Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wallace’s and Darwin’s theories not identical, says Wallace historian

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Flannery, author of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution and Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life , sent this note re the latter book:

John Landon has just posted a review of my Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life chiding me for not following the Roy Davies Darwin Conspiracy thesis that Charles “stole” Al’s theory of natural selection.I have explained my skepticism over this persistent plagiarism charge thoroughly in the book, not the least of which is that to make the accusation stick you really have to see both theories as one in the same, and I believe (as do most scholars) that closer examination reveals they are not. In fact, Wallace’s version appears on the face of it more coherent.

Nonetheless, this reductionist thinking whereby Darwin’s theory becomes a mere derivative of Wallace’s actually winds up doing violence to Wallace’s ideas. For example, Landon writes, “I am not sure why the Intelligent Design and Creationist critics of Darwin are reluctant to see this aspect of the paradigm’s history. We need to face the fact that Wallace most probably created the Darwinism we know, and that he is therefore responsible for its side effects and un-glorious history.”

Fact is the Darwin and Wallace theories had fundamental differences built into them from the very beginning as a thorough reading of the Ternate Letter will reveal. Jean Gayon has written on this most persuasively in Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection.

Most importantly, Wallace NEVER thought Darwin’s breeding examples were appropriate to natural selection, and this is an important aspect I think captured the attention of Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton as he developed eugenics. There are other difference too that needn’t be gone into here. So maybe the ID community is reluctant to “see this aspect” for two reasons: 1) it fails to comport with Wallace’s theory as he proposed and developed it; and 2) it impugns to Wallace a responsibility and guilt he doesn’t deserve. Wallace, for example, was a vocal opponent of eugenics and social Darwinism in general.

Well, if Wallace immediately saw that selective breeding (guided selection) is not equivalent to natural (unguided) selection, he knew more than 99% of the New York Times readers who swallowed ultra-Darwinist Richard Dawkins’s claim that it is (when Dawkins was attacking ID theorist Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution.) And Wallace was not the one who thought that black people were closer to gorillas than white people were.

