# data[].attributes.body
After reading the crazy life of Alfred Wallace, discovering the existence of natural selection, traveling around the world to understand the world's extreme biodiversity, and how he managed to have radical beliefs on both sides of the scientific spectrum, I have come to the conclusion that if not for his unfortunate living/economic situation and terrible luck, he would have been recognized as the father of evolution. Although Charles Darwin had discovered natural selection before Wallace, his upper class status and religious background had prevented him from publishing his works until Wallace had appeared as competition to Darwin's genius. Wallace's first voyage to the Amazon resulted in his ship sinking with most of his writings and countless foreign species. As he sought to continue his research in the Malay Archipelago, he had cracked the secret to natural selection, and sent his discoveries to Darwin, who was forced to publish On The Origin of Species with only slight credit to Wallace; Wallace's naivety and friendliness had resulted in his name being forgotten by the scientific community. Fortunately, he did not seek fame and instead stumbled onto it, until he diverted from his stance as an evolutionary naturalist and began to explore the supernatural (is natural selection random, or selected by a divine power). He had a found a loophole in Darwin's wording as well as a flaw in his logic but because he had tried to "oppose Darwin," he lost credibility as a scientist and was no longer associated with evolution. Today, most moderate people of religion can accept evolution with the belief that some higher power orchestrated some sections of natural selection; they follow Wallace's ultimate belief system. He was a great mind but a man in the wrong time. Overall, if it was not for Wallace's rapid learning and great interest in evolution as well as his companionship and rivalry with Darwin, On The Origin of Species would never have been published. Darwin discovered natural selection a few years before Wallace, but Wallace completed the theory but yet was overlooked and thrown away.

# data[].attributes.body
While neither of the two can really be credited as the first to come up with the idea of transmutation/evolution, the idea they shared was the concept of natural selection. Wallace does have a pretty good case for being more notable in the history of scientists regarding this. Although we don't know exactly who had the idea first, we do know that Wallace shared an essay with Darwin regarding the idea before Darwin had ever published the Origin of Species. The argument can definitely be made that Wallace should be credited more than Darwin. There are also multiple reasons why Darwin would be credited more than Wallace. Darwin had significantly more physical evidence to back up his findings, due to Wallace's ship capsizing on his return from the Amazon. This isn't really Wallace's fault, but it plays a factor in the situation nonetheless. Another reason is that, because Darwin was already known within the relatively small circle of anatomists and scientists that would be debating evolution in England in this time period, and because his book from his time on the beagle had already sold very well, the Origin of Species sold way more and sparked way more of a debate than anything Wallace ever published. Another reasons is the way that Wallace kind of went off the rocker in the later years of his life. He is probably the first person to create the idea of natural selection, and SHOULD get credit for it, but because of some of the other ideas he supported, I understand why Darwin's name has lasted longer than Wallace's. Wallace kind of poisoned his idea by believing and advocating that evolution and creationism were compatible ideas and could both exist. His advocation for reincarnation and other ideas of spirituality, as well as anti-vax stances, lost him some standing with the more modern scientists over time, who would now prefer to use Darwin's work because of the other ideas Wallace is associated with. Both Wallace and Darwin received credit for their ideas and while I think that Wallace's name SHOULD still be more involved when discussing evolution today and he does probably deserve more credit than what he gets, I completely understand why modern evolution advocates would prefer to use Darwin as the example of the first proponent of evolution, as his ideas more wholly relate to what modern scientists would believe today.

# data[].attributes.body
I do in fact believe that Alfred Wallace should get the same recognition as Darwin did. I actually find it unfair that he didn’t. Wallace played a critical role in building up the theory of natural selection. Driven by the wonder of nature, he committed his life to studying different life forms, their distribution, adaptations, and eventually their interrelationships. Wallace's work is important since it is an original, independent endeavor of multiple life forms. Therefore, Wallace’s work definitively qualified for scientific recognition, as did Darwin's work, since he was greatly influenced by Alfred.Wallace’s life is perceived to be different from other scientists. He unfortunately grew up with a lot of setbacks, like losing his research in a sunken ship, and coming from a more economically challenged background, which limited a lot of what he was able to do, and yet, he still made the discoveries he made. The uniqueness of man among other species led him to believe in divinity. Appreciating the two sides of a coin; science and divinity, and the long time he spent afar, could have led to his unpopularity in the scientific arena. However, importantly, Wallace formulated a key scientific principle that “every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a preexisting closely-allied species” (Rosen, 2007). Wallace’s interest in the origin of species and his thoughts on how diseases and famine kept the human population in check furthered his discovery and the ultimate ‘solution’ to evolution. Eventually, Wallace noted that "within each species, there were often minute variations, which in a span of time… might become new species if circumstances were favorable" (Rosen, 2007). Wallace's discovery is now a commonly used knowledge about mutation, which leads to evolution. Therefore, the current scientific community should acknowledge the huge contributions of Alfred Wallace on unraveling the mystery behind Darwin's ‘natural selection’.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Wallace share the same credit as Darwin? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Wallace share the same credit as Darwin? 

# data[].attributes.body
Wallaces adventure to Singapore had allowed him to come to the clear realization of the theory of evolution. Wallace had studied over 125,660 specimens and had concluded that every species has come into this world, not through random order, but by coincidence. This theory that Wallace had come up with, The Sarawak Law, had grabbed the attention of Charles Lyell. Lyell, a friend of Darwin and great geologist, had been impressed with Wallaces discovery and his process of collecting data and keeping a species notebook. “Lyell was a friend of Darwin’s, and after reading Wallace’s paper he not only began keeping his own species notebook but urged Darwin to publish something. He recognized that Wallace was closing in.” Wallaces method of keeping notes and tabs on species allowed him to come up with his theory of evolution. Lyell had looked over Wallaves methods and research and had informed Darwin that this was an effective and evidence based method.

The encouragement of Wallace's methods had led up to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Without this effective method that Wallace had come up with, Darwin may not have been able to have enough evidence or research to conclude his own theory of evolution. Now given that he had this method available because of Wallace, he should be given the proper amount of credit he deserves. Wallace was a contributing factor of Darwin's evolution theory and she is recognized for his research.

- Cliff

# data[].attributes.body
We give credit to Columbus for being the first to “discover” America despite the fact that America was already discovered. Should the credit of discovering America not go to the first Americans? The native Indians who lived in the Americas long before Columbus set sail? By a similar logic, Wallace actually beat Darwin to the punch. Wallace was the very first person to connect the dots when he "noted that within each species there were often minute variations,” and combined it with Lyell's "principles of geology" and the age of the Earth which resulted in the actual core idea that defines evolution: survival of the fittest. This realization was given when he recognized that the age of the Earth allowed for these minute variations to compound and give way to new species.
Wallace was not the first to approach the theory of evolution. In 1855, he concluded “every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a preexisting closely-allied species.” However, it wasn’t until 1858 that the idea of survival of the fittest was actually mentioned for the very first time  during his time on the island of Ternate. This was an idea that only a naturalist as passionate as Wallace could have discovered as his passion was clear in the “unimaginable” specimens that he studied. He studied a total of 125,660 specimens, including 310 mammals, 100 reptiles, 8,050 birds, 7,500 shells, 13,100 butterflies, 83,200 beetles, and 13,400 by 1854. His passion was also clear during his writing of this experience "I trembled with excitement as I saw [the butterfly] coming majestically toward me…” Furthermore, he loved nature for nature itself and not recognition because he never harbored a grudge against Darwin or Lyell and died after the age of 90 when he would still be in a wheelchair to enjoy his favorite flowers.
Whether he cared for the recognition or not, whether he lived a life that he felt was fulfilling and satisfying or not, and whether he believed in mystical and religious ideas over evolution or not are not the question at hand. The final say in the matter is that Wallace was the first person to try to share the idea of survival of the fittest with the world and should thus be equally famous as Darwin when it comes to evolution. After all, no one discredits Isaac Newton’s great works despite him believing in alchemy either.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does Wallace Deserve The Same Recognition As Darwin?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does Wallace Deserve The Same Recognition As Darwin?

