Origin Of Species; 16th Century

What if, at some point in the 16th century, some European naturalist who had done some globetrotting, visiting different continents, had put forth the Theory Of Evolution and published a book on it? If the Catholic Church got pissed over Heliocentrism, I can't imagine the shitstorm this would cause. Would this have changed history in any big way?, what would the modern scientific community be like?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I don't see this as very likely.

Darwin's work was only possible because the extent of the British Empire allowed him to have a network of contacts with naturalists and botanists all over the world. Darwin himself never ventured outside of England after returning from his voyage on the Beagle, but could continue his research because of his enormous circle of correspondents. I really don't think that this was possible before the 19th Century. Moreover, Darwin's work was only possible because of advances in biology that had already taken place, as well as advances in geology which gave a much clearer picture of the age of the Earth.

It was entirely possible for someone to make the intuitive leap to arrive at the concept of evolution; Anaximander did so in ancient Greece, for example. But to gather sufficient evidence to make a compelling case? That required a set of circumstances that didn't exist until the 19th Century. Without such evidence, any writing which suggested evolutionary theory would simply be dismissed and would have no impact.
 
Robert Hooke did articulate the theory of evolution in the 17th century; he was a devout Anglican, was told his theory was blasphemous, and promptly shelved it. Which is partly in support of Anaxagoras' idea and partly not; Hooke's scientific case was just as solid as Darwin's and he was personally better placed to argue it forcefully. But he was not interested in directly contradicting his Church - and the large majority of natural philosophers will share that position.

So I would say it's not that Darwin can build a stronger case, it's that not until his time is the counterargument considered too weak to stand.

The 16th is, by that logic, also a bad century to attempt it; the middle of the Protestant Reformation, everyone is defending their spiritual positions with pointy objects. Your philosopher probably gets burned at the stake.

Although the precedent might be useful for an alt-Hooke...
 
Actually the Protestant Reformation might be a good time. It wouldn't be a scientific theory though this early, just a basic idea.

Say one of the priests who defects to the Protestants had, prior to doing so, travelled some distance, going throughout the Catholic world for Church purposes and venturing even farther to convert some pagans to Christianity. By chance at one of the larger cities he goes to he finds a wealthy merchant's entourage with exotic animals from Africa or the East. Many of the animals look like strange, giant versions of the ones he's seen--a lion, cheetah or tiger with a cat, a hyrax with a rat, a crocodile with a giant lizard, a jackal with a dog, and a monkey that looks like a tiny man.

He spreads the idea that God forged animals from other animals when he joins with a more prominent Protestant reformer. He might say that apes were made after man, or were men punished for being pagan, and made into tiny furry animals.

Two or three centuries later an actual theory of evolution is formulated with a more connected world with easier travel.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
By chance at one of the larger cities he goes to he finds a wealthy merchant's entourage with exotic animals from Africa or the East. Many of the animals look like strange, giant versions of the ones he's seen--a lion, cheetah or tiger with a cat, a hyrax with a rat, a crocodile with a giant lizard, a jackal with a dog, and a monkey that looks like a tiny man.

Not quite enough, methinks. Darwin and Wallace had direct and indirect access to observations of many more types of animals and plants than could be contained in any wealthy merchant's private zoo and, more importantly, observed them in their natural habitats.

Think of Darwin's finches. They were only useful to Darwin in terms of formulating his theory because he had observed them in their natural habitat of the Galapagos Islands. If he had seen them all in a zoo, he would not have been able to arrive at any of the conclusions he did IOTL.
 
Not quite enough, methinks. Darwin and Wallace had direct and indirect access to observations of many more types of animals and plants than could be contained in any wealthy merchant's private zoo and, more importantly, observed them in their natural habitats.

Think of Darwin's finches. They were only useful to Darwin in terms of formulating his theory because he had observed them in their natural habitat of the Galapagos Islands. If he had seen them all in a zoo, he would not have been able to arrive at any of the conclusions he did IOTL.
Well this ATL priest isn't really coming up with the OTL scientific theory of evolution, just an idea that God forged some animals from other animals. Which would 'ease in' evolutionary theory later on.

All he has to do is notice that the animals are weird versions of the ones he knows, and then do some further thinking about European animals (like the similarities between mammals, which of course don't have a name back then but still have common traits, or between birds).
 
Actually the Protestant Reformation might be a good time. It wouldn't be a scientific theory though this early, just a basic idea.

Say one of the priests who defects to the Protestants had, prior to doing so, travelled some distance, going throughout the Catholic world for Church purposes and venturing even farther to convert some pagans to Christianity. By chance at one of the larger cities he goes to he finds a wealthy merchant's entourage with exotic animals from Africa or the East. Many of the animals look like strange, giant versions of the ones he's seen--a lion, cheetah or tiger with a cat, a hyrax with a rat, a crocodile with a giant lizard, a jackal with a dog, and a monkey that looks like a tiny man.

He spreads the idea that God forged animals from other animals when he joins with a more prominent Protestant reformer. He might say that apes were made after man, or were men punished for being pagan, and made into tiny furry animals.

Two or three centuries later an actual theory of evolution is formulated with a more connected world with easier travel.

Very interesting Scenario, that seems rather plausible for the time.
 
What if it occurs somewhere else? Like East Asia, for example?
There was an Arab scientist named al-Jahiz who had articulated a (primitive) theory of natural selection in the 9th century. I guess if you could have another scientist continue his work, with a bit of travelling under his belt, he could further refine the theory.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
There was an Arab scientist named al-Jahiz who had articulated a (primitive) theory of natural selection in the 9th century. I guess if you could have another scientist continue his work, with a bit of travelling under his belt, he could further refine the theory.

And Anaximander created a primitive theory of evolution in the 6th Century BC. For that matter, Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus devised his own theory of evolution in the 18th Century. Evolution in itself was not a new idea. Darwin's genius was not in thinking up the idea of evolution, but in devising the theory of natural selection.
 
Even if someone did have a theory (as people said, some did), and traveled widely to collect samples (maybe, maybe), here's a set of problems:

1. Livelihood of the scientist. Where is he getting his funds from? Who has interest in this? The earlier into the middle ages you go the more important this question becomes.

2. Scholar network: the closest things we have are the Muslim correspondence networks in the 9th-13th c. and some after; and the European universities in the 12th onward. None of them really paid attention to natural history beyond the descriptive, there were all sorts of ontological and theological questions to resolve first which is what the bulk of scholarship was about.

3. There's a strong disconnect between engineering and livestock selection and other practical sciences, and theoretical scholarship. This was no longer the case in Darwin's time. Experimental science became the norm in all disciplines and he had a lot of interdisciplinary foundation for his theory when it came out.

4. Even if 1, 2, 3 are overcome, it might be a total curiosity known by only scholars. There isn't prestige in "national science". There are no science academies as such. There are few newspapers that would carry it. There are few printers that would print something as weighty as that, especially if it won't make money (it likely won't).

So you might have the most perfectly formed idea in the 16th c., despite all odds against that. And it wouldn't reach a wide audience anyway.
 
Even if someone did have a theory (as people said, some did), and traveled widely to collect samples (maybe, maybe), here's a set of problems:

1. Livelihood of the scientist. Where is he getting his funds from? Who has interest in this? The earlier into the middle ages you go the more important this question becomes.

2. Scholar network: the closest things we have are the Muslim correspondence networks in the 9th-13th c. and some after; and the European universities in the 12th onward. None of them really paid attention to natural history beyond the descriptive, there were all sorts of ontological and theological questions to resolve first which is what the bulk of scholarship was about.

3. There's a strong disconnect between engineering and livestock selection and other practical sciences, and theoretical scholarship. This was no longer the case in Darwin's time. Experimental science became the norm in all disciplines and he had a lot of interdisciplinary foundation for his theory when it came out.

4. Even if 1, 2, 3 are overcome, it might be a total curiosity known by only scholars. There isn't prestige in "national science". There are no science academies as such. There are few newspapers that would carry it. There are few printers that would print something as weighty as that, especially if it won't make money (it likely won't).

So you might have the most perfectly formed idea in the 16th c., despite all odds against that. And it wouldn't reach a wide audience anyway.

1. Perhaps he's a Nobleman?, if so, he could fund his expeditions himself. Technically, this is The Renaissance.

2. Perhaps you're right about that one.

3. Is it any different from Heliocentrism in this respect?, It doesn't really affect everyday life if the planets go around the sun or the other way around.

4. Again, if He's wealthy, perhaps he could self publish? If it angers important people, it might put him and his theory in the public eye.
 
Top