how popular was the theory of evolution before darwin?

Question

Darwin seems to get to much credit for this theory in my opinion it existed along time before him.

Answer 1

It did. His grandad (Erasmus ? Darwin) had a similar theory, as well as the ancient Greeks. Wallace had exactly the same theory as Darwin's and they jointly published their papers. If Darwin had waited, then Wallace would have published first and we would have had Wallace's theory of evolution. Darwinisn, Wallacism, what does it matter? It's a damn good scientific explantion, unlike the myth of creation.

Answer 2

I think you need to know the difference between theory and dogma. The bible states all life came into existence nearly simultaneously, each species was created separately and nothing has changed since it was created. The bible also suggests the earth is only 6000 years old. Evolution is based on something called natural selection. Darwin noted no two members of the same species were absolutely identical, except for clones. Clones are generally uncommon, and if the environment changes, there will be some individuals in the population better able to cope with the change. They will presumably produce more offspring and their traits will come to dominate the population. These traits will then be fixed. Darwin then theorized that these fixed traits accumulated over time and could give rise to entirely new species. One of the chief arguments today against evolution is how something as complex as a living thing could suddenly evolve from nothing but soil and water. First of all, this process wasn't sudden, and secondly life did not evolve from anything as simple as dirt. Regarding the age of the earth, I find it nothing more than willful ignorance if one believes it is just 6000 years old. It is very easy to prove the earth is far older. Many people don't realize that 4 billion years ago the earth was far different than it is today. There was no oxygen in the atmosphere. This is because there were no green plants to produce it. Oxygen is a highly reactive gas and would soon be completely consumed if plants didn't replenish it. Before life evolved there wasn't anything to decompose organic material, either. With nothing to rot or burn anything, complex organic molecules existed. The early earth might have been something like chicken soup. It was from this rich broth of organic compounds life evolved, and very slowly. For 3/4 of the history of life on earth, there was nothing large enough for a human to see. Just microbes. Regarding Adam, there was no first modern human but a small colony of a dying species living in Africa during a terrible drought. There have been many species of humans and the other was living in Europe, the Neanderthals. The end of the ice age ended the drought as well. Modern humans from Africa then rtraveled around the globe and made the world what it is today. The ice age animals all went extinct, including the other humans. They could not adapt fast enough to the new climate. The only survivor is the bison. I don't know if this answers the entire question, but ought to provide a little background information. generally science and religion don't mix because they are based on two entirely different belief systems. facts change in science, but don't in religion.

Answer 3

Science is always a process of building on the ideas of previous scientists. Relativity was kicking around in an elementary way until Einstein's genius was able to put it together in a neat - scientifically speaking - package.

But the above answers are correct. Others were coming to the same conclusion before Darwin. Darwin gets the credit, but Wallace came to similar conclusions at about the same time, and in fact they later jointly published their findings.

To the person who posted that its crap, well its stood up to every serious criticism thrown at it until now. Scientists may disagree as to mechanics of the process or the rates of mutation, but the basic premise holds. Whoever disproves it will get the Nobel Prize. Until then they will have to satisfy themselves with the Templeton Prize and face the ridicule of their peers.

Answer 4

It was an intellectual exercise before Darwin, a dry topic in philosophy. The discovery of many unexplained fossils and the concept of natural selection made it into a rigorous scientific discipline. Darwin's "Origin of Species" made it popular -- something read by the general public.

Answer 5

There were a total of nine scientists working on the same information as Darwin, one got co-credit along with Darwin, although a lot less popular due to Darwin's 'Origin of Species.'

If he would have been a year or two later he wouldn't have gotten credit. Scientists had long thought along the same lines as Darwin.

Answer 6

This nation's founding fathers were Deists, who believed in the moral teachings of the Bible, but not the miracles. The believed in natural selection, according to the History Channel.

Answer 7

The concept of evolution was not known before Darwin, so it could not have been popular.

Answer 8

Wth are you talking about? Darwin is the one that created it. He WAS the originator of Evolution. He's the one who suggested its possibility in his book The Origin of Species.

You should be ashamed for not knowing that.

Answer 9

I agree with the other poster. You should ask this in the science category where you'll get an unbiased answer instead of here where all people are going to do is tell you that it was unpopular because it's wrong.

Answer 10

Yep--much of Darwins thoughts were pinched from his uncle and his daddy.