I'm reviewing a collegue's manuscript, and he brings up the history of Charles Darwin and the formation of his works. It reminded me why I always had a subtle distaste for the man. Why do we claim Darwinism and "survival of the fittest" (Darwin Awards, for instance) when it was Wallace who stated those ideas first, and, in fact, sent them to Darwin himself? Now, I know Darwin didn't want to publish those ideas as his own (Lyell was a strong influence in that), but it still makes me a little irked to hear people associate Darwinism and "survival of the fittest." These are but late night musings of a bored man. Discuss at will.
Darwin and natural selection
- Thread starter CollectiveUnconscious
- Start date
I'm aware that there are many other case, but this one is a.) extremely prominent and b.) on my mind at the moment.
Equating Charles Darwin and "survival of the fittest" is pretty sloppy work. Darwin's work was in evolutionary biology(well, creating the field). "Survival of the fittest" is a concept and a catchphrase right out of Social Darwinism, a similarly named; but substantially different set of theories.
Wallace and Darwin were more or less independent co-discoverers; but Social Darwinism is something else entirely.
Wallace and Darwin were more or less independent co-discoverers; but Social Darwinism is something else entirely.
Darwin most definately did not create evolutionary biology. Lamarck, Lyell, Hutton, his grandfather, and especially Henslow (well, Henslow more influencing Darwin than proposing ideas) all proposed ideas of evolution far before Darwin. In fact, they were the basis for much of his work. "Survival of the fittest" is derived from a letter Wallace sent Darwin on competition and the fittest surviving, the idea of which started with Malthus.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
No, but Darwin was the one who was able to collect an immense body of evidence to support his theories and spend time to formulate a well-thought out theory to explain the natural world. Darwin really thrusted the idea into the mainstream spotlight and he was more or less responsible for the actual change in thought. Maybe I'm deluded
Wallace was more well travelled and had an equal (if not more) amount of data. If not for the intervention of Huxley as Darwin's "bulldog," and the pushing of Lyell, Darwin's ideas would not be put forth so strongly. In fact, he wanted to share credit with Wallace. If not for Wallace's publication concerning humans and animals, he never would have published The Descent of Man. He also held to the view of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Why do we not praise Weismann for positing that heredity depends on selection effecting the "germ plasm" and that modifications during an organisms life are not heritable?
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
Well, Supposedly they independently forumlated the theory, but I guess Darwin had thought of it earlier, which was corroborated by extensive and dated journal entires, but he was too timid to put it forth until Wallace also came up with it. Wallace was almost in awe of Darwin, and he agreed that Darwin came up with it first. Obviously both Wallace and Lyell had great contributions to the theory of sexual/natural selection, but I guess Darwin is just the standout
They came up with very similar ideas essentially concurrently, standing upon the shoulders of other naturalists at the time.
The difference between them was that darwin was sitting on a manuscript for years, because he was afraid it wouldnt be taken too well. When he got the letter from wallace, he figured he'd better publish it before wallace beat him to the punch.
He didnt steal wallace's ideas.
Funny, because Darwin wrote his manuscript in 1858-9, after he had received Wallace's letter. He formulated a theory (which did not include mention of competition nor "survival of the fittest") in 1839, outlined it by 1844, but did not write his manuscript until after he recieved Wallace's paper in June of 1858. He wanted to let Wallace take credit, then decided to jointly announce.
You're right, the manuscript wasn't written in full, it was the ideas and rough drafts that were being sat upon- but it's still absurd to say that wallace stated it first.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
yes, because he had not published his ideas and was reluctant to introduce his theory for fear of the uproar it would cause. His correspondence with Lyell corroborates this, and according to this biology book in front of me, "although Walllace had written up his ideas for publication first, he was a great admirer of Darwin and agreed that Darwin had developed the theory of natural selection so extensively that he should be known as its main architect"
I'm not arguing on point of natural selection, but on point of competition and survival. And in response to Wallace claiming that Darwin should be known as its main architect, Darwin said the same of Wallace, originally.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
ah, well in response to your OP, from what I read, it appears that Darwin's hypotheses preceded those of Wallace.
Darwin's original hypothesis of natural selection, yes. Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection including competition, no.
Mo0o
Lifer
- Jul 31, 2001
- 24,227
- 3
- 76
Are you sure? I read origin of species and it seems to include competition. I took his use of the term "environment" to contain both inanimate and animate objects. edit: nm you meant his unpublished theories he wrote to lyell about
But , neither of them coined the term "survival of the fittest"
That's my point, Origin of Species was published after Darwin recieved Wallace's letter containing the view of competition. This is where he learned of the notion of competition and the fittest would survive.
Edit: And "fittest would survive" is a direct quote from Wallace's paper "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type."
Mo0o
Lifer
- Jul 31, 2001
- 24,227
- 3
- 76
But i thought the term survival of the fittest came from Spencer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
And I thought they joint published?
They jointly announced their view. Wallace's paper was sent to Darwin with request for comments in June of 1858, I don't know if he ended up publishing it. The first published use of "survival of the fittest" was Spencer, but "the fittest would survive" is from Wallace's paper sent to Darwin 6 years prior.
Fair Warning::::: This post excels in words !
I've posted this on ATOT a long time ago, but it's on point so here again behold:
On Biological Phenomenalism and Charles Darwin
(I added the bolding in the sea of text)
QUOTE
(. . . The) success of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century ( is a source of bewilderment to the historian of ideas). The evolution of the forms of life, as we observed (earlier in the text), was treated thoroughly in the biological theory of the eighteenth century. The creational theory of the species was abandoned; the idea of a chronological succession of living forms from primitive to the most complicated was conceived. The increase of phenomenal knowledge concerning their unfolding was acknowledged, but the insight was also gained that the idea of an evolution of living forms did not bring us one step nearer to an understanding of the mystery of the substance that was evolving through the chain of forms.
The chain of evolutionary forms as a whole was just as much of an ultimate datum in ontology as previously had been the single species. No speculative prolongation of the chain into inorganic matter and no raising of the question of whether organic forms originated in inorganic matter could change the problem either. Such speculation simply meant pushing the mystery of the potentiality that unfolded morphologically in time a step further back without understanding it any better. . . . By the time of Kant the problem of evolution was reduced to its phenomenal proportions.
And now, in the nineteenth century, as if nothing had happened, a new phenomenal theory of evolution, operating with the conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, natural selections, etc., had a popular success and became a mass creed for the semieducated. A theory that, assuming that it was empirically tenable, could at best furnish an insight into the mechanics of evolution without touching its substance was accepted as a revelation concerning the nature of life and as compelling a reorientation of our views concerning the nature of man and his position in the cosmos.
. . . . A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life.
The principal causes of this transformation of phenomenal relations into a phenomenal reality are well known. Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view into a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in proper relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.
Moreover, the will to create a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century.
The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secularistic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.
The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man is the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature?irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved. . . . (T)he substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival . . . . ENDQUOTE
-Eric Voegelin, indeed no lightweight egghead!
So yes, scholar Voegelin and I both agree with CollectiveUnconscious's post above. Darwin's stuff was mostly already well and widely understood in the 1700s, 100 years before Darwin and Wallace were born.
But be careful !
AT ANY UNIVERSITY, IT'S ABSOLUTELY PC, NO MAKE THAT HOLY DOGMA THAT DARWIN WAS A SUPER-GREAT BREAKTHROUGH GENIUS. AND THAT DOGMA GOES TO THE BEDROCK OF ACADEMIA GENERATION AFTER GENERATION.
DARE WHISPER TO THE CONTRARY AND YOU'LL BE RIDICULED, DERIDED, AND A TARGET FOR OLD TOMATOS!!! YES YOU WILL !! BELIEVE IT!
I've posted this on ATOT a long time ago, but it's on point so here again behold:
On Biological Phenomenalism and Charles Darwin
(I added the bolding in the sea of text)
QUOTE
(. . . The) success of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century ( is a source of bewilderment to the historian of ideas). The evolution of the forms of life, as we observed (earlier in the text), was treated thoroughly in the biological theory of the eighteenth century. The creational theory of the species was abandoned; the idea of a chronological succession of living forms from primitive to the most complicated was conceived. The increase of phenomenal knowledge concerning their unfolding was acknowledged, but the insight was also gained that the idea of an evolution of living forms did not bring us one step nearer to an understanding of the mystery of the substance that was evolving through the chain of forms.
The chain of evolutionary forms as a whole was just as much of an ultimate datum in ontology as previously had been the single species. No speculative prolongation of the chain into inorganic matter and no raising of the question of whether organic forms originated in inorganic matter could change the problem either. Such speculation simply meant pushing the mystery of the potentiality that unfolded morphologically in time a step further back without understanding it any better. . . . By the time of Kant the problem of evolution was reduced to its phenomenal proportions.
And now, in the nineteenth century, as if nothing had happened, a new phenomenal theory of evolution, operating with the conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, natural selections, etc., had a popular success and became a mass creed for the semieducated. A theory that, assuming that it was empirically tenable, could at best furnish an insight into the mechanics of evolution without touching its substance was accepted as a revelation concerning the nature of life and as compelling a reorientation of our views concerning the nature of man and his position in the cosmos.
. . . . A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life.
The principal causes of this transformation of phenomenal relations into a phenomenal reality are well known. Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view into a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in proper relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.
Moreover, the will to create a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century.
The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secularistic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.
The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man is the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature?irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved. . . . (T)he substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival . . . . ENDQUOTE
-Eric Voegelin, indeed no lightweight egghead!
So yes, scholar Voegelin and I both agree with CollectiveUnconscious's post above. Darwin's stuff was mostly already well and widely understood in the 1700s, 100 years before Darwin and Wallace were born.
But be careful !
AT ANY UNIVERSITY, IT'S ABSOLUTELY PC, NO MAKE THAT HOLY DOGMA THAT DARWIN WAS A SUPER-GREAT BREAKTHROUGH GENIUS. AND THAT DOGMA GOES TO THE BEDROCK OF ACADEMIA GENERATION AFTER GENERATION.
DARE WHISPER TO THE CONTRARY AND YOU'LL BE RIDICULED, DERIDED, AND A TARGET FOR OLD TOMATOS!!! YES YOU WILL !! BELIEVE IT!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter