Today is the anniversary of Charles Darwin's 197th birthday. Besides the fact that Darwin was a gentleman naturalist, he was also a prodigious writer and was quite popular in his day due to his travel books. But it was not until he was 50 when his most influential book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, was published. This was a seminal work that formally describes the theory of evolution and was followed by several more books by Darwin that further developed his ideas of how evolution occurred.
Darwin was inspired to publish this particular book by Alfred Wallace [PDF]. Wallace was a contemporary and friend of Darwin's who also explored the islands of the South Pacific Ocean. It was after Wallace sent his memoirs to Darwin describing his ideas about evolution, followed by his paper that was formally presented to the Linnean Society of London alongside a paper by Darwin in 1858, that inspired Darwin to finally publish his Origins approximately one year.
Like Darwin, Wallace also published several influential books. Yet, despite their similar convictions regarding evolution, there were important philosophical differences between Darwin and Wallace, especially since Wallace had sharply defined ideas that today would qualify him as a "spiritualist", at least.
This leads me to wonder; if Wallace had written Origins instead of Darwin, what do you think the response would have been? Would it have been different? Do you think that Wallace's ideas would have withstood the test of time and science?
- Log in to post comments
Darwin presented the world with 20 years of research, while Wallace got the basic idea during a fevered bout of malaria. If Wallace had written the book it would have been a question of belief. Darwin asked for acknowledgement of his evidence. Darwin's incredible tenacity as a researcher was really what sold it. My $0.02 worth.
An interesting discussion... would young Wallace have been able to withstand the harsh criticism that Darwin received? (Especially without the same experience, as Carl points out.) Darwin certainly had the maturity to stand by his convictions... even if it took him awhile to publish them.
I can say this for Wallace--he was the superior writer. I find Darwin to be quite interesting, but a somewhat dry read. Wallace, on the other hand, had a creative spark that brought it to life. Of course, in the end, Darwin got the fame and countless other (arguably better) writers to describe his theory and life for him.
I read yesterday in the newspaper that 400 clergy gave sermons or lead discussions to make sure their parishioners know that science does not demand that they abandon faith, and that they can learn about evolution without denying their religious beliefs. It was originally called the Clergy Letter Project and is now called Evolution Sunday. It was started by Michael Zimmerman at UWisc Oshkosh. How great is this?
I read Voyage of the Beagle this summer. I knew Darwin had no sea legs and was miserable while on the ship, but I was disappointed to see that he was a crybaby on dry land, too. He pretty much hated everything except his visits to British expats. Anything new or different, or the least bit uncomfortable, he hated. Whinge, whinge, whinge. It was quite a let down. I know people like that today. They complain if everything isn't just like the U.S., whereas I can't believe how freaking lucky I am to be in that place.
As an aside to your discussion of Darwin and Wallace, I recommend for reading the biography of Thomas Henry Huxley by Adrian Desmond. Huxley, nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog", was like Wallace in that neither was a gentleman naturalist as was Darwin. Both had to support themselves by working at different jobs (Wallace as a collector and Huxley as a teacher) so they could continue with their scientific studies (sound familiar?). Huxley was instrumental in establishing the category of scientist as a profession (with support from the government, universities, or private industries) so that anyone with the talent and drive to work in science would not have to rely on independent means.
I'm being very selfish -- but it's my birthday too! I'm also an avian molecular syst person. Kudos for getting Darwin's b-day correct, because American publishers have been mistaking it for Feb 11 coincident with some "Everyman" editions. Huxley's biography is indeed excellent. However, I think it's still true that many of the more natural history inclined scientists need some independant means to really make it . . .
Pamela,
You are straight on about needing independent means for sustaining oneself in some areas of natural science. I know a fine ostracodologist who earns part of his living at his large state university by serving as "facilities manager" of the building where he offices. He explained to a gathering of amateur paleo people that his research is interspersed with handling "stuck drawers and light plumbing." At one time Rice University was using an independent contractor to teach its paleontology course, and I understand that some colleges and universities have pitched the subject entirely out of their geology departments what with the new era of walking seismic and other geek tricks.
Sad that Charles Darwin's legacy lives on as it does. His suppositions are applicable to a great extent to microevolution but no more than that. He raised some interesting questions based on the information he had at the time. But it is a religion now rather than a science IMO as we now know far more about the geographical column, fossils, biology (particularly microbiology) and so on. The hypothesis of evolution is the most popular fantasy game amongst scientists.
you are seriously deluded, "radar". if you had two neurons to rub together then you know there is plenty of factual evidence from a wide variety of disciplines to support the theory of evolution, whereas there is nothing to support religion. in fact, you religious zealots agree on very little regarding god and the practice of religion except that you like to kill those who disagree with your restricted world view -- and there is PLENTY of evidence throughout the centuries to support that observation!
GrrlScientist don't feed the troll. Although after posts like the one from radar this doesn't look as crazy:
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly060215a.htm