# data[].attributes.body
A very good question, Mr. Konen. On one hand, Wallace essentially came up with the idea of natural selection right around the same time as Darwin, perhaps even earlier. His work heavily influenced that of Darwin; Darwin may not have released his ideas at the time time or in the same way that he did if not for Wallace. It is also not necessarily fair to Wallace to have been burdened with setbacks like the loss of extensive research in a sunken ship and his poverty as opposed to Darwin's higher class upbringing and standing. However, on the other hand, Wallace took many gambles with his popularity, oftentimes conflicting; as Jonathan Rosen of the New Yorker (at least as of 2007) so eloquently put it, "He remains today too theistic for the Darwinians and too Darwinian for advocates of intelligent design, with whom it is hard to imagine him having much patience." Clearly, if he was looking for strong, complete support, he would have stuck with one general school of thought without trying to find a bridge between the two ever-conflicting ideas. The man was so relatively indifferent to popularity and recognition, especially in his older years, that he even intended to reject certain honors due to the expensive cost of the clothes he would need to buy to be well dressed when receiving them. My answer to the question is as follows: for the idea of natural selection itself, Wallace probably deserves as much praise and recognition as Darwin - they both concluded and published their findings at around the same time, influencing each other's work. Rosen himself, the aforementioned writer for the New Yorker, called the situation a perfect case of "great minds thinking alike." However, one cannot say that Wallace did not all but ask for his being forgotten. His views were controversial because they were complex and at times questionable. They were more than merely natural selection. They were, in many ways, contradictory, and thus, as Rosen points out, naturally overlooked by people on both sides of the evolution "debate" in favor of people like Darwin who were more clear and direct with their views focusing solely on natural selection. He may have contributed just as much to the "discovery" as Darwin, but it was his attitude and other somewhat conflicting views that made him less popular than Darwin, as opposed to just a general predisposition for Darwin.
I think they would both agree, however, if they were still living, that the Eagles are going to win the Super Bowl this year, based on empirical evidence and the principle of natural selection - one doesn't need to go to the Amazon Rainforest or Galapagos Islands to see that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dat boi wallace got scamed(or maybe not... hahah jk... unless)

# data[].attributes.subject
Dat boi wallace got scamed(or maybe not... hahah jk... unless)

# data[].attributes.body
If we are to give credit to the idea of evolution to Darwin, then his name should always be accompanied by that of Wallace. Wallace’s life was plagued with unfortunate events and circumstances; I would argue that even if only a few of these events happened differently than they did, we very well may have been taking a class more focused on him rather than Darwin. His poor upbringing, the sinking of his boat when returning from the amazon, and his very radical ideas for the time all may have led to Wallace not being attributed with the same amount of scientific prestige as someone like Darwin. In addition, constraints such as money and the fact that he lost all his research after the sinking of his boat also slowed his process of being able to publish any works. Regardless of the practical limitations on Wallace's work he should still always be mentioned alongside Darwin. It was said by Dawrin when Wallace sent his ideas about the method by which evolution occurs, “I never saw a more striking coincidence. . . . Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters.” These two men at this point were not behind or infront of one another but were both equally pioneering the understanding of evolution. Darwin later said while cautioning Wallace about defending the effect of a greater power on natural selection, “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.” It is obvious from these excerpts from Darwin that he himself believed the concept to not be solely his alone but rather the both of theirs combined. To address a point in opposition of Wallace, there is something to be said about the determination that these naturalists had to complete published works. Some may say that due to Wallace's lifestyle, which did not lend itself much to settling down like one may want to do if he wishes to write a book, it is fair that he does not receive as much recognition as Darwin. While there is an element of truth to this one must consider all the things that led to this point. First, if not due to unfortunate circumstances in his childhood as well as continuing events which occurred in his adult life, he may not have held this lifestyle and thus may have had more time to write. Secondly and most important, just because he did not write down anything as substantial as the origin of species, this does not mean that he should be denied access to the claim of a father of evolution. In the example of Columbus and discovering the New World we more often than not acknowledge the fact that while he did notarize the event it was done before and we know of the names of people like Leif Eriksson.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Wallace and Darwin both did good work towards the discovery of evolution. Both of these scientists can be credited with coming up with the idea of evolution because we do not know who came up with it first for sure and each of them went on their own expedition to form their research. I do think that Wallace should receive a little more credit for his work but nonetheless, I still think it is fair to call Darwin the “father of evolutionary theory.” Wallace, like Darwin, studied natural selection and its role in evolution which gains him some credibility. In “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type,” Wallace noted that “within each species, there were often minute variations, which—in the spans of time that Lyell wrote about, and exposed to the struggles that Malthus described—might become new species if circumstances were favorable. When the fever and shaking subsided, Wallace had it. The fittest variations would survive, the least fit would perish, and new species would thus come into being.” Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus had already established the idea of transmutation, but this was Wallace’s way of filling in the blank and explaining how evolution worked. This was good work by Wallace and is the main reason why I think he does deserve some credit because he was able to gather this missing piece on his own through his research. However, Wallace’s credibility becomes questionable when we look at his comments on creationism and divine agency. I think that Darwin should be considered the father of evolutionary theory and get most of the credit since he is the one who got it written down and known. Wallace understood and was able to explain the evolutionary concept that simple organisms mutated into the human species over time, but seemed to counteract himself by also arguing that our existence is evidence of divine agency. Many scientists were troubled by this because it doesn’t make sense to believe in both, it is usually only one or the other. This is another reason why Darwin may gain some more credit among scientists: he was able to pick a side and defend it. Wallace also didn’t have much research or evidence to back up his theories because of the sinking of the boat he was traveling on. With the boat went Wallace’s entire private collection of notebooks that encapsulated the existence of hundreds of new species. He was only able to salvage a couple of notebooks. This set Wallace back and probably hindered his progress towards being able to share his theories in an effective way. Darwin had more physical evidence to support his claims which possibly gave him more credibility than Wallace. Darwin was also a known scientist within the community of scientists in England that was looking into the concept of evolution. This gave Darwin an audience that could support him to help him gain traction among even more scientists and gain fame. Wallace never had these connections which made it really hard for his work to be shared on a large scale like Darwin’s was.

# data[].attributes.body
We give credit to Columbus for being the first to “discover” America despite the fact that America was already discovered. Should the credit of discovering America not go to the first Americans? The native Indians who lived in the Americas long before Columbus set sail? By a similar logic, Wallace actually beat Darwin to the punch. Wallace was the very first person to connect the dots when he "noted that within each species there were often minute variations,” and combined it with Lyell's "principles of geology" and the age of the Earth which resulted in the actual core idea that defines evolution: survival of the fittest. This realization was given when he recognized that the age of the Earth allowed for these minute variations to compound and give way to new species.
Wallace was not the first to approach the theory of evolution. In 1855, he concluded “every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a preexisting closely-allied species.” However, it wasn’t until 1858 that the idea of survival of the fittest was actually mentioned for the very first time  during his time on the island of Ternate. This was an idea that only a naturalist as passionate as Wallace could have discovered as his passion was clear in the “unimaginable” specimens that he studied. He studied a total of 125,660 specimens, including 310 mammals, 100 reptiles, 8,050 birds, 7,500 shells, 13,100 butterflies, 83,200 beetles, and 13,400 by 1854. His passion was also clear during his writing of this experience "I trembled with excitement as I saw [the butterfly] coming majestically toward me…” Furthermore, he loved nature for nature itself and not recognition because he never harbored a grudge against Darwin or Lyell and died after the age of 90 when he would still be in a wheelchair to enjoy his favorite flowers.
Whether he cared for the recognition or not, whether he lived a life that he felt was fulfilling and satisfying or not, and whether he believed in mystical and religious ideas over evolution or not are not the question at hand. The final say in the matter is that Wallace was the first person to try to share the idea of survival of the fittest with the world and should thus be equally famous as Darwin when it comes to evolution. After all, no one discredits Isaac Newton’s great works despite him believing in alchemy either.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Wallace should have been credited more for his constant interest and discovery in many aspects of evolution and natural selection. Even Darwin took notice of his work and "incorporated" it into his own without much of Wallace's knowledge on what was going on. To start off, Wallace was studying such subjects at a similar time to Darwin giving him reason to be seen as a forefather of evolution. However, Wallace's constant back and forth as well as radical views in the scientific community caused much credibility lost and making it so that others wouldn't want to credit someone they oppose with a discovery of the ages. Some examples include his opposition to vaccines and a want to intertwine evolution and religion. "...like his campaign against vaccination and his credulous defense of spiritualist mediums—that did not endear him to the scientific establishment, or to posterity." Another cause of lost chance at credit was essentially a one sided competition with Darwin. Darwin, being a man with friends in high places, had it so that any writing he put out would be published sooner and seen by many more in favorable outcomes than if Wallace had tried to do so resulting in others seeing Darwin as the father of evolution. Not only that but Wallace's expeditions and research ended in disaster many times. These setbacks caused unfortunate circumstances like income problems and further slowed down his progress in the field. All these factors caused Wallace to be seen as a second thought and not worth much mentioning when talking about Darwin stealing the spotlight. Wallace deserves at the very least some credit for his new ideas instead of shunning him out all together.

# data[].attributes.headline
Probably not the first...for sure not the last

# data[].attributes.subject
Probably not the first...for sure not the last

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Wallace does deserve as much recognition as Darwin (maybe even more). We will probably never know if Darwin stole his ideas but we know that Wallace developed a theory by himself. As Darwin recognized, “I never saw a more striking coincidence. . . . Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters.” He added despairingly, “So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed.” Darwin grew up in a wealthy family which gave him more opportunities and privileges. Unlike Wallace, who did not have the same advantages. Darwin studied in Cambridge, he belonged to scientific societies, and was supported by the scientific establishment. Wallace was more of an outsider, who did not belong to the "club", and he was obviously in the weaker position.  In history we have been able to discover, decades or centuries after the fact, that sometimes the powerful take the credit, even in science.  As for example Watson and Crick (both males), taking credit for Franklin's DNA research (female). On the other hand it is possible in science to have coincidental discoveries or theories. This also happened with HIV, which was discovered by Dr. Gallo in the U.S., Dr. Montagnier in Paris and Dr. Levy in California at about the same time. (“Discovery of HIV - History - Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum.” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.) No matter if they discovered it at the same time or Wallace was plagiarised I believe that he should have received at least the same credit as Darwin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the earliest reports of a new disease, scientists around the world focused their efforts on finding the cause of AIDS. They circulated information informally; they held meetings to exchange ideas; and they published promising findings. A pioneer in this effort was Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, who only recently had discovered the first two human retroviruses, HTLV-I and HTLV-II. In 1984, research groups led by Dr. Gallo, Dr. Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and Dr. Jay Levy at the University of California, San Francisco, all identified a retrovirus as the cause of AIDS. Each group called the virus by a different name: HTLV-III, LAV, and ARV, respectively. As has happened many times in scientific history, contention emerged about who had been first. In 1987, the president of the United States and the prime minister of France announced a joint agreement on the issue-the first time a medical research question had reached this level of political negotiation. More importantly, the identification of that virus, renamed human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, provided a specific target for blood-screening tests and for scientists around the world conducting research to defeat AIDS.

AIDS being identified right after the discovery of the first and the second human retroviruses is one heck of an extraordinary phenomenon.

Dr. Robert Gallo Excerpt

...we had not seen a new virus in the blood supply in thirty years, and retroviruses did not cause human disease, we thought, with the possible exception of T-cell leukemia. So these were all disturbingly new concepts.

Dr. Harvey Klein Excerpt

We felt that the blood test was, in fact, an emergency, and to say that this was the etiology of AIDS was the right thing, and that it was urgent to do so.

Dr. Robert Gallo Excerpt 2

My impression is that, until the virus was isolated, it was relatively hard for most scientists to get a good handle on how to attack AIDS.

Dr. Robert Yarchoan Excerpt 2

Schematic of HIV

The virus that causes AIDS is shown budding out of a human immune cell, which the virus infects and uses to replicate

Upon recognizing that HIV could contaminate the blood supply, government scientists sought ways to keep it safe

Researchers and healthcare workers took precautions when handling potentially infected blood

