|
Emotional
Reactions to Darwin
by Mano Singham
There is no doubt that Darwin's ideas about
evolution by natural selection carry a huge emotional impact. For
many people the idea that "we are descended from apes" is
too awful to contemplate and is sufficient reason alone to dismiss
any claim that natural selection holds the key to understanding
how we came about. (Of course, we are not descended from apes.
The more accurate statement is that apes and humans share common
ancestors, making them our cousins, but even this refinement does
not take away the stigma that supposedly comes with being biologically
related to animals such people consider inferior.)
This unease about being biologically
linked to other species is widespread and transcends any particular
religious tradition. In
Sri Lankan rural areas, one would frequently see monkeys on trees
by the side of the road. As children when we were passing them,
almost invariably someone would point them out and say things
like "Your
relatives have come to see you." Similarly, if one said that
one was going to visit the zoo, this would also result in the question
as to whether one was going to visit one's relatives. This kind
of humor among children was commonplace, and reflected a reflexive
instinct that humans were superior to all other animal forms, and
reinforced the belief that some sort of special creative process
must have been at work to produce us.
But if the thought of being related
to apes gives some people the creeps, imagine how much worse it
will for them to realize
that
as we go farther back in evolutionary time, we are cousins
to all sorts of life forms that might make people even more squeamish.
Reading Richard Dawkin's book The
Ancestor's Tale (2004) I found that I myself was not immune from
that kind of emotional
reaction,
even though I have no problems intellectually with accepting
natural selection and all its consequences.
For example, I had little difficulty
emotionally accepting that the apes and monkeys are my cousins,
partly because,
I suppose,
that idea has been around for a long time and I have simply
got used to it. Also a common ancestor to the humans and
apes would
not look very different from us now and is easier to envisage.
But as the evolutionary clock went back in time, and I
started imagining what my deep ancestors looked like, I had a variety
of reactions.
The idea that I had common ancestors
with dogs and cats and horses (those evolutionary branches separated
from
the human
branch
at about 85 million years ago (Mya)) did not cause me
any problems. I kind of liked the idea that my dog Baxter and
I can trace
our separate lineages back to a time when we both had
a common ancestor.
It is clear that our common ancestor would not look much
like present-day
humans or dogs, but I cannot imagine what it might have
looked like apart from having some of the common characteristics
shared by dogs and humans, like being four-limbed, warm-blooded,
invertebrates.
More annoying was the realization
that the branch that led to the rodents like rats, squirrels and
rabbits only
separated
from
the
human branch at 75 Mya, meaning that those animals
that we consider vermin and would not think of having in our
houses,
actually
have a closer relationship to humans (since our common
ancestors lived
more recently) than those whom we love and welcome
into our homes as pets, like dogs and cats.
Somehow, the emotional reaction
of finding oneself having common ancestors with dignified and majestic
animals
like whales (85
Mya) and elephants (105 Mya) is positive while being
linked to things
like snakes (at 305 Mya) felt kind of icky.
A hard bridge to cross (again I
mean emotionally) was accepting that frogs and toads and salamanders
shared
a common ancestor
with me at about 340 Mya, perhaps because I share
the common perception
that these animals are slimy.
Going back further, I had little
negative emotional reaction to realizing that I had a common ancestor
with sharks
at 460 Mya but
the thought that flatworms and I were related
at
630 Mya was harder to take. I suppose that this
is because
sharks
are usually
perceived
as admirable and graceful (if dangerous) animals
while I have never liked worms, seeing them as
somehow disgusting.
Perhaps
I will
now have warmer feeling towards them, seeing
that we are relatives.
Once I got over the emotional hurdle
of being able to accept the fact that worms and I have
common
ancestors, the rest
was pretty
easy to accept, perhaps because the earlier
life forms that our common ancestors took had to be
so different
that I could
not
really relate to them (let alone imagine them)
in any way. Thus it was
a breeze to accept that I am related (however
distantly) with sponges, bread moulds, amoeba,
and bacteria.
It was amusing to keep monitoring
my emotional reactions as I read about the backward evolutionary
journey.
But like most
difficult
journeys, taking that first step is the hardest.
And now I have a better understanding why
many
religious people
simply cannot
take that first step and acknowledge that
chimpanzees are our
cousins,
in fact are the closest cousins we have in
the animal kingdom, with our common ancestor
living
just 6 million
years ago.
Because once you accept that, then you have
embarked on journey whose
inevitable end is that you end up as one
with a bacterium. It is hard to think
of you being created in god's image after
that.
Thus I am somewhat sympathetic to
those people who find Darwin's ideas hard to stomach and
desperately seek to
find a more
palatable alternative. However, I think
their task will prove hopeless,
since the basic tenets of evolution are
here to stay
and so we may as
well get used to it. Top of page
|