Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory? — Bergman
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Countering the critics Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? — Bergman this book de Maillet Did Darwin suggested that fish were the precursors of birds, mammals, plagiarize his and men.7 Yet an- other pre-Darwin evolution theory? scientist was Pierre- Louis Maupertuis Jerry Bergman (1698–1759) who in 1751 concluded in his Some historians believe that all of the major contri- book that new species butions with which Darwin is credited in regard to may result from the Courtesy TFE Graphics Courtesy evolution theory, including natural selection, actually fortuitous recombin- were plagiarized from other scientists. Many, if not ing of different parts most, of Darwin’s major ideas are found in earlier of living animals. works, especially those by his grandfather Erasmus At about this Darwin. Charles Darwin rarely (if ever) gave due same time the French credit to the many persons from whom he liberally encyclopedist, Denis Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802) ‘borrowed’. This review looks at the evidence for Diderot (1713–1784), this position, concluding that much evidence exists taught that all animals evolved from one primeval organ- to support this controversial view. ism. This prototype organism was fashioned into all those types of animals alive today via natural selection. George Louis Buffon (1707–1788) even expounded the idea at length that ‘the ape and man had a common ancestry’ and, A common (but erroneous) conclusion is that Charles further, that all animals had a common ancestor.8 Macrone Darwin conceived modern biological evolution, including concluded that, although Darwin put evolution on a firmer natural selection.1 An example of statements commonly scientific basis found in the scientific literature indicating this would be the ‘ … he was hardly the first to propose it. A cen- comment by Michael Fitch: ‘Not until Darwin, did anyone tury before Darwin the French naturalist Georges draw the same conclusion … except Alfred R. Wallace. … Buffon wrote extensively on the resemblance But Darwin undoubtedly preceded him in the conception among various species of birds and quadrupeds. of the theory’ of evolution by natural selection.2 A study Noting such similarities and also the prevalence of the works of pre-Darwinian biologists shows that, in in nature of seemingly useless anatomical features contrast to this common assumption, Darwin was not the (such as toes on a pig), Buffon voiced doubts that first modern biologist to develop the idea of organic evolu- every single species had been uniquely formed tion by natural selection.3,4 by God on the fifth and sixth days of creation. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the major ideas credited Buffon suggested in guarded language at least a to Darwin actually were discussed in print by others before limited sort of evolution that would account for him. De Vries noted that some critics have even concluded variances among similar species and for natural that Darwin did not make any major new contributions to anomalies.’9 the theory of evolution by natural selection.5 A study of De Vries noted that the history of evolution shows that Darwin ‘borrowed’ all ‘Evolution, meaning the origin of new species of his major ideas—some feel plagiarized would be a more by variation from ancestor species, as an explana- accurate word—without giving due credit to these people. tion for the state of the living world, had been pro- A few examples are discussed below. claimed before Darwin by several biologists/think- ers, including the poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe, in The pre-Darwin modern theories 1795. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck in 1809, Darwin’s of biological evolution grandfather, the ebullient physician-naturalist-poet- philosopher Erasmus Darwin, and in Darwin’s time The modern theory of biological evolution probably anonymously by Robert Chambers in 1844.’10 was first developed by Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689–1755), who concluded that ‘in the beginning there Erasmus Darwin were very few’ kinds of species, and the number has ‘multiplied since’ by natural means.6 Another important One of the most important pre-Darwinists was Charles evolutionist was Benoit de Maillet (1656–1738), whose Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802). book on evolution was posthumously published in 1748. In He discussed his ideas at length in a two-volume work, 58 TJ 16(3) 2002 Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? — Bergman Countering the critics Zoonomia, published in 1794. This work was no obscure giraffe neck evolution.19 And last, for both Darwins, ‘the volume, but sold well, and was even translated into German, theory of Evolution was no mere scientific hypothesis but French, and Italian. Darlington argued that Erasmus Darwin the very basis of life’.20 ‘originated almost every important idea that has since ap- peared in evolutionary theory’, including natural selection.11 Robert Chambers While still a young man, Charles travelled to Edinburgh where his grandfather had many admirers.12 While there, Another important pre-Darwinian thinker was Robert Robert Grant explained to Charles Darwin at length Eras- Chambers (1802–1871). His book Vestiges of the Natural mus’ ideas on ‘transmutation’, as evolution History of Creation was first published was called then. Darwin never once openly in 1844.21–23 In a summary of this work, admitted that his grandfather had a major Crookshank concluded that Chambers be- influence on his central ideas. lieved that the extant varieties of humans Some scholars even assert that Eras- were a product of evolutionary advances mus Darwin’s view was more well devel- and regressions. Vestiges not only ad- oped than Charles Darwin’s. Desmond vanced an evolutionary hypothesis, but King-Hele made an excellent case for the argued that the natural world ‘could best be view that Charles Darwin’s theory, even understood by appeal to natural law rather ‘in its mature form in the later editions of than by flight to an intervening deity’.24 the Origin of Species, is, in some important Without Chambers’ book, Darwin ad- respects, less correct than that of Eras- mitted that he might never have written The mus’.13 Both writers stressed that evolu- Origin of Species.25 Millhauser claimed tion occurred by the accumulation of small, that Chambers’ work was critically impor- fortuitous changes that were selected by tant in the Darwinian revolution for other natural selection. Erasmus wrote that reasons. One reason was that Chambers’ ‘ … in the great length of time popularizing of his evolution theory in Ves- since the earth began to exist, perhaps Robert Chambers (1803–1871) tiges helped prepare the way for Darwin. millions of ages before the beginning Middle-class consumers ‘took up the book of the history of mankind … all warm- with the same enthusiasm they felt for the blooded animals have arisen from one living fila- latest novels …’.26 Vestiges went through four editions in ment, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued only six months, and 10 editions only a decade later. It is with animality, with the power of acquiring new still in print even today.27 parts, attended with new propensities, directed by Many radical reformers were especially enthusiastic irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; about the book but, ironically, scientists ‘quite generally and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to dismissed its shoddy zoology and botany’.26 Nonetheless, improve by its own inherent activity, and of deliver- Vestiges was read or discussed by most all segments of ing down those improvements by generation to its British society.28 Equally important was the fact that Rob- posterity …’ [spelling and punctuation modernized ert Chambers’ works were the stimulus for Thomas Henry by author, emphasis in original.]14 Huxley, who became ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ and one of the Large sections in many of Charles Darwin’s books most active and important of all of Darwin’s disciples.29 closely parallel Erasmus’ writings.15 King-Hele even claimed that the similarity between their works was so close Patrick Matthew that Darwin’s grandfather ‘had it all charted in advance for him’.16 Yet ‘Charles persistently fails to note the similar- Yet another naturalist who discussed major aspects ity … an omission which sometimes leaves him open to of evolution, specifically natural selection, long before criticism’ of plagiarizing. It is not difficult to conclude that Darwin was Patrick Matthew, whose priority was later ac- Darwin’s plagiarizing was on a large scale because even knowledged both by Charles Darwin and Edward Blyth.30,31 the terminology and wording is remarkably similar to his Matthew actually grandfather’s wording.17 ‘ … anticipated Darwin’s main conclusions by Furthermore, in some ways the conclusions of Erasmus twenty-eight years, yet he thought them so little Darwin were more advanced than those of Charles Darwin. important that he published them as an appendix For example, Charles evidently accepted Lamarckian evo- to his book … and did not feel the need to give lution to a greater extent than did Erasmus, a conclusion substance to them by continuous work. Darwin’s that proved to be a major blunder for him.18 In explaining incessant application, on the other hand, makes one the evolution of the giraffe’s long neck, Darwin ‘accepted think that he had found in evolution and its related the validity of evolution by use and disuse’ although in this concepts, not merely a scientific theory about the case he used natural selection as the major explanation of world, but a vocation ... .’32 TJ 16(3) 2002 59 Countering the critics Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? — Bergman Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? — Bergman Gould notes that: ‘Matthew, still alive and vigor- seley argues, was largely a repeat of the ideas of others such ously kicking when Darwin published the Origin, wrote as Carl Vogt’s 1864 book Lectures on Man.