Customer Reviews

Just Before the Origin: Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Evolution

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Brooks' object in this book was twofold. First, he wanted to provide a thorough review of the early influences on Wallace that led him to the theory of natural selection. Second, he wished to investigate the possibility that Charles Darwin may have stolen some of Wallace's ideas to complete his "On the Origin of Species." Brooks has been criticized some in the first regard for not thoroughly investigating external influences on Wallace, but I personally feel this hurts the book relatively little. I am more concerned about the second emphasis. While Brooks does a very good job of marshalling all available evidence to make his point, he is not really successful (that is to say, convincing) in doing so; moreover, my personal slant on this is that Wallace had so much that was interesting to say in his own right that the matter of the Darwin-Wallace affair is more of a distraction than anything else. Nevertheless, the book is well worth reading, either by professionals within the field of history of science or evolutionary biology, or by the educated layperson interested in natural history and how science manages to proceed, sometimes in spite of itself.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is often thought of as being THE grand theory of biology. Where do revolutionary intellectual advances come from and how does the human community absorb them? Such questions are raised by the history of science and books like Just Before The Origin.

Is science the triumphant march of objective truth being revealed by noble seekers of the truth or is science polluted by human ambition just like any other human endeavor? Was Darwin the saintly seeker of the truth we learned about in school or a mere mortal? If he was a mere mortal, how did he achieve the great revolution in evolutionary thought?

Extraordinary ideas must be rooted in extraordinary human experiences. We are taught that Darwin was the prepared mind in the right place at the right time, that his voyage around the world opened his eyes to patterns in the geographical variations in the diversity of life. If so, why did so many years pass between his voyage and the publication of his ideas on evolution? Might it be important that in science, as in all of life, it is not just what you know but who your friends are?

The conventional rationalization for Darwin's delay in publishing on natural selection is multi-fold. First, it seems likely that Darwin feared the very nature of his discovery. He could well imagine the outrage that would be stimulated by any theory that finally toppled the Judeo-Christian view of man as having been created by God in His image. Second, because of that fear, Darwin felt compelled to marshal a large amount of supporting data, enough to ensure that announcement of his theory would be decisive and able to withstand all resistance.

There is third component to the conventional story that seems to explain what finally ended Darwin's dithering over the theory. Alfred Wallace was ready to publish his own version of the theory based on his own extensive observations as a naturalist.

John Langdon's analysis of Wallace's work suggests a variation on the standard theme. What if Darwin's main reason for delay in publication was personal dissatisfaction with his theory, not dissatisfaction with the amount or quality of supporting evidence? What if it was Wallace's more extensive data set that provided the basis for the key idea that finally overcame Darwin's own lack of faith in the theory of natural selection, finally allowing Darwin the courage to publish? And what if Darwin never admitted this critical role of Wallace's work?

Since the dawn of Western Science, research proposals and manuscripts have been submitted to respected scientific peers in order that well considered decisions can be made about the support of research and the publication of new ideas. Most agree that it is wrong for a senior scientist to read the ideas of a young scientist, appropriate those ideas and exploit them, while at the same time rejecting the requests of the young scientist for support or publication of completed work. And yet, scientists are only human. What if you have worked on a problem for 20 years, for many years feeling on the verge of a breakthrough, then one sad day you realize that some young upstart has reached the finish line before you? This is the most delicate question raised by Langdon's book. What did Darwin do when confronted with this situation?

In our society, science is a source of fame, wealth, and power. Those who wield this power defend the existing system. If a few eggs get broken, a few Wallaces get handed the dirty end of the stick, well, that's life. Its a dog eat dog world out there, and only the fittest can be expected to survive. Such is the standard view. But life is change. What is the origin of change? Even a mighty dinosaur might be replaced by a small mouse. Listen for a squeaking sound coming Just Before The Origin.

This is an interesting companion to reading Wallace in the original, and Brooks does a reasonably good job of portraying his subject, although more recent books e.g. Tim Severin's SPICE ISLANDS VOYAGE is perhaps more entertaining if more pop. More troubling is his almost personal vendetta against Charles Darwin, in which he sets out to "prove" that Darwin "stole" the idea of evolution by Natural Selection from Wallace -something that Wallace himself NEVER suggested or implied. After an exhaustive search through shipping company records & an examination of the postal service (one must admire Brooks' zeal if not his motive)he is essentially back where he started: personally convinced but with a lot of speculation & one-sided interpretations of material. The sad part of this ... is that a) it takes away from Wallace's enormous contributions in a wide range of areas -he is responsible for most of the foundations of modern Biogeography for instance- b) it implies a craven motive for Wallace's supposed silence-in-the-face-of-persecution (Does Brooks REALLY think that someone so feisty & outspoken as Wallace, who took on everything from land reform to vaccination, would simply cave in to "The Establishment" over a matter of priority? c) ignores the real scope of Darwin's scholarship & d) smacks of sensationalism. This is silly. Wallace was a marvellous man and a wonderful scientist. Enjoy the first parts of this book & consign Brooks' idle speculations to where they belong: ...

This book is thorough and very interesting. I recommend it.