Skip to main content

The Serendipity of Life

A few weeks ago I finished The Monkey's Voyage: How Improbable Journeys Shaped the History of Life by Alan de Queiroz. It was a fascinating read, detailing how the voyage of plants and animals between the continents has changed the world in which we live. Even, de Queiroz asserts, something that is both random and highly unlikely in and of itself is nearly inevitable over millions of years of life, whether it is a new plant colonizing an island or monkeys from Africa crossing into South America. The book made me think once more about how randomness shapes the history of life. If we know anything from science, it is that humans are not the inevitable outcome of evolution. Neither our dominance as a species nor even our existence were assured. Random and improbable events led us to where we are.

Think about just a few of the moments where, had something been different, life would have taken another path. Whatever natural disaster caused the human population to bottleneck around 100,000 years ago could have driven us to extinction instead. The extinction that killed the non-avian dinosaurs paved the way for the rise of mammals. Without that extinction event, perhaps our mammalian ancestors would have remained eternally in the periphery, hiding from and being hunted by dinosaurs as they continued their own evolution? Whatever event it was that sparked life might not have occurred, leaving our planet empty. Any number of events might have led us to an earth without us in it. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, if one replays the tape of life over again, it is highly probable that we would not again be the end result. 

Random events have a strong influence on the history of life, and the history of our civilizations. It plays, perhaps, a larger role than we are inclined to give credit for; it is certainly something that may make us deeply uncomfortable at the very least. This must surely account at least in part for the stubborn persistence of Young-Earth Creationism well into the 21st Century. Certainly fundamentalist religious beliefs, lack of good science education, and unscrupulous people willing to take advantage of the gullible for financial gain all play a role. Yet I have to think many people refuse to accept the reality of evolution because it implies that random forces play a role in our lives, forces that are near-completely out of our control. While natural selection itself isn't random, it is random mutation in our genes that provides the material for evolution to work with. Evolution, at last, removes humans from their privileged position among the animals. We are the result of evolution, but not the inevitable outcome. 

Some may shy away from the findings of modern science because they prefer to see us as special creations; they fear an impersonal universe indifferent to our existence and imagine it a cold and joyless place. For me, however, this is a source of wonder. How amazing it is to think about what led us to this moment! How remarkable it is to ponder our existence when you think that our ancestors survived famines, plagues, predators, and extinctions, all the way back in an unbroken line to the beginnings of life. Surely knowing that the molecules that make up our bodies came from dying stars, that we are related to every living thing on this planet, from the lowest moss to the elephants and lions that roam the savanna, is adequate compensation for accepting the serendipity of life? Wonder is the appropriate response, not fear! Understanding and accepting that randomness plays a great role in the history of life is the beginning of uncovering this wonder, of discovering the magisterial history of life on this planet.  


The tree of life, depicting the inter-relatedness of all living things

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...