Partridge Derek
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Warmhill Barton, Bovey Tracey, Devon, TQ13 9QH, UK.
J Hist Biol. 2018 Sep;51(3):563-592. doi: 10.1007/s10739-018-9509-z.
Darwin's first two, relatively complete, explicit articulations of his theorizing on evolution were his Essay of 1844 and On the Origin of Species published in 1859. A comparative analysis concludes that they espoused radically different theories despite exhibiting a continuity of strategy, much common structure and the same key idea. Both were theories of evolution by means of natural selection. In 1844, organic adaptation was confined to occasional intervals initiated and controlled by de-stabilization events. The modified descendants rebalanced the particular "plant and animal forms … unsettled by some alteration in their circumstances." But by 1859, organic adaptation occurred continuously, potentially modifying the descendants of all organisms. Even natural selection, the persistent core of Darwin's theorizing, does not prove to be a significant basis for theory similarity. Consequently, Darwin's Origin theory cannot reasonably be considered as a mature version of the Essay. It is not a modification based on adjustments, further justifications and the integration of a Principle of Divergence. The Origin announced a new "scientific paradigm" while the Essay did little more than seemingly misconfigure the operation of a novel mechanism to extend varieties beyond their accepted bounds, and into the realm of possible new species. Two other collections of Darwin's theorizing are briefly considered: his extensive notes of the late 1830s and his contributions to the famous meeting of 1 July 1858. For very different reasons, neither constitutes a challenge to the basis for this comparative study. It is concluded that, in addition to the much-debated social pressures, an unacknowledged further reason why Darwin did not publish his theorizing until 1859, could have been down to his perceptive technical judgement: wisely, he held back from rushing to publish demonstrably flawed theorizing.
达尔文对其进化论的最初两次相对完整、明确的阐述,分别是他1844年的《论文》以及1859年出版的《物种起源》。一项比较分析得出结论,尽管这两部著作在策略上具有连续性、结构上有许多共同之处且关键思想相同,但它们所支持的理论却截然不同。两者都是关于自然选择的进化论。1844年,有机适应仅限于由不稳定事件引发和控制的偶尔阶段。经过改变的后代重新平衡了因环境某些变化而“不稳定的特定动植物形态”。但到了1859年,有机适应持续发生,有可能改变所有生物的后代。甚至自然选择,作为达尔文理论的核心内容,也并非理论相似性的重要基础。因此,达尔文的《物种起源》理论不能合理地被视为《论文》的成熟版本。它并非基于调整、进一步论证以及分歧原则整合的修改版本。《物种起源》宣告了一种新的“科学范式”,而《论文》只不过看似错误地配置了一种新机制的运作,以将变种扩展到其公认范围之外,进入可能的新物种领域。还简要考虑了达尔文理论的另外两个集合:他19世纪30年代后期的大量笔记以及他在1858年7月1日著名会议上的贡献。出于截然不同的原因,这两者都不构成对这项比较研究基础的挑战。得出的结论是,除了备受争议的社会压力外,达尔文直到1859年才发表其理论的一个未被认识到的进一步原因,可能是他敏锐的技术判断:明智的是,他没有急于发表明显有缺陷的理论。