Stephen E. Jones

Projects: "Problems of Evolution" (Outline): 4. History (2)

[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Contents; 1. Introduction; 2. Philosophy (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5); 3. Religion (1) & (2); 4. History (1) & (3); 5. Science; 6. Environment (1), (2) & (3); 7. Origin of life (1), (2) & (3); 8. Cell & Molecular (1), (2) & (3); 9. Mechanisms (1), (2) & (3); 10. Fossil Record; 11. `Fact' of Evolution; 12. Plants; 13. Animals; 14. Man (1) & (2); 15. Social; 16. Conclusion; Notes; Bibliography A-C, D-F, G-I, J-M, N-S, T-Z]

"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 4. HISTORY (2)
1.	Evolution's historical roots
2.	Ancients
3.	Pre-Darwinians
	1.	Buffon
	2.	Lamarck
	3.	Erasmus Darwin
4.	Darwin
5.	Eclipse of Darwinism
6.	Neo-Darwinians
7.	Post-Darwinians

"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 4. HISTORY (2)

3.	Pre-Darwinians
"Darwin, in later editions of The Origin, listed over thirty predecessors and was still accused of 
lack of generosity" (Burrow, 1985, p.27). Therefore in this overview of evolution's historical roots only 
the major evolutionary figures can be covered here. 

	1.	Buffon
Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), was a French physicist and naturalist from a wealthy and 
noble family (Lovtrup, 1987, p.17; Jurmain, et al., 2004, p.27; Moore, 1964, p.11; Serafini, 1993, p.154). 
In 1739 Buffon was appointed Keeper of the King's Gardens in Paris at the age of 32, which he held for half a 
century; he became a member of the French Academy; was raised to the rank of count and became "renowned as 
the most outstanding zoologist in Europe" (Lovtrup, 1987, p.17; Jurmain, et al., 2004, p.27; 
Nordenskiold, 1928, p.219; Pitman, 1984, p.14).

In 1749 Buffon began what became a 44-volume encyclopedia of natural history, the Histoire naturelle 
that attempted to explain the Earth's origin in completely naturalistic terms (Asimov, 1987, p.140; Mayr, 1982, 
p.180; Nordenskiold, 1928, p.220; Mader, 1990, p.282). In it Buffon "makes mention of the main points we find 
in the Origin of Species ... (1) the tendency of living things to outstrip their food supply; (2) variations we 
find within species; (3) similarity of structure among many living forms; and (4) the need for a longer period of 
time than is allowed for in Ussher's dates" (Rusch, 1959, p.15). In the first volume, the Theory of the 
Earth "Buffon recognized that geological strata represented stages in history" and "suggested that the Earth 
might have been created by the catastrophic collision of a comet with the Sun, and that the Moon was formed 
from the Earth (Asimov, 1987, p.140; Nordenskiold, 1928, p.223; Eiseley, 1958, p.68; Pitman, 1984, p.14). 
Buffon estimated that the Earth had been in existence for 75,000 years and life had begun on Earth about 40,000 
years ago, which contradicted what was then assumed to be "the biblical six-thousand-year age of the world" 
although Buffon himself "felt that the biblical `days' of Creation represented longer periods" (Asimov, 1987, 
p.140; Nordenskiold, 1928, p.223; Serafini, 1993, p.154; Sagan, 1980, p.27; Shapiro, 1986, p.83). Buffon 
"followed this up in 1778 by his Epochs of Nature in which he anticipated the later uniformitarian views 
of Hutton and Lyell" (Pitman, 1984, p.14; Pun, 1982, p.28). And "still sticking to his principle of gradual change 
by observable causes, he attempts to fix the chronological order of the appearance on earth of different species" 
(Farrington, 1966, p.62). But as a clue to these changes he had only the direct effect of the environment to 
suggest" (Farrington, 1966, p.62; Jurmain, et al., 2004, p.27). In "his Natural History of Animals" 
Buffon "spoke of the direct modifying influence of the environment" (Klotz, 1972, p.26; Jurmain, et al., 
2004, p.27; Nordenskiold, 1928, p.224). He also suggested the concept of a struggle for existence" (Klotz, 1972, 
p.26).

Buffon "was probably the first person to study nature in order to create a general theory of evolution" although he 
never fully accepted evolution (Pitman, 1984, p.14; Serafini, 1993, p.154). Buffon was among the first to propose 
"Evolutionary ideas ... in the mid-eighteenth century" (Boolootian & Stiles, 1981, p.665). He "viewed living 
organisms as being descendants of common ancestors and not the products of independent creation" (Boolootian 
& Stiles, 1981, p.665; Rusch, 1959, p.15). "Buffon ... based his support of an evolutionary theory on the 
observation that terrestrial vertebrates, whether adapted for running, burrowing, swimming, or flying, all share the 
same general body plan" (Boolootian & Stiles, 1981, p.665). He also was the first to "define... a species as a 
group of organisms that can interbreed" (Boolootian & Stiles, 1981, p.665; Nordenskiold, 1928, p.225). Buffon 
"mentioned that the following factors could influence evolutionary change: direct influences of the environment, 
migration, geographical isolation, overcrowding and the struggle for existence" (Mader, 1990, p.282). "However, 
he presented no supportive data nor did he suggest a general mechanism by which evolution might occur" 
(Mader, 1990, p.282). "In fact, Buffon seemed to vacillate on the matter and in public, he often professed to 
believe in separate creation and the fixity of species" (Mader, 1990, p.282). He at times "rejected the idea that 
one species could give rise to another" (Jurmain, et al., 2004, p.27). "Buffon ... maintained that species 
were separately created, but he supported a limited evolution within species due to climatic and nutritional effects 
on inheritance" (Pun, 1982, pp.28,83). Buffon "also speculated about possible evolution above the species level 
by adopting less rigid criteria for defining a species" (Pun, 1982, p.28). Buffon even "proposed ... that the apes 
were the ... descendents of people" (Sagan, 1980, pp.27-28). "Still the fact remains that he was teaching the 
doctrine of descent with modification and that the popularity of his many books throughout Europe was immense" 
even though Buffon only "admitted that it was conceivable that all creatures descended from one species" 
(Farrington, 1966, p.62; Serafini, 1993, p.154). Buffon "believed neither in the perfection of nature nor in the 
idea that nature had a purpose, as declared by the argument from design (Jurmain, et al., 2004, p.27). 
Buffon eventually got into trouble with the theological faculty of the Sorbonne University for his views and was 
forced to recant them ... publicly" (Asimov, 1987, p.140).

"Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers, the first author who in modern times has 
treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as 
he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details." 
(Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], 6th Edition, J.M. Dent & Sons: 
London, 1928, reprint, p.7)
It seems that Darwin, in his theory of pangenesis proposed in his The Variation of Animals and Plants Under 
Domestication (1867), plagiarised Buffon's theory "of organic particles diffusing from the whole body to the 
germ cells" (Darlington, 1959, p.39). When T.H. Huxley pointed out the similarity in a draft manuscript that 
Darwin had sent him in 1865, Darwin admitted he would "have re-published Buffon's views" claiming he "did not 
know of" them and "will get the book" (Darwin, 1898, pp.2:228-229). But Darwin must have read Buffon's 
"book" and been familiar with "Buffon's views" because, apart from including Buffon in his "Historical Sketch" 
in the 1861 third edition of his Origin of Species, also in a letter to Lyell in 1863 Darwin 
wrote, "Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded the obvious views that if 
species were not created separately they must have descended from other species" (Darwin, 1898, pp.2:198-199; 
Lovtrup, 1987, p.184. Emphasis in original). Darwin then in an undated letter to Huxley, presumably written soon 
after, if not that same day, claimed to "have read Buffon" and admitted that, "Whole pages are laughably like 
mine" (Barzun, 1958, p.83; Darlington, 1959, p.39; Himmelfarb, 1959, p.173); Darwin, 1898, pp.2:228-229).

Indeed, "Darwin's theory on Pangenesis was indistinguishable from ideas submitted by Buffon a century before" 
(Lovtrup, 1987, p.17). So while "Darwin adopted his [Buffon's] views," yet he dismissed Buffon in a belated 
"Historical Sketch" in the Origin of Species, with "But as his [Buffon's] opinions fluctuated greatly at 
different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here 
enter on details" (Barzun, 1958, p.83; Darwin, 1872, p.7). "Indeed, when Darwin's On the Origin of Species first 
appeared in 1859, he made little mention of predecessors" (Broad & Wade, 1982, p.31). "Later, in an 1861 
"historical sketch" added to the third edition of the Origin, he delineated some of the previous work, but still gave 
few details" (Broad & Wade, 1982, p.31). "Under continued attack, he added to the historical sketch in three 
subsequent editions" (Broad & Wade, 1982, p.31). But "It was still not enough to satisfy all his critics" and "In 
1879, Butler published a book entitled Evolution Old and New in which he accused Darwin of slighting 
the evolutionary speculations of Buffon, Lamarck, and Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus" (Broad & Wade, 
1982, p.31). "Darwin ... scorns Buffon's 'fluctuating opinions' while he himself is fluctuating from one edition to 
another, even from one chapter to another. And fluctuating with an opportunism which he judiciously strives to 
conceal" (Darlington, 1959, p.62). [to be continued] [top] 

	2.	Lamarck
"Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, (1744-1829), was a French natural historian" 
(Martin & Hine, 2000, p.338). "In 1778 he published a flora of France, and later worked on the classification of 
invertebrates, published in a seven-volume natural history (1815-1822)" (Martin & Hine, 2000, p.338). Lamarck 
coined the word "biology" and was the founder of modern invertebrate zoology (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312). 
"In 1809 he put forward a theory of evolution that has become known as Lamarckism (later rejected in favour of 
Darwinism)" (Martin & Hine, 2000, p.338). Lamarck was one of the first true scientists to give real consideration 
to the evolutionary development of life (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312).

