Wallace and evolution

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is an article about Alfred Wallace who was a  contemporary of Charles Darwin and probably contributed almost as much but is often forgotten.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161104-the-other-person-that-discovered-evolution-besides-darwin

**********

Born in 1823 in Wales, Wallace was a man of modest means, but he had a passion for nature and he chose to follow it. He started out collecting insects as a hobby, but eventually his yearning for adventure led him to explore the world.

In 1854, aged 31, Wallace set off on another adventure, this time to the Malay Archipelago. This part of the world was so far from Wallace's home, many Europeans at the time did not even know it existed.

He made his base in Singapore, and from there he spent eight years travelling to different groups of islands in the region.

Being a free-thinking, spirited person, he was not afraid of telling people what he had found and adopting controversial ideas, so he happily promoted Lyell's ideas. But he also took the argument a step further and suggested that life also changed over time. A species like an orangutan, Wallace argued, is not fixed, but can gradually transform from generation to generation.

In 1858, Wallace was on the island of Ternate in Indonesia. There he wrote what became known as the "Ternate essay": a piece of writing that was to change our understanding of life forever.

Wallace sent his ideas to the English naturalist Charles Darwin, with whom he often exchanged letters. As it happened, Darwin had been working for 20 years on his own theory of natural selection, partly inspired by his 1835 visit to the Galápagos Islands.

Darwin had not published his ideas, because he was afraid of a backlash. He quickly realised that Wallace's discoveries matched up with his own, and resolved to take the plunge. He decided to present both their papers at the same time...

In the immediate aftermath, they both became famous. But after Darwin published his book On the origin of species by means of natural selection in 1859, he became known as the man who discovered evolution. Most people forgot about Wallace.

Wallace had collected over 125,000 species, 5,000 of them new to science. They still sit in museums all over the world today.

But today this jungle paradise is often disturbed by an eerie sound: chainsaws reverberating through the trees. Even though the region is a biodiversity hotspot, habitat destruction is putting many species at risk.

Wallace foresaw the problem over 100 years ago.

Wallace warned his readers that the world was not created for the benefit of humanity. "Trees and fruits, no less the varied productions of the animal kingdom, do not appear to be organised with exclusive reference to the use and convenience of man," he wrote in The Malay Archipelago.

Given how much else Wallace was right about, perhaps we should all take this message to heart.

**********

For information.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

There have been a number of attempts at bringing Wallace back to the centre in recent years. Bill Bailey did an excellent documentary stuff  him and link below covers Bailey and St David Attenborough talking about him.

It seems to me that the advantage Darwin had was the 20 years of thought which enabled him to write On the Origin of Species within the year.

As to the question of conservationism, Wallace is right on that not because of his involvement in the development of the idea of evolution but because of his arguments supporting it.

http://tinyurl.com/zfcwvd2

[Walter]

NS

I think I want your babies.

to eat.

[Nearly Sane]

NS

I think I want your babies.

to eat.

That's a starvation diet then

[Maeght]

NS

I think I want your babies.

to eat.

Odd.

Anyway .....

It seems strange that his fame faded over the years. It is suggested that his own modesty contributed to this as did his support for other unconventional ideas such as spiritualism. It is certainly right that that he is beginning to be more recognised for his work once more.

[Walter]

do you think religion might have been a factor that may have influenced his reluctance to publish?

[Maeght]

do you think religion might have been a factor that may have influenced his reluctance to publish?

Wallace? No - not particularly.

[Nearly Sane]

do you think religion might have been a factor that may have influenced his reluctance to publish?

To be honest, I think, while we theorise about it, it is impossible to say. There is the idea that he didn't want to offend his wife, that the death of his child held him back, all of these in part linked to religion though likely not his.  We have to be careful though in assuming that there was an overwhelming opposition from church authorities to this.

My guess is that he saw the impact that it would have, and being cautious in nature wanted an airtight case but but but it is only a guess. The lack of knowledge of DNA I think is crucial if you are unsure how it could happen. Still Origin is an extraordinary book.

[Walter]

Wallace? No - not particularly.

to be honest I don't know enough about him. Biology was never my fave subject.

[Enki]

I've just finished reading 'The Invention of Nature' by Andrea Wolf which deals with the life of Alexander von Humboldt. I found it to be most impressively detailed and seemingly well researched.

