BS: Darwin wasn't the only one

Subject: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 09:36 PM

100 years after death, evolution's other discoverer gains recognition

Jesse Lewis LiveScience
07 November 2013

"The beauty and brilliancy of this insect are indescribable, and none but a naturalist can understand the intense excitement I experienced when I at length captured it. On taking it out of my net and opening the glorious wings, my heart began to beat violently, the blood rushed to my head, and I felt much more like fainting than I have done when in apprehension of immediate death. I had a headache the rest of the day, so great was the excitement produced by what will appear to most people a very inadequate cause." (The Malay Archipelago, 1869)

Imagine if you could get that excited about anything, let alone insect collecting, as Alfred Russel Wallace, who died 100 years ago on Thursday, did in this journal entry made during the eminent, if overlooked, field biologist's journey across the Malay Archipelago between 1854 and 1862.

Wallace, long overshadowed by Charles Darwin, crossed the island chain (which includes Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia) collecting specimens, observing nature and exploring the most biodiverse chain of islands on Earth. Wallace's cause was that of a naturalist in pursuit of the question of how species come to be, essentially the question of evolution. His cause was anything but "inadequate," though, and today his formulation of the theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the most far-reaching theory in all of biology.

100 Years

During his lifetime Wallace founded the study of biogeography and made contributions to subjects as varied as anthropology, epidemiology and social reform issues. He sent back thousands of species new to science during his collecting days and published dozens of books, essays and articles. His book "The Malay Archipelago" has never been out of print and continues to be one of the most celebrated travel writings of its kind.

Wallace is best known for coming up with the theory of evolution by natural selection independently of Charles Darwin. In 1858 he sent an essay on the subject to Darwin from a remote island in Indonesia. When Darwin read the letter he was horrified, as he had been working on the same theory for more than a decade.

Darwin turned to influential friends Sir Charles Lyell (the foremost geologist of the time) and Joseph Hooker (an eminent botanist), who quickly made an arrangement only 14 days later for Darwin's unpublished writings and Wallace's letter to be presented together at the meeting of the Linnaean Society of London.

Wallace and Darwin's writings on the subject of evolution were later published by the society in 1858. Less than a year later Darwin's influential "On the Origin of Species" was published, a book often mistaken as the first place the theory of evolution was proposed. But today, while Darwin is a household name synonymous with the theory, Wallace struggles to gain anywhere near the recognition of his friend.

Emerging from Darwin's shadow

But awareness of Wallace is growing. Throughout the world, and especially in his native Britain, a plethora of events are taking place to commemorate and draw attention to the remarkable life and influence of this fascinating but little known hero of science.
Recently, an effort to collect and digitize Wallace's prolific letters and illustrations has been completed. Wallace Letters Online (WLO) gathers together more than 28,000 searchable documents and 22,000 images, including the first announcement of the theory of evolution delivered to the Linnaean Society 154 years ago.

Transcribing and making this material freely available has been called a major advance in understanding Wallace's life's work, and helps build a fresh and more accurate picture of him outside of Darwin's shadow.

Worldwide events under the banner "Wallace100" are aimed at commemorating the life and work of Wallace. Centenary events and activities worldwide range from special presentations by scientists and natural history celebrities, such as Sir David Attenborough, to interactive discovery games for children. On Thursday, a series of exciting presentations, science-art exhibitions and even dance performances worldwide are to celebrate Wallace's remarkable life.

Original article on LiveScience.
© 2013 LiveScience

[Anybody want to write a song about a bug for the celebration?]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 09:43 PM

Some Interesting(?) links from the article linked above:

Wallace Letters Online
Alfred Russel Wallace
Image Gallery: Evolution's Most Extreme Mammals
Images: One-of-a-Kind Places on Earth
Darwin Gallery: Darwin on Display
Charles Darwin
theory of evolution
Gallery of Victorian Microscope Slides

John

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:00 PM

Stephen Jay Gould was totally aware of Wallace and his place in the history of evolutionary thought.

here's a Google search on"Stephen Jay Gould" + Wallace

I hope the Firefox part of the link works... in any case, searching on Stephen Jay Gould + Wallace gets much reading. (I have been reading & re-reading "The Panda's Thumb" and other Gould works for the last year or two.)

I recently browsed thru Gould's 'magnum opus' "The History of Evolutionary Thought" it is 1400 or so pages, and opened at random a dozen times it had something of note on any page! I wish I was young enough to work my way thru it.

---

Here is the link without the Firefox part: https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+jay+gould+alfred+russel+wallace (I added "alfred russel wallace" in.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: GUEST,laptopgnu
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:20 PM

Well I am gobsmacked!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:37 PM

?Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:55 PM

Quit messin' with the sailors' gals gnu.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 02:28 AM

I am not in anyway attempting to diminish the work or the understanding generated by Wallace but didn't he back track a bit on the mechanism of evolution - moving in later years to a position closer to Lemark?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 03:12 AM

He is remembered here in Hertford, his home town.
http://wallacefund.info/fixed-monuments


Can his name be put in the thread title for future ref. please?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 09:24 AM

for those who have studied the subject, there has always been the recognition of Wallace's contributions. It's usually the laymen that seem to think that scientific discovery is some form of miraculous revelation that strikes only once. Intentional dig at creationists.