Lamarck is best known for his theory of the inheritance of acquired characters (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312). 
This "Lamarckism" was "one of the earliest superficially plausible theories of inheritance" and was "proposed by 
Lamarck in 1809" (Martin & Hine, 2000, p.338). Lamarckism, was the theory of inheritance of acquired 
characters, which suggests that the structures developed during the lifetime of all organism, through use, are 
passed on as inherited characters to the next generation (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312).

"Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated 
naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his Philosophie Zoologique, 
and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres. In these 
works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did 
the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the 
inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of 
Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], 6th Edition, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1928, reprint, pp.7-8)
Lamarck suggested that changes in an individual are acquired during its lifetime, chiefly by increased use or 
disuse of organs in response to "a need that continues to make itself felt", and that these changes are inherited by 
its offspring" (Martin & Hine, 2000, pp.338-339). "Thus the long neck and limbs of a giraffe are explained as 
having evolved by the animal stretching its neck to browse on the foliage of trees" (Martin & Hine, 2000, p.339). 
"Evolutionary change might thus be achieved through the transmission of these acquired characters" (Hale & 
Margham, 1988 p.312). "This so-called inheritance of acquired characteristics has never unquestionably been 
demonstrated to occur and is now generally discredited, (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312), being largely displaced 
by the genetic theories of Mendel and his successors" (Martin & Hine, 2000, p.339). "This theory ... is now 
generally discounted in favour of Darwinism, where favoured characters of use to a particular organism are 
maintained by selection, whereas unfavourable characters are selected against (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312). 
"Thus, Lamarck might have claimed that blacksmith's sons were brawny because of their father's profession, 
whereas Darwin would say that the reason the father was a blacksmith was because he was brawny and brawny 
men tend to have brawny offspring (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312).

It is part of evolutionist propaganda that the Russian agronomist T.D. Lysenko (1898-1976) derived his 
disastrous agricultural policies based on environmentally-induced inheritable changes in wheat from Lamarck 
(Dawkins, 1986, p.292; Martin & Hine, 2000, p.339). That "Lysenko attempted unsuccessfully to apply 
Lamarckian theory to the development of crop plants in the USSR in the 1930s (Hale & Margham, 1988 p.312). 
But in fact Lysenko himself claimed he derived them from Darwin (Jukes, 1995, p.554)! As biologist and 
historian Zhores Medvedev, in his biography of Lysenko, pointed out, "Lysenko claimed to be a Darwinist" and 
the charge of his allies in the "purging of Bukharin," a leading Soviet economist and agricultural policy-maker, 
was that Bukharin held "erroneous and anti-Darwinian theories" and "had annihilated instruction of students in 
Darwinism in the Leningrad State University," and had "fought Darwinism" (Jukes, 1995, p.554; Medvedev, 
1969). "Lysenko wrote a polemic `Of the distorting mirror and some anti-Darwinians'" and said that "Darwinism 
was part of [his] Marxism," and that "the roots of the work I am doing lie in Darwin" (Jukes, 1995, p.554)

The fact is that Darwin by the final edition of his Origin of Species had modified his theory of natural 
selection to include inherited "use and disuse": "I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic 
animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications 
are inherited (Darwin, 1872, p.130. Emphasis mine)."On the whole, we may conclude that habit, or use and 
disuse, have, in some cases, played a considerable part in the modification of the constitution and structure ..." 
(Darwin; 1872, p.136); "Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the increased use and disuse of parts, which I have 
always maintained to be highly important..." (Darwin, 1872, p.201); "Variability is governed by many complex 
laws,-by correlated growth, compensation, the increased use and disuse of parts, and the definite action of the 
surrounding conditions. There is much difficulty in ascertaining how largely our domestic productions have been 
modified; but we may safely infer that the amount has been large, and that modifications can be inherited 
for long periods." (Darwin, 1872, p.443. Emphasis mine); "I have now recapitulated the facts and considerations 
which have thoroughly convinced me that species have been modified, during a long course of descent. This has 
been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in 
an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts ... as my conclusions have lately been 
much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural 
selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most 
conspicuous position-namely, at the close of the Introduction-the following words: `I am convinced that natural 
selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.'" (Darwin, 1872, pp.454-455); "... these 
elaborately constructed forms ... have all been produced by laws acting around us. ... Growth with Reproduction; 
Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the 
conditions of life, and from use and disuse ..." (Darwin, 1872, pp.462-463).

"Darwin ... chopped and changed his ideas between 1859 and 1872 so much it is now rather difficult to decide 
what is Darwinism and what is Lamarckism. ... Darwin had claimed the theory of Natural Selection as his own 
but this gradually became transformed into a theory of evolution which seemed little more than Lamarckian 
evolution. It became more and more difficult to detect any subtle difference because Darwin persisted in 
ridiculing Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck and disclaiming any influence of these writers on his own work" 
(Dempster, 1996, pp.94-95). "Darwin damned Lamarck and also his grandfather for being very ill-dressed 
fellows at the same moment that he was engaged on stealing their clothes. He ridicules Lamarck's speculations 
and caps them with his own. ... The strongest expressions of natural selection are those Darwin chose to publish 
with Wallace's paper. The strongest appreciation of Lamarck is the one he chose not to publish at all." 
(Darlington, 1959a, p.62; Hitching, 1982, p.229) [to be continued] [top] 

	3.	Erasmus Darwin 
"Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) is today best known as Charles Darwin's grandfather. However, during his 
life, this freethinking, high-living physician was well known in literary circles for his poetry and other 
writings. More than 50 years before his grandson was to shake the world with his views on natural selection, 
Erasmus Darwin had expressed similar ideas and had even commented on human evolution. From 
letters and other sources, it is known that Charles Darwin had read and was fond of his grandfather's 
writings." (Jurmain, et al., 2004, p.27. Emphasis in original). Darwin, in later editions of The 
Origin, listed over thirty predecessors ... Diderot, Buffon and Maupertuis in the eighteenth century had 
held evolutionary views, as had Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, whose evolutionary ideas were 
expressed partly in verse: `First, forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, Move on the mud, or pierce the 
watery mass. These, as successive generations bloom New powers acquire and larger limbs assume.' The 
Temple of Nature (1802) ... Darwin's predecessors had made some telling points. There were the 
improvements made in some domesticated animal and plant species by artificial selection - of which Darwin 
himself was to see the full significance. There were embryonic changes - the development of tadpole into 
frog and larva into butterfly - and the way in which the embryonic forms of widely diverse species resembled 
each other in their earlier stages. There were vestigial organs - noted by Erasmus Darwin - which seemed 
once to have served a purpose but now served none, suggesting that the modern species might be radically 
different from the ancestral one to which such an organ, or in the case of rudimentary organs, a more 
developed form of it, had been useful. Erasmus had also mentioned the struggle for existence and the 
competition for females which his grandson was to christen 'sexual selection' as among the factors promoting 
evolution. And of course there was the fossil record, indisputable evidence of the extinction of species." 
(Burrow, 1985, pp.2728). 

"Darwin's independence of other people's ideas led him (and his admirers) to think of himself as a man of 
ideas. It led him to copy out the observations from his predecessor's writings while ignoring their theories. 
His own methods nourished his own illusions. He began more and more to grudge praise to those who had in 
fact paved the way for him. ... Darwin damned Lamarck and also his grandfather for being very ill-dressed 
fellows at the same moment that he was engaged on stealing their clothes. ... In his attitude to his grandfather, 
it has been said, there is perhaps a personal problem. It would not greatly concern us if it had not led to the 
strangest episode in his personal story. As we have seen he learnt about evolution from his grandfather's 
writings. As a youth he may have had some misgivings about his grandfather's irreligious views and un-
Victorian conduct. ... It led him, however, to give an opinion about his grandfather which has now deceived 
three generations. And it was not made good by his mild account of the private life of his grandfather which 
he used as an 'introduction' to the mild account of his scientific life by a German admirer. For the one point 
that we are all interested in about the two men is what the grandson owed to the grandfather and that is the 
one point that the grandson does not choose to enlarge upon. Whatever the cause of Darwin's ambiguity on 
the subject of his grandfather, historically and strategically it was of great effect. For the suppression of 
Erasmus Darwin by his family ran parallel to the suppression of Lawrence by the government and the 
suppression of Chambers by the academic world. They ran parallel and their actions were supplementary. 
The total effect so far as Charles Darwin was concerned seems to have been as complete and thorough as the 
suppression of ideas by any professedly absolute government." (Darlington, 1959a, pp.62-63) [to be continued] 
top]