Darwin’s problem

By A. Nounna

Darwin had a problem with explaining how humans could have evolved from a lesser evolved form, which is missing in the fossil record and which he had no demonstration of, and still have ended up with the mental capacity and intellect that they present with today. Darwin articulated his problem by saying that the intellectual progression that he saw within animal species had no particular logical connections with humans are they are today, seeing that some animals possessed some of the faculties that humans present with, but not all of these traits were present within one being, except within humans. Further, humans present with the full spectrum of intellectual capacity and yet their closest comparison is monkeys or apes. So, how did humans end up with all of these in one body? Darwin does have a problem with this, but says he is going to disprove that this is an issue to his theory, or in fact a valid issue at all. He begins by saying: “My object [in this chapter] is to shew that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.” Darwin begins by citing sexual selectiveness on behalf of both animals and humans to show that this “more keen mental power” of pickiness, so to speak, is shared between animals and humans as a basis to establish similarities between man and animals. To this same end of proving that man and animal have the same mental capabilities, he also cites other shared traits such as “self-preservation, sexual love, the love of the mother for her new-born offspring, (intangible/emotional intellectual capacities) and the desire possessed by the latter to suck (physical manifestation of learned behaviors)” etc. He goes on to state that Some animals do have complex reasoning systems and some don’t. This fact of simple and complex reasoning itself posses a challenge to his intellectual progression theories but he states that he believes that some actions evolve from needed reflexes being compounded and getting passed down and others arise from “experience and modified habits” which can form simple and complex reasoning systems, respectively. But still, to him, there are similarities between both of these reasoning systems that show that humans and animals are intellectually the same and in fact, not in contradiction to his “sameness” theories. Even so, Darwin's main issue is that man possesses traits present in all of the learning and evolutionary styles of the different animals yet, monkeys or apes are the closest to having all of these traits that man has and they still lack some of those traits that man possesses.

I believe that Darwin is overlooking one glaring fact. He is missing the logical fact that just because beings or things share traits on a large and general scale, and some share traits in a more specific way (or on a smaller species by species scale) doesn’t mean that they necessarily are related to each other or have a common ancestry point. This just further serves the fact that similar entities possess similar facilities. Additionally, I believe that Darwin does stay on the surface of this topic, perhaps because he is satisfied with his answer and with the information that the has or perhaps because he just made a guess, or perhaps even he is unwilling to further consider the challenges to his theory. I do not think that the conclusion that he comes to is a solution that goes deeply at all. His solution stays on the observational level of superficial comparison and falls neatly into the trap of confirmation and comparison bias. To reiterate, just because things are related does not mean that they are the same or from the same source as each other or that they went through the same process of development at the same time and to the same end.

Exploring solutions to this problem, I turn to Stephen Meyer, in his book Darwin’s Doubt, where he explains that “methodological naturalism” is a theory of ordered natural progression which avoids the idea of spontaneous and creative intelligence in favor of a form of development that results from the abandonment of “superstitions” such as the presence of a God. As a developmental progression, its influence on an intellect moves through three steps beginning with the theological, then turning to the mystical, and finally, moving into the factual or perfunctory. This process leaves no room for any development outside of this slow and methodical framework. It requires very specific steps towards a very specific result in order for a being to acquire higher intelligence. Previously, a man named Louis Agassiz had insisted in his proposition that the mind and intellect can come up with solutions and reasoning outside of this process of methodological naturalism. While his theory was later rejected, Darwin himself acknowledges that it does have some validity and raises questions with Darwin’s own reasoning that different species do not always display slow progression but there are records of spontaneous reasoning. As a demonstrable fact, spontaneous reasoning does exist and Darwin does not seem to have another explanation then that those beings must have been formed differently than he had supposed. Species suddenly showing up and being different from others but not related to those that came “before” is not a completely ‘out there’ idea. Another man, Henry Dolittle Walcott, also came to this conclusion that there was a group of animals that developed differently, more rapidly and outside of the process of the others and, more or less, showed up independently of the others that Darwin refers to, reenforcing Agassiz opinion.

According to Darwin, something called “morphological distance” should happen gradually over time and in small scales, but to the contrary of this and showed especially in Precambrian and Cambrian fossils, we see the exact opposite. Evidence for the idea that we are simply missing a link to make the Cambrian explosion fit in a smoother, slower time frame simply has not occurred and is as of yet, is still non existent. Yet another explanation for the intellectual changes could be found with Neo-Darwinism. To once again quote Meyer in Darwin’s doubt: “Whereas the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations necessarily acts slowly and gradually, [scientists] Gould and Eldredge invoked a process called “allopatric speciation” to explain how new species might arise quickly. The prefix allo means “other” or “different,” and the suffix patric means “father.”” If this is the case, there is not necessarily a missing evolutionary link but a missing evolutionary “father” different from those related to animals. Another strong hypothesis to contradict slow and gradual changes is that DNA and RNA sequences just simply do not show capacity for gradual changes or even somewhat spontaneous changes. DNA and RNA demonstrate random, and totally unrelated changes. They do not exhibit a form of order but they do “…either beg the question as to the ultimate origin of biological information or point to physical and chemical processes that do not produce the specified complexity that characterizes actual animals.” Lastly, HOX Genes, present in DNA as a method by which changes are caused “… do not [sic] possess the epigenetic information necessary for body-plan formation. Indeed, even in the best of cases mutations in Hox genes still only alter genes.” This means that a vital element within DNA that is responsible for changes within the genes themselves do not have the capability to cause physical mutations such as Darwin would suppose with evolutionary changes to physical capabilities. Continuing to quote: “Mutations in Hox genes can only generate new genetic information in DNA. They do not, and cannot, generate epigenetic information…” Because of this genetic drift, as these gradual changes are referred to as, cannot explain the changes as Darwin saw them. A geneticist, Michael Lynch, developed “…his mathematical critique of the creative power of natural selection based on the principles of population genetics. Nevertheless, it does not follow from his analysis showing the weakness of natural selection that neutral processes alone are sufficient to build new functional genes and proteins. To simplify this statement, Michael Lynch studied natural selection in the genetics of populations and concluded that simple natural processes without some form of outside interference cannot create evolutionary changes as Darwin has proposed.

In conclusion, the evidence resulting from the theories of methodological naturalism, the research of Henry Dolittle Walcott, Louis Agassiz, Gould and Eldredge, and Michael Lynch, morphological distances, fossil records, Neo-Darwinism, logical reasoning, DNA and RNA research, HOX genes, epigenetic information, genetic drift, mathematics and population genetics, and protein behaviors shows solid reasons why there is there not a common intellectual ancestor as Darwin would suppose and that animals and humans do not, and cannot in fact, be intellectually related in the way that he attempts to prove using the science of gradual changes.


By A. Nounna


1 (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Modern Library, 1986., Ch.3)

2 (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Modern Library, 1986. Ch. 3)

3 (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Modern Library, 1986. Ch. 3)

4 Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016.

5 Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016.

6Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016. (Pgs. 41, 56, 59, 64)

7Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016. (Pg. 139)

8 Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016. (pg. 306-309)

9 Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016. (pg. 320-323)

10 Meyer, Stephen C., and Derek Shetterly. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Unabridged, HarperCollins, 2016. (pg. 325-327)