Both men did extensive research in what was then known as natural history; it was the fact that they had such broad backgrounds that enabled them to see the interactions of the larger puzzle.

Considering how Darwin became both the figurehead of evolution/natural selection and the target of creationists, Wallace may have breathed a sigh of relief to have avoided such a position. His contribution was known to those who mattered in the field and he could continue his work without attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 09:47 AM

I don't think there are any evolutionary biologists who fail to fully recognise Wallace's contribution and Darwin's indebtedness to him. We all know the story. But we have Darwin's superb book, elegantly composed, honest and self-effacing, one of the triumphs of science. To praise it is in no way to disparage Wallace.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 02:01 PM

Here's a lovely contribution to the Wallace anniversary celebrations by the New York Times: a paper-puppet animation of Wallace's story.

The Animated Life of A.R. Wallace

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 02:36 PM

"Wallace's contribution and Darwin's indebtedness to him"

I feel it important to point out an important fact... precedence -the significance and importance of being the first to publish in scientific journals.

Darwin had been working on what would become The Origin of Species and Descent of Man for decades. He also knew that those who pride themselves as being special and above the rest of the world would not swallow it well, if at all. After all, these same folks used the bible to justify slavery and white supremacy.

Wallace had similar conclusions as Darwin and actually sent a draft paper to Darwin for his review and comments. Darwin had the bitter realization that after all his work, he was about to be scooped. To his credit, Wallace respected Darwin's contributions and acknowledged that his conclusions did not pre-date those of Darwin. The compromise of both presenting at the same time preserved Darwin's claim to prescedence and acknowledged Wallace's own work.

A fitting compromise in my opinion. Darwin's work was not just earlier, but was far more comprehensive in scope. It lacked only the mechanism for inheritance... and that's another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 03:15 PM

In environmental circles it is well known that there are a lot of overlapping areas of study and co-evolutionary thinking. It's nice when the general population becomes more aware of early thinkers. And that some of the people who set things in motion did so unintentionally.

Good links!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 03:49 PM

The Royal Society recently recognized his contributions to science at an event
Royal Society

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 04:54 PM

Another scientist who was studying unknown species in the area where Wallace did much of his collecting has named a newly discovered genus in honor of him:

"New genus Wallaceaphytis was officially introduced to the world on Thursday, the 100th anniversary of biologist Alfred Wallace's death."

Newly discovered wasp named after evolution's other father

The representative collected is a cute little bug, but is described as "only a little larger than a pinhead." Seems like rather a weak honor if, as claimed, it's a "first such honor," especially as Wallace wasn't really all that much into bugs. But I guess a bug is a bug regardless of its size.

There's a picture at the link - obviously greatly enlarged.

Many capable contributors continue to appear, and one group of the current crop seems intent on demolishing the familiar "survival of the fittest" term (not coined by either Darwin or Wallace) in favor of "survival of the least barely competent."

Has the Tea Party been accepted as a species?

Another recently popular notion is "symbiotic co-evolution."

Either of these ideas seem to be popularized in the news mostly because the writers believe that anything that's incomprehensible to the "average person" will be accepted as "deeply meaningful science," but both terms do have their real uses - probably.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 06:47 AM

is it right that the idea came to him while suffering a jungle fever?
there was an interesting documentary about him on UK TV some months back.

I guess the bible has been used to justify slavery, but evolutionism has been the justification for far greater atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin wasn't the only one
From: sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 09:38 AM

"I guess the bible has been used to justify slavery, but evolutionism has been the justification for far greater atrocities."

evolutionism??? an antiquated term used mainly by creationists and not associated with any organizations to my knowledge.

perhaps you are blending together the more radical proponents of eugenics with "Darwinism". Care to specify just what atrocities you are referring to? Slavery and ethnic cleansing belong to the province of societies and governments, not scientific theories, however valid.

I dare say that Karl Marx never expected his utopian ideal to become the communism of Stalin and Mao. Now there are documented atrocities, except they supported the theory of Lamarck not Darwin.
Or perhaps you think that Huxley was using the notion of natural selection - aka survival of the fittest- to support the British justification of colonialism and their empire, when in fact he was one of the "radicals" seeking democratic reform within the British government.

And if this is some response to my statement that there were those who used the bible to justify slavery and white supremacy - this is historic fact that was a valid consideration for Darwin. His own wife was a devout Christian who constantly prayed for his soul. His original intention was to have his work published at the end of his life and avoid the controversy. Didn't work out that way.