If Darwin had never been born, would there still be a Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

Answer 1

I believe there would be a Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection eventually even if Darwin had never been born.

The evidence of evolution of species and observations of natural selection is everywhere.

All it would take is someone to notice and wonder if there were a connection. Also, Darwin wasn't alone in thinking about what might be behind the similarities and differences of living things.

The fact that he did a lot of his specimen collecting on isolated, environmentally unique islands while cruising the oceans, assured that there would be correlates of environment with the nature of animal, bird and insect species he found.

We like to think we are the ONLY ones who discovered or knew something. Since evolution occurs slowly, it took a person with a lot of patience and enough money or support to keep looking for a long time for evolution to make sence...and there weren't many scientists with Darwin's resources.

In my own research, I participated in some studies that uncovered a whole new series of molecules we now call Chemokines.

Before 1988 these were not known, but these small hormone-like molecules or something like them had been hypothesized almost 20 years before the first ones were cloned.

They had to be cloned from RNAs expressed in activated cells because they are very similar in size and shape and of few folding patterns but unique in their amino acid sequence.

Within weeks and months of publication of our first papers, we saw hundreds and thousands of papers come out from scientists in widely separated laboratories who must have been thinking the same things we thought without knowing we thought them. We were just lucky to have gotten ours out in print first.

This experience gave me a lot of faith that REAL scientific discoveries are gifts of your intuition coupled with observation.

If I were a man of faith, I would say God pointed us in the direction of discovery.

We pass by things that could be new discoveries every day but we are blind to them until something connects an observation to the appropriate existing body of scientific knowledge. At that point we say. The time is right and we 'discover' what was there all the time.

If someone discovers something that is really not there...we have a different name for that; and, it isn't "faith" because other scientists will tell us pretty quickly that there is no evidence for it. Then, the newpapers come calling to ask the putative discoverer questions about what now starts to be called misconduct, delusion or fraud.

Answer 2

The theory of natural selection is best referred to as the "Darwin-Wallace" theory, as both came up with it independently. Darwin had a far more fleshed out version, and had compiled far more evidence, but Wallace also had the most important insights.

Answer 3

Yes, he actually wasn't the only one who thought of it. Alfred Russell Wallace had a similar theory, which forced Darwin to publish his theory before Wallace could beat him to it. Darwin was hesitant because the subject was so controversial (and remains so until this day, for some people) and had delayed publishing it for some time. The world was not always kind to such 'heretical' ideas.

Answer 4

Eventually yes. The theory would most likely be a little different, but it'd have the same general idea.

Answer 5

If I were not born, would anyone else be able to beat FF7 using mostly Yuffie in the final battle against Sephiroth?

the world may never know

Answer 6

Most likely someone else would have came up with something similar at a later time.

Answer 7

Yes, apart from Wallace there was Thomas Huxley .

Answer 8

hey smiling4ever,
i don't think that copying and pasting half a book constitutes a good answer.

Answer 9

absatively posalutely

Answer 10

yes some other asshole would have got drunk and thought of it !