Was Darwin Wrong David Quammen

The argument of whether or not humans evolved from monkeys is constantly tossed around in our society with the emergence of more and more scientific discoveries. Evolution across such a broad spectrum is known as macroevolution, or changes that happen at or above the species level. Both popular and academic discourses debate the religious and moral issues associated with macroevolution and its propositions. The main person behind the idea of evolution was Charles Darwin who theorized that everything comes from a common ancestor. In the magazine article “Was Darwin Wrong?” featured in a 2004 issue of National Geographic, David Quammen discusses whether or not Darwin’s findings in evolution theory were correct. This article was targeted for

the popular audience who are reading for entertainment purposes. Another big name in the macroevolution scientific field is Stephen Jay Gould. In an academic article written by Bruce S. Lieberman and Elisabeth S. Vrba titled “Stephen Jay Gould on Species Selection: 30 Years of Insight”, the two discuss the contributions that Gould has made to macroevolutionary theory. This academic journal article is focused towards the academic reader who is reading to for purpose of learning. The authors are writing for an academic audience versus a popular audience which have different rhetorical waters that have to be navigated and that is apparent in the two articles. Although both articles are about macroevolution, the purpose, information, diction, and credibility throughout the two articles differ greatly.

The purpose of an article is why it is written and why that specific article has those certain characteristics. In academic journal articles, the target audience is often academic scholars who are reading these articles to gain an insight on new information. These journal articles are filled with research information from various areas of research in fields such as science and humanities. In the journal article featured in Paleobiology, Bruce S. Lieberman and Elisabeth S. Vrba discuss the findings and research of evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould. In the field of evolutionary theory, “Gould’s thoughts on species selection not only help to define the history of debate on the concept but also help set a course for the future” (Lieberman and Vrba 113). The article goes on to address the way that Gould’s research and opinion about macroevolution changes throughout his years of research. Throughout the whole article, the person is being critical of what it is they are reading. In the case of “Stephen Jay Gould on Species Selection: 30 Years of Insight” the purpose is to show research in macroevolution reveals new information all the time. This constantly changing field allows for people who are researching this to change their opinion quite consistently. Gould begins with the idea that species selection was very specific and not very broad. As his research continued over the years, his opinion changed to a view of evolutionary theory with a broad definition (Lieberman and Vrba 113).
On the different side of articles, there are magazine articles which have different purposes.

In the November 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine, David Quammen had an article titled “Was Darwin Wrong?”. This article addresses the same overall topic as Lieberman and Vrba’s article in that they both informing people about the evolutionary theory of macroevolution. However, the difference is that “Was Darwin Wrong?” is a magazine article. While journal articles are for the academic reader who is being critical and reading to look further into a specific research field, magazine articles are those who are reading for pleasure. Quammen’s article is aimed towards readers who are reading the magazine just to learn new things and doing this out of pleasure. He uses simple and easy to use language that the common person can understand. This is evidenced by the sentences, “The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories” (Quammen 1). This greatly differs from the journal article that uses sentences like, “The most problematic case relevant to the definition of species selection is when differences in levels of organismal variability cause species sorting involving differential extinction in one of two sister groups” (Lieberman and Vrba 116). In comparison to the article about Stephen Jay Gould, this article is

geared towards the person reading for pleasure as apposed to academic reasons. Overall, the main purpose of Quammen’s article is to address the idea of whether or not Darwin was wrong in his research about macroevolution. Many people argue against evolution because of their religious beliefs and Quammen analyzes the different arguments against and for evolution.
Not only does the purpose of the two articles differ from each other, so does the information provided in them. Information in an article is the data included and what makes it valuable. The article by Lieberman and Vrba uses many scientific information pieces from various research done by Gould and other evolutionary theorists evidenced by, “Lloyd and Gould (1993) and Gould (2002) also concluded that if the degree of variability within species promotes species sorting, this would act as a species aptation and qualify as a case of species selection…” (Lieberman and Vrba 116). It is consistent throughout the article, that scientific material from Gould and other scientists is used. This scientific information is what gives this academic article the characteristics of a scientific journal article. Thirty years of research from Gould is used in this article and can be seen in the table that shows what he found out from those studies. In the text, there are many instances where citations are from Gould’s years of previous research. Many places, Gould’s name is mentioned like, “Gould and Lloyd” or just “Gould”. (Lieberman and Vrba 119). When writing this article, the authors took information from previous years of study and imputed them into this article.
In comparison, Quammen’s articles information is scientific knowledge, but this is common knowledge things that anyone could find out.

Often times, he gives examples of scientific things such as “morphology” and then gives the definition, “is the science of anatomical shape and design” but anyone could find this out with a simple google search (Quammen 4). Much of the information provided by Quammen is thing he has found out for himself from other research areas and not his own. “All vertebrate animals have backbones” (5), is a statement he makes regarding the similarities and differences between animals. ***I need more here but I’m just lost with the information paragraphs. I keep wanting to make these paragraphs about diction and not the

information***
Diction is the specific words that an author chooses to use in a piece of writing. In the academic article, there are many instances where jargon, or words that only professionals in that field understand, is used. Words such as “phylogenic” and “turritellids” are used which only people in the evolutionary biology field would understand (Lieberman and Vrba 117). Another instance where diction is specific to the journal article is where Lieberman and Vrba describe Gould’s findings from his 1972 study by using the words “ephemeral entities” (114). Since many who read this are academia who specialize in this field, there is no problem understanding the complex jargon involved.
In the other article from National Geographic, the diction used is a much simpler and easier to understand language. The phrase “the rest of us generally agree” is used and implies the simple yet knowledgeable facts used in this article (Quammen 1). When reading the article “Was Darwin Wrong?” the simple diction is picked up immediately as Quammen also uses words such as “dreamy” and is personal by using the word “our” (1). The much more personal tone and simpler language help convey the fact that the target audience for this article is not specifically the academic scholars. This article is also focused to help the everyday person who may not be an academic scholar understand what macroevolution is about and how Quammen explained Darwin’s findings.
When writing an academic article, there has to be citations and other evidence to help back up your findings. This is what is known as credibility, or what makes the article believable to the reader. Lieberman and Vrba provide many in text citations referring to other articles that have similar information. “Lieberman 1995” is an example of one reference to another study done by another person (Lieberman and Vrba 116). Providing these references, allows scholars to look up where that information is coming from and double check the credibility of that information. Another example of a citation that is seen in many places throughout the article is the “Lloyd and Gould 1993” study (Lieberman and Vrba 118). These references to previous work help make this article solid and true.
While looking through “Was Darwin Wrong?”, there is no citations at all that help the credibility of the article. Throughout, though, many references to Darwin’s work are made, “Darwin floated a number of theoretical notions during his long working life, some of which were mistaken and illusory” (Quammen 6). While this does provide some credible evidence to back up his writing, it does not have a citation to where this information came from. Later in the article, Quammen refers to Philip D. Gingerich who was a paleontologist (9). He explains how Gingerich “grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and was not taught anything about evolution” (10). Quammen uses another person to help make his ideas credible but once again does not have the citation to back him.

***Conclusion***