Why Darwinists Missed the World's Most Powerful Analogy

Building a little upon the extensive work of Jim Dempster, I summarized in my book “Nullius” what Patrick Matthew originally contributed to knowledge in 1831. I wrote:

Matthew

‘Matthew originated the concept of Natural Selection in 1831 to explain the emergence and extinction of species between and after geological catastrophic events. He uniquely named it “the natural process of selection”, which he described as a fundamental law of nature. He discussed divergence in terms of diverging ramifications, the mutability of species, rejected miraculous birth of new species following catastrophes, held to a steady state in nature interrupted by catastrophes, understood the importance of the complex multi-level phenomenon of power of occupancy and ecological niches, rejected simple development from nearly-allied species in favour of descent from common ancestor, recognized what constituted a species, recognized the difference between domestic and wild species and saw artificial selection as the key to both discovering and explaining the process of natural selection.’

The last 16 words of the last sentence are rather important.

Dr Mike Weale of Kings College London    and I have spent some considerable time debating amicably whether or not (and if so – to what degree) Matthew’s various comparisons of artificial selection (in terms of humans cognitively breeding by way of selective breeding – animals and plants under protective culture to suit their own needs) with natural selection (the ‘natural process of selection’ in the wild where the most circumstance suited varieties are selected by nature to survive in the wild) is an analogy. The debate was settled on 14th April 2015 on the Patrick Matthew Project.   

Essentially, it was agreed that there are actually two main artificial and natural selection analogies that were used in the 19th century by those writing at the cutting edge about their own work that they believe led to the discovery of natural selection.

This is a new understanding in the story of the discovery of natural selection.

In current absence of any disconfirming evidence, the literature record shows that although many others before Matthew (1831) mentioned what artificial selection does, only Matthew used that information in an analogy with anything like any kind of understanding of any of the processes of natural selection to show the differences between the two. Matthew did this as an explanatory device to help readers understand what natural selection was. This was an analogy of differences. Analogies that focus upon difference, as opposed to analogies of sameness or similarities between the things compared come under the broad definition of the term analogy that is provided by the Oxford English Dictionary: ‘A comparison made between one thing and another for the purpose of explanation or clarification.’ We might name Matthew's unique analogy of Artificial versus Natural Selection,: 'The Analogy of Differences'.

The same unique analogy of differences that Matthew used in 1831 was replicated first by by Mudie (1832), then Low (1844), Darwin (1844) Wallace (1858) and by Darwin again (1859; 1868). See my blog on this story for the full details

David LaveryAttribution

Loren Eiseley on cover of biography by David Lavery

Notably, the eminent anthropologist and historian of science Professor Loren Eiseley (1979 – ‘Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X’ pp – 72-73)    was convinced that Darwin must have read Matthew’s 1831 book in or before 1844 when Darwin replicated in his private essay of 1844 Matthew’s example of the differences between plants grown in nurseries and those naturally selected in the wild. Eiseley noted that following Matthew’s letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860 – claiming his priority – that Darwin (1868) replicated his 1844 private essay replication of Matthew’s unique prior-published analogy – this time citing Matthew.

Eiseley (1979): "Matthew wrote   ,

'Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...'

"In his unpublished essay of 1844,

Darwin wrote, 'In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…"

In that later text, to which Eiseley directs us, Darwin (1868) wrote:

"Our common forest trees are very variable, as may be seen in every extensive nursery-ground; but as they are not valued as fruit trees, and as they seed late in life, no selection has been applied to them; consequently, as Patrick Matthew remarks, they have not yielded different races…"

Eiseley knew nothing of David Low's 1844 replication of so much of Matthew's work. Therefore he wrote that Darwin must have got this example from Matthew by 1844. Professor Low replicated Matthew's original analogy as well as being the first to second publish unique Matthewisms. Darwin read Low and recommended him to Royal Society. Low was Matthew's schoolmate. One thing we can be 100 percent sure of is that there is nothing original in Darwin's 1844 unpublished paragraph on trees, because its content and the ideas that underpin it were published by Matthew in both the main body of his 1831 book, and in its appendix. if Darwin never got this example directly from Matthew, then he got it from his friend David Low's (1844) book. And Low would have more likely than not got it from Matthew,    since he is apparently first to replicate two apparently unique Matthewisms

However, the most important point here is that Eiseley focused only on the similarity of the example of plants provided in the analogy – namely plants grown in nurseries v the wild. Had Eiseley focused on it as an analogy of differences in its own right then he would have spotted that Darwin (1859) used the same analogy of differences – only with different examples -on pages 83-84 of the ‘Origin of Species’.

The second analogy is the ‘Artificial Compared to Natural Selection analogy of similarities’ that is a comparison of the similarities between artificial and natural selection that Darwin deployed as a far more complex argumentative device in the Origin of Species (1859). For short we might name this one ‘the analogy of similarities’.

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Charles Darwin: The World's Greatest Science Fraudster

It is important to note that as a disciplinary group biologists are remarkable and alone in that the concept of analogy in biology is used only to refer to similarities between one thing and another. This stems in no small part from the practice of comparative anatomy which is used to determine which classification or intermediary of species a creature or fossil might be. I believe that this is why the artificial v natural selection Analogy of Differences has been so under-researched by Darwinists – the majority of whom are – I believe – biologists. Interestingly we see analogy interpreted in this way by Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, in Part 1 of his epic poem The Botanic Garden (1791, p. xvii   ).

Google BooksPublic Domain

From p xvii of Erasmus Darwin's The Botanic Garden

This breakthrough in our understanding of what Matthew originated and Darwin and Wallace replicated, means is that we can now say four things:

(1) Patrick Matthew (1831) was first to publish the complete hypothesis of natural selection.   

(2) Patrick Matthew (1831) was also first to use the ‘Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy of Differences’ to explain the process of natural selection.

(3) Both Darwin and Wallace subsequently replicated both in their major works on the topic; Wallace (1858) in his Ternate Paper and Darwin in his private essay of 1844 and then in the Origin of Species (1859).

(4) Darwin and Wallace each claimed that none known to them had read Matthew’s prior published ideas and that they each independently of Matthew, and independently of one another, discovered natural selection for themselves.

(5) In effect then, Darwin and Wallace claimed to have each independently generated Matthew’s prior published unique hypothesis AND his prior published unique analogy to explain it.

Public Domain

Alfred Russel Wallace - just lIkeCharles Darwin is believed by Darwinists to have "immaculately conceived" Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection - whilst influenced and surrounded by naturalists who read and cited it before he supposedly miraculously replicated it!

(6) Although Darwin claimed none known to him had read Matthew's ideas before 1860, BigData analysis uniquely revealed in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014)    that Darwin's claim is fallacious. In fact, it is newly known, seven naturalists known to him had both read and cited Matthew's book many years before 1858. Moreover, three of those naturalists were known to be major influences as naturalists, or else facilitators as naturalist editors, on the pre-1858 written work of both Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. By way of another explanatory analogy, this makes Darwin's and Wallace's so-called "independent discoveries" of Matthew's prior published hypothesis, and their replication of his explanatory analogy, like the Virgin Mary's Miraculous Immaculate Conception of Jesus of Nazareth (see my position paper on this analogy).

This is important, in my opinion. It is highly important because analogies are extremely powerful explanatory devices that have in recent years attracted much attention in the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience.

Most importantly, it currently appears (in absence of any disconfirming evidence) that Matthew (1831) not only originated and prior published the hypothesis of natural selection (in a book that we now newly know was, in fact, read and cited by seven naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace), which is arguably the most important scientific hypothesis of all time, but Matthew (1831) also originated the world’s most powerful analogy in order to explain it. Darwin and Wallace replicated both!

Conclusion and the way forward

Does this breakthrough in knowledge, driven forward by a social scientist in collaboration with a biologist, provide confirmatory evidence for the "Frozen Donkey Hypothesis"? I think, to be fair, the answer is a complex story of yes and no. But, in my opinion, Darwinists must adapt to new knowledge or else they will lose their power of occupancy in the literature on the history of discovery of natural selection.