Comments
The problem is that Ray M. is insisting upon some definitive statement from Darwin himself that the two theories were different. As Desomnd and Moore point out in their biography Darwin , it's not that the differences weren't there (they were available to anyone who wanted to compare Darwin's writing with Wallace's Ternate letter), it's just that "Darwin 'never saw a more striking coincidence,' partly because he read his own thought into it" (p. 469). Other references (besides those I've already mentioned like Jean Gayon and Janet Browne) regarding the differences in the two theories of natural selection may be found in Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, third ed., 2003, p. 175; Ross A. Slotten, The Heretic in Darwin's Court , 2004, pp. 159-160; Martin Fichman, An Elusive Victorian: The Evolution of Alfred Russel Wallace , 2004, pp. 104. So, in the end, you need to do some reading, reading of the actual documents themselves for those differences rather than some choice quote from Darwin who wasn't seeing what others were seeing in the first place.Flannery
February 26, 2011
February
02
Feb
26
26
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Hi Ray, As I argued, you're acting like Darwin couldn't have made a mistake. He's only human. "1. The Darwin quote says the Wallace paper was virtually a carbon copy of one of his own manuscripts." Everyone acknowledges that Darwin said this. They don't acknowledge that it's true. That's what I'm not understanding about the argument you're making. Thus far your claim appears to read as such (and if I'm misrepresenting you, please correct me): 'Darwin said there were no discernable differences - ergo, there were none.' No one I've seen has said that Darwin didn't 'believe' the two theories identical. But the question is: are they? Since the time that he said that it's become clearer to all that indeed there were differences, that the theories are not identical, and that eventually there was a split between them. Which is all that is being said. Maybe you don't think the differences are as major as implied? Maybe not. But if not, maybe you should produce sources that refute us, instead of simply saying over and over again 'your opinion is wrong' and pointing at the same passage with snark and sarcasm. If all you have is Darwins word then you don't really have much to go on. Sorry. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Sonfaro (#13): ....Are you excluding this as a possibility simply because Darwin said so? You’re acting like Darwin was infallible. I mean you’re not just arguing against IDists here. You’re arguing against scholars and general consensus – even among evolutionary theorists. You’re going to need more than just ‘your opinion is wrong’ and pointing to the same passage over and over again. As I argued in my previous messages: your comments above assert secondary sources to convey the objective and primary sources to convey the subjective. Your inability to see this fundamental error is now established. And I have not argued against any author or scholar. I have argued against certain persons misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting these sources; and I have argued all secondary sources to be in error IF their opinions contradict primary sources and IF their opinions do not account for facts 1 thru 5 (msg. #12). Again, you seem unable to understand any of this. R. MartinezRay M.
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Hi Ray, You write: "Since the split is so well known by anyone who has a 101 knowledge in the history of Darwinism, your comment and its implication exposes your shortcomings, not mine." Sorry you feel that way. Still, it would have been better to be clearer. "What is being protested (by myself) is the fact that the differences are being conveyed in such a manner that facts 1 thru 5 are being negated and not accounted for." ...I'm not sure anyone has done that. My point at least was that there are differences and that later Wallace rejected the theory. That's it. You agree that there are differences. Do you not agree that Wallace rejected pure materialistic mechanisms? You've already agreed that he believed in a 'spirit world' of some sort, so I'm not sure what you're railing against here. Enezio E. De Almeida Filho gave a summary of a book that also says there were differences. Flannery bolded a section of a book that states Darwin didn't see the differences until after he'd made the announcement that they were the same. Are you excluding this as a possibility simply because Darwin said so? You're acting like Darwin was infallible. I mean you're not just arguing against IDists here. You're arguing against scholars and general consensus - even among evolutionary theorists. You're going to need more than just 'your opinion is wrong' and pointing to the same passage over and over again. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Sonfaro (#9): “No one denied that Wallace broke from Darwin.” One could easily be led to believe you had in your response to me. Since the split is so well known by anyone who has a 101 knowledge in the history of Darwinism, your comment and its implication exposes your shortcomings, not mine. Maybe ‘for all intents and purposes’. But there WERE differences. Which is what the article, O’Leary, myself, and Flannery have all said. Which, in your first post, you denied outright. According to the primary source (Charles Darwin), there were none that mattered. The facts (again): 1. The Darwin quote says the Wallace paper was virtually a carbon copy of one of his own manuscripts. 2. Both men published a "double paper" (Browne 2002) in 1858. This means both men received co-priority. 3. ALL scholars recognize the fact above and give both men co-priority in their publications. 4. Years later, Wallace altered his view drastically. O'Leary, Flannery and yourself do not account for fact #1. Therefore your opposing opinions are rendered subjective and exist without support. Flannery has posted an excerpt by Browne talking about differences. Again, IF Browne does not account for fact #1 then her opinions are like yours. The primary source refutes secondary sources, not the other way around. That's how facts work and are established. The boldfaced portion of the Browne excerpt, in the Flannery post, is being offered out of context. Fact #2 (above list) says the differences are trivial. Now I offer another (101) fact (#5): both men admit that their insight (natural selection) came when they were reading the Malthusian population theory. Again, no one is denying differences. What is being protested (by myself) is the fact that the differences are being conveyed in such a manner that facts 1 thru 5 are being negated and not accounted for.Ray M.
February 24, 2011
February
02
Feb
24
24
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Kutschera, U. (2003) A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection. Theory Biosci. 122, 343 – 359. Abstract Summary The classical theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection had no mother, but did have two English fathers, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913). In 1858,the Linnean Society of London published two contributions of these naturalists and acknowledged both authors as the proponents of a novel hypothesis on the driving force of organismic evolution. In the present report the most important sections of the Darwin-Wallace papers are summarized. This close reading of both publications reveals six striking differences in emphasis: Darwin and Wallace did not propose identical ideas. The species definitions of both authors are described and the further development of the concept of natural selection in wild populations is reviewed. It is shown that the contributions of A.R. Wallace, who died 90 years ago, are more significant than usually acknowledged. I conclude that natural selection's lesser known co-discoverer should be regarded as one of the most important pioneers of evolutionary biology, whose original contributions are underestimated by most contemporary scientists. Key words: Darwin; evolution; natural selection; Wallace U. Kutschera, Institut für Biologie,Universität Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str.40, 34109 Kassel, Germany, Fax:(0561) 804-4009. PDF available here: http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Darwin-Wallace%20Comparison.pdfEnezio E. De Almeida Filho
February 24, 2011
February
02
Feb
24
24
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Ray M. writes, "I predict that you will ignore and continue to misrepresent." Add Janet Browne to the list of "misrepresenters." Browne, the acknowledged Dean of Darwin biographers, writes on the dissimilarities of the theories of natural selection, supporting what Sonfaro and I have been saying: "Yet Wallace's letter [the Ternate letter of 1858] was really no more of a coincidence than the invitation to travel on the Beagle had been. To start with, there were differences between the two theories that Darwin noticed only when he studied Wallace's work more thoroughly later on in the summer [emphasis added]. Wallace attended far more than he did to the replacement of a parent species by an offspring variety. Wallace wrote of the way that a group of advantaged individuals, say a variety of pigeon that could fly further in terms of food shortage, might in time supplant those birds that possessed less stamina. Group replaced group. His view of nature was thus less concerned with individuals than Darwin's. Second, he declared his belief that there could be no parallel between the natural process of 'selection' and what went on under artificial conditions of domestication--a point diametrically opposed to Darwin. Any parallel with breeders 'selecting' traits in their animals, Wallace said, was 'altogether false.' Issues emerging from these differences kept the two naturalists engaged in close debate for the rest of Darwin's life." See Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place , p. 18. Now you can disagree with Wallace's or Darwin's position respectively, but to say there was no difference in their theories of natural selection is simply unsupported by the facts. Wallace and Darwin would maintain a Victorian civility that our own age would do well to emulate, but that they would maintain an ongoing debate over issues surrounding the nature and extent of natural selection is undeniable. In fact, Wallace remarked in his autobiography, My Life , "It is really quite pathetic how much he [Darwin] felt difference of opinion from his friends" (p. 233).Flannery
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Hi Ray, I don't know about Flannery, but I don't plan on ignoring you. ;) You write: "No one denied that Wallace broke from Darwin." One could easily be led to believe you had in your response to me. "Who wrote the piece you allude to, Paris Hilton, Ronald McDonald or Blowzo848?" My statement was that I read an article that Wallace and Darwin split. Your response was to mock the article - which I still can't find, though I did find an online encyclopedia that 'anybody' can't post in. They write: "Unlike Darwin, Wallace insisted that the higher mental capacities of humans could not have arisen by natural selection but that some nonbiological agency must have been responsible." Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/alfred-russel-wallace#ixzz1Eqjqd3Cz The article fleshed this out with extra Christian emphasis. They may have fudged details, I don't know. It's been a while. Also, if I have unwittingly misrepresented you, sorry. But you have to see why we'd jump to that conclusion based on the attitude you came in with. "The point of fact was that the original conception of natural selection by both men was, for all intents and purposes, identical." Maybe 'for all intents and purposes'. But there WERE differences. Which is what the article, O'Leary, myself, and Flannery have all said. Which, in your first post, you denied outright. "Wallace’s and Darwin’s theories not identical, says Wallace historian Darwin disagrees." You also write: "I pasted the Darwin quote acknowledging “identicalness”; I pointed out that scholars always give both men co-priority; and I acknowledged that Wallace broke from Darwin." Eventually. But like I said, your first post said a lot about what your opinions were on the matter. "O’Leary ran these facts together, like yourself. I say nothing about said book. And based on your performance here I doubt that you have represented the book correctly." Who did Flannery misrepresent? He was confirming - what appears to be general consensus on 'the internetz' btw - that the theories were not completely identical. And he was refering to me while doing it, because I couldn't remember the article. Remember? "I predict that you will ignore and continue to misrepresent." Don't know about Flannery, but I won't. I'll try not to misrepresent you too, but you'll have to choose your words carefully. Else it will appear to me that you say one thing when you really mean another. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Flannery (#7): Ray M., you need to read Gayon’s book. It is the best scholarship on this subject. The two theories were indeed VERY different. And you need to pay attention and stop misrepresenting people. No one denied that Wallace broke from Darwin. The point of fact was that the original conception of natural selection by both men was, for all intents and purposes, identical. I pasted the Darwin quote acknowledging "identicalness"; I pointed out that scholars always give both men co-priority; and I acknowledged that Wallace broke from Darwin. O'Leary ran these facts together, like yourself. I say nothing about said book. And based on your performance here I doubt that you have represented the book correctly. I predict that you will ignore and continue to misrepresent. R. MartinezRay M.
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Yes, Sonfaro, you are correct in your concluding comment in #2. Wallace broke from Darwin in an essay published in the Quarterly Review in April of 1869 largely because he felt Darwin's own principle of utility inadequate to explain. (Intelligence is the only known source of intelligence and complexity.) Darwin was horrified. The margin of Darwin’s personal copy of the Review has a large NO!!! scratched in the margin. Nine months later Darwin was still reminding Wallace how aghast he was over the mere suggestion that the special attributes of the human mind could only be accounted for by an “Overruling Intelligence.” Writing from Down House on January 26, 1870, Darwin opined, “But I groan over Man—you write like a metamorphosed (in retrograde direction)—naturalist, and you the author of the best paper that ever appeared in the Anthropological Review! Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!—Your miserable friend, C. Darwin.” See James Marchant, Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 206. Ray M., you need to read Gayon's book. It is the best scholarship on this subject. The two theories were indeed VERY different.Flannery
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Hey Ray, I'm not sure what the snarky attitude is for dude. Anybody can contribute to Wiki, but they also list sources. If indeed the sources cited on the page are somehow erroneous, then you should probably correct it. If indeed there were no differences, it should be clarified, no? Also, I freely admitted that where ever I got that info from was potentially just religious propaganda. Though having read your post you seem to agree. "A major rift occured years later when Wallace came to believe in the existence of a spirit woorld." That's basically how the article I read (if I remember corrrectly) went. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Sonfaro (#2): I’m getting this from Wikipedaia… so it’s not the most credible of sources.... That's right; Wikipedia is not credible. Anyone with a computer can contribute. Who wrote the piece you allude to, Paris Hilton, Ronald McDonald or Blowzo848?Ray M.
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
O'Leary (#3): Ray M., Darwin was reacting in a general way to the fact that he risked being scooped. There were in fact differences, and they widened into a complete breach in later years, but he was in no state to realize that fact at the time. Again, this is my point: the primary source of Charles Darwin (the horse himself) refutes any and all secondary opinions that contradict (in this case, your opinions). In all history of science/Darwinism literature written by a reputable scholar, Wallace receives co-priority with Darwin. There were no real differences in the double-paper published in 1858. A major riff occurred years later when Wallace came to believe in the existence of a spirit world. But this has absolutely nothing to do with his and Darwin's original conception of natural selection. These original conceptions, contrary to your assertions, were, for all intents and purposes, identical. Ray MartinezRay M.
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Ray M., Darwin was reacting in a general way to the fact that he risked being scooped. There were in fact differences, and they widened into a complete breach in later years, but he was in no state to realize that fact at the time.O'Leary
February 23, 2011
February
02
Feb
23
23
2011
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
Hi Ray, I'm getting this from Wikipedaia... so it's not the most credible of sources, however they also agree that there were several differences from Darwins theory. Namely: "Darwin emphasised competition between individuals of the same species to survive and reproduce, whereas Wallace emphasised environmental pressures on varieties and species forcing them to become adapted to their local environment" And: "Wallace appeared to have envisioned natural selection as a kind of feedback mechanism keeping species and varieties adapted to their environment." He also had a "life-long disagreement... with Darwin over the importance of sexual selection." Also, I was under the impression that Wallace eventually came to reject Darwin's theory altogether a few years later, and that Darwin sent him a nasty note in response (not really 'nasty' I guess.) Could be wrong though. I'll try to find the article I read that from. It could be pseudo-christian propaganda, but I remember the source seemed credible at the time. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Wallace’s and Darwin’s theories not identical, says Wallace historian
Darwin disagrees. After reading Wallace's theory, this is what he thought: "I never saw a more striking coincidence. [I]f Wallace had my M.S. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as Heads of my Chapters....So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed" (Darwin to Lyell, [June 1858].Ray M.
February 22, 2011
February
02
Feb
22
22
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply