Darwin's contributions overstated

It would probably be unfair to dismiss Rudy Baum's breathless encomium to Charles Darwin's genius as a "puff piece" (C&EN, Jan. 23, page 3). On the face of it, there is nothing substantial to object to-a quick sketch of the great man's life, highlighting his courage and determination in putting forward a thesis that many found highly offensive, and so on. There is little doubt that Darwin's work on the Beagle cruise and thereafter gives evidence of keen powers of observation and inference. The role of environmental selection in shaping variation within species was an important discovery.

That said, the fact remains that Darwin's speculative extension from variation within species to the metamorphosis of species into other species is entirely unsupported by the fossil evidence. What the record actually shows is that species emerge suddenly with all of their specifying characteristics; that they undergo variation of the kind Darwin observed within the range of those specifying characteristics; and that they go extinct. They do not change into other species via a series of intermediate forms, or at least there is no fossil evidence of any such thing.

The sentence that comes closest to misrepresentation is the following: "Darwin also anticipated many of the objections that would be raised against the idea of evolution, and he answered them decisively." "Many" is the operative word here. Darwin was well aware of the evidential lacunae for his species-to-species hypothesis. He simply believed that further work in paleontology would fill them in. It has not.

It appears to me that the rhetorical thrust of "Darwin's Genius" is to implicitly support the Darwinian camp in the current public brouhaha, without actually addressing the relevant scientific issues.

Larry Rinehart
Dover, Pa.

There is no doubt that Darwin was a meticulous observer, and that much valuable information was obtained on the Beagle cruise. However, I also have read "The Origin of Species," although many years ago. The thing that sticks with me was the fear I would die of boredom reading about pigeons. Darwin certainly showed that there is variability in this species. However, he did nothing to prove that a pigeon could morph into, say, a crow.

I encourage you to look up several letters that appeared in Nature between December 1972 and March 1973. These were written when there was a big controversy about teaching creation science in California. I am not a fan of creation science, nor do I believe in evolution as a proven fact.

James A. Gallagher
Grosse Ile, Mich.

I read with interest the editorial "Darwin's Genius." I have also been watching the two camps in the U.S. and around the world argue about the origin of life, either from evolution or from intelligent design, as well as the U.S. court ruling on what can be taught in science classes.

In my teaching and research, one of the most important things that I teach my students is to respect the original literature, and make sure our interpretations of the view from a scientific article reflect the original thoughts of the author. "The Origin of Species" is available on the Web, so everyone interested in what Darwin said in the book should read it (www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/).

It is my impression that the book deals mainly with the evolution of species, or the natural selection of species, with the assumption that a few species were already there to start with. In my opinion, the book should have been more appropriately titled "The Evolution of Species" or "The Natural Selection of Species" because the origin of species was never explored. Considering the state of knowledge in 1859, that molecular bases of genetics didn't exist and the spontaneity of chemical reactions was only understood by a handful of people, it is an exaggeration to say Darwin either understood or revealed the origin of life.

If we are honest, we have to admit that Darwin's observation implied preexisting ability for species to adapt. We have learned from the behavior of viruses, especially RNA viruses, how these adaptations occur. These observations beg for questions of how these living creatures are made in the first place, and by whom. To this day, to my knowledge, no one can reproduce the synthesis of a DNA or an RNA molecule in nature, without using preexisting living matter.

Why would the National Academy of Sciences state unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level? I have been privileged to teach physical chemistry for several years, and I have always presented both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design to my students. I have yet to hear a single protest from my students, many of whom later became bioscientists and medical doctors.

Ironically, my early education was obtained in a system where it was absolutely forbidden to discuss creationism. I haven't found that by presenting the argument from both sides I have in any way retarded the progress of my students' scientific careers. On the contrary, it made them appreciate that the theories are only there to facilitate their learning and understanding of the world around them. Darwin was right that things evolve, but he did not reveal the origin of life.

David Chen
Vancouver, British Columbia