 | Pierre Louis Maupertuis: Encyclopedia II - Pierre Louis Maupertuis - Evolution
Pierre Louis Maupertuis - Evolution
Some historians of science point to his important works in biology as significant precursors in the development of evolutionary theories, specifically the theory of natural selection. Other writers contend that his remarks are cursory, vague, or incidental to that particular argument. See "Venus Physique" (1745), or its English translation, Boas (1966), for details. Other valuable references include Stephen Jay Gould's The Flamingo's Smile (1987), Desmond King-Hele's Erasmus Darwin (1963), Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea (1983), and Bentley Glass' Forerunners of Darwin (1959). He also was one of the first to consider animals in terms of variable populations, in opposition to the natural history tradition that emphasized description of individual specimens.
Below is a translation from Vénus Physique, followed by the original French passage:
"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced..." [1].
"Ne pourrait-on pas dire que, dans la combinaison fortuite des productions de la nature, comme il n'y avait que celles où se trouvaient certain rapport de convenance qui puissent subsister, il n'est pas marveilleux que cette convenance se trouve dans toutes les espèces qui existent actuellement? Le hasard, dirait-on, avait produit une multitude innombrable d'individus; un petit nombre se trouvait construit de manière que les parties de l'animal pouvaient satisfaire à ses besoins; dans un autre infiniment plus grand, il n'y avait ni convenance, ni ordre: tous ces derniers ont péri; des animaux sans bouche ne pouvaient pas vivre, d'autres qui manquaient d'organes pour la génération ne pouvaient se perpétuer... les espèces que nous voyons aujourd'hui ne sont que la plus petite partie de ce qu'un destin aveugle avait produit..."
Desmond King-Hele (1963) points to similar, though not identical, ideas expounded by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1777).
The question of who deserves priority for the discovery of the principle of natural selection has always been of particular interest to the historian and biologist. This may be due to the delayed publishing by Charles Darwin and to the peculiar circumstances of the theory's simultaneous discovery by Alfred Russell Wallace. Further, the tantalizing facts surrounding Darwin's unique social and family circumstances, particularly his family's reputation for liberal, deist, and evolutionist predilections, have always been cause for some skepticism about Darwin's originality.
With regard to Maupertuis the question is whether or not Maupertuis had (1) an internally coherent, yet externally robust, theoretical system, (2) an atheistic system or, at a minimum, a non-mystical and thus, scientific system, and/or (3) a broad, overarching theory that tied together all of the available evidence. The chief debate that Maupertuis was engaged in was one that treated the competing theories of generation (i.e. preformationism and epigenesis) indicating that, if Maupertuis was indeed involved in evolutionary speculations, then natural selection may have followed intuitively from clear thinking about the mechanism of biological generation and propogation.
The date of these speculations, 1745, being concurrent with Carolus Linnaeus's own work, predate any firm notion of species, excepting, of course, Aristotle's. Also, the work on genealogy, coupled with the tracing of phenotypic characters through lineages, foreshadows the later work done by Gregor Mendel. The juxtaposition of these subjects suggests that the Modern evolutionary synthesis, while certainly more quantitative, rigorous, and scientific, may have been a rather late addition to a philosophical framework that could already be considered "discovered". In summary, Maupertuis' text is suggestive and deserving of closer scrutiny by scientists and historians, as well as the general public.
Other related archives1698, 1698 births, 1723, 1736, 1740, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1752, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1759 deaths, 1911 Britannica, Académie des Sciences, Académie française, Alfred Russell Wallace, Austrians, Basel, Battle of Mollwitz, Berlin, Carolus Linnaeus, Cartesian, Charles Darwin, David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, France, Frederick II of Prussia, French, French astronomers, French mathematicians, French nobility, French scientists, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Jacques Cassini, Johan Bernoulli, July 17, July 27, Käymäjärvi Inscriptions, Lapland, Leonhard Euler, Louis XV, Maupertuis crater, Members of the Académie française, Modern evolutionary synthesis, Moon, Paris, Saint-Malo, Seven Years War, Stephen Jay Gould, Voltaire, corsairs, epigenesis, genealogy, man of letters, mathematician, meridian, natural selection, oblate, phenotypic, philosopher, principle of least action, prolate, species, vis viva
 Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Evolution", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki |
