Thomas Malthus was a social economist whose assertions of the population was the spark that ignited Darwin's theory of natural selection. Malthus believed that if people did not control the number of children they had it would eventually lead to the demise of mankind.
When Darwin was coming back from his voyage trying to put together the origins of new species he had heard Malthus' explanation that if it weren't for disease and famine, increasingly crowded cities would face over population. This lead Darwin to ponder the struggle for survival in the wild. He came to the conclusion that in the wild and human population alike, animals breed beyond there means. With limited resources the strong would survive and the weak would cease to exist.
Darwin concluded that some variations of species would be better equipped to thrive and produce offspring than others. Eventually that species will multiply and be the only variation which is ideally adapted to it's environment. This theory is now known as his theory of natural selection.
Though Thomas Malthus did not formally make any scientific contributions, Darwin's theory of natural selection can be observed essentially from an economical and social standpoint through Malthus's observations. It is especially helpful in the explanation of Darwin's work since natural selection cannot be formally observed first hand
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/5/l_025_01.html)
Malthus's work is an example of limited resources playing a main role in the theory of natural selection. With a limited number of resources whether from an economical standpoint or in the wild, only those best suited to access of those resources can survive.
It is possible that Darwin could have eventually come up with his theory later on without the help of stumbling upon Malthus's work but he indeed helped Darwin solve a major issue that he was having with his hypothesis if evolving species.
The attitude of the church definitely hindered Darwin from wanting to publish his theory of evolution because he knew that it went against everything that everyone knew to be true. he knew that his theory would challenge the Bible and from examples of other scientists before him like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, he would face persecution. But unlike his predecessors, his theory has yet to be accepted by the church to be true.
Wonderful description of Malthus' work and its influence on Darwin's work. Very well argued and presented. My only quibble is with this sentence:
ReplyDelete"It is especially helpful in the explanation of Darwin's work since natural selection cannot be formally observed first hand."
Really? Would you like to bet on that? :-) We see evolution by natural selection in viruses (hence new flu vaccines every year) and bacteria, particularly in the bacterial resistance to antibiotics. These organisms have a very short generation times and allow us to witness thousands of generations in a relatively short span of time to actually see how they change and evolve. We can also see evolution occur in multi-cellular organisms with slightly longer life spans. Drosophila melanogaster (the lowly fruit fly) is a favorite of geneticists since you can control populations and watch the process of evolution. We have also seen evolution occur in mice and (a more famous species) the finches of Galapagos. This is just a few to mention here. So, no, we can't see natural selection in humans, but there are lots of short generation creatures out there that allow us to actually see this mechanism described by Darwin. Think a little broader outside your species!
While I agree with your choice of bullet point, Malthus also can be tied with the first two bullet points relating to exponential growth of a population.
Yes, it is possible, but... I rarely like to give too much credit to any one scientist for his influence and importance over the success of another, but I am willing to make an exception in Malthus' case (Lyell is another I would consider an exception). Malthus seems to have provided the key Darwin needed to put together all the pieces of his research puzzle. Darwin even seems to suggest this in his notes:
"... it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
Fortunately for Darwin, his version of "persecution" 'would have been limited to social and professional ostracizing.
"But unlike his predecessors, his theory has yet to be accepted by the church to be true."
Again, do you want to back that up with some evidence? There are many "churches", but it was the Church of England that would have given Darwin a hard time and they formally accept his work now. Even the Pope says there is no conflict between evolution and Catholicism and Jewish rabbis recognize the metaphorical nature of the Old Testament and the Torah and don't have a problem with science. It tends to be the fundamental branches of each faith that reject any science (not limited to evolution) that doesn't meet with a literal interpretation of their holy book.
Be careful about generalizations. Otherwise, good post.