Re: Common descent before Darwin?

"On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:41:44 +1000, in article
<dv5e1n$2oqf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Wilkins stated..."

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

What was the status of the idea of common descent before Darwin
published? Was the idea current among scientists, and Darwin
just provided a mechanism? If so, how widespread was it?
That species were organised into tree diagrams, or logical
classifications that could be presented as tree diagrams, was widely
known. It was part of the inheritance of logic. For example, George
Bentham (nephew of the famous Jeremy) published a logic text in 1827
with tree digrams in it using biological examples, before he turned
himself to botany (and became a famous botanist, and a friend of
Darwin's).

Karl Ernst von Baer proposed a classification of sorts based on
developmental divergence which was published in Scotland as a tree
diagram by a commentator, and it has been argued that Darwin was
influenced by this.

Darwin's trees are slightly ambiguous. The logical tradition allowed
only for dichotomous trees, and while Darwin's diagram in the Origin
has many branches, if you step back a bit and look at the whle
thing, you'll see that the overall phylogeny is dichotomous.

However, I am not aware of anyone who proposed common descent as
Darwin did before him. Lamarck had a variable branching at about the
phylum level but nobody treated of speciation as the basis for
common descent or "groups under groups". A tradition known as
Quinarianism held that species were arrayed in quintuplets around
the edges of a circle and had affinities with species from other
groups in "osculating" (i.e., touching or kissing)
circles. Basically there was a lot of confusion before 1859.

IMO Darwin's greatest contribution, and the one that earned
acceptance of evolution, was common descent.

Thanks.

What did they make of the fossil record at that time?

The best source is Cuvier's "Eloge historique du Chevalier de Lamarck par
Cuvier", in which he admits that different fauna existed over time, but denies
that the sort of progressive sequence Lamarck required could be found.


As I understand it, Cuvier pointed to the dinosaurs as a
counter-example to the idea of a progressive sequence. The dinosaurs
were, after all, big, complicated animals, not the simpler sort of
thing that a progressive sequence would have at an early time.

Another factor in the acceptance of evolution had to be the
realization that it wasn't progressive.

Unfortunately, the non-progressive nature of evolution turns
out to be one of the least acknowledged aspects, in certain circles
even today.


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Common descent before Darwin?
    ... Was the idea current among scientists, and Darwin ... That species were organised into tree diagrams, ... Quinarianism held that species were arrayed in quintuplets around ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common descent before Darwin?
    ... Was the idea current among scientists, and Darwin ... That species were organised into tree diagrams, ... I am not aware of anyone who proposed common descent as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: On Phylogenetic Trees
    ... It's my understanding that neither Lamarck nor Darwin had *a* single ... Lamarck believed firmly that evolution was strictly segregated within ... of the tree, but some information about the uncertainty of different parts ... Alfred Russel Wallace (1823- ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Darwin Was Wrong (Apparently)
    ... visit the Evolution Topic Guide ... Read our related editorial: Uprooting Darwin's tree ... time he published On The Origin of Species 22 years later, ... An admission that Darwin has been falsified, ...
    (talk.origins)