Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, May 25, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

by icWales

Reposted from:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/05/24/mail-boat-record-proves-darwin-stole-his-original-ideas-from-a-welsh-scientist-91466-20968207/

Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

by Steffan Rhys, Western Mail

CHARLES DARWIN'S theory that for 150 years has been viewed as explaining the origin of mankind was stolen from a Welsh scientist, the author of a new book has claimed.

In his book The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime, published this week, Roy Davies claims to have unearthed new evidence that shows Charles Darwin stole the ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace for his work On the Origin of Species, and that it is Wallace who should be credited as having first proposed the theory of evolution.

Davies accuses Darwin of incorporating the revolutionary ideas of Wallace into his manuscript then claiming them as his own.

His crucial evidence, he claims, is in pinpointing the exact dates that letters from Wallace to Darwin explaining his theories arrived at Darwin's home, proving that the Welsh scientist developed them first.

And experts on the Welshman yesterday agreed that Wallace had been unfairly treated by history but said it would be difficult to prove his ideas were in fact stolen.

"I researched the book for 12 years," said Davies, a former head of factual programmes at BBC Wales.

"At the beginning, I believed Darwin was a genius. By the time the book was finished, I had long since realised that it was Wallace who was the genius and Darwin, 14 years his senior, who was the plodder.

"In the end, the crucial evidence came from an expert on Dutch maritime shipping in the 19th century, Professor Femme Gaastra of Leiden University.

"He was able to pinpoint exactly which boats picked up Wallace's mail in the Malay Archipelago (now Malaysia and Indonesia), where he was working as a collector of new species, and delivered it to the P&O liners who shipped the mail home to Southampton.

"Before the research, Darwin's supporters were able to argue that the letters he received from Wallace arrived at his home when he claimed they had.

"Professor Gaastra's great contribution was that he was able to show that two crucial letters written by Wallace between October 1856 and March 1858 arrived in Britain long before Darwin admitted they had. Wallace's ideas appeared in Darwin's work soon afterwards."

Wallace was born in Llanbadoc, near Usk, in 1823 and became an explorer, collector, naturalist, geographer, anthropologist and political commentator. He died in 1913. Experts at the Natural History Museum say he came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection at the same time as — but entirely independent of — Darwin, but has since been overshadowed.

While feverish with malaria on the Malay Archipelago in 1858, Wallace wrote to Darwin explaining his ideas because he knew Darwin was also working on the theory.

Both men presented their theories to the scientific Linnean Society of London, but Darwin's manuscript was published the following year, and he has since been universally credited with the theory, while Wallace's name has largely been forgotten.

"It is terribly unfair on Wallace," said George Beccaloni, a curator at the Natural History Museum and founder of the Alfred Russel Wallace Memorial Fund.

"The fact of the matter is they both simultaneously published the theory of natural selection in 1858, 15 months before Origin of Species.

"But everyone credits Origin of Species as being the place the idea was first published, which isn't true. Wallace definitely deserves half the credit for the idea.

"On the face of it, it certainly seems there are questions that should be answered by historians.

"But whether Darwin stole the idea remains to be seen."

Davies said the implications for Darwin's status as an honest scientist were serious but said his theory would face "serious opposition" from academics.

"Any attempt to restore Wallace's name to anything like equality with that of Darwin's is bound to fail," he said.

"All I can hope for is that fair-minded people read the book and make up their own minds."

Comments 51 - 73 of 73 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #185089 by ICONIC FREEDOM on May 26, 2008 at 10:35 pm

 avatarGoldy - very funny, indeed. However, I thought at a recent talk with Ken Miller I attended at the NY Natural History Museum, he mentioned this discrepancy with IDiots.

BTW - my post on religious blogs is: Intelligent Design is neither.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

52. Comment #185092 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm

 avatar
Why is it that Darwin keeps getting conflated with how "life began" as we don't know that information as of yet. Seems there have been hypothesis about it but nothing solid yet.

Can anyone lend information about this claim?


Seems a pure creationist construction to me, or a misunderstanding of evolution. Some people can't wrap their head around the fact that for evolution to be true and proved, we do not need to know how life began. Hence they think Darwin should or must have explained the origin of life.

Other Comments by Raiko

53. Comment #185106 by Ian on May 27, 2008 at 12:32 am

I do agree, but I'll add one small point: the English are at least as bad...


I think it time I introuced Braidwood's first law: Other people's patriotism is boring.

A little something for people to remember when posting on an international forum. :-)

Other Comments by Ian

54. Comment #185109 by BaldySlaphead on May 27, 2008 at 1:49 am

 avatarWhat are the chances of Mel Gibson starring as a woad-covered Wallace and bellowing, 'They'll never take our evolution!' in an unconvincing Welsh accent..?

Other Comments by BaldySlaphead

55. Comment #185114 by bujin on May 27, 2008 at 2:18 am

Guys, don't taken anything icWales says as serious. They have the worst journalists in the world!

Other Comments by bujin

56. Comment #185136 by Adam Morrison on May 27, 2008 at 4:02 am

 avatarRichard's comment about the work possibly being an attempt (albeit a very stunned one) to make evolution a Welsh 'discovery' is probably a good example of what's happening.

It reminds me a lot of Chinese scholarship and Far Eastern studies. I've read a number of bad articles and books that make outrageous (and usually unsupported) claims that try to make a discovery or acheivement Chinese when it really hasn't. Two examples are the fellow who wrote a book claiming that the Chinese were the first to reach North America based on a couple obscure old passages about a Chinese junk and how far it had sailed (I can't remember the author at the moment). Another was a news paper article that featured a Chinese scholar claiming that the Chinese invented golf because and ancient work mentioned a game that involved hitting balls with sticks.

Not to sell the history of innovation in China short, they did some amazing things, especially in the field of metallurgy in antiquity. But there is a definte attempt to make outrageous claims of 'we made/found/discovered' it first coming out of some writers.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

57. Comment #185143 by aquilacane on May 27, 2008 at 4:40 am

 avatarThis serves to support my belief that it is the content that should be considered and not its author. Who is much less relevant than what.

Other Comments by aquilacane

58. Comment #185150 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 27, 2008 at 5:20 am

 avatarTESLA WAS ROBBED!!

Wait...wrong meeting...sry! ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

59. Comment #185229 by emmet on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am

 avatar
I think it time I introuced Braidwood's first law: Other people's patriotism is boring.

Huh?

I think "patriotism" or "national pride" share a lot of characteristics with religion — accident of birth, no evidenciary basis, self-deception, and conveniently ignoring contradictions.

As a non-American, non-Welsh, non-English person, American, Welsh, and English media seem bizarrely jingoistic. As an Irish person, Irish media never seemed quite so bad, but I'm sure they are if you're American, Welsh, or English.

There is no "patriotism" involved in such an observation.

Other Comments by emmet

60. Comment #185238 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 8:38 am

 avatar60. Comment #185229 by emmet on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am
As a non-American, non-Welsh, non-English person, American, Welsh, and English media seem bizarrely jingoistic. As an Irish person, Irish media never seemed quite so bad, but I'm sure they are if you're American, Welsh, or English.

Yup, since you asked ;) (n=1, of course)

And don't get me started on Neil Back...

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

61. Comment #185243 by hyposcada on May 27, 2008 at 8:53 am

Here is what Wallace expert Charles Smith has to say about the question "was Wallace Welsh?":-

Answer: Several people have criticized me for not giving Wales its just due with regard to Wallace's national affinities. I think the Welsh claim on him is rather tenuous, but here are the facts (at least those given in Wallace's autobiography My Life), so you decide. Wallace's mother and father, who were of long-term English and English-Scottish descent, respectively, moved from St. George's, Southwark, to the small town of Usk about 1820, probably for financial reasons (possibly either because it cost less to live there, or to avoid creditors). At that time Usk was part of the area known as Monmouthshire, at least in some respects an administrative division of England. However, this region, going back to ancient times, had originally been known as Gwent, culturally and politically part of Wales. Many years later (after Wallace's birth, that is), in 1974, the region was fully "returned" to Wales, again with the name Gwent (more recently, the name Monmouthshire has again been substituted). Wallace himself was born in Usk in 1823, but it is very clear from My Life that he and his family felt like, and were made to feel like, outsiders there. In 1828, when he was just five, the family moved again, this time back over to England, to the town of Hertford (a relative had died there, freeing up an inexpensive source of lodgings). They never returned to Wales as a family. Wallace did however work in Wales for two three-year periods (1840-1843 and 1845-1848) during the time he was employed as a journeyman surveyor (first, for his older brother, and later, to wrap up and continue that brother's business after he died). In later life Wallace visited Wales only on a few short occasions (vacations and lectures); he also concerned himself with the social and economic problems of the Welsh a good deal less than he did with those of the English, Irish, and Scots. My personal view of this is that given the Wallace family's heritage and relatively short period of residence in Wales--not to mention the Monmouthshire technicality--Wallace can hardly be considered a Welshman (though it is clear enough that Wales figured importantly in several respects in his early life). Apparently Wallace himself agreed: although on many occasions he drew attention to his ancestral connections with the Scots, to my knowledge he never once referred to himself as a Welshman, and indeed always named his place of birth as "Monmouthshire," not "Gwent." Further, his contemporaries just about always referred to him as an Englishman. It is on record, moreover, that he declined the offer of an honorary doctorate from the University of Wales--after accepting ones from Dublin and Oxford--not exactly what one would expect had he felt elemental ties to the region. To summarize: I would be happy to refer to Wallace as "Welsh" were any of the following true: (1) one or both of his parents had Welsh heritage (2) Wallace had grown to adulthood there (i.e., without moving back to England for over ten years first) (3) his parents had remained in Wales permanently instead of moving back to England (4) Wallace had voluntarily moved back to Wales during his teen years or adulthood (i.e., as opposed to being first dragged along by his brother, or later cleaning up his brother's affairs) (5) Wallace had settled in Wales permanently after his return from the Malay Archipelago in 1862 (6) Wallace had referred to himself as a Welshman (7) Gwent had always been unambiguously Welsh and referred to by that name. However, none of these are true. Perhaps he can most conservatively be referred to as "an Englishman born in Wales." (Taken from http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/FAQ.htm#Welsh).

Other Comments by hyposcada

62. Comment #185261 by cam9976 on May 27, 2008 at 9:44 am

 avatarWho gives a damn. Science is science; it doesn't matter who is credited with the formulation of a particular theory, only that the theory is scientifically sound.

Other Comments by cam9976

63. Comment #185263 by Geodesic17 on May 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

Great. We can call ourselves Wallacists now, but the Creationists will not catch on and still call us evil Darwinists.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

64. Comment #185281 by MorituriMax on May 27, 2008 at 11:00 am

 avatarMaybe if the guy had spent less time researching whatever he was researching for 12 years he could have looked in Wikipedia and...

Oh wait... shouldn't the controversy be that Wikipedia found out about the "controversy" first rather than him in his book? Perhaps Wikipedia could sue for proper recognition?

Other Comments by MorituriMax

65. Comment #185287 by Prankster on May 27, 2008 at 11:17 am

 avatarDoes it matter?

Really? We all know ideas get pinched and stolen and passed off as other peoples work-cameras and telephones being the most notable example...

If it gets called "Darwinism" or "Wallaceism" it doesn't matter-not to me at any rate, and if it pisses off creationists and fundies then so much the better eh?

Other Comments by Prankster

66. Comment #185445 by theantitheist on May 27, 2008 at 8:19 pm

 avatarAll i really know about this is from Carl Sagans "Forgotten Ancestors".

He writes that Wallace and Darwin had a lot of respect for each other. I would not have respect for someone who ripped off my work and i'm sure Wallace would not either. They were both Gentleman and pioneers and have my respect.

I know people are joking about Darwinism vs Wallaceism, but it just brings back memorys of that devastating Cat war between Cloister and Clistor. (One for the Red Dwarf anorakes)

Other Comments by theantitheist

67. Comment #185480 by LizW on May 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm

at the begining of his book Davies says

"In contrast to Darwin the young butterfly collector was not intellectually constrained by the idea of a world designed by god.......nor did he feel that he had to make room for god in his theory"

how can he possibly jutify that comment?

Other Comments by LizW

68. Comment #185555 by GodMyArse on May 28, 2008 at 4:15 am

Surely if Darwin stole evolution form Wallace there would be evidence of disagreement and animosity between the two men. If not then Wallace does not seem to have felt cheated at the time, so why invent controversy? Every documentary seems to have to have an 'angle' nowadays, to sound exciting, rather than just being informative about an interesting subject. It sounds to me like there were two men who came up with similar theories at a similar time and even shared knowledge and ideas. One of these men has been better remembered possibly because he presented his theory in a more accessible/coherent way or had more publicity at the right time, and that's just the way it worked out.

Other Comments by GodMyArse

69. Comment #185776 by FSMTeapot on May 28, 2008 at 1:47 pm

 avatarThey all knicked the idea off Aristotle anyway.

I'm sitting here looking at the introduction to the Origin, which lists off about 20 people who Darwin recognises as coming at some parts of the theory before him.

My impression was that Darwin had thoughts about it for years before he wrote the book, and that he originally intended to include some of the material that found its way into the Descent of Man in the Origin, and that it would have been a truly monumental book, when he heard about Wallace, that they published articles together about two years before the Origin, and Wallace graciously allowed him to publish his book first.

Other Comments by FSMTeapot

70. Comment #186299 by agki on May 30, 2008 at 5:17 am

David Quamen discussed this in his "The Song of the Dodo." As I recall from the book, the notion that Darwin received Wallace's letter that elucidated the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection about two weeks before he claimed he did is held by a number of other historians of science. One worker (whose name I don't recall and I no longer have the book) was trying to locate the bils of lading from the Dutch company that picked up the mail from Wallace's station. He could not locate the bills from the specific period that would have put the Wallace letter in Darwin's hands two weeks earlier than he claimed to have received it. If the bills have been located, it certainly casts doubt on Darwin's honesty.

