WI No Darwin

WI Darwin dies before he gets to publish his work.
Since he left his work on the shelf for two decades, there is ample time for a fire to off both him and all his notes.
Or 'better' yet, the Beagle sinks before he has a chance to get any of his findings out.

Now, obviously, there were others working on the same thing. After all, Darwin only published because someone else (Alfred Russel Wallace) was going to publish his own version of natural selection.

Thing is, Wallace and Darwin corresponded quite a bit, so, remove Darwin and how much will Wallace's work be diminished?
Also, Wallace felt that human conscience could not be explained by natural selection.

So, we remove Darwin, how much have we damaged science as a whole?
Which areas suffer most?
Does removing Darwin have a noticable effect on the ... let's say ... the date of the first moon landing?
How about the mapping of the human genome?

Someone else would come to the same conclusions.

Alfred Russel Wallace was about to publish the same conclusions in OTL. This was in fact what got Darwin to publish "OOTS" - ideas that he had been sitting on for decades but never made public before.

Hey, did you know Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day?

I apologize for my dismissive response.

I had skimmed - not read - your first post and shot something off without giving it consideration. I've been at this site a few months and already I'm blending into the smug and jaded attitude that seems so prevalent here.

I honestly don't know Wallace well enough to intelligently say what his theories would have been without correspondence with Darwin. I know he was much more focused on biogeography... right? So you'd have a natural selection theory much more focused on the big picture: the idea that certain classes and orders are more suited to certain continents and regions, less emphasis (maybe) on individuals struggling for life.

Assuming that this is true, "social Wallacianism" could be an anti-imperialist ideology, as opposed to OTL's pro-imperialist Social Darwinism. If different species are better adapted to different regions of the globe, the Victorians might speculate that so it is with races of man, so the whites had best leave, for example, Africa, alone.

No darwin?

Probably takes longer to develop the theory, which could actually be a good thing.

Less social backlash, since theory takes to longer to develop people gradually come to accept it?

Whanztastic said:

Probably takes longer to develop the theory, which could actually be a good thing.

Less social backlash, since theory takes to longer to develop people gradually come to accept it?

Click to expand...

No, Wallace probably still releases his theories around the same time as in OTL.

Benkarnell said:

No, Wallace probably still releases his theories around the same time as in OTL.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was almost a photo finish as it was. Things would be little different, scientifically. Did Wallace have any personality traits that could be attacked? I don't know anything about him.

Something interesting to consider is that Darwin personally was a very religious individual, who remained so all his life. Perhaps if he isn't around to shape the way that the Theory of Evolution is developed, it would take a more anti-religious overtone than it historically did. Darwin retained Christian beliefs in spite of the discovery he made, perhaps someone else would go Deist, Watchmaker or actively atheistic, and give additional ammunition to the anti-evolution Christian groups by making statements about evolution and religion, unlike Darwin. A real nightmare would be if the guy who developed it actively endorsed something like Social Darwinism in the same text where he expounded on his theories - it'd give the Creationists ammunition, that's for sure. Plus it'd probably strengthen the Social Darwinist movement, which would be bad. Basically, it seems to me that a lot of how such a TL would differ from OTL would depend on the nature of the guy who ended up taking Darwin's place, really.

Er... so, that's just my own two cents there, based mostly on my recollection of a book I read a few years ago...

Anyways, the theory would probably come out the same way in the end, more or less, but the way that a significantly different initial introduction of the Theory could change the world... well, it's interesting to think about, that's for sure. I feel the urge to quote some author from a short story collection I read a while ago - unfortunately, I don't have the book on hand to look up what was the exact wording of the quote, or even to remind myself of what his name was. The quote, however, seems relevant, so allow me to paraphrase it:

If Columbus had died as a child, some European would still no doubt have eventually discovered America. Given the technology and events of the time, it was more or less inevitable. But if it had been some other explorer, some Spaniard or Englishman, then oh, how the details would have differed...

An interesting thought, eh? Butterfly effect, and all that...

The religions get five years grace ... maybe.

Wallace was halfway there, he understands evolution, old Erasmus Darwin was half-way there half a century before his grandson Charles! Wallace can probably get the rest of the way to the mechanism natural selection. Darwin and Wallace had a joint paper published in '58 so to some extent it depends on when Darwin dies, before or after. If he dies before 1858 things may be a little slower due to Wallaces lack of contacts, but not much. If he can't get through to the conclusion there are other very clever men that will take his data and make the connections: Lyell, Tom Huxley, the Hookers, even the great Von Humbolt has a year left before the grave, any one of them can have the revelation. If they don't the Victorians have hundreds of plant collectors and zoologists systematising the world for the Empire, Wallace has pointed the way, anyone of them can have a Eureka moment.

Five years, tops.

Dure said:

The religions get five years grace ... maybe.

Wallace was halfway there, he understands evolution, old Erasmus Darwin was half-way there half a century before his grandson Charles! Wallace can probably get the rest of the way to the mechanism natural selection. Darwin and Wallace had a joint paper published in '58 so to some extent it depends on when Darwin dies, before or after. If he dies before 1858 things may be a little slower due to Wallaces lack of contacts, but not much. If he can't get through to the conclusion there are other very clever men that will take his data and make the connections: Lyell, Tom Huxley, the Hookers, even the great Von Humbolt has a year left before the grave, any one of them can have the revelation. If they don't the Victorians have hundreds of plant collectors and zoologists systematising the world for the Empire, Wallace has pointed the way, anyone of them can have a Eureka moment.

Five years, tops.

Click to expand...

I agree, but as I said, the devil is in the details. One can't help but imagine what might be changed by the way some other scientist might formulate the Theory when he presents it, though.

I must say that I admire this thread, in my opinion too many PODs deal with war and violence, so that when one comes along which deals with a non-military POD, I can't help but find it to be at least somewhat refreshing. So, kudos to Fiji for coming up with the idea!

On another note, this thread has inspired me to post another Darwin-related thread, link here:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=121587

This deals with the ways in which a different presentation of the Theory of Evolution might affect the biological sciences and the world as a whole.

ok, seems like I'm not entirely done with this yet.
the two major differences between Wallace and Darwin were that
1) Wallace was quite religious, though not necessarily christian. (spiritualist, if dodgy memory serves) A fact that resurfaces in his assertion that human self-awareness can not be explained via evolution.
2) Wallace felt that natural selection worked on the level of populations, not individuals

1 possibly leads to the odd situation where the father of evolution is also the father of intelligent design.
Science will eventually reject the need for a superbeing to explain the human brain, but it will take quite a while and the debate is likely to be nasty.

2 has the potential of making social Wallacianism (if it arises) way more nasty then social Darwinism ever was. After all, social Darwinism tells you to stop the undesireable individual from reproducing while social Wallacianism would tell you to stop the undesireable's entire 'kind' from reproducing (since, the trait that made the individual undesireable is, according to Wallace's theory, shared by everyone in his group ... you just haven't noticed it yet)

what do you guys think? too pessimistic?

I fail to see how removing Darwin changes much in the long term. He and Wallace developed their very similar ideas regarding natural selection and evolution independently at roughly the same time. Wallace would publish his theories more and it would become apparent they were an excellent means of explaining organic evolution.

However, the personalities may matter. As has been said, both Darwin and Wallace were religious/spiritual - although some claim that by the time of his death Darwin had largely abandoned traditional Christian views. It is also important to realize that Wallace essentially abandoned the field to Darwin when he saw how similar their theories were. To my limited knowledge, I do not believe he ever took serious issue with Darwin as he became the main person identified with the theory and its implications.

This apparent passivity might suggest that Wallace would have been a less dynamic advocate for natural selection in the face of scientific and religious opposition. He might have been less personally vested in it and be more willing to modify his views, or just stop advocating them. It really helps to have company when one promotes a radical new theory. It not only lends you more credibility, but gives you someone to correspond with if need be. The theory of natural selection came to be called "Darwinism" for a reason - and that reason has little to do with the fact that Darwin was one of the people who discovered its main principles. It has to do with the fact that Darwin was an aggressive advocate and salesman for his new theory. Wallace may not have been, and that could have delayed the widespread acceptance the theory in both the scientific and public arenas.