For this blog post I will highlight the major influence that Georges Cuvier had on Darwin's formulation of the theory of Natural Selection.
Georges Cuvier is widely regarded as the "Father of Paleontology" by members of the scientific community (for good reason). Cuvier was responsible for establishing extinction as a fact through his extensive observations of numerous fossilized animals. Cuvier also founded the idea that a species' lineage can be more than one. He was also one of the founding fathers of comparative anatomy, which led to the discovery of analogous structures and other anatomical similarities of living beings.
(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html)
Cuvier was a devout Protestant, he actively spoke against the initial implications of evolution that his peers, during that time period, presented. If Cuvier was alive during Darwin's time, Cuvier would have been Darwin's nemesis. However, a lot of Cuvier's research were instrumental in Darwin's discovery of natural selection. "If the environment changes, the traits that are helpful or adaptive to that environment will be different." Through his observations of fossils and comparisons with their living counterparts, Cuvier (unknowingly) found evidence of speciation. He also observed this first hand when each differing stratum (underground level) contained fossils that looked similar but had different traits.
The basis of natural selection is survival of the fittest. Cuvier was the pioneering researcher that proved that extinction was indeed a fact. Had it not been for this confirmation, Darwin would not have had a solid foundation for his theories. The purpose of evolution is to combat extinction. Had extinction been outside our sphere of thought during that time, Darwin may have never formulated such a grandiose theory or even if he did, it would have just been seen as blatant heresy.
The church was certainly Darwin's main cause of distress during his time as a researcher. It's safe to say that the church was one of the key opposing figures to his studies. Even contemporarily, evolution and creationism are still widely debated. However I do believe that the church's opposition led Darwin to step out of his comfort zone, he went where no other thinker had gone before. He made sure that he gathered enough compelling evidence in order to give the best case he possibly could, in order to avoid being shrugged off as a man overdue for Bedlam.
Nice work on your explanation as to why you chose Georges Cuvier. I happened to write about Thomas Malthus but as I read through your ideas I began to see your point and know why chose Cuvier over the others. Without the knowledge of extinction I don't think Darwin would be able to come up with his theory. Good job.
ReplyDeleteGreat blogging in identifying the key contributions of George Cuvier. Its interesting to me that I chose to write Jean-Baptistle Lamarck, who didn't actually believe in extinction as a fact but came up with the 1st theory of evolution. I wonder if Lamarck had Cuvier's research available to him if he could have developed his theory more correctly? It could have been a key element in Darwin's discovery.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in your description of Cuvier's work, but let's explore his concept of extinction a little more, as this is one issue that contrasts most sharply with Darwin. Cuvier, as you present, was familiar with the available fossil record at that time, along with the numerous species in that fossil record that no longer existed during his time. Darwin would explain this fossil record via evolutionary theory and adaptation, along with incidents of extinction. Cuvier, instead, argued that all of those organisms had gone extinct. Period. So, according to Cuvier, where do the new organisms come from?
ReplyDeleteOne thing missing here is that Cuvier was a proponent of what was called "catastrophism", the idea that there have been catastrophic events during earth's history which lead to large extinction events. The classic example of this was the great Biblical flood. But instead of new organisms arising through evolution, Cuvier argued for new and independent creation events that produced the next set of organisms that would exist until the next catastrohic event, i.e., animals don't evolve or adapt. They are created or they go extinct.
I agree with your choice of bullet point. For all of his differences with Darwin's theory, he did recognize the impact on the environment on organisms, though in his case it produced only extinction, not adaptation.
I would argue that you are giving Cuvier too much credit with regard to Darwin's work. Cuvier certainly made important contributions but he was one of very many scientists of this time and conducted his work long before Darwin. He would have been part of the foundational information Darwin would have learned in school, but his ideas were old and relatively disproved by the time Darwin began his work.
"However I do believe that the church's opposition led Darwin to step out of his comfort zone, he went where no other thinker had gone before."
You have a good point here. That much pressure and known scrutiny would certainly drive any scientist proposing an idea contrary to the church's teachings to check and double-check their work to insure their logic was sound. That being said, Darwin delayed publishing for more than 20 years. That is a very long time, even in the scientific community, to wait to publish, mainly because you risk losing credit for your idea to someone else (as almost happened with Wallace). This goes far beyond being sure of his research. What other concerns might he have had that were related to the influence of the church? What repercussions might he and his family have experienced as a result of publishing? Did Darwin have concerns about his wife (who was devoutly religious) and how she would respond or be impacted? Scientists don't work in a bubble. Their work can be impacted not just by issues of science but also by social/cultural/political issues as well.
Good first post.