Why did evolutionary theory not become mainstream until Darwin?

[Rational Agnostic]

I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

 

[YmirGF]

No, it was primarily religious bias. That opiate was especially strong in days gone by.

 

[Rival]

It seems simple to us now.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, it was primarily religious bias. That opiate was especially strong in days gone by.

I don't think we should forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
It's not that we're (particularly) smarter now, but the body of knowledge provided to us by our forefathers is impactful.

More facetiously, the 'knowledge' passed to us can sometimes hamstring rather than help.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't it mostly a matter of access to the data and evidence (albeit compounded by a bias towards ignoring it in favor of biblical tales)?

 

[bobhikes]

I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

The influence of humans made it to hard to determine. When you are in Europe how many types of beans are there and they are spread through out the continent grown in various environments the same with animals. Wars had happened with destructive force. Darwin happened on a small closed environment only changed by the nature of the island for 10000's of years. This allowed him to see natural evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin.

Evolution isn't self-evident to me. I doubt that I would have guessed that it happened. I had to be told.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I always forget his name, but I believe there was a contemporary of Darwin who was also finding similar things at the same time? He may have worked with birds or flowers. Also don't remember. Evolution is definitely scientific.

I guess it's taken this long because of scriptural literalism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Survival of the Fittest made the difference -- per a documentary about Darwin, and that's what the video says. I don't remember the title of the documentary. Yes, people have always seen similarities between creatures, but what we did not have was a mechanism.

 

[David T]

No, it was primarily religious bias. That opiate was especially strong in days gone by.

Kinda like the Internet!!!!

 

[LuisDantas]

I always forget his name, but I believe there was a contemporary of Darwin who was also finding similar things at the same time? He may have worked with birds or flowers. Also don't remember. Evolution is definitely scientific.

Yes, that was Wallace.

Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia

There is little room for doubt that evolution would be found out soon enough without Darwin. Or, for that matter, without Wallace.

 

[David T]

I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

Life interconnected is old. European culture had become educated!!!! Darwin stated the self evident and a dog is an evolutionist so no big deal really this is a culture lost in the intellect at that time. Oh wait nothing has changed. His narrative is garbage even science has abandoned it. Hell John Muir stated what I have just stated nothing new.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

I believe it was basically three issues: (1) Science academically was not developed as specific discipline in England and Europe. Most like Charles Darwin studied theology and philosophy. His study was independent. Others that shared his naturalist views also had to carry out independent studies. (2) The Dominant academic view was a Biblical Creation. (3) The systematic research to document and support the science of evolution was not carried out until Charles Darwin.

There were several scientists around the corresponding about evolution like Wallace.

 

[Sunstone]

If you look at the intellectual history of Darwin's discovery you will find that several bits of knowledge go into the making of it, and that these bits of knowledge were not all of them discovered until more or less shortly before Darwin pulled them all together, along with new knowledge, to create the Theory of Evolution. For instance, up until a few years before Darwin's discovery, it was thought the earth was very young (largely owing to the biblical story of creation). But for evolution to make sense, the earth had to be much, much older. That the earth was indeed old was not figured out until just a few decades before Darwin's discovery.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Darwin provided a mechanism for change: natural selection, even though he didn't know HOW the traits were passed on.

Before Darwin, one of the main models of evolution was that held by Lamarck, and frankly, endorsed by many scientists of the day. The explanation for example of a giraffe's long neck was that the ancestors had short, normal necks, but for generation after generation, some kept stretching their necks until they eventually had long necks.

 

[siti]

Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

I think mostly because there was no apparent mechanism. The fact of evolution was obvious to many - such as Darwin's grandfather Erasmus for example - but they lacked an explanation of what might cause the changes in species. Darwin hit on natural selection as the author of biodiversity and that coupled with the 'rediscovery' of Mendelian genetics in the early 20th century, the realization that the earth was very, very old indeed and the steadily accumulating wealth of fossil evidence gave evolution a previously unimaginable explanatory force that was increasingly hard to resist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The main non-religious reason being that before Darwin nobody put the pieces together in a way that so well fit. The idea of evolution wasn't what Darwin discovered, it was unseen forces that drive it, what we know now as natural selection.

 

[sun rise]

Besides the details provided here, many scientific discoveries happened at specific time for specific reasons. Even the idea of science as we know it today took time to come into existence. So to me there's nothing special about when any scientific discovery happened.

My attitude was influenced by the TV show "Connections":

Connections explores an "Alternative View of Change" (the subtitle of the series) that rejects the conventional linear and teleological view of historical progress. Burke contends that one cannot consider the development of any particular piece of the modern world in isolation. Rather, the entire gestalt of the modern world is the result of a web of interconnected events, each one consisting of a person or group acting for reasons of their own motivations (e.g., profit, curiosity, religion) with no concept of the final, modern result to which the actions of either them or their contemporaries would lead. The interplay of the results of these isolated events is what drives history and innovation, and is also the main focus of the series and its sequels.

To demonstrate this view, Burke begins each episode with a particular event or innovation in the past (usually ancient or medieval times) and traces the path from that event through a series of seemingly unrelated connections to a fundamental and essential aspect of the modern world. For example, the episode "The Long Chain" traces the invention of plastics from the development of the fluyt, a type of Dutch cargo ship.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am curious as to why the theory of evolution was not accepted as mainstream science until the Darwin era (or even after). When looking at various species of plants and animals, even as a layperson, it seems quite obvious to me that evolution played a role in their origin. Any reasonably intelligent human can recognize patterns in biological life, classify animals and plants by morphology, and from that infer that more morphologically similar life forms likely had more recent common ancestors than life forms that look less similar. And, natural selection is a very logical and obvious mechanism for evolutionary change to take place. Of course, we could not confirm evolution with the degree of certainty that we have today until we could actually examine DNA but nevertheless, overall, it is a fairly simple concept and quite evident that life forms are a product of evolution. I realize that there were some evolutionists pre-Darwin, but they were few and far between. It just surprises me that evolution was not realized as an explanation for the origin of species until several hundred years after the discovery of Calculus and other, arguably more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. Any ideas as to what took so long (besides religious bias)?

Honestly I think it was religious bias. My mind goes to on to Galileo and all the bias and stonewalling he had to put up with with his discoveries.

The only other delay I can think of maybe was through peer review and scrutiny before anything was accepted. Given Darwin's drawings and notes, that must have taken a long long time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

the 'knowledge' passed to us can sometimes hamstring rather than help.

Boy, ain't this the truth!

Reminds me of 1 Timothy 6:20

1 Timothy 6:20 Bible hub,