Theories of Evolution Before Darwin

[Michie]

The name of Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution are so closely linked that most people are unaware of the history of the theory “before” Darwin.

Fortunately, the history of science is far from dull. It is full of engaging characters, extraordinary insights (as well as accidents), stories of persistence, and academic infighting. The “story” behind a theory can be as exciting as a detective novel, especially when it involves a paradigm shift of great magnitude.

The possibility that a process of evolution could explain the diversity but similarity among species was not unique to Charles Darwin. The idea has a rich history beginning with Aristotle. However, for the purpose of this post, only the ideas within a century before the publication of the “Origin of Species” will be presented. Even this list is not exhaustive, but hopefully illuminating.

It is essential to recognize that an understanding of embryology and even earth history was in its infancy in the 18th and 19th century. Both fields of study had an impact on the prevailing ideas about the inheritance of traits. Even vague germs of genetic inheritance can be found at this time. The proposed mechanisms were incorrect, but the primary insights open a window onto the scientific thinking of that time.

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
Erasmus Darwin was considered a leading intellectual in 18th century England, and no wonder. Not only was he a physician, naturalist, and botanist, he was a well-known poet and philosopher. In one of his master works, “Zoonomia”or “The Origins of Life,” he presented the idea that life evolved from “one living filament”—what one might now call a common ancestor. How did this occur? Erasmus does indeed invoke the “Greatest Cause” as the source for the impetus by which living matter diversifies, but he clearly wrestled with mechanisms to explain how. In his view, competition played a role, as did interactions with the environment, as proposed by Lamarck (see below), but his approach is now termed “integrative”:

Continued below.
Theories of Evolution Before Darwin - Magis Center

 

[Brightmoon]

A lot of people had the idea of common descent before Darwin did. Even Linnaeus did 100 years before Darwin . He couldn’t publically come out and say that but in private letters to friends he did. Darwin and Wallace had the most accurate ideas of common descent. Most of which we still use today . But there were others . this book describes how the early theories of evolution evolved ( pun intended) and the social milieu around the people who proposed them .

Darwin for Beginners also known as Introducing Darwin by Jonathan Miller. The book is basically a graphic comic but the info is factual. I highly recommend this book

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

There is a chap who got something written down about Evolution back perhaps when the very last of the pyramids were being built. He knew the odd bit about it before then, but that was about the time he had it put in print. The gist of it is as follows: Some thing that initially wasn’t even a thing, which we might think of, say, as a minute but ultradynamic seed, began to expand and grow. And did it grow! It grew and became in time useful and even beautiful, like a majestic tree. A real evolution – an unrolling, a successive revelation. The power behind it he also mentioned – we shall come to that in its proper place.

This dynamic expansion/unrolling/evolution led in time to what might be called solid objects. On one of these solid, or perhaps, solidifying, objects, another, novel style of expansion/unrolling/evolution was initiated. We shall address the power source in its proper place. Stuff began to grow. Like, low, perhaps slimey. A bit uuurk, to start with. Growing conditions weren’t too flash, to start with. Now here is a trick. This type of simple growth – alive, not just dead muck – included items that, like the original expanding seeming nothingness, were majestic, beautiful. High and low, rich and poor, they all existed in a real sense, destined to appear when circumstances called for them – before any at all were tangible! They were revealed/unrolled /evolved over time. They all existed, having been made in perfection, effectively alive, yet they were not tangible or visible. Then without any new creative work, they were ‘let’ appear over time. Some time subsequent to this, real live and kicking stuff some of which could leap over small buildings etc. was all created to boot – and much of it could not be seen, either. But it unrolled/evolved. Without ongoing creative work, it simply became tangible. It, also, was ‘let’ appear over time.

The power source of course is the Spirit of God, moving on the instability/unformed -- ‘waters’. Assisted of course by gravity, which is right now divinity, ‘upholding the pillars of the Earth’. The pivotal factor – a natural aspect of physics – the pivotal factor in the unrolling of the already existing living creatures? Signs. “Let them be for signs.” Information technology. Just a little more sophisticated than hollering through a hollow log. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun ......... .

Along came a chap called Darwin, a theology dropout but a moral man with an excellent wife. Ignoring the warnings of his superior and advisor, world leading palaeontologist Sir Richard Owen, he asserted that cats give birth to dogs (or is it the reverse?) if you give it enough time. Teaming up with a blathermaster of some pretentions (and undoubted ability) T.H. Huxley, one-time squasher of cockroaches aboard HMS Rattlesnake here in Australian waters, Darwin’s mechanism of time became somewhat conflated in time with Huxley’s “Nature Makes Leaps”. Natura ... facit saltum. The implicit co-author in reserve of Darwin’s main work? Alfred Wallace, avowed spiritist. No wonder the rational and steady Mrs Darwin sought spiritual help from church men (reading between the lines) for her husband.