 He was a writer, explorer, geographer and naturalist who lived from 1769 to 1859. During his lifetime he was extremely well known, mixing with scientists, politicians and eminent literary/artistic figures figures. Many places, geographical features, species were named after him. Now, unfortunately, he is largely forgotten. He was one of the first natural scientists who realised the fragility of the earth's biological system, and the potential damage that man could inflict upon it. He tried to show the interrelationship of the world's natural processes and climate in his huge work 'Kosmos', the first two volumes of which were published circa 1845, and which came about as a result of his explorations in South America and Russia especially.

It is also interesting that he was a strong influence on the young Darwin, who made many references to him in 'the Voyage of the Beagle'. In fact it is clear that one of the influences that encouraged Darwin to go on a scientific voyage at all was his reading of the Personal Narrative of Humboldt's travels in the Americas. 

[Walter]

reading books is good my friend but studying at university is a different matter.

[Nearly Sane]

I've just finished reading 'The Invention of Nature' by Andrea Wolf which deals with the life of Alexander von Humboldt. I found it to be most impressively detailed and seemingly well researched.

 He was a writer, explorer, geographer and naturalist who lived from 1769 to 1859. During his lifetime he was extremely well known, mixing with scientists, politicians and eminent literary/artistic figures figures. Many places, geographical features, species were named after him. Now, unfortunately, he is largely forgotten. He was one of the first natural scientists who realised the fragility of the earth's biological system, and the potential damage that man could inflict upon it. He tried to show the interrelationship of the world's natural processes and climate in his huge work 'Kosmos', the first two volumes of which were published circa 1845, and which came about as a result of his explorations in South America and Russia especially.

It is also interesting that he was a strong influence on the young Darwin, who made many references to him in 'the Voyage of the Beagle'. In fact it is clear that one of the influences that encouraged Darwin to go on a scientific voyage at all was his reading of the Personal Narrative of Humboldt's travels in the Americas.

and in many ways Lamarck does not deserve the opprobrium used against him. Darwin did not exist in a vacuum, but he did just happen to write a book that moved thought on

[Enki]

and in many ways Lamarck does not deserve the opprobrium used against him. Darwin did not exist in a vacuum, but he did just happen to write a book that moved thought on

He does not indeed(Lamarck, that is). Stephen Jay Gould in his book 'The Structure of evolutionary Theory' suggests clearly that Lamarck had a great deal to offer. When Lamarck discussed environment and adaptation,  Gould says this:
"The first set of Lamarckian ideas contain nothing that should have offended Darwin, while several points embody the deeper functionalist and adaptationalist spirit of the Darwinian view of life." (p 179)

It was particularly in their explanations of the mechanism for natural selection and the importance of soft inheritance that their views differed. But it was, perhaps, Cuvier, who did most damage to Lamarck's findings, with his often unjustified and vicious criticism of him.

I agree, of course, that Darwin didn't exist in a vacuum, and his meticulous approach and insight produced a huge step forward in our understanding of the natural world.

[Sriram]

1. Wallace was financially not very well off and probably because of that he couldn't afford to collect samples etc. and also write as freely as Darwin did.

2. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, anyone sympathetic to spiritual ideas or with any teleological leanings was viewed with some skepticism and disdain. Secular spirituality was yet to become popular.

3. One of the major reasons for Lamarc to be discredited was the work of August Weismann and his Weismann Barrier that prevented changes in somatic cells from influencing germline cells. Some exceptions to this have now been found....but more importantly, epigenetic mechanisms were not known at that time. Phenotype can be affected without changes to the genotype by influencing gene expression.   Lamarc may well be proved correct in the future. 

[Enki]

Hi Sriram,

1. Wallace was financially not very well off and probably because of that he couldn't afford to collect samples etc. and also write as freely as Darwin did.

It is quite true that he struggled financially(sometimes because of his own bad judgements) and it is to Darwin's credit that he actively helped him secure an annual government pension for his lifetime contributions to science.

Unfortunately, he also had bad luck. In 1852 he lost all his specimens collected in South America(an exploration incidentally which was also partly inspired by von Humboldt's work) when the cargo of the brig, Helen, caught fire and the crew had to abandon ship. Later though he did manage to collect a huge number of specimens in the Malay Archipelago (126000+, several thousand of which were new to science).

He wrote the 'The Malay Archipelago' published in 1869, which, according to Wiki, became 'one of the most popular books of scientific exploration of the 19th century'. He was also a prolific writer, publishing 22 full length books and 508 scientific papers.

2. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, anyone sympathetic to spiritual ideas or with any teleological leanings was viewed with some skepticism and disdain. Secular spirituality was yet to become popular.

Although I am not clear what exactly you may mean by 'spirituality' here(surprise, surprise!)
I would suggest that by the end of the nineteenth century, attitudes to both science and religion had undergone powerful changes.

In the early 19th C. the prevailing  mood was that religious faith and the sciences were generally seen to be in accordance with each other, as can be attested by the influence of Paley's 'Natural Theology' and the Bridgewater Treatises, for instance. However, as the century wore on, it became increasingly clear that science was challenging many religious concepts. Darwin, Lamarck and Russell were all part of that mix. Science was becoming increasingly professional in its approach, and focussing more singularly on the natural world. This didn't mean, of course, that eminent scientists, could not have their own beliefs.(e.g. James Clerk Maxwell was a Christian).

You would have to be much more specific on what 'secular spirituality' means for me to be able to comment on this.

3. One of the major reasons for Lamarc to be discredited was the work of August Weismann and his Weismann Barrier that prevented changes in somatic cells from influencing germline cells. Some exceptions to this have now been found....but more importantly, epigenetic mechanisms were not known at that time. Phenotype can be affected without changes to the genotype by influencing gene expression.   Lamarc may well be proved correct in the future.

Epigenetics has been discussed in detail before on this Forum, so I have little to add. The idea that hereditary information moves in only one direction, as proposed by Weismann, was a strong challenge of Lamarck's hereditary views of course, and, whatever one thinks about his theory of germinal selection, he was one of the first neo-Darwinists to focus on the genes(determinants) and genetic mutation. On the subject of Lamarck, it would depend on which part of his ideas you are considering, I think, as to whether he is proved right.

[Samuel]

I'm just going to brag now...

I've been lucky enough to hold specimens collected by both Darwin and Wallace. Actual specimens they collected held in my actual hands. The Darwin one was during the voyage of the Beagle, the Wallace ones I'm not sure.

That it. I just wanted you all to know how cool I am

[Enki]

I'm just going to brag now...

I've been lucky enough to hold specimens collected by both Darwin and Wallace. Actual specimens they collected held in my actual hands. The Darwin one was during the voyage of the Beagle, the Wallace ones I'm not sure.

That it. I just wanted you all to know how cool I am

Superb, Samuel. You've certainly got the bragging rights on this. One place my wife and I intend to visit before we die is Down House, where Darwin did much of his work.

Mind you, one of the highlights of both my and my wife's lives was visiting the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. including the small museum overlooking it, which had many examples of stone tools used by homo habilis, and a complete replica of the laetoli footprints.

[Samuel]

Oh wow!!! that must have been truly amazing.

[Bubbles]

Wallace? No - not particularly.

I think he did try to publish on spiritualism so got dismissed as a crank.

Interestingly his beliefs in the supernatural came about in later life

http://wallacefund.info/faqs-myths-misconceptions

I think the scientific community later dismissed him as a crank.


From my link

Many scientists have sought to denigrate Wallace by mocking his belief in Spiritualism, which is ironic considering that that paragon of scientific virtue, Charles Darwin, believed in a God. Darwin rejected Christianity in the latter part of his life but apparently believed in the existence of a God, probably until the end of his days, according to Darwin experts Janet Browne, James Moore & John van Wyhe. It is an interesting fact that Darwin was a deist, whilst Wallace was a materialist/agnostic, at the time they developed their 'heretical' ideas of natural selection.

For more information about Darwin's religious views see:-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9316654 (interview with Browne)
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/ (interview with Moore)
http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/06/28/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist/ (article by van Wyhe)
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/belief-section (article by the Darwin Correspondence Project)

[Enki]

Hi Rose,

Thanks for the info.

I think he did try to publish on spiritualism so got dismissed as a crank.

Yes, unfortunately. Wallace was also a supporter of mesmerism and phrenology and set himself against the recently introduced smallpox vaccination, suggesting that better hygene was responsible for the improvements attributed to the vaccine. When Darwin tried to drum up support for a civil pension for Wallace, Joseph Hooker was reluctant to go along with it, partly because of Wallace's support for spiritualism, although Hooker eventually agreed to support the pension request.

Interestingly his beliefs in the supernatural came about in later life

Yes,  but as far as  his spiritualist leanings go, the spiritualist movement only really took off after 1848-50, with the advent of the Fox sisters. The relationship of the early spiritualists with the Quaker community also meant that the early spiritualists advocated the abolition of slavery, support for the temperance movement and women's rights. Wallace was increasingly drawn to social issues, and alongside his early fascination with mesmerism and phrenology, this may well have led him to attend seances, to experiment and become a supporter of spiritualism in the belief that what he witnessed was connected to a natural reality.

Incidentally Darwin's religious views changed markedly throughout his life and most of his later reflections on religion were agnostic in nature.