Who's afraid of Darwin?

I have this photograph of a biologist on his belly on the shores of one of the Galapagos Islands. He in turn was taking a shot of a pensive sea lion. That is one of the very few photographs I have taken in my life. I had taken a trip to the Galapagos a couple of years ago with that biologist and some other scientists. In as much as I reveled in the presence of nature’s wild magnificence there, I also took great pleasure and insight from the scientists who were on that trip with me. Observing nature and how scientists study those islands is I think is one of the deeper experiences that have shaped my decision to do science writing.

“Little signs of life.” That was the first line Darwin wrote in his diaries about the Galapagos when the ship HMS Beagle reached the group of islands in September 1835. But it did not take long before he changed his mind and was overwhelmed with evidence that life was wildly flourishing on the islands in quantities and qualities so peculiar that the rest of his entries were filled with details and feelings of amazement at what he had seen and observed. Human presence was not something that the resident wildlife there was familiar with that most of them, particularly birds, came so close to the human visitors that one of Darwin’s companions killed one with just his hat. (I could not help but think that maybe in another world whose regular inhabitants would find humans annoying, they too would not think twice before swatting us with their hats.)

Soon enough, Darwin met one member of the wildlife after which the islands were named. He wrote in his diary: “In my walk I met two very large Tortoises (circumference of shell about 7 ft). One was eating a Cactus & then quietly walked away. The other gave a deep & loud hiss & then drew back his head. They were so heavy, I could scarcely lift |608| them off the ground. Surrounded by the black Lava, the leafless shrubs & large Cacti, they appeared most old-fashioned antediluvian animals; or rather inhabitants of some other planet.” The marine iguanas that one of Darwin’s shipmates called “imps of darkness” because they were not particularly handsome and charming to the human visitors also fascinated Darwin. In fact, he wrote about them using a swarm of adjectives than he never used on the birds which later became the symbol of Darwin’s powerful idea — the finches.

Darwin observed and collected these finches and wrote in his diary that they “are not characterized by the markings on the plumage alone, but likewise by the size and form of the bill, and other differences… a nearly perfect gradation may be traced, from a beak extraordinarily thick, to one so fine, that it may be compared to that of a warbler…” To most of us, it would have just been a musing of a very keen observer of nature but that was the data that served as one of the most important foundations for evolution.

Darwin did not know yet then what these differences meant until after the voyage of the HMS Beagle in 1837. Darwin looked at the differences in the shapes and size of the beaks of the finches and arrived at the sweeping idea of how life moves — from old to new. He concluded that all these finches were variations from a common finch origin, over time. Why did they change? To best suit their use such as those who eat grubs have a long thin beak to poke into holes in the ground and extract the grubs; finches who eat buds and fruit have claw-like beaks that can grind down their food. This is what Darwin meant when he termed it “natural selection.” It meant that those who are adapted to their environment are the ones who survive and their “successful” traits are naturally passed on to the next generation. It was so simple and made so much sense. So why does it get some people up in arms against an idea that was based on fact? Why is Darwin’s idea considered by some “dangerous”?

Because what worked for finches applies to all living things, including the masters we once thought we humans were. The use of antibiotics are squarely pegged on the idea of evolution — microorganisms adapt to “threats” and they change to become “stronger” and more “adapted” to drugs. Thus, the term “drug” resistant. We too evolved, and not just from apes but even before that till all life had one origin. Life has been branching out, coming up with shapes and sizes, and colors and behaviors that are best suited for the environment it finds itself in. All life through time form an interconnected matrix. Web of life. Tree of life. We are all related, even to the ones who are now extinct. You have more members of your extended family in natural history than you will ever have in your Facebook account.

So dangerous? Only to those who feel that their humanity is diminished if they realize that they are part of a magnificent chain of life through time, including the “imps of darkness” in the Galapagos, the roaming dogs on the street and the elegant zebras in the savannahs in Africa. Only to those whose sense of humanity depend on an unshakable belief that we spontaneously burst into existence, armed and ready to take a special role on Earth. Only to those whose self-worth depends on being singled out for a special pre-destiny to fulfill. “Very little signs of life” could be seen in these closed minds.

Evolution does not happen because Darwin said so. It is because nature does so. So now, who’s afraid and angry with nature?

* * *

For comments, e-mail [email protected]