Who was the first scientist to formulate a theory on evolution?

elburcher

Greek philosophers discussed ideas that involved forms of organic evolution. Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) claimed that life had originally developed in the sea and only later moved onto land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought Sep 27 08, 8:20 PM

looney_tunes

The first to formulate a clear scientific theory of evolution was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in the early 19th century, when he proposed his theory of transmutation of species. However, his theory was supplanted by that of Charles Darwin, who provided a theory that included the mechanism by which it could be occurring in his work "On the Origin of Species" published in 1859. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought Sep 27 08, 8:24 PM

BRY2K

With due respect to elburcher's post (above) I would comment that Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher not a scientist per se. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander From the identical reference cited by elburcher, I would submit that Abd al-Rahman al-Khazini might be the first scientist to formulate a theory on evolution. The 12th-century writings of al-Khazini included what he called the "Mohammedan theory of evolution". He compared these early ideas to later biological theories, arguing that the former were developed "... much farther than we are disposed to do, extending them even to inorganic or mineral things". The theory itself is certainly underdeveloped in Darwinian terms but it was a rennaisance of thought from the scientific community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khazini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought Sep 27 08, 8:30 PM

queproblema

Author will have to weigh in on his definitions of "scientist," "formulate," and "theory," but I'm assuming he means the 20th and 21st century definitions and is looking for Lamarck. "Scientists" were first known as "natural philosophers," and the line between philosophy and science, though sharper now than four centuries ago, has always been ill-defined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy "Historically, scientists were termed 'natural philosophers' or 'men of science'; they were men of knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists The page that mentions Abd al-Rahman says two sentences later: "The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to speculate in detail about evolution was the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz in the 9th century." It then goes on to name other great Islamic scholars who are only now beginning to be widely known and appreciated in the western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#Islamic_philosophy_and_the_struggle_for_existence Sep 28 08, 12:09 AM

author

I guess I was looking for Lamarck, but the case of Abd al-Rahman is also interesting. The question seems to be: Did he "formulate a scientific theory", as BRY suggests, or did he merely "speculate in detail about the evolution", as queproblema suggests. And what is the difference between the two? Sep 28 08, 9:02 AM

queproblema

The difference is the application of the scientific method. Today we consider the ancient Greeks philosophers who used inductive reasoning, and credit either a Muslim, an Italian, an Englishman, or a Frenchman with devising the modern scientific method. So you see, the line simply cannot be sharply drawn. As Newton said, he stood on the shoulders of giants. Scholars learn so much from others that everyone's work can be traced back to another's idea. Here's a very good site on the scientific method. This is the page on history; be sure to go to the home page. http://www.scientificmethod.com/sm5_smhistory.html Then Wiki inevitably has an informative article with links to history and a time line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method These sites complement one another, meaning they somewhat disagree and highlight different scientists. Note that the Wiki site cited above gives al-Jahiz precedence over Abd al-Rahman. For all practical purposes, using definitions currently in use, I'm sticking with the now discredited Lamarck. Sep 28 08, 10:37 AM