inheritance systems that are causally or independently evolving over genes. Research into modes and mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance is still in its scientific infancy, however, this area of research has attracted much recent activity as it broadens the scope of heritability and evolutionary biology in

Evolution general.[39] DNA methylation marking chromatin, self-sustaining metabolic loops, gene silencing by RNA interference, and the three dimensional conformation of proteins (such as prions) are areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level.[40] [41] Heritability may also occur at even larger scales. For example, ecological inheritance through the process of niche construction is defined by the regular and repeated activities of organisms in their environment. This generates a legacy of effect that modifies and feeds back into the selection regime of subsequent generations. Descendants inherit genes plus environmental characteristics generated by the ecological actions of ancestors.[42] Other examples of heritability in evolution that are not under the direct control of genes include the inheritance of cultural traits, group heritability, and symbiogenesis.[43] [44] [45] These examples of heritability that operate above the gene are covered broadly under the title of multilevel or hierarchical selection, which has been a subject of intense debate in the history of evolutionary science.[44] [46]


An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.[37] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will fluctuate, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Evolutionary forces act by driving these changes in allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[47] Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction. Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridisation in plants.[48] Despite the constant introduction of variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[49] However, even relatively small changes in genotype can lead to dramatic changes in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[50]



Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms; these mutations create genetic variation. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[51] [52] [53] These mutations involve several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[54] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[51] Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between costs of a high mutation rate, such as deleterious mutations, and the metabolic costs of maintaining systems to reduce the mutation rate, such as DNA repair enzymes.[55] Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates,[56] which can be an advantage since these viruses will evolve constantly and rapidly, and thus evade the defensive responses of e.g. the human immune system.[57]

Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.[58] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.[59] This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.[60] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.[61] New genes can be created from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the redundancy of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function while the other copy continues to perform its original function.[62] [63] Other types of mutation can even create entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.[64] [65] The creation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.[66] [67] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together creating new combinations with new and complex functions.[68] For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyze one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.[69] Changes in chromosome number may involve even larger mutations, where segments of the DNA within chromosomes break and then rearrange. For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes.[70] In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.[71] Sequences of DNA that can move about the genome, such as transposons, make up a major fraction of the genetic material of plants and animals, and may have been important in the evolution of genomes.[72] For example, more than a million copies of the Alu sequence are present in the human genome, and these sequences have now been recruited to perform functions such as regulating gene expression.[73] Another effect of these mobile DNA sequences is that when they move within a genome, they can mutate or delete existing genes and thereby produce genetic

Duplication of part of a chromosome.

Evolution diversity.[52]


Sex and recombination
In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or linked, as they cannot mix with genes of other organisms during reproduction. In contrast, the offspring of sexual organisms contain random mixtures of their parents' chromosomes that are produced through independent assortment. In a related process called homologous recombination, sexual organisms exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes.[74] Recombination and reassortment do not alter allele frequencies, but instead change which alleles are associated with each other, producing offspring with new combinations of alleles.[75] Sex usually increases genetic variation and may increase the rate of evolution.[76] [77] However, asexuality is advantageous in some environments as it can evolve in previously sexual animals.[78] Here, asexuality might allow the two sets of alleles in their genome to diverge and gain different functions.[79] Recombination allows even alleles that are close together in a strand of DNA to be inherited independently. However, the rate of recombination is low (approximately two events per chromosome per generation). As a result, genes close together on a chromosome may not always be shuffled away from each other, and genes that are close together tend to be inherited together, a phenomenon known as linkage.[80] This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together on a single chromosome, which is called their linkage disequilibrium. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a haplotype. This can be important when one allele in a particular haplotype is strongly beneficial: natural selection can drive a selective sweep that will also cause the other alleles in the haplotype to become more common in the population; this effect is called genetic hitchhiking.[81] When alleles cannot be separated by recombination – such as in mammalian Y chromosomes, which pass intact from fathers to sons – harmful mutations accumulate.[82] [83] By breaking up allele combinations, sexual reproduction allows the removal of harmful mutations and the retention of beneficial mutations.[84] In addition, recombination and reassortment can produce individuals with new and advantageous gene combinations. These positive effects are balanced by the fact that sex reduces an organism's reproductive rate, can cause mutations and may separate beneficial combinations of genes.[84] The reasons for the evolution of sexual reproduction are therefore unclear and this question is still an active area of research in evolutionary biology,[85] [86] that has prompted ideas such as the Red Queen hypothesis.[87]

Population genetics

White peppered moth

Black morph in peppered moth evolution

From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool.[88] A population is a localised group of individuals belonging to the same species. For example, all of the moths of the same species living in an isolated forest represent a population. A

Evolution single gene in this population may have several alternate forms, which account for variations between the phenotypes of the organisms. An example might be a gene for colouration in moths that has two alleles: black and white. A gene pool is the complete set of alleles for a gene in a single population; the allele frequency measures the fraction of the gene pool composed of a single allele (for example, what fraction of moth colouration genes are the black allele). Evolution occurs when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms; for example, the allele for black colour in a population of moths becoming more common. To understand the mechanisms that cause a population to evolve, it is useful to consider what conditions are required for a population not to evolve. The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg, and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilisation.[89] Such a population is said to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; it is not evolving.[90]


Gene flow
Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations, which are usually of the same species.[92] Examples of gene flow within a species include the migration and then breeding of organisms, or the exchange of pollen. Gene transfer between species includes the formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer. Migration into or out of a population can change allele frequencies, as well as introducing genetic variation into a population. Immigration may add new genetic material to the established gene pool of a population. Conversely, emigration may remove genetic material. As When they mature, male lions leave the pride barriers to reproduction between two diverging populations are where they were born and take over a new pride [91] to mate, causing gene flow between prides. required for the populations to become new species, gene flow may slow this process by spreading genetic differences between the populations. Gene flow is hindered by mountain ranges, oceans and deserts or even man-made structures such as the Great Wall of China, which has hindered the flow of plant genes.[93] Depending on how far two species have diverged since their most recent common ancestor, it may still be possible for them to produce offspring, as with horses and donkeys mating to produce mules.[94] Such hybrids are generally infertile, due to the two different sets of chromosomes being unable to pair up during meiosis. In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed, but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct. However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype.[95] The importance of hybridisation in creating new species of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals,[96] with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example.[97] Hybridisation is, however, an important means of speciation in plants, since polyploidy (having more than two copies of each chromosome) is tolerated in plants more readily than in animals.[98] [99] Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction, with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis.[100] Polyploids also have more genetic diversity, which allows them to avoid inbreeding depression in small populations.[101] Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria.[102] In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species.[103]

Evolution Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean beetle Callosobruchus chinensis may also have occurred.[104] [105] An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which appear to have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi, and plants.[106] Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains.[107] Large-scale gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of eukaryotic cells and prokaryotes, during the acquisition of chloroplasts and mitochondria.[108]


The two main mechanisms that produce evolution are natural selection and genetic drift. Natural selection is the process which favours genes that aid survival and reproduction. Genetic drift is the random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random sampling of a generation's genes during reproduction. The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in a population varies depending on the strength of the selection and the effective population size, which is the number of individuals capable of breeding.[109] Natural selection usually predominates in large populations, whereas genetic drift dominates in small populations. The dominance of genetic drift in small populations can even lead to the fixation of slightly deleterious mutations.[110] As a result, changing population size can dramatically influence the course of evolution. Population bottlenecks, where the population shrinks temporarily and therefore loses genetic variation, result in a more uniform population.[47]

Natural selection
Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts: • Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms. • Organisms produce more offspring than can survive. • These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their Natural selection of a population for dark colouration. competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.[111] The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[112] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[112] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[113] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[112]

Evolution If an allele increases fitness more than the other alleles of that gene, then with each generation this allele will become more common within the population. These traits are said to be "selected for". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival, and increased fecundity. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele becoming rarer — they are "selected against".[114] Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic; if the environment changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful.[1] However, even if the direction of selection does reverse in this way, traits that were lost in the past may not re-evolve in an identical form (see Dollo's law).[115] [116] Natural selection within a population for a trait that can vary across a range of values, such as height, can be categorised into three different types. The first is directional selection, which is a shift in the average value of a trait over time — for example, organisms slowly getting taller.[117] Secondly, disruptive selection is selection for extreme trait values and often results in two different values becoming most common, with selection against the average value. This would be when either short or tall organisms had an advantage, but not those of medium height. Finally, in stabilizing selection there is selection against extreme trait values on both ends, which causes a decrease in variance around the average value and less diversity.[111] [118] This would, for example, cause organisms to slowly become all the same height. A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the A chart showing three types of selection. attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.[119] Traits that 1.Disruptive selection 2.Stabilizing selection evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent in males of 3.Directional selection some animal species, despite traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls or bright colours that attract predators, decreasing the survival of individual males.[120] This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits.[121] Natural selection most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals, and individual traits, are more or less likely to survive. "Nature" in this sense refers to an ecosystem, that is, a system in which organisms interact with every other element, physical as well as biological, in their local environment. Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, defined an ecosystem as: "Any unit that includes all of the a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system."[122] Each population within an ecosystem occupies a distinct niche, or position, with distinct relationships to other parts of the system. These relationships involve the life history of the organism, its position in the food chain, and its geographic range. This broad understanding of nature enables scientists to delineate specific forces which, together, comprise natural selection. An active area of research is the unit of selection, with natural selection being proposed to work at the level of genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and species.[123] [124] None of these are mutually exclusive and selection can act on multiple levels simultaneously.[125] An example of selection occurring below the level of the individual organism are genes called transposons, which can replicate and spread throughout a genome.[126] Selection at a level above the individual, such as group selection, may allow the evolution of co-operation, as discussed below.[127]




Genetic drift
Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents, as well as from the role that chance plays in determining whether a given individual will survive and reproduce. In mathematical terms, alleles are subject to sampling error. As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward randomly (in a random walk). This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone. Even in the absence of selective forces, genetic drift can cause two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure to drift apart into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.[128]

The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.[129] The precise measure of population that is important is called the effective population size. The effective population is always smaller than the total population since it takes into account factors such as the level of inbreeding, the number of animals that are too old or young to breed, and the lower probability of animals that live far apart managing to mate with each other.[130] An example of when genetic drift is probably of central importance in determining a trait is the loss of pigments from animals that live in caves, a change that produces no obvious advantage or disadvantage in complete darkness.[131] However, it is usually difficult to measure the relative importance of selection and drift,[132] so the comparative importance of these two forces in driving evolutionary change is an area of current research.[133] These investigations were prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result of the fixation of neutral mutations that do not have any immediate effects on the fitness of an organism.[134] Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure and genetic drift.[135] This form of the neutral theory is now largely abandoned, since it does not seem to fit the genetic variation seen in nature.[136] [137] However, a more recent and better-supported version of this model is the nearly neutral theory, where most mutations only have small effects on fitness.[111]

Simulation of genetic drift of 20 unlinked alleles in populations of 10 (top) and 100 (bottom). Drift to fixation is more rapid in the smaller population.

Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behaviour of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioural and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually beneficial symbiosis. In the longer term, evolution produces new species through splitting ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that cannot or will not interbreed. These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[138] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[139] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.[140] However, in macroevolution, the traits of the entire species may be important. For instance, a large amount of variation among individuals allows a species to rapidly adapt to new

Evolution habitats, lessening the chance of it going extinct, while a wide geographic range increases the chance of speciation, by making it more likely that part of the population will become isolated. In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.[141] [142] [143] A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.[144] [145] Although complex species have evolved, they occur as a side effect of the overall number of organisms increasing, and simple forms of life still remain more common in the biosphere.[146] For example, the overwhelming majority of species are microscopic prokaryotes, which form about half the world's biomass despite their small size,[147] and constitute the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity.[148] Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse because it is more noticeable.[149] Indeed, the evolution of microorganisms is particularly important to modern evolutionary research, since their rapid reproduction allows the study of experimental evolution and the observation of evolution and adaptation in real time.[150] [151]


Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology,[152] and is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.[153] [154] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or the ability of horses to run fast and escape predators. By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process, and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished. Adaptations are produced by natural selection.[155] The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky. 1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.[156] 2. Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.[157] 3. An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.[158] Adaptation may cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.[159] Other striking examples are the bacteria Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[160] Flavobacterium evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[161] [162] and the soil bacterium Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.[163] [164] An interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and adapt by natural selection (increasing organisms' evolvability).[165] [166]



Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures. Consequently, structures with similar internal organisation may have different functions in related organisms. This is the result of a single ancestral structure being adapted to A baleen whale skeleton, a and b label flipper bones, which were adapted from front leg bones: while c indicates vestigial leg bones, suggesting an adaptation from land to function in different ways. The bones [167] sea. within bat wings, for example, are very similar to those in mice feet and primate hands, due to the descent of all these structures from a common mammalian ancestor.[168] However, since all living organisms are related to some extent,[169] even organs that appear to have little or no structural similarity, such as arthropod, squid and vertebrate eyes, or the limbs and wings of arthropods and vertebrates, can depend on a common set of homologous genes that control their assembly and function; this is called deep homology.[170] [171] During adaptation, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures.[172] Such structures may have little or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely related species. Examples include pseudogenes,[173] the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish,[174] wings in flightless birds,[175] and the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes.[167] Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth,[176] the coccyx,[172] the vermiform appendix,[172] and other behavioural vestiges such as goose bumps,[177] and primitive reflexes.[178] [179] [180] [181] However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[182] One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[182] Within cells, molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella[183] and protein sorting machinery[184] evolved by the recruitment of several pre-existing proteins that previously had different functions.[138] Another example is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[185] [186] A critical principle of ecology is that of competitive exclusion: no two species can occupy the same niche in the same environment for a long time.[187] Consequently, natural selection will tend to force species to adapt to different ecological niches. This may mean that, for example, two species of cichlid fish adapt to live in different habitats, which will minimise the competition between them for food.[188] An area of current investigation in evolutionary developmental biology is the developmental basis of adaptations and exaptations.[189] This research addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development and how modifications of development and developmental processes produce novel features.[190] These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to create new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals.[191] It is also possible for structures that have been lost in evolution to reappear due to changes in developmental genes, such as a mutation in chickens causing embryos to grow teeth similar to those of crocodiles.[192] It is now becoming clear that most alterations in the form of organisms are due to changes in a small set of conserved genes.[193]



Interactions between organisms can produce both conflict and co-operation. When the interaction is between pairs of species, such as a pathogen and a host, or a predator and its prey, these species can develop matched sets of adaptations. Here, the evolution of one species causes adaptations in a second species. These changes in the second species then, in turn, cause new adaptations in the first species. This cycle of selection and response is called co-evolution.[194] An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the rough-skinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the common garter snake. In this predator-prey pair, an evolutionary arms race has produced high levels of toxin in the newt and correspondingly high levels of toxin resistance in the snake.[195]

Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) which has evolved resistance to tetrodotoxin in its amphibian prey.

However, not all interactions between species involve conflict.[196] Many cases of mutually beneficial interactions have evolved. For instance, an extreme cooperation exists between plants and the mycorrhizal fungi that grow on their roots and aid the plant in absorbing nutrients from the soil.[197] This is a reciprocal relationship as the plants provide the fungi with sugars from photosynthesis. Here, the fungi actually grow inside plant cells, allowing them to exchange nutrients with their hosts, while sending signals that suppress the plant immune system.[198] Coalitions between organisms of the same species have also evolved. An extreme case is the eusociality found in social insects, such as bees, termites and ants, where sterile insects feed and guard the small number of organisms in a colony that are able to reproduce. On an even smaller scale, the somatic cells that make up the body of an animal limit their reproduction so they can maintain a stable organism, which then supports a small number of the animal's germ cells to produce offspring. Here, somatic cells respond to specific signals that instruct them whether to grow, remain as they are, or die. If cells ignore these signals and multiply inappropriately, their uncontrolled growth causes cancer.[51] Such cooperation within species may have evolved through the process of kin selection, which is where one organism acts to help raise a relative's offspring.[199] This activity is selected for because if the helping individual contains alleles which promote the helping activity, it is likely that its kin will also contain these alleles and thus those alleles will be passed on.[200] Other processes that may promote cooperation include group selection, where cooperation provides benefits to a group of organisms.[201]



Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species.[202] Evolutionary scientists view the concept of "species" as a statistical phenomenon; this view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species.[203] [204] Instead, a species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[205] Species are defined in two ways, taxonomically and categorically.[206] Species are partitioned taxonmically into operational units for the practical application of framing evolutionary hypotheses in systematics. Systematicists study and analyze the morphological or genetic characters from different lineages and use parsimonious methods, such as cladistics or other statistical means to locate the position of the taxon in the Linnean taxonomic hierarchy or biological classification. These methods create evolutionary trees that are used to infer, illustrate, test, or explain evolutionary relations, historical patterns, and phylogenetic transitions.[207] [208] "Systematics is one of the oldest scientific disciplines and, from its beginning, one of its central concepts has been the concept of species. Systematics can be characterized generally as the branch of science devoted to the study of the different kinds of organisms (biological diversity, in contemporary terms), and the term 'species' is Latin for 'kind.'"[206] :6600 When a new species is discovered a type specimen and holotype specimens are usually deposited into a recognized or accredited academic institution, such as a museum, that serves as a taxonomic reference point.
The four mechanisms of speciation.

Species are also defined categorically by critical natural forces that best explain the evolutionary mechanisms that are responsible for the crossing of the speciation threshold, from one species into two. In this context, the exact definition of a "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[209] and this is called the species problem.[206] There is much diversity in life and varied biological reasons for speciation, which has resulted in more than twenty different kinds of species concepts to facilitate the diverse modes, mechanisms, and evolutionary processes. The concept that is used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[206] For example, some species concepts may apply more readily toward sexually reproducing organisms and some lend themselves better toward asexual organisms. The various concepts, however, can be placed into one of three general philosophical approaches: 1) the interbreeding, 2) the ecological, and 3) the phylogenetic.[210] The biological species concept (BSC) is a classic example of the interbreeding approach. Introduced by Ernst Mayr in 1942, the BSC states that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"[211] :120. Despite its wide and long-term use, the BSC like others is not without controversy. Some researchers have attempted a unifying monistic definition of species, while others adopt a pluralistic approach

Evolution and suggest that there may be a variety of ways to logically interpret what a species is.[206] [210] Speciation has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[212] In sexually reproducing organisms, speciation results from reproductive isolation followed by genealogical divergence. There are four mechanisms for speciation. The most common in animals is allopatric speciation, which occurs in populations initially isolated geographically, such as by habitat fragmentation or migration. Selection under these conditions can produce very rapid changes in the appearance and behaviour of organisms.[213] [214] As selection and drift act independently on populations isolated from the rest of their species, separation may eventually produce organisms that cannot interbreed.[215] The second mechanism of speciation is peripatric speciation, which occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment. This differs from allopatric speciation in that the isolated populations are numerically much smaller than the parental population. Here, the founder effect causes rapid speciation through both rapid genetic drift and selection on a small gene pool.[216] The third mechanism of speciation is parapatric speciation. This is similar to peripatric speciation in that a small population enters a new habitat, but differs in that there is no physical separation between these two populations. Instead, speciation results from the evolution of mechanisms that reduce gene flow between the two populations.[202] Generally this occurs when there has been a drastic change in the environment within the parental species' habitat. One example is the grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, which can undergo parapatric speciation in response to localised metal pollution from mines.[217] Here, plants evolve that have resistance to high levels of metals in the soil. Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produced a gradual change in the flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, which eventually produced complete reproductive isolation. Selection against hybrids between the two populations may cause reinforcement, which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as character displacement, which is when two species become more distinct in appearance.[218] Finally, in sympatric speciation species diverge without geographic isolation or changes in habitat. This form is rare since even a small amount of gene flow may remove genetic differences between parts of a population.[219] Generally, sympatric speciation in animals requires the evolution of both genetic differences and non-random mating, to allow reproductive isolation to evolve.[220] One type of sympatric speciation involves cross-breeding of two related species to produce a new hybrid species. This is not common in animals as animal hybrids are usually sterile. This is because during meiosis the homologous chromosomes from each parent are from different species and cannot successfully pair. However, it is more Geographical isolation of finches on the common in plants because plants often double their number of Galápagos Islands produced over a dozen new species. chromosomes, to form polyploids.[221] This allows the chromosomes from each parental species to form matching pairs during meiosis, since each parent's chromosomes are represented by a pair already.[222] An example of such a speciation event is when the plant species Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis arenosa cross-bred to give the new species Arabidopsis suecica.[223] This happened about 20,000 years ago,[224] and the speciation process has been repeated in the laboratory, which allows the study of the genetic mechanisms involved in this process.[225] Indeed, chromosome doubling within a species may be a common cause of reproductive isolation, as half the doubled chromosomes will be unmatched when breeding with undoubled organisms.[99] Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[226] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the


Evolution periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population, and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats, and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.[227]


Extinction is the disappearance of an entire species. Extinction is not an unusual event, as species regularly appear through speciation, and disappear through extinction.[228] Nearly all animal and plant species that have lived on Earth are now extinct,[229] and extinction appears to be the ultimate fate of all species.[230] These extinctions have happened continuously throughout the history of life, although the rate of extinction spikes in occasional mass extinction events.[231] The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, during which the non-avian Tyrannosaurus rex. Non-avian dinosaurs died out dinosaurs went extinct, is the most well-known, but the earlier in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event at the Permian–Triassic extinction event was even more severe, with end of the Cretaceous period. approximately 96% of species driven to extinction.[231] The Holocene extinction event is an ongoing mass extinction associated with humanity's expansion across the globe over the past few thousand years. Present-day extinction rates are 100–1000 times greater than the background rate, and up to 30% of species may be extinct by the mid 21st century.[232] Human activities are now the primary cause of the ongoing extinction event;[233] global warming may further accelerate it in the future.[234] The role of extinction in evolution is not very well understood and may depend on which type of extinction is considered.[231] The causes of the continuous "low-level" extinction events, which form the majority of extinctions, may be the result of competition between species for limited resources (competitive exclusion).[13] If one species can out-compete another, this could produce species selection, with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction.[123] The intermittent mass extinctions are also important, but instead of acting as a selective force, they drastically reduce diversity in a nonspecific manner and promote bursts of rapid evolution and speciation in survivors.[235]

Evolutionary history of life
Origin of life
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[236] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[237] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[238] [239] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[240] and the assembly of simple cells.[241]



Common descent
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[169] [242] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[243] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits, and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups – similar to a family tree.[244] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.[245] [246] Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[247] By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry. More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.[248] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.[249] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 96% of their genomes and analyzing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.[250]



Evolution of life
Prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[251] [252] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organisation occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[253] The eukaryotic cells emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[108] [254] The engulfed bacteria and the host Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor cell then underwent co-evolution, with in the centre.Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, von Mering C, Creevey CJ, Snel B, Bork P (2006). the bacteria evolving into either "Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life". Science 311 (5765): [255] mitochondria or hydrogenosomes. 1283–87. doi:10.1126/science.1123061. PMID 16513982.  The three domains are Another engulfment of coloured, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red. cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[256] The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[251] [257] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[258] Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.[259] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[260] About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonised the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.[261] Insects were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species.[262] Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.[148]

Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[263] A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[264] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology. It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.[265]

Evolution Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[266] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[267] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[268] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[269] As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Here, simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection.[270] Artificial evolution became a widely recognised optimisation method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.[271] Genetic algorithms in particular became popular through the writing of John Holland.[272] As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the automatic evolution of computer programs.[273] Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimise the design of systems.[274]


Social and cultural responses
In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Nowadays, the fact that organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists.[13] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[276] While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution, there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions and who raise various objections to evolution.[138] [277] [278] As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, the most controversial aspect of As evolution became widely accepted in evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that human mental the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolised and moral faculties, which had been thought purely spiritual, are not distinctly [275] evolution. [12] separated from those of other animals. In some countries, notably the United States, these tensions between science and religion have fuelled the current creation-evolution controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education.[279] While other scientific fields such as cosmology[280] and Earth science[281] also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more opposition from religious literalists. The teaching of evolution in American secondary school biology classes was uncommon in most of the first half of the 20th century. The Scopes Trial decision of 1925 caused the subject to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation, but it was gradually re-introduced about a generation later and legally protected with the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in the form of intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.[282]

Evolution Another example associated with evolutionary theory that is now widely regarded as unwarranted is "Social Darwinism", a derogatory term associated with the 19th century Malthusian theory developed by Whig philosopher Herbert Spencer. It was later expanded by others into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and led to claims that social inequality, sexism, racism and imperialism were justified.[283] However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views, and contemporary scientists and philosophers consider these ideas to be neither mandated by evolutionary theory nor supported by data.[284] [285] [286]


[1] Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2. [2] Jain, R.; Rivera, M.C.; Lake, J.A. (1999). "Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: the complexity hypothesis." (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=22375). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96 (7): 3801–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.7.3801. PMID 10097118. PMC 22375. [3] Richardson, Aaron O. and Jeffrey D. Palmer (2007). "Horizontal gene transfer in plants" (http:/ / www. sdsc. edu/ ~shindyal/ ejc121304. pdf). Journal of Experimental Botany 58 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1093/jxb/erl148. PMID 17030541. . Retrieved 2007-03-18. [4] Margulis, Lynn (1998). The symbiotic planet: a new look at evolution. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. ISBN 0465072712. [5] Sapp, J. (1994). Evolution by association: a history of symbiosis. Oxford University Press, UK. ISBN 0195088212. [6] Evolution 101:Sampling Error and Evolution (http:/ / evolution. berkeley. edu/ evosite/ evo101/ IIID1Samplingerror. shtml) and Effects of Genetic Drift (http:/ / evolution. berkeley. edu/ evosite/ evo101/ IIID2Genesdrift. shtml) from the Understanding Evolution University of California at Berkeley [7] Evolution 101: Peripatric Speciation (http:/ / evolution. berkeley. edu/ evosite/ evo101/ VC1cPeripatric. shtml) from the Understanding Evolution webpages made by the University of California at Berkeley [8] Schopf, J.W. (1999). Cradle of life: the discovery of Earth's earliest fossils. Princeton. ISBN 0691002304. [9] Woese, C. (1998). "The Universal Ancestor" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=22660). PNAS 95 (12): 6854–6859. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6854. PMID 9618502. PMC 22660. [10] Theobald, D.L. (2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222. doi:10.1038/nature09014. PMID 20463738. [11] Doolittle, W.F. (February, 2000). "Uprooting the tree of life" (http:/ / shiva. msu. montana. edu/ courses/ mb437_537_2004_fall/ docs/ uprooting. pdf). Scientific American 282 (2): 90–95. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0200-90. PMID 10710791. . [12] Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution:The History of an Idea. University of California Press. ISBN 0-52023693-9. [13] Kutschera U, Niklas K (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603. [14] "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (http:/ / www. interacademies. net/ Object. File/ Master/ 6/ 150/ Evolution statement. pdf). The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. 2006. . Retrieved 2007-04-25. Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society [15] Board of Directors, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006-02-16). "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ news/ releases/ 2006/ pdf/ 0219boardstatement. pdf). American Association for the Advancement of Science. . from the world's largest general scientific society [16] "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations" (http:/ / ncse. com/ media/ voices/ science). National Center for Science Education. . [17] Wright, S (1984). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Volume 1: Genetic and Biometric Foundations. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-91038-5. [18] Terrall, M (2002). The Man who flattened the Earth: Maupertuis and the sciences in the Enlightenment. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226793610. [19] Rough Guides; Pallen, Mark (2009). The Rough Guide to Evolution (Rough Guide Science/Phenomena). London: Rough Guides. p. 66. ISBN 1-85828-946-7. [20] Jameson, Robert ed. (1826) Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, A. and C. Black, Edinburgh, pp. 296–297 (http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=zkoEAAAAYAAJ& pg=PA297) Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 40 Browne 1995, p. 81 [21] Wallace, A (1858). "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F350& viewtype=text& pageseq=1). Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3: 53–62. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171. . Retrieved 2007-05-13. [22] The chapter on variation in 'Origin of Species' ends "Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference between the offspring and their is the steady accumulation of beneficial differences which has given rise to...the modifications of structure" Origin ch 5 [23] Darwin, Charles (1872). "Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts, as controlled by Natural Selection" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F391& pageseq=136). The Origin of Species. 6th edition, p. 108. John Murray. . Retrieved 2007-12-28.

[24] Leakey, Richard E.; Darwin, Charles (1979). The illustrated origin of species. London: Faber. ISBN 0-571-14586-8. pp. 17–18 [25] Ghiselin, Michael T. (September/October 1994). "Nonsense in schoolbooks: 'The Imaginary Lamarck'" (http:/ / www. textbookleague. org/ 54marck. htm). The Textbook Letter (http:/ / www. textbookleague. org/ ). The Textbook League. . Retrieved 2008-01-23. [26] Magner, Lois N. (2002). A History of the Life Sciences (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=YKJ6gVYbrGwC& printsec=frontcover#v=onepage& q) (Third ed.). Marcel Dekker, CRC Press. ISBN 9780203911006. . [27] Weiling F (1991). "Historical study: Johann Gregor Mendel 1822–1884". Am. J. Med. Genet. 40 (1): 1–25; discussion 26. doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320400103. PMID 1887835. [28] Quammen, D. (2006). The reluctant Mr. Darwin: An intimate portrait of Charles Darwin and the making of his theory of evolution. (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2006/ 08/ 27/ books/ review/ Desmond. t. html?n=Top/ Reference/ Times Topics/ People/ D/ Darwin, Charles Robert) New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. [29] Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0801838880. [30] Pigliucci M (2007). "Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?". Evolution 61 (12): 2743–9. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00246.x. PMID 17924956. [31] Winther RG (2008). "Systemic darwinism" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2575274). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (33): 11833–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711445105. PMID 18697926. PMC 2575274. [32] Sturm RA, Frudakis TN (2004). "Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry". Trends Genet. 20 (8): 327–32. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2004.06.010. PMID 15262401. [33] Pearson H (2006). "Genetics: what is a gene?". Nature 441 (7092): 398–401. doi:10.1038/441398a. PMID 16724031. [34] Visscher PM, Hill WG, Wray NR (2008). "Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions". Nat. Rev. Genet. 9 (4): 255–66. doi:10.1038/nrg2322. PMID 18319743. [35] Oetting WS, Brilliant MH, King RA (1996). "The clinical spectrum of albinism in humans". Molecular medicine today 2 (8): 330–5. doi:10.1016/1357-4310(96)81798-9. PMID 8796918. [36] Phillips PC (2008). "Epistasis—the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2689140). Nat. Rev. Genet. 9 (11): 855–67. doi:10.1038/nrg2452. PMID 18852697. PMC 2689140. [37] Wu R, Lin M (2006). "Functional mapping – how to map and study the genetic architecture of dynamic complex traits". Nat. Rev. Genet. 7 (3): 229–37. doi:10.1038/nrg1804. PMID 16485021. [38] Jablonka, E.; Lamb, M. J. (2002). "The changing concept of epigenetics" (http:/ / a-c-elitzur. co. il/ uploads/ articlesdocs/ Jablonka. pdf). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 981: 82–96. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb04913.x. . [39] Jablonka, E.; Raz, G. (2009). "Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: Prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution." (http:/ / compgen. unc. edu/ wiki/ images/ d/ df/ JablonkaQtrRevBio2009. pdf). The Quarterly Review of Biology 84 (2): 131–176. doi:10.1086/598822. . [40] Bossdorf, O.; Arcuri, D.; Richards, C. L.; Pigliucci, M. (2010). "Experimental alteration of DNA methylation affects the phenotypic plasticity of ecologically relevant traits in Arabidopsis thaliana" (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ c847255ur67w2487/ ). Evolutionary Ecology 24 (3): 541–553. doi:10.1007/s10682-010-9372-7. . [41] Jablonka, E.; Lamb, M. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioural, and symbolic (http:/ / books. google. ca/ books?id=EaCiHFq3MWsC& printsec=frontcover). MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-10107-6. . [42] Laland, K. N.; Sterelny, K. (2006). "Perspective: Seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction" (http:/ / lalandlab. st-andrews. ac. uk/ pdf/ laland_Evolution_2006. pdf). Evolution 60 (8): 1751–1762. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00520.x. . [43] Chapman, M. J.; Margulis, L. (1998). "Morphogenesis by symbiogenesis" (http:/ / www. im. microbios. org/ 04december98/ 14 Chapman. pdf). International Microbiology 1: 319–326. . [44] Wilson, D. S.; Wilson, E. O. (2007). "Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology" (http:/ / evolution. binghamton. edu/ dswilson/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2010/ 01/ Rethinking-sociobiology. pdf). The Quarterly Review of Biology 82 (4). . [45] Bijma, P.; Wade, M. J. (2008). "The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection". Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21 (5): 1175–1188. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01550.x. [46] Vrba, E. S.; Gould, S. J. (1986). "The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: Sorting and selection cannot be equated" (http:/ / www. explorelifeonearth. org/ cursos/ VrbaGould1986sorting. pdf). Paleobiology 12 (2): 217–228. . [47] Harwood AJ; Harwood, J (1998). "Factors affecting levels of genetic diversity in natural populations" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1692205). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 353 (1366): 177–86. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0200. PMID 9533122. PMC 1692205. [48] Draghi J, Turner P (2006). "DNA secretion and gene-level selection in bacteria". Microbiology (Reading, Engl.) 152 (Pt 9): 2683–8. doi:10.1099/mic.0.29013-0. PMID 16946263. *Mallet J (2007). "Hybrid speciation". Nature 446 (7133): 279–83. doi:10.1038/nature05706. PMID 17361174. [49] Butlin RK, Tregenza T (1998). "Levels of genetic polymorphism: marker loci versus quantitative traits" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1692210). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 353 (1366): 187–98. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0201. PMID 9533123. PMC 1692210. [50] Wetterbom A, Sevov M, Cavelier L, Bergström TF (2006). "Comparative genomic analysis of human and chimpanzee indicates a key role for indels in primate evolution". J. Mol. Evol. 63 (5): 682–90. doi:10.1007/s00239-006-0045-7. PMID 17075697.


[51] Bertram J (2000). "The molecular biology of cancer". Mol. Aspects Med. 21 (6): 167–223. doi:10.1016/S0098-2997(00)00007-8. PMID 11173079. [52] Aminetzach YT, Macpherson JM, Petrov DA (2005). "Pesticide resistance via transposition-mediated adaptive gene truncation in Drosophila". Science 309 (5735): 764–7. doi:10.1126/science.1112699. PMID 16051794. [53] Burrus V, Waldor M (2004). "Shaping bacterial genomes with integrative and conjugative elements". Res. Microbiol. 155 (5): 376–86. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2004.01.012. PMID 15207870. [54] Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1871816). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMID 17409186. PMC 1871816. [55] Sniegowski P, Gerrish P, Johnson T, Shaver A (2000). "The evolution of mutation rates: separating causes from consequences". Bioessays 22 (12): 1057–66. doi:10.1002/1521-1878(200012)22:12<1057::AID-BIES3>3.0.CO;2-W. PMID 11084621. [56] Drake JW, Holland JJ (1999). "Mutation rates among RNA viruses" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ content/ 96/ 24/ 13910. long). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (24): 13910–3. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.24.13910. PMID 10570172. PMC 24164. . [57] Holland J, Spindler K, Horodyski F, Grabau E, Nichol S, VandePol S (1982). "Rapid evolution of RNA genomes". Science 215 (4540): 1577–85. doi:10.1126/science.7041255. PMID 7041255. [58] Hastings, P J; Lupski, JR; Rosenberg, SM; Ira, G (2009). "Mechanisms of change in gene copy number" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2864001). Nature Reviews. Genetics 10 (8): 551–564. doi:10.1038/nrg2593. PMID 19597530. PMC 2864001. [59] Carroll SB, Grenier J, Weatherbee SD (2005). From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-1950-0. [60] Harrison P, Gerstein M (2002). "Studying genomes through the aeons: protein families, pseudogenes and proteome evolution". J Mol Biol 318 (5): 1155–74. doi:10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00109-2. PMID 12083509. [61] Bowmaker JK (1998). "Evolution of colour vision in vertebrates". Eye (London, England) 12 (Pt 3b): 541–7. PMID 9775215. [62] Gregory TR, Hebert PD (1999). "The modulation of DNA content: proximate causes and ultimate consequences" (http:/ / genome. cshlp. org/ content/ 9/ 4/ 317. full). Genome Res. 9 (4): 317–24. doi:10.1101/gr.9.4.317. PMID 10207154. . [63] Hurles M (2004). "Gene duplication: the genomic trade in spare parts" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=449868). PLoS Biol. 2 (7): E206. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206. PMID 15252449. PMC 449868. [64] Liu N, Okamura K, Tyler DM (2008). "The evolution and functional diversification of animal microRNA genes" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ cr/ journal/ v18/ n10/ full/ cr2008278a. html). Cell Res. 18 (10): 985–96. doi:10.1038/cr.2008.278. PMID 18711447. PMC 2712117. . [65] Siepel A (2009). "Darwinian alchemy: Human genes from noncoding DNA" (http:/ / genome. cshlp. org/ content/ 19/ 10/ 1693. full). Genome Res. 19 (10): 1693–5. doi:10.1101/gr.098376.109. PMID 19797681. PMC 2765273. . [66] Orengo CA, Thornton JM (2005). "Protein families and their evolution-a structural perspective". Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74: 867–900. doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.082803.133029. PMID 15954844. [67] Long M, Betrán E, Thornton K, Wang W (2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old". Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 (11): 865–75. doi:10.1038/nrg1204. PMID 14634634. [68] Wang M, Caetano-Anollés G (2009). "The evolutionary mechanics of domain organization in proteomes and the rise of modularity in the protein world". Structure 17 (1): 66–78. doi:10.1016/j.str.2008.11.008. PMID 19141283. [69] Weissman KJ, Müller R (2008). "Protein-protein interactions in multienzyme megasynthetases". Chembiochem 9 (6): 826–48. doi:10.1002/cbic.200700751. PMID 18357594. [70] Zhang J, Wang X, Podlaha O (2004). "Testing the chromosomal speciation hypothesis for humans and chimpanzees" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=479111). Genome Res. 14 (5): 845–51. doi:10.1101/gr.1891104. PMID 15123584. PMC 479111. [71] Ayala FJ, Coluzzi M (2005). "Chromosome speciation: humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ content/ 102/ suppl. 1/ 6535. full). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (Suppl 1): 6535–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102. PMID 15851677. PMC 1131864. . [72] Hurst GD, Werren JH (2001). "The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution". Nat. Rev. Genet. 2 (8): 597–606. doi:10.1038/35084545. PMID 11483984. [73] Häsler J, Strub K (2006). "Alu elements as regulators of gene expression" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1636486). Nucleic Acids Res. 34 (19): 5491–7. doi:10.1093/nar/gkl706. PMID 17020921. PMC 1636486. [74] Radding C (1982). "Homologous pairing and strand exchange in genetic recombination". Annu. Rev. Genet. 16: 405–37. doi:10.1146/ PMID 6297377. [75] Agrawal AF (2006). "Evolution of sex: why do organisms shuffle their genotypes?". Curr. Biol. 16 (17): R696. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.063. PMID 16950096. [76] Peters AD, Otto SP (2003). "Liberating genetic variance through sex". Bioessays 25 (6): 533–7. doi:10.1002/bies.10291. PMID 12766942. [77] Goddard MR, Godfray HC, Burt A (2005). "Sex increases the efficacy of natural selection in experimental yeast populations". Nature 434 (7033): 636–40. doi:10.1038/nature03405. PMID 15800622. [78] Fontaneto D, Herniou EA, Boschetti C (2007). "Independently evolving species in asexual bdelloid rotifers" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1828144). PLoS Biol. 5 (4): e87. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050087. PMID 17373857. PMC 1828144. Lay summary (http:/ / www. physorg. com/ news93597385. html).


[79] Pouchkina-Stantcheva NN, McGee BM, Boschetti C (2007). "Functional divergence of former alleles in an ancient asexual invertebrate". Science 318 (5848): 268–71. doi:10.1126/science.1144363. PMID 17932297. Lay summary (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 7039478. stm). [80] Lien S, Szyda J, Schechinger B, Rappold G, Arnheim N (2000). "Evidence for heterogeneity in recombination in the human pseudoautosomal region: high resolution analysis by sperm typing and radiation-hybrid mapping" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1288109). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66 (2): 557–66. doi:10.1086/302754. PMID 10677316. PMC 1288109. [81] Barton, N H (2000). "Genetic hitchhiking" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1692896). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 355 (1403): 1553–1562. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0716. PMID 11127900. PMC 1692896. [82] Muller H (1964). "The relation of recombination to mutational advance". Mutat. Res. 106: 2–9. PMID 14195748. [83] Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2000). "The degeneration of Y chromosomes" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1692900). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 355 (1403): 1563–72. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0717. PMID 11127901. PMC 1692900. [84] Otto S (1 July 2003). "The advantages of segregation and the evolution of sex" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1462613). Genetics 164 (3): 1099–118. PMID 12871918. PMC 1462613. [85] Doncaster CP, Pound GE, Cox SJ (2000). "The ecological cost of sex". Nature 404 (6775): 281–5. doi:10.1038/35005078. PMID 10749210. [86] Butlin R (2002). "Evolution of sex: The costs and benefits of sex: new insights from old asexual lineages". Nat. Rev. Genet. 3 (4): 311–7. doi:10.1038/nrg749. PMID 11967555. [87] Salathé M, Kouyos RD, Bonhoeffer S (2008). "The state of affairs in the kingdom of the Red Queen". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 23 (8): 439–45. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.010. PMID 18597889. [88] Stoltzfus A (2006). "Mutationism and the dual causation of evolutionary change". Evol. Dev. 8 (3): 304–17. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00101.x. PMID 16686641. [89] O'Neil, Dennis (2008). "Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model" (http:/ / anthro. palomar. edu/ synthetic/ synth_2. htm). The synthetic theory of evolution: An introduction to modern evolutionary concepts and theories. Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. . Retrieved 2008-01-06. [90] Bright, Kerry (2006). "Causes of evolution" (http:/ / evoled. dbs. umt. edu/ lessons/ causes. htm#hardy). Teach Evolution and Make It Relevant. National Science Foundation. . Retrieved 2007-12-30. [91] Packer C, Gilbert DA, Pusey AE, O'Brieni SJ. (1991). "A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions". Nature 351: 562–65. doi:10.1038/351562a0. [92] Morjan C, Rieseberg L (2004). "How species evolve collectively: implications of gene flow and selection for the spread of advantageous alleles" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2600545). Mol. Ecol. 13 (6): 1341–56. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02164.x. PMID 15140081. PMC 2600545. [93] Su H, Qu L, He K, Zhang Z, Wang J, Chen Z, Gu H (2003). "The Great Wall of China: a physical barrier to gene flow?". Heredity 90 (3): 212–9. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800237. PMID 12634804. [94] Short RV (1975). "The contribution of the mule to scientific thought". J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. (23): 359–64. PMID 1107543. [95] Gross B, Rieseberg L (2005). "The ecological genetics of homoploid hybrid speciation" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2517139). J. Hered. 96 (3): 241–52. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi026. PMID 15618301. PMC 2517139. [96] Burke JM, Arnold ML (2001). "Genetics and the fitness of hybrids". Annu. Rev. Genet. 35: 31–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.085719. PMID 11700276. [97] Vrijenhoek RC (2006). "Polyploid hybrids: multiple origins of a treefrog species". Curr. Biol. 16 (7): R245. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.005. PMID 16581499. [98] Wendel J (2000). "Genome evolution in polyploids". Plant Mol. Biol. 42 (1): 225–49. doi:10.1023/A:1006392424384. PMID 10688139. [99] Sémon M, Wolfe KH (2007). "Consequences of genome duplication". Curr Opin Genet Dev 17 (6): 505–12. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.007. PMID 18006297. [100] Comai L (2005). "The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid". Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (11): 836–46. doi:10.1038/nrg1711. PMID 16304599. [101] Soltis P, Soltis D (2000). "The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=34383). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 (13): 7051–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.13.7051. PMID 10860970. PMC 34383. [102] Boucher Y, Douady CJ, Papke RT, Walsh DA, Boudreau ME, Nesbo CL, Case RJ, Doolittle WF (2003). "Lateral gene transfer and the origins of prokaryotic groups". Annu Rev Genet 37: 283–328. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.050503.084247. PMID 14616063. [103] Walsh T (2006). "Combinatorial genetic evolution of multiresistance". Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9 (5): 476–82. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2006.08.009. PMID 16942901. [104] Kondo N, Nikoh N, Ijichi N, Shimada M, Fukatsu T (2002). "Genome fragment of Wolbachia endosymbiont transferred to X chromosome of host insect" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=137875). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (22): 14280–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.222228199. PMID 12386340. PMC 137875. [105] Sprague G (1991). "Genetic exchange between kingdoms". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 1 (4): 530–3. doi:10.1016/S0959-437X(05)80203-5. PMID 1822285.


[106] Gladyshev EA, Meselson M, Arkhipova IR (2008). "Massive horizontal gene transfer in bdelloid rotifers". Science 320 (5880): 1210–3. doi:10.1126/science.1156407. PMID 18511688. [107] Baldo A, McClure M (1 September 1999). "Evolution and horizontal transfer of dUTPase-encoding genes in viruses and their hosts" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=104298). J. Virol. 73 (9): 7710–21. PMID 10438861. PMC 104298. [108] Poole A, Penny D (2007). "Evaluating hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes". Bioessays 29 (1): 74–84. doi:10.1002/bies.20516. PMID 17187354. [109] Whitlock M (1 June 2003). "Fixation probability and time in subdivided populations" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1462574). Genetics 164 (2): 767–79. PMID 12807795. PMC 1462574. [110] Ohta T (2002). "Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 252626899v1). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (25): 16134–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.252626899. PMID 12461171. PMC 138577. . [111] Hurst LD (2009). "Fundamental concepts in genetics: genetics and the understanding of selection". Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (2): 83–93. doi:10.1038/nrg2506. PMID 19119264. [112] Orr HA (2009). "Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2753274). Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (8): 531–9. doi:10.1038/nrg2603. PMID 19546856. PMC 2753274. [113] Haldane J (1959). "The theory of natural selection today". Nature 183 (4663): 710–3. doi:10.1038/183710a0. PMID 13644170. [114] Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 2408842). Evolution 37 (6): 1210–26. doi:10.2307/2408842. . [115] Goldberg, Emma E; Igić, B (2008). "On phylogenetic tests of irreversible evolution". Evolution 62 (11): 2727–2741. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00505.x. PMID 18764918. [116] Collin, Rachel; Miglietta, MP (2008). "Reversing opinions on Dollo's Law". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (11): 602–609. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.013. PMID 18814933. [117] Hoekstra H, Hoekstra J, Berrigan D, Vignieri S, Hoang A, Hill C, Beerli P, Kingsolver J (2001). "Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=55389). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (16): 9157–60. doi:10.1073/pnas.161281098. PMID 11470913. PMC 55389. [118] Felsenstein (1 November 1979). "Excursions along the Interface between Disruptive and Stabilizing Selection" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1214112). Genetics 93 (3): 773–95. PMID 17248980. PMC 1214112. [119] Andersson M, Simmons L (2006). "Sexual selection and mate choice". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 21 (6): 296–302. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015. PMID 16769428. [120] Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara J, Houston A (2002). "The sexual selection continuum" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1691039). Proc. Biol. Sci. 269 (1498): 1331–40. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2020. PMID 12079655. PMC 1691039. [121] Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions M, Smith M, Bentsen C, Bussière L (2004). "High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young". Nature 432 (7020): 1024–7. doi:10.1038/nature03084. PMID 15616562. [122] Odum, EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, third edition, Saunders New York [123] Gould SJ (1998). "Gulliver's further travels: the necessity and difficulty of a hierarchical theory of selection" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1692213). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 353 (1366): 307–14. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0211. PMID 9533127. PMC 1692213. [124] Mayr E (1997). "The objects of selection" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=33654). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94 (6): 2091–4. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.6.2091. PMID 9122151. PMC 33654. [125] Maynard Smith J (1998). "The units of selection". Novartis Found. Symp. 213: 203–11; discussion 211–7. PMID 9653725. [126] Hickey DA (1992). "Evolutionary dynamics of transposable elements in prokaryotes and eukaryotes". Genetica 86 (1–3): 269–74. doi:10.1007/BF00133725. PMID 1334911. [127] Gould SJ, Lloyd EA (1999). "Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalise the unit of Darwinism?" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=18385). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (21): 11904–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.21.11904. PMID 10518549. PMC 18385. [128] Lande R (1989). "Fisherian and Wrightian theories of speciation". Genome 31 (1): 221–7. PMID 2687093. [129] Otto S, Whitlock M (1 June 1997). "The probability of fixation in populations of changing size" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1208011). Genetics 146 (2): 723–33. PMID 9178020. PMC 1208011. [130] Charlesworth B (2009). "Fundamental concepts in genetics: Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation". Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (3): 195–205. doi:10.1038/nrg2526. PMID 19204717. [131] Protas, Meredith; Conrad, M; Gross, JB; Tabin, C; Borowsky, R (2007). "Regressive evolution in the Mexican cave tetra, Astyanax mexicanus" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2570642). Current Biology 17 (5): 452–454. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.051. PMID 17306543. PMC 2570642. [132] Mitchell-Olds, Thomas; Willis, JH; Goldstein, DB (2007). "Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits?". Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (11): 845–856. doi:10.1038/nrg2207. PMID 17943192. [133] Nei M (2005). "Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1513187). Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (12): 2318–42. doi:10.1093/molbev/msi242. PMID 16120807. PMC 1513187.


[134] Kimura M (1991). "The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence" (http:/ / www. jstage. jst. go. jp/ article/ jjg/ 66/ 4/ 66_367/ _article). Jpn. J. Genet. 66 (4): 367–86. doi:10.1266/jjg.66.367. PMID 1954033. . [135] Kimura M (1989). "The neutral theory of molecular evolution and the world view of the neutralists". Genome 31 (1): 24–31. PMID 2687096. [136] Kreitman M (1996). "The neutral theory is dead. Long live the neutral theory" (http:/ / www. cs. ucsb. edu/ ~ambuj/ Courses/ bioinformatics/ neutral-theory). Bioessays 18 (8): 678–83; discussion 683. doi:10.1002/bies.950180812. PMID 8760341. . [137] Leigh E.G. (Jr) (2007). "Neutral theory: a historical perspective.". Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20 (6): 2075–91. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01410.x. PMID 17956380. [138] Scott EC, Matzke NJ (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1876445). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMID 17494747. PMC 1876445. [139] Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (2001). "An introduction to microevolution: rate, pattern, process". Genetica 112–113: 1–8. doi:10.1023/A:1013368628607. PMID 11838760. [140] Leroi AM (2000). "The scale independence of evolution". Evol. Dev. 2 (2): 67–77. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00044.x. PMID 11258392. [141] Gould 2002, pp. 657–8 [142] Gould SJ (1994). "Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=44281). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91 (15): 6764–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6764. PMID 8041695. PMC 44281. [143] Jablonski, D. (2000). "Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolutionary biology and paleobiology". Paleobiology 26 (sp4): 15–52. doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2000)26[15:MAMSAH]2.0.CO;2. [144] Michael J. Dougherty. Is the human race evolving or devolving? (http:/ / www. sciam. com/ article. cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin) Scientific American July 20, 1998. [145] TalkOrigins Archive response to Creationist claims – Claim CB932: Evolution of degenerate forms (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CB/ CB932. html) [146] Carroll SB (2001). "Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity". Nature 409 (6823): 1102–9. doi:10.1038/35059227. PMID 11234024. [147] Whitman W, Coleman D, Wiebe W (1998). "Prokaryotes: the unseen majority" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=33863). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95 (12): 6578–83. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578. PMID 9618454. PMC 33863. [148] Schloss P, Handelsman J (2004). "Status of the microbial census" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=539005). Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68 (4): 686–91. doi:10.1128/MMBR.68.4.686-691.2004. PMID 15590780. PMC 539005. [149] Nealson K (1999). "Post-Viking microbiology: new approaches, new data, new insights". Orig Life Evol Biosph 29 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1023/A:1006515817767. PMID 11536899. [150] Buckling A, Craig Maclean R, Brockhurst MA, Colegrave N (2009). "The Beagle in a bottle". Nature 457 (7231): 824–9. doi:10.1038/nature07892. PMID 19212400. [151] Elena SF, Lenski RE (2003). "Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation". Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 (6): 457–69. doi:10.1038/nrg1088. PMID 12776215. [152] Williams, George C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton. "Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of pervasive importance in biology." p5 [153] Mayr, Ernst 1982. The growth of biological thought. Harvard. p483: "Adaptation... could no longer be considered a static condition, a product of a creative past, and became instead a continuing dynamic process." [154] The Oxford Dictionary of Science defines adaptation as "Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment". [155] Orr H (2005). "The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history". Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (2): 119–27. doi:10.1038/nrg1523. PMID 15716908. [156] Dobzhansky, T.; Hecht, MK; Steere, WC (1968). "On some fundamental concepts of evolutionary biology". Evolutionary biology volume 2 (1st ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. pp. 1–34. [157] Dobzhansky, T. (1970). Genetics of the evolutionary process. N.Y.: Columbia. pp. 4–6, 79–82, 84–87. ISBN 0231028377. [158] Dobzhansky, T. (1956). "Genetics of natural populations XXV. Genetic changes in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosphila persimilis in some locations in California" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 2406099). Evolution 10 (1): 82–92. doi:10.2307/2406099. . [159] Nakajima A, Sugimoto Y, Yoneyama H, Nakae T (2002). "High-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa due to interplay of the MexAB-OprM efflux pump and the DNA gyrase mutation" (http:/ / www. jstage. jst. go. jp/ article/ mandi/ 46/ 6/ 46_391/ _article/ -char/ en). Microbiol. Immunol. 46 (6): 391–5. PMID 12153116. . [160] Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE (2008). "Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2430337). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (23): 7899–906. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803151105. PMID 18524956. PMC 2430337. [161] Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S (1983). "Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers". Nature 306 (5939): 203–6. doi:10.1038/306203a0. PMID 6646204.


[162] Ohno S (1984). "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=345072). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 81 (8): 2421–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421. PMID 6585807. PMC 345072. [163] Copley SD (2000). "Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach". Trends Biochem. Sci. 25 (6): 261–5. doi:10.1016/S0968-0004(00)01562-0. PMID 10838562. [164] Crawford RL, Jung CM, Strap JL (2007). "The recent evolution of pentachlorophenol (PCP)-4-monooxygenase (PcpB) and associated pathways for bacterial degradation of PCP". Biodegradation 18 (5): 525–39. doi:10.1007/s10532-006-9090-6. PMID 17123025. [165] Colegrave N, Collins S (2008). "Experimental evolution: experimental evolution and evolvability" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ hdy/ journal/ v100/ n5/ full/ 6801095a. html). Heredity 100 (5): 464–70. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6801095. PMID 18212804. . [166] Kirschner M, Gerhart J (1998). "Evolvability" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=33871). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95 (15): 8420–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.15.8420. PMID 9671692. PMC 33871. [167] Bejder L, Hall BK (2002). "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss". Evol. Dev. 4 (6): 445–58. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x. PMID 12492145. [168] Young, Nathan M.; Hallgrímsson, B (2005). "Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure" (http:/ / www. bioone. org/ doi/ abs/ 10. 1554/ 05-233. 1). Evolution 59 (12): 2691–704. doi:10.1554/05-233.1. PMID 16526515. . Retrieved 2009-09-24. [169] Penny D, Poole A (1999). "The nature of the last universal common ancestor". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9 (6): 672–77. doi:10.1016/S0959-437X(99)00020-9. PMID 10607605. [170] Hall, Brian K (2003). "Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 78 (3): 409–433. doi:10.1017/S1464793102006097. PMID 14558591. [171] Shubin, Neil; Tabin, C; Carroll, S (2009). "Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty". Nature 457 (7231): 818–823. doi:10.1038/nature07891. PMID 19212399. [172] Fong D, Kane T, Culver D (1995). "Vestigialization and Loss of Nonfunctional Characters". Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26 (4): 249–68. doi:10.1146/ PMID 12733778. [173] Zhang Z, Gerstein M (2004). "Large-scale analysis of pseudogenes in the human genome". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 14 (4): 328–35. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2004.06.003. PMID 15261647. [174] Jeffery WR (2005). "Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish". J. Hered. 96 (3): 185–96. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi028. PMID 15653557. [175] Maxwell EE, Larsson HC (2007). "Osteology and myology of the wing of the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and its bearing on the evolution of vestigial structures". J. Morphol. 268 (5): 423–41. doi:10.1002/jmor.10527. PMID 17390336. [176] Silvestri AR, Singh I (2003). "The unresolved problem of the third molar: would people be better off without it?" (http:/ / jada. ada. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 134/ 4/ 450). Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 134 (4): 450–5. doi:10.1146/ PMID 12733778. . [177] Darwin, Charles. (1872) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals John Murray, London. [178] Peter Gray (2007). Psychology (fifth ed.). Worth Publishers. pp. 66. ISBN 0-7167-0617-2. [179] Behavior Development in Infants (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=OzL2Bgvf9Q0C& pg=PA122) by Evelyn Dewey, citing a study "Reflexes and other motor activities in newborn infants: a report of 125 cases as a preliminary study of infant behavior" published in the Bull. Neurol. Inst. New York, 1932, Vol. 2, pp. 1–56. [180] Jerry Coyne (2009). Why Evolution is True. Penguin Group. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-0-670-02053. [181] Anthony Stevens (1982). Archetype: A Natural History of the Self. Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 87. ISBN 0-7100-0980-1. [182] Gould 2002, pp. 1235–6 [183] Pallen, Mark J.; Matzke, NJ (2006-10). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella" (http:/ / home. planet. nl/ ~gkorthof/ pdf/ Pallen_Matzke. pdf). Nat Rev Micro 4 (10): 784–790. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493. PMID 16953248. . Retrieved 2009-09-18. [184] Clements, Abigail; Bursac, D; Gatsos, X; Perry, AJ; Civciristov, S; Celik, N; Likic, VA; Poggio, S et al. (2009). "The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ content/ 106/ 37/ 15791. long). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (37): 15791–15795. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106. PMID 19717453. PMC 2747197. . Retrieved 2009-09-18. [185] Piatigorsky J, Kantorow M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Tomarev SI (1994). "Recruitment of enzymes and stress proteins as lens crystallins". EXS 71: 241–50. PMID 8032155. [186] Wistow G (1993). "Lens crystallins: gene recruitment and evolutionary dynamism". Trends Biochem. Sci. 18 (8): 301–6. doi:10.1016/0968-0004(93)90041-K. PMID 8236445. [187] Hardin G (1960). "The competitive exclusion principle". Science 131: 1292–7. doi:10.1126/science.131.3409.1292. PMID 14399717. [188] Kocher TD (2004). "Adaptive evolution and explosive speciation: the cichlid fish model" (http:/ / hcgs. unh. edu/ staff/ kocher/ pdfs/ Kocher2004. pdf). Nat. Rev. Genet. 5 (4): 288–98. doi:10.1038/nrg1316. PMID 15131652. . [189] Johnson NA, Porter AH (2001). "Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology". Genetica 112–113: 45–58. doi:10.1023/A:1013371201773. PMID 11838782. [190] Baguñà J, Garcia-Fernàndez J (2003). "Evo-Devo: the long and winding road" (http:/ / www. ijdb. ehu. es/ web/ paper. php?doi=14756346). Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47 (7–8): 705–13. PMID 14756346. . *Love AC. (2003). "Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology" (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00000375/ 00/ LondonPaper. doc). Biology and Philosophy 18 (2): 309–345.


doi:10.1023/A:1023940220348. . [191] Allin EF (1975). "Evolution of the mammalian middle ear". J. Morphol. 147 (4): 403–37. doi:10.1002/jmor.1051470404. PMID 1202224. [192] Harris MP, Hasso SM, Ferguson MW, Fallon JF (2006). "The development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant". Curr. Biol. 16 (4): 371–7. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.12.047. PMID 16488870. [193] Carroll SB (2008). "Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of morphological evolution". Cell 134 (1): 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.030. PMID 18614008. [194] Wade MJ (2007). "The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities". Nat. Rev. Genet. 8 (3): 185–95. doi:10.1038/nrg2031. PMID 17279094. [195] Geffeney S, Brodie ED, Ruben PC, Brodie ED (2002). "Mechanisms of adaptation in a predator-prey arms race: TTX-resistant sodium channels". Science 297 (5585): 1336–9. doi:10.1126/science.1074310. PMID 12193784. *Brodie ED, Ridenhour BJ, Brodie ED (2002). "The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between garter snakes and newts". Evolution 56 (10): 2067–82. PMID 12449493. *Sean B. Carroll (December 21, 2009). "Remarkable Creatures – Clues to Toxins in Deadly Delicacies of the Animal Kingdom" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2009/ 12/ 22/ science/ 22creature. html?hpw). New York Times. . [196] Sachs J (2006). "Cooperation within and among species". J. Evol. Biol. 19 (5): 1415–8; discussion 1426–36. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01152.x. PMID 16910971. *Nowak M (2006). "Five rules for the evolution of cooperation". Science 314 (5805): 1560–3. doi:10.1126/science.1133755. PMID 17158317. [197] Paszkowski U (2006). "Mutualism and parasitism: the yin and yang of plant symbioses". Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 9 (4): 364–70. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.008. PMID 16713732. [198] Hause B, Fester T (2005). "Molecular and cell biology of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis". Planta 221 (2): 184–96. doi:10.1007/s00425-004-1436-x. PMID 15871030. [199] Reeve HK, Hölldobler B (2007). "The emergence of a superorganism through intergroup competition" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1887545). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104 (23): 9736–40. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703466104. PMID 17517608. PMC 1887545. [200] Axelrod R, Hamilton W (2005). "The evolution of cooperation". Science 211 (4489): 1390–6. doi:10.1126/science.7466396. PMID 7466396. [201] Wilson EO, Hölldobler B (2005). "Eusociality: origin and consequences" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1224642). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (38): 13367–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.0505858102. PMID 16157878. PMC 1224642. [202] Gavrilets S (2003). "Perspective: models of speciation: what have we learned in 40 years?". Evolution 57 (10): 2197–215. doi:10.1554/02-727. PMID 14628909. [203] Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.. [204] *Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea.. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 145–146. ISBN 0-520-23693-9. states "A key factor in Darwin's innovation was what Mayr (1964, 1982) calls 'population thinking' – the transition from seeing species as based on an ideal type to seeing it as a population of distinct individuals. .... Population thinking also represents a transition in 19th century scientific thought noted by John Theodore Merz (1896–1903): the emergence of the statistical mode of explanation designed to cover changes so complex that the behaviour of their individual components cannot be predicted. It is possible to see the rise of Darwinism as the creation of a statistical mode of explanation as opposed to the old Newtonian view of causation based on law (Depew and Weber 1995). We must balance the claim for a direct input from Darwin's social environment against the evidence for a growing awareness that, for science to tackle certain kinds of questions, a new type of explanation based on statistically modeled changes was needed." On p. 147, "Darwin wanted to create a theory based on natural law in the Newtonian tradition, but by the very nature of the problems he addressed he was forced to transform this program by introducing statistical and historical elements into his explanations." [205] De Queiroz K (December 2007). "Species concepts and species delimitation". Syst. Biol. 56 (6): 879–86. doi:10.1080/10635150701701083. PMID 18027281. [206] de Queiroz K (2005). "Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1131873). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (Suppl 1): 6600–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502030102. PMID 15851674. PMC 1131873. [207] Huelsenbeck, B.; Rannala (1997). "Phylogenetic methods come of age: Testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context" (http:/ / www. rannala. org/ reprints/ 1997/ Huelsenbeck1997c. pdf). Science 276: 227–232. doi:10.1126/science.276.5310.227. . [208] Felsenstein, J. (1983). "Parsimony in systematics: Biological and statistical issues" (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ stable/ 2096976). Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 313–333. . [209] Fraser C, Alm EJ, Polz MF, Spratt BG, Hanage WP (2009). "The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity". Science 323 (5915): 741–6. doi:10.1126/science.1159388. PMID 19197054. [210] Ereshefsky, M. (1992). "Eliminative pluralism." (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ stable/ 188136). Philosophy of Science 59 (4): 671–690. . [211] Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. [212] Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. *Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4.


doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238. *Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ faq-speciation. html). TalkOrigins Archive. . Retrieved 2008-12-26. *Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 2409766). Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766. . [213] Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D.J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2290806). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMID 18344323. PMC 2290806. [214] Losos, J.B. Warhelt, K.I. Schoener, T.W. (1997). "Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards". Nature 387 (6628): 70–3. doi:10.1038/387070a0. [215] Hoskin CJ, Higgle M, McDonald KR, Moritz C (2005). "Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation". Nature 437 (7063): 1353–356. doi:10.1038/nature04004. PMID 16251964. [216] Templeton AR (1 April 1980). "The theory of speciation via the founder principle" (http:/ / www. genetics. org/ cgi/ reprint/ 94/ 4/ 1011). Genetics 94 (4): 1011–38. PMID 6777243. PMC 1214177. . [217] Antonovics J (2006). "Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations X: long-term persistence of prereproductive isolation at a mine boundary" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ hdy/ journal/ v97/ n1/ full/ 6800835a. html). Heredity 97 (1): 33–7. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800835. PMID 16639420. . [218] Nosil P, Crespi B, Gries R, Gries G (2007). "Natural selection and divergence in mate preference during speciation". Genetica 129 (3): 309–27. doi:10.1007/s10709-006-0013-6. PMID 16900317. [219] Savolainen V, Anstett M-C, Lexer C, Hutton I, Clarkson JJ, Norup MV, Powell MP, Springate D, Salamin N, Baker WJr (2006). "Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island". Nature 441 (7090): 210–3. doi:10.1038/nature04566. PMID 16467788. *Barluenga M, Stölting KN, Salzburger W, Muschick M, Meyer A (2006). "Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish". Nature 439 (7077): 719–23. doi:10.1038/nature04325. PMID 16467837. [220] Gavrilets S (2006). "The Maynard Smith model of sympatric speciation". J. Theor. Biol. 239 (2): 172–82. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.041. PMID 16242727. [221] Wood TE, Takebayashi N, Barker MS, Mayrose I, Greenspoon PB, Rieseberg LH (2009). "The frequency of polyploid speciation in vascular plants" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2728988). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (33): 13875–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811575106. PMID 19667210. PMC 2728988. [222] Hegarty Mf, Hiscock SJ (2008). "Genomic clues to the evolutionary success of polyploid plants". Current Biology 18 (10): 435–44. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.043. PMID 18492478. [223] Jakobsson M, Hagenblad J, Tavaré S (2006). "A unique recent origin of the allotetraploid species Arabidopsis suecica: Evidence from nuclear DNA markers". Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 (6): 1217–31. doi:10.1093/molbev/msk006. PMID 16549398. [224] Säll T, Jakobsson M, Lind-Halldén C, Halldén C (2003). "Chloroplast DNA indicates a single origin of the allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica". J. Evol. Biol. 16 (5): 1019–29. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00554.x. PMID 14635917. [225] Bomblies K, Weigel D (2007). "Arabidopsis-a model genus for speciation". Curr Opin Genet Dev 17 (6): 500–4. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.006. PMID 18006296. [226] Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, 1972. "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (http:/ / www. blackwellpublishing. com/ ridley/ classictexts/ eldredge. asp) In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82–115. Reprinted in N. Eldredge Time frames. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 1985 [227] Gould SJ (1994). "Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=44281). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91 (15): 6764–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6764. PMID 8041695. PMC 44281. [228] Benton MJ (1995). "Diversification and extinction in the history of life". Science 268 (5207): 52–8. doi:10.1126/science.7701342. PMID 7701342. [229] Raup DM (1986). "Biological extinction in Earth history". Science 231: 1528–33. doi:10.1126/science.11542058. PMID 11542058. [230] Avise JC, Hubbell SP, Ayala FJ. (2008). "In the light of evolution II: Biodiversity and extinction" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ content/ 105/ suppl. 1/ 11453. full). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (Suppl 1): 11453–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802504105. PMID 18695213. PMC 2556414. . [231] Raup DM (1994). "The role of extinction in evolution" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=44280). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91 (15): 6758–63. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6758. PMID 8041694. PMC 44280. [232] Novacek MJ, Cleland EE (2001). "The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=33235). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (10): 5466–70. doi:10.1073/pnas.091093698. PMID 11344295. PMC 33235. [233] Pimm S, Raven P, Peterson A, Sekercioglu CH, Ehrlich PR (2006). "Human impacts on the rates of recent, present, and future bird extinctions" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1544153). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 (29): 10941–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604181103. PMID 16829570. PMC 1544153. *Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB (2004). "Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents". Science 306 (5693): 70–5. doi:10.1126/science.1101476. PMID 15459379.


[234] Lewis OT (2006). "Climate change, species-area curves and the extinction crisis" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1831839). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 361 (1465): 163–71. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1712. PMID 16553315. PMC 1831839. [235] Jablonski D (2001). "Lessons from the past: evolutionary impacts of mass extinctions" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=33224). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (10): 5393–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.101092598. PMID 11344284. PMC 33224. [236] Isaak, Mark (2005). "Claim CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CB/ CB090. html). TalkOrigins Archive. . Retrieved 2008-12-26. [237] Peretó J (2005). "Controversies on the origin of life" (http:/ / www. im. microbios. org/ 0801/ 0801023. pdf). Int. Microbiol. 8 (1): 23–31. PMID 15906258. . [238] Luisi PL, Ferri F, Stano P (2006). "Approaches to semi-synthetic minimal cells: a review". Naturwissenschaften 93 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1007/s00114-005-0056-z. PMID 16292523. [239] Trevors JT, Abel DL (2004). "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life". Cell Biol. Int. 28 (11): 729–39. doi:10.1016/j.cellbi.2004.06.006. PMID 15563395.Forterre P, Benachenhou-Lahfa N, Confalonieri F, Duguet M, Elie C, Labedan B (1992). "The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions". BioSystems 28 (1–3): 15–32. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(92)90004-I. PMID 1337989. [240] Joyce GF (2002). "The antiquity of RNA-based evolution". Nature 418 (6894): 214–21. doi:10.1038/418214a. PMID 12110897. [241] Trevors JT, Psenner R (2001). "From self-assembly of life to present-day bacteria: a possible role for nanocells". FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 25 (5): 573–82. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00592.x. PMID 11742692. [242] Theobald, DL. (2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry". Nature 465 (7295): 219–22. doi:10.1038/nature09014. PMID 20463738. [243] Bapteste E, Walsh DA (2005). "Does the 'Ring of Life' ring true?". Trends Microbiol. 13 (6): 256–61. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2005.03.012. PMID 15936656. [244] Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=16) (1st ed.). London: John Murray. p. 1. ISBN 0801413192. . [245] Doolittle WF, Bapteste E (2007). "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1892968). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (7): 2043–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610699104. PMID 17261804. PMC 1892968. [246] Kunin V, Goldovsky L, Darzentas N, Ouzounis CA (2005). "The net of life: reconstructing the microbial phylogenetic network" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1172039). Genome Res. 15 (7): 954–9. doi:10.1101/gr.3666505. PMID 15965028. PMC 1172039. [247] Jablonski D (1999). "The future of the fossil record". Science 284 (5423): 2114–16. doi:10.1126/science.284.5423.2114. PMID 10381868. [248] Mason SF (1984). "Origins of biomolecular handedness". Nature 311 (5981): 19–23. doi:10.1038/311019a0. PMID 6472461. [249] Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Grishin NV, Koonin EV (2002). "Genome trees and the tree of life". Trends Genet. 18 (9): 472–79. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02744-0. PMID 12175808. [250] Varki A, Altheide TK (2005). "Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a haystack". Genome Res. 15 (12): 1746–58. doi:10.1101/gr.3737405. PMID 16339373. [251] Cavalier-Smith T (2006). "Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1578732). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 969–1006. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1842. PMID 16754610. PMC 1578732. [252] Schopf J (2006). "Fossil evidence of Archaean life" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1578735). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 869–85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1834. PMID 16754604. PMC 1578735. *Altermann W, Kazmierczak J (2003). "Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth". Res Microbiol 154 (9): 611–17. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2003.08.006. PMID 14596897. [253] Schopf J (1994). "Disparate rates, differing fates: tempo and mode of evolution changed from the Precambrian to the Phanerozoic" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=44277). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91 (15): 6735–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6735. PMID 8041691. PMC 44277. [254] Dyall S, Brown M, Johnson P (2004). "Ancient invasions: from endosymbionts to organelles". Science 304 (5668): 253–57. doi:10.1126/science.1094884. PMID 15073369. [255] Martin W (2005). "The missing link between hydrogenosomes and mitochondria". Trends Microbiol. 13 (10): 457–59. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2005.08.005. PMID 16109488. [256] Lang B, Gray M, Burger G (1999). "Mitochondrial genome evolution and the origin of eukaryotes". Annu Rev Genet 33: 351–97. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.351. PMID 10690412. *McFadden G (1999). "Endosymbiosis and evolution of the plant cell". Curr Opin Plant Biol 2 (6): 513–19. doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00025-4. PMID 10607659. [257] DeLong E, Pace N (2001). "Environmental diversity of bacteria and archaea". Syst Biol 50 (4): 470–8. doi:10.1080/106351501750435040. PMID 12116647. [258] Kaiser D (2001). "Building a multicellular organism". Annu. Rev. Genet. 35: 103–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090145. PMID 11700279.


[259] Valentine JW, Jablonski D, Erwin DH (1 March 1999). "Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion" (http:/ / dev. biologists. org/ cgi/ reprint/ 126/ 5/ 851). Development 126 (5): 851–9. PMID 9927587. . [260] Ohno S (1997). "The reason for as well as the consequence of the Cambrian explosion in animal evolution". J. Mol. Evol. 44 Suppl 1: S23–7. doi:10.1007/PL00000055. PMID 9071008. *Valentine J, Jablonski D (2003). "Morphological and developmental macroevolution: a paleontological perspective" (http:/ / www. ijdb. ehu. es/ web/ paper. php?doi=14756327). Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47 (7–8): 517–22. PMID 14756327. . [261] Waters ER (2003). "Molecular adaptation and the origin of land plants". Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29 (3): 456–63. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.018. PMID 14615186. [262] Mayhew PJ (2007). "Why are there so many insect species? Perspectives from fossils and phylogenies". Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 82 (3): 425–54. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00018.x. PMID 17624962. [263] Bull JJ, Wichman HA (2001). "Applied evolution". Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32: 183–217. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114020. [264] Doebley JF, Gaut BS, Smith BD (2006). "The molecular genetics of crop domestication". Cell 127 (7): 1309–21. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006. PMID 17190597. [265] Jäckel C, Kast P, Hilvert D (2008). "Protein design by directed evolution". Annu Rev Biophys 37: 153–73. doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125832. PMID 18573077. [266] Maher B. (2009). "Evolution: Biology's next top model?". Nature 458 (7239): 695–8. doi:10.1038/458695a. PMID 19360058. [267] Borowsky R (2008). "Restoring sight in blind cavefish". Curr. Biol. 18 (1): R23–4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.023. PMID 18177707. [268] Gross JB, Borowsky R, Tabin CJ (2009). "A novel role for Mc1r in the parallel evolution of depigmentation in independent populations of the cavefish Astyanax mexicanus" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=2603666). PLoS Genet. 5 (1): e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000326. PMID 19119422. PMC 2603666. [269] Yergeau DA, Cornell CN, Parker SK, Zhou Y, Detrich HW (2005). "bloodthirsty, an RBCC/TRIM gene required for erythropoiesis in zebrafish". Dev. Biol. 283 (1): 97–112. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.04.006. PMID 15890331. [270] Fraser AS (1958). "Monte Carlo analyses of genetic models". Nature 181 (4603): 208–9. doi:10.1038/181208a0. PMID 13504138. [271] Rechenberg, Ingo (1973) (in German). Evolutionsstrategie – Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution (PhD thesis). Fromman-Holzboog. [272] Holland, John H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0262581116. [273] Koza, John R. (1992). Genetic Programming. MIT Press. ISBN 0262111705. [274] Jamshidi M (2003). "Tools for intelligent control: fuzzy controllers, neural networks and genetic algorithms". Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 361 (1809): 1781–808. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1225. PMID 12952685. [275] Browne, Janet (2003). Charles Darwin: The Power of Place. London: Pimlico. pp. 376–379. ISBN 0-7126-6837-3. [276] For an overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies, see: Dennett, D (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0684824710. *For the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: Johnston, Ian C.. "History of Science: Origins of Evolutionary Theory" (http:/ / records. viu. ca/ ~johnstoi/ darwin/ sect3. htm). And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. . Retrieved 2007-05-24. *Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936. *Zuckerkandl E (2006). "Intelligent design and biological complexity". Gene 385: 2–18. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.025. PMID 17011142. [277] Ross, M.R. (2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (http:/ / www. nagt. org/ files/ nagt/ jge/ abstracts/ Ross_v53n3p319. pdf). Journal of Geoscience Education 53 (3): 319. . Retrieved 2008-04-28. [278] Hameed, Salman (2008-12-12). "Science and Religion: Bracing for Islamic Creationism" (http:/ / helios. hampshire. edu/ ~sahCS/ Hameed-Science-Creationism. pdf). Science 322 (5908): 1637–1638. doi:10.1126/science.1163672. PMID 19074331. . Retrieved 2009. [279] Spergel D. N.; Scott, EC; Okamoto, S (2006). "Science communication. Public acceptance of evolution". Science 313 (5788): 765–66. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. [280] Spergel, D. N.; Verde, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Komatsu, E.; Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw, G. et al. (2003). "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148: 175–94. doi:10.1086/377226. [281] Wilde SA, Valley JW, Peck WH, Graham CM (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago". Nature 409 (6817): 175–78. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637. [282] Understanding Creationism after Kitzmiller (http:/ / www. bioone. org/ doi/ full/ 10. 1641/ B570313) 2007 [283] On the history of eugenics and evolution, see Kevles, D (1998). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674445574. [284] Darwin strongly disagreed with attempts by Herbert Spencer and others to extrapolate evolutionary ideas to all possible subjects; see Midgley, M (2004). The Myths we Live By. Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 978-0415340779. [285] Allhoff F (2003). "Evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore". History and philosophy of the life sciences 25 (1): 51–79. doi:10.1080/03919710312331272945. PMID 15293515. [286] Gowaty, Patricia Adair (1997). Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. London: Chapman & Hall. ISBN 0-412-07361-7.




Further reading
Introductory reading • Carroll, S. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-06016-0. • Charlesworth, C.B. and Charlesworth, D. (2003). Evolution. Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-192-80251-8. • Dawkins, R. (2006). The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199291152. • Gould, S.J. (1989). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30700-X. • Jones, S. (2001). Almost Like a Whale: The Origin of Species Updated. (American title: Darwin's Ghost). New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-42277-5. • Mader, Sylvia S. (2007). Biology. Murray P. Pendarvis (9th ed.). McGraw Hill. ISBN 9780073258393. • Maynard Smith, J. (1993). The Theory of Evolution: Canto Edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-45128-0. • Pallen, M.J. (2009). The Rough Guide to Evolution. Rough Guides. ISBN 978-1-85828-946-5. • Smith, C.B. and Sullivan, C. (2007). The Top 10 Myths about Evolution. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-479-8. History of evolutionary thought • Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species ( frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1) (1st ed.). London: John Murray. ISBN 0801413192. • Larson, E.J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0-679-64288-9. • Zimmer, C. (2001). Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-060-19906-7. Advanced reading • Barton, N.H., Briggs, D.E.G., Eisen, J.A., Goldstein, D.B. and Patel, N.H. (2007). Evolution. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. ISBN 0-879-69684-2. • Coyne, J.A. and Orr, H.A. (2004). Speciation. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-878-93089-2. • Futuyma, D.J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-878-93187-2. • Gould, S.J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press (Harvard University Press). ISBN 0-674-00613-5. • Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. (1997). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-198-50294-X. • Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04426-3. • Olson, Wendy; Hall, Brian Keith (2003). Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02240-8.



External links
General information • Evolution ( on In Our Time at the BBC. ( listen now (http:// • Everything you wanted to know about evolution by New Scientist ( evolution) • — How Evolution Works ( • National Academies Evolution Resources ( • Synthetic Theory Of Evolution: An Introduction to Modern Evolutionary Concepts and Theories (http://anthro. • Understanding Evolution from University of California, Berkeley ( • Evolution of Evolution – 150 Years of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" ( special_reports/darwin/textonly/index.jsp) History of evolutionary thought • The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online ( • Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implications ( articles/understanding_evolution.htm) On-line lectures • What Genomes Can Tell Us About the Past ( – lecture by Sydney Brenner • The Origin of Vertebrates ( – lecture by Marc Kirschner • The Making of the Fittest ( – lecture by Sean B. Carroll

Natural selection


Natural selection
Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colours in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize populations for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass. Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Darwin in his influential 1859 book On the Origin of Species,[1] in which natural selection was described as analogous to artificial selection, a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of heredity; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution.

General principles
Natural variation occurs among the individuals of any population of organisms. Many of these differences do not affect survival (such as differences in eye color in humans), but some differences may improve the chances of survival of a particular individual. A rabbit that runs faster than others may be more likely to escape from predators, and algae that are more efficient at extracting energy from sunlight will grow faster. Something that increases an animal's survival will often also include its reproductive rate; however, sometimes there is a trade-off between survival and current reproduction. Ultimately, what matters is total lifetime reproduction of the animal. If the traits that give these individuals a reproductive advantage are Darwin's illustrations of beak variation in the also heritable, that is, passed from parent to child, then there will be a finches of the Galápagos Islands, which hold 13 closely related species that differ most markedly slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next in the shape of their beaks. The beak of each generation. This is known as differential reproduction. Even if the species is suited to its preferred food, suggesting reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any that beak shapes evolved by natural selection. heritable advantage will become dominant in the population. In this way the natural environment of an organism "selects" for traits that confer a reproductive advantage, causing gradual changes or evolution of life. This effect was first described and named by Charles Darwin.

Natural selection The concept of natural selection predates the understanding of genetics, the mechanism of heredity for all known life forms. In modern terms, selection acts on an organism's phenotype, or observable characteristics, but it is the organism's genetic make-up or genotype that is inherited. The phenotype is the result of the genotype and the environment in which the organism lives (see Genotype-phenotype distinction). This is the link between natural selection and genetics, as described in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Although a complete theory of evolution also requires an account of how genetic variation arises in the first place (such as by mutation and sexual reproduction) and includes other evolutionary mechanisms (such as genetic drift and gene flow), natural selection appears to be the most important mechanism for creating complex adaptations in nature.


Nomenclature and usage
The term natural selection has slightly different definitions in different contexts. It is most often defined to operate on heritable traits, because these are the traits that directly participate in evolution. However, natural selection is "blind" in the sense that changes in phenotype (physical and behavioral characteristics) can give a reproductive advantage regardless of whether or not the trait is heritable (non heritable traits can be the result of environmental factors or the life experience of the organism). Following Darwin's primary usage[1] the term is often used to refer to both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its mechanisms.[2] [3] It is sometimes helpful to explicitly distinguish between selection's mechanisms and its effects; when this distinction is important, scientists define "natural selection" specifically as "those mechanisms that contribute to the selection of individuals that reproduce", without regard to whether the basis of the selection is heritable. This is sometimes referred to as "phenotypic natural selection".[4] Traits that cause greater reproductive success of an organism are said to be selected for, whereas those that reduce success are selected against. Selection for a trait may also result in the selection of other correlated traits that do not themselves directly influence reproductive advantage. This may occur as a result of pleiotropy or gene linkage.[5]

The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. Broadly, individuals which are more "fit" have better potential for survival, as in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest". However, as with natural selection above, the precise meaning of the term is much more subtle, and Richard Dawkins manages in his later books to avoid it entirely. (He devotes a chapter of his book, The Extended Phenotype, to discussing the various senses in which the term is used). Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation. Though natural selection acts on individuals, the effects of chance mean that fitness can only really be defined "on average" for the individuals within a population. The fitness of a particular genotype corresponds to the average effect on all individuals with that genotype. Very low-fitness genotypes cause their bearers to have few or no offspring on average; examples include many human genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis. Since fitness is an averaged quantity, it is also possible that a favorable mutation arises in an individual that does not survive to adulthood for unrelated reasons. Fitness also depends crucially upon the environment. Conditions like sickle-cell anemia may have low fitness in the general human population, but because the sickle-cell trait confers immunity from malaria, it has high fitness value in populations which have high malaria infection rates.

Natural selection


Types of selection
Natural selection can act on any heritable phenotypic trait, and selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including sexual selection and competition with members of the same or other species. However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants. The unit of selection can be the individual or it can be another level within the hierarchy of biological organisation, such as genes, cells, and kin groups. There is still debate about whether natural selection acts at the level of groups or species to produce adaptations that benefit a larger, non-kin group. Selection at a different level such as the gene can result in an increase in fitness for that gene, while at the same time reducing the fitness of the individuals carrying that gene, in a process called intragenomic conflict. Overall, the combined effect of all selection pressures at various levels determines the overall fitness of an individual, and hence the outcome of natural selection. Natural selection occurs at every life stage of an individual. An individual organism must survive until adulthood before it can reproduce, and selection of those that reach this stage is called viability selection. In many species, adults must compete with each other for mates via sexual selection, and success in this competition determines who will parent the next generation. When individuals can reproduce more than once, a longer survival in the reproductive phase increases the number of offspring, called survival selection. The fecundity of both females and males (for example, giant sperm in certain species of Drosophila)[7] can be limited via "fecundity selection". The viability of produced gametes can differ, while intragenomic conflicts such as meiotic drive between the haploid gametes can result in gametic or "genic selection". Finally, the union of some combinations of eggs and sperm might be more compatible than others; this is termed compatibility selection.

The life cycle of a sexually reproducing organism. Various components of natural [6] selection are indicated for each life stage.

Sexual selection
It is useful to distinguish between "ecological selection" and "sexual selection". Ecological selection covers any mechanism of selection as a result of the environment (including relatives, e.g. kin selection, competition, and infanticide), while "sexual selection" refers specifically to competition for mates.[8] Sexual selection can be intrasexual, as in cases of competition among individuals of the same sex in a population, or intersexual, as in cases where one sex controls reproductive access by choosing among a population of available mates. Most commonly, intrasexual selection involves male–male competition and intersexual selection involves female choice of suitable males, due to the generally greater investment of resources for a female than a male in a single offspring. However, some species exhibit sex-role reversed behavior in which it is males that are most selective in mate choice; the best-known examples of this pattern occur in some fishes of the family Syngnathidae, though likely examples have also been found in amphibian and bird species.[9] Some features that are confined to one sex only of a particular species can be explained by selection exercised by the other sex in the choice of a mate, for example, the extravagant plumage of some male birds. Similarly, aggression between members of the same sex is sometimes associated with very distinctive features, such as the antlers of stags, which are used in combat with other stags. More generally, intrasexual selection is often associated with sexual dimorphism, including differences in body size between males and females of a species.[10]

Natural selection


Examples of natural selection
A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms. Since the discovery of penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Fleming, antibiotics have been used to fight bacterial diseases. Natural populations of bacteria contain, among their vast numbers of individual members, considerable variation in their genetic material, primarily as the result of mutations. When exposed to antibiotics, most bacteria die quickly, but some may have mutations that make them slightly less susceptible. If the exposure to antibiotics is short, these individuals will survive the treatment. This selective elimination of maladapted individuals from a population is natural selection. These surviving bacteria will then reproduce again, producing the next generation. Due to the elimination of the maladapted individuals in the past generation, this population contains more bacteria that have some resistance against the antibiotic. At the same time, new mutations occur, contributing new genetic variation to the existing genetic variation. Spontaneous mutations are very rare, and advantageous mutations are even rarer. However, populations of bacteria are large enough that a few individuals will have beneficial mutations. If a new mutation reduces their susceptibility to an antibiotic, these individuals are more likely to survive when next confronted with that antibiotic.

Given enough time, and repeated exposure to the antibiotic, a population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria will emerge. This new changed population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is optimally adapted to the context it evolved in. At the same time, it is not necessarily optimally adapted any more to the old antibiotic free environment. The end result of natural selection is two populations that are both optimally adapted to their specific environment, while both perform substandard in the other environment. The widespread use and misuse of antibiotics has resulted in increased microbial resistance to antibiotics in clinical use, to the point that the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been described as a "superbug" because of the threat it poses to health and its relative invulnerability to existing drugs.[11] Response strategies typically include the use of different, stronger antibiotics; however, new strains of MRSA have recently emerged that are resistant even to these drugs.[12] This is an example of what is known as an evolutionary arms race, in which bacteria continue to develop strains that are less susceptible to antibiotics, while medical researchers continue to develop new antibiotics that can kill them. A similar situation occurs with pesticide resistance in plants and insects. Arms races are not necessarily induced by man; a well-documented example involves the spread of a gene in the butterfly Hypolimnas bolina suppressing male-killing activity by Wolbachia bacteria parasites on the island of Samoa, where the spread of the gene is known to have occurred over a period of just five years [13]

Resistance to antibiotics is increased though the survival of individuals which are immune to the effects of the antibiotic, whose offspring then inherit the resistance, creating a new population of resistant bacteria.

Evolution by means of natural selection
A prerequisite for natural selection to result in adaptive evolution, novel traits and speciation, is the presence of heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences. Genetic variation is the result of mutations, recombinations and alterations in the karyotype (the number, shape, size and internal arrangement of the chromosomes). Any of these changes might have an effect that is highly advantageous or highly disadvantageous, but large effects are very rare. In the past, most changes in the genetic material were considered neutral or close to neutral because they occurred in noncoding DNA or resulted in a synonymous substitution. However, recent research suggests that many mutations in non-coding DNA do have slight deleterious effects.[14] [15] Although both mutation

Natural selection rates and average fitness effects of mutations are dependent on the organism, estimates from data in humans have found that a majority of mutations are slightly deleterious.[16] By the definition of fitness, individuals with greater fitness are more likely to contribute offspring to the next generation, while individuals with lesser fitness are more likely to die early or fail to reproduce. As a result, alleles which on average result in greater fitness become more abundant in the next generation, while alleles which generally reduce fitness become rarer. If the selection forces remain the same for many generations, beneficial alleles become more and more abundant, until they dominate the population, while alleles with a lesser fitness disappear. In every generation, new mutations and re-combinations arise spontaneously, producing a new spectrum of phenotypes. Therefore, each new generation will be enriched by the increasing abundance of alleles that contribute to those traits that were favored by selection, enhancing these traits over successive generations.


Some mutations occur in so-called regulatory genes. Changes in these can have large effects on the phenotype of the individual because they regulate the function of many other genes. Most, but not all, mutations in regulatory genes result in non-viable zygotes. Examples of nonlethal regulatory mutations occur in HOX genes in humans, which can result in a cervical rib[17] or polydactyly, an increase in the number of fingers or toes.[18] When such mutations result in a higher fitness, natural selection will favor these phenotypes and the novel trait will spread in the population. Established traits are not immutable; traits that have high fitness in one environmental context may be much less fit if environmental conditions change. In the absence of natural selection to preserve such a trait, it will become more variable and deteriorate over time, possibly resulting in a vestigial manifestation of the trait, also called evolutionary baggage. In many circumstances, the apparently vestigial structure may retain a limited functionality, or may be co-opted for other advantageous traits in a phenomenon known as preadaptation. A famous example of a vestigial structure, the eye of the blind mole rat, is believed to retain function in photoperiod perception.[19]

The exuberant tail of the peacock is thought to be the result of sexual selection by females. This peacock is an albino; selection against albinos in nature is intense because they are easily spotted by predators or are unsuccessful in competition for mates.


Speciation requires selective mating, which result in a reduced gene flow. Selective mating can be the result of 1. Geographic isolation, 2. Behavioral isolation, or 3. Temporal isolation. For example, a change in the physical environment (geographic isolation by an extrinsic barrier) would follow number 1, a change in camouflage for number 2 or a shift in mating times (i.e., one species of deer shifts location and therefore changes its "rut") for number 3. Over time, these subgroups might diverge radically to become different species, either because of differences in selection pressures on the different subgroups, or because different mutations arise spontaneously in the different populations, or because of founder effects – some potentially beneficial alleles may, by chance, be present in only one or other of two subgroups when they first become separated. A lesser-known mechanism of speciation occurs via hybridization, well-documented in plants and occasionally observed in species-rich groups of animals such as cichlid fishes.[20] Such mechanisms of rapid speciation can reflect a mechanism of evolutionary change known as punctuated equilibrium, which suggests that evolutionary change and particularly speciation typically happens quickly after interrupting long periods of stasis.

X-ray of the left hand of a ten year old boy with polydactyly.

Natural selection Genetic changes within groups result in increasing incompatibility between the genomes of the two subgroups, thus reducing gene flow between the groups. Gene flow will effectively cease when the distinctive mutations characterizing each subgroup become fixed. As few as two mutations can result in speciation: if each mutation has a neutral or positive effect on fitness when they occur separately, but a negative effect when they occur together, then fixation of these genes in the respective subgroups will lead to two reproductively isolated populations. According to the biological species concept, these will be two different species.


Historical development
Pre-Darwinian theories
Several ancient philosophers expressed the idea that nature produces a huge variety of creatures, apparently randomly, and that only those creatures survive that manage to provide for themselves and reproduce successfully; well-known examples include Empedocles[21] and his intellectual successor, Lucretius,[22] while related ideas were later refined by Aristotle.[23] The struggle for existence was later described by Al-Jahiz, who argued that environmental factors influence animals to develop new characteristics to ensure survival.[24] [25] [26] Abu Rayhan Biruni described the idea of artificial selection and argued that nature works in much the same way.[27] Similar ideas were later expressed by Nasir al-Din Tusi[28] and Ibn Khaldun.[29] [30] Such classical arguments were reintroduced in the 18th century by Pierre Louis Maupertuis[31] and others, including Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. While these forerunners had an influence on Darwinism, they later had little influence on the trajectory of evolutionary thought after Charles Darwin.

The modern theory of natural selection derives from the work of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century.

Until the early 19th century, the prevailing view in Western societies was that differences between individuals of a species were uninteresting departures from their Platonic idealism (or typus) of created kinds. However, the theory of uniformitarianism in geology promoted the idea that simple, weak forces could act continuously over long periods of time to produce radical changes in the Earth's landscape. The success of this theory raised awareness of the vast scale of geological time and made plausible the idea that tiny, virtually imperceptible changes in successive generations could produce consequences on the scale of differences between species. Early 19th century evolutionists such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck suggested the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a mechanism for evolutionary change; adaptive traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be inherited by that organism's progeny, eventually causing transmutation of species.[32] This theory has come to be known as Lamarckism and was an influence on the anti-genetic ideas of the Stalinist Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko.[33]

Darwin's theory
In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved".[34] The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. As long as there is some variation between them, there will be an inevitable selection of individuals with the most advantageous variations. If the variations are inherited, then differential reproductive success will lead to a progressive evolution of particular populations of a species, and populations that evolve to be

Natural selection sufficiently different eventually become different species.[35] Darwin's ideas were inspired by the observations that he had made on the Beagle voyage, and by the work of a political economist, the Reverend Thomas Malthus, who in An Essay on the Principle of Population, noted that population (if unchecked) increases exponentially whereas the food supply grows only arithmetically; thus inevitable limitations of resources would have demographic implications, leading to a "struggle for existence".[36] When Darwin read Malthus in 1838 he was already primed by his work as a naturalist to appreciate the "struggle for existence" in nature and it struck him that as population outgrew resources, "favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species."[37] Here is Darwin's own summary of the idea, which can be found in the fourth chapter of the Origin: If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection. Once he had his theory "by which to work", Darwin was meticulous about gathering and refining evidence as his "prime hobby" before making his idea public. He was in the process of writing his "big book" to present his researches when the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace independently conceived of the principle and described it in an essay he sent to Darwin to forward to Charles Lyell. Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided (without Wallace's knowledge) to present his essay together with unpublished writings which Darwin had sent to fellow naturalists, and On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection was read to the Linnean Society announcing co-discovery of the principle in July 1858.[38] Darwin published a detailed account of his evidence and conclusions in On the Origin of Species in 1859. In the 3rd edition of 1861 Darwin acknowledged that others — notably William Charles Wells in 1813, and Patrick Matthew in 1831 — had proposed similar ideas, but had neither developed them nor presented them in notable scientific publications.[39] Darwin thought of natural selection by analogy to how farmers select crops or livestock for breeding, which he called "artificial selection"; in his early manuscripts he referred to a 'Nature' which would do the selection. At the time, other mechanisms of evolution such as evolution by genetic drift were not yet explicitly formulated, and Darwin believed that selection was likely only part of the story: "I am convinced that [it] has been the main, but not exclusive means of modification."[40] In a letter to Charles Lyell in September 1860, Darwin regretted the use of the term "Natural Selection", preferring the term "Natural Preservation".[41] For Darwin and his contemporaries, natural selection was essentially synonymous with evolution by natural selection. After the publication of On the Origin of Species, educated people generally accepted that evolution had occurred in some form. However, natural selection remained controversial as a mechanism, partly because it was perceived to be too weak to explain the range of observed characteristics of living organisms, and partly because even supporters of evolution balked at its "unguided" and non-progressive nature,[42] a response that has been characterized as the single most significant impediment to the idea's acceptance.[43] However, some thinkers enthusiastically embraced natural selection; after reading Darwin, Herbert Spencer introduced the term survival of the fittest, which became a popular summary of the theory.[44] The fifth edition of On the Origin of Species published in 1869 included Spencer's phrase as an alternative to natural selection, with credit


Natural selection given: "But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[45] Although the phrase is still often used by non-biologists, modern biologists avoid it because it is tautological if "fittest" is read to mean "functionally superior" and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged quantity over populations.[46]


Modern evolutionary synthesis
Natural selection relies crucially on the idea of heredity, but it was developed long before the basic concepts of genetics. Although the Czech/Austrian monk Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a contemporary of Darwin's, his work would lie in obscurity until the early 20th century. Only after the integration of Darwin's theory of evolution with a complex statistical appreciation of Gregor Mendel's 're-discovered' laws of inheritance did natural selection become generally accepted by scientists. The work of Ronald Fisher (who developed the required mathematical language and The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection),[2] J.B.S. Haldane (who introduced the concept of the "cost" of natural selection),[47] Sewall Wright (who elucidated the nature of selection and adaptation),[48] Theodosius Dobzhansky (who established the idea that mutation, by creating genetic diversity, supplied the raw material for natural selection: see Genetics and the Origin of Species),[49] William Hamilton (who conceived of kin selection), Ernst Mayr (who recognised the key importance of reproductive isolation for speciation: see Systematics and the Origin of Species)[50] and many others formed the modern evolutionary synthesis. This synthesis cemented natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary theory, where it remains today.

Impact of the idea
Darwin's ideas, along with those of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, had a profound influence on 19th century thought. Perhaps the most radical claim of the theory of evolution through natural selection is that "elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner" evolved from the simplest forms of life by a few simple principles. This claim inspired some of Darwin's most ardent supporters—and provoked the most profound opposition. The radicalism of natural selection, according to Stephen Jay Gould,[51] lay in its power to "dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought". In particular, it challenged long-standing beliefs in such concepts as a special and exalted place for humans in the natural world and a benevolent creator whose intentions were reflected in nature's order and design.

Cell and molecular biology
In the 19th century, Wilhelm Roux, a founder of modern embryology, wrote a book entitled « Der Kampf der Teile im Organismus » (The struggle of parts in the organism) in which he suggested that the development of an organism results from a Darwinian competition between the parts of the embryo, occurring at all levels, from molecules to organs. In recent years, a modern version of this theory has been proposed by Jean-Jacques Kupiec. According to this cellular Darwinism [52], stochasticity at the molecular level generates diversity in cell types whereas cell interactions impose a characteristic order on the developing embryo.

Social and psychological theory
The social implications of the theory of evolution by natural selection also became the source of continuing controversy. Friedrich Engels, a German political philosopher and co-originator of the ideology of communism, wrote in 1872 that "Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom".[53] Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily 'progressive', leading to increasing 'advances' in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. Konrad Lorenz won the

Natural selection Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his analysis of animal behavior in terms of the role of natural selection (particularly group selection). However, in Germany in 1940, in writings that he subsequently disowned, he used the theory as a justification for policies of the Nazi state. He wrote "... selection for toughness, heroism, and social utility...must be accomplished by some human institution, if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect."[54] Others have developed ideas that human societies and culture evolve by mechanisms that are analogous to those that apply to evolution of species.[55] More recently, work among anthropologists and psychologists has led to the development of sociobiology and later evolutionary psychology, a field that attempts to explain features of human psychology in terms of adaptation to the ancestral environment. The most prominent such example, notably advanced in the early work of Noam Chomsky and later by Steven Pinker, is the hypothesis that the human brain is adapted to acquire the grammatical rules of natural language.[56] Other aspects of human behavior and social structures, from specific cultural norms such as incest avoidance to broader patterns such as gender roles, have been hypothesized to have similar origins as adaptations to the early environment in which modern humans evolved. By analogy to the action of natural selection on genes, the concept of memes – "units of cultural transmission", or culture's equivalents of genes undergoing selection and recombination – has arisen, first described in this form by Richard Dawkins[57] and subsequently expanded upon by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett as explanations for complex cultural activities, including human consciousness.[58] Extensions of the theory of natural selection to such a wide range of cultural phenomena have been distinctly controversial and are not widely accepted.[59]


Information and systems theory
In 1922, Alfred Lotka proposed that natural selection might be understood as a physical principle which could be described in terms of the use of energy by a system,[60] a concept that was later developed by Howard Odum as the maximum power principle whereby evolutionary systems with selective advantage maximise the rate of useful energy transformation. Such concepts are sometimes relevant in the study of applied thermodynamics. The principles of natural selection have inspired a variety of computational techniques, such as "soft" artificial life, that simulate selective processes and can be highly efficient in 'adapting' entities to an environment defined by a specified fitness function.[61] For example, a class of heuristic optimization algorithms known as genetic algorithms, pioneered by John Holland in the 1970s and expanded upon by David E. Goldberg,[62] identify optimal solutions by simulated reproduction and mutation of a population of solutions defined by an initial probability distribution.[63] Such algorithms are particularly useful when applied to problems whose solution landscape is very rough or has many local minima.

Genetic basis of natural selection
The idea of natural selection predates the understanding of genetics. We now have a much better idea of the biology underlying heritability, which is the basis of natural selection.

Genotype and phenotype
See also: Genotype-phenotype distinction. Natural selection acts on an organism's phenotype, or physical characteristics. Phenotype is determined by an organism's genetic make-up (genotype) and the environment in which the organism lives. Often, natural selection acts on specific traits of an individual, and the terms phenotype and genotype are used narrowly to indicate these specific traits. When different organisms in a population possess different versions of a gene for a certain trait, each of these versions is known as an allele. It is this genetic variation that underlies phenotypic traits. A typical example is that

Natural selection certain combinations of genes for eye color in humans which, for instance, give rise to the phenotype of blue eyes. (On the other hand, when all the organisms in a population share the same allele for a particular trait, and this state is stable over time, the allele is said to be fixed in that population.) Some traits are governed by only a single gene, but most traits are influenced by the interactions of many genes. A variation in one of the many genes that contributes to a trait may have only a small effect on the phenotype; together, these genes can produce a continuum of possible phenotypic values.[64]


Directionality of selection
When some component of a trait is heritable, selection will alter the frequencies of the different alleles, or variants of the gene that produces the variants of the trait. Selection can be divided into three classes, on the basis of its effect on allele frequencies.[65] Directional selection occurs when a certain allele has a greater fitness than others, resulting in an increase of its frequency. This process can continue until the allele is fixed and the entire population shares the fitter phenotype. It is directional selection that is illustrated in the antibiotic resistance example above. Far more common is stabilizing selection (which is commonly confused with purifying selection[66] [67] ), which lowers the frequency of alleles that have a deleterious effect on the phenotype – that is, produce organisms of lower fitness. This process can continue until the allele is eliminated from the population. Purifying selection results in functional genetic features, such as protein-coding genes or regulatory sequences, being conserved over time due to selective pressure against deleterious variants. Finally, a number of forms of balancing selection exist, which do not result in fixation, but maintain an allele at intermediate frequencies in a population. This can occur in diploid species (that is, those that have two pairs of chromosomes) when heterozygote individuals, who have different alleles on each chromosome at a single genetic locus, have a higher fitness than homozygote individuals that have two of the same alleles. This is called heterozygote advantage or overdominance, of which the best-known example is the malarial resistance observed in heterozygous humans who carry only one copy of the gene for sickle cell anemia. Maintenance of allelic variation can also occur through disruptive or diversifying selection, which favors genotypes that depart from the average in either direction (that is, the opposite of overdominance), and can result in a bimodal distribution of trait values. Finally, balancing selection can occur through frequency-dependent selection, where the fitness of one particular phenotype depends on the distribution of other phenotypes in the population. The principles of game theory have been applied to understand the fitness distributions in these situations, particularly in the study of kin selection and the evolution of reciprocal altruism.[68] [69]

Selection and genetic variation
A portion of all genetic variation is functionally neutral in that it produces no phenotypic effect or significant difference in fitness; the hypothesis that this variation accounts for a large fraction of observed genetic diversity is known as the neutral theory of molecular evolution and was originated by Motoo Kimura. When genetic variation does not result in differences in fitness, selection cannot directly affect the frequency of such variation. As a result, the genetic variation at those sites will be higher than at sites where variation does influence fitness.[65] However, after a period with no new mutation, the genetic variation at these sites will be eliminated due to genetic drift. Mutation selection balance Natural selection results in the reduction of genetic variation through the elimination of maladapted individuals and consequently of the mutations that caused the maladaptation. At the same time, new mutations occur, resulting in a mutation-selection balance. The exact outcome of the two processes depends both on the rate at which new mutations occur and on the strength of the natural selection, which is a function of how unfavorable the mutation proves to be. Consequently, changes in the mutation rate or the selection pressure will result in a different

Natural selection mutation-selection balance. Genetic linkage Genetic linkage occurs when the loci of two alleles are linked, or in close proximity to each other on the chromosome. During the formation of gametes, recombination of the genetic material results in reshuffling of the alleles. However, the chance that such a reshuffle occurs between two alleles depends on the distance between those alleles; the closer the alleles are to each other, the less likely it is that such a reshuffle will occur. Consequently, when selection targets one allele, this automatically results in selection of the other allele as well; through this mechanism, selection can have a strong influence on patterns of variation in the genome. Selective sweeps occur when an allele becomes more common in a population as a result of positive selection. As the prevalence of one allele increases, linked alleles can also become more common, whether they are neutral or even slightly deleterious. This is called genetic hitchhiking. A strong selective sweep results in a region of the genome where the positively selected haplotype (the allele and its neighbours) are essentially the only ones that exist in the population. Whether a selective sweep has occurred or not can be investigated by measuring linkage disequilibrium, or whether a given haplotype is overrepresented in the population. Normally, genetic recombination results in a reshuffling of the different alleles within a haplotype, and none of the haplotypes will dominate the population. However, during a selective sweep, selection for a specific allele will also result in selection of neighbouring alleles. Therefore, the presence of a block of strong linkage disequilibrium might indicate that there has been a 'recent' selective sweep near the center of the block, and this can be used to identify sites recently under selection. Background selection is the opposite of a selective sweep. If a specific site experiences strong and persistent purifying selection, linked variation will tend to be weeded out along with it, producing a region in the genome of low overall variability. Because background selection is a result of deleterious new mutations, which can occur randomly in any haplotype, it does not produce clear blocks of linkage disequilibrium, although with low recombination it can still lead to slightly negative linkage disequilibrium overall.[70]


[1] Darwin C (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life John Murray, London; modern reprint Charles Darwin, Julian Huxley (2003). On The Origin of Species. Signet Classics. ISBN 0-451-52906-5. Published online at The complete work of Charles Darwin online (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ ): On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=side& pageseq=2). [2] Fisher RA (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection Clarendon Press, Oxford [3] Works employing or describing this usage: Endler JA (1986). Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00057-3. Williams GC (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection. Oxford University Press. [4] Works employing or describing this usage: Lande R & Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-26 Futuyma DJ (2005) Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-87893-187-2 Haldane, J.B.S. 1953. The measurement of natural selection. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Genetics. 1: 480-487 [5] Sober E (1984; 1993) The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus University of Chicago Press ISBN 0-226-76748-5 [6] Modified from Christiansen FB (1984) The definition and measurement of fitness. In: Evolutionary ecology (ed. Shorrocks B) pp65–79. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford by adding survival selection in the reproductive phase [7] Pitnick S & Markow TA (1994) Large-male advantage associated with the costs of sperm production in Drosophila hydei, a species with giant sperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:9277-81; Pitnick S (1996) Investment in testes and the cost of making long sperm in Drosophila. Am Nat 148:57-80 [8] Andersson, M (1995). Sexual Selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00057-3. [9] Eens M, Pinxten R. (2000). Sex-role reversal in vertebrates: behavioural and endocrinological accounts. Behav Processes 51(1-3):135-147. PMID 11074317

Natural selection
[10] Barlow GW. (2005). How Do We Decide that a Species is Sex-Role Reversed? The Quarterly Review of Biology 80(1):28–35. PMID 15884733 [11] "MRSA Superbug News" (http:/ / www. inboxrobot. com/ news/ MRSASuperbug). . Retrieved 2006-05-06. [12] Schito GC (2006). "The importance of the development of antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus". Clin Microbiol Infect 12 Suppl 1: 3–8. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01343.x. PMID 16445718. (http:/ / www. blackwell-synergy. com/ doi/ abs/ 10. 1111/ j. 1469-0691. 2006. 01343. x) [13] Sylvain Charlat, Emily A. Hornett, James H. Fullard, Neil Davies, George K. Roderick, Nina Wedell & Gregory D. D. Hurst (2007). "Extraordinary flux in sex ratio". Science 317 (5835): 214. doi:10.1126/science.1143369. PMID 17626876. [14] Kryukov GV, Schmidt S & Sunyaev S (2005) Small fitness effect of mutations in highly conserved non-coding regions. Human Molecular Genetics 14:2221-9 [15] Bejerano G, Pheasant M, Makunin I, Stephen S, Kent WJ, Mattick JS & Haussler D (2004) Ultraconserved elements in the human genome. Science 304:1321-5 [16] Eyre-Walker A, Woolfit M, Phelps T. (2006). The distribution of fitness effects of new deleterious amino acid mutations in humans. Genetics 173(2):891-900. PMID 16547091 [17] Galis F (1999) Why do almost all mammals have seven cervical vertebrae? developmental constraints, Hox genes, and cancer. J Exp Zool 285:19-26 [18] Zakany J, FromentalRamain C, Warot X & Duboule D (1997) Regulation of number and size of digits by posterior Hox genes: a dose-dependent mechanism with potential evolutionary implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:13695-700 [19] Sanyal S, Jansen HG, de Grip WJ, Nevo E, de Jong WW. (1990). The eye of the blind mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi. Rudiment with hidden function? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990 31(7):1398-404. PMID 2142147 [20] Salzburger W, Baric S, Sturmbauer C. (2002). Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? Mol Ecol 11(3): 619–625. PMID 11918795 [21] Empedocles. On Nature (http:/ / history. hanover. edu/ texts/ presoc/ emp. htm). Book II [22] Lucretius. De rerum natura (http:/ / classics. mit. edu/ Carus/ nature_things. 5. v. html). Book V [23] Aristotle. Physics (http:/ / classics. mit. edu/ Aristotle/ physics. 2. ii. html). Book II, Chapters 4 and 8 [24] Conway Zirkle (1941). Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 (1), p. 71-123. [25] Mehmet Bayrakdar (Third Quarter, 1983). "Al-Jahiz And the Rise of Biological Evolutionism", The Islamic Quarterly. London. [26] Paul S. Agutter & Denys N. Wheatley (2008). Thinking about Life: The History and Philosophy of Biology and Other Sciences. Springer. p. 43. ISBN 1402088655 [27] Jan Z. Wilczynski (December 1959). "On the Presumed Darwinism of Alberuni Eight Hundred Years before Darwin". Isis 50 (4): 459–466. doi:10.1086/348801 [28] Farid Alakbarov (Summer 2001). A 13th-Century Darwin? Tusi's Views on Evolution (http:/ / azer. com/ aiweb/ categories/ magazine/ 92_folder/ 92_articles/ 92_tusi. html), Azerbaijan International 9 (2). [29] Franz Rosenthal and Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, Chapter 6, Part 5 (http:/ / www. muslimphilosophy. com/ ik/ Muqaddimah/ Chapter6/ Ch_6_05. htm) [30] Franz Rosenthal and Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, Chapter 6, Part 29 (http:/ / www. muslimphilosophy. com/ ik/ Muqaddimah/ Chapter6/ Ch_6_29. htm) [31] Maupertuis, Pierre Louis (1748). "Derivation of the laws of motion and equilibrium from a metaphysical principle (Original French text)". Histoire de l'academie des sciences et belle lettres de Berlin 1746: 267–294. [32] Chevalier de Lamarck J-B, de Monet PA (1809) Philosophie Zoologique [33] Joravsky D. (1959). Soviet Marxism and Biology before Lysenko. Journal of the History of Ideas 20(1):85-104. [34] Darwin 1859, p.  61 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=side& pageseq=76) [35] Darwin 1859, p.  5 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=text& pageseq=20) [36] T. Robert Malthus (1798). "An Essay on the Principle of Population" (http:/ / www. faculty. rsu. edu/ ~felwell/ Theorists/ Malthus/ Essay. htm#112). Rogers State University. . Retrieved 2008-11-03. [37] Charles Darwin; ed. Nora Barlow (1958). "The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882" (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=124). London: Collins. pp. 120. . Retrieved 2008-11-03. [38] Wallace, Alfred Russel (1870) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection New York: Macmillan & Co. (http:/ / www. hti. umich. edu/ cgi/ t/ text/ text-idx?c=moa& idno=AJP5195. 0001. 001& view=toc) [39] Darwin 1861, p.  xiii (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F381& viewtype=text& pageseq=20) [40] Darwin 1859, p.  6 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=side& pageseq=21) [41] "Darwin Correspondence Online Database: Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, 28 September 1860" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-2931. html). . Retrieved 2006-05-10. [42] Eisley L. (1958). Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It. Doubleday & Co: New York, USA. [43] Kuhn TS. [1962] (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolution 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois, USA. ISBN 0-226-45808-3 [44] "Letter 5145 — Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., 5 July (1866)" (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ entry-5145#mark-5145. f3). Darwin Correspondence Project. . Retrieved 2010-01-12.


Natural selection
Maurice E. Stucke. "Better Competition Advocacy" (http:/ / works. bepress. com/ cgi/ viewcontent. cgi?article=1000& context=maurice_stucke). . Retrieved 2007-08-29. "Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444, wrote “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”" [45] Darwin 1872, p.  49 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F391& viewtype=text& pageseq=70). [46] Mills SK, Beatty JH. [1979] (1994). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Originally in Philosophy of Science (1979) 46: 263-286; republished in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology 2nd ed. Elliott Sober, ed. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. pp3-23. ISBN 0-262-69162-0. [47] Haldane JBS (1932) The Causes of Evolution; Haldane JBS (1957) The cost of natural selection. J Genet 55:511-24( (http:/ / www. blackwellpublishing. com/ ridley/ classictexts/ haldane2. pdf). [48] Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution (http:/ / www. blackwellpublishing. com/ ridley/ classictexts/ wright. asp) Proc 6th Int Cong Genet 1:356–66 [49] Dobzhansky Th (1937) Genetics and the Origin of Species Columbia University Press, New York. (2nd ed., 1941; 3rd edn., 1951) [50] Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN 0-674-86250-3 [51] The New York Review of Books: Darwinian Fundamentalism (http:/ / www. nybooks. com/ articles/ 1151) (accessed May 6, 2006) [52] http:/ / www. scitopics. com/ Cellular_Darwinism_stochastic_gene_expression_in_cell_differentiation_and_embryo_development. html [53] Engels F (1873-86) Dialectics of Nature 3d ed. Moscow: Progress, 1964 (http:/ / www. marxists. org/ archive/ marx/ works/ 1883/ don/ index. htm) [54] Quoted in translation in Eisenberg L (2005) Which image for Lorenz? Am J Psychiatry 162:1760 (http:/ / ajp. psychiatryonline. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 162/ 9/ 1760) [55] e.g. Wilson, DS (2002) Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-90134-3 [56] Pinker S. [1994] (1995). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA. ISBN 0-06-097651-9 [57] Dawkins R. [1976] (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, p.192. ISBN 0-19-286092-5 [58] Dennett DC. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown, and Co: New York, NY, USA. ISBN 0-316-18066-1 [59] For example, see Rose H, Rose SPR, Jencks C. (2000). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. Harmony Books. ISBN 0-609-60513-5 [60] Lotka AJ (1922a) Contribution to the energetics of evolution (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ picrender. fcgi?artid=1085052& blobtype=pdf) [PDF] Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 8:147–51 Lotka AJ (1922b) Natural selection as a physical principle (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ picrender. fcgi?artid=1085053& blobtype=pdf) [PDF] Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 8:151–4 [61] Kauffman SA (1993) The Origin of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-507951-5 [62] Goldberg DE. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA [63] Mitchell, Melanie, (1996), An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [64] Falconer DS & Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow, Essex, UK ISBN 0-582-24302-5 [65] Rice SH. (2004). Evolutionary Theory: Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. ISBN 0-87893-702-1 See esp. ch. 5 and 6 for a quantitative treatment. [66] Lemey, Philippe; Marco Salemi, Anne-Mieke Vandamme (2009). The Phylogenetic Handbook. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-73071. [67] http:/ / www. nature. com/ scitable/ topicpage/ Negative-Selection-1136 [68] Hamilton WD. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52. PMID 5875341 PMID 5875340 [69] Trivers RL. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46: 35-57. [70] Keightley PD. and Otto SP (2006). "Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations". Nature 443 (7107): 89–92. doi:10.1038/nature05049. PMID 16957730.


Natural selection


Further reading
• For technical audiences • Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5. • Maynard Smith, John (1993). The Theory of Evolution: Canto Edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-45128-0. • Popper, Karl (1978) Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32:339-55. See (http:// • Sober, Elliott (1984) The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. University of Chicago Press. • Williams, George C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Oxford University Press. • Williams George C. (1992) Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. Oxford University Press. • For general audiences • Dawkins, Richard (1996) Climbing Mount Improbable. Penguin Books, ISBN 0-670-85018-7. • Dennett, Daniel (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster ISBN 0-684-82471-X. • Gould, Stephen Jay (1997) Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History. Norton, ISBN 0-393-06425-5. • Jones, Steve (2001) Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated. Ballantine Books ISBN 0-345-42277-5. Also published in Britain under the title Almost like a whale: the origin of species updated. Doubleday. ISBN 1-86230-025-9. • Lewontin, Richard (1978) Adaptation. Scientific American 239:212-30 • Weiner, Jonathan (1994) The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Vintage Books, ISBN 0-679-73337-X. • Historical • Zirkle C (1941). Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 (1), p. 71-123. • Kohm M (2004) A Reason for Everything: Natural Selection and the English Imagination. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-22392-3. For review, see ( van Wyhe J (2005) Human Nature Review 5:1-4

External links
• On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin ( the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html) – Chapter 4,Natural Selection • Natural Selection ( Modeling for Understanding in Science Education, University of Wisconsin • Natural Selection ( from University of Berkeley education website • T. Ryan Gregory: Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions (http:// Evolution: Education and Outreach

Intelligent design


Intelligent design
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] [2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[4] [5] —believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[6] [7] Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[1] In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.[8] The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[9] [10] [11] [12] and indeed is pseudoscience.[13] [14] [15] Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[16] [17] [18] The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[19] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[20] [4] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[21]

Origin of the concept
Whether the order and complexity of nature indicates purposeful design has been the subject of debate since the Greeks. In the 4th century BCE, Plato posited a good and wise "demiurge" as the creator and first cause of the cosmos in his Timaeus.[22] In his Metaphysics, Aristotle developed the idea of an "Unmoved Mover".[23] [24] In De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods, 45 BCE) Cicero wrote that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."[25] This line of reasoning has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. Some well-known forms of it were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas and in the 19th century by William Paley. Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, used the concept of design in his "fifth proof" for God's existence.[26] In the early 19th century, Paley's argument from design in Natural Theology (1802), used the watchmaker analogy,[27] and such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as way of understanding "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which

A marble bust based on a portrait ca. 370 BC of Plato. The teleological argument, or "argument from design", is an ancient one, held in some form by Plato and Aristotle.

Intelligent design ultimately led to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer. In correspondence about the question with Asa Gray, Darwin wrote that "I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design."[28] Though he had studied Paley's work while at university, by the end of his life he came to regard it as useless for scientific development.[29] Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.[30] As evolutionary theory expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples held up as evidence of design changed, though the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Past examples have included the eye and the feathered wing; current examples are typically biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial flagella; see irreducible complexity. Philosopher Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the publication by Jon A. Buell's the Foundation for Thought and Ethics of The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton, a chemist and creationist. Thaxton held a conference in 1988, "Sources of Information Content in DNA," which attracted creationists such as Stephen C. Meyer. Forrest writes that, in December 1988, Thaxton decided to use the term "intelligent design," instead of creationism, for the movement.[31] In March 1986 a review by Meyer used information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[32] In November of that year Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design.[33] At the Sources of Information Content in DNA conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism,[34] Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the agent of creation—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.[6] [7] [35] [36] [37] Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.


Intelligent design


Origin of the term
The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American,[39] in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[40] and in an 1861 letter from Charles Darwin.[41] The Paleyite botanist George James Allman used the phrase in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: "No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design."[42]

The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design". A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, "Teleological argument for the existence of God": "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer".[43] Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: "Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design".[44] The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design? by James Horigan[45] and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.[46] The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term".[48] In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts of [47] [19] the book Of Pandas and People design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists". [sic][47] In June 1988 Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[34] and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his

Of Pandas and People was the first modern intelligent design book. Rethinking Schools magazine characterizes it as "pseudo-science," rejected by many good [38] scientists.

Intelligent design new creationist movement.[49] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".[50] Of Pandas and People Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement.[51] "Intelligent design” was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language.[52] It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon Buell,[53] [54] and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report.[55] The National Center for Science Education has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments.[51] Although presented as a scientific textbook, Philosopher of science Michael Ruse considers the contents "worthless and dishonest". An ACLU lawyer described it as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism." One of the authors of the science framework used by California Schools, Kevin Padian, scathingly condemned it for its "sub-text," "Intolerance for honest science" and "incompetence".[38]


Irreducible complexity
The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People.[51] Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[56] Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A The concept of irreducible complexity was mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, popularised by Michael Behe, in his 1996 book, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the Darwin's Black Box. mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.[57] [58] Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.[59] [60] They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.[61] Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof".[62] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".[63]

Intelligent design


Specified complexity
In 1986 the creationist chemist Charles Thaxton used the term "specified complexity" from information theory when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[32] The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified".[64] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.[66] [67] [68] The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been widely discredited by the scientific and mathematical communities.[69] [70] [71] Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone

William Dembski proposed the [65] concept of specified complexity.

to making false conclusions.[72] Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.[73] Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".[74]

Fine-tuned Universe
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to form.[75] Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Scientists have generally responded that this argument cannot be tested and is therefore not science but metaphysics. Some scientists argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.[76] Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist

Intelligent design because the Universe is able to support life.[77] [78] [79] The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible. Life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.[80] Proponent Granville Sewell argues that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, and that it thus violates the second law of thermodynamics and so supports intelligent design.[81] This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles.[82] The second law applies to closed systems only. If Granville's argument were valid, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. Neither evolution nor the growth of living things violates the second law of thermodynamics because living things are not closed systems—they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.


Intelligent designer
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. The authoritative description of intelligent design,[83] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life".[84] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[6] [7] [35] Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see pseudogene) and why he or she would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.[85] Previously, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer ... for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason". Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved".[85] Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"[86] Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.[87] Richard Wein counters that the unanswered questions an explanation creates "must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer".[68] Richard Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained, not as a contribution to knowledge, but as a thought-terminating cliché.[88] [89] In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very question "What designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.[90]

Intelligent design


The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[18] The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[14] [15] [92] [93] [94] [95] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[18] [96] [97] [98] The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[99] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The Discovery Institute's intelligent design campaigns have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[99] Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[36] [100] All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.[101] Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its Teach the Controversy campaign and their other related programs. Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.[100] Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."[99] Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it".[102]
The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on "The Creation of Adam" from the Sistine Chapel. Later it used a less religious image, then was [91] renamed the Center for Science and Culture.

Religion and leading proponents
Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,[103] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, and Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic, while Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical

Intelligent design message".[104] Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact [...] only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed".[105] The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in The Design Inference.[106] In this work Dembski lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."[107] Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ".[108] Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.[35] [100] Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.[109] She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionism movement. She lists connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip Johnson, Charles Thaxton, Michael Behe, Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells and Francis Beckwith to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by Howard Ahmanson Jr., a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.[110]


Reaction from other creationist groups
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002 he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars… The time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."[111] Likewise, two of the most prominent Young Earth creationism organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from intelligent design. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method.” According to Morris: “The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting."[112] In 2002, Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis (AiG) criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "left the Bible out of it" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."[113]

Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".[114] Although Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.[115] [116] [117]

Intelligent design A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the United States conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design.[118] A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2008 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 35% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 43% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 14%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.[119]


The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed sparked further controversy in 2008. This documentary, hosted by Ben Stein, spends much time focusing on professors who have been asked to leave or have left numerous institutions because, the film insinuates, of their beliefs in Intelligent Design. One of the film's first screenings resulted in Paul "PZ" Myers, an interviewee in the film, being asked to leave the theater. There have also been allegations from some interviewees that interviews were recorded many times in order to get the exact phrasing required by the producer. The production company, Premise Media, also has helped finance some religious films such as The Passion of the Christ.[120] [121]

Creating and teaching the controversy
The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this supposed debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy".[122] In fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.[123] [124] [125] Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.[126] [127] Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.[103] [105] However, among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.[128] The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in late 2005 and after President George W. Bush expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush’s statement and the pending federal trial, Time magazine ran an eight-page cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom.[129] [130] The cover of the magazine featured a parody of The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel. Rather than pointing at Adam, Michelangelo’s God points at the image of a chimpanzee contemplating the caption which read "The push to teach "intelligent design" raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?".[131] In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class.[17] Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science[132] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[133] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism".[134] Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.[135] Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.[136] Proponents say evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and

Intelligent design specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes.[1] They also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, they argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.[137]
[138] [139]


Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, substituting public support for scientific research.[140] If the argument to give "equal time for all theories" were actually practiced, there would be no logical limit to the number of mutually incompatible supernatural "theories" regarding the origins and diversity of life to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"; intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, for example, states that intelligent design is not falsifiable because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out".[141] [142] Intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment".[128] The inference that an intelligent designer created life on Earth, which advocate William Dembski has said could alternately be an "alien" life force,[106] has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[143] [144] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views.[136] Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution. The Roman Catholic church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world[145] — a position described by the term theistic evolution.[146] While some in the Roman Catholic Church reject Intelligent design for various philosophical and theological reasons,[147] [148] others, such as Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, have shown support for it.[149] [150] [151] The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,[152] [153] [154] and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.[155] Rabbi Natan Slifkin directly criticized the advocates of intelligent design as presenting a perspective of God that is dangerous to religion.[156] Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it. Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. Slifkin also asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, but not in control in respect to things which can be explained by scientific theory.[156] Kenneth Miller expressed a view similar to Slifkin's: "[T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.[157]

Intelligent design


Defining science
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[158] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science.[159] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[160] [161] [162] it is expected to be: • • • • • • • • Consistent Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor) Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively) Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability) Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it) Progressive (refines previous theories) Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[163] violates the principle of parsimony,[164] is not scientifically useful,[165] is not falsifiable,[166] is not empirically testable,[167] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[168] [169]

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[171] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the US Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are: • The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified. • The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal. • There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results. • The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". Against this, the philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science, in that it does not depend on distortion of evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense. Whatever the merits of the positions, he argues that it is a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else.[172] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[173] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[174] [14] [15] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[175] and some have called it junk science.[176] [177]

Intelligent design


Peer review
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science.[178] The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal.[178] Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published.[179] Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory.[180] Michael Shermer has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as Joan Roughgarden and Lynn Margulis have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they "have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion."[181] The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community. Critics and advocates debate over whether intelligent design produces new research and has legitimately attempted to publish this research. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review".[182] The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[183] Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004.[184] The article was a literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see Sternberg peer review controversy[185] ). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."[186] In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.[187] In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.[188] There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke,[189] which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.[190] Michael Lynch called the conclusions of the article "an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic".[191] In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[192] As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".[178]

Intelligent design The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[193] including in its list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor,[194] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[195]


Intelligence as an observable quality
The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable".[196] How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, disputed Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity—the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes—while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.[197] Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.[198] As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes".[199] This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material Universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence along these lines of inquiry. The intelligent design community, for the most part, relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.[200]

Intelligent design


Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[201] In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science.[201] Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

God of the gaps
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "god of the gaps" argument,[202] which has the following form: • There is a gap in scientific knowledge. • The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).[202] A god-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.[203] Historians of science observe that the astronomy of the earliest civilizations, although astonishing and incorporating mathematical constructions far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science, because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the heavenly bodies across the sky.[204] It was the Greek civilization which first practised science, although not yet a mathematically-oriented experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention.[205] In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on the scientific progress.

Kitzmiller trial
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[206] Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center.[207] The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. Ken Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John Haught served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement

Intelligent design were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[208] In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the Teach the Controversy strategy: "Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."


Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that: "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."[209] As Jones had predicted, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."[210] Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer".[211] [212] [213] [214] Subsequently, the decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In the Spring of 2007 the University of Montana Law review published three articles.[215] In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.[130] In the second Peter Irons responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,[216] while in the third, DeWolf et al. answer the points made by Irons.[217] However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.[18] In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[218]

Intelligent design


Status outside the United States
In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes."[219] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism. On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion", including "intelligent design" which it described as "the latest, more refined version of creationism", "presented in a more subtle way". The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a belief, but to "warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science".[220] In the United Kingdom, public education includes Religious Education as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by the Discovery Institute affiliate Illustra Media[221] featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,[222] and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,[223] the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the National Curriculum which does not apply to independent schools or to Education in Scotland).[224] [225] The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum", but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education.[226] In 2006 the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority produced a Religious Education model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.[227] [228] On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-Petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of established scientific theories.[229] Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007. It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example, as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory". However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons".[10] The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard.[230] However, in Northern Ireland the Democratic Unionist Party claims that the revised curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught, and has sought assurances that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions.[231] In Lisburn the DUP has arranged that the City Council will write to post primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to "creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin".[232] Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash.[233] After the 2007 elections she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design".[234] As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, in Belgium the President of the Flemish Catholic Educational Board (VSKO) Mieke Van Hecke

Intelligent design declared that: "Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science."[235]


Relation to Islam
Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Muslim in Canada, signed the Scientific Dissent list of the Discovery Institute.[236] Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books have been translated. In Istanbul in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government,[237] and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007.[238]

The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see: Education in Australia). When the former Australian Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes, the public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[239]

[1] Discovery Institute. Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design? (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ csc/ topQuestions. php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign) [cited 2007-05-13]. [2] Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell (http:/ / www. ideacenter. org/ stuff/ contentmgr/ files/ 393410a2d36e9b96329c2faff7e2a4df/ miscdocs/ intelligentdesigntheoryinanutshell. pdf) [PDF]; 2004 [cited 2007-05-13]. • Intelligent Design network. Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. intelligentdesignnetwork. org/ ); 2007 [cited 2007-05-13]. [3] The Creationists, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press; 2006. ISBN 0674023390. p. 373, 379–380. [4] "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. TalkOrigins Archive. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1. (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day6pm. html); 2005 [cited 2007-07-19]. "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country". In: Wilgoren, J. Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive (http:/ / www. msu. edu/ course/ te/ 407/ FS05Sec3/ te408/ files/ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive - New York Times. pdf) [PDF].. August 21, 2005 [cited 2007-07-19]. New York Times. • American Civil Liberties Union. Who is behind the ID movement? (http:/ / www. aclu. org/ religion/ schools/ 16371res20050916. html); September 16, 2005 [cited 2007-07-20]. • Kahn, JP. The Evolution of George Gilder. The Author And Tech-Sector Guru Has A New Cause To Create Controversy With: Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& program=DI Main Page - News& id=2745). July 27, 2005 [cited 2007-07-19]. The Boston Globe. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents" (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ filesDB-download. php?command=download& id=602) (PDF). Science & Religion Guide. Science & Theology News. November 2005. . Retrieved 2007-07-20. • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". Attie, Alan D.; Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, Richard M. Amasino, Beth Cox4, Terese Berceau, Thomas Powell and Michael M. Cox (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action" (http:/ / www. jci. org/ articles/ view/ 28449). Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. . Retrieved 2007-07-20. [5] "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review" (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ spp/ dser/ 03_Areas/ evolution/ issues/ peerreview. shtml). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. . Retrieved 2007-07-19. [6] "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotations of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse's Mouth (http:/ / home. kc. rr. com/ bnpndxtr/ download/ HorsesMouth-BP007. pdf) Archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080627021627/ http:/ / home. kc. rr. com/ bnpndxtr/ download/ HorsesMouth-BP007. pdf) June 27, 2008 at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003. •

Intelligent design
[7] William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". Devon Williams (December 14, 2007). "CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski" (http:/ / www. citizenlink. org/ content/ A000006139. cfm). Focus on the Family. . Retrieved 2007-12-15. [8] Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson (May 1, 1996). "CSC – Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=1685), A book review, Origins & Design"]. . Retrieved 2007-05-20. • • Phillip E. Johnson (August 31, 1996). "Starting a Conversation about Evolution" (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ johnson/ ratzsch. htm). Phillip Johnson Files. Access Research Network. . Retrieved 2007-05-20. Stephen C. Meyer (December 1, 2002). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories" (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=1780). Ignatius Press. . Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Whether ID Is Science Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology. See also "Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence" (http:/ / www. iht. com/ articles/ ap/ 2007/ 02/ 13/ america/ NA-GEN-US-Kansas-Evolution-History. php). International Herald Tribune. February 13, 2007. . Retrieved 2007-05-20.


• • •

[9] See: 1) List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ news/ releases/ 2002/ 1106id2. shtml). More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060115091707/ http:/ / www. science. unsw. edu. au/ news/ 2005/ intelligent. html) List of statements from scientific professional organizations (http:/ / ncse. com/ media/ voices/ science) on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to The New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth". Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2007/ 09/ 27/ science/ 27expelled. html?_r=2& oref=slogin& oref=slogin). New York Times. . Retrieved 2007-09-28. [10] "Teachernet, Document bank" (http:/ / www. teachernet. gov. uk/ docbank/ index. cfm?id=11890). Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007. . Retrieved 2007-10-01. "The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms. Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer." [11] Nature Methods Editorial. An intelligently designed response. Nat. Methods. 2007;4(12):983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nmeth1207-983). [12] Mark Greener. Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience? (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC2267227/ ). EMBO Reports. 2007;8(12):1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ sj. embor. 7401131). PMID 18059309. [13] National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators National Science Teachers Association (August 3, 2005). "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (http:/ / www. nsta. org/ about/ pressroom. aspx?id=50794). Press release. . "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." [14] David Mu. Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. hcs. harvard. edu/ ~hsr/ fall2005/ mu. pdf) [PDF]. Harvard Science Review. Fall 2005;19(1). "For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience"." [15] American Association for the Advancement of Science. Professional Ethics Report (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ spp/ sfrl/ per/ per26. pdf) [PDF]; 2001. "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." [16] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Context pg. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (http:/ / caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/ scripts/ getcase. pl?navby=CASE& court=US& vol=482& page=578) (1987). [17] "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that

Intelligent design
the designer is God." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 24. [18] Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. (http:/ / www. centerforinquiry. net/ uploads/ attachments/ intelligent-design. pdf) [PDF]; 2007 May [cited 2007-08-06]. [19] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. [20] Discovery Institute. Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=2190); September 7, 2004. James M. Kushiner. Berkeley's Radical (http:/ / touchstonemag. com/ archives/ article. php?id=15-05-037-i); 2002 June. Jodi Wilgoren. Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive (http:/ / www. msu. edu/ course/ te/ 407/ FS05Sec3/ te408/ files/ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive - New York Times. pdf) [PDF].. August 21, 2005. • Discovery's Creation (http:/ / seattleweekly. com/ 2006-02-01/ news/ discovery-s-creation. php). February 1, 2006 [cited 2007-07-27]. Seattle Weekly. [21] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling. [22] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Plato's Timaeus (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ plato-timaeus/ ); October 25, 2005 [cited 2007-07-22]. [23] Aristotle, Metaphysics Bk. 12 [24] See also, e.g. *Richard Hooker (1996) "Aristotle" (http:/ / wsu. edu/ ~dee/ GREECE/ ARIST. HTM). "Aristotle's analysis of phenomenon and change, then, is fundamentally teleological." *Monte Ransome Johnson (2005) Aristotle on teleology, Clarendon Press. [25] Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (2006). The Philosophy of Religion: An Historical Introduction, 31; Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Book I, 36–37, Latin Library (http:/ / www. thelatinlibrary. com/ cicero/ nd. shtml). [26] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae " Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways' (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070926220422/ http:/ / www. faithnet. org. uk/ AS+ Subjects/ Philosophyofreligion/ fiveways. htm) ( archive link (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070808152431/ http:/ / www. faithnet. org. uk/ AS+ Subjects/ Philosophyofreligion/ fiveways. htm))" in [27] William Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=A142& viewtype=text& pageseq=1), 1809, London, Twelfth Edition. [28] Darwin Correspondence Project. Letter 2998 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 26 Nov (1860) (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ entry-2998) [cited 2010-08-11]. [29] Gerard Radnitzky. Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge. Open Court Publishing; 1993. ISBN 0812690397. p. 140. [30] See, e.g., the publisher's editorial description of the 2006 paperback printing of William Paley (1803) Natural Theology" : "William Paley's classic brings depth to the history of intelligent design arguments. The contrivance of the eye, the ear, and numerous other anatomical features throughout the natural world are presented as arguments for God's presence and concern. While there are distinctive differences between Paley's argument and those used today by intelligent design theorists and creationists, it remains a fascinating glimpse of the nineteenth-century's debate over the roles of religion and science". David C. Steinmetz (2005) "The Debate on Intelligent Design" in The Christian Century, (December 27, 2005, pp. 27–31.) Leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski (2001) argues the opposing view in Is Intelligent Design a form of natural theology? (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2001. 03. ID_as_nat_theol. htm) [31] Forrest, Barbara. Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies (http:/ / www. dailykos. com/ story/ 2006/ 3/ 11/ 8448/ 52824) [32] Stephen C. Meyer. Access Research Network. We Are Not Alone (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ meyer/ sm_notalone. htm); 1986 March [cited 2007-10-10]. [33] Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.. Christian Leadership Ministries. DNA, Design and the Origin of Life (http:/ / www. origins. org/ articles/ thaxton_dnadesign. html); November 13–16, 1986 [cited 2007-10-10]. [34] Charles B. Thaxton. In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ offices/ thaxton/ docs/ inpursuit. html); June 23–26, 1988, revised July 1988 and May 1991 [cited 2007-10-06]. [35] Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 (http:/ / touchstonemag. com/ archives/ issue. php?id=49) [36] Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin (http:/ / www. christianity. ca/ news/ social-issues/ 2004/ 03. 001. html) Archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070608233455/ http:/ / www. christianity. ca/ news/ social-issues/ 2004/ 03. 001. html) June 8, 2007 at the Wayback Machine.. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ pjohnson/ world2. html). "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070609033219/ http:/ / www. touchstonemag. com/ docs/ issues/ 15. 5docs/ 15-5pg40. html) at the Wayback Machine (archived June 9, • • • •


Intelligent design
2007). [37] Stephen C. Meyer: "I think the designer is God ..." ( Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. bringyou. to/ apologetics/ p90. htm) . Nightline ABC News, with Ted Koppel, August 10, 2005); Nancy Pearcey: "By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist’s “chair” even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena". ( Total Truth (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20061028204903/ http:/ / rightreason. ektopos. com/ archives/ 2005/ 09/ why_sciencetype. html), Crossway Books, June 29, 2004, ISBN 1581344589, pp. 204-205) [38] Leon Lynn. Rethinking Schools Online (http:/ / www. rethinkingschools. org/ archive/ 12_02/ panda. shtml); Winter 1997/98 [cited 2009-02-08]. [39] Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb. The true origin of "intelligent design" (http:/ / pandasthumb. org/ archives/ 2007/ 08/ the-true-origin. html); August 14, 2007 [cited 2010-01-21]. Journals: Scientific American (1846 - 1869) (http:/ / digital. library. cornell. edu/ cgi/ t/ text/ pageviewer-idx?c=scia;cc=scia;rgn=full text;idno=scia0002-48;didno=scia0002-48;view=image;seq=00383;node=scia0002-48:1) [cited 2010-01-21]. [40] Dove, Patrick Edward, The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design". [41] Charles Darwin. Letter 3154—Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May 1861 (http:/ / www. darwinproject. ac. uk/ darwinletters/ calendar/ entry-3154. html); May 23, 1861. [42] The British Association. September 20, 1873:10; col A.. The Times. [43] William P. Alston. In: Paul Edwards. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York City, London: Macmillan Publishing Company, The Free Press, Collier Macmillan Publishers; 1967. ISBN 0028949900. [44] Robert Nozick. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. USA: Basic Books; 1974. ISBN 0465097200. p. 19. [45] James E. Horigan. Chance or Design?. Philosophical Library; 1979. [46] Nicholas Timmins. Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world (http:/ / telicthoughts. com/ sir-fred-hoyle-and-the-origins-of-id/ ). January 13, 1982:22. "F. Hoyle stated in a 1982 speech: ' arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.'" [47] Nick Matzke. National Center for Science Education. NCSE Resource -- 9.0. Matzke (2006): The Story of the Pandas Drafts (http:/ / ncse. com/ rncse/ 26/ 1-2/ design-trial); 2006 [cited 2009-11-18]. *Nick Matzke. National Center for Science Education. Missing Link discovered! (http:/ / www2. ncseweb. org/ wp/ ?p=80); 2006 [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070114121029/ http:/ / www2. ncseweb. org/ wp/ ?p=80) 2007-01-14; cited 2009-11-18]. [48] Jonathan Witt. Discovery Institute. Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. evolutionnews. org/ 2005/ 12/ post_6. html); December 20, 2005 [cited 2007-10-05]. [49] DarkSyde. Daily Kos: Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies (http:/ / www. dailykos. com/ story/ 2006/ 3/ 11/ 8448/ 52824); March 11, 2006 [cited 2007-10-05]. [50] William Safire. On Language: Neo-Creo (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2005/ 08/ 21/ magazine/ 21ONLANGUAGE. html?position=& ei=5090& en=f2de0d764cc7e0e8& ex=1282276800& adxnnl=1& partner=rssuserland& emc=rss& pagewanted=print& adxnnlx=1132902202-gyP0H4EZfG7IeNHPMWlcBw). August 21, 2005. [51] Nick Matzke. National Center for Science Education. NCSE Resource (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ analysis/ critique-pandas-people); 2004 [cited 2007-09-24]. [52] Richard P. Aulie. National Association of Biology Teachers. A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People (http:/ / www. stephenjaygould. org/ ctrl/ archive/ design/ aulie_of-pandas. html); 1998 [cited 2007-10-05]. [53] Eugenie C. Scott. Biological design in science classrooms (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ content/ 104/ suppl. 1/ 8669. full). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. May 15, 2007 [cited 2009-06-02];104(Suppl 1):8669–8676. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 0701505104). PMID 17494747. PMC 1876445 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC1876445/ ). [54] Nick Matzke; Jon Buell (October 13, 2005). "I guess ID really was "Creationism's Trojan Horse" after all" (http:/ / www. pandasthumb. org/ archives/ 2005/ 10/ i_guess_id_real. html). The Panda's Thumb. . Retrieved 2009-06-02. [55] William A. Dembski. Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 09. Expert_Report_Dembski. pdf) [PDF]. March 29, 2005 [cited 2009-06-02]. [56] Behe, Michael (1997): Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference (http:/ / www. apologetics. org/ MolecularMachines/ tabid/ 99/ Default. aspx) [57] Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see Kitzmiller, pp. 76–78, and Ken Miller Webcast (http:/ / www. pandasthumb. org/ archives/ 2006/ 01/ ken_miller_webc. html) [58] The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" Kenneth R. Miller Brown University (http:/ / www. millerandlevine. com/ km/ evol/ design2/ article. html) [59] John H. McDonald's " reducibly complex mousetrap (http:/ / udel. edu/ ~mcdonald/ mousetrap. html)" [60] David Ussery, " A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' (http:/ / www. cbs. dtu. dk/ staff/ dave/ Behe. html)" [61] For example, Bridgham et al. (http:/ / www. sciencemag. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 312/ 5770/ 97) showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. Bridgham et al.. Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. Science. 2006;312(5770):97–101. doi:10.1126/science.1123348 (http:/ / dx. doi.


Intelligent design
org/ 10. 1126/ science. 1123348). PMID 16601189. [62] Devolution (http:/ / www. newyorker. com/ archive/ 2005/ 05/ 30/ 050530fa_fact). May 30, 2005. The New Yorker. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: Discovery Institute. Has Darwin met his match? Letters—An exchange over ID (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?program=CRSC Responses& command=view& amp;id=1406); March 26, 2003 [cited 2006-11-30]. [63] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., p. 64. [64] Dembski. Intelligent Design, p. 47 [65] William Dembski, Photo by Wesley R. Elsberry, taken at lecture given at University of California at Berkeley, 2006/03/17. [66] Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens, Elliott Sober. How Not to Detect Design: A review of William A. Dembski's The Design Inference—Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (http:/ / philosophy. wisc. edu/ sober/ dembski. pdf) [PDF]. Cambridge University Press; 1998. [67] Some of Dembski's responses to assertions of specified complexity being a tautology can be found at William A. Dembski. "Another way to detect design" (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ dembski/ wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign. htm). ARN. . [68] Richard Wein. Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ design/ faqs/ nfl/ ); 2002. [69] Rich Baldwin. Information Theory and Creationism (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ information/ dembski. html); 2005. [70] Mark Perakh. Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically -- or does he? (http:/ / www. talkreason. org/ articles/ newmath. cfm); 2005. [71] Jason Rosenhouse. How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics (http:/ / www. math. jmu. edu/ ~rosenhjd/ sewell. pdf) [PDF]. The Mathematical Intelligencer. Fall 2001;23(4):3–8. [72] John S. Wilkins, Wesley R. Elsberry. The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance (http:/ / www. talkdesign. org/ cs/ theft_over_toil). Biology and Philosophy. 2001;16:711–724. [73] Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2006. ISBN 0618680004. [74] Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ mg19526146. 000-evolutionary-algorithms-now-surpass-human-designers. html). New Scientist. July 28, 2007. [75] Guillermo Gonzalez. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, DC: Regnery Publ.; 2004. ISBN 0-89526-065-4. [76] The Panda's Thumb. review of The Privileged Planet (http:/ / www. pandasthumb. org/ archives/ 2004/ 08/ privileged_plan_4. html) [77] Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? (http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ Cosmo/ FineTune. pdf#search="Fine tuned universe") Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file) [78] Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. The Anthropic Principle (http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ Cosmo/ ant_encyc. pdf) [PDF]. [79] Joseph Silk. Our place in the Multiverse (http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v443/ n7108/ full/ 443145a. html). Nature. September 14, 2006;443(7108). [80] See, e.g., Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro. A Puddlian Fable. In: Huchingson. Religion and the Natural Sciences. 1993. p. 220–221. [81] Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure (http:/ / spectator. org/ archives/ 2005/ 12/ 28/ evolutions-thermodynamic-failu). The American Spectator. December 28, 2005 [cited 2007-02-16]. (Also available from the Discovery Institute (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=3122)) [82] TalkOrigins Archive. Entropy, Disorder and Life (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ thermo/ entropy. html) [cited 2007-07-17]. [83] Dembski. Discovery Institute. Questions About Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ csc/ topQuestions. php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign). "The theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." [84] LeaderU. The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ offices/ dembski/ docs/ bd-the_ac. html). [85] The Case Against Intelligent Design (http:/ / pondside. uchicago. edu/ cluster/ pdf/ coyne/ New_Republic_ID. pdf) [PDF]. The New Republic. August 22–29, 2005 [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060618235930/ http:/ / pondside. uchicago. edu/ cluster/ pdf/ coyne/ New_Republic_ID. pdf) 2006-06-18];233(8/9):21–33. [86] Donald E. Simanek. Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty (http:/ / www. lhup. edu/ ~dsimanek/ philosop/ empty. htm). [87] IDEA "One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed ... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer..." FAQ: Who designed the designer? FAQ: Who designed the designer? (http:/ / www. ideacenter. org/ contentmgr/ showdetails. php/ id/ 1147) [88] Jason Rosenhouse. Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Who Designed the Designer? (http:/ / www. csicop. org/ intelligentdesignwatch/ designer. html). [89] Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. p. 141. [90] See, e.g., Joseph Manson. Intelligent design is pseudoscience (http:/ / www. today. ucla. edu/ portal/ ut/ 050927voices_pseudoscience. aspx); September 27, 2005.; Rev Max (July–August 2006). "The Incredibly Strange Story of Intelligent Design". New Dawn Magazine (97).


Intelligent design
[91] NCSE Resource (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute); August 29, 2002 [cited 2007-10-07]. [92] Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling [93] Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30–35. [94] Marcus R. Ross. Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism (http:/ / nagt. org/ files/ nagt/ jge/ abstracts/ Ross_v53n3p319. pdf) [PDF]. Journal of Geoscience Education. May, 2005;53(3):319–323. [95] Ronald L. Numbers. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; November 30, 2006. ISBN 0674023390. [96] Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R.. Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. ISBN 0195157427. [97] Robert T. Pennock. Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski. In: Robert T. Pennock. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives (http:/ / www. metanexus. net/ magazine/ ArticleDetail/ tabid/ 68/ id/ 2645/ Default. aspx). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 2001. ISBN 0262661241. "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism". He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..." p. 645–667.; Pennock, Robert T.. Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1999. [98] Eugenie Scott. The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ creationevolution-continuum). NCSE Reports. 1999;19(4):16–17, 23–25.; Scott, Eugenie C.. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press; 2004. ISBN 0520246500. [99] "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Wedge Document (http:/ / www. antievolution. org/ features/ wedge. pdf) Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file) [100] "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071107005414/ http:/ / www. coralridge. org/ specialdocs/ evolutiondebate. asp) [101] Discovery Institute fellows and staff (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ fellows/ ). "Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff" (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ csc/ fellows. php). . [102] Barbara Forrest. The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/ barbara_forrest/ wedge. html); 2001. [103] "...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer," and "...the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy". In: Discovery Institute. Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator? (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ filesDB-download. php?command=download& id=565) [cited 2007-07-19]. [104] Phillip Johnson. 'Keeping the Darwinists Honest' an interview with Phillip Johnson. 1999. "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. [...] The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed". [105] Phillip Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. 1999. "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact". The Wedge (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ johnson/ le_wedge. htm) [106] William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference. [107] Dembski, 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, p. 210. [108] William Dembski. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 02. Reply_to_Henry_Morris. htm); 2005. [109] Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's


Intelligent design
Gospel. That stands on its own. [...] Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural". [110] Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper (http:/ / www. centerforinquiry. net/ uploads/ attachments/ intelligent-design. pdf) [PDF]; 2007 May. [111] H. Ross. Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe. More than intelligent design (http:/ / www. reasons. org/ resources/ fff/ 2002issue10/ index. shtml#more_than_id); 2002 [cited April 25, 2007]. [112] Henry M. Morris. Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research. Design is not enough! (http:/ / www. icr. org/ article/ 859/ 17/ ); 1999 [cited April 25, 2007]. [113] Carl Wieland. Answers in Genesis. AiG's views on the Intelligent Design movement (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ docs2002/ 0830_IDM. asp); 2002 [cited April 25, 2007]. [114] Harris Interactive. Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God (http:/ / www. harrisinteractive. com/ harris_poll/ index. asp?PID=581); July 6, 2005 [cited 2007-07-13]. [115] New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS! (http:/ / www. nmsr. org/ id-poll. htm) [cited 2007-07-13]. [116] Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. [ Polling for ID]; September 11, 2003 [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080327041611/ http:/ / csicop. org/ doubtandabout/ polling/ ) 2008-03-27; cited 2007-02-16]. [117] David Harris. [ 'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception] [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20030816135718/ http:/ / blogs. salon. com/ 0001092/ 2003/ 07/ 30. html) 2003-08-16; cited 2007-07-13]. [118] According to the poll, 18% of the physicians believed that God created humans exactly as they appear today. Another 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings. The poll also found that "an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation". The poll also found that "more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation". "Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design" (http:/ / www. hcdi. net/ News/ PressRelease. cfm?ID=93). Press release. . Retrieved 2007-10-08. [119] Gallup, "Evolution, creationism, intelligent design," (http:/ / www. gallup. com/ poll/ 21814/ evolution-creationism-intelligent-design. aspx). Retrieved 24 August 2010. [120] Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed (2008) (http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt1091617/ ). [121] New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy (http:/ / www. livescience. com/ strangenews/ 080404-expelled-movie. html). [122] Shaw, Linda. Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? (http:/ / seattletimes. nwsource. com/ html/ localnews/ 2002225932_design31m. html). Seattle Times. March 31, 2005. [123] National Association of Biology Teachers. NABT's Statement on Teaching Evolution (http:/ / www. nabt. org/ sub/ position_statements/ evolution. asp) [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060927160040/ http:/ / www. nabt. org/ sub/ position_statements/ evolution. asp) 2006-09-27]. [124] The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (http:/ / www. interacademies. net/ Object. File/ Master/ 6/ 150/ Evolution statement. pdf) [PDF]; June 21, 2006 [cited 2008-10-17]. Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society. [125] From the world's largest general scientific society: American Association for the Advancement of Science (February 16, 2006). "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ news/ releases/ 2006/ pdf/ 0219boardstatement. pdf) (PDF). Press release. . Retrieved 2008-10-17. • American Association for the Advancement of Science (February 19, 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws" (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ news/ releases/ 2006/ 0219boardstatement. shtml). Press release. . Retrieved 2008-10-17. [126] Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist (http:/ / www. smh. com. au/ news/ world/ intelligent-design-a-trojan-horse-says-creationist/ 2005/ 11/ 26/ 1132966007431. html). Sydney Morning Herald. November 27, 2005 [cited 2007-07-29]. [127] Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse (http:/ / www. au. org/ site/ PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special); 2005 February [cited 2007-07-29]. [128] The Evolution Wars (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1090909,00. html). August 7, 2005 [cited 2007-07-23]. Time Magazine. [129] National Center for Science Education. "The evolution wars" in Time (http:/ / ncse. com/ news/ 2005/ 08/ evolution-wars-time-00696); August 11, 2005 [cited 2009-11-18]. • Journalism and the Debate Over Origins: Newspaper Coverage of Intelligent Design. Journal of Media and Religion. 2006;5(1):49–61. doi:10.1207/s15328415jmr0501_3 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s15328415jmr0501_3). • Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution. Public Understanding of Science. 2006;15:131–152. doi:10.1177/0963662506060588 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 0963662506060588). • Answers in Genesis. Time for evolution wars (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ docs2005/ 0810time. asp); 2005-08-10 [cited 2009-02-16]. •


Intelligent design
[130] DeWolf, David K. Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover (http:/ / www. umt. edu/ mlr/ Discovery Institute Article. pdf) [PDF]. University of Montana Law Review. May 4, 2007;68(1). Does God have a place in class?: Intelligent design ignites great debate (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ a/ 2920). Calgary Herald. 2005-08-25 [cited 2009-02-16]. • The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=H8yn0iaRRfoC& pg=PA1& vq=evolution+ wars& dq=politically+ incorrect+ guide+ to+ intelligent+ design). Regnery Publishing; 2006. ISBN 1596980133. p. 273. • The Evolution Wars: Who Is Fighting with Whom about What?. In: Robert B. Stewart. Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=MjKkFG8qVjcC& pg=PA44& vq=evolution+ wars& dq=intelligent+ design+ michael+ ruse+ william+ dembski+ 2007). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press; 2007. ISBN 0800662180. [132] Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/ barbara_forrest/ naturalism. html). Philo. 2000 [cited 2007-07-27];3(2):7–29. [133] Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education. InterVarsity Press; 1995. ISBN 0830819290.[Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism".] [134] Phillip E. Johnson. Access Research Network. Starting a Conversation about Evolution: Johnson, Phillip (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ johnson/ ratzsch. htm); August 31, 1996 [cited 2008-10-18]. "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." [135] See, for instance: University of Texas, Austin. Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural (http:/ / www. utexas. edu/ cola/ depts/ philosophy/ faculty/ koons/ ntse/ papers/ Vuletic. html); 1997 February [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080114094157/ http:/ / www. utexas. edu/ cola/ depts/ philosophy/ faculty/ koons/ ntse/ papers/ Vuletic. html) 2008-01-14; cited 2007-07-27]. [136] Los Angeles Times. Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?programs=CSCstories& command=view& id=613); March 25, 2001 [cited 2007-07-22]. "[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]: We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise ... We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." [137] Witnesses For The Prosecution (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ pjohnson/ world2. html) [Reprint by Leadership U.]. World Magazine. November 30, 1996 [cited 2007-07-23];11(28):18. [138] The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin (http:/ / www. christianity. ca/ news/ social-issues/ 2004/ 03. 001. html); January 10, 2003 [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070608233455/ http:/ / www. christianity. ca/ news/ social-issues/ 2004/ 03. 001. html) 2007-06-08; cited 2007-07-23]. "[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]: Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." [139] The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship. Darwinism: Science or Philosophy (http:/ / ebd10. ebd. csic. es/ pdfs/ DarwSciOrPhil. pdf) [PDF]; 1992 March [cited 2007-07-23]. [140] Intelligent design's long march to nowhere (http:/ / www. templeton. org/ capabilities_2004/ press02. html). Templeton Foundation, Science & Theology News; December 5, 2005 [cited 2007-07-23]. [141] What is wrong with intelligent design? (http:/ / philosophy. wisc. edu/ sober/ what's wrong with id qrb 2007. pdf) [PDF]. Quarterly Review of Biology. 2007 [cited 2007-07-23];82(1):3–6. doi:10.1086/511656 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 511656). [142] Science Daily. What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design? (http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2007/ 02/ 070222155420. htm); February 23, 2007 [cited 2007-07-23]. [143] Franklin & Marshall College. Natural Providence (or Design Trouble) (http:/ / edisk. fandm. edu/ michael. murray/ Providence. pdf) [PDF]; Forthcoming [cited 2007-07-23]. [144] Creighton University. What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design [ID] as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools? (http:/ / puffin. creighton. edu/ NRCSE/ NRCSEPosReID. html) [cited 2007-07-23]. [145] Bring You To. Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna (http:/ / www. bringyou. to/ apologetics/ p91. htm) [Reprint]; October 2, 2005 [cited 2007-07-22]. "Purpose and design in the natural world, [has] no difficulty [...] with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." [146] National Center for Science Education. The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ creationevolution-continuum); December 7, 2000 [cited 2009-11-18]. [147] National Council of Churches. Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes (http:/ / www. ncccusa. org/ pdfs/ evolutionbrochurefinal. pdf) [PDF]; 2006 March [cited 2007-07-17]. [148] Creighton University. Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem (http:/ / puffin. creighton. edu/ NRCSE/ IDTHG. html) [Reprint]; 2002 [cited 2007-07-21]. [149] Matt Young, Taner Edis. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC& pg=PR7& dq=archbishop+ of+ Vienna+ intelligent+ design& hl=en& ei=3VAUTZqTKouTnwekienDDg& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=1& ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage& q=archbishop of Vienna intelligent design& f=false). Rutgers, The State University. . Retrieved 2010-12-02. "An influential Roman Catholic cardinal, Cristoph Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna, appeared to retreat from John Paul II's support for evolution and wrote in the New York Times that descent with modification is a fact, but evolution in the sense of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is false. Many of Schonborn's complaints about Darwinian evolution echoed pronouncements originiating from the Discovery Institute, the right-wing American think tank that plays a central role in the ID movement (and whose public relations firm submitted Schonborn's article to the Times)." •


Intelligent design
[150] Ronald L. Numbers. The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC& pg=PA395& dq=archbishop+ of+ Vienna+ intelligent+ design& hl=en& ei=3VAUTZqTKouTnwekienDDg& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=3& ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage& q=archbishop of Vienna intelligent design& f=false). Random House. . Retrieved 2010-12-02. "Miffed by Krauss's comments, officers at the Discovery Institute arranged for the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Sconborn (b. 1945), to write an op-ed peice for the Times dismissing the late pope's statement as "rather vague and unimportant" and denying the truth of "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense-an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." The cardinal, it seems, had received the backing of the new pope, Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), who in the mid-1980s, while serving as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the notorious Inquisition, had written a defense of the doctrine of creation agasint Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation." Humans, he insisted, are "not the products of chance and error," and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design."" [151] Parliamentary Assembly, Working Papers: 2007 Ordinary Session (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=imUrkSP_5sUC& pg=PA66& dq=archbishop+ of+ Vienna+ intelligent+ design& hl=en& ei=3VAUTZqTKouTnwekienDDg& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=8& ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage& q=archbishop of Vienna intelligent design& f=false). Council of Europe Publishing. . Retrieved 2010-12-02. "Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, published an article in the New York Times stating that the declarations made by Pope John Paul II could not be interpreted as recognising evolution. At the same time, he repeated arguments put forward by the supporters of the intelligent design ideas." [152] Answers in Genesis. Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian? (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ articles/ wow/ is-idm-christian); February 4, 2006 [cited 2007-07-21]. [153] Reasons to Believe. More Than Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. reasons. org/ resources/ fff/ 2002issue10/ index. shtml#more_than_id) [cited 2007-07-21]. [154] Harun Yahya International (2007). "The "Intelligent Design" Distraction" (http:/ / www. harunyahya. com/ new_releases/ news/ intelligent_design. php). Press release. . Retrieved 2007-07-20. [155] Answers in Genesis. AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ docs2002/ 0830_IDM. asp); August 30, 2002 [cited 2007-07-20]. [156] Natan Slifkin (2006). The Challenge of Creation (New York: Yashar Books) 288 ff. [157] Miller, Kenneth. Debating Design. Cambridge University Press; 2004. The Flagellum Unspun. p. 95. [158] Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=1780); December 1, 2002 [cited 2007-07-19]. [159] University of California at San Diego. Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience (http:/ / philosophyfaculty. ucsd. edu/ faculty/ wuthrich/ teaching/ 2007_145/ Lecture02. pdf) [PDF]; January 11, 2007 [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070724203349/ http:/ / philosophyfaculty. ucsd. edu/ faculty/ wuthrich/ teaching/ 2007_145/ Lecture02. pdf) 2007-07-24; cited 2007-07-19]. [160] Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge UP; 2003. ISBN 0521017084. Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor) [161] Research Methods in Psychology. 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing; 2005. ISBN 0534609767. Chapter 2. Discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor". [162] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4: whether ID is science. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional, [163] See, e.g., Mark Perakh. Talk Reason. The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism (http:/ / talkreason. com/ articles/ Skeptic_paper. cfm); 2005; p. 54–65. [164] Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events. See, e.g., Branden Fitelson, et al.. How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski The Design Inference. In: Robert T. Pennock. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. MIT Press; 2001. p. 597–616. [165] See, e.g., Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University. Thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. lehigh. edu/ ~inbios/ schneider/ evolution. htm); 2005. "Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought." [166] The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments. See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Ruling, p. 22 and p. 77. [167] That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Ruling, p. 22 and p. 66.


Intelligent design
[168] Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data. See, e.g., the brief explanation in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). p. 66. [169] "Nobel Laureates Initiative" (http:/ / media. ljworld. com/ pdf/ 2005/ 09/ 15/ nobel_letter. pdf) (PDF). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. September 9, 2005. . Retrieved 2007-07-19. The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent". [170] Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060614003243/ www. science. unsw. edu. au/ news/ 2005/ intelligent. html). 2005 October [cited 2009-01-09]. University of New South Wales. The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory". [171] PZ Myers, Creationism and the Daubert test? (http:/ / pharyngula. org/ index/ science/ comments/ creationism_and_the_daubert_test/ ); May 21, 2005. [172] Nagel, Thomas. "Public Education and Intelligent Design" (http:/ / www. stanford. edu/ ~joelv/ teaching/ 167/ nagel 08 - public education and intelligent design. pdf), Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008, pp. 196–197. [173] National Academy of Sciences. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (http:/ / www. nap. edu/ openbook. php?isbn=0309064066& page=25); 1999. [174] National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators National Science Teachers Association (August 3, 2005). "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (http:/ / www. nsta. org/ about/ pressroom. aspx?id=50794). Press release. . "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." [175] Evolution critics seek role for unseen hand in education. Nature. 2002;416(6878):250. doi:10.1038/416250a (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 416250a). PMID 11907537. "But many scientists regard ‘intelligent design’ as pseudoscience, and say that it is being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce the teaching of creationism into schools" [176] Attie, A. D.. Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action (http:/ / www. jci. org/ articles/ view/ 28449). Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2006;116(5):1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1172/ JCI28449). PMID 16670753. PMC 1451210 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC1451210/ ). H. Allen Orr. New Yorker. Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't (http:/ / www. newyorker. com/ archive/ 2005/ 05/ 30/ 050530fa_fact); 2005 May. "Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." • Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. • Mark Bergin. World Magazine. Junk science (http:/ / www. worldmag. com/ articles/ 11553); February 25, 2006. [177] Junk Science (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=kHeQhdNQvrUC& pg=PA210& lpg=PA210& dq=intelligent+ design+ junk-science). Macmillan; 2006. ISBN 9780312352417. p. 210 ff. [178] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 [179] Free Speech on Evolution Campaign Main Page (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ csc/ freeSpeechEvolCampMain. php) Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. [180] John Hawks Weblog. The President and the teaching of evolution (http:/ / johnhawks. net/ weblog/ topics/ creation/ bush_intelligent_design_2005. html); 2005 August [cited 2007-07-19]. [181] Skeptic: eSkeptic: Thursday, April 17th, 2008 (http:/ / www. skeptic. com/ eskeptic/ 08-04-17. html#part1) [182] Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2005/ 12/ 04/ weekinreview/ 04good. html?ex=1291352400& en=feb5138e425b9001& ei=5088& partner=rssnyt& emc=rss). December 4, 2005 [cited 2007-07-19]. New York Times. [183] Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070926214521/ http:/ / www. biolsocwash. org/ id_statement. html) at the Wayback Machine (archived September 26, 2007). [184] Meyer, S.C.. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ filesDB-download. php?command=download& id=549). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 2004 [cited 2007-05-10];117(2):213–239. [185] The Sternberg peer review controversy and several similar academic disputes are the subject of the 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". [186] Design Inference Website. Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology? (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2001. 03. ID_as_nat_theol. htm); 2001 [cited 2007-07-19]. [187] Darwinism Under Attack (http:/ / chronicle. com/ free/ v48/ i17/ 17a00801. htm); December 21, 2001 [cited 2008-12-10]. [188] Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science •


Intelligent design
[189] Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues (http:/ / www3. interscience. wiley. com/ cgi-bin/ fulltext/ 121602290/ HTMLSTART). Protein Science. October 2004 [cited 16 March 2009];13(10):2651–64. doi:10.1110/ps.04802904 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1110/ ps. 04802904). PMID 15340163. PMC 2286568 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC2286568/ ). [190] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). 4: whether ID is science [191] Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC2253472/ ). Protein Science. September 2005 [cited 16 March 2009];14(9):2217–2225. doi:10.1110/ps.041171805 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1110/ ps. 041171805). PMID 16131652. [192] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, October 19, 2005, AM session Kitzmiller Testimony, Behe (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day12am. html) [193] Discovery Institute. Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=2640& program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science); 2007 July [cited 2007-07-17]. [194] Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution (http:/ / lawreview. wustl. edu/ inprint/ 83-1/ p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages. pdf) [PDF]. Washington University Law Quarterly. 2005 [cited 2007-07-18];83(1). "ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows." [195] TalkOrigins Archive. Index to Creationist Claims (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CI/ CI001_4. html); 2006. "With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical" [196] Natural History Magazine. Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences (http:/ / www. actionbioscience. org/ evolution/ nhmag. html); 2002 April [cited 2007-07-18]. [197] SETI and Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. space. com/ searchforlife/ seti_intelligentdesign_051201. html); 2005 December [cited 2007-07-18]. "In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. [...] If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality" [198] "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies".—Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., p. 81 [199] Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence (http:/ / www. csicop. org/ si/ 2001-03/ intelligent-design. html); 2001 March/April [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20011018142820/ http:/ / www. csicop. org/ si/ 2001-03/ intelligent-design. html) 2001-10-18; cited 2007-07-17]. [200] Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell (http:/ / www. ideacenter. org/ contentmgr/ showdetails. php/ id/ 1136); 2007 [cited 2007-07-14]. [201] National Center for Science Education. "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists); 2002 September [cited 2009-11-18]. [202] Del Ratzsch (2005) "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", Section 4.3, The “Intelligent Design” (ID) Movement (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ teleological-arguments/ #4. 3), in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [203] See, for instance: Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 1971;14:203–220. [204] Colin A. Ronan. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the World's Science. p. 61. [205] Colin A. Ronan. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the World's Science. p. 123. [206] Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ legal/ intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover). National Center for Science Education. October 17th, 2008 [207] Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.', (http:/ / www. pamd. uscourts. gov/ kitzmiller/ 04cv2688-111. pdf) (United States District Court for the middle district of Pennsylvania 2005). [208] Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design' (http:/ / pewforum. org/ news/ display. php?NewsID=5945). The Washington Post. December 21, 2005 [ archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070928055938/ http:/ / pewforum. org/ news/ display. php?NewsID=5945) 2007-09-28; cited 2007-09-03]. [209] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 137 – 138. [210] Discovery Institute. Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education (http:/ / www. evolutionnews. org/ 2005/ 12/ dover_intelligent_design_decis. html); December 20, 2005 [cited 2007-09-03].


Intelligent design
[211] Judge rules against 'intelligent design' (http:/ / www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 10545387/ ). December 20, 2005 [cited 2008-10-17]. Associated Press. MSNBC. [212] Godless: The Church of Liberalism (http:/ / www. skeptic. com/ eskeptic/ 06-09-21. html); September 21, 2006 [cited 2007-09-03]. [213] National Center for Science Education. Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ general/ discovery-institute-tries-to-swift-boat-judge-jones); January 4, 2006 [cited 2009-11-18]. [214] Intelligent design policy struck down (http:/ / www. dallasnews. com/ sharedcontent/ dws/ dn/ latestnews/ stories/ 122105dnnatidesign. 780fc9a. html). Dallas Morning News. December 20, 2005 [cited 2007-09-03]. [215] Articles: Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles (http:/ / www. umt. edu/ mlr/ Editors' Note. pdf) [PDF]. University of Montana Law Review. April 10, 2007 [cited 2008-10-16];68(1). [216] Irons, Peter. Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. umt. edu/ mlr/ Irons Response. pdf) [PDF]. University of Montana Law Review. April 27, 2007 [cited 2008-10-16];68(1). [217] DeWolf, David K; West, John G; Luskin, Casey. Rebuttal to Irons (http:/ / www. umt. edu/ mlr/ DI Rebuttal. pdf) [PDF]. University of Montana Law Review. April 27, 2007 [cited 2008-10-16];68(1). [218] National Center for Science Education. American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism (http:/ / ncse. com/ news/ 2010/ 07/ american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712); July 23, 2010 [cited 2010-08-09]. [219] Council of Europe. The dangers of creationism in education (http:/ / assembly. coe. int/ Main. asp?link=/ Documents/ WorkingDocs/ Doc07/ EDOC11297. htm) [cited 2007-08-03]. [220] National Center for Science Education. NCSE Resource—Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism (http:/ / ncse. com/ news/ 2007/ 10/ council-europe-approves-resolution-against-creationism-001200); October 4, 2007 [cited 2009-11-18]. • Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school (http:/ / uk. reuters. com/ article/ scienceNewsMolt/ idUKL0417855220071004). 2007-10-04 [cited 2007-10-05]. Reuters.


[221] Illustra Media. WIRED Magazine response (http:/ / www. illustramedia. com/ ID01WiredMagPage. htm) [cited 2007-07-13]. "It's also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet)" [222] Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute. [[Unlocking the Mystery of Life (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=2116& program=CSC - Video and Curriculum - Multimedia)]]; July 15, 2004 [cited 2007-07-13]. [223] Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ 2006/ nov/ 27/ controversiesinscience. religion). (London) November 27, 2006 [cited 2008-10-17]. Guardian. [224] 'Design' attack on school science (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ education/ 5392096. stm). September 29, 2006 [cited 2007-07-13]. BBC News. [225] Parliament of the United Kingdom. Written Answers (http:/ / www. publications. parliament. uk/ pa/ cm200506/ cmhansrd/ cm061101/ text/ 61101w0010. htm#0611021004183); November 1, 2006 [cited 2007-07-13]. [226] Parliament of the United Kingdom. Schools: Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. publications. parliament. uk/ pa/ ld200607/ ldhansrd/ text/ 61218w0006. htm); December 18, 2006 [cited 2007-07-13]. [227] NCSE. NCSE Resource—Guidance on creationism for British teachers (http:/ / ncse. com/ news/ 2007/ 02/ guidance-creationism-british-teachers-001170); September 25, 2007 [cited 2009-11-18]. [228] Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England. How can we answer questions about creation and origins? (http:/ / www. qca. org. uk/ libraryAssets/ media/ qca-06-2728_y9_science_religion_master. pdf) [PDF]; 2006 [cited 2007-10-01]. [229] Prime Minister's Office. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. NoCreSciEd - epetition reply (http:/ / www. number10. gov. uk/ Page12021); 21 June 2007 [cited 2007-07-13]. [230] Lengagne, Guy. Council of Europe, Doc. 11297. The dangers of creationism in education (http:/ / www. assembly. coe. int/ Main. asp?link=/ Documents/ WorkingDocs/ Doc07/ EDOC11297. htm); June 8, 2007 [cited 2008-10-17]. [231] Henry, Lesley-Anne. Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms (http:/ / www. belfasttelegraph. co. uk/ news/ education/ tussle-of-biblical-proportions-over-creationism-in-ulster-classrooms-13479246. html). Belfast Telegraph. September 26, 2007 [cited 2007-10-01]. * Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk (http:/ / www. belfasttelegraph. co. uk/ opinion/ viewpoint-the-world-according-to-lisburn-folk-13479536. html). Belfast Telegraph. September 27, 2007 [cited 2007-10-01]. [232] Dup Call For Schools To Teach Creation Passed By Council—Lisburn Today (http:/ / www. lisburntoday. co. uk/ news/ Creation-Motion-Passed-By-Council. 3233193. jp). September 26, 2007 [cited 2008-10-17]. Ulster Star. [233] Enserink, Martin. Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe? (http:/ / www. sciencemag. org/ cgi/ content/ summary/ 308/ 5727/ 1394b). Science. June 3, 2005;308(5727):1394b. doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1126/ science. 308. 5727. 1394b). PMID 15933170. [234] Cabinet ministers announced (update 2) (http:/ / www. dutchnews. nl/ news/ archives/ print/ 001501. php). February 13, 2007 [cited 2008-05-31]. [235] De Morgen, May 23, 2005 [236] National Center for Science Education. Cloning Creationism in Turkey (http:/ / ncse. com/ rncse/ 19/ 6/ cloning-creationism-turkey) [cited 2009-11-18]. [237] Edis, Taner. History of Science Society. The History of Science Society : The Society (http:/ / www. hssonline. org/ publications/ Newsletter2008/ NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism. html); 2008 January [cited 2008-02-23]; p. Newsletter.

Intelligent design
[238] Jones, Dorian L. ISN Security Watch. Turkey's survival of the fittest (http:/ / www. isn. ethz. ch/ isn/ Current-Affairs/ Security-Watch/ Detail/ ?id=54183& lng=en); March 12, 2008 [cited 2008-03-13]. [239] Intelligent design not science: experts (http:/ / www. smh. com. au/ news/ national/ intelligent-design-not-science-experts/ 2005/ 10/ 20/ 1129775902661. html). Sydney Morning Herald. October 21, 2005 [cited 2007-07-13].


References Further reading
• Gross PR; Forrest B. Creationism's Trojan Horse: the Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press; 2004. ISBN 0-19-515742-7. Preview ( printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) at Google Books • Humes E. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul. New York, N.Y: ECCO; 2007. ISBN 0-06-088548-3. • Edis T; Young M. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press; 2006. ISBN 0-8135-3872-6. Preview ( books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) at Google Books • Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York: Henry Holt; 2007. ISBN 978-0-8050-8306-4. • Slack G. The Battle over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007. ISBN 0-7879-8786-7. Preview ( books?id=1kpx8HrQ08cC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) at Google Books ID perspectives • Access Research Network ( • Design Inference: The website of William A. Dembski ( • Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture ( (Hub of the intelligent design movement) • ( Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design. • ID The Future ( A multiple contributor weblog by Discovery Institute fellows. • International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) ( • Uncommon Descent ( William Dembski's blog Non-ID perspectives • Scientific American - 15 Answers to Creationist Questions ( cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist) • ACLU site on Intelligent Design ( • Intelligent Design? ( darwinanddesign.html) Special feature in the Natural History Magazine • Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Design Arguments for the Existence of God ( design.htm) • National Center for Science Education What Is Intelligent Design Creationism? ( general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism) • Resolution from the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( releases/2002/1106id2.shtml) • Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences ( php?isbn=0309064066) Second Edition (1999) • Talk Origins Archive ( (Archive of the UseNet discussion group

Intelligent design • 139 page in-depth analysis of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and the book Of Pandas and People ( by the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District judge • Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design' ( kitzmiller-intelligent-ruling-on.php), JURIST • ID and Creationism ( • The Design Argument ( argument 11 2004.pdf) Elliott Sober, 2004. • Natural 'Knowledge' and Natural 'Design' ( article,129,Natural-Knowledge-and-Natural-Design,Richard-Dawkins) by Richard Dawkins Media articles • Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial ( A PBS-NOVA documentary on the Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial in 2005.(PBS) • Discovery's Creation ( An overview of the origin of the intelligent design movement. (Seattle Weekly) • Intelligent Design vs. Evolution ( cfm?EVNum=2006040103&TYPE=V) debate between paleontologist Peter Ward and Stephen Meyer co-founder of the Discovery Institute • Intelligent Design Deja Vu ( AR2005121601559.html) What would "intelligent design" science classes look like? All we have to do is look inside some 19th century textbooks. (The Washington Post) • How the media have covered ID ( (Columbia Journalism Review) • Banned in biology class: intelligent design ( (Christian Science Monitor) • Devolution ( (The New Yorker) • The Evolution Debate ( (The New York Times) • Debating Evolution in the Classroom ( (NPR) • Darwin Victorious (,8599,1142672,00.html) (TIME) • Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? ( 20070928143835/ (Justice Talking) • Intelligent Judging—Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom ( 354/21/2277) (New England Journal of Medicine)


Argument from poor design


Argument from poor design
The dysteleological argument or argument from poor design is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God (in the sense of a God that directly created all species of life). It is based on the following chain of reasoning: 1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. 2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. 3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The argument is structured as a basic Modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows: 1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance. 2. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator. 3. This creator is God. The complete phrase "argument from poor design" has rarely been used in the literature, but arguments of this type have appeared many times, sometimes referring to poor design, in other cases to suboptimal design, unintelligent design, or dysteleology; the last is a term applied by the nineteenth-century biologist Ernst Haeckel to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism ([1] , p. 331). Haeckel, in his book The History of Creation, devoted most of a chapter to the argument, and ended by proposing, perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek, to set up "a theory of the unsuitability of parts in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the suitability of parts" ([1] , p. 331). The term incompetent design has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design. The name stems from the acronym I.D. and is used to counter-balance arguments for intelligent design by a creator that are used by creationists.[2]

"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process. In terms of a fitness landscape, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.
Natural selection is expected to push fitness to a peak, but that peak often is not the highest.

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin;[3] modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the argument from design, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God.

Argument from poor design


The human reproductive system includes the following: • In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother. • In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby Artist's representation of an ectopic pregnancy. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the 'watchmaker cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development analogy'. of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal. • In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.[4] Other examples of "poor design" include: • Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot,[5] that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case ([1] , p. 328). • The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae. • Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO).[6] Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and guinea pigs, but is functional in most other higher animals.[7] • In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials.[4] • Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers. • The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.[4] • The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches ([1] , p. 326). • The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve. • The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.

Argument from poor design • Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth. • Vestigial third molar (Commonly known as wisdom teeth) in humans. Some other primates with differing jaw shapes make use of the third molar. • The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking. • The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.[8] [9] • The enzyme rubisco has been described as a "notoriously inefficient" enzyme,[10] as it is inhibited by oxygen, has a very slow turnover and is not saturated at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The enzyme is inhibited as it unable to distinguish between carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen, with oxygen acting as an competitive enzyme inhibitor. However, rubisco remains the key enzyme in carbon fixation and plants overcome its poor activity by having massive amounts of it inside their cells, making it the most abundant protein on Earth.[11] • The enzyme nitrogenase actually preferentially binds with acetylene over di-nitrogen, despite it being the key enzyme used in nitrogen fixation in many bacteria and archaea. • The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this oversight. • The unstable hollow bones built for flight in birds like penguins and ostriches, and the sturdy bones built for non-flight in animals like bats. • The vestigial femur and pelvis in whales; the ancestor of whales lived on land. • Turritopsis nutricula and Hydra genus have biological immortality Other critics argue that if these design failures are the deliberate products of an intelligent designer, then the designer must be either inept or sadistic. Or possibly there was a large number of designers, as in the old joke that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".


The argument from poor design has received a fair share of objections.

Unproven assumptions
Several generic philosophical criticisms can be directed towards the first premise of the argument – that a Creator God would have designed things 'optimally'. The argument hinges on an assumption that the human concept of 'optimal design' is the same as those of God, but there is no proof that this is valid. This is, in effect, the argument of the Book of Job: Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[12]

Argument from poor design


Consequences of sin
Christians argue that because of mankind's sin, the world is fallen, and full of imperfections. It is argued that imperfections and apparent sub-optimal design persist in the world because of sin.[13]

Panda's thumb
The proponents of design question the first premise of the argument, maintaining a distinction between "intelligent design" and optimal design.[14] It is noted by theists that the panda's "thumb" works well for what the panda uses it for – to strip leaves.

Human appendix
While the appendix has been previously credited with very little function, it is now believed that they serve an important role in the fetus and young adults.[15] Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development, which produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. In young adults, the appendix has some immune functions.[15]

Responses to criticism
Proponents have responded to many arguments against the argument from poor design. In the case of the panda's thumb, the argument isn't that it works, the argument is that the design is poor – as a real digit would be functionally more effective than modified wrist bones. In addition, the plantaris muscle does atrophy. Its motor function is so minimal that its long tendon can readily be harvested for reconstruction elsewhere with little functional deficit. "Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population."[5] In response to the claim that uses have been found for "junk" DNA, proponents note that the fact that some non-coding DNA has a purpose does not establish that all non-coding DNA has a purpose, and that the human genome does include pseudogenes that are clearly nonfunctional "junk". The original study that suggested that the Makorin1-p1 served some purpose[16] has been shown to be entirely wrong.[17] They also note that some sections of DNA can be randomized, cut, or added to with no apparent effect on the organism in question.[18] In regards to the last argument, proponents note that nobody has studied the effects of increased efficiency in plants in such a way to make this determination possible. Some plants have more and less efficient photosynthesis reactions, such as the C3, C4 and CAM photosynthesis reactions. No such "damaging chemical reactions" occur in the more effective processes. The original argument rests on the concept of oxidative stress and ROS – the LHC and other components of the photosynthetic array can only absorb a certain amount of energy from sunlight. Absorbing more results in oxidative damage – a well-documented phenomenon in plants. However, this argument does nothing to invalidate the argument from poor design, as it merely shifts the focus of the question to why those specific components of the photosynthetic apparatus were designed to be unable to cope with commonly-encountered levels of solar energy. Natural selection as an explanation fares much better because it posits that photosynthesis originally evolved in an aquatic environment, then later adapted (but imperfectly) to the higher solar energy found in terrestrial environments.

Argument from poor design


As an argument regarding God
The argument from poor design is sometimes interpreted, by the argumenter or the listener, as an argument against the existence of God, or against characteristics commonly attributed to God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, or personality. In a weaker form, it is used as an argument for the incompetence of God. The existence of "poor design" (as well as the perceived prodigious "wastefulness" of the evolutionary process) would seem to imply a "poor" designer, or a "blind" designer, or no designer at all. In Gould's words, "If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes. Orchids are not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged...." A counter-argument that has been made against this application of the argument – and that can be used against the argument from poor design itself – points out that the argument from poor design assumes that efficiency and neatness are the only criteria upon which the quality of biological design must be judged. The counter-argument maintains that, in addition to (or instead of) being thought of as an engineer, God is perhaps better thought of as an artist (possessing the ultimate artistic license). Moreover, this application of the argument presupposes the accountability of God to the judgement of humanity, an idea most major religions consider to be an enormous conceit that is diametrically opposed to their doctrines. We can know what God is like to a certain extent, but ultimately we cannot know everything about him because he is, by definition, a being superior to us, and who necessarily exists on a higher plane than we. However, doctrinal distaste should not rule out the moral issue that a benign God would not include design flaws that lead to pain or unnecessary death, such as the appendix, coccyx, our crowded teeth or a proclivity for cancer or the birth of babies through the pelvis. See Problem of Evil. But insufficient human knowledge may make things that actually are useful seem useless. For instance, it was once thought that tonsils were useless, but in fact they have minor disease-preventing properties. But if we can presume to recognize good design and, yet at the same time, we plead ignorance on apparent bad design, then aren't we selectively touting the "evidence" that tends logically to support our claim, while we ignore other, ostensibly equally valid "evidence" that tends logically to contradict that claim? Such evidence of poor design would certainly be expected at least to reduce the effectiveness of the argument from design. The apparently sub-optimal design of organisms has also been used by theistic evolutionists to argue in favour of a god who uses natural selection as a mechanism of his creation.[19] Arguers from poor design regard all these counter-arguments as a false dilemma (God designed it, or it's flawed), leading to the unfalsifiability of intelligent design – if it's good design, God did it, if it's bad design, it's a result of the Fall (Genesis 3:16 has God saying to Eve "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy").

• Unintelligent Design (ISBN 1-59102-084-0 – December 2003) is a book by Mark Perakh addressing intelligent design and several other variations of religiously motivated rejection of evolution. • Williams, Robyn (1 February 2007). Unintelligent Design: Why God Isn't as Smart as She Thinks She Is. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-74114-923-1. – Williams uses numerous examples from the natural and scientific world, including sinus blockages, hernias, appendix flare-ups and piles, to argue against fundamentalist religion, creationism and intelligent design. • Avise, John C. (2010), Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195393430. Alleged poor design at the level of the genome and the cell's gene-processing machinery. (Review [20])

Argument from poor design


[1] Haeckel, Ernst (1892). The History of Creation (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=qdYKAAAAIAAJ). Appleton, New York. . [2] Wise, Donald (2005-07-22). ""Intelligent" Design versus Evolution". Science (AAAS) 309 (5734): 556–557. doi:10.1126/science.309.5734.556c. PMID 16040688. [3] Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species, 6th ed., Ch. 14. [4] Colby, Chris; Loren Petrich (1993). "Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ jury-rigged. html). Talk.Origins. . [5] Selim, Jocelyn (June 2004). "Useless Body Parts" (http:/ / discovermagazine. com/ 2004/ jun/ useless-body-parts). Discover 25 (6). . [6] Nishikimi M, Yagi K (December 1991). "Molecular basis for the deficiency in humans of gulonolactone oxidase, a key enzyme for ascorbic acid biosynthesis". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 54 (6 Suppl): 1203S–1208S. PMID 1962571. [7] Ohta Y, Nishikimi M (October 1999). "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis". Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1472 (1–2): 408–11. PMID 10572964. [8] Does an objective look at the human eye show evidence of creation? (http:/ / 2think. org/ eye. shtml) [9] Theobald, Douglas (June 19, 2007). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ comdesc/ section3. html). Talk.Origins. . [10] Spreitzer RJ, Salvucci ME (2002). "Rubisco: structure, regulatory interactions, and possibilities for a better enzyme". Annu Rev Plant Biol 53: 449–75. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135233. PMID 12221984. [11] Ellis RJ (January 2010). "Biochemistry: Tackling unintelligent design". Nature 463 (7278): 164–5. doi:10.1038/463164a. PMID 20075906. [12] King James Bible. Job 38:1 [13] Luskin, Casey (2004). "Good Theology and Bad Design or Bad Theology and Good Design?" (http:/ / www. ideacenter. org/ contentmgr/ showdetails. php/ id/ 722). IDEA. . [14] Dembski, William (1999). Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology. InterVarsity Press. p. 261. ISBN 083082314X. [15] Martin, Loren G. (October 21, 1999). "What is the function of the human appendix?" (http:/ / www. scientificamerican. com/ article. cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t). Scientific American. . [16] Hirotsune S, Yoshida N, Chen A, Garrett L, Sugiyama F, Takahashi S, Yagami K, Wynshaw-Boris A, Yoshiki A. An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene (http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v423/ n6935/ abs/ nature01535. html). Nature. 2003 423:91-6. [17] Gray TA, Wilson A, Fortin PJ, Nicholls RD. The putatively functional Mkrn1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted, nor does it regulate its source gene in trans (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 0602216103v1). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006 Aug 1; [Epub ahead of print] [18] Isaak, Mark (2004). "Claim CB130" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CB/ CB130. html). Talk.Origins. . [19] Collins, Francis S. The Language of God (New York: Simon & Schuster), 2006. p 191. ISBN 978-1-4165-4274-2 [20] http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ blogs/ culturelab/ 2010/ 02/ a-caring-god-would-not-have-designed-us-like-this. php

Further reading
• Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. ISBN 0-393-30023-4 • Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. ISBN 0-393-30448-5 • Leonard, P. (1993). " Too much light ( 600-letters-too-much-light.html)," New Scientist, 139. • Witt, Jonathan. "The Gods Must Be Tidy!" ( php?id=17-06-025-f), Touchstone, July/August 2004. • Gurney, Peter W.G. (1999). "Is our 'inverted' retina really 'bad design'?" ( v13/i1/retina.asp) Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 13(1):37–44. • Martin B., Martin F. (2003). "Neither intelligent nor designed" ( intelligent-design.html), Skeptical Inquirer 27(6) • Woodmorappe, J. (1999). "Why Weren't Plants Created 100% Efficient at Photosynthesis? (OR: Why Aren't Plants Black?)" ( • Woodmorappe, J. (2003). "Pseudogene function: more evidence" ( pseudogene.asp) Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 17(2):15?18.

Argument from poor design


External links
• A short interview with prof. Don Wise at Really Magazine (2006) ( htm#DW) • Unintelligent Design Network ( satirical site

Teleological argument
A teleological argument, or argument from design,[1] [2] [3] is an argument that the existence of order and direction in Nature have a purpose and therefore prove the presence of Creator. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or "purpose". Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. Immanuel Kant called this argument the Physico–theological proof.[4]

Classical and Early Christian Writers
Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.) argued that the adaptation of human parts to one another, such as the eyelids protecting the eyeballs, could not have been due to chance and was a sign of wise planning in the universe.[5] Plato (c. 427–c. 347 B.C.) posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Plato's teleological perspective is also built upon the analysis of a priori order and structure in the world that he had already presented in The Republic. Aristotle (c. 384–322 B.C.) argued that all nature reflects inherent purposiveness and direction. In his Metaphysics, he demonstrated the existence of God, not a creator (for Aristotle the cosmos always existed) but as a "Prime Mover" who kept nature in motion. He described the prime mover as 'self-thinking thought," but believed that it did not lower itself to consider nature or relate to human beings.
Plato and Aristotle, depicted here in The School of Athens, both developed philosophical arguments based on the universe's apparent design.

Teleological argument

140 Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 B.C.)presented an early teleological argument in De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods). He stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason that pervades the whole of nature". "When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34).[6] Marcus Minucius Felix (late 2nd-3rd c.), an Early Christian writer, argued for the existence of God based on the analogy of an ordered house (Letter to Octavius, chap. 18).

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354–430) presented a classic teleological perspective in his work City of God. He describes the "city of man" and essentially posits that God's plan is to replace the city of man with the city of God (at some as-yet-unknown point in the future). Whether this Marcus Tullius Cicero is to happen gradually or suddenly is not made clear in Augustine's work. He did not, however, make a formal argument for the existence of God; rather, God's existence is already presumed and Augustine is giving a proposed view of God's teleology. Augustine's perspective follows from and is built upon the neo-Platonic views of his era, which in turn have their original roots in Plato's cosmogony.

Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was writing on teleological arguments in Moorish Spain from an Islamic perspective in the latter half of the 12th Century, and his influence was very considerable in interpreting many of Aristotle's ideas for the first time in Latin, thereby directly helping to make Aristotle available through a new school of thought known as the Averroists. Averroes was a transitional philosopher, partly a priori neo-Platonic, and partly a posteriori Aristotelian. As a result of his overlapping of the two modes in interpreting Aristotle, and also as a result of what would be known today as a strong disagreement between a deistic and theistic viewpoint in religious The Muslim philosopher Averroes developed circles of that era, Averroes' work was highly controversial and fairly teleologic arguments based on the thought of Plato and Aristotle and helped make their works available quickly was officially banned in both Christendom and Islamic to other medieval scholars. Spain.[7] Despite the lingering Platonic influence, Averroes' teleological arguments can be characterized as primarily Aristotelian and presuming one god. He argues based mainly upon Aristotle's Physics, in essence that the combination of order and continual motion in the universe cannot be accidental and requires a Prime Mover, a Supreme Principle, which is in itself pure Intelligence.

Teleological argument


The most notable of the scholastics (c. 1100–1500) positing teleological arguments was Thomas Aquinas. The translations of Averroist works would set the stage for Aquinas in the 13th century, whose arguments were much more thoroughly Aristotelian, a posteriori and empirically based than his predecessors. Aquinas makes a specific, compact and famous version of the teleological argument, the fifth of his five proofs for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica: "The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

The fifth of Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence was based on teleology.

The British empiricists
The 17th century Dutch writers Lessius and Grotius argued that the intricate structure of the world, like that of a house, was unlikely to have arisen by chance.[8] Their arguments proved popular in England. The empiricist philosopher John Locke, writing in the late 17th century, revived the Aristotelian view the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e., based upon sense experience) and that there is no a priori knowledge whatsoever. In the early 18th century, the Anglican Irish Bishop George Berkeley came to believe that Locke's view opened a door that led to atheism. In response to Locke, he advanced a form of "radical empiricism" (not to be confused with William James' use of the words "radical empiricism", mentioned below) in which things only exist as a result of their being perceived (and God fills in for humans by doing the perceiving whenever humans are not around to do it). In his Alciphron, Berkeley gave a teleological argument in which the order of nature is the language or handwriting of God. David Hume, in the mid-18th century, presented arguments both for and against the teleological argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The character Cleanthes, summarizing the teleological argument, likens the universe to a man-made machine, and concludes by the principle of similar effects and similar causes that it must have a designing intelligence. Philo is not satisfied with the teleological argument, however. He attempts a number of refutations, including one that arguably foreshadows Darwin's theory, and makes the point that if God resembles a human designer, then assuming divine characteristics such as omnipotence and omniscience is not justified. He goes on to joke that far from being the perfect creation of a perfect designer, this universe may be "only the first rude essay of some infant deity... the object of derision to his superiors."

Teleological argument


The Watchmaker Analogy
The watchmaker analogy, framing the argument with reference to a timepiece, dates back to Cicero, whose illustration was quoted above. It was also used by, among others, Robert Hooke[9] and Voltaire, the latter of whom remarked: "L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger (The universe confuses me; I cannot think that the watch exists, but does not have a watchmaker)".[10] Today the argument is usually associated with theologian William Paley, who presented it in his Natural Theology (1802).[11] As a theology student, Charles Darwin found Paley's arguments compelling; he later developed his theory of evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which offers an alternate explanation of biological order. In his autobiography, Darwin wrote that "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so William Paley's "watchmaker analogy" is one of the most famous teleological arguments. conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been [12] discovered." Even so, Darwin held that nature depended upon "designed laws" and commended Asa Gray for pointing out that Darwin's work supported teleology.[13]

The Fine-tuning Argument
A modern variation of the teleological argument is built upon the concept of the fine-tuned Universe. The fine-tuning of the Universe is the apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life. In this line of reasoning, speculation about the vast, perhaps infinite, range of possible conditions in which life could not exist is compared to the speculated improbability of achieving conditions in which life does exist, and then interpreted as indicating a fine-tuned universe specifically designed so human life is possible. This view is shared by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).[14] John Polkinghorne pointed out in 1985 that just one factor among many in the cosmos, the difference between expansive and contractive forces in the expanding cosmos according to then-currently accepted theory, depends upon an extremely fine balance of the total energy involved to within one in 1060 , a sixty-one digit number equivalent to taking aim from Earth and hitting an inch-wide target at the farthest reaches of the observable universe. George Wald, also in 1985, wrote in the same context that the conditions for something as fundamental as the atom depend on a balance of forces to within one in 1018. Proponents of the fine-tuned universe form of teleological argument typically argue that taken together, the various fine-tuned balances appear quite improbable, and hint strongly at something designed rather than accidental. Many highly regarded scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and a few theologians have weighed in on both sides in debate. A counter-argument to the fine-tuning argument is that one could manipulate statistics to define any number of natural situations that are extremely improbable, but that have happened nevertheless. By the critics' view a key problem in terms of being able to verify whether the hypothesized probabilities are correct, is that the improbable conditions were identified after the event, so they cannot be checked by experiment. And very importantly, there is no ability to sample a large enough set of alternatives (indeed we know of no other cosmos to sample) in order to be able to properly attach any odds or probabilities to these natural situations in the cosmos. Moreover, observations of the cosmos to date indicate that the conditions on Earth are but one of widely varying conditions on many, many planets in many, many star systems, all 228 [15] of which to date do not appear to have met the conditions necessary for life. An analogy from common experience where the odds can be readily calculated is given by John Allen Paulos in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences (1989), that the

Teleological argument probability of a very mundane event such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of bridge is approximately one in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert that it must not have been randomly dealt. This perspective on the issue of improbability appears to bolster the position that characteristics of Earth that allow it to sustain life could be just a fortunate or accidental "hit", so to speak. Another variant makes an argument centering on consciousness. Physicist John Wheeler's assertion that the universe seems to require an observer reflects on design not as an external phenomenon, but intrinsic to consciousness. There thus is no search for a criterion of intelligence outside the universe being imposed on it or capable of revealing whether an intelligence has been injected into it; but rather, that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence. Alfred Whitehead had made a similar argument in the early twentieth century. In defense of Whitehead's approach, Charles Hartshorne has written that the panentheism implicit in this argument evades the logical difficulties of the arguments from design of traditional theists. He asks how can a universe that is considered outside of the deity display the design of the being that is outside of? But in Whitehead's view, echoing that of George Berkeley, our very act of what he calls prehension provides us with first-hand evidence of the deity.


The Intelligent Design Movement
In the wake of the "fine-tuned universe" observations and arguments published in the 1980s, the intelligent design movement picked up some of the above concepts, added some additional ones such as irreducible complexity (a variant of the watchmaker analogy) and specified complexity (closely resembling a fine-tuning argument) and attempted to cast the resulting combined form of the teleological argument as scientific rather than speculative. The vast majority of scientists have disagreed with the assertion that it is scientific, as have the findings of a federal court in the United States in a 2005 decision, which ruled that the "intelligent design" arguments are essentially religious in nature. (See Other issues below.) Proponents of the Intelligent design movement such as Cornelius G. Hunter, have asserted that the methodological naturalism upon which science is based is religious in nature.[16] They commonly refer to it as 'scientific materialism' or as 'methodological materialism' and conflate it with 'metaphysical naturalism'.[17] They use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports theistic science. This ignores the distinction between science and religion, recognised by both scientists and the clergy, that developed in the centuries since the scientific revolution, that science is obliged to restrict its attention to the natural world, not through any atheistic intent, but because developing a more complete understanding of nature required testing explanations against the natural world.[18] This viewpoint was encapsulated by Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA), that proposes that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.

Formal objections and counterarguments
Complexity does not imply design
The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. It is argued that this is non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as "orderly" or "ordered", which implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes; however, it is also argued that the presence of this kind of natural physical process is also evidence for a designer, and these particular systems are repetitive in nature and less complex than a non-repetitive system like DNA.

Teleological argument The design claim is often challenged as an argument from ignorance, since it is often unexplained or unsupported, or explained by unscientific conjecture. Supporters of design assume that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid. It is often claimed that a designed organism would contradict evolutionary theory. As most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection, they reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Thus biologists commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god. Dennis Polis, who accepts evolution as sound science, points out, however, that the physics underlying evolution is deterministic (since quantum randomness occurs only in observations which were not possible until recently). Thus, the idea of fundamental randomness, on which the naturalist interpretation of evolution rests is incompatible with the physics biologists agree to be fundamental.[19] He also notes that evolutionary developmental biology confirms a number of falsifiable claims made by Aristotle for his teleology.


Does not prove the existence of God
Another argument states that even if the argument from design proved the existence of a powerful intelligent designer, it would not prove that the designer is God. Voltaire observed in his Traité de métaphysique: ... from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense.[20] David Hume pointed out that the argument does not necessarily lead to the existence of one God. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Philo argued (p. 108), amidst other counterarguments to the teleological argument, "why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing the world?"[21]

Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress

Critics such as Richard Dawkins often argue that the teleological argument would in turn apply to the proposed designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object (in Dawkins' words, "The Ultimate 747", a reference to Hoyle's analogy to a windstorm sweeping through a junkyard and constructing a 747). This would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. The counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's unmoved mover, is common. This argument states that since the designer exists outside of the natural laws of the universe, he is therefore exempt from any laws requiring a design to have a designer. However this does not explain why the improbable event of the designer's

Voltaire said that, at best, the teleological argument could only indicate the existence of a powerful, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing, intelligence.

Teleological argument existence does take place. While the designer might not require a cause, he still requires a reason as to why he exists, since he could just as well not exist at all.


Assertion of inconsistencies in the 'Design' of the Universe
Whilst the Universe can at first seem to be purposeful and ordered, it has been asserted that upon closer inspection its true function becomes questionable. Richard Dawkins, a high-profile advocate of atheism, rejects the claim that the Universe serves any actual function, claiming that the Universe merely 'mimics' purpose. For example, predators appear perfectly 'designed' to catch their prey, whilst their prey seem equally well 'designed' to evade them. Likewise, apparent inconsistencies in the design of organisms have been brought to attention by critics of the teleological argument. Some use such arguments to point towards natural selection as a 'blind' biological designer, as opposed to God. Proponents of teleology have argued against this objection on various grounds. For example, William A. Dembski says that such arguments are based upon presumptions about what a designer would or would not do, and so constitute a "theological rather than scientific claim." "Not knowing the designer," he continues, they "are in no position to say whether the designer proposed a faulty compromise among those [design] objectives." (Dembski 2004, pp. 58–9) Additionally, the claim of an apparent inconsistency between the "design" of predators and prey ignores the balance of the ecosystem. Dembski counters, "In criticizing design, [critics] tend to place premium on functionalities of individual organisms and see design as optimal to the degree that those individual functionalities are maximized. But higher-order designs of entire ecosystems might require lower-order designs of individual organisms." (Dembski, 2004, p. 61)

George H. Smith, in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)

Modern Developments
Since the mid 20th century, the world has seen an astounding advancement in the knowledge of biological processes. University of Chicago geneticist James A. Shapiro, writing in the Boston Review, states that many of these advancements in knowledge, particularly in the areas of microbiology, molecular biology and genetics, especially as they overlap into the realm of information science, introduce elements of hard science with interesting implications to the teleological argument. That genome reorganization is largely a biological process was discovered through the work of Nobel Laureate Dr. Barbara McClintock. Shapiro states that these natural genetic engineering systems can produce radical reorganizations of the 'genetic apparatus within a single cell generation'. In the case of one protozoa called Oxytricha, in response to stress the natural genetic engineering system is capable of splitting its chromosomes into thousands of pieces which are then reassembled into a 'distinct kind of functional genome'.[22] In light of these discoveries, Shapiro postulates a 'Third Way' (a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution):

Teleological argument What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization? " [22]


[1] Himma, Kenneth Einar (2006). “Design Arguments for the Existence of God,” (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ d/ design. htm#SH1b) in James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, eds., The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved 8/24/08 [2] Ratzsch, Del, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ archives/ win2009/ entries/ teleological-arguments/ ), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) [3] Toner, P. (1909). "The Existence of God: The argument from design (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 06608b. htm#IBc)," in The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 7, 2010. [4] Critique of Pure Reason A 620 ff. [5] Xenophon, Memorabilia I.4.6; Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 229. ISBN 0810865697. [6] M.T.CiceroDe natura Deorum(the nature of the gods),book II,XXIV [7] Turner, W. (1907). "Averroes" (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 02150c. htm) in The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. [8] Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 244–5. ISBN 0810865697. [9] Hooke, Robert (2003). Micrographia (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=0DYXk_9XX38C). Courier Dover Publications. pp. 2. ISBN 978-0486495644. . [10] Harbottle, Thomas Benfield; Philip Hugh Dalbiac (1908). Dictionary of quotations: French (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=wAo9OTvzinYC). S. Sonnenschein. pp. 101. ISBN 978-1421257204. . [11] Paley 1809, p.  1 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=A142& viewtype=text& pageseq=7). [12] Darwin 1958, pp.  59 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=61), 87 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=89). [13] Miles, Sara Joan, Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design (http:/ / www. asa3. org/ ASA/ PSCF/ 2001/ PSCF9-01Miles. html), PSCF (2001) 53: 196-201. [14] [ Edit this reference (http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:BarrowTipler1986& action=edit)]

Barrow, John D.; Tipler, Frank J. (19 May 1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=uSykSbXklWEC& printsec=frontcover). foreword by John A. Wheeler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LC 87-28148 ( ISBN 9780192821478. . Retrieved 31 December 2009.
[15] []http:/ / exoplanets. org/ [16] . "Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism". Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, (2007) [17] Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/ barbara_forrest/ naturalism. html): Clarifying the Connection (2000), Barbara Forrest, Retrieved 2007-05-20. [18] "Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Science & Religion" (http:/ / www. expelledexposed. com/ index. php/ the-truth/ science-religion). . Retrieved 2008-07-16. [19] Polis, Dennis F., Mind or Randomness in Evolution (http:/ / xianphil. org/ Intent_evol. htm), Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies (forthcoming, 2010) [20] Voltaire (1901) [1734]. "On the Existence of God" (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=RCctAAAAYAAJ). The Works of Voltaire: The Henriade: Letters and miscellanies. XXI. trans. William F. Fleming. Werner. pp. 239–240. . [21] Hume, David, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion(1779). [22] Shapiro, James, The Third Way, http:/ / www. bostonreview. net/ BR22. 1/ shapiro. html

Teleological argument


External links
• Teleological Arguments for God's Existence ( from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy • Dictionary of the history of Ideas: ( Design argument • A "Preface" to Aquinas' Teleological Argument ( • Paley, William (1809). Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (http:// (12th ed.). London: Printed for J. Faulder. Online in full. • Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora. ed. The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter. London: Collins.. • Design arguments for the existence of God ( from the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. • William Lane Craig: The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle ( billcraig/docs/teleo.html) • The Skeptic's Dictionary on argument from design (

References and further reading
• Will Crouch, " Hume and Philo on the Teleological Argument ( the_teleological_argument.html)" • Richard Dawkins (1986) The Blind Watchmaker (takes a view against the teleological argument). • William A. Dembski (2004) The Design Revolution. England: Intervarsity Press • Daniel Dennett (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea. • Derek Gjersen (1989). Science and Philosophy: Past and Present. London: Penguin. • Cornelius G. Hunter (2007). "Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism". Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press • Evidence For Design In The Universe ( EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html) from Limits for the Universe by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. in Astronomy • Lightman, Bernard V. (2007). Victorian popularizers of science ( ?id=ady3NSvPi_8C). ISBN 0226481182. Retrieved 22 June 2009 • Eric Sotnak, " Analysis of the Teleological Argument ( why_i_believe/3_apndx.html)" • JP Moreland (1987). Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, Chapter 2 '

Watchmaker analogy


Watchmaker analogy
The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe. The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in 1802. In 1838, Charles Darwin's formulation of the theory of natural selection was seen as providing a counter-argument to the watchmaker analogy. In the United States, starting in the 1980s, the concepts of evolution and natural selection became the subject of national debate, including a renewed interest in the watchmaker argument by atheists.[1]

The Watchmaker argument
The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as: 1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. 2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer. In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design. In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined.

William Paley
Watches and timepieces have been used as examples of complicated technology in philosophical discussions throughout history. Cicero, Voltaire and René Descartes, for example, used timepieces in arguments regarding purpose. The watchmaker analogy, as described here, was used by Fontenelle in 1686,[2] but was most famously formulated by Paley. William Paley (1743–1805) used the watchmaker analogy in his book Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802. In it, Paley wrote that if a pocket watch is found on a heath, it is most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by one or more watchmakers, and not by natural forces. In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, William Paley. and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...)

Watchmaker analogy There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. – William Paley, Natural Theology (1802) Paley went on to argue that the complex structures of living things and the remarkable adaptations of plants and animals required an intelligent designer. He believed the natural world was the creation of God and showed the nature of the creator. According to Paley, God had carefully designed "even the most humble and insignificant organisms" and all of their minute features (such as the wings and antennae of earwigs). He believed therefore that God must care even more for humanity. Paley recognised that there is great suffering in nature, and that nature appears to be indifferent to pain. His way of reconciling this with his belief in a benevolent God was to assume that life had more pleasure than pain. (See Problem of Evil). As a side note, a charge of wholesale plagiarism from this book was brought against Paley in The Athenaeum for 1848, but the famous illustration of the watch was not peculiar to Nieuwentyt, and had been used by many others before either Paley or Nieuwentyt.


There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?

David Hume
Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. He argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley's watchmaker argument — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

Watchmaker analogy


Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin's theory provided another explanation for complex artifacts, one where a design is not necessary. When Charles Darwin (1809–1882) completed his studies of theology at Christ's College, Cambridge in 1831, he read Paley's Natural Theology and believed that the work gave rational proof of the existence of God. This was because living beings showed complexity and were exquisitely fitted to their places in a happy world. Subsequently, on the voyage of the Beagle, Darwin found that nature was not so beneficent, and the distribution of species did not support ideas of divine creation. In 1838, shortly after his return, Darwin conceived his theory that natural selection, rather than divine design, was the best explanation for gradual change in populations over many generations. It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural Charles Darwin in 1880 selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers.... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws." – The Origin of Species[3] Darwin reviewed the implications of this finding in his autobiography: 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 conclusions 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.[4] The idea that nature was governed by laws was already common, and in 1833 William Whewell as a proponent of the natural theology that Paley had inspired had written that "with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."[5] By the time Darwin published his theory, liberal theologians were already supporting such ideas, and by the late 19th century their modernist approach was predominant in theology. In science, evolution theory incorporating Darwin's natural selection became completely accepted.

Watchmaker analogy


Richard Dawkins
Dawkins also gives an explanation for complex artifacts, one where a design is not necessary. Dawkins demonstrates through computer simulation that "highly complex" systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated yet naturally selected steps, rather than an intelligent designer. He further claims that the watchmaker analogy is a self-refuting argument: if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex. In a Horizon episode also entitled The Blind Watchmaker (Blind watchmaker), Dawkins described Paley's argument "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution." In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of millions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

Mandelbrot Analogy
A similar objection is coined as the Mandelbrot Analogy. It relies on the observation that some complex patterns and behaviours, such as those seen in fractals and chaotical systems, arise naturally from simple systems. Therefore, the complexity of something is not a valid argument for the necessity of a designer.

Faulty Analogy
Criticisms have found fault in the watch, or the alternative 'eye', analogy. Anthropologists Richerson and Boyd argue that one human could not make a watch on their own and therefore a watch does not have a designer.[6] The book Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar argues that there is no reason why the Universe resembles a watch any more than it does a baby kangaroo, and that the same question can be asked of any god. And a watch is manufactured out of other materials, while the case with the Universe is unclear.

Creationist revival of the analogy
In the early 20th century the modernist theology of higher criticism was contested in the United States by Biblical literalists who campaigned successfully against the teaching of evolution and began calling themselves Creationists in the 1920s. When teaching of evolution was reintroduced into public schools in the 1960s they adopted what they called creation science which had a central concept of design in similar terms to Paley's argument. That idea was then relabelled intelligent design, which presents the same analogy as an argument against evolution by natural selection without explicitly stating that the "intelligent designer" was God. The argument from the complexity of biological organisms was now presented as the irreducible complexity argument,[7] the most notable proponent of which was Michael Behe and, leveraging off the verbiage of information theory, the specified complexity argument, the most notable proponent of which was William Dembski. The watchmaker analogy was referenced in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Throughout the trial, the Reverend William Paley was mentioned several times, naming Paley the "posterboy" of Intelligent Design.[8] [9] [10] The defense's expert witness John Haught noted that both Intelligent Design and the watchmaker analogy are both "reformulations" of the same theological argument.[11] On day 21 of the trial, Mr. Harvey walked Dr. Minnich through a modernized version of Paley's argument, substituting a cell phone for the watch.[12] In his

Watchmaker analogy ruling, the judge stated that the use of the argument from design by intelligent design proponents "is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley's argument applied at the cell level"[13] and that the argument from design is subjective.[14]


[1] The Blind Watchmaker [2] Durant, Will; Durant, Ariel (1935). Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV (1963) (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=jCFmAAAAMAAJ& q="the+ situation+ by+ pointing+ out"+ watch& dq="the+ situation+ by+ pointing+ out"+ watch). Simon and Schuster. . [3] Darwin, C. R. 1872. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. 6th edition. p. 421 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F391& pageseq=449). [4] Darwin, C. R. 1958. The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins, p. 87 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=text& itemID=F1497& pageseq=89) [5] Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray, p. ii (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?viewtype=side& itemID=F373& pageseq=7). Whewell, William, 1833. Astronomy and general physics considered with reference to natural theology. W. Pickering, London, 356 (http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=HB4HAAAAQAAJ& pg=PA356& vq=But+ with+ regard+ to+ the+ material+ world,& dq="Astronomy+ and+ General+ Physics+ Considered+ with+ Reference+ to+ Natural+ Theology& source=gbs_search_s) [6] Richerson & Boyd 2005, p. 50 [7] Scott EC, Matzke NJ (May 2007). "Biological design in science classrooms" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ cgi/ pmidlookup?view=long& pmid=17494747). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMID 17494747. PMC 1876445. . [8] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Day 1 PM session (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day1pm. html) [9] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Day 10 PM session (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day10pm2. html) [10] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Day 12 PM session (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day10pm2. html) [11] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Day 5 PM session (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day5pm. html) [12] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Day 21 AM session (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day21am2. html) [13] Ruling, Whether ID Is Science, page 79 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 2005 [14] "It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. (23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system." Ruling, Whether ID Is Science, page 81

• Richerson, Peter J.; Boyd, Robert (2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-71284-2.

External links
• The 'by design' argument for theism ( refutationOfThebyDesignArgumentForTheism.html) • Full text of Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (http://www.hti.umich. edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=header&id=PaleyNatur) • Intelligent Design Deja Vu ( AR2005121601559.html) What would "intelligent design" science classes look like? All we have to do is look inside some 19th-century textbooks. • Robert Hooke ( • William Paley (1743–1805) ( • The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, revised version published in 1958 by Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow. • Recapitulation and Conclusion", By Charles Darwin. ( DarwinConclusions.htm) • Natural History Magazine ( • The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins

Watchmaker analogy • Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature ( • Evolution and irrationality ( evolution_and_i.html) • The Human Eye: A design review ( (This mentions the birth canal as well.) • Chaos in the Solar System, by J Laskar ( th2002_laskar.pdf) • Index to Creationist Claims ( • Stupid Alleged Design of Human Reproduction ( • The Watchmaker Analogy Animated and Dramatically Read ( English.aspx)


Irreducible complexity
This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity as used in Systems Theory, see Irreducible complexity (Emergence). Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[4] Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve,[6] and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2] Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by creationists, particularly intelligent design proponents.

The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by Behe, who defined it as applying to: A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition) Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution.

Irreducible complexity Accordingly, the debate on irreducible complexity concerns two questions: whether irreducible complexity can be found in nature, and what significance it would have if it did exist in nature. A second definition given by Behe (his "evolutionary definition") is as follows: An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway. Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.[8]


The argument from irreducible complexity is a descendant of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design or from complexity). This states that because certain things in nature are very complicated, they must have been designed. William Paley famously argued, in his 1802 watchmaker analogy, that complexity in nature implies a God for the same reason that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.[9] This argument has a long history, and can be traced back at least as far as Cicero's De natura deorum ii.34.[10] [11] Up to the 18th century Galen (1st and 2nd centuries AD) wrote about the large number of parts of the body and their relationships, which observation was cited as evidence for creation.[12] The idea that specifically the interdependence between parts would have implications for the origins of living things was raised by writers starting with Pierre Gassendi in the mid 17th century[13] and John Wilkins, who wrote (citing Galen), "Now to imagine, that all these things, according to their several kinds, could be brought into this regular frame and order, to which such an infinite number of Intentions are required, without the contrivance of some wise Agent, must needs be irrational in the highest degree."[14] In the late 17th century, Thomas Burnet referred to "a multitude of pieces aptly joyn’d" to argue against the eternity of life.[15] In the early 18th century, Nicolas Malebranche[16] wrote "An organized body contains an infinity of parts that mutually depend upon one another in relation to particular ends, all of which must be actually formed in order to work as a whole," arguing in favor of preformation, rather than epigenesis, of the individual;[17] and a similar argument about the origins of the individual was made by other 18th century students of natural history.[18] In his 1790 book, The Critique of Judgment, Kant is said to argue that "we cannot conceive how a whole that comes into being only gradually from its parts can nevertheless be the cause of the properties of those parts"[19] 19th century As we transition to the 19th century, we find references which relate to evolution. Chapter XV of Paley's Natural Theology discusses at length what he called "relations" of parts of living things as an indication of their design.[9] Georges Cuvier applied his principle of the correlation of parts to describe an animal from fragmentary remains. For Cuvier, this was related to another principle of his, the conditions of existence, which excluded the possibility of transmutation of species.[20] While he did not originate the term, Charles Darwin identified the argument as a possible way to falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution at the outset. In The Origin of Species, he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any

Irreducible complexity complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."[21] Darwin's theory of evolution challenges the teleological argument by postulating an alternative explanation to that of an intelligent designer—namely, evolution by natural selection. By showing how simple unintelligent forces can ratchet up designs of extraordinary complexity without invoking outside design, Darwin showed that an intelligent designer was not the necessary conclusion to draw from complexity in nature. The argument from irreducible complexity attempts to demonstrate that certain biological features cannot be purely the product of Darwinian evolution. In the late 19th century, in a dispute between supporters of the adequacy of natural selection and those who held for inheritance of acquired characters, one of the arguments made repeatedly by Herbert Spencer, and followed by others, depended on what Spencer referred to as co-adaptation of co-operative parts, as in: "We come now to Professor Weismann's endeavour to disprove my second thesis — that it is impossible to explain by natural selection alone the co-adaptation of co-operative parts. It is thirty years since this was set forth in "The Principles of Biology." In §166, I instanced the enormous horns of the extinct Irish elk, and contended that in this and in kindred cases, where for the efficient use of some one enlarged part many other parts have to be simultaneously enlarged, it is out of the question to suppose that they can have all spontaneously varied in the required proportions."[22] [23] The history of this concept in the dispute has been characterized: "An older and more religious tradition of idealist thinkers were committed to the explanation of complex adaptive contrivances by intelligent design. ... Another line of thinkers, unified by the recurrent publications of Herbert Spencer, also saw coadaptation as a composed, irreducible whole, but sought to explain it by the inheritance of acquired characteristics."[24] 20th century Hermann Muller, in the early 20th century, discussed a concept similar to irreducible complexity. However, far from seeing this as a problem for evolution, he described the "interlocking" of biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution, which would lead to irreversibility of some evolutionary changes.[25] He wrote, "Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."[26] In 1974, Young Earth Creationist Henry M. Morris introduced a similar concept in his book Scientific Creationism in which he wrote; "This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes."[27] A book-length study of a concept similar to irreducible complexity, explained by gradual, step-wise, non-teleological evolution, was published in 1975 by Thomas H. Frazzetta. "A complex adaptation is one constructed of several components that must blend together operationally to make the adaptation "work". It is analogous to a machine whose performance depends upon careful cooperation among its parts. In the case of the machine, no single part can greatly be altered without changing the performance of the entire machine." The machine that he chose as an analog is the Peaucellier machine, and one biological system given extended description was the jaw apparatus of a python. The conclusion of this investigation, rather than that evolution of a complex adaptation was impossible, "awed by the adaptations of living things, to be stunned by their complexity and suitability", was "to accept the inescapable but not humiliating fact that much of mankind can be seen in a tree or a lizard."[28] In 1981, Ariel Roth, in defense of the creation science position in the trial McLean v. Arkansas, said of "complex integrated structures" that "This system would not be functional until all the parts were there ... How did these parts survive during evolution ...?"[29] In 1985 Cairns-Smith wrote of "interlocking", "How can a complex collaboration between components evolve in small steps?" and used the analogy of the scaffolding called centering used to build an arch then removed afterwards: "Surely there was 'scaffolding'. Before the multitudinous components of present biochemistry could come to lean


Irreducible complexity together they had to lean on something else."[30] However, neither Muller or Cairns-Smith claimed that their ideas were evidence of something supernatural.[31] An essay in support of creationism published in 1994 referred to bacterial flagella as showing "multiple, integrated components", where "nothing about them works unless every one of their complexly fashioned and integrated components are in place" and asked the reader to "imagine the effects of natural selection on those organisms that fortuitously evolved the flagella ... without the concommitant [sic] control mechanisms".[32] [33] An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th-century Austrian biologist.[34] He believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to fully understand how they work. He extended his work on biological complexity into a general theory of systems in a book titled General Systems Theory. After James Watson and Francis Crick published the structure of DNA in the early 1950s, General Systems Theory lost many of its adherents in the physical and biological sciences.[35] However, Systems theory remained popular in the social sciences long after its demise in the physical and biological sciences.


Michael Behe developed his ideas on the concept around 1992, in the early days of the 'wedge movement', and first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity" in June 1993 when the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at Pajaro Dunes in California.[36] He set out his ideas in the second edition of Of Pandas and People published in 1993, extensively revising Chapter 6 Biochemical Similarities with new sections on the complex mechanism of blood clotting and on the origin of proteins.[37] He first used the term "irreducible complexity" in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, to refer to certain complex biochemical cellular systems. He posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the development of such "irreducibly complex" systems. Notably, Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not von Bertalanffy, and suggests that his application of the concept to biological systems is entirely original. Intelligent design advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems must have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.
Michael Behe's controversial book Darwin's

In 2001, Michael Behe wrote: "[T]here is an asymmetry between my Black Box popularized the concept of irreducible complexity. current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place".[38] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe testified under oath that he "did not judge [the asymmetry] serious enough to [have revised the book] yet."[39] Behe additionally testified that the presence of irreducible complexity in organisms would not rule out the involvement of evolutionary mechanisms in the development of organic life. He further testified that he knew of no earlier "peer reviewed articles in scientific journals discussing the intelligent design of the blood clotting cascade," but that there were "probably a large number of peer reviewed articles in science journals that demonstrate that the blood clotting system is indeed a purposeful arrangement of parts of great complexity and sophistication."[40] (The judge ruled that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature".)[41] According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without specific design or intent. The environment "selects" the variants that have the highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of organisms.

Irreducible complexity Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see punctuated equilibrium). This process is able to adapt complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see spandrel). Most intelligent design advocates accept that evolution occurs through mutation and natural selection at the "micro level", such as changing the relative frequency of various beak lengths in finches, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place.


The mousetrap analogy
Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer and the hold-down bar. All of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, he asserts that biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. Intelligent design advocates claim that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently unable to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled.

Michael Behe believes that many aspects of life show evidence of design, using the mousetrap in an analogy [42] disputed by others.

In his 2008 book Only A Theory, biologist Kenneth R. Miller challenges Behe's claim that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Miller observes that various subsets of the five components can be devised to form cooperative units, ones that have different functions from the mousetrap and so, in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice. In an example taken from his high school experience, Miller recalls that one of his classmates ...struck upon the brilliant idea of using an old, broken mousetrap as a spitball catapult, and it worked brilliantly....It had worked perfectly as something other than a rowdy friend had pulled a couple of parts --probably the hold-down bar and catch-- off the trap to make it easier to conceal and more effective as a catapult...[leaving] the base, the spring, and the hammer. Not much of a mousetrap, but a helluva spitball launcher....I realized why [Behe's] mousetrap analogy had bothered me. It was wrong. The mousetrap is not irreducibly complex after all.[43] Other systems identified by Miller that include mousetrap components include the following:[43] • • • • use the spitball launcher as a tie clip (same three-part system with different function) remove the spring from the spitball launcher/tie clip to create a two-part key chain (base + hammer) glue the spitball launcher/tie clip to a sheet of wood to create a clipboard (launcher + glue + wood) remove the hold-down bar for use as a toothpick (single element system)

Behe has responded, "What Miller actually means is that if you take away some components and then go on to, say, twist a couple of metal pieces in just the right way and add a few staples in the correct positions, you can construct a new kind of working trap, which may superficially resemble the starting trap. That, however, is intelligent design. Neither Miller nor anyone else has shown that the mousetrap I pictured in my book can be constructed by a series of small changes, one at a time, as Darwinian evolution would have to do." [44]

Irreducible complexity


Consequences of irreducible complexity
Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system. Behe argues that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be wholly explained by current models of evolution. In explicating his definition of "irreducible complexity" he notes that: An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. Irreducible complexity is not an argument that evolution does not occur, but rather an argument that it is "incomplete". In the last chapter of Darwin's Black Box, Behe goes on to explain his view that irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design. Mainstream critics, however, argue that irreducible complexity, as defined by Behe, can be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms. Behe's claim that no scientific literature adequately modeled the origins of biochemical systems through evolutionary mechanisms has been challenged by TalkOrigins.[45] [46] The judge in the Dover trial wrote "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..."[47]

Stated examples
Behe and others have suggested a number of biological features that they believe may be irreducibly complex.

Blood clotting cascade
The blood clotting or coagulation cascade in vertebrates is a complex biological pathway which is given as an example of apparent irreducible complexity.[48] The irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. However, in evolution, something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary.[49] Natural selection can lead to complex biochemical systems being built up from simpler systems, or to existing functional systems being recombined as a new system with a different function.[47] For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system.[50] Many purportedly irreducible structures can be found in other organisms as much simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems, in turn, may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct. Behe has responded to critics of his clotting cascade arguments by suggesting that homology is evidence for evolution, but not for natural selection.[51] The "improbability argument" also misrepresents natural selection. It is correct to say that a set of simultaneous mutations that form a complex protein structure is so unlikely as to be unfeasible, but that is not what Darwin advocated. His explanation is based on small accumulated changes that take place without a final goal. Each step must be advantageous in its own right, although biologists may not yet understand the reason behind all of them—for example, jawless fish accomplish blood clotting with just six proteins instead of the full 10.[52]

Irreducible complexity


The eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency.[53]
Often used as an example of irreducible complexity. In an often misquoted[54] passage from On (a) A pigment spot the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (b) A simple pigment cup appears to acknowledge the eye's (c) The simple optic cup found in abalone (d) The complex lensed eye of the marine snail and the octopus development as a difficulty for his theory. However, the quote in context shows that Darwin actually had a very good understanding of the evolution of the eye. He notes that "to suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree". Yet this observation was merely a rhetorical device for Darwin. He goes on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, "the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real". He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species.[55]

Irreducible complexity

160 Since Darwin's day, the eye's ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.[56] [57] [58]

Current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye. One likely chain The eyes of vertebrates (left) and invertebrates such as the octopus (right) developed independently: of development is that the eyes originated as simple patches of vertebrates evolved an inverted retina with a blind spot photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of over their optic disc, whereas octopuses avoided this light, but not its direction. When, via random mutation across the with a non-inverted retina. population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images.[59] [60] [61] In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.[62] Behe maintains that the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first "simple patches of photoreceptor[s]" still defies explanation. Other intelligent design proponents have pointed to the difficulty of the entire visual system evolving rather than the eye alone.[63]

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as in his view if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly. Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[64] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure

The bacterial flagellum is frequently invoked as an example of irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[65] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[66] [67]


Response of the scientific community
Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."[68]

Reducibility of "irreducible" systems
Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[69] and the flagellum,[70] [71] which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald.[42] If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways.[72] Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes.[73] They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is "redundant complexity"—a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because of his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions, resulting in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. They also criticized his over-reliance of overly simplistic metaphors, such as his mousetrap. In addition, research published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature has shown that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.[74] It is illustrative to compare a mousetrap with a cat, in this context. Both normally function so as to control the mouse population. The cat has many parts that can be removed leaving it still functional; for example, its tail can be bobbed, or it can lose an ear in a fight. Comparing the cat and the mousetrap, then, one sees that the mousetrap (which is not alive) offers better evidence, in terms of irreducible complexity, for intelligent design than the cat. Even looking at the mousetrap analogy, several critics have described ways in which the parts of the mousetrap could have independent uses or could develop in stages, demonstrating that it is not irreducibly complex.[42] [43] Moreover, even cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process. By analogy, stone arches are irreducibly complex—if you remove any stone the arch will collapse—yet we build them easily enough, one stone at a time, by building over centering that is removed afterward. Similarly, naturally occurring arches of stone are formed by weathering away bits of stone from a large concretion that has formed previously. Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate. This raises the possibility that seemingly irreducibly complex biological features may have been achieved with a period of increasing complexity, followed by a period of simplification. In April 2006 a team led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, using techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists for the first time reconstructed the evolution of an apparently irreducibly complex molecular system. The research was published in the April 7 issue of Science.[6] [75] It may be that irreducible complexity does not actually exist in nature, and that the examples given by Behe and others are not in fact irreducibly complex, but can be explained in terms of simpler precursors. There has also been a

Irreducible complexity theory that challenges irreducible complexity called facilitated variation. The theory has been presented in 2005 by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair of Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor in Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. In their theory, they describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.


Gradual adaptation to new functions
The precursors of complex systems, when they are not useful in themselves, may be useful to perform other, unrelated functions. Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form. The term used for this process is "exaptation". The mammalian middle ear (derived from a jawbone) and the panda's thumb (derived from a wrist bone spur) are considered classic examples. A 2006 article in Nature demonstrates intermediate states leading toward the development of the ear in a Devonian fish (about 360 million years ago).[76] Furthermore, recent research shows that viruses play a heretofore unexpectedly great role in evolution by mixing and matching genes from various hosts. Arguments for irreducibility often assume that things started out the same way they ended up—as we see them now. However, that may not necessarily be the case. In the Dover trial an expert witness for the plaintiffs, Ken Miller, demonstrated this possibility using Behe's mousetrap analogy. By removing several parts, Miller made the object unusable as a mousetrap, but he pointed out that it was now a perfectly functional, if unstylish, tie clip.[43] [77]

Falsifiability and experimental evidence
Some critics, such as Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) and Eugenie Scott (a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity, and more generally, the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore, not scientific. Behe argues that the theory that irreducibly complex systems could not have been evolved can be falsified by an experiment where such systems are evolved. For example, he posits taking bacteria with no flagellum and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum, then Behe believes that this would refute his theory. Other critics take a different approach, pointing to experimental evidence that they believe falsifies the argument for Intelligent Design from irreducible complexity. For example, Kenneth Miller cites the lab work of Barry G. Hall [78] on E. coli, which he asserts is evidence that "Behe is wrong."[79] Other evidence that irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution comes from the field of computer science, where computer analogues of the processes of evolution are routinely used to automatically design complex solutions to problems. The results of such Genetic Algorithms are frequently irreducibly complex since the process, like evolution, both removes non-essential components over time as well as adding new components. The removal of unused components with no essential function, like the natural process where rock underneath a natural arch is removed, can produce irreducibly complex structures without requiring the intervention of a designer. Researchers applying these algorithms are automatically producing human competitive designs—but no human designer is required.[80]

Irreducible complexity


Argument from ignorance
Intelligent design proponents attribute to an intelligent designer those biological structures they believe are irreducibly complex and whereof they say a natural explanation is insufficient to account for them.[81] However, critics view irreducible complexity as a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and thus see it as an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps argument.[7] Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[82] Behe has been accused of using an "argument by lack of imagination", and Behe himself acknowledges that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution. Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution. If truly irreducible systems are found, the argument goes, then intelligent design must be the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma.[83] [84]

Irreducible complexity in the Dover trial
While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[85] In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[85] • "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73) • "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74) • "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75) • "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76) • "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)

Irreducible complexity • "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79–80)


Notes and references
[1] See • Forrest, Barbara (May,2007) (PDF). Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (http:/ / www. centerforinquiry. net/ uploads/ attachments/ intelligent-design. pdf). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.. . Retrieved 2007-08-22.. Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit, Jonathan C. Smith, p 307, ISBN 1405181230 Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 450. ISBN 1576076539. Shulman, Seth (2008). Undermining Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 139. ISBN 0520256263. Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). Nonsense on Stilts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 177. ISBN 0226667863.

• • • •

See also List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design [2] "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [3] "True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" — Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7. "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." David Mu (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (http:/ / www. hcs. harvard. edu/ ~hsr/ fall2005/ mu. pdf). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). . Perakh M (2005 Summer). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1103713). Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. PMC 1103713. Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy (http:/ / www. texscience. org/ files/ faqs. htm) "The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use." See also list of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design [4] Ker Than (September 23, 2005). "Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - LiveScience" (http:/ / www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 9452500/ ns/ technology_and_science-science/ ). . Retrieved 2010-05-17. [5] Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, 1996, quoted in Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ behe. html) (retrieved 8 January 2006) [6] Bridgham JT, Carroll SM, Thornton JW (April 2006). "Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation". Science 312 (5770): 97–101. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189.

Irreducible complexity
[7] Index to Creationist Claims. Mark Isaak. The Talk.Origins Archive. "Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity." (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CI/ CI101. html) "The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps." (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CA/ CA100. html) [8] No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. by William Dembski pp. 285 [9] William Paley:Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Collected from the Appearances of Nature 12th edition, 1809 (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=A142& viewtype=text& pageseq=1) [10] On the Nature of the Gods (http:/ / oll. libertyfund. org/ Texts/ Cicero0070/ NatureOfGods/ HTMLs/ 0040_Pt03_Book2. html#hd_lf040. label. 159), translated by Francis Brooks, London: Methuen, 1896. [11] See [[Henry Hallam (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=FpDzTASTVwsC& pg=PA385& dq="analogy+ of+ a+ watch"+ intitle:introduction+ intitle:to+ intitle:the+ intitle:literature+ inauthor:hallam& hl=en& ei=ehvQTLbcFoa8lQeogfWvBg& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=2& ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage& q="analogy of a watch" intitle:introduction intitle:to intitle:the intitle:literature inauthor:hallam& f=false)] Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeeth Centuries Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854] volume 2 page 385 part iii chapter iii section i paragraph 26 footnote u [12] De Formatione Foetus=The Construction of the Embryo, chapter 11 in Galen: Selected Works, translated by P. N. Singer, The World's Classics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 978-019-282450-9. One 18th-century reference to Galen is [[David Hume (http:/ / www. anselm. edu/ homepage/ dbanach/ dnr. htm#A13)] Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, Part 12], § 3, page 215. Also see Galen's De Usu Partium=On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body, translated and edited by Margaret Tallmadge May, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1968, especially book XVII. For a relevant discussion of Galen and other ancients see pages 121-122, Goodman, Lenn Evan (2010). Creation and evolution. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91380-5. [13] De Generatione Animalium, chapter III. Partial translation in: Howard B. Adelmann, Marcello Malpighi and the Evolution of Embryology Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1966, volume 2, pages 811-812. [14] John Wilkins,Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion, London, 1675, book I, chapter 6, page 82. [15] The Sacred Theory of the Earth (http:/ / www. sacred-texts. com/ earth/ ste/ ste07. htm), 2nd edition, London: Walter Kettilby, 1691. Book I Chapter IV page 43 [16] Nicolas Malebranche (1712). De la recherche de la verité : où l’on traite de la nature de l’esprit de l’homme, & de l’usage qu’il en doit faire pour éviter l’erreur dans les sciences (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=Gi0_AAAAcAAJ& pg=RA1-PA57& lpg=RA1-PA57& dq=malebranche+ recherche+ verite+ "dependent+ mutuellement"#v=onepage& q& f=false) (6ième ed.). Paris: Chez Michel David. . Livre 6ième, 2ième partie, chapître 4; English translation: Nicholas Malebranche (1997). Thomas M. Lennon and Paul J. Olscamp. ed. The search after Truth: with Elucidations of The search after truth (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=ybYLfAw_084C& pg=PA465& dq=mutually+ depend+ intitle:search+ intitle:after+ intitle:truth+ inauthor:malebranche#v=onepage& q=mutually depend intitle:search intitle:after intitle:truth inauthor:malebranche& f=falseelucidations). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58004-8. . Second paragraph from the end of the chapter, on page 465. [17] Pages 202-204 of Andrew Pyle (2006). "Malebranche on Animal Generation: Preexistence and the Microscope" (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=EyMWhGH4JgIC& pg=PA204& dq="irreducible+ complexity"+ intitle:problem+ intitle:of+ intitle:generation+ inauthor:smith#v=onepage& q="irreducible complexity" intitle:problem intitle:of intitle:generation inauthor:smith& f=false). In Smith JH. The problem of animal generation in early modern philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 194–214. ISBN 0-521-84077-5. . [18] The Chicken or the Egg (http:/ / talkreason. org/ articles/ chickegg. cfm) [19] This is Guyer's exposition on page 22 of Paul Guyer (1992). "Introduction" (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=pYE5rVzrPNgC& pg=PA22& dq="gradually+ from+ its+ parts"+ intitle:cambridge+ intitle:companion+ intitle:to+ intitle:kant+ inauthor:guyer#v=onepage& q="gradually from its parts" intitle:cambridge intitle:companion intitle:to intitle:kant inauthor:guyer& f=false). In Paul Guyer. The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–25. ISBN 978-0-521-36768-4. . Guyer goes on to add this parenthetical comment: "(here is where the theory of natural selection removes the difficulty)". See Kant's discussion in section IX of the "First Introduction" to the Critique of Judgment and in §§61, 64 (where he uses the expression wechselsweise abhängt="reciprocally dependent"), and 66 of "Part Two, First Division". For example, Immanuel Kant (2000). "§64" (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=JEXHIcDbBDcC& pg=PA243& dq="reciprocally+ dependent"+ intitle:critique+ intitle:judgment+ inauthor:kant#v=onepage& q="reciprocally dependent" intitle:critique intitle:judgment inauthor:kant& f=false). In Paul Guyer, Eric Matthews. Critique of the power of judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 243–244. ISBN 0-521-34447-6. . German original Kritik der Urtheilskraft (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=6O1Nayo3wWgC& pg=PA371& dq=akademie+ "wechselsweise+ abhängt"+ inauthor:kant#v=onepage& q& f=false). Kants gesammelte Schriften. 5 (Königlich Presußischen Akademie der Wißenschaften ed.). Berlin: Georg Reimer. 1913. p. 371. ISBN 9783110014389. . [20] See especially chapters VI and VII of William Coleman (1964). Georges Cuvier, Zoologist: A Study in the History of Evolution Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. See also the discussion of these principles in the Wikipedia article on Cuvier. [21] Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. page 189, Chapter VI (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=side& pageseq=207) [22] Page 594 in: Herbert Spencer (October 1894). "Weismannism Once More". The Contemporary Review 66: 592–608. Another essay of his treating this concept is: Herbert Spencer (1893). "The Inadequacy of "Natural Selection"". The Contemporary Review 63: 153–166. (Part I: February) and pages 439-456 (Part II: March). These essays were reprinted in Herbert Spencer (1891). The Works of Herbert Spencer. 17. London: Williams and Norgate. (also Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967). See also part III, Chapter XII, §166, pages 449-457 in: Herbert Spencer (1864). Principles of Biology. I. London: Williams and Norgate. And: Herbert Spencer (1886). "The Factors of Organic Evolution".


Irreducible complexity
Nineteenth Century 19: 570–589. (Part I: April) and pages 749-770 (Part II: May). "Factors" was reprinted in pages 389-466 of Herbert Spencer (1891). The Works of Herbert Spencer. 13. London: Williams and Norgate. (also Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967) = volume 1 ofEssays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. [23] One example of a response by was in Section III(γ) pages 32-42 of August Weismann (1909). "The Selection theory". In Albert Charles Seward. Darwin and Modern Science: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of the Birth of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of The Origin of Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–65. See also Chapter VII, §12(1), pages 237-238 in: J. Arthur Thomson (1908). Heredity. London: John Murray. Both of these referred to what has become known as the Baldwin effect. An analysis of both sides of the issue is: George John Romanes (1895). "III: Characters as Hereditary and Acquired (continued)". Darwin and After Darwin: Post-Darwinian Questions, Heredity, Utility. II. London: Longman, Green. pp. 60–102. [24] Pages 67-68 in: Mark Ridley (March,1982). "Coadapatation and the Inadequacy of Natural Selection". British Journal for the History of Science 15 (1): 45–68. doi:10.1017/S0007087400018938. [25] Muller HJ (1918). "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors" (http:/ / www. genetics. org/ cgi/ reprint/ 3/ 5/ 422). Genetics 3 (5): 422–99. PMID 17245914. PMC 1200446. ., especially pages 463–4. [26] Muller HJ (1939). "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 4 (3): 261–80, quotation from 272. [27] Morris, Henry (1974). Scientific creationism (2nd ed.). San Diego, Calif: Creation-Life Publishers. pp. 59. ISBN 0-89051-003-2. [28] T. H. Frazzetta, Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations, Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 1975. ISBN 0-87893-194-5. Referencing pages 3, 4-7, 7-20, and xi, respectively. [29] Keough, Mark J.; Geisler, Norman L. (1982). The Creator in the courtroom "Scopes II": the 1981 Arkansas creation-evolution trial (http:/ / www. antievolution. org/ projects/ mclean/ new_site/ docs/ geislerbook. htm#Chapter Seven). Milford, Mich: Mott Media. p. 146. ISBN 0-88062-020-X. . [30] Cairns-Smith, A. G. (1986). Seven clues to the origin of life: a scientific detective story. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 39, 58–64. ISBN 0-521-27522-9. [31] Mark Perakh (2008). "Bacteria Flagella Look Like Man-made Machines" (http:/ / www. skeptic. com/ the_magazine/ ). Skeptic (U.S. magazine). . Retrieved 2008-12-06. [32] Lumsden RD (June 1994). "Not So Blind A Watchmaker". Creation Research Society Quarterly 31 (1): 13–22, quotations from 13, 20. [33] Scott EC, Matzke NJ (May 2007). "Biological design in science classrooms" (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1876445). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76, See page 8672. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMID 17494747. PMC 1876445. [34] Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1952). Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought, pg 148 ISBN 1-131-79242-4 [35] Monod, Jacques (1972). Chance and necessity: an essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0-394-71825-9. [36] Barbara Forrest, The Wedge at Work (http:/ / www. talkreason. org/ articles/ Wedge. cfm#I). Talk Reason. Forrest B (2001). "1: The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging its way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream". In Pennock RT. Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 5–54. ISBN 0-262-66124-1. [37] The New Pandas: Has Creationist Scholarship Improved? (http:/ / ncseweb. org/ creationism/ analysis/ new-pandas-has-creationist-scholarship-improved) Comments on 1993 Revisions by Frank J. Sonleitner (1994) Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement (http:/ / ncseweb. org/ creationism/ analysis/ critique-pandas-people) by Nick Matzke 2004, Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania (http:/ / ncseweb. org/ rncse/ 26/ 1-2/ design-trial) by Nicholas J Matzke, NCSE Public Information Project Specialist [38] Behe MJ (November 2001). "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (http:/ / friends-of-wisdom. com/ readings/ Behe2001. pdf). Biology and Philosophy 16 (5): 685–709. doi:10.1023/A:1012268700496. . [39] Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ dover/ day12am2. html) [40] Behe, Michael 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science (p. 88) [41] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 6: Conclusion, section H [42] A reducibly complex mousetrap (http:/ / udel. edu/ ~mcdonald/ mousetrap. html) (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript) [43] Miller, Kenneth R. (2008). Only A Theory. New York: Viking Penguin. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3. [44] Behe, Michael "Comments on Ken Miller's Reply to My Essays" (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ behe/ mb_responsetokmiller0101. htm) [45] Claim CA350: Professional literature is silent on the subject of the evolution of biochemical systems (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CA/ CA350. html) TalkOrigins Archive. [46] Behe, Michael J. (1996) [1996]. Darwin's black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. New York, NY: Free Press. pp. 72. ISBN 0684827549. ""Yet here again the evolutionary literature is totally missing. No scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine."" [47] Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December 2005. Page 74. [48] Action, George "Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ origins/ postmonth/ feb97. html)


Irreducible complexity
[49] Boudry, Maarten; Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman (September 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (http:/ / sites. google. com/ site/ maartenboudry/ irreducible-incoherence). Quarterly Review of Biology 85 (3). . [50] Semba U, Shibuya Y, Okabe H, Yamamoto T (1998). "Whale Hageman factor (factor XII): prevented production due to pseudogene conversion". Thromb Res 90 (1): 31–7. doi:10.1016/S0049-3848(97)00307-1. PMID 9678675. [51] Behe, Michael "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison" (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ behe/ mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade. htm) [52] Creationism special: A sceptic's guide to intelligent design (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ mg18725073. 800), New Scientist, 9 July 2005 [53] Sarfati, Jonathan (2000). Argument: 'Irreducible complexity' (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ home/ area/ re2/ chapter10. asp), from Refuting Evolution (Answers in Genesis). [54] CA113.1: Evolution of the eye (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CA/ CA113_1. html) [55] Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. pages 186ff, Chapter VI (http:/ / darwin-online. org. uk/ content/ frameset?itemID=F373& viewtype=side& pageseq=204) [56] Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ (October 1995). "New perspectives on eye evolution" (http:/ / linkinghub. elsevier. com/ retrieve/ pii/ 0959-437X(95)80029-8). Curr Opin Genet Dev. 5 (5): 602–9. doi:10.1016/0959-437X(95)80029-8. PMID 8664548. . [57] Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ (March 1995). "Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila" (http:/ / www. sciencemag. org/ cgi/ pmidlookup?view=long& pmid=7892602). Science 267 (5205): 1788–92. doi:10.1126/science.7892602. PMID 7892602. . [58] Tomarev SI, Callaerts P, Kos L, et al. (March 1997). "Squid [[PAX6|Pax-6 (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ cgi/ pmidlookup?view=long& pmid=9122210)] and eye development"]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 94 (6): 2421–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.6.2421. PMID 9122210. PMC 20103. . [59] Fernald, Russell D. (2001). The Evolution of Eyes: Why Do We See What We See? (http:/ / www. karger. com/ gazette/ 64/ fernald/ art_1_1. htm) Karger Gazette 64: "The Eye in Focus". [60] Fernald RD (1988). "Aquatic Adaptations in Fish Eyes". In Atema J. Sensory biology of aquatic animals. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-96373-1. [61] Fernald RD (1997). "The evolution of eyes". Brain Behav Evol. 50 (4): 253–9. doi:10.1159/000113339. PMID 9310200. [62] Conway-Morris S (1999). The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286202-2. [63] Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt (2006). A Meaningful World. p. 44. [64] Miller, Kenneth R. The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" (http:/ / www. millerandlevine. com/ km/ evol/ design2/ article. html) with reply here (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2003. 02. Miller_Response. htm) [65] Kenneth Miller's The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Section 5 Bacterial Flagellum (http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4) (Case Western Reserve University, 2006 January 3) [66] Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists (http:/ / debatebothsides. com/ showthread. php?t=38338) (Chicago Tribune, 2006 February 13) [67] Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum (http:/ / www. talkdesign. org/ faqs/ flagellum. html) (Talk Design, 2006 September) [68] Mirsky, Steve Sticker Shock: In the beginning was the cautionary advisory (http:/ / www. sciam. com/ article. cfm?articleID=00022DE1-0C15-11E6-B75283414B7F0000) Scientific American, February 2005 [69] Matt Inlay, 2002. " Evolving Immunity (http:/ / www. talkdesign. org/ faqs/ Evolving_Immunity. html)." In [70] Nicholas J. Matzke, 2003. " Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum (http:/ / www. talkdesign. org/ faqs/ flagellum_background. html)." [71] Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (October 2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella" (http:/ / www. pandasthumb. org/ archives/ 2006/ 09/ flagellum_evolu. html). Nat Rev Microbiol. 4 (10): 784–90. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493. PMID 16953248. . [72] Pigliucci, Massimo (http:/ / www. infidels. org/ library/ modern/ features/ 2000/ pigliucci1. html) Collaboration Sept. 2001 [73] Shanks, Niall; Joplin, Karl H. (1999). "Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry" (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ pss/ 188646). Philosophy of Science (The University of Chicago Press) 66 (2, June): 268–282. doi:10.1086/392687. . [74] Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C (2003). "The evolutionary origin of complex features". Nature 423 (6936): 139–44. doi:10.1038/nature01568. PMID 12736677. [75] Press release (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ filesDB-download. php?command=download& id=746) University of Oregon, April 4, 2006. [76] M. Brazeau and P. Ahlberg (January 19, 2006). "Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish". Nature 439 (7074): 318–21. doi:10.1038/nature04196. PMID 16421569. [77] "NOVA : Transcripts : Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 8" (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wgbh/ nova/ transcripts/ 3416_id_08. html). PBS. November 13, 2007. . Retrieved 2008-12-17. [78] http:/ / homepage. mac. com/ barryghall/ BarryHall. html [79] Miller K (1999). Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books. ISBN 0060930497. [80] 36 Human-Competitive Results Produced by Genetic Programming (http:/ / www. genetic-programming. com/ humancompetitive. html)


Irreducible complexity
[81] Michael Behe. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry. (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& id=51) 1996. [82] Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch, "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists (http:/ / ncseweb. org/ creationism/ general/ intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists), National Center for Science Education website, September 10, 2002. [83] IC and Evolution (http:/ / www. talkdesign. org/ faqs/ icdmyst/ ICDmyst. html) makes the point that: if "irreducible complexity" is tautologically redefined to allow a valid argument that intelligent design is the correct explanation for life then there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" in the mechanisms of life; while, if we use the unmodified original definition then "irreducible complexity" has nothing whatever to do with evolution. [84] The Court in Dover noted that this implicit assumption of the defendant school board created a "flawed and illogical contrived dualism" (Opinion p. 64). [85] Memorandum Opinion, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District


Additional references
• Behe, Michael (1996). Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83493-6 • Denton, Michael (1986). Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Md: Adler & Adler. ISBN 0-917561-05-8. • Macnab RM (2004). "Type III flagellar protein export and flagellar assembly". Biochim Biophys Acta 1694 (1-3): 207–17. doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2004.04.005. PMID 15546667. • Ruben, J.A.; Jones, T.D.; Geist, N.R.; & Hillenius, W.J. (November 14, 1997). "Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds". Science 278 (5341): 1267–70. doi:10.1126/science.278.5341.1267. • Sunderland, Luther D. (March 1976). Miraculous Design in Woodpeckers. Creation Research Society Quarterly. • Testing Darwin ( Discover Magazine Vol. 26 No. 02 ( | February 2005

External links
Supportive • Michael J. Behe home page ( • About Irreducible Complexity ( id=3408&program=DI Main Page - News&callingPage=discoMainPage) Discovery Institute • How to Explain Irreducible Complexity -- A Lab Manual ( php?command=view&id=3419) Discovery Institute • Institute for Creation Research ( (pdf) • Irreducible Complexity Revisited ( Dembski_IrreducibleComplexityRevisited_011404.pdf) (pdf) • Behe's Reply to his Critics ( (pdf) Critical • Behe, Biochemistry, and the Invisible Hand ( • Facilitated Variation ( • Darwin vs. Intelligent Design (again), by H. Allen Orr (review of Darwin's Black Box) (http://www. • archive ( (see • ( (sister site to archive on intelligent design) • Professor Kenneth R. Miller's textbook website ( • "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" ( evol/design2/article.html) by Professor Miller • A rigorous mathematical analysis of the concept of irreducible complexity ( IrreducibleComplexity.html) by Mishkin Berteig. • PDF. 139 page in-depth analysis of Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the book "Of Pandas and People" by a judge and based on expert testimony (

Irreducible complexity pdf) Devolution: Why intelligent design isn't ( (The New Yorker) Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists ( chi-0602130210feb13,1,1538105.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true) (Chicago Tribune) Does irreducible complexity imply Intelligent Design? ( ai_n15930875) by Mark Perakh Evolution of the Eye (Video) ( Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates eye evolution through intermediate stages with working model. (PBS) Himma, Kenneth Einar. Design Arguments for the Existence of God ( Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 2. Contemporary Versions of the Design Argument, a. The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity


• • • • •

Specified complexity
Specified complexity is an argument proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept is intended to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology.[1] [2] [3] Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being irreducible complexity. In Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Therefore, Dembski argues, the fact that specified complex patterns can be found in living things indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. Dembski further argues that one can rigorously show by applying no free lunch theorems the inability of evolutionary algorithms to select or generate configurations of high specified complexity. In intelligent design literature, an intelligent agent is one that chooses between different possibilities and has, by supernatural means and methods, caused life to arise.[4] Specified complexity is what Dembski terms an "explanatory filter" which can recognize design by detecting complex specified information (CSI). The filter is based on the premise that the categories of regularity, chance, and design are, according to Dembski, "mutually exclusive and exhaustive." Complex specified information detects design because it detects what characterizes intelligent agency; it detects the actualization of one among many competing possibilities. A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

Specified complexity


Orgel's original use
The term "specified complexity" was originally coined by origin of life researcher Leslie Orgel to denote what distinguishes living things from non-living things: In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.[7] The term was later employed by physicist Paul Davies in a similar manner: Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity[8]

Dembski's definition
For Dembski, specified complexity is a property which can be observed in living things. However, whereas Orgel used the term for that which, in Darwinian theory, is understood to be created through evolution, Dembski uses it for that which he says cannot be created through "undirected" evolution—and concludes that it allows one to infer intelligent design. While Orgel employed the concept in a qualitative way, Dembski's use is intended to be quantitative. Dembski's use of the concept dates to his 1998 monograph The Design Inference. Specified complexity is fundamental to his approach to intelligent design, and each of his subsequent books has also dealt significantly with the concept. He has stated that, in his opinion, "if there is a way to detect design, specified complexity is it."[9] Dembski asserts that specified complexity is present in a configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a large amount of independently specified information and is also complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence. He provides the following examples to demonstrate the concept: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." [10] In his earlier papers Dembski defined complex specified information (CSI) as being present in a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10150, which he calls the universal probability bound. In that context, "specified" meant what in later work he called "pre-specified", that is specified before any information about the outcome is known. The value of the universal probability bound corresponds to the inverse of the upper limit of "the total number of [possible] specified events throughout cosmic history," as calculated by Dembski.[11] Anything below this bound has CSI. The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably. In more recent papers Dembski has redefined the universal probability bound, with reference to another number, corresponding to the total number of bit operations that could possibly have been performed in the entire history of the universe. Dembski asserts that CSI exists in numerous features of living things, such as DNA and other functional biological molecules, and argues that it cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose information, but do not produce it, and chance can produce complex unspecified information, or simple specified information, but not CSI; he provides a mathematical analysis that he claims demonstrates that law and chance working together cannot generate CSI, either. Moreover, he claims that CSI is holistic, with the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, and that this decisively eliminates Darwinian evolution as a possible means of its creation. Dembski maintains that by process of elimination, CSI is best explained as being due to intelligence, and is therefore a reliable indicator of

Specified complexity design.


Law of conservation of information
Dembski formulates and proposes a law of conservation of information as follows: This strong proscriptive claim, that natural causes can only transmit CSI but never originate it, I call the Law of Conservation of Information. Immediate corollaries of the proposed law are the following: 1. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases. 2. The specified complexity cannot be generated spontaneously, originate endogenously or organize itself (as these terms are used in origins-of-life research). 3. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes either has been in the system eternally or was at some point added exogenously (implying that the system, though now closed, was not always closed). 4. In particular any closed system of natural causes that is also of finite duration received whatever specified complexity it contains before it became a closed system.[12] Dembski notes that the term "Law of Conservation of Information" was previously used by Peter Medawar in his book The Limits of Science (1984) "to describe the weaker claim that deterministic laws cannot produce novel information."[13] The actual validity and utility of Dembski's proposed law are uncertain; it is neither widely used by the scientific community nor cited in mainstream scientific literature. A 2002 essay by Erik Tellgren provided a mathematical rebuttal of Dembski's law and concludes that it is "mathematically unsubstantiated." [14]

In a more recent paper,[15] Dembski provides an account which he claims is simpler and adheres more closely to the theory of statistical hypothesis testing as formulated by Ronald Fisher. In general terms, Dembski proposes to view design inference as a statistical test to reject a chance hypothesis P on a space of outcomes Ω. Dembski's proposed test is based on the Kolmogorov complexity of a pattern T that is exhibited by an event E that has occurred. Mathematically, E is a subset of Ω, the pattern T specifies a set of outcomes in Ω and E is a subset of T. Quoting Dembski[16] Thus, the event E might be a die toss that lands six and T might be the composite event consisting of all die tosses that land on an even face. Kolmogorov complexity provides a measure of the computational resources needed to specify a pattern (such as a DNA sequence or a sequence of alphabetic characters).[17] Given a pattern T, the number of other patterns may have Kolmogorov complexity no larger than that of T is denoted by φ(T). The number φ(T) thus provides a ranking of patterns from the simplest to the most complex. For example, for a pattern T which describes the bacterial flagellum, Dembski claims to obtain the upper bound φ(T) ≤ 1020. Dembski defines specified complexity of the pattern T under the chance hypothesis P as

where P(T) is the probability of observing the pattern T, R is the number of "replicational resources" available "to witnessing agents". R corresponds roughly to repeated attempts to create and discern a pattern. Dembski then asserts that R can be bounded by 10120. This number is supposedly justified by a result of Seth Lloyd[18] in which he determines that the number of elementary logic operations that can have performed in the universe over its entire history cannot exceed 10120 operations on 1090 bits. Dembski's main claim is that the following test can be used to infer design for a configuration: There is a target pattern T that applies to the configuration and whose specified complexity exceeds 1. This condition can be restated as the inequality

Specified complexity


Dembski's explanation of specified complexity
Dembski's expression σ is unrelated to any known concept in information theory, though he claims he can justify its relevance as follows: An intelligent agent S witnesses an event E and assigns it to some reference class of events Ω and within this reference class considers it as satisfying a specification T. Now consider the quantity φ(T) × P(T) (where P is the "chance" hypothesis): Think of S as trying to determine whether an archer, who has just shot an arrow at a large wall, happened to hit a tiny target on that wall by chance. The arrow, let us say, is indeed sticking squarely in this tiny target. The problem, however, is that there are lots of other tiny targets on the wall. Once all those other targets are factored in, is it still unlikely that the archer could have hit any of them by chance?

Possible targets with complexity ranking and probability not exceeding those of attained target T. Probability of set-theoretic union does not exceed φ(T) × P(T)

In addition, we need to factor in what I call the replicational resources associated with T, that is, all the opportunities to bring about an event of T's descriptive complexity and improbability by multiple agents witnessing multiple events. According to Dembski, the number of such "replicational resources" can be bounded by "the maximal number of bit operations that the known, observable universe could have performed throughout its entire multi-billion year history", which according to Lloyd is 10120. However, according to Elsberry and Shallit, "[specified complexity] has not been defined formally in any reputable peer-reviewed mathematical journal, nor (to the best of our knowledge) adopted by any researcher in information theory."[19]

Calculation of specified complexity
Thus far, Dembski's only attempt at calculating the specified complexity of a naturally occurring biological structure is in his book No Free Lunch, for the bacterial flagellum of E. coli. This structure can be described by the pattern "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller". Dembski estimates that there are at most 1020 patterns described by four basic concepts or fewer, and so his test for design will apply if

However, Dembski says that the precise calculation of the relevant probability "has yet to be done", although he also claims that some methods for calculating these probabilities "are now in place". These methods assume that all of the constituent parts of the flagellum must have been generated completely at random, a scenario that biologists do not seriously consider. He justifies this approach by appealing to Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC), which leads him to assume that the flagellum could not come about by any gradual or step-wise process. The validity of Dembski's particular calculation is thus wholly dependent on Behe's IC concept, and therefore susceptible to its criticisms, of which there are many.

Specified complexity To arrive at the ranking upper bound of 1020 patterns, Dembski considers a specification pattern for the flagellum defined by the (natural language) predicate "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller", which he regards as being determined by four independently chosen basic concepts. He furthermore assumes that English has the capability to express at most 105 basic concepts (an upper bound on the size of a dictionary). Dembski then claims that we can obtain the rough upper bound of


for the set of patterns described by four basic concepts or fewer. From the standpoint of Kolmogorov complexity theory, this calculation is problematic. Quoting Ellsberry and Shallit[20] "Natural language specification without restriction, as Dembski tacitly permits, seems problematic. For one thing, it results in the Berry paradox". These authors add: "We have no objection to natural language specifications per se, provided there is some evident way to translate them to Dembski's formal framework. But what, precisely, is the space of events Ω here?"

The soundness of Dembski's concept of specified complexity and the validity of arguments based on this concept are widely disputed. A frequent criticism (see Elsberry and Shallit) is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably. These numbers measure properties of things of different types: Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object (such as a bitstring), information measures how close to uniform a random probability distribution is and improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution. When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[21] Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[22] Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[23] According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6] Dembski's critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create. Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus. They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do. Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.

Specified complexity Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."[12] Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[24] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935. Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".[25] This strongly contradicts the argument that an intelligent designer is required for the most complex systems. Such evolutionary techniques can lead to designs that are difficult to understand or evaluate since no human understands which trade-offs were made in the evolutionary process, something which mimics our poor understanding of biological systems. Dembski's book No Free Lunch was criticised for not addressing the work of researchers who use computer simulations to investigate artificial life. According to Jeffrey Shallit: The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.[22]


Notes and references
[1] Rich Baldwin (2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ information/ dembski. html). TalkOrigins Archive. . Retrieved 2010-05-10. [2] Mark Perakh, (2005). Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he? (http:/ / www. talkreason. org/ articles/ newmath. cfm) [3] Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics (http:/ / www. math. jmu. edu/ ~rosenhjd/ sewell. pdf) The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8. [4] "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." - Dembski The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ offices/ dembski/ docs/ bd-the_ac. html) Dembski has also said that "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces" Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 08. Commending_President_Bush. pdf) William A. Dembski, August 4, 2005. Dembski has also said that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Signs of Intelligence (http:/ / touchstonemag. com/ archives/ issue. php?id=49) A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski. Touchstone Journal, Volume 12, Issue 4, July/August 1999. [5] Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, (2003). Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information” (http:/ / www. talkreason. org/ articles/ eandsdembski. pdf) [6] Martin Nowak (2005). Time Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32 (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ archive/ preview/ 0,10987,1090909,00. html) [7] Leslie Orgel (1973). The Origins of Life, p. 189. [8] Paul Davies (1999). The Fifth Miracle p. 112 [9] William A. Dembski (2002). No Free Lunch, p. 19. [10] William A. Dembski (1999). Intelligent Design, p. 47.

Specified complexity
[11] William A. Dembski (2004). The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design, p. 85. [12] William A. Dembski (1998) Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information (http:/ / www. arn. org/ docs/ dembski/ wd_idtheory. htm). [13] "Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress (356k PDF) (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 03. Searching_Large_Spaces. pdf)", pp. 15-16, describing an argument made by Michael Shermer in How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God, 2nd ed. (2003). [14] On Dembski's law of conservation of information (http:/ / www. talkreason. org/ articles/ dembski_LCI. pdf) Erik Tellgren., 2002. (PDF file) [15] William A. Dembski (2005). Specification: The Pattern that Signifies intelligence (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 06. Specification. pdf) [16] (loc. cit. p 16) [17] Michael Sipser (1997). Introduction to the Theory of Computation, PWS Publishing Company. [18] Seth Lloyd (2002), Computational capacity of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(23):790 1- 4. See also arXiv:quant/ph0110141 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0110141). [19] Elsberry and Shallit, (2003)p 14 [20] Elsberry and Shallit, (2003)p 12 [21] William A. Dembski, (2002). If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely: A Response to "Erik" (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2002. 08. Erik_Response. htm). [22] Jeffrey Shallit (2002) A review of Dembski's No Free Lunch (http:/ / www. cs. uwaterloo. ca/ ~shallit/ nflr3. txt) [23] Thomas D. Schneider. (2002) Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" (http:/ / www. lecb. ncifcrf. gov/ ~toms/ paper/ ev/ dembski/ specified. complexity. html) [24] B.G. Hall (1982). "Evolution of a regulated operon in the laboratory", Genetics, 101(3-4):335-44. In PubMed. (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ entrez/ query. fcgi?cmd=Retrieve& db=pubmed& dopt=Abstract& list_uids=6816666& query_hl=1) [25] Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers (http:/ / www. newscientisttech. com/ channel/ tech/ mg19526146. 000-evolutionary-algorithms-now-surpass-human-designers. html) New Scientist, 28 July 2007


• Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, (2003). Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information” (

External links
• Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates - A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch (http://www. by Richard Wein, from TalkOrigins • Information Theory and Creationism William Dembski ( dembski.html) by Rich Baldwin, from Information Theory and Creationism, compiled by Ian Musgrave and Rich Baldwin • Critique of No Free Lunch by H. Allen Orr ( from the Boston Review • Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" ( dembski/specified.complexity.html) by Dr. Thomas D. Schneider. • William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello ( articles/jello.cfm) by No Free Lunch theorems co-founder, David Wolpert • The Evolution List - Genetic ID and the Explanatory Filter ( genetic-id-and-explanatory-filter.html) by Allen MacNeill. • Design Inference Website ( - The writing of William A. Dembski • Committee for Skeptical Inquiry - Reality Check, The Emperor's New Designer Clothes (http://www.csicop. org/sb/2000-12/reality-check.html) - Victor J. Stenger • Darwin@Home Web site ( - open-source software that demonstrates evolution in artificial life, written by Gerald de Jong

Fine-tuned Universe


Fine-tuned Universe
The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.[1] The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community. Proponents of fine-tuning include physicist Paul Davies who has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] Other physicists such as Victor Stenger dispute fine-tuning, saying that even though "life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory."[3] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of scientific explanations have been proposed, e.g., the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. The idea has also attracted discussion among philosophers and theologians, as well as creationists and proponents of the Intelligent Design movement.

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

Fine-tuned Universe proponents argue that deep-space structures such as the Eta Carinae Nebula would not form in a universe with significantly different physical constants. Photo: HST / NASA / ESA.

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. However, many of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter. The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are. The current standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters (there is an additional parameter for gravitation, the cosmological constant). However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both quantum mechanics and general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string theory, or loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual

Fine-tuned Universe number of independent physical constants may be as small as 1. For example, the cosmological constant may be a fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."[5] Martin Rees[6] formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants: • • • • • • N = ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to that of gravity; Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei; Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe; Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant; Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass; D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.


Disputes on the extent and existence of fine-tuning
Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes".[7] However Stenger's work has been criticised as having several fundamental flaws by other physicists.[8] [9] Fred Adams has done a similar study to Stenger, investigating the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.[10] However, Adams has been criticised for making unjustified assumptions.[11] Harnik, Kribs and Perez have argued for the viability of a universe with no weak interaction at all. However, they noted that their analysis does not extend to the supposed fine tuning of the cosmological constant, and concluded that "the fine-tuning problems associated with the electroweak breaking scale and the cosmological constant appear to be qualitatively different from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe."[12] The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[13] The fine-tuned universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.[14] In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the universe through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe.[15]

Possible Naturalistic Explanations
There are fine tuning arguments that are naturalistic.[16] As modern cosmology developed, various hypotheses have been proposed. One is an oscillatory universe or a multiverse where physical constants are postulated to resolve themselves to random values in different iterations of reality.[17] Under this hypothesis, separate parts of reality would have wildly different characteristics. In such scenarios the issue of fine-tuning does not arise at all, as only those "universes" with constants hospitable to life (such as what we observe) would develop life capable of asking the question.

Fine-tuned Universe Based upon the Anthropic principle, physicist Robert H. Dicke proposed the "Dicke coincidence" argument that the structure (age, physical constants, etc.) of the universe as seen by living observers is not random, but is constrained by biological factors that require it to be roughly a "golden age".[18]


The Multiverse hypothesis assumes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (see multiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, we are by definition in a hospitable one. Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have argued that the anthropic principle resolves the entire issue of fine-tuning,[19] [20] as does philosopher of science Elliott Sober.[21] Philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.[22] This approach has led to considerable research into the anthropic principle and has been of particular interest to particle physicists because theories of everything do apparently generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants vary widely. As of yet, there is no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, but some versions of the theory do make predictions which some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to see some evidence of soon.[23] The existence of additional universes in a multiverse, other than the observable universe, is not falsifiable, and thus some are reluctant to call the multiverse idea a "scientific" idea. UNC-Chapel Hill professor Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe. Variants on this approach include Lee Smolin's notion of cosmological natural selection, the Ekpyrotic universe, and the Bubble universe theory. Critics of the multiverse-related explanations argue that there is no evidence that other universes exist. Bubble universe theory The bubble universe model by physicist Andrei Linde, postulates that our universe is one of many that grew from a multiverse consisting of vacuum that had not yet decayed to its ground state. According to this scenario, by means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite "nothing." The space inside this bubble of false vacuum was curved, or warped. A small amount of energy was contained in that curvature, somewhat like the energy stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals. The bubble then inflated exponentially and the universe grew by many orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second. (For a not-too-technical discussion, see Stenger 1990). As the bubble expanded, its curvature energy was converted into matter and radiation, inflation stopped, and the more linear big bang expansion we now experience commenced. The universe cooled and its structure spontaneously froze out, as formless water vapor freezes into snowflakes whose unique patterns arise from a combination of symmetry and randomness. —Victor J. Stenger, The Anthropic Coincidences[24] In standard inflation, inflationary expansion occurred while the universe was in a false vacuum state, halting when the universe decayed to a true vacuum state. The bubble universe model proposes that different parts of this inflationary universe (termed a Multiverse) decayed at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to universes not in causal contact with each other. It further supposes that each bubble universe may have different physical constants.

Fine-tuned Universe Top-down cosmology Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[25] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse.


Alien design
One hypothesis is that the Universe may have been designed by extra-universal aliens. Some believe this would solve the problem of how a designer or design team capable of fine-tuning the Universe could come to exist. Cosmologist Alan Guth believes humans will in time be able to generate new universes. By implication previous intelligent entities may have generated our universe.[26] This idea leads to the possibility that the extraterrestrial designer/designers are themselves the product of an evolutionary process in their own universe, which must therefore itself be able to sustain life. For instance, Richard Dawkins maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer or designers because there is a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the “crane” of Natural selection. Dawkins' claims, though, are criticized among philosophers (e.g. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Nancey Murphy) to just push back the problem further (now it would be no more the case to explain this universe, but the universe in which those aliens live), and it could be argued that the resulting universe where the aliens live calls even more for a designer that would be eternal and uncreated (that is God). Further, in Richard Dawkins' ultimate Boeing 747 gambit he explains that evolution is an even more plausible "crane". The Simulation hypothesis promoted by Nick Bostrom and others suggests that our universe may be a computer simulation by aliens.[27] The Biocosm hypothesis and the Meduso-anthropic principle both suggest that natural selection has made the universe biophilic. The universe enables intelligence because intelligent entities later create new biophilic universes. This is different from the suggestion above that aliens from a universe which is less finely tuned than ours made our universe finely tuned.

Religious opinions
As with theistic evolution, some individual scientists, theologians, and philosophers as well as certain religious groups argue that providence or creation are responsible for fine-tuning. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues[28] that random chance, applied to a single and sole universe, only begs the question as to why this universe could be so "lucky" as to have precise conditions that support life at least at some place (the Earth) and time (within millions of years of the present). One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument. It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God. This apparent fine-tuning of the universe is cited[29] by theologian William Lane Craig as an evidence for the existence of God or some form of intelligence capable of manipulating (or designing) the basic physics that governs the universe. Craig argues, however, "that the postulate of a divine Designer does not settle for us the religious question."

Fine-tuned Universe Variants on this approach include:


Intelligent design
Proponents of Intelligent design argue that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of prominent Intelligent Design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.

Other religious creation views
Most religions have some kind of account of the creation of the universe, although they generally differ in detail from the ones listed above. Some of these may be compatible with known scientific facts. For example scientist-theologians such as John Polkinghorne emphasize the implications of Anthropic Fine-Tuning within an orthodox Christian framework whilst fully accepting the scientific findings about Evolution and the age of the Universe. This is also the position of the Roman Catholic Church and of most Anglican theologians.[30] The Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder argues that the apparent discrepancy between the "days" in Genesis and the billions of years in a scientific understanding are due to the differences in frames of reference. Many other religious creation views are either incompatible with, or indifferent to, scientific understandings. Other scientists with similar views are physicist Freeman Dyson and astronomer Owen Gingerich.

Counter argument to religious views
Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".[7] The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.[31] In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life. Additionally Stenger argues, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."[32]

In fiction and popular culture
• Robert J. Sawyer discusses the fine-tuned universe at length in his novel Calculating God (2000). • Author Neal Stephenson discussed the issue of fine-tuning in the conclusion to his essay In the Beginning... was the Command Line.[33] • Puddle thinking is a satirical illustration of the "life is fine-tuned to the universe" argument above coined by Douglas Adams to satirize the Fine-tuned Universe argument for supernatural creationism.[34] [35] As quoted in Richard Dawkins' eulogy for Douglas Adams:[36] ... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Fine-tuned Universe


[1] Mark Isaak (ed.) (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle" (http:/ / www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CI/ CI301. html). Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. . Retrieved 2007-10-31. [2] Paul Davies, "How bio-friendly is the universe?" International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115. [3] Victor Stenger, (http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ anthro. html) "The Uncreated Universe" (http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ Found/ 06Cosmic. pdf) Has Science Found God?: The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1591020182. [4] Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125. [5] Larry Abbott, "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant," Scientific American, vol. 3, no. 1 (1991): 78. [6] Martin Rees, 1999. Just Six Numbers, HarperCollins Publishers, ISBN 0-465-03672-4. [7] Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? (http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ Cosmo/ FineTune. pdf#search="Fine tuned universe") Victor J. Stenger, University of Colorado. [8] Luke Barnes (2010). "What Chances Me? A Fine Tuned Critique of Victor Stenger (Part 1)" (http:/ / letterstonature. wordpress. com/ 2010/ 04/ 11/ what-chances-me-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-victor-stenger-part-1/ ). Letters to Nature. Letters to Nature. . Retrieved 2010-09-03. [9] Luke Barnes (2010). "No Faith In MonkeyGod: A Fine-Tuned Critique of Victor Stenger (Part 2)" (http:/ / letterstonature. wordpress. com/ 2010/ 04/ 18/ no-faith-in-monkeygod-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-victor-stenger-part-2/ ). Letters to Nature. Letters to Nature. . Retrieved 2010-09-03. [10] Adams, F.C. (2008). "Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0807. 3697). Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008 (08): 010. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010. . [11] Luke Barnes (2010). "The Shrinking Quarter: A Fine-Tuned Critique of Fred Adams" (http:/ / letterstonature. wordpress. com/ 2010/ 02/ 28/ the-shrinking-quarter-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-fred-adams/ ). Letters to Nature. Letters to Nature. . Retrieved 2010-09-03. [12] Harnik, R.; Kribs, G.D. and Perez, G. (2006). "A universe without weak interactions" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ hep-ph/ 0604027). Physical Review D 74: 035006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.035006. . [13] See, e.g., Our place in the Multiverse (http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v443/ n7108/ full/ 443145a. html) Joseph Silk. Nature, Volume 443 Number 7108, September 14, 2006. [14] See, e.g. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart: What Does a Martian Look Like: The Science of Extraterrestrial Life, Wiley, 2002 [15] See, e.g., Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro, "A Puddlian Fable" in Huchingson, Religion and the Natural Sciences (1993), pp. 220-221 [16] L. Susskind, The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design. (Little, Brown, 2005) [17] Wheeler, J. A. (1977) in Foundational problems in the special sciences, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 3–33 [18] Dicke, R. H. (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature 192: 440–441. doi:10.1038/192440a0. [19] The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism (http:/ / quasar. as. utexas. edu/ anthropic. html), Michael Ikeda, Bill Jefferys [20] Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys, "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism," in The Improbability of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, Editors, pp. 150-166. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Press. ISBN 1-59102-381-5. [21] Elliott Sober, 2004. The Design Argument, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, W. E. Mann, Editor. Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0-631-22129-8. [22] Richard Swinburne, 1990. Argument from the fine-tuning of the universe, in Physical cosmology and philosophy, J. Leslie, Editor. Collier Macmillan: New York. pp. 154-73. [23] Parallel Worlds,2005, Michio Kaku, pp. 220-221 [24] The Anthropic Coincidences (http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ Cosmo/ anthro_skintel. html) [25] Ball, Philip (June 21, 2006). "Hawking Rewrites History...Backwards" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ news/ 2006/ 060619/ full/ news060619-6. html). Nature News Online. . Retrieved April 19, 2010. [26] BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Parallel Universes - Transcript (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ science/ horizon/ 2001/ parallelunitrans. shtml) [27] Bostrom, N. (2002). Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. Routledge, New York. ISBN 0-415-93858-9. [28] Alvin Plantinga, "The Dawkins Confusion; Naturalism ad absurdum," Christianity Today, March/April 2007 (http:/ / www. philvaz. com/ apologetics/ DawkinsGodDelusionPlantingaReview. pdf) [29] William Lane Craig, "The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle," (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ offices/ billcraig/ docs/ teleo. html) [30] See, e.g., Alister McGrath's books Scientific Theology and The Science of God. [31] Avitel Pilpel, SKEPTIC, November 2007 Issue, p.18 [32] Victor Stenger, Flew's Flawed Science (http:/ / www. mukto-mona. com/ Articles/ vstenger/ flew. htm) [33] In The Beginning Was The Command Line (http:/ / www. cryptonomicon. com/ beginning. html) [34] Williams, Robyn (18). "The anthropic universe" (http:/ / www. abc. net. au/ rn/ scienceshow/ stories/ 2006/ 1572643. htm). The Science Show (ABC Radio National). . Retrieved 19 November 2009. [35] Redfern, Martin (24 December 1995). "Proofs of God in a photon" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ arts-entertainment/ proofs-of-god-in-a-photon-1527306. html). The Independent. . Retrieved 19 November 2009. [36] Dawkins, Richard (17 September 2001). "Eulogy for Douglas Adams" (http:/ / www. edge. org/ documents/ adams_index. html). Edge. . Retrieved 19 November 2009.

Fine-tuned Universe


Further reading

[ Edit this reference


Barrow, John D.; Tipler, Frank J. (19 May 1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=uSykSbXklWEC& printsec=frontcover). foreword by John A. Wheeler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LC 87-28148 ( ISBN 9780192821478. Retrieved 31 December 2009. • John D. Barrow, 2003. The Constants of Nature, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-375-42221-8 • Bernard Carr, ed. (2007) Universe or Multiverse? Cambridge University Press. • Paul Davies, 1982. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-24212-6 • Paul Davies, 2007. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, ISBN 0618592261. Reprinted as: The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?, 2008, Mariner Books, ISBN 0547053584. • Alister McGrath, 2009. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology, Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 0664233104. • Simon Conway Morris, 2003. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge Univ. Press. • Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Springer Verlag.

External links
Defend fine-tuning: • Stephen M. Barr (2001) " Overview of the Cosmological Intelligent Design argument, (http://www.firstthings. com/ftissues/ft0106/articles/barr.html)" First Things, the Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life. • Robin Collins: • Fine-Tuning website. ( • " Cosmological fine-tuning. ( essays/Collins, Fine-tuning.htm)" • Hugh Ross: • " Design and the Anthropic Principle. (" • " Evidence For Design In The Universe. ( EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html)" • Gerald Schroeder: Fine-turned universe. ( • The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life ( at the index to creationist claims. • Interview ( with Charles Townes discussing science and religion. • Home page ( of Templeton Foundation project on fine-tuning. Criticize fine tuning: • Bibliography of online Links to criticisms of the Fine-Tuning Argument. ( modern/theism/design.html#fine) Secular Web. • Ikeda, Michael, and Jefferys, William H., " The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism. (http://" • Jefferys, W. H,. and J. O. Berger, " Sharpening Ockham's razor on a Bayesian strop. ( papers/ockham.pdf)" • Victor Stenger:

Fine-tuned Universe • " Does the Cosmos Show Evidence of Purpose? ( anthro.skinq.html)" • " Is the Universe fine-tuned for us? ( pdf)" • Elliott Sober, " The Design Argument. ( argument 11 2004.pdf)" An earlier version appeared in the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (2004).


Intelligent designer
An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the hypothetical willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life and who supposedly has left scientific evidence of this intelligent design. They also use the term "intelligent cause" implying their teleological supposition of direction and purpose in features of the universe and of living things.

Many metaphysical views take the stance that life and/or the universe owes its structure to an intelligent design. Atheist Richard Dawkins holds that "It's possible that you might find evidence if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer". However, the popularly termed intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign that arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement.[1] [2] [3] Proponents of intelligent design argue to the public that their concept does not posit the identity of the designer as part of this effort. But in statements to their constituency, which consists largely of Christian conservatives, they identify the designer as God.[4] [5] [6] [7]

Who does the ID movement think the designer is?
William Dembski states in his book Design Inference that the nature of the intelligent designer cannot be inferred from intelligent design[8] and suggests that the designer, if one is even necessary for design inference, may or may not be "the God of Scripture."[9] In December 2007 Dembski told Focus on the Family, "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."[10] Some leading intelligent design proponents have stated identifying or characterizing the designer is beyond the scope of intelligent design as a line of inquiry. Proponents had hoped that, by avoiding invoking creation by a specific supernatural entity, (such as that employed by creation science), intelligent design would be considered scientific and not violate the establishment clause of the US constitution. Proponents feared that were intelligent design identified as a restatement of previous forms of creationism, it would be precluded from being taught in public schools after the 1987 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Edwards vs Aguillard. This line of reasoning was not particularly persuasive to many in the scientific community, which largely rejected intelligent design as both a line of scientific inquiry and as a basis for a sound education in science. On December 20, 2005 federal district court ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that intelligent design was not science and was essentially religious in nature. The ruling not only rendered that public school district's requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes unconstitutional on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but validated the objections of critics who discounted proponent's claim that the identity was not God. Highlighting these mutually exclusive claims about the designer, Dembski, despite having said that the intelligent designer or designers could be any god or gods, or even space aliens, has also said that "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces"[11] and that "Intelligent design is just the Logos

Intelligent designer theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."[12] Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, suggested the designer might be a time traveling cell biologist.[13] At various times, leading proponents in the intelligent design movement have clearly expressed that they consider the Abrahamic God "Elohim" in his role as a creator God, to be the intelligent designer and denied that intelligent designer is God, depending on which audience they are addressing. One example is William Dembski, who on his blog in response to the question "Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God?" said "not necessarily" and "To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature."[14] Yet to the intelligent design movement's conservative Christian constituents Dembski has said "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God"[15] and "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."[16] Stephen C. Meyer, founder and leader of the intelligent design program of the Discovery Institute admitted on national television he believes that the designer is God.[17] In addition, the intelligent design movement seeks as a well-documented agenda the overall goal "to defeat materialism" and the "materialist world view" as represented by evolution, and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[18] Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." -- Phillip E. Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10, 2003 [19] "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." -- Phillip E. Johnson, World Magazine, November 30, 1996 [20] The Discovery Institute's leaked Wedge document sets out the movement's governing goals, including: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." . . . "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[21] -- The Wedge Document, a 1999 Discovery Institute pamphlet


What does the ID movement think the designer did?
Opinion as to the amount of creation the intelligent designer has done varies within the ID movement. Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has natural selection accounting for most of evolution but the intelligent designer contributing the design of some proteins. Others in the ID movement however contest concepts such as common descent, particularly of humans and other apes. Though most in the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists, a few are Young Earth Creationists who believe in ex-nihilo. The amount of creation that the intelligent designer did has also been criticised by Young Earth Creationists as not being specific enough, and particularly contradicting their beliefs of Biblical inerrancy and a young earth.[22] [23] Some intelligent design proponents say the intelligent designer fine-tuned the universe's physical constants in such a way that life is the result of the universe's physical constants being related to one another in a fashion that permits life to exist. The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of prominent intelligent design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.

Intelligent designer


Intelligent design has been presented by its proponents as a "big tent" strategy into which several accounts of creation can fit. Were a "scientific" version of intelligent design approved for inclusion in public school science curricula, then a path would be opened for discussion of alternatives to not only natural selection but naturalism as well, and eventually religious accounts on the origin of life. The vast majority of scientists reject the concept of intelligent design and an intelligent designer. Instead, the most widely accepted explanation is that physical processes such as natural selection can account for the complexity of life and other phenomena and features of the universe. Attempts to insert theories of intelligent design into public school science curricula fits in with the intelligent design movement's social aims, via the overturning of Western secularism as detailed in the Wedge strategy. The concept of the intelligent designer has been criticised as a God-of-the-gaps argument. Introducing the hypothesis of an intelligent designer introduces the unsolved problem of accounting for the origin of such a designer (first cause). By raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexity, intelligent design also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Richard Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the intelligent designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation,"[24] since such an answer would be unscientific. With religious creationism, the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, but in intelligent design, the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. As a result, intelligent design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it.[25] Elliott Sober says that by intelligent design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex: "Any mind in nature that designs and builds an irreducibly complex system is itself irreducibly complex"[26] Sober says that this an argument that intelligent design proponents still need to respond to. If intelligent design proponents invoke an uncaused causer or deity to resolve this problem,[27] they contradict a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that design requires a designer[28] [29] and reduce intelligent design to religious creationism. Another possible counter-argument might be an infinite regression of designers. However, admitting infinite numbers of objects also allows any arbitrarily improbable event to occur,[30] such as an object with "specific" complexity assembling itself by chance. Again, this contradicts a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object, producing a logical contradiction. Critics contend the claim that positing a designer which explains gaps in our understanding yet does not need to be itself explained as not a contribution to knowledge but as a thought-terminating cliché.[31] [32]

The Dover trial
In 2005, intelligent design proponents arguments regarding the identity of a designer became an issue considered by the court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the "Dover trial," where plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy requiring the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life" thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his ruling, the judge stated "However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God..." -- Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 25 Jones also commented that the appearance of design is subjective, "It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed.

Intelligent designer (23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system." -- Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 81 and thus the analogy upon which the argument from design rests is flawed. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. -- Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 81 The judge ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"[33] and "that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."[34]


See also
• • • • • • Anthropic principle Conflict thesis Continuity thesis Flying Spaghetti Monster Great Architect of the Universe Genesis creation myth

[1] Ruling, Context Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [2] Life in the Big Tent: Traditional Creationism and the Intelligent Design Community (http:/ / www. equip. org/ free/ DL303. htm) Paul A. Nelson. Christian Research Journal, volume 24, number 4, 2002. [3] Expert Witness Report (http:/ / www2. ncseweb. org/ kvd/ experts/ Forrest_expert_report. pdf) Barbara Forrest. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. (PDF file) [4] Stephen C. Meyer (Discovery Institute): "I think the designer is God..." Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. bringyou. to/ apologetics/ p90. htm) Nightline ABC News, with Ted Koppel, August 10, 2005. [5] "Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won. (http:/ / www. coralridge. org/ specialdocs/ evolutiondebate. asp) Phillip Johnson. Truths that Transform. [6] William Dembski. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999 (http:/ / touchstonemag. com/ archives/ issue. php?id=49) [7] "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)). Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM,

Intelligent designer
including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Dover trial ruling: Context Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [8] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=R7otNWMrgcwC& pg=PA9& dq="The+ design+ inference+ does+ not+ by+ itself+ deliver+ an+ intelligent+ agent"& cd=1#v=onepage& q="The design inference does not by itself deliver an intelligent agent"& f=false), Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 9780521623872, p. 9: "The effect of a design inference is to limit our explanatory options, not to identify a cause. To identify a cause we need to investigate the particulars of the situation in which design is inferred. Simply put, we need more details....The design inference does not by itself deliver an intelligent agent." [9] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=R7otNWMrgcwC& printsec=frontcover& dq=design+ inference+ dembski& cd=1#v=snippet& q=intelligent agent& f=false), Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 9780521623872, p. 60. [10] "Friday Five: William A. Dembski" (http:/ / www. citizenlink. org/ content/ A000006139. cfm). Focus on the Family. December 14, 2007. . Retrieved 2008-05-17. [11] Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 08. Commending_President_Bush. pdf) William A. Dembski, August 4, 2005 (PDF file) [12] Signs of Intelligence (http:/ / touchstonemag. com/ archives/ issue. php?id=49) A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski. Touchstone Journal, Volume 12, Issue 4, July/August 1999 [13] Behe, Michael J. (1998). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Simon and Schuster. p. 249. ISBN 9780743214858. [14] Who or what is the designer? (http:/ / www. uncommondescent. com/ index. php/ archives/ 603) William A. Dembski. Uncommon Descent, December 22, 2005. [15] Commending President Bush (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 08. Commending_President_Bush. pdf) William A. Dembski. [16] Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris (http:/ / www. designinference. com/ documents/ 2005. 02. Reply_to_Henry_Morris. htm) William A. Dembski. [17] Stephen C. Meyer: "I think the designer is God..." Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design (http:/ / www. bringyou. to/ apologetics/ p90. htm) Nightline ABC News with Ted Koppel, August 10, 2005. [18] Evolution or design debate heats up (http:/ / www. discovery. org/ scripts/ viewDB/ index. php?command=view& program=CSC-News& id=2445) Paul Handley. The Times of Oman, March 7, 2005 [19] Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (March 31, 2005). "Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District - Expert Report" (http:/ / www. msu. edu/ ~pennock5/ research/ papers/ Pennock_DoverExptRpt. pdf) (pdf). . Retrieved 2007-12-19. p. 4 [20] Joel Belz (November 30, 1996). "World Magazine Article" (http:/ / www. leaderu. com/ pjohnson/ world2. html). Witnesses for the Prosecution. World. . Retrieved 2007-12-21. [21] The Wedge Document (http:/ / upload. wikimedia. org/ wikisource/ en/ 7/ 71/ Wedge_Document. pdf) Discovery Institute pamphlet, 1999. (PDF file) [22] AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement - by Carl Wieland, 30 August 2002 (http:/ / www. answersingenesis. org/ docs2002/ 0830_IDM. asp) [23] 'Design is Not Enough' - by Henry H. Morris, Back to Genesis pamphlet series, No.127a, July 1999, Institute for Creation Research. (http:/ / www. icr. org/ article/ 859/ ) [24] "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot." Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. 1 September 2005. The Guardian (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ life/ feature/ story/ 0,13026,1559743,00. html) [25] Claudia Wallis. Evolution Wars. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005 edition, page 32 (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ archive/ preview/ 0,10987,1090909,00. html) [26] Intelligent Design Theory and the Supernatural - The "God or Extra-terrestrials" Reply (http:/ / philosophy. wisc. edu/ sober/ ID and the Supernatural final F& P single. pdf) Elliott Sober. University of Wisconsin - Madison. [27] "Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer. See also an answer to a subissue the implications of whether or not the first CSI come from an unintelligent source." FAQ: Who designed the designer? IDEA (http:/ / www. ideacenter. org/ contentmgr/ showdetails. php/ id/ 1147) [28] "Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions: 1) Intelligent causes exist. 2) These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)." Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. (http:/ / www. arn. org/ idfaq/ Isn't 'intelligent design' another name for 'scientific creationism'. htm) [29] "According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause." Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design. (http:/ / www. arn. org/ idfaq/ How can you tell if something is


Intelligent designer
designed. htm) [30] "To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it." Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design pg 141 [31] Who Designed the Designer? (http:/ / www. csicop. org/ intelligentdesignwatch/ designer. html) Jason Rosenhouse. Creation & Intelligent Design Watch, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. [32] Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design pg 141 [33] Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005 [34] Ruling, Whether ID Is Science, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005


External links
• Claim CI001: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific ( from the Archive's Index to Creationist Claims, and sub-claims. • Evolution & Creation: A Theosophic Synthesis ( sc-wtst3.htm) Surveys critical problems on both sides of the ID controversy and explores ancient and modern concepts of intelligent designer(s) • Who Designed the Designer? ( by Jason Rosenhouse

Richard Dawkins


Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins

Dawkins in 2010 at Cooper Union in New York City Born Residence Nationality Alma mater Known for Influences Clinton Richard Dawkins26 March 1941Nairobi, Kenya Colony Oxford, England British Balliol College, Oxford Gene-centered view of evolution, concept of the meme, advocacy of atheism and rationalism Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton, Daniel Dennett, Nikolaas Tinbergen (doctoral adviser) Zoological Society Silver Medal (1989) Faraday Award (1990) Kistler Prize (2001) Marian Stamp Dawkins (m. 1967-1984) Eve Barham (m. 1984-?) Lalla Ward (m. 1992-present)

Notable awards


Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford,[1] and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.[2] Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982, he introduced into evolutionary biology an influential concept, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype, that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms.[3] Dawkins is an atheist and humanist, a Vice President of the British Humanist Association and supporter of the Brights movement. He is well-known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. He has been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler,"[4] a reference to English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's evolutionary ideas. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—a fixed false belief.[5] As of January 2010, the English-language version had sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages, making it his most popular book to date.[6]

Richard Dawkins


Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.[7] His father, Clinton John Dawkins (1915-2010),[8] was an agricultural civil servant in the British colonial service, in Nyasaland (now Malawi). Dawkins has a younger sister.[9] His father was called up into the King's African Rifles during World War II[10] [11] returning to England in 1949, when Dawkins was eight. His father had inherited Over Norton Park, which he turned from a country estate into a commercial farm.[8] Both his parents were interested in natural sciences; they answered Dawkins' questions in scientific terms.[12] Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing."[13] Though he began having doubts about the existence of God when he was about nine years old, he was persuaded by the argument from design, an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, or design in nature, and embraced Christianity.[9] In his mid-teens, he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in God.[9] He attended Oundle, a Church of England school,[9] from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year.[7] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice.[14] Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[15] From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[16] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970 taking a position as a lecturer, and in 1990, as a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[17] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[18] Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College.[19] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), T.H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), Tinbergen Lecture (2004) and Tanner Lectures (2003).[7] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children. He has also served as editor of a number of journals, and has acted as editorial advisor to the Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is a senior editor of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine, for which he also writes a column. He has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[20] He has sat on judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[7] and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities".[21] In September 2008, he retired from his professorship, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in 'anti-scientific' fairytales."[22] Dawkins' parents were married from 1939 until his father's death in December 2010, aged 95.[8]

Richard Dawkins


Personal life
On 19 August 1967, he married fellow ethologist Marian Stamp; they divorced in 1984. Later that same year, on 1 June, Dawkins married Eve Barham (19 August 1951[23] –28 February 1999) in Oxford. They had a daughter, Juliet Emma Dawkins (born 1984, Oxford).[23] Dawkins and Barham divorced; she died of cancer.[24] [25] In 1992, he married actress Lalla Ward[26] in Kensington and Chelsea, London.[23] Dawkins met her through their mutual friend Douglas Adams,[27] who had worked with her on the BBC's Doctor Who.

Evolutionary biology
In his scientific works, Dawkins is best known for his popularisation of the gene-centred view of evolution. This view is most clearly set out in his books The Selfish Gene (1976), where he notes that "all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities", and The Extended Phenotype (1982), in which he describes natural selection as "the process whereby replicators out-propagate each other".[28] In his role as an ethologist, interested in animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of selection in evolution. Dawkins has consistently been sceptical about non-adaptive processes in evolution (such as spandrels, described by Gould and Lewontin)[29] and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene.[30] He is particularly sceptical about the practical possibility or importance of group selection as a basis for understanding altruism.[31] This behaviour appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's own fitness. Previously, many had interpreted this as an aspect of group selection: Dawkins at the University of Texas, Austin, individuals were doing what was best for the survival of the population March 2008 or species as a whole, and not specifically for themselves. British evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton had used the gene-centred view to explain altruism in terms of inclusive fitness and kin selection − that individuals behave altruistically toward their close relatives, who share many of their own genes.[32] [a] Similarly, Robert Trivers, thinking in terms of the gene-centred model, developed the theory of reciprocal altruism, whereby one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation.[33] Dawkins popularised these ideas in The Selfish Gene, and developed them in his own work.[34] Critics of Dawkins' approach suggest that taking the gene as the unit of selection − of a single event in which an individual either succeeds or fails to reproduce − is misleading, but that the gene could be better described as a unit of evolution − of the long-term changes in allele frequencies in a population.[35] In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains that he is using George C. Williams' definition of the gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency."[36] Another common objection is that genes cannot survive alone, but must cooperate to build an individual, and therefore cannot be an independent "unit".[37] In The Extended Phenotype, Dawkins suggests that because of genetic recombination and sexual reproduction, from an individual gene's viewpoint all other genes are part of the environment to which it is adapted. Advocates for higher levels of selection such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson, and Elliot Sober suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain. The philosopher Mary Midgley, with whom Dawkins clashed in print concerning The Selfish Gene,[38] [39] has criticised

Richard Dawkins gene selection, memetics and sociobiology as being excessively reductionist.[40] In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (the so-called 'Darwin Wars'),[41] [42] one faction was often named after Dawkins and its rival after the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of pertinent ideas.[43] [44] In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical.[45] A typical example of Dawkins' position was his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin and Richard C. Lewontin.[46] Two other thinkers on the subject often considered to be allied to Dawkins are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology.[47] Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year. Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution expounds the evidence for biological evolution. It was released on 3 September 2009, published in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations by Transworld.[48] In the United States it was released on 22 September 2009, where it was published by Free Press.[49] All of his previous works dealing with evolution had assumed its truth, and not explicitly provided the evidence to this effect. Dawkins felt that this represented a gap in his oeuvre, and decided to write the book to coincide with Darwin's bicentennial year.[50]


Dawkins coined the word meme (the behavioral equivalent of a gene) to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.[51] This has spawned the field of memetics. Dawkins' memes refer to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator of a certain idea or a complex of ideas. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as capable of such replication, generally through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient (although not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Memes are not always copied perfectly, and might indeed become refined, combined or otherwise modified with other ideas, resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove more, or less, efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of cultural evolution, analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes.[52] Since originally outlining the idea in his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins has largely left the task of expanding upon it to other authors such as Susan Blackmore.[53] Although Dawkins invented the specific term meme independently, he has not claimed that the idea itself was entirely novel,[54] and there have been other expressions for similar ideas in the past. For instance, John Laurent has suggested that the term may have derived from the work of the little-known German biologist Richard Semon.[55] In 1904, Semon published Die Mneme (which appeared in English in 1924 as The Mneme). This book discussed the cultural transmission of experiences, with insights parallel to those of Dawkins. Laurent also found the term mneme used in Maurice Maeterlinck's The Life of the White Ant (1926), and has highlighted the similarities to Dawkins' concept.[55]

Criticism of creationism
Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism (the religious belief that humanity, life and the universe were created by a deity,[56] without recourse to evolution[57] ). He has described the Young Earth creationist view that the Earth is only a few thousand years old as "a preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood,"[58] and his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, contains a sustained critique of the argument from design, an important creationist argument. In the book, Dawkins argued against the watchmaker analogy made famous by the 18th-century English theologian William Paley in his book Natural Theology. Paley argued that, just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence merely by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. Dawkins shares the view generally held by scientists that natural selection is sufficient to

Richard Dawkins explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker.[59] In 1986, Dawkins participated in a Oxford Union debate, in which he and English biologist John Maynard Smith debated Young Earth creationist A. E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews, president of the Biblical Creation Society.[b] In general, however, Dawkins has followed the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould and refused to participate in formal debates with creationists because "what they seek is the oxygen of respectability", and doing so would "give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all." He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."[60] In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."[61] Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one".[62] He has been a strong critic of the British organisation Truth in Science, which promotes the teaching of creationism in state schools, and he plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science—to subsidise the delivering of books, DVDs and pamphlets to schools, in order to counteract what he has described as an "educational scandal".[63]
Dawkins at the 34th annual conference of American Atheists, 2008.


Atheism and rationalism
Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and a prominent critic of religion. He has been described as a vocal, militant rationalist,[64] [65] and as "the UK's Chief Atheist".[66] In an interview with Thomas Bass for a book published in 1994 he described himself as a 'fairly militant atheist'.[67] In 1996, when asked if he'd prefer to be known as a scientist or a militant atheist, he replied, "Bertrand Russell called himself the Passionate Sceptic. It's aiming high, but I'll shoot for that."[68] He is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society,[69] a vice-president of the British Humanist Association (since 1996),[7] a Distinguished Supporter of the Humanist Society of Scotland,[70] a member of the Secular Coalition for America advisory board,[71] a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism,[72] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[73] In 2003, he became a signatory of the humanist manifesto Humanism and Its Aspirations, published by the American Humanist Association.[74]

Dawkins lecturing on his book The God Delusion, 24 June 2006.

Dawkins believes that his own atheism is the logical extension of his understanding of evolution[75] and that religion is incompatible with science.[76] In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote: An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up

Richard Dawkins with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.[77] In his 1991 essay "Viruses of the Mind" (from which the term faith-sufferer originated), he suggested that memetic theory might analyse and explain the phenomenon of religious belief and some of the common characteristics of religions, such as the belief that punishment awaits non-believers. According to Dawkins, faith − belief that is not based on evidence − is one of the world's great evils. He claims it to be analogous to the smallpox virus, though more difficult to eradicate.[78] Dawkins is well-known for his contempt for religious extremism, from Islamist terrorism[79] to Christian fundamentalism; but he has also argued with liberal believers and religious scientists, from biologists Kenneth Miller[80] and Francis Collins[81] to theologians Alister McGrath and Richard Harries.[82] Dawkins has stated that his opposition to religion is twofold, claiming it to be both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence.[83] However, he describes himself as a "cultural Christian",[84] and proposed the slogan "Atheists for Jesus".[85] Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when asked how the world might have changed, Dawkins responded: Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful![86] Dawkins has especially risen to prominence in contemporary public debates relating rationalism,[87] science and religion since the publication of his 2006 book The God Delusion, which has achieved greater sales figures worldwide than any of his other works to date. Its success has been seen by many as indicative of a change in the contemporary cultural zeitgeist, central to a recent rise in the popularity of atheistic literature.[88] [89] The God Delusion was praised by among others the Nobel laureate chemist Sir Harold Kroto, psychologist Steven Pinker and the Nobel laureate biologist James D. Watson.[90] In the book, Dawkins argued that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.[91] He sees education and consciousness-raising as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination.[16] [92] [93] These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term Bright as a way of associating positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview.[93] Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in arousing widespread embarrassment at the routine use of "he" instead of "she". Similarly, he suggests, a phrase such as "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should be considered just as socially absurd as, for instance, "Marxist child": children should not be classified based on their parents' ideological beliefs.[93] According to Dawkins, there is no such thing as a Christian child or a Muslim child, as children have about as much capacity to make the decision to become Christians or Muslims as they do to become Marxists.[91] In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary The Root of All Evil?, addressing what he sees as the malignant influence of religion on society. The title itself is one which Dawkins disliked, noting that religion shouldn't be regarded as the root of all evil.[94] Critics have said that the programme gave too much time to marginal figures and extremists, and that Dawkins' confrontational style did not help his cause;[95] [96] Dawkins rejected these claims, citing the number of moderate religious broadcasts in everyday media as providing a suitable balance to the extremists in the programmes. He further remarked that someone who is deemed an "extremist" in a religiously moderate country may well be considered "mainstream" in a religiously conservative one.[97] The unedited recordings of Dawkins' conversations with Alister McGrath and Richard Harries, including material unused in the broadcast version, have been made available online by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and


Richard Dawkins Science.[98] Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God) maintains that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently.[99] In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?",[100] and − in the paperback edition of The God Delusion − he refers to the American biologist PZ Myers, who has satirised this line of argument as "The Courtier's Reply".[101] Dawkins had an extended debate with McGrath at the 2007 Sunday Times Literary Festival.[102] Another Christian philosopher Keith Ward explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous. Criticism of The God Delusion has come from philosophers such as Professor John Cottingham of the University of Reading.[103] Other commentators, including ethicist Margaret Somerville,[104] have suggested that Dawkins "overstates the case against religion",[105] particularly its role in human conflict. Many of Dawkins' defenders claim that critics generally misunderstand his real point. During a debate on Radio 3 Hong Kong, David Nicholls, writer and president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, reiterated Dawkins' sentiments that religion is an "unnecessary" aspect of global problems.[106] Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other".[107] He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's principle of nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA). In an interview with Time magazine, Dawkins said: I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.[108] Astrophysicist Martin Rees has suggested that Dawkins' attack on mainstream religion is unhelpful.[109] Regarding Rees' claim in his book Our Cosmic Habitat that "such questions lie beyond science", Dawkins asks "what expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"[110] [111] Elsewhere, Dawkins has written that "there's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic, and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority or revelation."[78] As examples of "good scientists who are sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins, but says "I remain baffled ... by their belief in the details of the Christian religion."[112] [113] [114] [115] [116] He has said that the publication of The God Delusion is "probably the culmination" of his campaign against religion.[117] In 2007, Dawkins founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly.[118] Inspired by the gay rights movement, Dawkins hopes that atheists' identifying of themselves as such, and thereby increasing public awareness of how many people hold these views, will reduce the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.[119] [120] In September 2008, following a complaint by Islamic creationist Adnan Oktar, a court in Turkey blocked access to Dawkins' website The court decision was made due to "insult to personality".[121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] During the 2010 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia Dawkins was criticised for his use of the phrase "Pope Nazi" in reference to wartime Pope Pius XII, whose actions during the Holocaust have been a matter of controversy.[127]


Richard Dawkins


In October 2008, Dawkins officially supported the UK's first atheist advertising initiative, the Atheist Bus Campaign. Created by Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine and administered by the British Humanist Association the campaign aimed to raise funds to place atheist adverts on buses in the London area, and Dawkins pledged to match the amount raised by atheists, up to a maximum of £5,500. However, the campaign was an unprecedented success, raising over £100,000 in its Dawkins with Ariane Sherine at the Atheist Bus first four days, and generating global press coverage.[128] [129] The Campaign launch campaign, started in January 2009, features adverts across the UK with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Dawkins said that "this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion."[130] In 2010, Dawkins supported legal efforts to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity. Dawkins and fellow anti-religion campaigner Christopher Hitchens were believed to be exploring the option of having the Pope arrested under the same legal principle that saw Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet arrested during a visit to Britain in 1998.[131] Dawkins has given support to the idea of an atheists' "free thinking" school, that would teach children to "ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded".[132] [133] On 15 September 2010, Dawkins, along with 54 other public figures, signed an open letter published in The Guardian, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI making a State visit to the United Kingdom.[134]

Richard Dawkins Foundation
In 2006, Dawkins founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), a non-profit organisation. The foundation is in developmental phase. It has been granted charitable status in the United Kingdom and the United States. RDFRS plans to finance research on the psychology of belief and religion, finance scientific education programs and materials, and publicise and support secular charitable organisations. The foundation also offers humanist, rationalist and scientific materials and information through its website.[135]

Other fields
In his role as professor for public understanding of science, Dawkins has been a critic of pseudoscience and alternative medicine. His 1998 book Unweaving the Rainbow takes John Keats' accusation that, by explaining the rainbow, Isaac Newton had diminished its beauty, and argues for the opposite conclusion. He suggests that deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than do "myths" and "pseudoscience".[136] Dawkins wrote a foreword to John Diamond's posthumously published Snake Oil, a book devoted to debunking alternative medicine, in which he asserted that alternative medicine was harmful, if only because it distracted patients from more successful conventional treatments, and gave people false hopes.[137] Dawkins states that "there is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[138]

Dawkins talking at Kepler's Books, Menlo Park, California, 29 October 2006.

Dawkins has expressed concern about the growth of the planet's human population, and about the matter of overpopulation.[139] In The Selfish Gene, he briefly mentions population growth, giving the example of Latin

Richard Dawkins America, whose population, at the time the book was written, was doubling every 40 years. He is critical of Roman Catholic attitudes to family planning and population control, stating that leaders who forbid contraception and "express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation" will get just such a method in the form of starvation.[140] As a supporter of the Great Ape Project – a movement to extend certain moral and legal rights to all great apes – Dawkins contributed the article "Gaps in the Mind" to the Great Ape Project book edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer. In this essay, he criticises contemporary society's moral attitudes as being based on a "discontinuous, speciesist imperative".[141] Dawkins also regularly comments in newspapers and weblogs on contemporary political questions; his opinions include opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq,[142] the British nuclear deterrent and the actions of U.S. President George W. Bush.[143] Several such articles were included in A Devil's Chaplain, an anthology of writings about science, religion and politics. He is also a supporter of the Republic campaign to replace the British monarchy with a democratically elected president.[144] Dawkins has described himself as a Labour voter in the 1970s[145] and voter for the Liberal Democrats since the party's creation.[146] In 2009, he spoke at the party's conference in opposition to blasphemy laws. In the UK general election of 2010, Dawkins officially endorsed the Liberal Democrats, in support of their campaign for electoral reform and for their "refusal to pander to 'faith'."[147] In the 2007 TV documentary The Enemies of Reason,[148] Dawkins discusses what he sees as the dangers of abandoning critical thought and rationale based upon scientific evidence. He specifically cites astrology, spiritualism, dowsing, alternative faiths, alternative medicine and homeopathy. He also discusses how the Internet can be used to spread religious hatred and conspiracy theories with scant attention to evidence-based reasoning. Continuing a long-standing partnership with Channel 4, Dawkins participated in a five-part television series The Genius of Britain, along with fellow scientists Stephen Hawking, James Dyson, Paul Nurse, and Jim Al-Khalili. The five-episode series was broadcast in June 2010.[149] The series focussed on major British scientific achievements throughout history. Dawkins presented a More4 documentary entitled 'Faith School Menace' in which he argued for "us to reconsider the consequences of faith education, which... bamboozles parents and indoctrinates and divides children."[150] [151] Dawkins wrote a positive review on the book Intellectual Impostures, written by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.[152]


Awards and recognition
Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University,[153] the University of Hull, and the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen,[154] Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel,[7] and the University of Valencia.[155] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[7] He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode The Blind Watchmaker.[7] His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's
Dawkins receiving the Deschner Prize in Frankfurt, 12 October 2007, from Karlheinz Deschner.

Richard Dawkins Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002)[7] and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).[156] Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[157] [158] He has been short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll.[159] In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007.[160] In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007,[161] and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses.[162] He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.[163] Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year. It is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honour of Dawkins' own work.[164]


Selected publications
• • • • • • • • • • The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1982. ISBN 0-19-288051-9. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. 1995. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1996. ISBN 0-393-31682-3. Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1998. ISBN 0-618-05673-4. A Devil's Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2003. ISBN 0-618-33540-4. The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2004. ISBN 0-618-00583-8. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.

Documentary films
• • • • • • • • Nice Guys Finish First (1987) The Blind Watchmaker (1987)[165] Growing Up in the Universe (1991) Break the Science Barrier (1996) The Root of All Evil? (2006) The Enemies of Reason (2007) The Genius of Charles Darwin (2008) Faith School Menace (2010)

Richard Dawkins


A number of writers have taken issue with the views expressed by Richard Dawkins. Examples include: • • • • • • • • • Darwin's Angel by John Cornwell Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life and The Dawkins Delusion? by Alastair McGrath The Selfish Genius by Fern Elson-Baker The Solitary Self: Darwin and the Selfish Gene by Mary Midgley The Music of Life by Denis Noble Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins by Keith Ward God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate by Terry Eagleton "Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis, and Selfish Genes: are they of use in physiology?" by Denis Noble Journal of Pysiology preprint here [166]

a.   W. D. Hamilton hugely influenced Dawkins and the influence can be seen throughout Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.[16] They became friends at Oxford and following Hamilton's death in 2000, Dawkins wrote his obituary and organised a secular memorial service.[167] b.   The debate ended with the motion "That the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution" being defeated by 198 votes to 115.[168] [169]

[1] Emeritus and Honorary Fellows (http:/ / www. new. ox. ac. uk/ content/ about-fellows/ emeritus-and-honorary-fellows) of New College, Oxford [2] "Biological Sciences Staff list" (http:/ / www. new. ox. ac. uk/ Admissions/ Courses/ Course_Page. php?courseId=5), New College, Oxford, 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-23. • [3] [4] [5] [6] "Previous holders of The Simonyi Professorship" (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ previous-holders-simonyi-professorship). The University of Oxford. . Retrieved 2010-09-23. (http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2009/ 01/ 090119081333. htm), news, adapted from the original material from the European Science Foundation workshop on the subject, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2–5 November 2008. Hall, Stephen S. (2005-08-09). "Darwin's Rottweiler" (http:/ / discovermagazine. com/ 2005/ sep/ darwins-rottweiler). Discover magazine. . Retrieved 2008-03-22. Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers. p. 5. ISBN 0-5930-5548-9. "The God Delusion - back on the Times extended list at #24" (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ articles/ 5000#455619). Richard Dawkins at 27 January 2010. . Retrieved 6 February 2010. •

"Richard Dawkins — Science and the New Atheism" (http:/ / media. libsyn. com/ media/ pointofinquiry/ POI_2007_12_7_Richard_Dawkins. mp3). Richard Dawkins at Point of Inquiry. 2007-12-08. . Retrieved 2008-03-14. [7] "Curriculum vitae of Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080423211133/ http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ CV. shtml). The University of Oxford. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ CV. shtml) on April 23, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-13. [8] Dawkins, Richard (11 December 2010). "Lives Remembered: John Dawkins" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ news/ obituaries/ lives-remembered-john-dawkins-2157459. html). The Independent. . Retrieved 12 December 2010. [9] Hattenstone, Simon (10 February 2003). "Darwin's child" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2003/ feb/ 10/ religion. scienceandnature). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-04-22. [10] "[[The Ancestor's Tale (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=Tub-X6wydKgC& pg=PA317)]"]. p. 317. . [11] Dawkins, Richard. "Brief Scientific Autobiography" (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ articles/ 4757-brief-scientific-autobiography). . Retrieved 2010-07-17. [12] "Richard Dawkins: The foibles of faith" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ in_depth/ uk/ 2000/ newsmakers/ 1595744. stm). BBC News. 2001-10-12. . Retrieved 2008-03-13. [13] Pollard, Nick (1995-04). "High Profile" (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=17rzvh_Ve0IC& pg=PA15& dq="a+ normal+ Anglican+ upbringing"+ dawkins& q="a normal Anglican upbringing" dawkins). Third Way (Harrow, England) 18 (3): 15. ISSN 0309-3492. .

Richard Dawkins
[14] Schrage, Michael (July 1995). "Revolutionary Evolutionist" (http:/ / www. wired. com/ wired/ archive/ 3. 07/ dawkins_pr. html). Wired. . Retrieved 2008-04-21. [15] Dawkins, Richard (1969). "A threshold model of choice behaviour". Animal Behaviour 17 (1): 120. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(69)90120-1. [16] ""Belief" interview" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ religion/ religions/ atheism/ people/ dawkins. shtml). BBC. 5 April 2004. . Retrieved 2008-04-08. [17] Simonyi, Charles (1995-05-15). "Manifesto for the Simonyi Professorship" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080423211123/ http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ aims/ manifesto. shtml). The University of Oxford. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ aims/ manifesto. shtml) on April 23, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-13. [18] Archived version of Simonyi Professorshop (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080423211118/ www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ aims/ index. shtml) [19] "The Current Simonyi Professor: Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080423211128/ http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ index. shtml). The University of Oxford. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ index. shtml) on April 23, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-13. [20] "Editorial Board" (http:/ / www. skeptic. com/ the_magazine/ editorial_board. html). The Skeptics' Society. . Retrieved 2008-04-22. [21] "The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070912192317/ http:/ / www. balliol. ox. ac. uk/ official/ miscellany/ dawkins/ index. asp). Balliol College, Oxford. 9 November 2007. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. balliol. ox. ac. uk/ official/ miscellany/ dawkins/ index. asp) on September 12, 2007. . Retrieved 2008-03-30. [22] Martin Beckford and Urmee Khan (2008-10-24). "Harry Potter fails to cast spell over Professor Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ 3255972/ Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins. html). London: The Daily Telegraph. . Retrieved 2008-11-01. [23] "Births, Marriages and Deaths, England and Wales 1984-2006" (http:/ / www. findmypast. co. uk/ BirthsMarriagesDeaths. jsp). . Retrieved 2010-07-29. [24] Riddell, Mary (26 March 1999). "Eating people is wrong" (http:/ / www. newstatesman. com/ 199903260013). New Statesman. . Retrieved 2008-03-13. [25] Dawkins, Richard (21 March 1999). "There are happy and sad songs to be sung" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ opinion/ the-diary-there-are-happy-and-sad-songs-to-be-sung-1082190. html). London: The Independent. . Retrieved 2008-11-04. [26] McKie, Robin (25 July 2004). "Doctor Zoo" (http:/ / observer. guardian. co. uk/ comment/ story/ 0,6903,1268687,00. html). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-03-17. [27] Simpson, M. J. (2005). Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=K-E2cAzsxwUC). Justin, Charles & Co. p. 129. ISBN 1-932-11235-9. ., Chapter 15, p. 129 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=K-E2cAzsxwUC& pg=PA129) [28] Lloyd, Elisabeth Anne (1994). The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=hO8vHTSiBkAC& pg=PA131& dq="the+ process+ whereby+ replicators+ out-propagate+ each+ other"& cd=1#v=onepage& q="the process whereby replicators out-propagate each other"). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691000466. . [29] Gould, Stephen Jay; Lewontin, Richard C. (1979). "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" (http:/ / www. aaas. org/ spp/ dser/ 03_Areas/ evolution/ perspectives/ Gould_Lewontin_1979. shtml). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (London) Series B, VOL. 205 (1161): 581–598. . Retrieved 2009-08-14. [30] Dawkins, Richard (1999). The Extended Phenotype. Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-1.... [31] Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers. pp. 169–172. ISBN 0-5930-5548-9. [32] Hamilton, W.D. (1964). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II". Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–16, 17–52. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. PMID 5875341. [33] Trivers, Robert (1971). "The evolution of reciprocal altruism". Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755. [34] Dawkins, Richard (1979). "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection" (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ writings/ Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection. pdf) (PDF). Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 51: 184–200. . [35] Dover, Gabriel (2000). Dear Mr Darwin. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-7538-1127-8. [36] Williams, George C. (1966). "Adaptation and Natural Selection (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C& pg=PA24)"]. United States: Princeton University Press. . [37] Mayr, Ernst (2000). What Evolution Is. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04426-3. [38] Midgley, Mary (1979). "Gene Juggling" (http:/ / www. royalinstitutephilosophy. org/ articles/ article. php?id=14). Philosophy 54 (210): pp. 439–458. doi:10.1017/S0031819100063488. . Retrieved 2008-03-18. [39] Dawkins, Richard (1981). "In Defence of Selfish Genes" (http:/ / www. royalinstitutephilosophy. org/ articles/ article. php?id=5). Philosophy 56: pp. 556–573. doi:10.1017/S0031819100050580. . Retrieved 2008-03-17. [40] Midgley, Mary (2000). Science and Poetry. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-27632-2. [41] Brown, Andrew (1999). The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes. London: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-684-85144-X. [42] Brown, Andrew (2000). The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man. London: Touchstone. ISBN 0-684-85145-8. [43] Brockman, J. (1995). The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-80359-3. [44] Sterelny, K. (2007). Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest. Cambridge, U.K.: Icon Books. ISBN 1-84046-780-0. Also ISBN 978-1-84046-780-2 [45] Morris, Richard (2001). The Evolutionists. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 071674094X.


Richard Dawkins
[46] Dawkins, Richard (24 January 1985). "Sociobiology: the debate continues" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080501043602/ http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ WorldOfDawkins-archive/ Dawkins/ Work/ Reviews/ 1985-01-24notinourgenes. shtml). New Scientist. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ WorldOfDawkins-archive/ Dawkins/ Work/ Reviews/ 1985-01-24notinourgenes. shtml) on May 1, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [47] Dennett, Daniel (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea. United States: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-80290-2. [48] "Transworld signs new book from Dawkins" (http:/ / www. thebookseller. com/ news/ 52925-transworld-signs-new-book-from-dawkins. html). The Bookseller. 15 February 2008. . Retrieved 2009-01-12. [49] Neyfakh, Leon (7 February 2008). "Richard Dawkins' Follow-Up to God Delusion Sold to Free Press for $3.5 Million" (http:/ / www. observer. com/ 2008/ richard-dawkins-follow-god-delusion-sold-free-press-3-5-million). The New York Observer. . Retrieved 2008-03-04. [50] Dawkins, Richard (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Transworld Publishers. pp. xii. ISBN 0-593-06173-X. [51] Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 11. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. [52] Kelly, Kevin (1994). Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World. United States: Addison-Wesley. p. 360. ISBN 0-201-48340-8. [53] Blackmore, Susan (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286212-X. [54] Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla. "Memes" (http:/ / www. cscs. umich. edu/ ~crshalizi/ formerly-hyper-weird/ memetics. html). Center for the Study of Complex Systems. University of Michigan. . Retrieved 2009-08-14. [55] Laurent, John (1999). A Note on the Origin of 'Memes'/'Mnemes' (http:/ / cfpm. org/ jom-emit/ 1999/ vol3/ laurent_j. html). 3. Journal of Memetics. pp. 14–19. . Retrieved 2008-03-17. [56] Ruse, Michael. "Creationism" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ creationism/ ). Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Laboratory, Stanford University. . Retrieved 2009-09-09. "a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth." [57] Scott, Eugenie C. "Creationism". Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 51. ISBN 9780520261877. "The term 'creationism' to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms..." [58] Dawkins, Richard (9 March 2002). "A scientist's view" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ uk/ 2002/ mar/ 09/ religion. schools1). The Guardian (London). . Retrieved 2009-11-07. [59] Catalano, John. "Book: The Blind Watchmaker" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080415140851/ http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ WorldOfDawkins-archive/ Dawkins/ Work/ Books/ blind. shtml). The University of Oxford. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. simonyi. ox. ac. uk/ dawkins/ WorldOfDawkins-archive/ Dawkins/ Work/ Books/ blind. shtml) on April 15, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-02-28. [60] Dawkins, Richard (2004). A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=DwD4bjQozgYC). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 218. ISBN 0-618-48539-2. ., Chapter 5, p 218 (http:/ / books. google. be/ books?id=DwD4bjQozgYC& pg=PA218) [61] Moyers, Bill (3 December 2004). "Now with Bill Moyers" (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ now/ transcript/ transcript349_full. html#dawkins). Public Broadcasting Service. . Retrieved 2006-01-29. [62] Dawkins, Richard and Coyne, Jerry (1 September 2005). "One side can be wrong" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ 2005/ sep/ 01/ schools. research). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2006-12-21. [63] Swinford, Steven (19 November 2006). "Godless Dawkins challenges schools" (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ life_and_style/ education/ student/ news/ article641971. ece). London: The Times. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [64] Kane, Pat (1998). Franklin, Jane. ed. The politics of risk society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. p. 79. ISBN 9780745619255. "Richard Dawkins, appointed to a chair in 'the public understanding of science' at Oxford and one of the most vocal militant rationalists..." [65] Ralph Levinson, Science Today: Problem Or Crisis?, Routledge, 1997, p. 32 (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=hR9r3zBApV0C& pg=PA30& vq=richard+ dawkins+ is& dq="richard+ dawkins+ is"). 1997-01. ISBN 9780203974827. . Retrieved 2010-04-29. [66] "Doubtful Dick" (http:/ / www. ft. com/ cms/ s/ 0/ d29981c6-c1c6-11df-9d90-00144feab49a. html). The Financial Times (London). 17 September 2010. . Retrieved 17 September 2010. [67] Bass, Thomas A. (1994). Reinventing the future: Conversations with the World's Leading Scientists (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=yRZYc-LPz1oC& pg=PA118& dq=“a+ fairly+ militant+ atheist,+ with+ a+ fair+ degree+ of+ active+ hostility+ toward+ religion”#v=onepage& q=fairly militant atheist& f=false). Addison Wesley. p. 118. ISBN 978-0201626421. . [68] "Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ news/ people/ profiles/ richard-dawkins-you-ask-the-questions-special-427003. html). Independent (UK). 4 December 2006. . [69] "Our Honorary Associates" (http:/ / www. secularism. org. uk/ honoraryassociates. html). National Secular Society. 2005. . Retrieved 2007-04-21. [70] "The HSS Today" (http:/ / www. humanism-scotland. org. uk/ about-us/ the-hss-today. html). The Humanist Society of Scotland. 2007. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [71] "Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board Biography" (http:/ / www. secular. org/ bios/ Richard_Dawkins. html). . Retrieved 2010-07-29.


Richard Dawkins
[72] "The International Academy Of Humanism — Humanist Laureates" (http:/ / www. secularhumanism. org/ index. php?section=iah& page=index). Council for Secular Humanism. . Retrieved 2008-04-07. [73] "The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry — Fellows" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080615215501/ http:/ / www. csicop. org/ about/ fellows. html). The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. csicop. org/ about/ fellows. html) on June 15, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-04-07. [74] "Humanism and Its Aspirations — Notable Signers" (http:/ / www. americanhumanist. org/ Who_We_Are/ About_Humanism/ Humanist_Manifesto_III/ Notable_Signers). American Humanist Association. . Retrieved 2010-02-09. [75] Sheahen, Laura (October 2005). "The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins (2)" (http:/ / www. beliefnet. com/ story/ 178/ story_17889_2. html). . Retrieved 2008-04-11. [76] "Interview with Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ faithandreason/ transcript/ dawk-frame. html). PBS. . Retrieved 2008-04-12. [77] Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton. p. 6. ISBN 0-393-31570-3. [78] Dawkins, Richard (January/February 1997). "Is Science a Religion?" (http:/ / www. thehumanist. org/ humanist/ articles/ dawkins. html). American Humanist Association. . Retrieved 2008-03-15. [79] Dawkins, Richard (15 September 2001). "Religion's misguided missiles" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ Archive/ Article/ 0,4273,4257777,00. htm). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-04-13. [80] Hall, Stephen S. (2005-08-09). "Darwin's Rottweiler" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080404085931/ http:/ / www. discover. com/ issues/ sep-05/ features/ darwins-rottweiler/ ). Discover magazine. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. discover. com/ issues/ sep-05/ features/ darwins-rottweiler/ ) on April 4, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-22. [81] Biema, David Van (5 November 2006). "God Vs. Science" (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1555132-1,00. html). Time. . Retrieved 2008-04-07. [82] Dawkins, Richard (2006). "The Root of All Evil?" (http:/ / www. channel4. com/ culture/ microsites/ C/ can_you_believe_it/ debates/ rootofevil. html). Channel 4. . Retrieved 2008-04-13. [83] Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers. pp. 282–286. ISBN 0-5930-5548-9. [84] "Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ uk_politics/ 7136682. stm). BBC News. 10 December 2007. . Retrieved 2008-03-01. [85] Dawkins, Richard (11 April 2006). "Atheists for Jesus" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080331051321/ http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins). Archived from the original (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins) on March 31, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-15. [86] Dawkins, Richard (11 November 2001). "Has the world changed?" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2001/ oct/ 11/ afghanistan. terrorism2). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2006-01-29. [87] Ridley, Mark; Grafen, Alan (2007). Richard Dawkins: how a scientist changed the way we think: reflections by scientists, writers, and philosophers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. xi. ISBN 0-19-921466-2. [88] Odoyo, Peter (16 July 2007). "The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West" (http:/ / allafrica. com/ stories/ 200707160152. html). The Nation. . Retrieved 2008-03-15. [89] Burkowitz, Peter (16 July 2007). "The New Atheism" (http:/ / opinionjournal. com/ editorial/ feature. html?id=110010341). The Wall Street Journal. . Retrieved 2008-03-15. [90] "The God Delusion — Reviews" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080702000504/ http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ godDelusionReviews). Archived from the original (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ godDelusionReviews) on July 2, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-04-08. [91] Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.. p. 3. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. [92] Smith, Alexandra (27 November 2006). "Dawkins campaigns to keep God out of classroom" (http:/ / education. guardian. co. uk/ schools/ story/ 0,,1958138,00. html). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2007-01-15. [93] Dawkins, Richard (21 June 2003). "The future looks bright" (http:/ / books. guardian. co. uk/ review/ story/ 0,12084,981412,00. html). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-03-13. [94] Dawkins (2006: 23) [95] Jacobson, Howard (21 January 2006). "Nothing like an unimaginative scientist to get non-believers running back to God" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ opinion/ commentators/ howard-jacobson/ howard-jacobson-nothing-like-an-unimaginative-scientist-to-get-nonbelievers-running-back-to-god-523917. html). London: The Independent. . Retrieved 2007-03-27. [96] Ferguson, Ron (19 January 2006). "What a lazy way to argue against God" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080129021847/ http:/ / pqasb. pqarchiver. com/ smgpubs/ 971452711. html?did=971452711& FMT=ABS& FMTS=FT& date=Jan+ 19,+ 2006& author=RON+ FERGUSON& pub=The+ Herald& desc=What+ a+ lazy+ way+ to+ argue+ against+ God). The Herald. Archived from the original (http:/ / pqasb. pqarchiver. com/ smgpubs/ 971452711. html?did=971452711& FMT=ABS& FMTS=FT& date=Jan+ 19,+ 2006& author=RON+ FERGUSON& pub=The+ Herald& desc=What+ a+ lazy+ way+ to+ argue+ against+ God) on January 29, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [97] Dawkins, Richard (30 January 2006). "Diary — Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / www. newstatesman. com/ 200601300002). New Statesman. . Retrieved 2007-03-25. [98] "Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Root of All Evil? Uncut Interviews" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071012023424/ http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews). 31 May 2007. Archived from the original (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews) on October 12, 2007. . Retrieved 2007-10-10.


Richard Dawkins
[99] McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 1-405-12538-1. [100] Dawkins, Richard (17 September 2007). "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?" (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page27). . Retrieved 2007-11-14. [101] Myers, PZ (24 December 2006). "The Courtier's Reply" (http:/ / scienceblogs. com/ pharyngula/ 2006/ 12/ the_courtiers_reply. php). Pharyngula. . Retrieved 2007-11-14. [102] Cole, Judith (26 March 2007). "Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival" (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ audio_video/ podcasts/ books/ article1570989. ece). The Times (London). . Retrieved 2008-03-04. [103] Cole, Judith (19 October 2006). "Flawed case for the prosecution" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080331174220/ http:/ / www. thetablet. co. uk/ reviews/ 312). The Tablet. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. thetablet. co. uk/ reviews/ 312) on March 31, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-04. [104] Huxley, John (24 May 2007). "Aiming for knockout blow in god wars" (http:/ / www. smh. com. au/ news/ national/ aiming-for-knockout-blow-in-god-wars/ 2007/ 05/ 24/ 1179601500045. html). The Sydney Morning Herald. . Retrieved 2007-05-27. [105] Easterbrook, Gregg. "Does God Believe in Richard Dawkins?" (http:/ / www. beliefnet. com/ story/ 202/ story_20279_1. html). Beliefnet. . Retrieved 2007-05-26. [106] "Is God a Delusion?" (http:/ / www. rthk. org. hk/ rthk/ radio3/ backchat/ 20070404. html). Radio 3, Hong Kong. 4 April 2007. . [107] Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.. p. 50. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. [108] Van Biema, David (5 November 2006). "God vs. Science (3)" (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1555132-3,00. html). Time. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [109] Jha, Alok (29 May 2007). "Scientists divided over alliance with religion" (http:/ / books. guardian. co. uk/ hay2007/ story/ 0,,2089947,00. html). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-03-17. [110] Dawkins, Richard (2006). "When Religion Steps on Science's Turf" (http:/ / www. secularhumanism. org/ library/ fi/ dawkins_18_2. html). Free Inquiry magazine. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [111] Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.. pp. 55–56. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. [112] Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.. p. 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. [113] Crace, John (10 January 2006). "Richard Dawkins: Beyond belief" (http:/ / education. guardian. co. uk/ higher/ profile/ story/ 0,11109,1682655,00. html). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [114] Ruse, Michael (2000). "Double-Dealing in Darwin" (http:/ / www. beliefnet. com/ story/ 7/ story_762_1. html). Beliefnet. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [115] "Belief — radio interview" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ religion/ programmes/ belief/ scripts/ dawkins. shtml). BBC Radio. 2004. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [116] "The Atheist: interview with Gordy Slack" (http:/ / www. salon. com/ news/ feature/ 2005/ 04/ 30/ dawkins/ index. html). 28 April 2005. . Retrieved 2008-04-03. [117] Bearder, Tim (24 March 2006). "BBC Oxford interview" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ oxford/ content/ articles/ 2006/ 03/ 24/ dawkins. shtml). FT Magazine. . Retrieved 2007-05-25. [118] "The Out Campaign (original announcement)" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080430213003/ http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins). 2007-07-30. Archived from the original (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins) on April 30, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-04-01. [119] Chittenden, Maurice; Waite, Roger (23 December 2007). "Dawkins to preach atheism to US" (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ science/ article3087486. ece). London: The Sunday Times. . Retrieved 2008-04-01. [120] Dawkins, Richard (24 October 2007). "Richard Dawkins speech at Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007" (http:/ / video. google. com/ videoplay?docid=2936455252329399558& hl=en). The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. . Retrieved 2008-04-01. [121] Gledhill, Ruth (2008-09-19). "Dawkins website banned in Turkey" (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ comment/ faith/ article4790039. ece). The Times (London). . Retrieved 2008-09-19. [122] Hooper, Rowan (2008-09-19). "Turkey bans evolutionist's website" (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ blogs/ shortsharpscience/ 2008/ 09/ turkey-bans-dawkins-website. html). New Scientist Blogs. . Retrieved 2008-09-20. [123] Butt, Riazat (2008-09-19). "Missing link: creationist campaigner has Richard Dawkins' official website banned in Turkey" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2008/ sep/ 19/ religion. turkey). The Guardian (London). . Retrieved 2008-09-20. [124] Staff writer (2008-09-17). "Evolutionist Dawkins' Internet Site Banned In Turkey" (http:/ / bianet. org/ english/ kategori/ english/ 109778/ evolutionist-dawkins-internet-site-banned-in-turkey). Bianet. . Retrieved 2008-09-20. [125] Arpa, Yasemin (2008-09-17). "Evrimci yazarın sitesini Adnan Oktar kapattırdı" (http:/ / www. ntvmsnbc. com/ news/ 459522. asp) (in Turkish). NTV-MSNBC. . Retrieved 2008-09-20. [126] Ozimek, John (2008-09-22). "The Turkish court bans Dawkins' website" (http:/ / www. theregister. co. uk/ 2008/ 09/ 22/ turkey_bans_dawkins_website/ ). The Register. . Retrieved 2008-09-22. [127] Coulter, Michael (2010-03-21). "Atheism | Atheists Convention | Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / www. smh. com. au/ opinion/ society-and-culture/ atheism-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-20100320-qn86. html). . Retrieved 2010-04-29.


Richard Dawkins
[128] Ariane Sherine (2008-10-22). "All aboard the atheist bus campaign" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ commentisfree/ 2008/ oct/ 21/ religion-advertising). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-12-11. [129] Ariane Sherine (2008-10-23). "'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ commentisfree/ 2008/ oct/ 23/ atheist-bus-campaign-ariane-sherine). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-12-11. [130] Riazat Butt (2008-10-22). "Arriving soon: atheist bus campaign gets off to a flying start" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ uk/ 2008/ oct/ 22/ religion-atheist-dawkins-god). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-12-11. [131] Marc Horne (2010-04-11). "'Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI' by UPDATE 4-12 Marc Horne - TimesOnline" (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ articles/ 5415). Times Online. . Retrieved 2010-06-11. (also on ) [132] Beckford, Martin (2010-06-24). "Richard Dawkins interested in setting up 'atheist free school'" (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ newstopics/ religion/ 7849563/ Richard-Dawkins-interested-in-setting-up-atheist-free-school. html). London: Telegraph. . Retrieved 2010-07-29. [133] Garner, Richard (2010-07-29). "Gove welcomes atheist schools - Education News, Education" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ news/ education/ education-news/ gove-welcomes-atheist-schools-2037990. html). London: The Independent. . Retrieved 2010-07-29. [134] "Letters: Harsh judgments on the pope and religion" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2010/ sep/ 15/ harsh-judgments-on-pope-religion). The Guardian (London). 15 September 2010. . Retrieved 16 September 2010. [135] "Our Mission" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20061117150429/ http:/ / www. richarddawkins. net/ foundation,ourMission). The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. richarddawkins. net/ foundation,ourMission) on November 17, 2006. . Retrieved 2006-11-17. [136] Dawkins, Richard (1998). Unweaving The Rainbow. United Kingdom: Penguin. pp. 4–7. ISBN 0-618-05673-4. [137] Diamond, John (2001). Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations. United Kingdom: Vintage. ISBN 0-099-42833-4. [138] Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. United States: Houghton Mifflin. p. 58. ISBN 0-618-33540-4. [139] "The Selfish Green" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080501094048/ http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,829,The-Selfish-Green,Jonathan-Dimbleby-David-Attenborough-Richard-Dawkins-Jane-Goodall-Richard-Leakey). 2 April 2007. Archived from the original (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,829,The-Selfish-Green,Jonathan-Dimbleby-David-Attenborough-Richard-Dawkins-Jane-Goodall-Richard-Leakey) on May 1, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-04-22. [140] Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 213. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. [141] edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer.; Paola Cavalieri, Peter Singer (1993). The Great Ape Project. United Kingdom: Fourth Estate. ISBN 0-312-1181-8-X. [142] Dawkins, Richard (22 March 2003). "Bin Laden's victory" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2003/ mar/ 22/ iraq. usa). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-03-15. [143] Dawkins, Richard (18 November 2003). "While we have your attention, Mr President..." (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2003/ nov/ 18/ usa. politics1). London: The Guardian. . Retrieved 2008-03-16. [144] "Our supporters" (http:/ / www. republic. org. uk/ supporters/ index. php). Republic. 2010-04-24. . Retrieved 2010-04-29. [145] Dawkins, Richard (1989). "Endnotes. Chapter 1. Why are people?". The Selfish Gene (1st extra chapter) (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. [146] "Richard Dawkins: Keep Libel Laws OUT of Science" (http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=OqVm-WmFzyU). . Retrieved 2009-12-12. [147] "Show your support - vote for the Liberal Democrats on May 6th. Monday, 03 May 2010" (http:/ / libdems. org. uk/ latest_news_detail. aspx?title=Show_your_support_-_vote_for_the_Liberal_Democrats_on_May_6th& pPK=9dd43be1-d11a-40b1-8ede-3acab3666d48). . Retrieved 2010-07-29. [148] "The Enemies of Reason" (http:/ / www. channel4. com/ culture/ microsites/ E/ enemies_of_reason/ ). Channel 4. August 2007. . Retrieved 2008-04-13. [149] "C4 lines up Genius science series" (http:/ / www. broadcastnow. co. uk/ news/ 2009/ 01/ dawkins_to_front_c4_science_series. html). Broadcast. 2009. . Retrieved 2009-01-31. [150] "Faith School Menace? - Faith School Menace?" (http:/ / www. channel4. com/ programmes/ faith-school-menace/ episode-guide/ series-1/ episode-1). Channel 4. 2010-08-18. . Retrieved 2010-09-17. [151] Sutcliffe, Tom (2010-08-19). "Last Night's TV: Faith Schools Menace?/More 4 - Reviews, TV & Radio" (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ arts-entertainment/ tv/ reviews/ last-nights-tv-faith-schools-menacemore-4-2056104. html). London: The Independent. . Retrieved 2010-09-17. [152] Dawkins, Richard (2007-04-01). "Postmodernism Disrobed" (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ articles/ 824-postmodernism-disrobed). . Retrieved 2010-09-24. [153] "Durham salutes science, Shakespeare and social inclusion" (http:/ / www. dur. ac. uk/ news/ allnews/ ?itemno=3972). Durham News & Events Service. 26 August 2005. . Retrieved 2006-04-11. [154] Best-selling biologist and outspoken atheist among those honoured by University (http:/ / vcs. abdn. ac. uk/ news/ details-4924. php), University of Aberdeen. [155] "Richard Dawkins, doctor 'honoris causa' per la Universitat de València" (http:/ / www. uv. es/ ~webuv/ noticies/ noticia. php?idnoticia=7165). 31 March 2009. . Retrieved 2009-04-02.


Richard Dawkins
[156] Scripps Institution of Oceanography (7 April 2009). "Scripps Institution of Oceanography Honors Evolutionary Biologist, Richard Dawkins, in Public Ceremony and Lecture" (http:/ / scrippsnews. ucsd. edu/ Releases/ ?releaseID=967). Scripps Institution of Oceanography. . Retrieved 2009-04-07. [157] "Q&A: Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ sci/ tech/ 3935757. stm). BBC News. 29 July 2004. . Retrieved 2008-03-09. [158] Herman, David (2004). "Public Intellectuals Poll" (http:/ / www. prospect-magazine. co. uk/ article_details. php?id=6768& issue=480). Prospect magazine. . Retrieved 2008-03-09. [159] "The Top 100 Public Intellectuals" (http:/ / www. foreignpolicy. com/ story/ cms. php?story_id=4262). Prospect magazine. . Retrieved 2008-04-22. [160] "Galaxy British Book Awards — Winners & Shortlists 2007" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20070927130727/ http:/ / www. britishbookawards. co. uk/ pnbb_winners2007. asp?#3). Publishing News. 2007. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. britishbookawards. co. uk/ pnbb_winners2007. asp?#3) on September 27, 2007. . Retrieved 2007-04-21. [161] Behe, Michael (2007-05-03). "Time Top 100" (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ specials/ 2007/ time100/ article/ 0,28804,1595326_1595329_1616137,00. html). TIME. . Retrieved 2008-03-02. [162] "Top 100 living geniuses" (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ uknews/ 1567544/ Top-100-living-geniuses. html). The Daily Telegraph. 2007-10-28. . Retrieved 2010-10-04. [163] Giordano Bruno Stiftung (28 May 2007). "Deschner-Preis an Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / hpd-online. de/ node/ 2010). Humanistischer Pressedienst. . Retrieved 2008-04-04. [164] Slack, Gordy (2005-04-30). "The atheist" (http:/ / dir. salon. com/ story/ news/ feature/ 2005/ 04/ 30/ dawkins/ index. html). Salon. . Retrieved 2007-08-03. [165] Staff. "BBC Educational and Documentary: Blind Watchmaker" (http:/ / www. bbcactive. com/ BroadCastLearning/ asp/ catalogue/ productdetail. asp?productcode=207). BBC. . Retrieved 2 December 2008. [166] http:/ / jp. physoc. org/ content/ early/ 2010/ 12/ 01/ jphysiol. 2010. 201384. full. pdf [167] Dawkins, Richard (3 October 2000). "Obituary by Richard Dawkins" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080318185801/ http:/ / www. unifr. ch/ biol/ ecology/ hamilton/ hamilton. html#Dawkins). The Independent. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. unifr. ch/ biol/ ecology/ hamilton/ hamilton. html#Dawkins) on March 18, 2008. . Retrieved 2008-03-22. [168] Critical-Historical Perspective on the Argument about Evolution and Creation, John Durant, in "From Evolution to Creation: A European Perspective (Eds. Sven Anderson, Arthus Peacocke), Aarhus Univ. Press, Aarhus, Denmark [169] "1986 Oxford Union Debate: Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071013161954/ http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,721,1986-Oxford-Union-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-John-Maynard-Smith). Archived from the original (http:/ / richarddawkins. net/ article,721,1986-Oxford-Union-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-John-Maynard-Smith) on October 13, 2007. . Retrieved 2007-05-10. Debate downloadable as MP3 files.


External links
General • • • • • Official website ( Richard Dawkins' page on ( The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science ( Richard Dawkins ( at the Internet Movie Database Works by or about Richard Dawkins ( in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Video • National Geographic Interviews ( – A series of video interviews with National Geographic Channel with Richard Dawkins on Darwin, Evolution and God. • TED Talks: Richard Dawkins on militant atheism ( at TED in 2002 • TED Talks: Richard Dawkins on our "queer" universe ( at TED Global in 2005 • Video interview ( with Riz Khan for Al Jazeera English • Video interview at Big Think ( Selected writings • Viruses of the Mind ( (1993) – Religion as a mental virus.

Richard Dawkins • The Real Romance in the Stars ( the-real-romance-in-the-stars-1527970.html) (1995) – A critical view of astrology. • The Emptiness of Theology ( Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.shtml) (1998) – A critical view of theology. ( Alternative link (http:// at RDFRS.) • Snake Oil and Holy Water ( (1999) – Suggests that there is no convergence occurring between science and theism. • What Use is Religion? ( back= (2004) – Suggests that religion may have no survival value other than to itself. • Race and Creation ( (2004) – On race, its usage and a theory of how it evolved. • The giant tortoise's tale (,,1416876,00.html), The turtle's tale (,,1425412,00.html) and The lava lizard's tale (http://books.,,1429962,00.html) (2005) – A series of three articles written after a visit to the Galápagos Islands. • Dawkins' Huffington Post articles ( Audio


• Richard Dawkins on RadioLIVE's Weekend Variety Wireless ( HILL--Richard-Dawkins-eminent-zoologist-evolutionary-biologist-and-devout-non-believer-in-the-studio-and-taking-calls/ tabid/506/articleID/12472/Default.aspx) – Richard Dawkins appears live on New Zealand's RadioLIVE, taking calls from the audience.

Gene-centered view of evolution


Gene-centered view of evolution
The gene-centered view of evolution, gene selection theory or selfish gene theory holds that evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation, with gene defined as "not just one single bit physical of DNA [but] all replicas of a particular bit of DNA distributed throughout the world"[1] . The proponents of this viewpoint argue that, since heritable information is passed from generation to generation almost exclusively by genetic material, natural selection and evolution are best considered from the perspective of genes. This is in contrast to the organism-centered viewpoint adopted historically by biologists. Proponents of the gene-centered viewpoint argue that it permits understanding of diverse phenomena such as altruism and intragenomic conflict that are otherwise difficult to explain from an organism-focused perspective.


The gene-centered view of evolution is a different way of looking at the basis of evolutionary development. It turns the whole solution of evolution inside-out for the purpose of examination. What this new perspective reveals is a more easily understood model for the evolution of social characteristics such as selfishness and altruism that much of the study of evolution, caught up in the survival of the individual organisms, overlooks.

The 1976 book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins was a notable early work of popular science that focused on the gene-centered view of evolution.

Acquired characteristics are not inherited
Discoveries in science such as the formulation of the central dogma of molecular biology made it clear that the inheritance of acquired characters was not an evolutionary factor in a physical sense and identified genes as lasting entities that survive through many generations. Maynard Smith summarized the issue:

If the central dogma is true, and if it is also true that nucleic acids are the only means whereby information is transmitted between generations, this has crucial implications for evolution. It would imply that all evolutionary novelty requires changes in nucleic acids, and that these changes - mutations - are essentially accidental and non-adaptive in nature. Changes elsewhere - in the egg cytoplasm, in materials transmitted through the placenta, in the mother's milk - might alter the development of the child, but, unless the changes were in nucleic acids, they would have no long-term evolutionary effects.


—Maynard Smith

The rejection of the inheritance of acquired characters combined with the classical mathematical evolutionary biology developed by Ronald Fisher,[3] J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright paved the way to the formulation of the selfish gene theory. For cases when environment can influence heredity see epigenetics.

Gene-centered view of evolution


Gene as the unit of selection
The view of the gene as the unit of selection was developed mainly in the works W. D. Hamilton,[4] [5] [6] Colin Pittendrigh[7] and George C. Williams.[8] It was later popularised by Richard Dawkins in his books The Selfish Gene (1976)[9] and The Extended Phenotype (1982).[10] According to Williams' 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection:

The essence of the genetical theory of natural selection is a statistical bias in the relative rates of survival of alternatives (genes, individuals, etc.). The effectiveness of such bias in producing adaptation is contingent on the maintenance of certain quantitative relationships among the operative factors. One necessary condition is that the selected entity must have a high degree of permanence and a low rate of endogenous change, relative to the degree of bias (differences in selection coefficients). —Williams, [8]

1966, p.22-23

Williams argued that "The natural selection of phenotypes cannot in itself produce cumulative change, because phenotypes are extremely temporary manifestations". Each phenotype is the unique product of the interaction between genome and environment. It does not matter how fit and fertile a phenotype is, it will eventually be destroyed and will never be duplicated. Since 1954, it has been known that DNA is the main physical substrate to genetic information, and it is capable of high fidelity replication through many generations. So, a particular sequence of DNA can have a high permanence and a low rate of endogenous change. In normal sexual reproduction, an entire genome is the unique combination of father's and mother's chromosomes produced at the moment of fertilization. It is generally destroyed with its organism, because "meiosis and recombination destroy genotypes as surely as death".[8] Only half of it is transmitted to each descendant due to the independent segregation. The gene as an informational entity persists for an evolutionary significant span of time through a lineage of many physical copies. In his book River out of Eden, Dawkins coins the phrase God's utility function to explain his view on genes as units of selection. He uses this phrase as a synonym of the "meaning of life" or the "purpose of life". By rephrasing the word purpose in terms of what economists call a utility function, meaning "that which is maximized", Dawkins attempts to reverse-engineer the purpose in the mind of the Divine Engineer of Nature, or the Utility Function of God. Finally, Dawkins argues that it is a mistake to assume that an ecosystem or a species as a whole exists for a purpose. He writes that it is incorrect to suppose that individual organisms lead a meaningful life either; in nature, only genes have a utility function – to perpetuate their own existence with indifference to great sufferings inflicted upon the organisms they build, exploit and discard.

Organisms as Vehicles
Genes are not naked in the world. They are usually packed together inside a genome, which is itself contained inside an organism. Genes group together into genomes because "genetic replication makes use of energy and substrates that are supplied by the metabolic economy in much greater quantities than would be possible without a genetic division of labour".[11] They build vehicles to promote their mutual interests of jumping into the next generation of vehicles. As Dawkins puts it, organisms are the "survival machines" of genes.[9] The phenotypic effect of a particular gene is contingent on its environment, including the fellow genes constituting with it the total genome. A gene never has a fixed effect, so how is it possible to speak of a gene for long legs? It is because of the phenotypic differences between alleles. One may say that one allele, all other things being equal or varying within certain limits, causes greater legs than its alternative. This difference enables the scrutiny of natural selection.

Gene-centered view of evolution "A gene can have multiple phenotypic effects, each of which may be of positive, negative or neutral value. It is the net selective value of a gene's phenotypic effect that determines the fate of the gene".[12] For instance, a gene can cause its bearer to have greater reproductive success at a young age, but also cause a greater likelihood of death at a later age. If the benefit outweighs the harm, averaged out over the individuals and environments in which the gene happens to occur, then phenotypes containing the gene will generally be positively selected and thus the abundance of that gene in the population will increase. Even so, it becomes necessary to model the genes in combination with their vehicle as well as in combination with the vehicle’s environment.


Selfish Gene Theory
The selfish gene theory of natural selection can be restated as follows:

Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. (...) Differences in genes give rise to difference in these phenotypic differences. Natural selection acts on the phenotypic differences and thereby on genes. Thus genes come to be represented in successive generations in proportion to the selective value of their phenotypic effects. —Cronin, [12]

1991, p.60

The result is that "the prevalent genes in a sexual population must be those that, as a mean condition, through a large number of genotypes in a large number of situations, have had the most favourable phenotypic effects for their own replication".[13] In other words, we expect selfish genes ("selfish" meaning that it promotes its own survival without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group or even species). This theory implies that adaptations are the phenotypic effects of genes to maximize their representation in future generations. An adaptation is maintained by selection if it promotes genetic survival directly, or else some subordinate goal that ultimately contributes to successful reproduction.

Individual altruism, genetic egoism
The gene is a unit of hereditary information that exists in many physical copies in the world, and which particular physical copy will be replicated and originate new copies does not matter from the gene's point of view.[14] A selfish gene could be favoured by selection by producing altruism among organisms containing it. The idea is summarized as follows:

If a gene copy confers a benefit B on another vehicle at cost C to its own vehicle, its costly action is strategically beneficial if pB > C, where p is the probability that a copy of the gene is present in the vehicle that benefits. Actions with substantial costs therefore require significant values of p. Two kinds of factors ensure high values of p: relatedness (kinship) and recognition (green beards). —Haig, [11]

1997, p. 288

A gene in a somatic cell of an individual may forego replication to promote the transmission of its copies in the germ line cells. It ensures the high value of p = 1 due to their constant contact and their common origin from the zygote. The kin selection theory predicts that a gene may promote the recognition of kinship by historical continuity: a mammalian mother learns to identify her own offspring in the act of giving birth; a male preferentially directs resources to the offspring of mothers with whom he has copulated; the other chicks in a nest are siblings; and so on. The expected altruism between kin is calibrated by the value of p, also known as the coefficient of relatedness. For instance, an individual has a p = 1/2 in relation to his brother, and p = 1/8 to his cousin, so we would expect, ceteris paribus, greater altruism among brothers than among cousins. In this vein, geneticist J.B.S. Haldane famously joked, "Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins".[15] However, examining the human propensity for altruism, kin selection theory seems incapable of explaining cross-familiar, cross-racial and even cross-species acts of kindness.

Gene-centered view of evolution


Green-beard effect
Green-beard effects gained their name from a thought-experiment of Richard Dawkins,[9] who considered the possibility of a gene that caused its possessors to develop a green beard and to be nice to other green-bearded individuals. Since then, a 'green beard effect' has come to refer to forms of genetic self-recognition in which a gene in one individual might direct benefits to other individuals that possess the gene. Such genes are essentially especially selfish, benefiting themselves regardless of the fates of their vehicles.

All kinds of altruism
Kindness On the other hand, a single trait, group reciprocal kindness, is capable of explaining the vast majority of altruism that is generally accepted as “good” by modern societies. Imagine a green-bearding behavioral trait whose recognition does not depend on the recognition of some external feature such as beard color, but relies on recognition of the behavior itself. Imagine now that the behavior is altruistic. The success of such a trait in sufficiently intelligent and undeceived organisms is implicit. Moreover, the existence of such a trait predicts a tendency for kindness to unrelated organisms that are apparently kind, even if the organisms are of a completely different species. Moreover, the gene need not be exactly the same, so long as the effect is similar. Multiple versions of the gene—or even meme—would have virtually the same effect in a sort of symbiotic green-bearding cycle of altruism. Deceit Whenever recognition plays a role in evolution, so does deception. Just like the harmless lizard that has evolved a pattern that mimics its poisonous cousin and therefore tricks predators, the selfish creature may pretend to be kind by “growing a green beard” (whatever that green beard may be). Thus green-bearding and the selfish gene theory also give rise to an explanation for the evolution of lies and deceit, characteristics that do not benefit the population as a whole.

Intragenomic conflict
As genes are capable of producing individual altruism, they are capable of producing conflict among genes inside the genome of one individual. This phenomenon was called intragenomic conflict and arises when one gene promotes its own replication in detriment to other genes in the genome. The classic example is segregation distorter genes that cheat during meiosis or gametogenesis and end up in more than half of the functional gametes. These genes persist even resulting in reduced fertility. Egbert Leigh compared the genome to "a parliament of genes: each acts in its own self-interest, but if its acts hurt the others, they will combine together to suppress it" to explain the relative low occurrence of intragenomic conflict.[16]

Challenges to the gene-centric view
Prominent opponents of this gene-centric view of evolution include evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, biologist and anthropologist David Sloan Wilson and philosopher Elliot Sober. Writing in the New York Review of Books, Gould has characterized the gene-centered perspective as confusing book-keeping with causality. Gould views selection as working on many levels, and has called attention to a hierarchical perspective of selection. Gould also called the claims on Selfish Gene "strict adaptationism", "ultra-Darwinism", and "Darwinian fundamentalism", describing them as excessively "reductionist". He saw the theory as leading to a simplistic "algorithmic" theory of evolution, or even to the re-introduction of a teleological principle.[17] Mayr went so far as to say "Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian".[18]

Gene-centered view of evolution Gould also addressed the issue of selfish genes in his essay 'Caring groups and selfish genes'.[19] Gould acknowledged that Dawkins was not imputing conscious action to genes, but simply using shorthand metaphor commonly found in evolutionary writings. To Gould, the fatal flaw was that "no matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them - direct visibility to natural selection".[19] Rather, the unit of selection is the phenotype, not the genotype, because it is phenotypes which interact with the environment at the natural selection interface. So, in Kim Sterelny's summation of Gould's view: "gene differences do not cause evolutionary changes in populations, they register those changes".[20] . Richard Dawkins replied to this criticism in a later book, The Extended Phenotype, that Gould confused particulate genetics with particulate embryology, stating the genes do "blend", as far as their effects on developing phenotypes are concerned, but that they do not blend as they replicate and recombine down the generations.[10] Since Gould's death in 2002, Niles Eldredge has continued with counter-arguments to gene-centered natural selection.[21] Eldredge notes that in Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplain, which was published just before Eldredge's book, "Richard Dawkins comments on what he sees as the main difference between his position and that of the late Stephen Jay Gould. He concludes that it is his own vision that genes play a causal role in evolution", while Gould (and Eldredge) "sees genes as passive recorders of what worked better than what".[21]


The gene-centered view of evolution is a synthesis of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the particulate inheritance theory and the non-transmission of acquired characters. It states that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors. This process produces adaptations for the benefit of genes that promote the reproductive success of the organism, or of other organisms containing the same gene (kin altruism and green-beard effects), or even only its own propagation in detriment to the other genes of the genome (intragenomic conflict).

Main figures in selection debate
Besides Richard Dawkins and George C. Williams, other biologists and philosophers have expanded and refined the selfish gene theory, such as John Maynard Smith, Robert Trivers, David Haig, Helena Cronin, David Hull, Philip Kitcher and Daniel C. Dennett. Individuals opposing this gene-centric view include Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, David Sloan Wilson and philosopher Elliot Sober. Proponents of Multilevel selection (MLS) include David Sloan Wilson, Elliot Sober, Richard E Michod[22] and Samir Okasha [23]

See also
• Evolutionary biology

[1] The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins. 2008, page 88 http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=go0e5sBRznYC& lpg=PP1& dq=selfish%20gene& pg=PA88#v=onepage& q=gene& f=false [2] Maynard Smith, J. (1998). Evolutionary Genetics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. pp. 10. [3] Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. ISBN 0-19-850440-3. [4] Hamilton, W. D. (1963). "The evolution of altruistic behavior". The American Naturalist 97: 354–356. doi:10.1086/497114. [5] Hamilton, W.D. (1964). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour I". Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. PMID 5875341. [6] Hamilton, W.D. (1964). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour II". Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1): 17–52. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. PMID 5875340.

Gene-centered view of evolution
[7] Pittendrigh, C.S. (1958). "Adaptation, natural selection and behavior". In Roe, A.; Simpson, G. G.. Behavior and evolution. Yale University Press, USA. [8] Williams, G.C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton University Press, USA. [9] Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. [10] Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. ISBN 0-19-288051-9. [11] Haig, D. (1997). "The Social Gene". In Krebs, J. R.; Davies, N. B.. Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell Scientific, UK. pp. 284–304. [12] Cronin, H. (1991). The Ant and the Peacock. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. ISBN 0-521-32937-X. [13] Williams, G. C. (1985). "A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology". Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 2: 1–27. [14] Williams, G. C. (1992). Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. ISBN 0-19-506932-3. [15] Clark (1968). JBS: The Life and Work of J.B.S. Haldane. ISBN 0340044446. [16] Leigh, E. (1971). Adaptation and Diversity. Cooper, San Francisco, USA. [17] Darwinian Fundamentalism - The New York Review of Books (http:/ / www. nybooks. com/ articles/ 1151) [18] "Ernst Mayr: What evolution is" (http:/ / www. edge. org/ 3rd_culture/ mayr/ mayr_print. html). Edge Magazine. 31 October 2001. . Retrieved 21 July 2010. [19] Gould, S.J. (1990). "Caring Groups and Selfish Genes". The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. Penguin Books, London, UK. pp. 72–78. [20] Sterelny, K. (2007). Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest. Icon Books, Cambridge, UK. [21] Eldredge, N. (2004). Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and The Selfish Gene. W.W. Norton, New York, USA. [22] Philosophical foundations for the hierarchy of life. Journal of Biology and Philosophy (2010) [23] Philosophical foundations for the hierarchy of life. Journal of Biology and Philosophy (2010)


• Crick, F. (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology ( Nature 227 (August 8): 561-563. • Darwin, C. & Wallace, A. (1858) On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. ( darwin/darwindex.html) Proceedings of Linnean Society 3 (July): 45-62. • Dawkins, R. (1982) "Replicators and Vehicles" ( html) King's College Sociobiology Group, eds., Current Problems in Sociobiology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–64. • Mayr, E. (1997) The objects of selection ( Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 (March): 2091-2094.

Article Sources and Contributors


Article Sources and Contributors
Alfred Russel Wallace  Source:  Contributors: 10noyrum, 9cds, AHMartin, Aa77zz, Afernand74, Ajf, Alansohn, Alex43223, Algebra, Alistaird, Alphachimp, Ancheta Wis, Andonic, Andre Engels, Andrewlp1991, AnonMoos, Anthere, Anthon.Eff, Arjuna909, Art LaPella, Avenue, Avono, Awadewit, Awien, Awolf002, AxelBoldt, BD2412, Baalmunky, Barclayandchastfield, BarretBonden, Battang, BillC, BillFlis, Blainster, BlueYellowRed, Bob Burkhardt, Bomac, Bongwarrior, Boothy443, Borgx, Brandon97, Brenont, Brion VIBBER, Broux, Bullzeye, Caknuck, CalendarWatcher, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canadianism, Capricorn42, CardinalDan, Celephicus, Chicheley, Chingbangg101, Choicemagicain, Chris the speller, Chris55, Clarityfiend, Cody5, ConfuciusOrnis, Conti, Conversion script, CopperKettle, Cult-p, Cureden, Cyclonenim, Cyktsui, D6, DShamen, Dabomb87, Dacoutts, Daicaregos, Dale Arnett, Danny, Darrenhusted, Dave souza, David Schaich, David T Tokyo, David Underdown, Deb, Deceglie, Deenoe, Dhh787, Disavian, Discospinster, DocWatson42, Dologan, Dominus, Drdanmcd, Duncan.france, DuncanHill, Duncharris, Dysmorodrepanis, Dysprosia, Earth, EchetusXe, ElComandanteChe, Electrobe, Emerson7, Emw, Enzino, Epbr123, Ericoides, Evercat, Fairandbalanced, Fastfission, FeanorStar7, Feedmecereal, ForestDim, Fred.e, Fredrik, Frencheigh, Fsotrain09, Fvasconcellos, Gabbe, Gandalf61, Gene Nygaard, Ghirlandajo, Ghmyrtle, Giftlite, Ginkgo100, Gmoneythugunithustla, Grafen, GrahamHardy, GregorB, GroveGuy, Gurubrahma, H2g2bob, Harryboyles, Hermann Luyken, Husond, Ianblair23, Intelligentsium, InvictaHOG, Iridescent, Ironholds, J'raxis, J.delanoy, JForget, JHunterJ, JWSchmidt, James086, Jauerback, Jelly Mcpudding, Jeremy Bolwell, Jimfbleak, Joao Xavier, John Lynch, Johnbibby, Johnstone, Johnuniq, Jon Harald Søby, Jozefus, Jusdafax, JzG, K.C. Tang, Kablammo, KarpalTunnal, Katalaveno, Kaveman000, Kcordina, Koavf, Koyaanis Qatsi, Krakatoa, Kukini, Kumioko, Leandrod, Lee M, Lemmey, Leondumontfollower, Leszek Jańczuk, Lexor, Lightmouse, Lilac Soul, Lkjhgfdsa, LonelyMarble, Look2See1, LuckyStarr, Lucyintheskywithdada, Luna Santin, Lunchscale, Luuva, Macdonald-ross, Magioladitis, Magnus Manske, Maias, Mailer diablo, Mais oui!, Malkinann, MarcoTolo, MarkinNYC, Master NZ, Matkatamiba, Medeis, MeekSaffron, Megaloblatta, Mentifisto, Merbabu, Methcub, Mhockey, Michael C Price, Michael Devore, Michael Drew, Michael Hardy, Mightyhansa, Mike s, MikeVitale, Mikewarrioir22, Mindmatrix, MisfitToys, Mjmcb1, Modemac, Mulukhiyya, Mutt Lunker, Mystaker1, NYMFan69-86, NaidNdeso, Netalarm, NewEnglandYankee, Nick Green, Nicktenn865, Nihil novi, Nmajdan, NorthernThunder, Novangelis, Ntsimp, NuclearWarfare, Nuno Tavares, Nybg, Oska, Owain, Paieye, Parhamr, Petroc2, Phaseitem1011, Piano non troppo, Piledhigheranddeeper, Pmc360, Polinizador, PoliticalJunkie, Pollinator, Portillo, Pratiksha gajjar, Pwimageglow, Qutezuce, Ragesoss, Rajah, RepublicanJacobite, Resurgent insurgent, RexNL, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Richerman, Richmeister, Rjm at sleepers, Rjwilmsi, Rls, Rmky87, RobertG, Rodw, RossF18, Rrburke, Rumping, Rusty Cashman, SE7, SMC, Saga City, Salishsea, Sam Medany, SandyGeorgia, Sannse, Science Owen, SebastianHelm, Selkem, Sfdan, Shanes, Sherljim, Shieldsashley, Shoeofdeath, Shyamal, Sikandro, Skyring, Smallbones, Smallweed, Smartse, Snek01, Snezzy, Snowmanradio, Spearhead, Stbalbach, SteinbDJ, Stephen G Graham, Strike00, Suicidalhamster, Suruena, T. Anthony, Tabdulla, Tagishsimon, Tannin, Teapotgeorge, Technopat, Tellyaddict, TheTrojanHought, Thingg, Threeafterthree, Tide rolls, Tobogganoggin, Tony1, Treisijs, Tupolev154, Ukexpat, Unionhawk, Utcursch, ValenShephard, Vanished user, Vrenator, Vsmith, Wehwalt, Wetman, Whaleto, WikiDao, WilliamKF, Wknight94, Wmahan, Wobble, WolfmanSF, WorldlyWebster, Wtmitchell, Xxboxx65, YUL89YYZ, Yerpo, Zamphuor, ZapThunderstrike, Zaslav, 476 anonymous edits Charles Darwin  Source:  Contributors: -Majestic-, -x-Ultimate-Drummer-x-, 031586, 1 pwn nubs, 100% Christian, 11K, 168...,, 30daysinAK, 334a, 49erowens, 789suj98e7fh8sfdf98udfu8dfu9sdufdsf8377dh8nsdsncskj, 84user, @pple, A bit iffy, A vivid dreamer, A1 Aardvark, ABCD, ABIW, AGXD095, Aa77zz, Aaarrrggh, Aaron Bowen, Abdullais4u, Abeg92, Abhishikt, Academic Challenger, Acdun, Acetic Acid, Actam, Adam sk, Adamsan, Adashiel, Adraeus, Adrian.benko, AdultSwim, Afasmit, AgRince, Ahgrl123, Ahkitj, Ahoerstemeier, Aidan Croft, Akiioni, Aksi great, AlanHarmony, Alasdair, Alcoved id, AlexTG, Alexstep uk, Alfio, Ali K, Alienus, Alkaline Trio Rocks, AllyUnion, Alphachimp, Alsandro, Altaar, Altofromgod,, Amandajm, Amanduhh592, Amatulic, Amberrock, Amiodarone, Amitch, Anarchangel, Ancheta Wis, Andie142105, Andonic, Andre Engels, Andres, Andrevan, Andrew E. Drake, Andrew Levine, Andrewlp1991, Andy Marchbanks, Andycjp, Andyjsmith, Angela, Angelo De La Paz, Anilocra, Animum, Anlace, Ann Stouter, Anna Lincoln, Anna512, AnonMoos, Anonymous Dissident, Anonywiki, Antaeus Feldspar, Antandrus, Anthere, Aperey, Aquilla, Aradied, Aranel, Ararat73, Arcadie, Arch dude, Arknascar44, Armchair info guy, Arpingstone, Artichoker, Asbestos, Ascidian, Ashenai, Aspstren, Asteriks, Asterion, Astrochemist, Astronouth7303, AtStart, Athkalani, Atomic Cosmos, Aude, Aunt Entropy, Aussie pingu, Austisle, Autodidactyl, Avicennasis, Awadewit, Axt, Az1568, AzaToth, BM, BRADGunit, Bact, Bad Gopher Gear, Badagnani, Baegis, Bakerja03, Ballbag6969, Ballista, BalowStar, Banes, Barbara Shack, Barrab, Barrettmagic, Barticus88, Baskaufs, BazookaJoe, Bbsrock, Bcasterline, Beao, BeckenhamBear, Begoon, BehnamFarid, Ben0393, Ben120480, BenB4, Bento00, Berks105, Beyond silence, Bhadani, Bibliomaniac15, BigBang19, BigFatBuddha, Bigbluefish, Bigdog52, Bigturtle, Bill37212, Billinghurst, Birdoman, BitterMan, Biŋhai, Bkonrad, Bladyniec, BlankVerse, Blankslatestudios, Blightsoot, Bmicomp, Bob Burkhardt, BobTheTomato, Bobet, Bobo192, Bogo237, Boleyn, Bonadea, Bongwarrior, Bostbart, Boston, Bradshaws1, Brandmeister, Brandon5485, Breno, Brian0918, BrianHansen, Brianga, Brighterorange, Brion VIBBER, Bronks, Bruce1ee, Brutannica, Bubba hotep, Bucephalus, Builder w, BulLz4EvA93, Bumfake, Bunzil, Burto88, Bwil, Bwithh, CALR, CJ, CLW, CMacMillan, CONFIQ, CRKingston, CalJW, Caltas, Camerong, Camillus McElhinney, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canadian-Bacon, CanadianCaesar, Canderson7, Candylis, CanisRufus, Canjth, Canterbury Tail, Carcharoth, Cardsplayer4life, Carlosp420, Carlwev, CarolGray, Casper2k3, Causa sui, Caz1230, Cbrown1023, Cburnett, Cbustapeck, Ccson, Cdc, CecilWard, Celestianpower, Celestra, Celithemis, Chaboura, Chanting Fox, Charles N. Gorichanaz, Charlesingalls759, Chcknwnm, Cheeselor1, Cheesypeasjlk, Chemprincess5, ChicXulub, Chicken Soup, Chickenfeed9, Chill doubt, Chillum, Chris Henniker, Chris Weimer, Chrislk02, Chrisportelli, Christopher Parham, Chriswiki, Chun-hian, Cielomobile, Citicat, Ck lostsword, Closedmouth, CloudNine, Cloudy67, Cnbrb, Cogent, Cohesion, Colossus34, ConfuciusOrnis, Connormah, Conversion script, Cornellrockey, Cornischong, Corpx, Cos05, Cosans, Count weirdo, Coz 11, Crabula, Craigy144, Crazynas, Cremepuff222, Crism, Cryptic, Curps, Curtis Clark, Cutler, Cwcarlson, Cybermonsters, Cyrius, D6, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DGG, DJ Clayworth, DMacks, DPachali, DVD R W, DVdm, Dacoutts, Damonsanoob, Dan100, DanaUllman, Dand1977, DanielCD, Danieljackson, Danielrcote, Danimoth, Dannyno, Danroxout, Danski14, Dansmi54321, Darius Bacon, DarkFalls, Darqknight47, DarwinianMan, Dave L, Dave souza, Daverocks, Davethepirate, Davewild, David J Wilson, David Levy, Davidwr, Davril2020, Dcandeto, Dcb1995, Dcsohl, De.Gerbil, Deadly-marshmello, Deb, Debivort, Deeptrivia, Deightona, Deipnosophista, Dekaels, Delta x, Demfranchize, DerHexer, Derek.cashman, Deville, Dez9999, Diego pmc, Digitalme, Dimitrakopulos, Dina, Dionyseus, DirkvdM, Discospinster, Dketelaars, Dkriegls, Dmmd123, Dmn, Doc glasgow, Docboat, DonDaMon, Donarreiskoffer, Dontlookatme, Doodle77, Doovinator, Dougweller, Dpaajones, Dpbsmith, Dppowell, DrStrangelove95, DragonflySixtyseven, Dragonguy18, Drakey7, Drbreznjev, Drilnoth, Drmies, Dsp13, Dukeofomnium, DuncanHill, Duncharris, Dureo, Durin, Durnthalerk, Durova, Dvc214, Dwalin, Dycedarg, Dyknowsore, Dylan Lake, Dysepsion, ESkog, EarthPerson, Ebo claxon, EconoPhysicist, Ed g2s, Edivorce, Edton, Edward, Ehouk1, Ejrh, El poderoso, Eliyak, Eloquence, Eluchil404, Emerson7, Endofskull, Engleham, English Bobby, Enigmaman, Enigmaniac, Epeeist smudge, Eran of Arcadia, Erguvan7, Ericorbit, Erp, Esperant, Esseh, Essjay, Esteban456789, Estebs, Esurnir, Etacar11, Eubulides, Eugenics, Eve Hall, Evercat, Everyking, Evil Monkey, EvocativeIntrigue, FF2010, Falsity, Fang 23, Farside, Fastfission, Fastfizzion, Fawcett5, FeanorStar7, Feeeshboy, Feezo, Felsenst, Fernanda212, Filanca, Filll, Finlandia, Flauto Dolce, Flcelloguy, Flowerpotman, Flubajub boy, Fluppy, Flyaway1111, FlyingToaster, FrancisTyers, Frankie816, Frecklefoot, Fredrik, FreplySpang, Frood42, Frymaster, Fthyt, Fuzheado, Fvw, Fys, Fyyer, GB fan, GChriss, GK, GSlicer, GTBacchus, Gabbe, Gadfium, Gaius Cornelius, Gameraydar, Garik, Gary King, Gazooki, Gazpacho, Gdr, Geneb1955, GeneralBelly, GeorgeLouis, Gfoley4, Giant Blue Anteater, Giftlite, Gilliam, Gimboid13, Gimmetrow, Godlord2, Goingin, Gorgan almighty, Grace Note, Gracenotes, GraemeL, Graham87, GrahamHardy, Graspol, Grcaldwell, GregAsche, Gregfitzy, Gritironskillet, Grook Da Oger, Groovenstein, Grovermj, Grunt, Gryon, Guanaco, Gudeldar, Guettarda, Gui, GuildNavigator84, Guillom, Guoguo12, Gurch, Gurchzilla, GusF, Guycalledryan, Gwernol, Hadal, Hadrian89, Haemo, Hagedis, HalJor, HaleyZZ, HalfShadow, Hall Monitor, Hamsterlopithecus, HandyAndy, Hardyw, Haukurth, Hawkania, Haydenmercer, Hebel, Heimstern, Hemmingsen, Henrygb, Heptzul, Hersfold, Heywane1337, Hhbruun, HiLo48, Hipzip 14, Hmains, Holy-sniper, Homagetocatalonia, Homerbklyn, Homerius, Honbicot, Honette, Hottentot, Howdy541, Hu12, Husond, Hypernovic, I5bala, INXS-Girl, Ialsoagree, Ian13, Icairns, Ike2013101, Imharan, Improve, Imtoohottforyou, Inge-Lyubov, Innotata, Insanedane8, Intelligentsium, InvisibleK, Ironcorona, Ironholds, IslandHopper973, Itai, Itsame, Ivorbigun, Iwillburytheunitedstates, Ixfd64, Izehar, J Di, J manz92, JDoorjam, JPG-GR, JQF, JV Smithy, JYolkowski, Jacek Kendysz, Jachin, Jack1956, Jackmcnicol, JackofOz, Jacob.jose, Jagfan71, Jaketh 1991, Jamiemaloneyscoreg, Janzenh2.5, Jaraalbe, Jareand, Jarry1250, Jason Potter, Jaxl, JayFout, JayW, Jbourj, Jclerman, Jcw69, Jdforrester, Jebba, Jeff3000, Jefffire, Jengod, Jeran, JesseW, Jesus Is Love, Jfdwolff, Jfg284, Jiddisch, JimR, JimWae, Jimfbleak, Jimiraywinter, Jimokay, JimyD, Jjhunt, Jlrobertson, Jnestorius, JoanneB, JoefromRML, John Hill, John Vandenberg, Johnleemk, Johnstone, Johnteslade, Johnuniq, Jojit fb, Jokermcjokerson, Jokestress, Jon186, Jonathunder, Jonoloplop, Jordanhurley, Joseph Solis in Australia, Joshbuddy, JoshuaZ, Jossi, Joyous!, Jpbowen, Jrmccall, Jrockley, Jtmichcock, Jumbuck, Justin Eiler, Justin4truman, Justtheinformation, Jvbishop, Jweiss11, Jwilson14, Jwissick, Jyril, K, K.C. Tang, K1Bond007, KAMiKAZOW, KPH2293, Ka34, Kablammo, Kaisershatner, Kaiti, Kaldari, Karafias, Karimarie, Karl, Karl Dickman, Katimawan2005, Kay of Kintyre, Kaye heyes, Kayy911, Kdbuffalo, Keegan, Keelm, Kelly Martin, Kennethcgass, Kennethduncan, Kgrad, Khalid Mahmood, Khin2718, Khukri, Kiley481, KillerChihuahua, Kilmer-san, Kimon, KimvdLinde, King of Hearts, Kinu, Kipala, KirbyManiac, Kleenex11, Kleopatra, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, Knutux, Koavf, Koffieyahoo, Konstable, Koratnia, Korg, Kosebamse, Kotjze, Koyaanis Qatsi, Krakatoa, Kransky, Krasnoyarsk, Kross, Krun, Kungfuadam, Kuru, Kuyabribri, Kwiki, Kylu, Kzollman, LXRN, LachlanA, Landroo, LarkinToad2010, Ldesilva, Le Docteur, Lectonar, Lee J Haywood, LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs, Lemonade100, LeoO3, Leon7, Leonard G., Leonard^Bloom, Leondumontfollower, Leszek Jańczuk, Lewis274, Lexor, Libertaar, Lightdarkness, Lightmouse, Lilipatina, Lindsay658, Linkoman, LiquidGhoul, LittleHow, LittleOldMe, Littleone77, Livingrm, Llort, Lockley, Lofty, Logicus, Logologist, Lol12982103nas, LonelyMarble, Longhair, Lord Voldemort, Lowellian, Lucidhappyguy, Lucidish, Luckyherb, Lukeass, Lumos3, Luna Santin, Lunchonme, Lupin, Lupo, Luxury-Yacht, M C Y 1008, M.A.Dabbah, M.Gray, M3taphysical, MAURY, MECU, MER-C, MONGO, MRSC, MSGJ, MacGyverMagic, Macaddct1984, Macdonald-ross, Made of awsome, Magafuzula, Magician that makes things white, Magister Mathematicae, Magnus Manske, Maha ts, Mahanga, Mais oui!, Majorly, Majts, Mal4mac, Mal7798, Malo, Mandarax, Mann jess, Manoeuvre, MarcoTolo, Mareino, MarkGallagher, MarkSutton, Marskell, MartinSpamer, Massivethreat, Masterjaydude, Masterpiece2000, Mathdude101, Mattgirling, Matthew238, Mav, Mboverload, Mcauburn, Mcewan, Mclay1, Meaghan, Megaloblatta, MegdalePlace, Mel Etitis, Melesse, MeltBanana, Memestream, Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Meson man, MessinaRagazza, Metallicaman9999, Metanoid, Methcub, Mhking, Michael Drew, Michael Hardy, Michael Johnson, MickWest, Midgley, Midnightblueowl, Mietchen, Mig77, Mike Rosoft, MikeVitale, Mikenorton, Mikker, Mindmatrix, Minesweeper.007, Miraculousrandomness, Mirv, MisfitToys, Misortie, Mister Fax, Misza13, Miwasatoshi, Mjmcb1, Mjpieters, Mnemeson, Mntlchaos, Moe Epsilon, Mohsinwaheed, Molkhal, MonkeyMumford, MonoAV, Moosewood122, Morenooso, Moriori, Moron26554, Mother jebibi, Moyda, Mpallen, Mr Adequate, Mr. Bad, MrFish, Mrfixter, Mrhinman, Mschel, Mswake, Muirwood, Mujjj, Munibert, Mushroom, Musical Linguist, Musicpvm, My76Strat, Myanw, Myredroom, NBeale, Naddy, Nakon, Nathanalex, Nauticashades, NawlinWiki, Nbound, Neallan, Necrothesp, Neelix, Neilc, Nemu, NeoNerd, Neon white, NeonMerlin, Netoholic, Netscott, Neural, Neutrality, NewEnglandYankee, NewGuy, Nexon123, Nibuod, Nicholas Tan, Nick, Nick81, Nickj, Nickshanks, Night Gyr, Nihil novi, Nishkid64, Nitya Dharma, Nivix, Njaard, Nk, Nnp, Nogwa, Noisy, Northfox, Nostoi, Nova77, NqZooArchive1969, Nrbelex, NuclearWarfare, Numbo3, Nunh-huh, Nutella002, Nwe, O, O18, Oashi, Obarskyr, Octopus-Hands, Ojigiri, Okapi, Old Moonraker, Olessi, Olivier, Olorin28, Omicronpersei8, One Fried Egg, Onecatowner, Onlyemarie, Opabinia regalis, Opelio, Opus33, Orangemarlin, Oswax, Outoftuneviolin VS General Tojo, Outriggr, OverSS, Oxymoron83, PDH, PIL1987, PM800, PTHS, PTTusker, Paleorthid, ParticleMan, Patrickneil, Paul August, Paul Drye, Paul venter, PaulHammond, Paulck, Pauswa, Pawyilee, Pax:Vobiscum, Pbaglaw, Pcpcpc, Pdcco, Peeperman, Persian Poet Gal, Peruvianllama, Petecarney, Peter G Werner, Peter coxhead, PeterisP, Petiatil, Petzl, Pgecaj, Pgk, Pgr94,

Article Sources and Contributors
Phaedriel, Pharos, Phil Boswell, Philip Trueman, Phoenix2, PhotoBox, Pigsonthewing, Piledhigheranddeeper, Pilotguy, Pinethicket, Pionier, Piotrus, Pizza1512, Playdagame6991, Pm67nz, Pokrajac, Pollinator, Poo4643, Poopypantz88, Poor Yorick, Popefauvexxiii, Popsracer, Possum, Postdlf, Postrach, Poulsen, PrestonH, Prestonmag, Pretzelpaws, PrimeHunter, Professor marginalia, Prolog, Pschemp, Pscott22, Psychonaut, Puref0rlyfe, Purgatory Fubar, Purple Sheep, PxT,, Qoou.Anonimu, Quadell, QueenAdelaide, Quietmarc, Quintote, Qwert21, Qxz, R Lowry, RAC e CA12, RB972, Radman 99 1999, Ragesoss, Ragnorcock, Rajah, RandomP, Raptorsfan12, Ratiocinate, Rayburlingred, Rcbutcher, Rebecca, Rebrane, Red Act, RedHand777, RedRollerskate, Redwingchamp98, Redwrathe, Reene, Reinis, Reinoutr, Retinarow, Rettetast, ReverendG, RexNL, Reywas92, Rfl, Rhobite, Riana, Rich Farmbrough, RichAromas, Richard001, Richbank, Riczan, Ringking, Rj, Rjgaumer, Rjstott, Rjwilmsi, Roastalle2009, Rob Hooft, Robdurbar, Robert FitzRoy, Robert Merkel, RobertG, Roibeird, Romanm, Ronja Addams-Moring, Rory096, Rosarinagazo, Rosiestep, Rosser1954, Rossnixon, Rotational, Routerone, RoyBoy, Rrburke, Rshu, Rudjek, Rusty Cashman, Rustyfence, RxS, Ryan and nick, RyanParis, Ryulong, SJP, SP-KP, ST47, SU Linguist, Sade, Saforrest, Sajad.Ghafarzadeh, SallyForth123, Sam Hocevar, Sam Korn, Sam Li, Sam Spade, Sammy-boy12, Samsara, San9663, Sander Säde, SandyGeorgia, Sango123, Saralvr247, Saruha, SatuSuro, Savabubble, Savidan, Scareneb, Sceptre, Schmidtmandaddy, Schuetzm, Scientizzle, Scorpions are cool, Scottyl, Seabirdfan, Sean D Martin, Seattle Skier, Seb508, Senecasd, Sensation002, Seqsea, Sevenyearhawk, Sfdan, Shaffer444, Shanel, Shanes, ShaunES, Shenme, Shimgray, Shinmawa, Shiroi Hane, Shiseijitsu, Shiver, Shizhao, Shoeofdeath, Shot info, Shudde, Shyamal, Siim, Silence, Silly rabbit, Silverhorse, Sintonak.X, SirJingleBalls, Sjakkalle, Skookum1, SkyBoxx, Skylerjosh, Slakr, Smallweed, Smarterchild 13, SmilesALot, Smurrayinchester, Snakemeetsarecool, Snalwibma, SniperWolf1564, SnowFire, Snowded, Snowmanmann, Sobaka, Soccergirl412, Softlavender, Solipsist, Solitude, Someguy1221, Somekidoffthestreet, Someone else, Someone65, Sop56, SoulSinging, Soumyasch, Sp7412, SpNeo, Speedo182001, SpeedyGonsales, Spellage, Spellcast, Sphivo, Spleep, Spliffy, SqueakBox, Squids and Chips, Squishy, Srikeit, Srini81, Staka, Standardfact, Standonbible, Starfire777, Stbalbach, Steel, Steinsky, Stemonitis, StephenDeloney, Stephenb, Steve, SteveHopson, Stevecov, Steven Walling, Stiivyn, Sting au, Stizz, Strayan, Striker2712, Struhs, Stubblyhead, Stw, Subsailor, Suckindiesel, Sunshowerpainting, SuperGirl, SureFire, Surtsicna, Suruena, SusanLesch, Suso thatsucks, SuzanneKn, Svick, Sweet music, Sweetmoose6, TAnthony, TBadger, TJDay, TRosenbaum, Taco325i, Taffboyz, Tailpig, Takuan55, Tanaats, Tangotango, Tannin, Tariqabjotu, Tawker, Tbhotch, Tdbostick, Teapotgeorge, Tedgrant, Teflon Don, Tellyaddict, Template namespace initialisation script, TestPilot, TexasAndroid, Texture, Th1rt3en, Thatperson, The Anome, The High Fin Sperm Whale, The tooth, TheAlmightyBob42, TheGrappler, TheObtuseAngleOfDoom, TheOneandOnlyDaho, Theda, Theonewart, Therefore, Thetaken23, Thezob, Thincat, Thingg, Thomasedavis, ThreeDee912, ThrobsBlackHat, Thunderboltz, Tiddly Tom, Tide rolls, TigerShark, Tim1988, TimShell, TimVickers, Tiramisoo, Titoxd, Tkynerd, Tmaty, Tmol42, Tmopkisn, Togo, Tom harrison, Tomas e, Tomlillis, Tony Sidaway, Tony1, Tpbradbury, TrickyApron, TrickyM, Trigger Twiggy, Trilobite, Triwbe, Truesilencer, Truth is relative, understanding is limited, Tstrobaugh, Tutmosis, Tuxide, Twirligig, Tyrol5, U kno it, UBeR, Uber336, Ucanlookitup, Ufinne, Ugen64, Ukexpat, Unprovoked, UpDown, Uranidiot, User A1, User2004, Utcursch, VIDEOGAMES, Vanished User 0001, Vanished User 1002, Vanished user, Vary, Vasile, Veesicle, VegaDark, Vendramini, VetteDude, Vfp15, Vianello, Victormeyer, Viridian, Visor, Vladistheman27, VolatileChemical, Vranak, Vrenator, Vsmith, Vzbs34, WBardwin, WLU, Wafulz, WalkerMW, Walton One, Wandering Courier, Ward3001, Warfwar3, Wassupwestcoast, Wavelength, Wayward, Weldingfish, Wendy Wendy, Wereon, Wes Richards, Wguynes, WhatamIdoing, Whiskey in the Jar, Whoosher, Wik, Wiki alf, WikiDisambiguation, WikiTome, Wikibetter, Wikiborg, Wikid77, Wikididact, Wikihw, Wikipediarules2221, Wikiwatcher1, Wildfirejmj, William M. Connolley, Wimt, Wisco, Witchzilla, Wknight94, WolfmanSF, Woohookitty, Wouterstomp, Wrathchild, Writtenonsand, XJamRastafire, Xaosflux, Xb360lvr, Xeno, Xerxesnine, Xezbeth, Yakudza, Yamaguchi先生, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yath, YellowMonkey, Yelyos, Yonzzy, Yourmother8967, Yousou, Yym1997, Zachorious, Zachstorm, Zahid Abdassabur, Zamphuor, ZayZayEM, Zelos, Zigger, ZimZalaBim, Zoicon5, Zombieisland, Zonataz, Zrider99zr, Zsinj, Zyxw, 2424 anonymous edits Publication of Darwin's theory  Source:  Contributors: Alansohn, Allenmyers, Appraiser, Circeus, Cleared as filed, DGG, Dave souza, Doubting thomas, Fastfission, Ikanbasung, Iridescent, Johnbibby, Jpbowen, Jrmccall, Kaldari, Koavf, Lexor, Logan, MAMSMACHI, MRSC, Macdonald-ross, Metamagician3000, Mikker, Norm mit, Orangemarlin, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Richardob, Rjwilmsi, Robert Stevens, Silence, SusanLesch, TableManners, The Thing That Should Not Be, WLU, Wobble, 15 anonymous edits Evolution  Source:  Contributors: !!!niloivenutfotuO, .:Ajvol:., 0nlyth3truth, 10.175, 100110100, 119, 12 Cove, 123heyho,, 168..., 1nic,,, 2357,, 3 Lane, 4 Gnon, 4 trin, 40 tune, 489thCorsica, 6 Four, 6 y go,, 7 Fej, 8r13n, 9 noon, 99DBSIMLR, A Softer Answer, A bit iffy, A455bcd9, A8UDI, AC+79 3888, AH9, ASDFGHJKL, AVengel, Aaarrrggh, Aarnu, Aaron Schulz, AaronFX, AaronY, Aartp, Abce2, Abdullais4u, Abi Don, Abrech, Abtract, Abuzin, Academic Challenger, Acalamari, Achoo5000, Acroterion, Acsparkman, AdamRetchless, Adambiswanger1, Adambro, Adamsiepel, Adashiel, Adenosine, Adi, Adraeus, Adrian, Adriansrfr, Adz71, Aecis, Afasmit, Africangenesis, Ag545, Agathman, Agentmoose, Aggn, Agrabiec4, Ahoerstemeier, Aircorn, Aitias, Ajf99, Ajgisme, Aks818guy, Alan Peakall, AlanD, AlanHarmony, Aldaron, Aldenrw, Ale jrb, Alex.tan, Alexf, AlexiusHoratius, Alexwebb2, Alfio, Algebraist, Algorithms, Ali, Alias Flood, AlienHook, Alienus, Alpha166, AlphaEta, Alphachimp, Alphazeta33, Altenmann, Amaltheus, Amarilloarmadillo, Amcaja, AmiDaniel, Amitch, Amused Usher, Ancheta Wis, Ande B., Andrevan, Andrew Lancaster, Andrew c, AndrewTJ31, AndrewWTaylor, Andrewa, Andrewlp1991, Andrewpmk, Andrewrost3241981, Andriesb, Android79, Andromeda321, Andymarczak, Angelo, Anilocra, Animum, Another sockpuppet of Outoftuneviolin, Antandrus, Anthony, AnthonyQBachler, Apokryltaros, Apostlealex, Apostrophe, Arch dude, ArcticFrog, Ardric47, ArielGold, Arjayay, Arjun01, Arkatox, Arker, Arm, Armchair info guy, Arnoutf, Arof, Aron-Ra, Art LaPella, ArthurWeasley, Artichoker, Asbestos, Ascánder, Asemoasyourmom, Ashenai, Ashmoo, Astrobayes, Athenean, Athf1234, AuburnPilot, Audacity, Aude, Aunt Entropy, Aurush kazemini, Autonova, Avb, AvicAWB, Avicennasis, Awon, Axa4975, Axel147, AxelBoldt, Axeman89, Axxel Sel, Az1568, AzaToth, Azcolvin429, Azra99, AzureCitizen, B, B89smith, BG, Back23, Badanedwa, Badreligion, Baegis, Bakasuprman, Ballin789, Ballista, Bam2014, Banes, Barbary lion, Baristarim, Barnaby dawson, Barny Fife, Barras, Bart133, Base tonne, Basil45, Bassbreaker, BatteryIncluded, Bauxzaux, Bbatsell, Bcasterline, Bdaay, Beezhive, Beltho, BenB4, Bender235, Bendzh, Benhocking, Benzocane, BerndH, Besidesamiracle, Betacommand, Betbs, Betterusername, Bevo, Bharatveer, Bhawani Gautam Rhk, BigGoose2006, Biglonstud, Bikeable, Bill37212, Billare, BillySharps, Billystut, Binabik80, Binarypascal, Bio-queen, BirgitteSB, Bkl3x, Black Kite, BlackMaria, Blainster, Blanchardb, BlankVerse, Blue401, BlueFireIce, BlueGoose, BlueNight, BlytheG, Bobby Mason, Bobo192, Bodnotbod, Boe syl, Boffey, Bogdangiusca, Bogey97, Bollyx, Boo wall, Bookandcoffee, Boomcoach, Boothy443, Boring bus, Borisblue, Bornhj, Bow bowl, Bowslayer, BradBeattie, Brainstormer1980, Brazucs, Breathe ing, Breed3011, Brent0270, Brian0918, BrianG5, Brighterorange, Briguy, Broabey, Broalka, BrokenSegue, Bryan Derksen, Bth, Bubba73, Bucketsofg, Bull Market, Burmiester, Burtonsarpa, Busy ironing, Butros, Butwhatdoiknow, Bwatb, Bwhack, Byrll, C.Fred, CJLL Wright, CMacMillan, CUSENZA Mario, Caasiopia68, Caesura, Calamine Lotion, Calaschysm, CalebNoble, Caltechdoc, CambridgeBayWeather, Camembert, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CanDo, Canadian-Bacon, Candorwien, CanisRufus, Canterbury Tail, CapitalR, CardinalDan, Cards44izzy, Cassan, Caulde, Causa sui, Celador, Cen Upp, Centrx, CerealKiller, ChadThomson, Chairboy, Chameleon, Chanting Fox, Chaojoker, Chaos, Chardon, CharlesGillingham, Charlesdrakew, Chas zzz brown, CheeseDreams, Cherhillsnow, Cheshire Boy, ChicXulub, Chicken Soup, Chris Melton, Chris the speller, Chris55, Chrislk02, Christian List, Christian41691, Christopher Parham, Christopherlin, Christpower79, Chun-hian, Chunky Rice, Ciar, Cinnamon, Ck lostsword, ClarenceCM3, Clayoquot, Clean Sweep, ClockworkSoul, Cloud silver, Cmayy, Coffee2theorems, Cold Sandwhich, Colin Keigher, Comder, Cometstyles, CommonJoe, CommonsDelinker, Compute14, ComputerPlace, ConfuciusOrnis, Connelly, ConservativeChristian, Conspiracyfactory, Conversion script, Coopercmu, Copper canned, Coppit, Cosmic Latte, Cougarkid, Country050, Cpl Syx, Crab or, Craigmac41, Craigy144, Crazytail2, Crazytail3, Crazytales, Creationlaw, Cretog8, Crust, CryptoDerk, Curps, CuteWombat, Cutsman, Cwilldagangsta, Cybercobra, Cyde, Cynical, Cynicism addict, Cyp, Cyr egi, DDek, DEFRT, DGG, DJ Clayworth, DKqwerty, DLH, DLR, DSG2, DVD R W, DVdm, Da Gingerbread Man, Daa89563, Dabs, Dachshundboy25, Daelin, Daeoque, Dafergu3, Dan ald, DanTheMan2, Dana boomer, Dancingspring, Danerz34, Dangee63, Daniel5127, DanielCD, Danielkueh, Danielparker, Danielrcote, Danimoth, Danny, Dante Alighieri, Dar book, Dark Shikari, Darthgriz98, Dash92, Dashmast3r, Dave souza, David D., David Fuchs, David Kernow, David Merrill, David Schaich, David Z. Smith, David.Mestel, David.Monniaux, DavidL (usurped), Davidhorman, Davodd, Davril2020, Davud363000, Dawn Bard, Daycd, Dbtfz, Dcoetzee, Dcooh, DeadEyeArrow, Debresser, Deeptrivia, Deivu, Dekisugi, Delarge3, Delirium, Delphinian, Delta Tango, Deltabeignet, Demi, Deor, Depolarizer, DerHexer, Deviator13, Dfarrar, Dg10050, Dhomm, Dial lean, Die4christ, Digitalme, Digresser, Dina, Dinaayoub, Dinaey, Dionyseus, Dipset1991, Discospinster, Diza, Dlohcierekim, Dmerrill, Doalla 8, Doc Tropics, DocJohnny, Doggie Bark, Doll ten, Dominus Vobisdu, Dongless, Donhoraldo, Donnellyj, Donner meat123, Dontlookatme, DopefishJustin, Dougp59, Doulos Christos, Dpr, Dr. B. R. Lang, Dr. Boom, Draco 2k, Dracontes, DragonFlySpirit, DreamGuy, Dreary101, Dressagebea, Drilnoth, Driski555, Drmies, Drpsarge, Dubc0724, Duffman, Duja, Dullhunk, Duncharris, Durin, Dustimagic, Dveim, Dw4372, Dwmyers, Dyac L, Dylan Flaherty, Dyoes, Dysmorodrepanis, EP8841, ESkog, Eaglizard, Ear Sid, Eath Br, Ebush, Ec5618, Ed Poor, Ed g2s, EdJohnston, Ediblehuman, Edivorce, Edward, Edwardmayhem, Edwy, Eel eat, Eenu, Eisnel, Ekologkonsult, El C, El-Spectre, ElTyrant, Elamere, Electric free, Elembis, Elijya, ElkeK, Elkman, Eloquence, Emc2, Emmett, Ems2, Ems2715, Emw, Encephalon, EncycloPetey, Enochlau, Enormousdude, Enviroboy, Equendil, Eriathwen, Erik9, Esseh, Ethancole117, Ettrig, Etxrge, Eu.stefan, Eve oft, Evercat, Everyking, Evil saltine, Eviom, Evolutioniswrong, Ezra Wax, FCYTravis, FF2010, FT2, Fagstein, Fang 23, Fang Aili, Faradayplank, Faradn, Farsight001, Fastfission, Fastman99, Favonian, Fbartolom, Feeeshboy, Felizdenovo, FeloniousMonk, Fen Fin, Fen zero, Fgleb, Fic-in, Fieldday-sunday, FieryPhoenix, Filll, Fingers80, Finn up, Firsfron, Fisher, FisherQueen, Five edges, Five part, Fixtgear, Flaiw, FlavrSavr, Flimg, Flo98, Flockmeal, Flowerpotman, Flubbit, FlyingOrca, FlyingToaster, Fm.illuminatus, Foofighter20x, ForbiddenWord, ForestDim, Fott leigh, Fourier, Fox1, Foxxmuuldr, Fr8we, Frank A, Franz lino, Fraslet, Frazzydee, Freakofnurture, Fred Bauder, Fred Hsu, Fredbauder, Fredrik, Freestyle10evan, Frenchgeek, FreplySpang, Friedgreenkillertomatoes, Frosty0814snowman, FrummerThanThou, Frymaster, Fubar Obfusco, Furry great, Furrypig, Fuzheado, Fvasconcellos, Fvw, Fxmastermind, G-123, G4rfunkel, GD, GHe, GK, GN, GOC-in-C, GSlicer, Gabbe, Gadfium, Gaius Cornelius, GalaazV, Galoubet, Galwhaa, Garik, Gary Cziko, Garylhewitt, Gcior, Gdavidp, Gdo01, Geddone, Geneb1955, GeneralPatton, Geni, Genius523, GeoMor, GeometryGirl, GeorgeLouis, Geothermal, GetAgrippa, Gfoley4, Ggbroad, Ghaor, Giftlite, Gilawson, Gilgameshfuel, Gimmetrow, Ginkgo100, Gits (Neo), Giuegg, Glen, Gleng, Glomove, GloriousLeader, Gmaxwell, Gmlk, Gnfnrf, Gniniv, Gnixon, Goatasaur, God Emperor, GodsWarrior, Goethean, Gog, Gogo Dodo, Golden two, Gooago, Googleaseerch, GoonerDP, Gorillasapiens, Gortu, Goxxen, Gracenotes, GraemeL, Graft, Graham87, Grandmastergrawp, Grandpa2390, Greeneto, Greenrd, Gregbard, Gregcaletta, GregorB, Grendel's mother, Gringer, GromXXVII, Grooy, Grunt, Grutter, Gscshoyru, Guettarda, Guoed, Gurch, Gurvindert, Gwernol, Gzkn, Gzornenplatz, H2O, HJ Mitchell, HXJ, Hackwrench, Hadal, Hadrian89, HaeB, Haemo, Haham hanuka, Hairchrm, Halaqah, Hanksname, Hannes Hirzel, Hanoachide, Hard Sin, Harehawk, Harej, Hari Seldon, Harvestdancer, Haukurth, Hawknel, Haymaker, Hbeop, Hdhcst95, Hdt83, Headbomb, Heimstern, HenryLi, Hensa, Herakles01, Here4thefood, Herk1955, Heron, Heyits5, Hillock65, Hippietrail, Hipporoo, HisSpaceResearch, Hmpxrii, Hob Gadling, Hojimachong, Hollywoodgenes, Homestarmy, Hoothe, Hrafn, Hrimfaxi, Hriow, Hu, Hubcapwiki, Hubrid Noxx, Hut 8.5, I.scheme.a.lot, IVAN3MAN, Iamdadawg1, Iamme06, Iamnotanorange, Ian Dalziel, Ian Pitchford, IanCheesman, Iankeir, Icairns, Icseaturtles, Icthus123, If humans came from apes, why are there still apes?, Igiffin, Igilli, Ignignot, Igor233, Ikanreed, Ikh, Illspirit, Illuminatiscott, Ilya, Imag Qu, InShaneee, Infophile, Inn par, Insearchoftruth, Inthebeginning, Intranetusa, Iota, Iridescent, Irishguy, IronChris, Irpen, Isaac, Isac, It da, Itsmine, Ixfd64, Izztek, IzzyReal, J Di, J. Spencer, J.O.94, J.delanoy, J0m1eisler, J4V4, JF Mephisto, JHunterJ, JNeal, JWSchmidt, JYolkowski, Jaberwocky6669, Jacek Kendysz, Jack Walsh, JackH, Jackrm, Jagged 85, Jak Tac, Jaknouse, James.Spudeman, Jamesofur, Jamyskis, Jan van Male, Jan1nad, Jason Potter, Javascap, Jclerman, Jdfoote, Jdhunt, Jecar, JedRothwell, Jedi Davideus, Jedi of redwall, Jedwina, JeffStickney, Jefffire, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Jenequa, JeremyA, Jeremypyle, Jesus Is Love, Jesus Loves You, Jhouser24, JiFish, Jiejunkong, Jim62sch, JimWae, Jimaltieri, Jimbobsween, Jimfbleak, JimmyButler, JinJian, Jitterro, Jiy, Jjb123, Jketola, Jlefler, Jlrobertson, Jmeppley, Jmv2009, Jnothman, Joannamasel, JoanneB, Joe.aston, Joe11, Joe1978, Joel.Gilmore, Joelr31, Joelsmades6, JoergenB, John, John Callender, John D. Croft, John Fader, John Stumbles, John Wilkins, John254, JohnOwens, Johnleemk, JohnnyCalifornia, Johnstone, Johnuniq, Jok2000, Joka1991, Joke137, Jokerst44, Jordan117, Jos Jio, JosephPayseur, Josh Grosse, Joshjoshjosh1, Joshua P. Schroeder, JoshuaZ, Joshurtree, Jossi, Joymmart, Joyous!,


Article Sources and Contributors
Jpk, Jpowell, Jrmccall, Jrockley, Jrtayloriv, Jsjacobs, Ju66l3r, Juamh, Juffe, Jumacdon, Jumbo Whales, Jurto, JustSomeKid, Justbob, Justforasecond, Jvbishop, K, K. Aainsqatsi, KC Panchal, KMFDM Fan, Kaal, Kablammo, Kaboomywhackwhack, Kaisershatner, Kajisol, Kandar, Kanfood, Kangaru99, Karatenerd, Karmosin, Katalaveno, Kate, Kay of Kintyre, KayEss, Kazuba, Kdbuffalo, Kdeo, Keet Onn, Kelly Martin, KeloheDeb, Kelsey Francis, Keno, Kev 63, Kevin Baas, Khalid Mahmood, Khukri, Kilda, Killdevil, KillerChihuahua, Kim Bruning, KimvdLinde, KingTT, Kinst, Kiran Gopi, Kirbytime, Kljenni, Kmweber, Knight of BAAWA, KnightLago, Kniknight, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, Knuv moor, Koavf, Kondspi, Konjikiashisogijizo, Korinkami, Kosebamse, Kotjze, Krukouski, KsprayDad, Kteey, Kugamazog, Kukini, Kungfuadam, Kungming2, Kuru, Kurykh, Kwion, Kylu, Kyorosuke, L Kensington, LA2, LFaraone, La goutte de pluie, LaMenta3, Laegg, Laik G, Lailablossom, Lakinekaki, Lakle, Lancer873, Landroo, Laorv, Lapabc, Lars Washington, Lateg, Laughing tyre, Laurence Boyce, Lawn 42, Lazza 99, Lcarscad, Leandrod, Lee Daniel Crocker, Leeg 7, Leibniz, Leithp, Lenin13, Leon..., LeperColony, Leranedo, Lethe, Levi P., Levineps, LexCorp, Lexor, Lfh, Lhasanimir, Lickarice, Lif 91, LifeScience, Lightdarkness, LightningPower, Lights, Ligulem, Lime Ore, Linecircle, Liquid2ice, Lisasilzaz, Livingboner, Liz de Quebec, Ljbhebjbb, Lobe lob, Logicus, LonelyMarble, Loom peat, Loom yellow, Loom91, Lord Voldemort, Lostcaesar, Lou Sander, Lowellian, Lremo, Lscminn, Lst27, Ludachris78641, Lukasz Lukomski, Luna Santin, Ly4321, Lyotchyk, M, MAXimum Xtreme, MBCF, MECU, MER-C, MHall, MKoltnow, MONGO, MPF, MSGJ, MSTCrow, MZMcBride, Maartenvdbent, Macaddct1984, Macdonald-ross, Macdonwald, Madeleine Price Ball, Magician that makes things white, Magicman710, Magister Mathematicae, Mal hen, Malcolm rowe, Malik Shabazz, Malo, Malvaro, ManaUser, Mann jess, Manph, Manuel Trujillo Berges, Maork, Maqsarian, MarSch, Marc210, MarcIam, MarcoTolo, Marcperkel, Margareta, MarineHebert, Mark Renier, Marr Plv, MarsRover, Marshman, Marskell, MartinHarper, MartinSpamer, Martycota, Mary Calm, Mastahcheeph, Master Jay, Mat8989, Matekm, Materialscientist, Matnkat, Matt poo watt, MattDal, Mattbr, Matthewcieplak, Mattpickman, Mattunseal, Matusz, Mausy5043, Mav, Maver1ck, Max David, Maximus Rex, Maxozo, May Ced, Mayumi, Maz haz, McBeardo, McSly, Mcapplbee, Mchavez, Mcmillin24, Mcy jerry, Mdotley, Meepster, Melono V, Memestream, Meson man, Messenger777, Methcub, Mgegh, Mgiganteus1, Mgs 90, Micahbode, Micahmn, Michael, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, Michael Johnson, Michael2, MichaelBillington, Michaelas10, Mickchaaya, Midnightcomm, Miguel de Servet, Mikael Häggström, Mike Jones, Mike Rosoft, Mike Young, Mike6271, MikeJ9919, Mikearion, Mikemoral, Mikker, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mildly Mad, Mimihitam, Minasbeede, Mindmatrix, Mindspillage, Minna Sora no Shita, MirDoc, Mirlen, Mirv, MisfitToys, Mishuletz, Mister Five, Misteror, Misza13, Mivmirre, Mixmoney, Mjharrison, Mkmori, Mkrose, Mlaat, Mnptl, Modulatum, Mojosam, Monkey4160, Montana's Defender, Montgomery '39, Moon&Nature, Moondyne, Mooselover801, Mor, Moreschi, Moss oul, Moulder, Mourn, Mpallen, Mporch, Mr Stephen, Mr. Billion, MrFish, MrMorgan, Ms2ger, Mseas, MuZemike, Muijz, Munita Prasad, Muza47, Mwanner, Mxn, Mygerardromance, MykReeve, Myoe83, Myrridias, N Shar, N6, NAZISMISNTCOOL, NBeale, NCartmell, Nacre 10, Naddy, Nakon, NameThatWorks, Naoh, Narayanese, Nate Slayer0, Nate slayer0, Nath Hebb, Nathanielsmithisaloser, NativeForeigner, Natman43, NatureA16, Navme, NawlinWiki, Nazzare, Nbound, Ncaroe, Ndteegarden, NeilN, Neohart, Neptunerover, NerdyScienceDude, Netesq, Nethgirb, Neural, Neutrality, NewEnglandYankee, Newtman, Nexon123, Nezzere, NiLoIvEnUtFoTuO, Niaga Niloivenutfotuo, Nicholasink, Nick, Nick123, NickBush24, Nicklott, Nicolae Coman, Nihiltres, Nikai, Nishauncom, Nishkid64, Nivix, Nixeagle, Njardarlogar, Nnp, No Guru, No1lakersfan, NoSeptember, Noisy, Noivb, Nol888, Noleander, Non believer evolution, Nondescript, Noodleman, NorCal764, Northfox, Nostalgiphile, Nova77, Nowa, Nowimnthing, Nrcprm2026, Nsk92, NuclearWarfare, Number 04, Numerousfalx, Nurg, Nutella002, NuttyProSci-Fi3000, Nvav, Nwbeeson, O. O.Teavee, O18, OFVWT, OGGVOB, Oasrocks, Oblivious, Oboeboy, Ocaasi, Ocatecir, Ocmec, Octopus-Hands, Ohnoitsjamie, Oking83, Olav L, Oliver Lineham, Ollyoxenfree, Olorin28, Omicronpersei8, Onecatowner, Onlyme31, Onorem, Oontoo, Ooogage, Opabinia regalis, Operation V.I.O.L.I.N., Orangemarlin, Osbus, Otterathome, OutOfTuneViolin, Outoftunebassguitar, Outoftunebassoon, Outoftuneclarinet, Outoftuneguitar, Outoftunetrumpet, OutoftunevioIa, Outoftuneviola, Outoftuneviolin, Outoftuneviolin 3, Outoftuneviolin 4, Outoftuneviolin 9, Outoftuneviolin and his sockpuppets, Outoftuneviolin's son, OwenX, Owendude1210, Oxymoron83, P4k, PAK Man, PDH, PTHS, PWhittle, Pablo-flores, Paleoderek, Panoptical, Papapryor, Parallel or Together?, Parrikk, Pasado, Pathoschild, PatrickA, Paul August, Paul Drye, Paulr, Paw yanne, Paxsimius, Payp two, Pbarnes, Pbuee,, Peace237, Pendragonneopets, Pengo, Persian Poet Gal, Peruvianllama, PervyPirate, Peter borger, Petri Krohn, Pftaylor, Pgan002, Pgk, PhDP, Phaedriel, Phaldo, Pharos, Phaup, Phe enn, Philcha, PhilipO, Philipholden, Philopp, Phsource, PiCo, Picus viridis, PieCam, Pierpontpaul2351, PierreAbbat, Pigsonthewing, Pilotguy, Pine fame, Pinethicket, Piotrus, Pippo2001, Pixel ;-), Pizzaghost, Pjotr Morgen, Plantsurfer, Plaonui, Plaster of, Pleuu, Plommespiser, Ploum, Plow Col, Plumbago, Pluthra, Poise too, Poiuyt Man, Politoed666, Pollinator, Polsmeth, Pond sew, Poopmaster1234567, Popefauvexxiii, PopiethePopester, Portillo, Possum, Postdlf, Ppe42, Premeditated Chaos, Pretzelpaws, PrivateRyan, Prodego, ProfessorRight, Prolog, Prom ten, PrometheusX303, Proopnarine, Pschemp, Pseiir, PseudoSudo, Psychohistorian, Ptaat, Ptk, Pydan, Pyiid, Pyroclastic, Q, Qcoo, Qomee, Qtoktok, Quadraxis, Questioning, Quietmarc, Quizkajer, Quux, Qymme, R Lowry, R0M4NC1NG H3LL, RDBrown, RDF, RE, REF4, RG2, RJFJR, RJN, RK, Ra2007, Rab Eyye, Radred, Raeky, Rainbowwrasse, Raiph, Ramdrake, Rammadd, Random Replicator, Randomblue, Randwicked, Randywombat, Ranveig, Raphus Cucculatus, Rappadizydizzy, Raul654, Ravenswood Media, Ray vivid, Raybechard, Raymond, Raymond arritt, Raymondofrish, Raz grime, Rcorcs, Rcuub, Rd232, Rdsmith4, Realknowledge, Rebecca, Rebroad, Recentchanges, Red Act, Red lorry, Red went, Redioz, Rednblu, Redrocket, Refusedalways, Regebro, Reilly, Remiel, Retired user 0002, RetiredUser2, RexNL, Reywas92, Rfl, Rgamble, Rhobite, Rhynchosaur, Ricardo sandoval, Rich Farmbrough, Rich333, Richard Arthur Norton (1958), Richard D. LeCour, Richard001, Ricimer, Rickert, Rintrah, Ripepette, Risker (Anne Criske) is old & has gray hair & wears glasses. 16, Ritchy, River flowing, Rjoebrandon, Rjwilmsi, Rls, Rmky87, Rnt20, Roadsoap, Robert Merkel, Robert1947, RobertG, Robertbowerman, Robin Johnson, Roccw, Rock nj, Rokfaith, Roland Deschain, Rorrenig, Rory096, Rosencrantz1, Rossman123, Rossnixon, RoyBoy, Rubisco, Rudjek, Rugby471, Rusty Cashman, Rveek, RxS, RyanParis, Ryankhart, Ryguasu, Ryulong, SDas, SJP, SMesser, SWAdair, Sadi Carnot, Saganaki-, Sagi Nahor, Salanus, Sally1309, SallyForth123, Salmanmdkhan, Saltforkgunman, Salva31, Salvio giuliano, Sam, Sam Spade, Samboy, Samgoody777, Sampi, Samsara, Samsara noadmin, SamuelGrauer, Sancassania, Sander Säde, Sandgem Addict, SandyGeorgia, Sango123, Sarg, Saros136, Sarrh, Satyrium, Saucepan, Savant13, Savidan, Sawahlstrom, Sbarry12, Scen heal, Scfencer, Schaefer, SchfiftyThree, Scientizzle, Sciolus, Scipain, Scorpionman, Scott Noyes, Screen five, Scruffy1, Sean.hoyland, Seb951, Semantics, Sengkang, Senortypant, Separa, Sepia officinalis, Seven rawt, Sfnhltb, Sfvace, Shadowin, Shadowjams, Shanel, Shanes, Shantavira, Sharifneuro, Shauri, Shayne T. Thiessen, Shed 8*6, Sheep81, Shglien, Shlomi Hillel, Shoaler, Shorrec, Shyamal, Siddiq ahmed, Sifaka, Siim, Sikatriz, Sikkema, Silence, Silicon-28, Silly rabbit, Sillygrin, Silvrstridr, Simpsons contributor, Sin-man, Siroxo, Sitearm, Six moss, SixPurpleFish, Sjsitler92, Sjö, Skamel85, Skaterbøy, Skid slid, Skiddum, Skilltim, Skittle, Skywriteing, Sleepnomore, Slicky, Slowking Man, Slrubenstein, Sluzzelin, Smeira, Smelialichu, SmilesALot, Smith609, Smooth O, Snakey Jake, Snalwibma, Snigbrook, Snowmanradio, Snubcube, Soap, Sobored1, Solaricon, Someone else, Sommers, Songwriter17, Sonikkua, Soom zo, Sopher99, Sophia, SpNeo, SpaceTycoon, Spangineer, Spark, Sparrows point, SparrowsWing, SpeakEasier, Spellcast, Spitfire, Splash, Spliffy, SpookyMulder, Spotfixer, Spotty11222, SpuriousQ, Squeakytoad, Squiddy, Sratt, Srivange, St3p5, StN, Staam, Standonbible, Staticmemory, Staxringold, StealthCopyEditor, Sted Go, Steel, Steht, Steinsky, Stephen e nelson, Stephenb, Stephenchou0722, Stevenmitchell, Stevenwmccrary58, Stevertigo, Sting au, Sting-fr, Stirling Newberry, StoatBringer, Stone Oak Drive, StradivariusTV, Striver, Strreeh, Strum enge, StuTheSheep, StuartH, StudyAndBeWise, Stuthomas4, Su huynh, Sugarcaddy, Sully, Sundar, SupaStarGirl, SuperLexicon, SuperTycoon, Supercrazy617, Superdudefreak, Superior IQ Genius, SusanLesch, Sushant gupta, Suzanne Elsasser, Svartkell, Sviev, Swaggart, Swatjester, Swazamee, Sweetpoet, Swpb, Syvanen, TBadger, THobern, Table pot, Taco325i, Taffboyz, Tail, Tailpig, Tannin, Tar concr, Tarcieri, Tarinth, Tariqabjotu, Tatarize, Taw, Tawker, Tbarron, TeaDrinker, Teapotgeorge, Techyactor15, TedE, Teenwriter, Teflon Don, Teh one who blocks me is an evolutionist, Temmor, Temtem, Ten tinted, Terjen, Textangel, Texture, Tezero, Tfietkau, Tgees, Th1rt3en, Thadius856, The Anome, The Duke of Waltham, The Obfuscator, The Placebo Effect, The Rambling Man, The Rogue Penguin, The pupils president, The sunder king, The wub, TheAlphaWolf, TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa, TheNightRyder, TheSlowLife, TheSun, TheTrueSora, Theforester, Theodolite, Theoldhenk, Thesquire, Thetorpedodog, Theuser, Thevenerablez, Thinradred9, This user has left wikipedia, Thomas Arelatensis, Thomas Larsen, Thomas Veil, Thompsma, Thorht, Those Debate Studs, Thue, Thuom, Tide rolls, Tie Bon, TigerShark, Tijmz, Tile join, Tim1988, Tim@, TimVickers, Timir2, Timothy Usher, Timwi, Tiptophiphop, Titanium Dragon, Titoxd, Tivedshambo, Tixity, Tjfulopp, Tktktk, Tlame, Tmol42, Tmopkisn, Tntnnbltn, Tobyk777, Tocir, Tom Allen, Tom Schmal, Tom.k, TomShmells247, TomTheHand, Tomandlu, Tommy2010, Tony Sidaway, Tony1, TonyClarke, Tooth Fairy, Toothturtle,, Tpduden, Trabucogold, Traumerei, Treisijs, Trevor Andersen, Trevor MacInnis, Triqqi, Trishm, Truth777, Tsackton, Tstrobaugh, Tsusurfanami, Tteil, Tuatara, Tune......, Twci, Tweetbird, Twilh, Two teem, TxMCJ, Tygrrr, Tylertreso, Tynews2001, Type how, Tyro55555, Tysto, Tznkai, U mene, UBeR, UTvolfan711, UberScienceNerd, Uberjivy, Ucanlookitup, Uesonne, Ugur Basak, Ultimus, Unclebulgaria, Unflappable, Unhinged1122, Unlocked, Uogl, Urco, Uriah923, Urod, Utcursch, UtherSRG, Uuger, VI, VVtam, Vain vase, Valich, Valluvan, Van der Hoorn, Vanderdecken, Vanished User 0001, Vanished user, Variable, Varith, Vary, Vasile, Vduer, VegaDark, Vegetator, Venn 87, Veratien, Versageek, Verwoerd, Verybigfish86, Vewar, Vicenarian, Vicki Rosenzweig, VictorAu, Vind r, Vipinhari, VirtualDelight, VirtualEye, Visionholder, Viskonsas, Vituperex, Vlipvlop, Vlmastra, Volnav, Vox Rationis, Vquirk, Vsast, Vsmith, Vssun, Vuri, W00tboy, WAS 4.250, WAvegetarian, WBardwin, Wacxi, Wafulz, Waldow, Walkiped, Walor, Wap, Warpsmith, Warrush, Wasell, Wassupwestcoast, WatchingYouLikeAHawk, Waterspyder, Wavelength, Wavesmikey, Wawmaw, Wayward, Wdavies, Wdraa, Webbrg, WeddingCrashError, Wegge 9, Weightofair, Wellwicked94, Welsh Crazy Frog, Wennj, Wesley, West store, Wetman, Weyes, Wfward, When nine, Where, Whoistheroach, Whoutz, WhyBeNormal, Wi-king, Wik, Wiki Raja, Wiki alf, Wikid77, Wikidea, Wikipedia Administration, Wikiskimmer, Wild Deuce, Wildfirejmj, Wildie, Wildnox, Wilke, WillowW, Willtron, Wilson44691, Wimt, Wing Nut, Winhunter, Wisco, Wisdom89, Wknight94, Wlodzimierz, Wmahan, Wolfkeeper, Wolfrock, Woodsrock, Woody, Woohookitty, Wool sixty, Worship Him!, Wpaa, Wteaw, Wtfmate, Wuob, Wwoods, Wyher, XJamRastafire, Xaosflux, Xeatc, Xiahou, Xiner, Xted, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yandman, Yaqix, Yar owe, Yarovit, Yday, Ydonne 2, YellowMonkey, Yerpo, Yiwb, Ykse, Ymous, Ynist, Yorek, Yosef 52, You wouldnt dare block me., Yournoangei, Yqbd, Ystram, Ytrottier, Yuodd, Z.E.R.O., Z10x, ZA, Zachary, Zachorious, Zappernapper, Zarniwoot, Zarru, Zashaw, Zbvhs, Zero g, Zeromegamanx, ZimZalaBim, Zoe, Zsinj, Zundark, Zx-man, Zyasu, Zyyx, Zzuuzz, 2608 anonymous edits Natural selection  Source:  Contributors: -Ril-, .:Ajvol:., 10outof10die, 12345ryan12345, 15lsoucy, 15mypic, 168..., 2468Aaron, 5 albert square,, 7, 7spqr, A8UDI, AC+79 3888, Aadamescu, Aaron Bowen, Abc518, Abdullais4u, Adriaan, Agathman, Aitias, Akeldamma, Alai, Alan Liefting, Alansohn, Alienus, Allangmiller, Amaltheus, Amcguinn, Amorymeltzer, Anaxial, Andonic, Andrea105, Annasweden, Antandrus, Arakunem, Aranel, Arctic Night, Arjun01, Artichoker, Atlas1, Atulsnischal, Aunt Entropy, Avillia, Axel147, AxelBoldt, Az1568, Backslash Forwardslash, BananaFiend, Barefootmatt, Barsonian20, Batmanand, Bcasterline, Ben1002, Benhocking, Bhawani Gautam Rhk, Bheest, Big Bird, Bobkenshaw, Bogey97, Bomac, Bongwarrior, Brian Crawford, BrokenSegue, Bueller 007, Buickid, Bwangia, Bwhack, CJLL Wright, CSWarren, CWY2190, CWii, CYD, Calliopejen1, Calvinloa, CanadianLinuxUser, Cannaya, Captain-tucker, CardinalDan, Carlroller, CharlotteWebb, Chazza 94, Ches88, Childhoodsend, Chris 73, Chris55, ChrisCork, Circeus, Citizen Premier, Closedmouth, Code Burner, Cohesion, ConfuciusOrnis, Conversion script, Cool3, Cooner7777777, Copypaste45, Cossey mo, Courcelles, Cp111, Cpu111, CreationScientist, Cremepuff222, Cyde, D, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, DGG, DMacks, DVD R W, DabMachine, Daggermouth, Daleep123, Dan100, Dancey2, Danimoth, Danthedude, Dardasavta, Darwinek, Dave souza, David D., Davril2020, Dawn Bard, Defender of torch, Delldot, Derek Ross, Deryck Chan, Deville, Diego pmc, Discospinster, Dmerrill, Dnvrfantj, Doc Tropics, Doc glasgow, Dockingman, DoktorDec, Donarreiskoffer, Dr d12, DrMontik, Dreadstar, Duckling78, Duncharris, Dunn8, Dweje, Dycedarg, Dysepsion, Dysmorodrepanis, EPM, ESkog, Eatme20005, Ec5618, Ed Poor, EdwinHJ, Edwy, Eeekster, Eisnel, Eliyak, Emw, Ency456, Enfresdezh, Engelmann15, Enviroboy, Epbr123, Eperotao, ErgoSum88, Ettrig, EuPhyte, Excirial, Extremophile, FCSundae, FCYTravis, FF2010, Fanatix, Farquaadhnchmn, Fastfission, FayssalF, FeloniousMonk, Flubajub boy, Forluvoft, Fox, Freedom to share, GLaDOS, GSlicer, Gabbe, Gaius Cornelius, Galygal, Ganny, Garcsera82, Garik, Gawaxay, Gclassballer, GeneralAtrocity, Genetics411, Geologyguy, GetAgrippa, Giftlite, Gimboid13, Gimme danger, GirasoleDE, Gleng, Gniniv, Goethean, Gracenotes, GraemeL, Grafen, Graft, Graham87, Grcaldwell, Guettarda, Guitarist0820, Gurch, Gwernol, HIGA, HTBrooks, Hadal, Hadrians, HalfShadow, Hannes Röst, Harry R, Harryboyles, Headbomb, Hensa, HexaChord, Hobartimus, Hoppity25, Hordaland, Hornlitz, Hrafn, Husond, Hydrogen Iodide, I try this account, IMatthew, IRP, Ian Dunster, IanCheesman, Ideogram, Immunize, InBalance, Indosauros, Iridescent, Isilanes, Izehar, J.delanoy, JHunterJ, JaGa, Jackelfive, Jackol, Jagged 85, Jamesooders, Jamie Lokier, Javascap, Jaxl, Jcurious, Jebus989, Jeff G.,


Article Sources and Contributors
Jefffire, Jerry Zhang, Jessisamaknows, Jinxed, Jkoeslag, Joannamasel, John Lynch, John Vandenberg, Johnstone, Johnuniq, Join Tile, Jonahib, Jonathanstray, Jonny1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9op, Josh Grosse, Joshua P. Schroeder, JoshuaZ, Jusdafax, Jwissick, JzG, K, Kaarel, Kalv372, Katalaveno, KathrynLybarger, Kazikameuk, Keilana, Kevin aylward, Khoikhoi, KillerChihuahua, KimvdLinde, King of Hearts, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, Kosnapyo, Kubra, Kungfuadam, Kuru, Kyknos, Kyoko, Kzollman, L Kensington, LAX, Larrybarry, Lateg, Lazylaces, Leafyplant, LeaveSleaves, Lee Daniel Crocker, Leithp, Leuko, Lexor, Lightmouse, Limbo socrates, Livajo, Logan, LookingGlass, Loren1994, Lotje, Lova Falk, Lowellian, Luna Santin, Luuva, MAXimum Xtreme, MC10, MECU, MKS, Mac mckinlay, MacMed, Macy, Magister Mathematicae, Magnus Manske, Malcolm Farmer, Malevious, Mann jess, Marcosantezana, Master of Puppets, Mav, Mboverload, Mc4th, Mccready, Michael Devore, Michael Johnson, Mihoshi, Mike2vil, Mindmatrix, Mintleaf, Mkpg, Mlpkr, Modulatum, Moe Epsilon, Moreschi, Mr. Wheely Guy, MrOllie, MrSomeone, MrStalker, Mzsabusayeed, N4nojohn, Naddy, Nakon, Narayanese, Nareek, Natalie Erin, Nate1481, Natisto, NatureA16, NawlinWiki, Neapoli, Neptune5000, NerdyScienceDude, Nethgirb, Neutrality, NickCT, Nikola Smolenski, Nixeagle, Nlu, No Guru, Nsaa, Nudve, OLH06, Okedem, Oking83, Olianov, Ombudsman, Opabinia regalis, Orangemarlin, Ormy, Oxymoron83, PDH, Patstuart, Paul Hjul, Pawyilee, Pepper, Persian Poet Gal, Pete.Hurd, Peter morrell, Petri Krohn, PhJ, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Philip Trueman, Pinethicket, Pinkgirl941222, Polly, Poo HEAD JESS, Ppe42, Pschemp, PseudoSudo, Purnajitphukon, Quizkajer, Qxz, R, RGTraynor, RUL3R, Radiocar, Radon210, Ragesoss, RandomStringOfCharacters, Raven in Orbit, Ravenswood Media, Razorflame, Rdsmith4, Recognizance, RedAlphaRock, RedHillian, Redian, Redsunrising15, Regancy42, RexNL, RhiannonAmelie, Richard001, RickK, Rickproser, Rjwilmsi, Robert Stevens, Roland Deschain, Romanm, RoyBoy, Royalguard11, SEJohnston, SJP, Sam Clark, Samashton, Samsara, Samuell, Sander Säde, Sandman, Sandstein, SandyGeorgia, Sango123, Scibah (new account), Scndlbrkrttmc, Sean.hoyland, Separa, Seqsea, Sergeantbreinholt, Sfmammamia, SgtDrini, Shanel, Shanes, Shazalusose, Shenme, Shoemaker's Holiday, Sholto Maud, Sid mishra94, Sietse Snel, Silly rabbit, Sjö, Skydog100, Slakr, Slon02, Slowking Man, Slrubenstein, Sluzzelin, Slysplace, Smalljim, Smmurphy, Snailwalker, Snalwibma, Snigbrook, Snowmanradio, Snoyes, Somewhatdazed, Spamsara, Spiritia, SpuriousQ, SqueakBox, Staffwaterboy, Standonbible, SteinbDJ, Steinsky, Steven Argue, Striker2712, Sundar, Syncategoremata, TEPutnam, Taffboyz, Takometer, Tameeria, Tea Tzu, TedE, Tellyaddict, Template namespace initialisation script, Thankyousir8, The Anome, The Merciful, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheProject, Thehelpfulone, Thesoxlost, Thingg, ThisIsAce, Thomas Arelatensis, Tide rolls, TimVickers, Timwi, Tito-, Titoxd, Tktktk, Tmol42, Tobias Bergemann, Toddst1, TomGreen, TongueSpeaker, Tony1, Trevor MacInnis, Tristanf12, Triwbe, Tslocum, TutterMouse, Tuxedo junction, Twaz, Tyw7, Ugen64, Ulluxo, Ulric1313, Ummhihello, Uncle Dick, Uncle Milty, UncleBubba, Vanished user, Verson, VirtualDelight, Vrenator, Vsmith, Wafulz, Waldow, Walkingwithyourwhiskey, Wayward, Weetoddid, Welsh, West.andrew.g, WikiRat1, Wikichickenlol, Wikimichael22, Wilhelm meis, Willking1979, WillowW, Wimt, WinContro, Wmahan, Woland37, Woodsrock, Wykis, Wykymania, Xaosflux, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yerpo, Yiosie2356, Yousalame23, Yue44003, Zbvhs, Zephae, ZeroJanvier, ZjarriRrethues, Zro, Zsinj, Île flottante, கலை, 1224 anonymous edits Intelligent design  Source:  Contributors: -Ril-,,,, 14.7, 172, 19.168,,,,,,,, 4theChildren, 4twenty42o,, A Man In Black, A bit iffy, A ghost, A1r, AVengel, Abecedare, Abhishikt, Abu badali, Acalamari, Ace-o-aces, Adamzad, Adashiel, Adriansrfr, Advanet, Aecis, Africangenesis, Afterall, Agateller, Agathman, Aitias, Alaffin, Alai, Alansohn, Albanaco, Albert Einstien's ghost, Aleitheiophile, Alex bartho, AlexKarpman, Alexf, AlexiusHoratius, Alfie66, Algae, Alienus, Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, Alweth, Amarkov, Amatulic, Amazins490, Ambuj.Saxena, Amcaja, AmiDaniel, Aminorex, AnalystsAreUs, Andrew Lancaster, Andrew c, AndrewTJ31, AndrewWTaylor, Andrewlp1991, Andrewpmk, AndyBoySouthPas, Andycjp, Andyjsmith, Angr, Anonymous Dissident, Ansell, Antandrus, AnteaterZot, Anthonydent, Anthonyhcole, Anton Gutsunaev, Antonrojo, Anupam, Anyeverybody, Anynobody, Aoi, Apollo Crua, Aragorn2, Arion 3x3, Aristotle1990, Armchair info guy, ArrrghBob, Art LaPella, Artichoker, Asbestos, Ascánder, Asdasdaasdasdasdasaadsasdasdasd, Asderoff, Ashenai, Ashley Y, Ashmodai, Ashmoo, Askari Mark, Asmetcalf, Astroceltica, Atfyfe, Atlant, Atyy, Aua, AuburnPilot, Aun'va, Aunt Entropy, Authr, Avb, Avengerx, Avertist, AvicAWB, Avicennasis, Avirab, Avistor, Axl, Axlq, AySz88, Az1568, AzaToth, B9 hummingbird hovering, BBiiis08, BD2412, BG66, BMF81, BTfromLA, Baegis, Baitzph, BalthCat, Barbara Shack, Barneyboo, Bbagot, Bbatsell, Bduke, Bearian, BenAveling, Benandorsqueaks, Benjaminevans82, Benna, Bensaccount, Bento00, Beny1991, BernardSumption, Berniejenkins411, Berserkerz Crit, Bertrc, Besidesamiracle, Betacommand, Bevo, Bhumburg, Big iron, Bigmantonyd, Bill37212, Billjefferys, Birdman1, Bkell, Black Kite, Blackca, Blake-, Blanchardb, Bloodshedder, Bloodwater, BlueMoonlet, Bluetd, Bnaur, Bobby D. Bryant, Bobisbob, Bobo192, Bondegezou, Bongwarrior, Bookandcoffee, Born2cycle, Bowslayer, BradC, Bragr, Brainbuster, Brandmeister, BraneJ, Bratsche, Brian Kendig, Brian0918, Brighterorange, Brightflash, BrokenSegue, Brusegadi, Bryan Derksen, Bubba73, Bueller 007, Bumhoolery, Bunchofgrapes, Butros, CBM, CJGB, CJLindsay, COGDEN, CSTAR, CSWarren, CWii, Caltas, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canar, Canderson7, Carlcarlcarl, Casliber, CatLover, Causa sui, Cavalorn, Cenarium, Central2, CesarB, Chad A. Woodburn, ChadThomson, Championdante, Charlesdarwin, Charlesdrakew, Chaser, Cheater, Chensiyuan, Chinfo, Chris 73, Chris Melton, Chris the speller, ChrisBradley, ChrisDuben, Christian List, Christian de Quincey, Christopher Parham, Chubs353, Chuckgaff, Ciphergoth, Ck lostsword, Cla68, Clarinetplayer, Clawson, CliffC, CloseEncounters, ClydeOnline, Cmdrjameson, Cognita, Coldbourne, Computerjoe, ConfuciusOrnis, Conversion script, Cool3, Cortonin, Cosmic Latte, CottonGrass, Counterfact, Cpcjr, Cpritchett42, CptHowdy, CptKirk, Crism, Crocodilicus, CruftCutter, Crunchy Frog, Cspalletta, Cthe, Cuberhobo, Curps, CuteWombat, Cybercobra, Cyde, Cynicism addict, D6, DESiegel, DGG, DHN, DJ Clayworth, DKqwerty, DLH, DRosenbach, DWM, Dabomb87, Dachshund, Dacoutts, Dalinian, Damiens.rf, Dan100, Dana boomer, Dancingspring, Daniel, Daniel Sabo, Danielrcote, DannyMuse, Danqaz, Danski14, Dark Shikari, Darrenhusted, Darthdavid, DarwinII, Darwinian, Dave souza, Dave10115, Davewild, David D., David Kernow, David Merrill, DavidCary, DavidSJ, DavidSaff, Davidpatrick, Davion, Davril2020, Dawn Bard, Dbcraft, Dbergan, Debresser, Delldot, Demiurge, Dendlai, DerHexer, Derek Ross, Destoo, DickClarkMises, Diego pmc, Diego001, Digitalme, Dina, Discospinster, Djewett, Dlempa, Dmerrill, Doc Tropics, Doc glasgow, DocJohnny, Docdoley, Dodo bird, Doldrums, Dominus Vobisdu, Donarreiskoffer, DonnEdwards, Dougp59, Dp76764, Dr Zen, Dr. B. R. Lang, DrKiernan, Draco 2k, DragonflySixtyseven, Dragonnas, Dragons flight, Drernie, DropDeadGorgias, Drumguy8800, Duae Quartunciae, Duncharris, Dustin lash, Dyslexic agnostic, Dysmorodrepanis, Długosz, E tac, ESkog, Easter Monkey, Ec5618, Ed Poor, EdH, Edgar181, Edit1243, Edwin Cross, Edwy, Eequor, Eeshking, Egern, Eisnel, El C, El Cubano, Elektrik Shoos, ElinorD, Ellebliss, Elmer Clark, Eloquence, Elwood00, Emanresu21, EncephalonSeven, Encuesta española, Endomion, Enzyme, Eotm, Eperotao, Erasmocbc, Erkin2008, Esprit15d, Evercat, Everyking, Ewald, Exiled from GROGGS, Exucmember, F.O.E., FCYTravis, FF2010, FQuist, Fairandbalanced, Falcorian, Falphin, Fang 23, Fang Aili, Farsight001, FayssalF, FeanorStar7, Feedbackanxiety, FeloniousMonk, Fences and windows, Fernando S. Aldado, FestivalOfSouls, Filll, FilmFan69, FireWeed, Fish and karate, Flcelloguy, FloNight, Flowers of Happiness, FlyingOrca, Foggg, Fox, Fragtion, Frankdracman, Frankpettit, Fred Bauder, Fred J, Fredrik, FreplySpang, Freyr, Friday, Fritzophrenic, Frostlion, FrozenUmbrella, Fsiler, Fubar Obfusco, FuelWagon, Funnyhat, Furrypig, Fvasconcellos, GSlicer, Gabbe, Gadfium, Gaius Cornelius, Ganggreen, GangofOne, Gaohoyt, Gareth Owen, Gary D, GavinTing, Gdo01, Geckofuel1979, Gene Ward Smith, General Nolledge, Geni, Genisock2, Ghepeu, Ghewgill, Gilgamesh, Gilliam, Gimmetrow, GinaDana, Glen, Gnixon, Gnrlotto, Goethean, Gogo Dodo, Gould363, Gparker, Gr1st, GraemeL, Grafen, Graft, GrahamN, Grammarfreak, GreatWhiteNortherner, Green Giant, Greg.loutsenko, GregAsche, GregLindahl, Gregbard, GregorB, Grover cleveland, Grutter, Gscshoyru, Guest9999, Guettarda, Gurch, GusChiggins21, Guy Hatton, Gwern, Gwernol, H2g2bob, H3llkn0wz, Hackwrench, Hadal, Hal Cross, Handface, Hannes Karnoefel, Hannes Röst, Hans Adler, Hans Joseph Solbrig, Harris7, Harrisbradley, Harro5, Harry491, Harrydalehuffman, Harrygorilla, HassourZain, Havermayer, Haxwell, Hayabusa future, Hazratio, Hdhcst95, Headbomb, Heimstern, Hektor, Helbrax, Heqwm, Hgilbert, Hiberniantears, Hiccupman, Hiflyer, Hillbillyhatfield, Hillbrand, Hinotori, Hob Gadling, Honore Fabri, Honza97, Hrafn, Hu12, Hubcapwiki, Humps, Husond, Hut 8.5, Hypnopomp, I-10, ILovePlankton, IMSoP, IZAK, Ian Pitchford, IbizaHedonist, Icairns, Ifnord, Ig0774, Igiffin, Ikanreed, Ilikerad, Ilkali, Illspirit, ImaPatriot, InShaneee, Indopug, Infophile, Inkypaws, Instinct, Inthebeginning, Intranetusa, IreverentReverend, Irishguy, Irishsgb, Irishtimes, IronCrow, IslandGyrl, Isotope23, Itayabla, Itsmejudith, Ivar Y, Iwalters, Ixfd64, Izanbardprince, Izehar, Izuko, J Milburn, J.delanoy, JDoorjam, JTBurman, JVC, JWB, JaGa, JackH, Jager3333, Jagged 85, Jakes18, James A Whitson, Jamesgibbon, Jandalhandler, Jaranda, Jason Potter, Jaxl, Jc4901, Jdvelasc, Jed 20012, Jeff G., Jefffire, JeremyA, Jesse Viviano, Jezmck, Jfg284, Jgarth, Jim62sch, Jimfbleak, Jimput, Jin, Jiohdi, Jiy, Jmcc150, Joe Kress, Joe1978, Johann Wolfgang, John, John Broughton, John Fader, John of Reading, Johnleemk, Johnor, Johnstone, Johntex, Johnuniq, Jointquest, Jok2000, Joker828, JokersWild1, Jokestress, Jonzim, Jose Ramos, JosephCCampana, Joshbuddy, Joshua P. Schroeder, JoshuaZ, Jossi, Jpeob, Jpgordon, Jpittman, Jprw, Jrtayloriv, Jtkiefer, Jtneill, Jujutacular,, Jumbo Snails, JustSomeKid, Justin Eiler, Jwbaumann, Jwissick, JzG, K, K-UNIT, Kaldari, Kalense, Karada, KarlFrei, Karuna8, Kasreyn, Kazrak, Kazvorpal, Kbdank71, Kcarson, Kdouglaslee, Keith-h, Kelly Martin, Kevin B12, Kevinccc, Kf4bdy, Khukri, KillerChihuahua, KimvdLinde, King of Hearts, Kingpin13, Kirill Lokshin, Kithira, KnightLago, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, Koavf, Kop, Kornbelt, Kosebamse, Kozuch, Kpearce, Krashlandon, Krich, Krovisser, Kusername, Kww, Kyle Barbour, L Kensington, L33tminion, Lacrimosus, Ladlergo, Lambiam, LarRan, LaszloWalrus, Laughing Joker, Laurence358, Laurinaaaaa, Lawgor76, LeadSongDog, Leadfeather89, Lee Daniel Crocker, LeeHunter, Leeborkman, Leibniz, Leithp, LenW, Leremyus, LexCorp, Lexor, Life, Liberty, Property, Liftarn, Lightdarkness, Lightmouse, Ligulem, LilHelpa, Lilwik, Linas, LinkinPark, Liontherock, Lithfo, LittleOldMe, Littlealien182, Logicalthinker33, Logophile, Loodog, Lookie Louis, Lordsong, Lordvolton, Ludwigs2, LukeSurl, Luna Santin, Luokehao, M, M1rtyn, M2K 2, MAD, MEGOP, MER-C, MONGO, Macarion, Macguysoft, Mad Scientist, Madman, Magioladitis, Magister Mathematicae, Magnus Manske, Mahjongg, Mailer diablo, Mainstreetmark, Majorly, Makaristos, Malc82, Malcolm Farmer, Malcolmchurch, Mallocks, Malo, Mange01, Mann jess, Margareta, Mark Foskey, Mark Musante, MarkGallagher, Markaci, Markbassett, Markbruder, Markburton, Marshill, Marskell, Martin Hinks, MartinHarper, Mathfan, Matilda, MattShepherd, Matthew Gibson, Matthew Stannard, Matthu999, Mav, Mawest217, Mayalld, Mazin07, McGrupp10799, McKay, Measure, MegaMind, Mego'brien, Mehandas, Mel Etitis, Melly42, Mentifisto, Merzul, Methcub, Metzenberg, Mglg, Mholland, Micah Fitch, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, Michael Johnson, Michaelas10, MickWest, Micov, Midnight Gardener, Mikael Häggström, Mike.m, MikeWren, Mikker, Mildly Mad, Millahnna, Mindmatrix, Minna Sora no Shita, Mirage GSM, Mirlen, MisfitToys, Misonzeng, MisterSheik, Mjb, Mk270, Mkmcconn, Mlm42, Mloclam901, Mm40, Mo0, Modemac, Mojoe1185, Molas, Molerat, Monkeyman, Monkeyspangler, Moriori, Morphh, Morwen, MosheZadka, Moxy, Mr Adequate, Mr Christopher, Mr. Billion, Mr. Lefty, MrPeabody, Mrt23498, Mswake, Mtdeeley, Mulp, MuncherOfSpleens, Munnin, Murfquake82, Murilo, Myles325a, Myork, Mysteryboi4u, N4nojohn, NJM, Naddy, Naja Haje, Nakon, Natural Cut, NawlinWiki, Nburden, Nealparr, Nearfar, Neptunius, Nescio, Netcody, Netesq, Nethgirb, Nick Thorne, Nick123, NickelShoe, NigelCunningham, Nigholith, Nik.. ., Nikola Smolenski, Nil Einne, Nina Gerlach, Nishidani, Nivix, Nnp, Node ue, Noisy, Nondistinguished, NorCal764, Norklut, Northfox, Norwikian, Nothingbutmeat, Notinasnaid, Nowimnthing, Nsoonhui, Nstott, NuclearWarfare, NuclearWinner, Nufy8, Nurban, Nuttycoconut, Nv8200p, Nydas, Nyenyec, Octavabasso, Odd nature, Ohnoitsjamie, OldakQuill, Oliphaunt, Olivier, Omegatron, OmerT, Omicronpersei8, Omphaloscope, One-dimensional Tangent, Orangemarlin, Orderinchaos, Orthologist, Osbus, Osculate, Ospalh, Ossworks, Ott, Ottava Rima, Out for Truth, Overix, OwenX, Oxyman42, Oz1sej, PL290, Pachydermballet, Paddyman1989, Palthrow, Parable1991, Parallel or Together?, Parhamr, Pasado, Pastafarian, PatrickA, Patstuart, Patton123, Paul A. Newman, Paul August, Paul Stansifer, Paul rembrandt, Pcarbonn, PeR, Pediainsight, Peedrag, Peripitus, Persian Poet Gal, Peruvianllama, Pete.tian, Peter, Peter M Dodge, Peter Menke, PeterGrecian, Petesmiles, Petrafan007, Petral, Petral-1, Petri Krohn, Pgan002, Pgecaj, Pgk, PhDP, Phaedriel, PhilKnight, Philip J. Rayment, PhilipO, PiCo, Pigman, Pilotguy, Piotrus, Pitcdbf, Pithecusson, Pjrm, PlantEvolBioGuy, Plazak, Plumbago, Plunge, Politepunk, Pollinator, Polsmeth, Poor Yorick, Popeofdope420, Portillo, Princeofexcess, Privatemusings, Prkastoria, Professor marginalia, Profg, PromX1, Psy guy, Psychohistorian, Pudor, Punctilius, Purplefeltangel, Pyrospirit, Quietmarc, Quizkajer, Quokkapox, R. Baley, R. fiend, R6144, RK, Radiant chains, Raeky, Ragesoss, Rahulb64, RainbowOfLight, Rakwiki, Ramdrake, Random account 47, Raspor, Raul654, Ravenswood, Rbj, Rbones, Rc brooks, Rcarlberg, Rd232, Rdrabik, Rdsmith4, RebelChrysanthemum, RedMC, Rednblu, Redrocket, Reedy, Refreshments, Reginmund, Reidgeo, Reinis, Reject, Retired username, RexNL, Reywas92, Rhobite, Rholton, Rich Farmbrough, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard001, RickReinckens, Rickyrab, Rictus,, Rje, Rjwilmsi, Rlsheehan, Rmky87, Rnt20, Robben salter, Robbrown, Robert Merkel, Robert Stevens, RobertG, Robuddha, Roger4911, Roland Deschain, Rolinator, Ronabop, Rootxploit, Rory096, Rossnixon, Rotem Dan, Rothacisms, Rothery, Rousseau, RoyBoy, Royalguard11, Royboycrashfan, Rpspeck, Rracecarr, Rrburke, Rriss, Rtc, RucasHost, Rufus843, Rumping, Ruslik0, RussBlau, Ruud Koot, RxS, RyanParis, Ryguasu, SCEhardt, SDY, SJP,


Article Sources and Contributors
SMesser, Sabre23t, Sad mouse, Saksjn, SallyForth123, Sam Hocevar, Sam Korn, Samsara, Samuell, Sander Säde, SandyGeorgia, Sannse, Sardanaphalus, Savidan, Sceptre, Scetoaux, Schama, Schapel, Schneelocke, Scienceman123, Scientizzle, Sciguy47, Scoopczar, Scope creep, Scott G. Beach, Scott MacDonald, Scottandrewhutchins, Sdkl', Seeking Objectivity in Science, Seglea, Seidenstud, Selfishjeans, Selket, Semperf, Septegram, Serababba, Sesharoo2, Shadoom1, Shadowin, Shahab, Shanel, Shark118, Sharonmil, SheffieldSteel, Shikexue2, Shirahadasha, Shoemaker's Holiday, Silence, Silly rabbit, Sillygrin, Silverback, Simoes, Simpletoremember, Singletoned, Sj, Sjschen, Sjö, Skye.houston, Skyraider7, Slicing, Slicky, SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, Smack, Smadmead, Smartse, Smith609, Smitty1276, Snalwibma, Snowded, Snoyes, Sonseeker007, Sophia, Sophos II, Soundguy99, Sp, Spangineer, Sparcusmarcus, SparrowsWing, SpeedyGonsales, Spellcast, Spewin, Splash, Spliffy, Splintercellguy, Spondoolicks, SpookyMulder, Spotfixer, Squady, Srich32977, Stabbycat, Staxringold, Steel, Steinsky, StephenFerg, Stephenb, Stetsonharry, Steve Dufour, Steve Smith, Stevemidgley, Steven Kippel, Steveperry112, Stevertigo, Stillnotelf, Stirling Newberry, StoatBringer, Stokakrishna, Stradivarius, Struct, Stuckerj, Subversive, Summeree, Sunray, Suruena, Swarm, Swatjester, Swmeyer, Sxeptomaniac, Syzygy, THobern, TSP, TUF-KAT, Ta bu shi da yu, TableManners, Tablizer, Talkingtoaj, Tannin, Tanthalas39, Tarinth, Tassedethe, Taurrandir, Taw, TeaDrinker, Teacherbrock, TeamZissou, Teapotgeorge, TechBear, Teckor, Ted Hewlett, TedE, Tesseran, Teterty, Tevildo, Tezh, Tfarrell, Tfpeditor, Thanissaro, The Anome, The Crying Orc, The Jacobin, The Rev of Bru, The Squicks, The tooth, The wub, TheAlphaWolf, TheDoctor10, TheFBH, TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa, TheRationalistArbiter, Themastertree, Theo Clark, Theyeti, Thivierr, Thv, TigerShark, TimVickers, Timhenderson, Timl2k4, Timwi, Tired time, Tisthammerw, Titoxd, Tixity, Tktktk, Tmol42, Toby D, Tom, Tom Cod, Tom Ketchum, Tom harrison, Tomandlu, Tomlillis, Tony Avedon, Tony Fox, Tony Sidaway, Tony1, Topbanana, Totakeke423, Treisijs, Tretten, TreveX, Trevor MacInnis, Trilemma, Trilobite, Triops, Trishm, Triwbe, Truthandi, Tryptofish, Trysha, Tschel, Tsinoyboi, Ttiotsw, Twelvethirteen, Twinsday, Tyreth, Tznkai, UberScienceNerd, Ukegi, Ukexpat, Ukkeli, Ulisse0, Ultramarine, Umarekawaru, Umpiresafe, Unbehagen, Uncle Dick, Ungtss, UnicornTapestry, UninvitedCompany, Unitvm, Unknown, Unyoyega, Uogl, VFHwebdev, Vague Rant, Vanished User 0001, Vanished User 4517, Vanished user, Vanished user 03, Vanished user 2345, Vapour, Variable, Vecrumba, Veinor, Venske, Vesal, Vicki Rosenzweig, Videmus Omnia, Vinson L Watkins, Voln, VorpalBlade, Voulouza, Vranak, Vsmith, Vulpesinculta51, Vzbs34, W8IMP, WAS 4.250, WJBscribe, WLU, WTucker, Wafulz, Waninge, Warpsmith, Wasabe3543, Wasell, Wassupwestcoast, Watgap, Wavelength, Wayward, Wdanwatts, Wdavies, We66er, Webpendragon, Wee Jimmy, WeezerGeek182, Wereon, Wesley, Wesley R. Elsberry, Whatjesusdoforyou, Whirlicane, White Wolf, Whoistheroach, Whoutz, Wiki alf, Wikidudeman, Wikignizable, Wikipediarules2221, Wikipediatoperfection, Wikitumnus, Wikiwikibangbang, Wikroach, Wildemoi, Wildspell, Will231, William2233, WilsonjrWikipedia, Wimt, Wing Nut, Wisco, Wisdom89, Wknight94, Wmarkham, Wolfrock, Womentime, Wookipedia, Wren337, Wshun,, Wyorunner, Xabian40409, XerKibard, Xerxesnine, Xiahou, Xianxxx, Xstreeem, Xyzzy n, Y0u, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yath, Year 2144, YellowMonkey, Yidisheryid, Yobol, Yopienso, Yqbd, Yserarau, Yumyumpuppies, ZS, Zandperl, Zargulon, Zaslav, ZayZayEM, Zeke pbuh, Zelmerszoetrop, ZeroOne, Zginder, Zleitzen, Zscout370, Zsinj, Zzuuzz, Zzxc, 2391 anonymous edits Argument from poor design  Source:  Contributors: A Doon, AED, Adhawk, Agapetos angel, Ajstov, Alan Liefting, Alksub, AllanLee, Andycjp, Anomalocaris, Anthony Almighty, Antonrojo, Aranel, Arb, Arbor, Armchair info guy, Ashley Y, AySz88, BD2412, Banedon, Barbara Shack, Barryferguson6, Beland, Bennunn, Bensaccount, Betacommand, Big Brother 1984, Bjdehut, BlueZenith, Bobisbob, Born2cycle, Bryan Derksen, Butter Bandit, Charles Matthews, Closedmouth, Conrad Leviston, Cyde, D6, DG, Dan Guan, Dar-Ape, Davecrosby uk, Dcwaterboy, Duncharris, Ecthelion83, Editor2020, ElTchanggo, Filll, Fusion atomicon, GRuban, Gnixon, Graham87, GreatWhiteNortherner, Gregbard, Hadal, Hawke666, Hob Gadling, Hrafn, Icarus3, Infinity0, Ishmaelblues, JamesBWatson, Jheald, Jibal, Jiy, John254, Johndburger, Johnstone, Johnuniq, Jokestress, JoshuaZ, Jrockley, K, Kabain52, Kane5187, Karn, Keimzelle, Kieff, Kjells, Klausness, Kraus36, LeaHazel, Leondumontfollower, Looie496, Lordvolton, Lumpy joe108, Makomk, Merzul, Mirv, Miss Madeline, Mnation2, Moratinnz, Nedlum, NickelShoe, Nihonjoe, Northernsoul1978, Nova77, Oriolpont, Paul A, Paul Barlow, Peterdjones, Philip J. Rayment, Pigman, Polonium, RJRocket53, Rafy, ReaverFlash, Reuqr, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Ricimer, Rolinator, RoyBoy, Sam Hocevar, Septegram, Shizhao, Silence, SimonP, Simpsons contributor, Sjschen, Sjö, Skiddum, Skurczysyn, Sligocki, Some jerk on the Internet, Somerset219, StephenFerg, Stevecudmore, Superchav, Tatarize, Tealwisp, The Thing That Should Not Be, TimVickers, Timwi, Tktktk, TomCerul, Trilemma, Tsumo9, Ungtss, Vagodin, Vanished User 0001, Ville V. Kokko, Vjam, Whatiwasmadefor, WhyBeNormal, Wikignome0530, 152 anonymous edits Teleological argument  Source:  Contributors: 2D, Alansohn, Amabilis, Anarchangel, Andycjp, Annoynmous, Anomalocaris, Apparition11, Arb, Arbitrarily0, Aunt Entropy, AxelBoldt, BD2412, BadSeed, Baegis, Barbara Shack, Bdjfhasdgisrhgasdfhkgagiosjgaghkagjidfhkahdfk, Benjaburns, Bjmurph, Blue Tie, Brian0918, CPRice, Capricorn42, Catgut, Charles Matthews, CharlesGillingham, Clngre, Conversion script, Corey, Cwilhoit, Cybercobra, Cyp, DLH, Dadude3320, DannyMuse, Dave souza, Daveman 84, David aukerman, Ddxc, Depleater, Discospinster, Donreed, Donvinzk, DreamGuy, Duncharris, EJSawyer, ERcheck, Editor2020, Eluchil404, Evin290, Fahadsadah, Fairandbalanced, Fanblade, Fastilysock, FeloniousMonk, Feuillade, Filemon, Filll, FirstPrinciples, FisherQueen, Freak child, Friginator, GDallimore, Gabbe, Gleipner tapestry, GoingBatty, Gregbard, Grogbor, Gzkn, Hanniganbaiter, Harryboyles, Havensdad, Headbomb, Hensa, Hmains, Hob Gadling, Hodja Nasreddin, HorsePunchKid, Hrafn, IRP, Icairns, Icek, Ilkali, Infinity0, Infophile, J'raxis, JRM, Jack1956, Jacob1207, Jagged 85, Jdharna, Jdvelasc, JeLuF, Jeff3000, JeffBobFrank, Jimmaths, JoeyDay, JohnJSal, Joshafina, Joshua P. Schroeder, K, Kelly Martin, Kent Witham, Kevinmon, Kirill Lokshin, Knight1993, Koavf, Kvan1st, Kwhittingham, Les boys, Lestrade, Lightmouse, Loodog, LoveMonkey, Lundse, Macrowiz, Magmystio, Mannafredo, Manning Bartlett, MartinHarper, Mav, Mel Etitis, Meldor, Melesse, Merzul, Mintguy, Miranche, Misfit, Mjmcfaddenjr, Modster, Momergil, Mortene, Munci, Myrvin, NBeale, Needs41Citation, NickelShoe, Nikola Smolenski, Northfox, OGRastamon, OHFM, Octane, Outolumo, Overix, Palthrow, Paradoctor, Petesmiles, Philip J. Rayment, Philip Trueman, PiCo, Pigman, Potatojunkie, QuadrivialMind, Ragesoss, Random account 47, Reenfranchise, Rich Farmbrough, Richard Keatinge, Richard001, Robertson-Glasgow, Ronhjones, Ryguasu, SMesser, Schneelocke, Scoopczar, Sethmahoney, Shoessss, Simon J Kissane, Simondecant, Skakkle, SkyWalker, Smalljim, Stephen Bain, StephenFerg, Stuckerj, Stwryrch, Supergerbil, Syncategoremata, Tabletop, Taestell, Tarinth, Tatarize, The Anome, TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa, Timwi, TomS TDotO, Tony Sidaway, Torsin, Trebor, Tstrobaugh, VBGFscJUn3, VKokielov, Vanished User 0001, Viriditas, Vrenator, WLU, Wafulz, Wetman, Wikiposter0123, Will2k, Wj32, Woohookitty, Wright123, Zalmaki, ZayZayEM, Zephirum, 427 anonymous edits Watchmaker analogy  Source:  Contributors: 6th Happiness, AaronRosenberg, Aguila, Andrew c, Anomalocaris, Anupam, Arensb, Ario, ArmadilloFromHell, Armchair info guy, Aunt Entropy, Avb, AxelBoldt, AySz88, Barbara Shack, Blakealex, Bluewave, Brusegadi, Carrionluggage, Charles Matthews, Chikinsawsage, Chillymail, Churchofmau, Closedmouth, CommonsDelinker, Crespo10, DLH, Daemonic Kangaroo, DannyMuse, Darkflorey, Dave souza, Dcflyer, Delirium, Delldot, Depleater, Dogaroon, Drewish, Dylan Flaherty, Elhehir, ElijahOmega, Elmer Clark, Emurphy42, Ensrifraff, Ernesttico, Feeeshboy, FeloniousMonk, GRuban, Gabbe, Garudaaa7, General Disarray, Gericho49, Glloq, Gregbard, Gregmcpherson, Gregory j, Groyolo, Hamsterlopithecus, Headbomb, Hob Gadling, Hybrazil, IanMSpencer, Ilkali, Imagine Reason, IreverentReverend, Jackohare, Jdeboer, Jim62sch, Joelanders, Johnsp1, Johnuniq, Joshua P. Schroeder, Kaid100, Kakofonous, Koavf, Kyle Barbour, Lambiam, Lcarscad, Leah240, Liberatus, Lightmouse, Lisa, Longouyang, Luddite22, Luis Dantas, MGlosenger, Mannafredo, Marcopolomarco, McGeddon, Meggar, Mikespoff, Mindmatrix, Mithent, Moniker42, Moquel, MrWhipple, Mumiemonstret, Nate Biggs, Nick, Nightstallion, Oatmeal batman, Odd nature, Phailman, Phocks, Plumbago, Project FMF, Promking, Prosfilaes, Proxima Centauri, QueenCake, Rednblu, Reinderien, Renascimento, Rhetth, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, Simeon, Some jerk on the Internet, Stephen Turner, StephenFerg, THobern, TPMoyer, Tabletop, Tatarize, Tayste, The Anome, Tktktk, Tmol42, Tomisti, Trencacloscas, Tstrobaugh, Unimaginative Username, Uunter, Vsmith, WeniWidiWiki, Wikidude1, Wildspell, Xadith12, Xosé, 196 anonymous edits Irreducible complexity  Source:  Contributors: -Ril-, 0, 15.253,,, 7Jos7hua7, 99.81, Acroterion, Agathman, Ajbogs, Alansohn, AlphaEta, AlsatianRain, Anarchangel, AndreasMorland, Andrewbrick, Angela, Apokryltaros, Apostrophe, Aragorn2, Archer3, Armchair info guy, Asmetcalf, Astrochess, Audacia 02, Aunt Entropy, Auntof6, Awotter, Azuris, BBiiis08, Baccyak4H, Baegis, Balamanti2, Barbara Shack, Barticus88, Barwick, BatteryIncluded, Baudbarf, BenBaker, Berend de Boer, Bobby D. Bryant, Borgx, BradC, Brian0918, Bryan Derksen, Bskptcl, C. A. Russell, Calton, Candorwien, Capedia, Carlon, Carrionluggage, Catasterismo, Cesarakg, ChadThomson, Charles Matthews, Charlesdrakew, ChipperGuy, Chrislk02, Cla68, Closedmouth, Coffeezombie, Colonies Chris, CommonsDelinker, ConfuciusOrnis, Conundra8, Conversion script, Cortonin, Cougarkid, Cretog8, Crw0811, Cyde, DBaba, DJ Clayworth, DLR, Dallas84, Damiens.rf, Danski14, Dave souza, Davehi1, David Sneek, DavidCary, Davril2020, Dawn Bard, Dbenbenn, Dbergan, Dbfirs, Deagle AP, DennyColt, Derek Ross, Devil Master, Dickatkinson, Diego, Doc Tropics, Dominus Vobisdu, Download, Drewish, Drmies, Duae Quartunciae, Duncharris, Długosz, Ec5618, Ed Poor, Eequor, El Cubano, Eldamorie, Eleland, Eloy, Erik Carson, Fakten, Favonian, FayssalF, Felisone, FeloniousMonk, Filll, Filu, Freelance Intellectual, G4rfunkel, GDallimore, GSlicer, Gabbe, Gaius Cornelius, Garik, General Nolledge, Gja199211, Graham87, Gregbard, GregorB, Guettarda, HKT, Habj, Hede2000, Herbee, Hlangeveld, Hrafn, Hslch, Hu, I, Englishman, Ian Pitchford, Icairns, Ikanreed, IngerAlHaosului, Intangir, Inthebeginning, Ipso2, It Is Me Here, J Milburn, Ja 62, Jackdrew, Jacquerie27, Jaganath, Jao, Jefffire, Jeremykemp, Jim62sch, Jimfoxy, Jkintree, Jmcc150, Johnabayer, Johnuniq, Jokestress, Jorfer, Jorrit Delec, Joshua P. Schroeder, JoshuaZ, Jpbowen, Jsuiters, JustGettingItRight, K, Kablamo2007, Kai Miller, Kaldari, Karada, Kdau, Kdbuffalo, Keithgabryelski, Kendrick7, KillerChihuahua, KimvdLinde, Korossyl, Kr5t, LAEsquire, LeyteWolfer, Liberatus, LilHelpa, Live-info, Loadmaster, Low German, MSTCrow, Macaddict 17, Mad Pierrot, Mann jess, MarcusVox, Markus Schmaus, MartinHarper, Master Bratac, Mathmo, MatthewHoffman, Maury Markowitz, Mav, Maximus Rex, Mberteig, Mbrisendine, McSly, Megatronium, Mholland, Michael Hardy, Michael Slone, Miguel de Servet, MiltonT, Mindmatrix, Minghong, Minimosher, Mjdellar, Mjlejeune, Mkweise, Mr Christopher, Mr2b, MrBell, MrWalko, NZUlysses, Neg, Neutrality, Nic, Nick Number, Nikola Smolenski, Noisy, Nv8200p, Nyttend, OGRastamon, Odd nature, Olin, OneBillionthPerson, Orangemarlin, PDH, Pallab1234, Pasado, Paul A. Newman, Paulburnett, Peter Grey, Phiwum, Pietro KC, Pigalle, Pinkadelica, Pkapitola, Plasticlax, Player 03, Plumbago, Populus, Profg, Psychohistorian, QuantumEleven, RDBrown, RJFJR, RK, Rasmus Faber, Raul654, Reddi, Remember the dot, Rend, Rgamble, Ricardo.Sanz, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, Romanpoet, Rossami, RoyBoy, Rtc, Run!, Rustyfence, Ryulong, Sadads, Sadforest, Safety Cap, Sailsbystars, Saksjn, Sapphic, SaskatchewanSenator, ScienceOSU, Scientizzle, Seattle Skier, Selket, Semprini, Serious41us, SheffieldSteel, Shrakner, Silence, Silly rabbit, SixPurpleFish, Sjschen, Slashme, Slon02, Smack, Snoopydaniels, Speight, Spencerk, Squids We B, Stevenjwallace, Stile4aly, Strobels, Superborsuk, Symon, Syp, TSP, Tabletop, Tassedethe, Tatarize, Teapotgeorge, Teastham, The Founders Intent, The Rationalist, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheFSaviator, TheQuaker, Thorncrag, Timwi, Tisthammerw, TomS TDotO, Tony Sidaway, Tonyle, Trevor Andersen, Tstrobaugh, Uncle Milty, Ungtss, Urjak, Vanished user, Vanished user 03, Variable, VeryVerily, Vicki Rosenzweig, Videmus Omnia, WAS 4.250, Wereon, Wesley, Wetman, Wolfmankurd, Wtmitchell, Xep, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yobmod, Z10x, Ziggurat, 505 anonymous edits Specified complexity  Source:  Contributors: Africangenesis, Altenmann, Armchair info guy, BTfromLA, BenB4, Benna, Bhumburg, Blawrence, Bobo192, CSTAR, ChadThomson, Charles Matthews, Cmdrjameson, Count Iblis, Dave souza, DavidCary, Dawn Bard, Dcljr, Duncharris, Długosz, Ec5618, Ed Poor, Extremophile, FeloniousMonk, Four Dog Night, FreezBee, FuelWagon, Funandtrvl, Guettarda, Headbomb, Hillman, Hob Gadling, Hrafn, Jfrank, Johnstone, Johnuniq, Jossi, Just plain Bill, Keimzelle, Liberatus, Ligulem, MattieTK, Michael Hardy, Mjdellar, Monado, N4nojohn, NapoliRoma, Odd nature, Pjedicke, Pugilist, Random account 47, Random user 39849958, Rich Farmbrough, Rnt20, Romanpoet, Rossami, Rtc, Rusty Cashman, RxS, Sam Hocevar, Sam Spade, Sapphic, Selket, SheffieldSteel, Stevertigo, THobern, The Anome, ThomHImself, TimothyFreeman, Tktktk, TomS TDotO, Unknown, Vanished user, WhiteDragon, Z10x, ZanderSchubert, Zashaw, Ziggurat, 74 anonymous edits


Article Sources and Contributors
Fine-tuned Universe  Source:  Contributors: A ghost, AaronM, Alec.brady, Alexis Brooke M, Altenmann, Andycjp, Annoynmous, Anupam, Armchair info guy, Army1987, Ashmoo, Aunt Entropy, B4hand, B9 hummingbird hovering, Baegis, Bagginator, Barbara Shack, Barticus88, BaxterG4, Bdesham, Ben Standeven, Benna, Bertsche, Big iron, Billjefferys, Bkell, Bobrayner, BrettAllen, Bryan Derksen, CDN99, CSvBibra, Certh, Chanakal, Charles Matthews, Coffee2theorems, CommonsDelinker, Cpuz, Cyde, D'uberville, DGG, DOSGuy, DannyMuse, Dave souza, Dawn Bard, Decumanus, Desoto10, Dicklyon, Diza, Dojarca, Donarreiskoffer, Duncharris, Ec5618, El C, Endomion, Excirial, Eyu100, Fama Clamosa, Feeeshboy, FeloniousMonk, Florin zeitblom, FrozenUmbrella, GDallimore, Gabbe, Gareth McCaughan, Gkc, Goethean, Gregbard, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Guettarda, Gwguffey, Halcatalyst, Highlander, Hirak 99, Histrion, Hrafn, Hyperdeath, IgorSF, Ivan Godard, Jaganjac, JamesBWatson, Jason One, Jefffire, Jheald, Jim62sch, JimR, Johnuniq, Jok2000, Jordgette, Joshua P. Schroeder, K, Kappa, Karada, Kerowyn, KillerChihuahua, Kizor, Kznf, Laur, Lexor, Liberatus, Linas, Lumenos, Maedin, Manning Bartlett, MarcelB612, Mbell, Mboverload, Michael Hardy, Momergil, MrBell, MuZemike, N4nojohn, NBeale, Northfox, Nurban, Nyenyec, Olin, Orangemarlin, PaddyLeahy, Paradoctor, Pcarbonn, Peak, Phildogg82, Plumbago, Protostan, Proxima Centauri, RK, RainbowCrane, Random account 47, Rbj, Renamed user 4, Rholton, Richard001, Roadrunner, Robhu, Romanpoet, Scott3, Selket, SheffieldSteel, Shika234, Sir Paul, Soulkeeper, Spark, SunCreator, Supermagle, Sverdrup, TableManners, Tdoune, Thiseye, Threedots dead, Timurghlu, Timwi, Tktktk, Tlogmer, Torchwoodwho, Ttiotsw, Twelvethirteen, Twilight Chill, Tznkai, UFu, UberScienceNerd, Ungvichian, Vanished User 0001, Vsmith, WAS 4.250, Wavelength, Wdanwatts, WpZurp, Xyzzyplugh, Yath, Zerokitsune, ZorkFox, Zundark, Ü, 319 anonymous edits Intelligent designer  Source:  Contributors: -Ril-, ADNghiem501, Armchair info guy, Aunt Entropy, BG66, BatteryIncluded, Blueboar, Bravehearted, Brz7, ConfuciusOrnis, Darwinian, Dave souza, Davril2020, Djconklin, Duncharris, Ec5618, Ed Poor, Edgerunner76, Editor2020, Endomion, Existentialistcowboy, Fayenatic london, FeloniousMonk, Filll, FloNight, Gabbe, Galoubet, Guettarda, Harry491, Headbomb, Hetar, Hrafn, Igiffin, Igor21, IreverentReverend, Jgarth, Jim62sch, JoanneB, Jokestress, Joshua P. Schroeder, JoshuaZ, K, Keahapana, KillerChihuahua, LSkil10, Lambiam, LexCorp, Linas, Mailer diablo, Mccaskey, Memenen, MikeWren, Miquonranger03, NawlinWiki, NeilN, Nevermor, Nightscream, Nitrodist, Nondistinguished, Pakaran, Paper45tee, Phil Boswell, Pigman, Portillo, RekishiEJ, Rickyrab, RoyBoy, Samuel Blanning, Selket, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, Tibixe, Tony Sidaway, Uncle G, Vanished User 0001, Versus22, Whitepaw, Z10x, Ziggurat, 51 anonymous edits Richard Dawkins  Source:  Contributors: *nondescript, -Midorihana-, -ramz-,, 2over0, 7h3 3L173, A bit iffy, ABF, AC+79 3888, ACEO, ADM, ANB, Aaron Schulz, AaronFX, Abdullais4u, Abhishikt, Academic Challenger, Adam Chlipala, Adamfinmo, Adamnewt, Aditya, Adrianwn, Agapetos angel, Aitias, Ajc, Ajkgordon, Alan Liefting, Alan Peakall, Albert Einsteins pipe, Ale jrb, Alex Bakharev, Alex.muller, AlexCatlin, Alexf, Alexius08, Alexjohnc3, Alienus, Allstarecho, AlphaEta, Alro, Altenmann, Amar2556, Amayzes, Amchow78, Amicon, Amilnerwhite, An Siarach, Anas Salloum, And Rew, Andrew Delong, Andrew Norman, AndrewFlorea, Andrewlp1991, Andy C., Andy Marchbanks, AndyPhillips, Andycjp, Anneke anneke, Anomalocaris, Anonywiki, Anthonzi, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, Antonio Lopez, Anville, Aofrancis, Aomarks, Apeitheo, Apeman, Apepper, Aprock, Araknyd, Arbustoo, Archie Mitchell, ArielGold, Arniep, ArtAsLife, Artdemon01, Ash Loomis, Ashnard, Aslinga, Asrghasrhiojadrhr, Astuishin, Asyndeton, Atmoz, Aunt Entropy, AustralianMelodrama, Autarch, Avb, Ave Caesar, B3nnic33, Baegis, Baldrick90, Barbara Shack, Bart133, Bcameron54, Bchurchill, Bdelisle, Bdesham, Bduke, Beachy, Befuddled steve, Belthil, BenBathgate, BenRG, Benar, Bencherlite, Bender235, Benzocane, Bernard Marx, Bertbrooks, Betacommand, Betterusername, Bevo, Bhuston, Big Brother 1984, Bilburt101, Bilsonius, Biruitorul, Blainster, Blake-, Blanchardb, Blehfu, Bletchley, Blind designer, BlytheG, Bob A, Bobisbob, Bobo192, Boccobrock, Boing! said Zebedee, Bomac, Bonalaw, Bongwarrior, Born2cycle, Born2x, Boy asunder, BozMo, BraneJ, BrendanFrye, Brequinda, Brianga, Briangotts, Brighterorange, BrokenSegue, BroodKiller, Bruce1ee, Bryan Derksen, Bubba73, Bucketsofg, Budelberger, Bueller 007, BullRangifer, Bunzil, Burzmali, Butwhatdoiknow, C.Fred, C0N6R355, CGPGrey, CL, CPX, CWenger, CalJW, Calor, Cam8755, CambridgeBayWeather, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Canadian-Bacon, CanadianLinuxUser, Canadianism, Carbonator, Carlos Porto, Carlroller, Catfacem3n, Causa sui, Cazort, Central2, Centrx, Cfortunato, Charles Dee, Chcknwnm, Chicheley, Chocolateboy, Chomsky2093, Chris 73, Chris Pressey, ChrisfromHouston, Chrisieboy,, Christopher Parham, Christothes, Chsbcgs, Chschmn, Chucky052108, Chupon, Cielomobile, Ciphergoth, Citicat, Cj67, Cjm6, Cjs2111, Ck lostsword, ClamDip, Clasqm, Clayoquot, Clemwang, Closedmouth, Cls14, Clubjuggle, Cmasonx1, Cnwb, Coelacan, Coert, Coffee, Cokeabout, CommonsDelinker, ConfuciusOrnis, Congocraze, Connormah, ContiAWB, Conversion script, CoolKid1993, Cooltrainer Hugh, Coralmizu, CosineKitty, Cosmic Latte, Cowardly Lion,, CrazyInSane, Crosbiesmith, Crossbyname, Crum375, Css, Cstreet, Ctjf83, Cujo27, Cyrus Grisham, D. Webb, D6, DCDuring, DVdm, Dabigkid, Dacoutts, Dala0, Dalinian, Damone Jones, DandyDan2007, Daniel, Daniel J. Leivick, DanielCD, Danny, DannyDaWriter, Dannyno, DarkFalls, Darwinlives, Darwinlivesz, Dave Muscato, Dave souza, Dave420, Davenbelle, Davewho2, David Kernow, David Shankbone, David.Mestel, DavidinVA, Davril2020, Dawkinsologist, Dawn Bard, Dbf, Dcfleck, DeadEyeArrow, Deathby, Demerzel, Demophon, Deor, DerHexer, Derek Ross, Dgies, Dhartung, Dillard421, Discospinster, Diza, Djgrothe, DoItAgain, Dolphin51, Domminico, Donarreiskoffer, Donbert, Donfbreed, Donmac, DoucheCadet, Dougweller, Dovea, Dp76764, Dpr, Dr. 12345678, Dreaded Walrus, Dreadstar, Drinksquare, DriveMySol, DroEsperanto, Dryman, Duagloth, DubaiTerminator, DuncanHill, Duncharris, Duncwilson, Dwaipayanc, Dycedarg, Dylan Flaherty, Dylanpack, E23, EALacey, Ealdgyth, EastTN, Ebradsha, Ec5618, EchetusXe, Ed Fitzgerald, Ed Poor, Edcolins, Edhubbard, Edward, Einamozam, Eisnel, El C, Elipongo, Elphion, Elvenlordonelvenpath, Encephalon, Enric Naval, Entheta, Epbr123, Erkan Yilmaz, EscapingLife, Eseymour, Essjay, Eubulides, Eurosong, Evercat, EvilFlyingMonkey, Ewald, F0xfree, FF2010, FGT2, FOBioPatel, Faithlessthewonderboy, Falk55, Falqwin, FancyPants, Fang Boy 89, Faradayplank, Fateh, Fayenatic london, FayssalF, FeanorStar7, Feedmecereal, Feinoha, FeloniousMonk, FeydHuxtable, Filelakeshoe, Filip em, Findaknow, Finduilas 09, Finell, FirstPrinciples, Firstcrusader, Flewis, Flexdream, Flowerpotman, Fluent aphasia, Frankenpuppy, Fred8888, Fredrik, Freethinkersusan, Fremsley, Froes, Full Decent, Furrykef, Fuseau, Fvw, GaalDornick, Gabe.g123, Gabjam, Gaius Cornelius, Gamaliel, Gandalfxviv, Ganeshk, Gavin Wilson, GayCommunist, Gazpacho, Gehockteh leber, General Nolledge, Geniac, GentileJew, GeorgeFormby1, GeorgeTopouria, Georgereev118118, Georgiamode01, Gertie, Gimboid13, Giovanni33, Glucoboost, Gnomon Kelemen, Gnusmas, Gog, GoodBooksMelbourne, Graevemoore, Graham87, Grayshi, Grazon, Greeeek, Greenwave75, Grstain, Grubbidok, Grundede, Grutter, Gs111, Gscshoyru, Guettarda, Guiltyspark, Gum375, Gurch, Guybrush, Guyhihello, Gwernol, GwydionM, H2g2bob, Hadrian89, Hahih, Halmstad, HamiltonHabs32, Hamsterlopithecus, Hannes Röst, Hanso671, Happyhuman, Harry491, Harryboyles, Havermayer, Headbomb, Heavyleaks, Hede2000, HeihachiMishima, Helon, HiDrNick, HiLo48, Hiddenart, Hiding, Hikarumitani, Hiplibrarianship, Histrion, Hitenshantia924, Hmains, Hokiehead, Hometruths1618, Hopiakuta, Hostin, HotPocketman, Hrafn, Htanata, Huey45, Hut 8.5, Hyperdeath, HyperrealORnot, IJA, IRP, IRWolfie-, Icairns, IceHunter, Icestorm815, Iloveanna, Imagine Reason, Innotata, Iridescent, Isambard, Ishikawa Minoru, J Milburn, J.delanoy, JAStewart, JBellis, JFlav, JIMMYLINE, JRDarby, JWSchmidt, JaGa, Jack Merridew, Jackprosser2006, Jacob no. 9, Jacob1207, Jacoplane, Jafeluv, Jaganath, Jalfredl, James Kemp, JamesBWatson, JamesSmathyfield, Jan Hidders, Japa, Jarona, Jathan617, Jatkins, Java13690, Javaweb, Jay Davis 25, JayKeaton, Jcc1, Jdforrester, Jeff G., Jeff5102, Jefffire, Jeffrey Smith, JemmaBrossel, Jeroen, Jerry cornelius, Jesusfreak0013, Jezhotwells, Jim Michael, Jim62sch, Jimfbleak, Jll, Joaquin008, Joey-Merl, John, John K, John Stumbles, John Vandenberg, John254, JohnArmagh, JohnDoe0007, Johnnyb 61820, Johnnymaddog, Johnuniq, Jok2000, Jomasecu, Jonth, Jooler, Jordan Rothstein, JosefK, JoshuaZ, Journalist492, Jpbowen, Jpearse999, Jpk82, Juggernautthunderclap, Juhaz, Jun Nijo, Jweiss11, Jwwebman, Jza84, K, KConWiki, Ka Faraq Gatri, Kakofonous, KaptKos, KaragouniS, Karthika.kerala, Katalaveno, Kbdank71, Kdbuffalo, Keller.brett, Khaosworks, Khukri, Kida625, Kieff, Killenheladagen, KillerChihuahua, Kirachinmoku, Kittybrewster, Kmunkittrick, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, Kobrabones, Koelman, KokomoNYC, Krellis, Kripkenstein, Kristamaranatha, Kums, Kuralyov, Kuru, KvltTNBMer, Kwekubo, Kyudokoshi, L'Eagle, L.E.Poss, LAUBO, LCP, Lacrimosus, Laddiebuck, Ladlergo, Lambo4000, Lancsalot, Landud, Lanroth, Lar, Laura H S, Laurence Boyce, Laurinavicius, Ld100, Lee Daniel Crocker, LeeroyLewis, Leibniz, LenW, Leo Stedile, Leujohn, Leungchuenyan, Lev lafayette, Levalley, Lexor, Lfh, Libraryjuice, Lightmouse, Limulus, Lindmere, Lisa.debruine, Lithfo, Livingrm, Lku04sen, Longhair, Loodog, Lord.lucan, Loren.wilton, Lotje, Lovelyrita67, Lquilter, Lradrama, Ltalarico, M C Y 1008, MER-C, MFlet1, MacRusgail, Mackan79, Mackiro, Macphisto12, Macy, Madchester, Madhava 1947, Maester mensch, Magnus Manske, Mais oui!, Majorly, Malick78, Malonian, Managementboy, MantisEars, Manu bcn, MarcelB612, Marcos, Marek69, Marfan8, Mark Shaw, MarkSheldon, MarnetteD, Marriex, MartinBennett Aus, Marx Gomes, Masoodamin, Master shepherd, Masterpiece2000, Mat813, Matjlav, Matthew Fennell, Matthew Stannard, Mattpalumbo11, Maxim, Mayumashu, McGeddon, Mccready, Mchale7, Mchavez, Mclay1, Mdd4696, Mdebets, Mdebruijn, Meekywiki, Mehrdad1900s, Memills, Mendaliv, Mentifisto, Mercury, Merrickweb, Merzul, MessinaRagazza, Metamagician3000, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, Michael Johnson, MichaelBillington, Michaelritchie200, Midnightblueowl, Mifter, Mightyxander, Mike Young, MikeCapone, MikeVitale, Mikker, Millionsandbillions, Millstone99, Mimihitam, Mintguy, Miracle fish, Misortie, Miyagawa, Mkimemia, Mloclam901, Modulatum, Momergil, Momo san, Monado, Moncubus, Mongo2002, Monty Cantsin, Moonpie UK, Mortene, Mostargue, Mouse1337, Mpullnash, Mswake, Muntuwandi, Mushroom, Mweflen, Mywikieditor2007, Mütze, NAHID, NBeale, NKS22, Nar Matteru, Ndsg, Nectarflowed, Nedward, Neil Carmichael, NeilN, Neilj, Netizen, Neurofun, Neutrality, Nfeik, Niceley, Nicholas Cimini, Nightscream, Nigosh, Nihil novi, Ninadelis, Nishkid64, Nivix, NoitcuderSnikwad, Noleander, Noman953, Nonexistant User, Northfox, Notreallydavid, Novum, Nsk92, NuclearWarfare, Nuhr, Nunocordeiro, Obamafan70, Obradovic Goran, ObsessiveMathsFreak, Od Mishehu, Oda Mari, Odie5533, Oekaki, Olaf Davis, Old Moonraker, Oliver Pereira, Oliverbeatson, Olivier, Omicronpersei8, Ono-sama, OpenToppedBus, Opus88888, Orangemarlin, Orion11M87, Orphic, Otolemur crassicaudatus, Oxymoron83, P.Marlow, PDH, PEAR, PRODUCER, Parent5446, Pauldsims, Pauswa, Pawnkingthree, Pb30, Pete g1, Pete.Hurd, PeteXor, Peter Isotalo, Peter Otzen, Pfistermeister, Pgan002, Phantom Hoover, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Philio2020, Philip Cross, Philip Trueman, PhilipO, Pilotbob, Pingveno, Pitan, Pizza1512, PlumCrumbleAndCustard, Plumbago, Pluvialis, Pmcray, Politicworms, Poodleboy, Popovvk, Porges, Postdlf, Princessshah, Profangelo, PrometheusX303, ProveIt, Proxima Centauri, Qluah, Qmtead, Qshio, QuackGuru, Quantum.wells, Quark1005, QueenAdelaide, Quiensabe, R Lowry, RMB1987, Radrfa, Raider Duck, RainbowOfLight, Rajewsbury, Randalllism, RandomP, Rattlesnake, Rattymac, Razorflame, Rclb, Rdnzl, Rdsmith4, Realisis, Rebert, Redeagle688, Redlentil, Redrocket, Redvers, Reedy, Reenem, RegenerateThis, Reinis, Rekkr, RenniePet, Res2216firestar, Rezter, Rhetth, Rich Farmbrough, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard BB, Richard001, Richard56, RichardDawkins, Richjcq, Rick MILLER, Rillian, RingoBingo, Rjwilmsi, Rkh10, Rklawton, Robert Muldoon, Robert Stevens, Robertson-Glasgow, Robma, Robth, Rorrenig, Rosered1963, Rossnixon, Rparle, Rror, Rrya1207, Rspeer, Rtc, RucasHost, Rursus, Ryulong, Ryz, SMC89, Saimdusan, Sam Drowns Puppies For Fun, Samepassword, Samho777, Samsara, Sandiegoryu, Sarah, Sardur, Sarnowski, Sarranduin, Satiksme, Savidan, ScaldingHotSoup, Scarian, Sceptre, Schaefer, Schavez963, SchfiftyThree, Schutz, Sciurinæ, Scwlong, Sean D Martin, Seba5618, Seddon, Seegoon, Sephiroth BCR, Seraphita, Serein (renamed because of SUL), Severa, Shaunthered, Shenme, Shirulashem, Shoaler, Shoeofdeath, Shortride, Shot info, SideSwept, Sideshow Bob Roberts, Siegfried Nugent, Silence, Simaloko, Simon3W, Sir Paul, Sir Richardson, SirGrant, Sirex98, Sisyphos23, Sjmcfarland, Sk17ept3, Skinnysock, Skishoo2, Skomorokh, Skunkboy74, Slark, SlideEraser, SlimVirgin, Slodave, Slrubenstein, Smalljim, SmokeyJoe, Smoothcee, Snalwibma, Snowmanradio, Snoyes, Sophia, Soporaeternus, Sozsoz, Spark, Spellcast, Spencer, Spikeasaur, Splette, Sprewellnyk, Springnuts, Spritebox, SqueakBox, Squiddy, Squoups, Srnec, Standardfact, Starrboy, Ste1n, StealthCopyEditor, Stedder, Steinsky, Stephan Schulz, Stephen B, Stephen MUFC, Stephenb, Steveking 89, Steven Walling, Stevetee, Storm Rider, Stuartea, StudyAndBeWise, SuperGirl, Supertask, Supt. of Printing, Susano, Svanloon, Svetovid, Swangyy, Swiftblink, Sysrpl, T. Anthony, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, TWSummer, TYelliot, TableManners, Tagishsimon, Tai kit, Targeman, Tastesoon, Taw, Tayste, Tdudkowski, Teapotgeorge, TechPurism, Technopat, Tedgrant, Tedster212, TeleComNasSprVen, Template namespace initialisation script, Tempshill, Terence, Tesseract2, Testbed, ThAtSo, The Anome, The Famous Movie Director, The Haunted Angel, The Iceman2288, The Scarlet Letter, The velociraptor, The wub, Thedemonhog, Themfromspace, Thenthornthing, TheologyJohn, Theserialcomma, Thingg, Thumperward, Thuresson, Tide rolls, Tikiwont, Tim!, TimVickers, TimothyJacobson, Timrollpickering, Timwi, Tkynerd, Tmol42, Tohd8BohaithuGh1, Tomathy, Tomhannen, Tommaso88, Tompagenet, Tony Corsini, Tony Sidaway, Tony1, Tonyfuchs1019, Torontonian1, TotesBoats, Tremblor, Trevdna, Trevor Andersen, Treybien, Triwbe, Trusilver, Tsumetai, Ttiotsw, Tutmosis, TutterMouse, Tuxedo junction, Tyciol, Tygrrr, Tyrhinis, Ubxer, Uker, Uncle Dick, Underage, United264035, Unschool, Urbane Legend, Utcursch, Uxorion, Valodzka, Vanished user 03, Veritas Blue, Versageek, Versus22, Vesal, VetteDude, Violetriga, Viridae, Viriditas, Vizjim, VoX, Vodex, Vox


Article Sources and Contributors
Humana 8', Vsmith, W guice, WLNB, WachyWambo, Wafulz, Waninge, Wavelength, We66er, WereSpielChequers, Wetman, WhisperToMe, Wiki alf, WikiTony999, Wikidea, WikipedianMarlith, Wikiposter0123, Wikisanchez, WildOscar, Will Beback, William M. Connolley, Wimt, Wisdom89, Wiwayb, Wj32, Woland37, Wolfrock, Woohookitty, Wotnow, Wtmitchell, Wyklety, Xabian40409, Xanzzibar, Xday, Xn4, Xxagile, Yamamoto Ichiro, Yanksox, Yellowhammer, Yhvh777, Yidisheryid, Youtubr3, Yoyoyo007, Yum152, Zamphuor, Zeno27, ZeroOne, Zlatno Pile, Zoz, 1567 anonymous edits Gene-centered view of evolution  Source:  Contributors: 1veedo, Alan Liefting, Albany NY, Alcmaeonid, Alienus, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, Anonywiki, Ardalby, Argon233, ArthurDenture, Artw, Asrghasrhiojadrhr, Aunt Entropy, Axel147, Azcolvin429, Barbara Shack, Bathrobe, Biruitorul, Bogdangiusca, Bongoo, Burningrey, Burschik, CYD, Calaschysm, Closedmouth, Cmdrjameson, Coelacan, Crazywolf, Cremepuff222, Cybercobra, Cyde, Duncharris, Dysmorodrepanis, EarthRise33, Eliz81, Ellisonch, Epingchris, Erauch, Everyking, Feco, Fred Hsu, Garik, Gliktch, Hatch68, Headbomb, IGlowInTheDark, Intgr, Isaacvetter, Jefffire, John Vandenberg, Johnuniq, Jonkerz, Keilana, KimvdLinde, Kubigula, Laurence Boyce, Lexor, Lightmouse, Livingrm, Loom91, ML5, Maedin, Mchavez, Michael Hardy, Michaelkourlas, NBeale, Omegatron, Pakimark, Pdcook, Pete.Hurd, PhDP, Philosofinch, Plumbago, Pumbor, Quadell, Rainspeaker, Ralamo38, Raul654, Rholton, Richard001, Ryz, Samsara, Sean Parmelee, Shreevatsa, Shyamal, Silence, Snalwibma, Spark, Steinsky, Stevenmitchell, Svetovid, Tony Sidaway, Twas Now, UriBudnik, Vsmith, Waldow, Wmahan, Woodsrock, Wotnow, Wragge, Z10x, Zanimum, Zeimusu, 114 anonymous edits


Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors


Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
Image:Alfred Russel Wallace.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Admrboltz, Grook Da Oger, Ian Dunster, Schwing, 1 anonymous edits Image:Wallace Mechanics Institute.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Alfred Russel Wallace Image:Wallace map archipelago.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Alfred Russel Wallace Image:Wallace frog.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Grook Da Oger, Kersti Nebelsiek, Liné1, Rcashman, Richard001, Woudloper, 3 anonymous edits Image:Alfred Russel Wallace 1862 - Project Gutenberg eText 15997.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Grook Da Oger, Jappalang, Shadygrove2007, Tagishsimon, 2 anonymous edits Image:Restored grave of AR Wallace.jpg  Source:  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors: George W. Beccaloni Image:Darwin-Wallace medal.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Linnean Society Image:Wallace chimp.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Alfred Russel Wallace Image:Wallace03.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Dysmachus Image:Alfred Russel Wallace - Project Gutenberg eText 14558.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User Tagishsimon on en.wikipedia Image:commons-logo.svg  Source:  License: logo  Contributors: User:3247, User:Grunt Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg  Source:  License: unknown  Contributors: -xfi-, Dbc334, Doodledoo, Elian, Guillom, Jeffq, Krinkle, Maderibeyza, Majorly, Nishkid64, RedCoat, Rei-artur, Rocket000, 11 anonymous edits File:Wikisource-logo.svg  Source:  License: logo  Contributors: Nicholas Moreau Image:Charles Darwin seated crop.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Beao Image:Charles Darwin Signature.svg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Connormah Image:Charles Darwin 1816.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: ALE!, Anne97432, ArséniureDeGallium, Dave souza, Finavon, Matt314, Mogelzahn, Richard001, Rotational, Wst, Zaphod, 4 anonymous edits Image:Voyage of the Beagle-en.svg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: User:Sémhur Image:HMS Beagle by Conrad Martens.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Conrad Martens (1801 - 21 August 1878) Image:Charles Darwin by G. Richmond.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: ArséniureDeGallium, Blurpeace, Kilom691, Marco Cristo, Tohma, 3 anonymous edits Image:Darwin tree.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Charles Darwin Image:Emma Darwin.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Dave souza at en.wikipedia Image:Darwins Thinking Path.JPG  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Tedgrant at en.wikipedia Image:Charles Darwin.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Dave souza, Duesentrieb, Grook Da Oger, Przepla, Raul654, Rdsmith4, TarmoK, 1 anonymous edits File:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron 2.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Davepape Image:Darwin ape.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Unknown, The Hornet is no longer in publication and it is very likely for a 20-year-old artist in 1871 to have died before 1939 File:Darwin restored2.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Bain News Service, publisher. Image:Man is But a Worm.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Punch magazine artist. Image:Charles and William Darwin.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Dave souza at en.wikipedia Image:Annie Darwin.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: File:VanityFair-Darwin2.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: (Source for author: Mark Bryant, "Going Ape Over Darwin", History Today, 1 April 2008) File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Dcoetzee Image:Charles Darwin aged 51.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Diwas, Fastfission, Infrogmation,, Ragesoss, Ryz, Sandpiper, 5 anonymous edits Image:Origin of Species title page.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Aleator, Alex6122, Aristeas, Ben Tillman, Fastfission, Gveret Tered, Inductiveload, Jappalang, Juiced lemon, Ragesoss, 5 anonymous edits File:Charles Darwin aged 51 crop.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Dave souza File:ADN static.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Brian0918 File:Gene-duplication.svg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:K. Aainsqatsi Image:Biston.betularia.7200.jpg  Source:  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5  Contributors: Kilom691, Olei Image:Biston.betularia.f.carbonaria.7209.jpg  Source:  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5  Contributors: Kilom691, Olei File:Lion waiting in Nambia.jpg  Source:  License: unknown  Contributors: File:Mutation and selection diagram.svg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: User:Elembis File:Selection Types Chart.png  Source:  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: User:Azcolvin429 File:Allele-frequency.png  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Original uploader was Esurnir at en.wikipedia File:Whale skeleton.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Meyers Konversionlexikon File:Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Wooster.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Wilson44691 File:Speciation modes edit.svg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Ilmari Karonen File:Darwin's finches.jpeg  Source:'s_finches.jpeg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: John Gould (14.Sep.1804 - 3.Feb.1881) File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: User:David.Monniaux

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
File:Ape skeletons.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was TimVickers at en.wikipedia Image:Collapsed_tree_labels_simplified.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was TimVickers at en.wikipedia File:Darwin ape.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Unknown, The Hornet is no longer in publication and it is very likely for a 20-year-old artist in 1871 to have died before 1939 Image:Darwin's finches.jpeg  Source:'s_finches.jpeg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: John Gould (14.Sep.1804 - 3.Feb.1881) Image:Life cycle of a sexually reproducing organism.svg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Wykis Image:Antibiotic resistance.svg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Wykis Image:Pavo cristatus albino001xx.jpg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: user:Dixi Image:Polydactyly 01 Lhand AP.jpg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: , subsequently altered by , , and . File:Plato Silanion Musei Capitolini MC1377.jpg  Source:  License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5  Contributors: User:Jastrow Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg  Source:  License: unknown  Contributors: Amatulic, Damiens.rf, Duae Quartunciae, Duncharris, FeloniousMonk, Hrafn, J Milburn, John, K, Melesse, Odd nature, Peripitus, Skier Dude, SnowFire, Vanished user 03, Videmus Omnia File:Pandas text analysis.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:TimVickers Image:MichaelBehe.jpg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Campus Photo • Bryan Matluk Image:Dembski head shot.jpg  Source:  License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5  Contributors: Original uploader was Kenosis at en.wikipedia Image:The Creation of Adam.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Barosaul, David Levy, G.dallorto, Mattes, Nard the Bard, PFHLai, PxMa, Sailko, 1 anonymous edits File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Wilke File:Ectopic.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Shizhao Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Beria, Bibi Saint-Pol, G.dallorto, Jacobolus, Kentin, Mattes, MonteChristof, Tomisti, Wutsje, 5 anonymous edits Image:Cicero.PNG  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Bibi Saint-Pol, Nishkid64, Saperaud, 4 anonymous edits Image:AverroesColor.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Admrboltz, Frank C. Müller, Mattes, Sailko, Sparkit, 1 anonymous edits Image:St-thomas-aquinas.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: G.dallorto, Man vyi, Mattes, Mattis, Schimmelreiter, Solbris, Wst Image:WilliamPaley.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Sir Paul at en.wikipedia Image:François de Voltaire porträtterad av Nicolas de Largillière.jpg  Source:çois_de_Voltaire_porträtterad_av_Nicolas_de_Largillière.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Den fjättrade ankan at sv.wikipedia Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: w:Elliott & FryElliott & Fry Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg  Source:  License: unknown  Contributors: Chrislk02, ConfuciusOrnis, Damiens.rf, Deltaforce5000, Duae Quartunciae, ElinorD, FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, Hrafn, John, K, Melesse, Nv8200p, Odd nature, Quadell, Videmus Omnia Image:Mausefalle 300px.jpg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: User Tristanb on en.wikipedia Image:Stages in the evolution of the eye.png  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Remember the dot at en.wikipedia Image:Evolution eye.svg  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: user:Caerbannog File:Flagellum base diagram en.svg  Source:  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:LadyofHats Image:TargetReplicationalRsources.png  Source:  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Rtc, Siebrand Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg  Source:  License: unknown  Contributors: Hubble imag