I feel that Alfred Russel Wallace was the most influential upon Darwin’s theory of evolution to strengthen his theory. With Wallace’s trip to the East Indies observing wildlife, he was able to, after great time, understand that adaptation is key for a species to survive.
Theories are proven by multiple examples from multiple locations and if they can not be redone in different areas, it either has the theory, or originally hypothesis, invalid, or thus needs more testing. Wallace was the individual who gave the theory backing with his research of the Dutch East Indies animals, he backed with evidence, Charles Darwin’s hypothesis that was made in the Western Hemisphere of species adapting to their environments.
His studies not only showed that species evolve from other pre-existing species in their development, but also show a niche for a specific part of the environment to thrive in, thus helping with the theories or ideas that Populations evolve, annd not just the individual, as well as organisms that are better adapted to access resources in a change of environment have more ability to produce exponentially(https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Russel-Wallace).
Yes, scientists like Cuvier had ideas that creatures became extinct, but not by the way of natural selection(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html). Or Lyell’s Uniformitarianism with the idea of a slow change over time, but those applied to non-related organisms that can arguably be related genetically, or the earth and its development (https://www.allaboutscience.org/sir-charles-lyell-faq.htm
https://www.allaboutscience.org/sir-charles-lyell-faq.htm). These ideas helped with the Darwinistic theories of evolution in its course, but not the overall backing of ideas and proof that were needed to help.
Darwin could have developed ideas, and did, on his own because of the process of deduction and observable development of the surroundings(https://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/). However, with the ideas of Wallace and the evidence to prove it, there was more of a solidified argument for the proof of the theory of evolution with it being more specified to work over a more broad spectrum of understanding for studies.
Darwin’s Origin of Species led to an interesting conflict within himself. He was originally Anglican Christian and with more research and study slowly left the religion he claimed to be a part of. The attitude of the Catholic Church, to an extent, was that to question the interpretation of the church in a (potential) literal seven day creative period could be seen as heretical. Many other religious persons took similar beliefs, which led Darwin into deciding of some form of Agnosticism, to the extent we are uncertain of. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/religion/what-did-darwin-believe
Hi!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I personally thought that Lyell made the greatest impact I can see your point about how Wallace was also very influential. Your point about Wallace backing up the theory with his extensive research in the Dutch East Indies is very well made. It is true that theories are proven by multiple locations and Wallace's studies in the East strengthened Darwin's theory because it showed that his theory of natural selection and adaption could occur in other places. So I can see how Wallace would be the most influential, great post!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI also believe that Darwin could have developed his theory of natural selection without influence from others but because of the scientific expedition that he made to the Galapagos Islands where he discovered the beak variations in finches that existed from island to island. I think this discovery convinced him that natural selection occurs. I think that the attitude if the Church affected Darwin's decision not to publish his theory because the Church believed that anyone who believed in natural selection was an atheist. The Church also viewed the idea of natural selection has a serious threat to their establishment.
Hi Jeremy, Lyell was a bigger impact on Charles Darwin's ideas, but I also agree with your opinion that Wallace gave him a lot of useful information by observing speciation first hand. Also, I agree with what you said about Charles being apprehensive to share his findings due to his religious background in Christianity, making it all the more difficult to share such ideas.
ReplyDeleteHello! I liked your point regarding theories being strengthened or weakened because of multiple examples in multiple locations. Even though Wallace and Darwin were in different hemispheres, they had similar results which strengthened their theories. I can now also see that Wallace was a big influence on Darwin by not only confirming what he thought was true with his research, but he also pushed Darwin to finally publish his theory of natural selection so that he would be credited for his work.
ReplyDeleteInitial point: Scientists don't "prove" theories. Otherwise, you are correct in how theories move from being hypotheses to theories.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked a little more information on Wallace's work. You give it a brief mention as supporting evidence for Darwin's work, but Wallace did far more than this. Wallace essentially came up with the same mechanism for evolution as Darwin did. He developed this during his voyage in the Spice Islands and began a communication with Darwin, sending him specimens and bouncing ideas off of him. Eventually, it became clear to Darwin that Wallace and he were both developing the same mechanism, which finally drove Darwin to publish his work after more than a 20 year delay. He and Wallace jointly published a paper laying out their theory and then Darwin published his book "Origin of Species" which is probably why we remember Darwin when think of natural selection and not Wallace.
I agree with your choice of bullet points, but since both Wallace and Darwin developed the same mechanism, isn't it fair to say that ALL of the bullet points also apply to Wallace?
Your source (allaboutscience) is actually a non-scientific site that advocates an idea called "intelligent design" which is just another word for "creationism". If you find the primary site that encompasses this sub-site, it is a site called "allaboutgod.com". Being a religious site does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, but in this case, the data is inaccurate and biased. In my old Blackboard course, I had a separate page with a guide on how to choose good sources and avoid bad ones. Canvas won't allow for that much flexibility, unfortunately. Try to stick with scientific sites for sources such as: Educational sites such as universities, scientific literature, scientific sites such as Discovery or National Geographic. Your Berkeley source is a good one.
I agree that Darwin DID develop his theory on his own. He had been working on his idea for two decades when he became award of Wallace's theory, so Wallace's impact isn't with regard to shaping Darwin's work (though you are correct that his own data provided helpful support). Where Wallace's influence is important is as the driving factor that finally convinced Darwin to publish after delaying for more than 20 years. So while Darwin certainly developed his theory without Wallace, he may never have *published* without him.
The claim that Darwin became agnostic is contentious. Darwin was a very religious man who had a complicated relationship with his faith, particularly after the death of his daughter, Anna, but there really isn't evidence that he became an agnostic or an atheist. Regardless, that doesn't address the final question. How did the church's attitude influence Darwin's decision to publish? Darwin delayed publishing for more than 20 years. The question is, why? And how did the influence of the church play a role in this delay? What were Darwin's concerns? And was he only worried about himself or was he also worried about how his family might be impacted by publishing?
Hi,
ReplyDeleteMost of my research was on Alfred Russel Wallace but your point of view about Sir Charles Lyell also enlighten me. The most interesting is that I quite lose to the clue about Darwin's religious and one of your source (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/religion/what-did-darwin-believe) really catch me on this. This is the great source!