Meanwhile, yes, systematic, feet-on-the-planet men from Linnaeus onwards, such as Gregor Mendel (who technically ended Darwinism before it started) and Sir Richard Owen (who foreshadowed information driven transformers) were steadily working on it. Modern science tells the tale. Details, Creationtheory dot com.

 

[Shemjaza]

There is a chap who got something written down about Evolution back perhaps when the very last of the pyramids were being built. He knew the odd bit about it before then, but that was about the time he had it put in print. The gist of it is as follows: Some thing that initially wasn’t even a thing, which we might think of, say, as a minute but ultradynamic seed, began to expand and grow. And did it grow! It grew and became in time useful and even beautiful, like a majestic tree. A real evolution – an unrolling, a successive revelation. The power behind it he also mentioned – we shall come to that in its proper place.

This dynamic expansion/unrolling/evolution led in time to what might be called solid objects. On one of these solid, or perhaps, solidifying, objects, another, novel style of expansion/unrolling/evolution was initiated. We shall address the power source in its proper place. Stuff began to grow. Like, low, perhaps slimey. A bit uuurk, to start with. Growing conditions weren’t too flash, to start with. Now here is a trick. This type of simple growth – alive, not just dead muck – included items that, like the original expanding seeming nothingness, were majestic, beautiful. High and low, rich and poor, they all existed in a real sense, destined to appear when circumstances called for them – before any at all were tangible! They were revealed/unrolled /evolved over time. They all existed, having been made in perfection, effectively alive, yet they were not tangible or visible. Then without any new creative work, they were ‘let’ appear over time. Some time subsequent to this, real live and kicking stuff some of which could leap over small buildings etc. was all created to boot – and much of it could not be seen, either. But it unrolled/evolved. Without ongoing creative work, it simply became tangible. It, also, was ‘let’ appear over time.

The power source of course is the Spirit of God, moving on the instability/unformed -- ‘waters’. Assisted of course by gravity, which is right now divinity, ‘upholding the pillars of the Earth’. The pivotal factor – a natural aspect of physics – the pivotal factor in the unrolling of the already existing living creatures? Signs. “Let them be for signs.” Information technology. Just a little more sophisticated than hollering through a hollow log. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun ......... .

Along came a chap called Darwin, a theology dropout but a moral man with an excellent wife. Ignoring the warnings of his superior and advisor, world leading palaeontologist Sir Richard Owen, he asserted that cats give birth to dogs (or is it the reverse?) if you give it enough time. Teaming up with a blathermaster of some pretentions (and undoubted ability) T.H. Huxley, one-time squasher of cockroaches aboard HMS Rattlesnake here in Australian waters, Darwin’s mechanism of time became somewhat conflated in time with Huxley’s “Nature Makes Leaps”. Natura ... facit saltum. The implicit co-author in reserve of Darwin’s main work? Alfred Wallace, avowed spiritist. No wonder the rational and steady Mrs Darwin sought spiritual help from church men (reading between the lines) for her husband.

Meanwhile, yes, systematic, feet-on-the-planet men from Linnaeus onwards, such as Gregor Mendel (who technically ended Darwinism before it started) and Sir Richard Owen (who foreshadowed information driven transformers) were steadily working on it. Modern science tells the tale. Details, Creationtheory dot com.

Exodus 20:16

Revelation 21:8

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason that Darwin gets all of the credit is because his was the first scientific theory of evolution. The predecessors mentioned in the OP were not theories. A theory must not only explain all the observed data. It must also be testable. A concept that is not testable is merely an ad hoc explanation and has very little value in the sciences. The concepts that preceded Darwin did not have an explanation of how and why life evolved. They were not testable. There are observations that they do not explain. The fell far short of being scientific theories.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

I am not a medico nor a biochemist but I think we shall discover that just a few years ago someone at the University of Texas published something about the stop mechanism keeping species as discreet reproductive units. (Obviously, from Nature about us, there is a species 'lock'. Cats are not dogs.)

Something about the proteins of sex cells. For all I know, it may as well be a style of cooking haggis back in Scotland but there we are. There is a species lock. The geologic record and Nature about us, prove, a). There is a species lock. The geologic record and Nature about us, prove, b). The species lock was tripped countless times before Man arrived here, but is not being tripped by Man or natural events since Man's arrival. So here we have a technical difficulty. Skip Darwin -- he could not have known the first thing about proteins, sex cells, autoimmune systems. He himself did not claim any scientific verification of anything he hypothesized based on biochemistry -- biochemistry essentially did not exist. Owen saw clearly the obvious fact that vertebrate evolution was a transformer game based on a master blueprint with future modifications pre-programmed. But he, likewise, had no modern biochemistry.

Now we throw in something which throws a spanner in this hot air machine. Evolution will never be proved by observation in the modern world, in a laboratory or out of a laboratory. Why? We have given the reason. There is a species lock. Well, good, you say. We shall discover the combination. Go ahead. I won't be investing in the enterprise. Why not invest in species lock discovery? Sounds good, doesn't it? Certainly does. But here is the problem. There is an absolutely authoritative document which advizes us that we are barred from the Tree of Life. By flaming swords, no less. All species (but not virus's and possibly not all snakes) species arrived here via the tree of life mechanism. The bible is speaking in an analogue. "Tree" says, study a tree/vine, study my word, think. It is speaking of a mechanism. As in new growth in a tree, the mechanisms involve information technology, in which new life appears to be a product of the segment of life immediately below it -- but it is not a genetic descendant of the preceding part of the branch. So the same document which advizes us that species were potentially created long before they appeared, and they therefore appeared through (necessarily quantum) processes involving totally sophisticated I.T., this same document advizes us that the tripping of the species lock and the transformation of species is not a process Man will ever master to the point of pulling off either eternal youth, or all those unnamed species we dream of which are better than dogs. You know, the species that not only attempt to bring us coffee in bed, but make the stuff as well. Scientific proof of species transformation by direct observation shall never happen. And I was hoping for a horse that has a staircase for an old fellow like me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Along came a chap called Darwin, ... he asserted that cats give birth to dogs (or is it the reverse?) if you give it enough time.

I think you made that up - unless, of course, you have some evidence, preferably a quote from Darwin, to that effect.

At school, I was taught that honesty is a virtue, dishonesty is a sin, and ignorance and stupidity are unfortunate.

 

[Brightmoon]

There is a chap who got something written down about Evolution back perhaps when the very last of the pyramids were being built. He knew the odd bit about it before then, but that was about the time he had it put in print. The gist of it is as follows: Some thing that initially wasn’t even a thing, which we might think of, say, as a minute but ultradynamic seed, began to expand and grow. And did it grow! It grew and became in time useful and even beautiful, like a majestic tree. A real evolution – an unrolling, a successive revelation. The power behind it he also mentioned – we shall come to that in its proper place.

This dynamic expansion/unrolling/evolution led in time to what might be called solid objects. On one of these solid, or perhaps, solidifying, objects, another, novel style of expansion/unrolling/evolution was initiated. We shall address the power source in its proper place. Stuff began to grow. Like, low, perhaps slimey. A bit uuurk, to start with. Growing conditions weren’t too flash, to start with. Now here is a trick. This type of simple growth – alive, not just dead muck – included items that, like the original expanding seeming nothingness, were majestic, beautiful. High and low, rich and poor, they all existed in a real sense, destined to appear when circumstances called for them – before any at all were tangible! They were revealed/unrolled /evolved over time. They all existed, having been made in perfection, effectively alive, yet they were not tangible or visible. Then without any new creative work, they were ‘let’ appear over time. Some time subsequent to this, real live and kicking stuff some of which could leap over small buildings etc. was all created to boot – and much of it could not be seen, either. But it unrolled/evolved. Without ongoing creative work, it simply became tangible. It, also, was ‘let’ appear over time.

The power source of course is the Spirit of God, moving on the instability/unformed -- ‘waters’. Assisted of course by gravity, which is right now divinity, ‘upholding the pillars of the Earth’. The pivotal factor – a natural aspect of physics – the pivotal factor in the unrolling of the already existing living creatures? Signs. “Let them be for signs.” Information technology. Just a little more sophisticated than hollering through a hollow log. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun ......... .

Along came a chap called Darwin, a theology dropout but a moral man with an excellent wife. Ignoring the warnings of his superior and advisor, world leading palaeontologist Sir Richard Owen, he asserted that cats give birth to dogs (or is it the reverse?) if you give it enough time. Teaming up with a blathermaster of some pretentions (and undoubted ability) T.H. Huxley, one-time squasher of cockroaches aboard HMS Rattlesnake here in Australian waters, Darwin’s mechanism of time became somewhat conflated in time with Huxley’s “Nature Makes Leaps”. Natura ... facit saltum. The implicit co-author in reserve of Darwin’s main work? Alfred Wallace, avowed spiritist. No wonder the rational and steady Mrs Darwin sought spiritual help from church men (reading between the lines) for her husband.

Meanwhile, yes, systematic, feet-on-the-planet men from Linnaeus onwards, such as Gregor Mendel (who technically ended Darwinism before it started) and Sir Richard Owen (who foreshadowed information driven transformers) were steadily working on it. Modern science tells the tale. Details, Creationtheory dot com.

. Except Darwin would have never said that cats become dogs . Even Linnaeus 100 years earlier wouldn’t have said that simply because of the anatomical differences . What Linnaeus said was that they are both Carnivora . Darwin wouldn’t have disagreed with that. As far as his failed theological studies, his father forced him to take those classes as his father Robert didn’t want Charles to be one of the idle rich . He never wanted to be a clergyman and he started taking courses and studying independently the geology anatomy and biology subjects he was interested in. That creationtheory website isn’t giving out accurate information.

 

[pitabread]

he asserted that cats give birth to dogs (or is it the reverse?) if you give it enough time.

You're not getting that from Darwin. You're getting that from creationists since that's a common strawman they use.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

A chordate (/ˈkɔːrdeɪt/) is an animal of the phylum Chordata. During some period of their life cycle, chordates possess a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail: these five anatomical features define this phylum. Chordates are also bilaterally symmetric, and have a coelom, metameric segmentation, and circulatory system.

The Chordata and Ambulacraria together form the superphylum Deuterostomia. Chordates are divided into three subphyla: Vertebrata (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals); Tunicata or Urochordata (sea squirts, salps); and Cephalochordata (which includes lancelets). There are also extinct taxa such as the Vetulicolia. Hemichordata (which includes the acorn worms) has been presented as a fourth chordate subphylum, but now is treated as a separate phylum: hemichordates and Echinodermata form the Ambulacraria, the sister phylum of the Chordates. Of the more than 65,000 living species of chordates, about half are bony fish that are members of the superclass Pisces, class Osteichthyes.

Chordate fossils have been found from as early as the Cambrian explosion, 541 million years ago. Cladistically (phylogenetically), vertebrates – chordates with the notochord replaced by a vertebral column during development – are considered to be a subgroup of the clade Craniata, which consists of chordates with a skull. The Craniata and Tunicata compose the clade Olfactores. WIKIPEDIA.

With some -- repeat, some, of us, our evolution education is seemingly evolving backwards. No, the great grandaddy of sweetie pie the rag doll sweetie cat was not boof head the watch dog. It was cynthia sea squirt from the Cambrian. Learn something, will yus? Revise. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. The stages in an organism's physical development are a re-visitation of the stages in its ancestry. So dogs don't give birth to cats. It's something that looks like a sea vegetable. Get with it.
Incidentally. Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny comes straight out of Genesis. (The bit about sea squirts giving birth to sweetiepie does not.)
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,[all complex life, Day 5] and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created [overriding, momentous action] great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth [no mention of create] the living creature after his kind, [already existing, created Day 5] cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so....... .

So all cats and dogs were created at the Cambrian. They were modified or formed of earth subsequently. Water base, fish-like in the womb -- ontogeny -- water base, fish in the past -- phylogeny. And species only ever reproduce after their kind. So if Darwin the theology student had read a bible, he could have saved himself an evolution of embarrassment. Wouldn't listen to his wife. So we eliminate the impossible. It is impossible for sea squirts to give birth to cats and dogs. What is possible? It is theoretically possible to switch back to asexual reproduction -- man has done it with cloning -- and thus trigger one species into becoming another species in terms of its reproductive capacity and thus engineer a cloning category procedure which gave the observed result. All done through information interacting with organisms. That's the part of the Tree of Life we can no longer access.

 

[cutterfl]

The reason that Darwin gets all of the credit is because his was the first scientific theory of evolution. The predecessors mentioned in the OP were not theories. A theory must not only explain all the observed data. It must also be testable. A concept that is not testable is merely an ad hoc explanation and has very little value in the sciences. The concepts that preceded Darwin did not have an explanation of how and why life evolved. They were not testable. There are observations that they do not explain. The fell far short of being scientific theories.

please tell me one experiment to prove common descent NOW?

 

[Shemjaza]

please tell me one experiment to prove common descent NOW?

Analysis of genome of modern animals to show nested tree structure of relatedness.

 

[cutterfl]

Analysis of genome of modern animals to show nested tree structure of relatedness.

well the most well known one of this is whale ancestry, that its was the wrong part of ungulates...even vs odd toes ones. And they immediately chose a correct one...so how right was first choice? when utterly wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

well the most well known one of this is whale ancestry, that its was the wrong part of ungulates...even vs odd toes ones. And they immediately chose a correct one...so how right was first choice? when utterly wrong.

I'm not following. What do you mean?

 

[pitabread]

please tell me one experiment to prove common descent NOW?

Common descent is demonstrated via observed patterns of evidence that fit what we would expect from if the evolution of organisms were largely constrained by inheritance.

For example, fossils show patterns of evolution and radiation of different taxa over time. Likewise, genomic analysis shows patterns of nested hierarchies that (for the most part) agree with fossils. Likewise, analysis of comparative morphology show similar patterns. As does developmental biology. And biogeography. And so on.

Conversely, if populations of organisms were independently created we could expect to see things outside of such evolutionary constraint. For example, blatant chimeric organisms, gross discontinuities in the patterns of development and so on. Yet, these things are not observed in nature.

If life was created, it was created with the appearance of evolution.