The letter from Wallace contained the theory of Evo by NS in a complete form that Darwin MAY not have been able to complete himself and Wallace asked Darwin that he forward the letter to Lyell. It was Lyell who suggested the joint presentation (that didn't even raise an eyebrow at the meeting). If Darwin kept the letter and lied about the date of receipt, he may have used the Wallace data to fill in the blanks in his theory and then presented it to Lyell as a quandary of equals.

There may be some class warfare at work here. Darwin, as a member of the upper class gentility, could not have wanted an upstart working class hero to get credit for what he had been working on (but could not complete) for twenty years. Lyell could be the victim and the hero of the episode. Anyway, as a member of the rapidly diminishing lower middle class of America, I would LOVE to see Wallace given sole credit. It does not diminish Darwin's other work in the slightest, just his reputation as a supremely honest man.

Other Comments by agki

71. Comment #186833 by agki on May 31, 2008 at 11:34 am

Theantitheist: " I would not have respect for someone who ripped off my work and i'm sure Wallace would not either."

But Wallace didn't know that Darwin may have stolen some of his work. How could he have been angry about it?

Other Comments by agki

72. Comment #188740 by Roy Davies on June 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm

How amazing. All these comments based on total prejudice and not one of you seems to have read the book. And your ideas, even those of Richard Dawkins himself, are those based on generations of authors devoted to Darwin's own account of his work. OK. So most of you think the arguments in the book are indefensible - so read the book and then let the arguments commence. In the meantime, don't simply keep on repeating things you have been told all your scientific lives by tutors and professors who may not have gone back themselves to check all the details of the story. And to take one simple point: Richard Dawkins like so many others argues that Darwin had the theory of natural selection in 1842. He didn't. What he had in the sketch of 1842 expanded into the Essay of 1844 was an entirely different mechanism than that which eventually appeared in Origin of Species. In 1844 his idea of natural selection operates only as an organic response to changed geological conditions. By 1859 it had become an ongoing process working constantly at the improvement of organisms without there having been any change in environmental conditions. [Read Ospovat D. The Development of Darwin's Theory]. Darwin in 1856 began working on an entirely different theory from that held in 1844 and where did his new ideas come from? Well, just read the book. Oh, and by the way. In the book Wallace is an Englishman OK?

Roy Davies

Other Comments by Roy Davies

73. Comment #293613 by PvM on November 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm

in comment 73 of this thread, Roy Davies wonders where Darwin's new ideas came from. Since he seems familiar with the work by Ospovat, he should understand the evolution of Darwin's understanding of the principle of divergence as well as it explanations. It is undeniable that Darwin understood the concept of divergence as early as his Notebook B (Transmutation of species (1837-1838)). His explanation of the concept of divergence underwent an evolution from a totally static environmental driven to a struggle in which species divergence. Davies makes much of the 'fact' that Darwin wrote 3 weeks after he received Wallace's first paper, which had little to contribute to the concept of divergence btw, while Roy also seems to ignore the footnote by Ospovat that much of what Darwin wrote a few weeks later had been captured in his notes several weeks before the Wallace paper had been published. See also DAR205.5 p157.

While I have not read Davies' book, I have seen some references to the dates on which Wallace's first letter as well as his famous Ternate paper arrived. Sufficient to say that the schedules show that a July 16-17 is quite supportable given that another letter mailed on March 9 arrived on July 3 at the Bates residence and the next mail boat would have taken 2 more weeks. In other words, it is quite reasonable that Wallace did not mail the paper until close to the date he left for Papua New Guinea on July the 25th of 1858. As to the letter which was dated Oct 10 1855, which according to Darwin did not arrive until just before May 1 1856, again there are reasonable explanations.

In the end however it does not really matter. When Wallace's paper was read to the Linnean Society, none of Darwin's recent work was read, instead his 1844 paper as well as his letter to Asa Gray were published. In other words, the issue of who published first was easily resolved. Darwin got to publish his earlier paper, Wallace got to publish his Ternate paper and priorities were established appropriately.

Finally, it may be relevant to point out that Darwin's concept of divergence owed little to Wallace. See Darwin's Principle of Divergence Soshichi Uchii, Kyoto University.

At best, the argument is that the letters could have arrived earlier while ignoring the simple fact that the letters could have arrived later and that the Ternate letter arrived, coincidentally, two weeks later than the Bates' letter, just as if it had left on a later mail boat from Ternate.

Other Comments by PvM
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: