Darwin: not the first to post on evolution theory?

The UK's Independent says that Darwin may not have been the first to postulate his evolution theory:

<snip>:

He was a gentleman farmer who developed a passion for rocks at the height of the Scottish enlightenment in the late 18th century - a passion that eventually led him to become known as the father of modern geology.Evidence has now emerged to suggest that James Hutton also formulated the theory of natural selection more than 60 years before Charles Darwin publishedOn The Origin of Species. A scientist and amateur historian has unearthed a little-known publication written by Hutton in 1794 in which is buried a description of the principle that lies at the heart of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Paul Pearson, professor of palaeoclimatology at Cardiff University, says there is no doubt that Hutton had independently formulated the theory of selection long before Darwin. "Although he never used the term, Hutton clearly articulated the principle of evolution by natural selection," Professor Pearson said.

It is likely Hutton's theory was still being discussed within the intellectual circles of Edinburgh when Darwin was there as a medical student, he said. It is even possible the memory of this half-forgotten concept may have resurfaced in Darwin's mind many years later when he was struggling with the theory that he finally published in his famous book of 1859, said the professor."It's not implausible and in no way is it dishonourable on Darwin's account. But it's possibly beyond a coincidence that the characters involved were all at Edinburgh," he said.
.....

For 30 years, Darwin struggled with the concept and amassed huge amounts of evidence in support of it until he was finally persuaded to go public when he realised that Alfred Russell Wallace had independently come up with the same theory. Darwin was magnanimous enough to allow Wallace to publish his theory alongside his own. He also acknowledged two other authors who had also independently thought about the concept of natural selection some years previously.
One was Patrick Mathew, who had outlined the mechanism in an appendix to a book in 1831. The second was a physician, William Wells, who had speculated on natural selection and human evolution in 1818. But neither of these had given the thorough, detailed description and analysis of natural selection that Darwin formulated. Historians who have studied Darwin's extensive notebooks have also shown beyond doubt that Darwin had independently come up with the theory of natural selection and evolution. But what has intrigued Professor Pearson is that Hutton, Mathew, Wells and Darwin lived in Edinburgh at a formative time in their lives.

<snip>

More:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=453801

Not to take anything away from his grandson, but Erasmus also worked along these lines, and in some ways his ideas were more advanced (hinting at something like genes or DNA, if I'm not mistaken).

I don't think it's so unusual that important ideas like natural selection have forerunners.

In any case, Erasmus is pretty interesting in his own right as a scientist/physician, sometime poet, and free thinker. He was an influence on Shelley's circle, back in the days when poetry, rhetoric and science were not so widely closed off from each other as now. Darwin encapsulated his evolutionary theories within an epic poem (just as Galileo conveyed things in the form of literary dialogues). When Mary Shelley refers to the work of Darwin in the intro to Frankenstein, she is of course refering to Erasmus, not the grandson (still a gleam in his mommy's eye at that point). Erasmus also obsessed about the Prometheus myth (an allegory about intoxication--alcohol, etc--he thought); Percy thought it was a myth about the poet as thinker-on-the-edge; Mary turned it into the primal myth of science and technology (fire-bringer=technology/knowledge/power-bringer), with intoxication thrown in, and framed it within conventions of prose romance to create science fiction. 'Scientific romance' as H. G. Wells (himself a student of the great evolutionary biologist T. H. Huxley) called it.

Oops, getting carried away again. The tangled origins of science and romanticism are an obsession of mine. I'll try to stop now....

</pedanticism>

You could have gone a lot more without offending me in any way!

I read a couple of biographies of Charles Darwin a few years ago and was fascinated by the connections between Erasmus and the other important cultural figures of his time.

The Wedgewood family! I was trying to remember the name. Charles's wife, who was his cousin, was from that family, I think, and so is the modern-day British politician Tony Wedgewood, who used to be known as Anthony Wedgewood Benn. Changed his name for some political reason, I suppose.

Anyway, a fascinating bunch of people in every generation.

That said, the idea of persons "owning" ideas, like some piece
of land, is ridiculous. We are all hopelessly dependent on the
work of those who went before us, and the proper attitude is
gratitude, not bein grabby about ones little addition to the
pile..

You might find the wikipedia passage interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton

And excerpt from that source:

"Hutton also advocated uniformitarianism for living creatures too -- evolution, in a sense --and even suggested natural selection as a possible mechanism affecting them:

"...if an organised body is not in the situation and
circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and
propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among
the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on
the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted
constitution, will be the most liable to perish, while, on the
other hand, those organised bodies, which most approach to
the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be
best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and
multiplying the individuals of their race." -- The Theory of
the Earth, volume 2