Scientists found out how the virus attaches to an immune cell and reproduces, the challenge was prevention of this process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the earliest reports of a new disease, scientists around the world focused their efforts on finding the cause of AIDS. They circulated information informally; they held meetings to exchange ideas; and they published promising findings. A pioneer in this effort was Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, who only recently had discovered the first two human retroviruses, HTLV-I and HTLV-II.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article and learning about Alfred Wallace, I believe that Mr. Wallace should have been accredited and recognized in the same way that Darwin did. I don't think that one should have more credit than the other because they both shared a lot of the same ideas and made the same discoveries on their own. Although they both came to similar conclusions, they were very different people. Darwin was someone who always kept his ideas and thoughts to himself, too worried about what the public might think of them. He was fearful of harsh criticism of his theories (mostly because a lot of them were about the irrelevance of religion in science) as well as the possible dangers of making such brave and wild claims. Wallace couldn’t care less about what people thought of him. This naivety and attitude are a big reason for his lack of fame. The most significant reason as to why he isn’t very well known today is because of his horrible luck. Personally, I think if he had better luck and had the same amount of wealth as Darwin, he could have been just as successful and famous. One of Wallace's misfortunes took place in the Amazon, where his ship caught on fire and sank, taking thousands of his collected specimens, live samples, and chances of wealth with it. Wallaces worst luck came when he had completed his amazing paper on evolution. Instead of publishing it himself, he decided to give it to Darwin, who used it to release one of Darwin's most famous works, “On the Origin of Species”. As you can see, a lot of Darwin's success is because of Alfred Wallace. “G. K. Chesterton once remarked that Wallace was one of the world’s great men … concluding that natural selection could not in itself explain the uniqueness of man. He never renounced his evolutionary theory, but instead made it the cornerstone of a theistic explanation of the universe.” This quote just goes to show Wallaces talent and intelligence. Unfortunately, Wallace lost a lot of credibility as a scientist when he found a flaw in Darwin's writing and decided to oppose it. Eventually, he was kind of forgotten among the scientific community because of his naivety. If his mindset was more like Darwins (who privatized his discoveries) he would’ve been much more successful. Even if he isn’t well known, his influence and ideas certainly are. I'd say that without Wallace, we wouldn’t know half of what we now know about natural selection and evolution. I also think that this type of situation has happened quite a lot throughout history. We credit Columbus for discovering America when it had been discovered many years before. The similarity here is that one wrote down and published this discovery while the other didn't. The same thing happened with Wallace. Like I said earlier, Wallace made a mistake not publishing his own paper on evolution and giving it to Darwin. This is because Darwin did what Wallace should've done which was come out with a book on it and put it out to the public. Something I’ve learned throughout history is that the people credited with major discoveries aren't always the first to make the discovery, just the first to write it down and make it known. In conclusion, Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin both deserve the same amount of credit in the discovery of evolution because they both played crucial roles in its unearthing. If it wasn’t for Wallace's bad luck and lack of wealth, his name would probably be just as famous as Darwins.

# data[].attributes.body
Alfred Wallace’s journey to practically solving one of mankind’s greatest mysteries was filled with misfortune and setbacks. Despite being one of the most influential scientists in history, and being one of two people to independently discover natural selection, Wallace was not given the credit he deserved for his work. Even a century after his death, it seems that Wallace has still not gotten his break. It is certain that Wallace should receive the same historical props as Darwin. I strongly believe that if it were not for his poor upbringing, exclusion from the rather prosperous scientific world at a young age, and the eventual loss of thousands of specimens and years of research because of a sunken ship, Wallace had a great chance at being credited as the father of evolution. In recent times, there has been more light shed on his story, and even some who argue he should be considered the father of evolution. However, there are a number of non-hypothetical reasons as to why he was not credited with such an accomplishment. Wallace had many ideas that were considered radical; ideas that strayed away from science. His natural attraction to unpopular beliefs include but is not limited to: phrenology, spiritualism and anti-vaccination. In addition to this, Wallace would often challenge authority or public opinion, even when it came to religion. The combination of his lack of fear and popular beliefs damaged his reputation in the scientific community. Notwithstanding the circumstances in which he was born, or the ones in which he lived his life, Wallace’s work must be mentioned alongside Darwin’s. The fact that he discovered natural selection at the same time as, or before Darwin is enough to cement his name in the history of science. Darwin wrote about one of Wallace’s first works on evolution where he highlights his theory of natural selection, “‘I never saw a more striking coincidence. . . . Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters.’ He added despairingly, ‘So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed.’” Darwin and Wallace’s ideas of natural selection were so similar that Darwin feared his years of work would go to waste if Wallace were to publish his work first. Despite these early concerns Darwin voiced, he and Wallace learned to share their idea of natural selection. Over time, Darwin even went on to praise Wallace for his work and his character, “Wallace was now a scientist of stature, and he had earned Darwin’s gratitude and respect even before his return. After ‘On the Origin of Species’ came out, Darwin wrote to him, ‘Most persons would in your position have felt bitter envy and jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of mankind.’ He added that he had no doubt that Wallace would have written his own definitive book on the subject just as well or better ‘if you had had my leisure.’” At this point in time, Darwin and Wallace were both at the forefront of the study of evolution; nobody ahead of the other. Despite this equality between them, it is still the case that Wallace is not near Darwin in the discussion of the father of evolution. Wallace should without a doubt be a valid candidate for the father of evolution. His misfortunes, unpopular convictions, disagreements, and finally his lack of written work, made it so Wallace was unfairly stripped of his chance to be considered the father of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin are both incredibly important figures when it comes to evolutionary biology, but, unfortunately, one of them gets more credit than the other. Darwin is known as the father of evolution due to his many discoveries on natural selection and the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species. However, would Darwin be considered the father of evolution without the ideas of Wallace?
Wallace and Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection around the same time, but Wallace may have come up with it earlier. Wallace's blatant disregard of people's opinions and the church helped him in being able to publish his research without fear of "authority,' whereas Darwin's upbringing made him hide the true meaning of his work. Wallace grew up poor and with incredibly bad luck, which did nothing to help his career. Darwin, on the other hand, did not have the same upbringing as Wallace and definitely had more privileges than he did. Also, Darwin wasn't basically cursed with horrible luck as Wallace was.
In terms of natural selection, Wallace deserves an equal amount of credit as Darwin, since it was Wallace's findings which influenced Darwin and were even used in On the Origin of Species, with minimal credit given to Wallace.
Wallace's ideas behind how the supernatural and the scientific world could be united was one of his most controversial works, and while cautioning him against it, Darwin refers to the idea of natural selection as "your own and my child," meaning that he did believe that Wallace had an equal role in the development of the theory.
Due to all of this, we can conclude that though Wallace did have some questionable ideas about the supernatural, he unequivocally contributed to the development of the natural selection theory and if it weren't for his horrible luck and upbringing, he probably would be considered the father of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article from The New Yorker, it becomes difficult to not think Wallace should get the same historical props as Darwin. Although neither man should be credited with the idea of transmutation (Erasmus Darwin would toss in his grave if that happened), it can be clearly seen that Wallace was the first to truly came up with the idea of natural selection.  In 1858, a year before Darwin had first popularized the term natural selection, Wallace noticed in his specimen collection, "that within each species there were often minute variations, which... might become new species if circumstances were favorable." This would be the basis of his theory of natural selection, that, "The fittest variations would survive, the least fit would perish, and new species would thus come into being." After writing a piece detailing his ideas, Wallace sends the paper to Darwin, whom he thought would appreciate the similar thoughts. But Darwin, using his friends who "took action to protect Darwin's 'priority'," blatantly ripped off Wallace's work, calling it a, "striking coincidence," that, "[Wallace's] terms now stand as heads of my chapters." Now seeing that Darwin's proposition of natural selection was not originally his, or at least that his involvement in its creation can be put under question, history should look back at the man who had worked hard to come to this triumph in scientific discovery, not the man who had cheated his way to fame with his high status.

# data[].attributes.body
Just as we credit the theory of natural selection (the mechanism for which evolution works) to Charles Darwin, we should give credit to others who discovered the theory as well such as Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace’s findings are not as celebrated as Darwin’s due to many unfavorable occurrences. Darwin was born in an upper-class family with a history and fame to his name, on the other hand, Wallace had a poor upbringing with no education, and a large portion of his research/findings were lost in the tragic event of his boat sinking on the way back from his trip to the Amazon. His ideas on class and the church made others view Wallace as “radical” and could be a reason that we have not listened to or respected his findings as much as Darwin’s who’s named is marked all over the theory of evolution and natural selection. Due to the lack of stature, delay due to the research loss, and his radical stance Wallace was left out in being accredited to the idea of natural selection. With all these setbacks, we should give Wallace the recognition he worked hard for and deserves. Darwin himself drew parallels between his own work and that of Wallace saying, “‘I never saw a more striking coincidence. . . . Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters.’ He added despairingly, ‘So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed.’” It becomes evident that both Wallace and Darwin had a detailed comprehension of the mechanics of evolution and the process in which it works so why are we only focusing on Darwin’s conclusions? As Darwin can recognize that the theory of natural selection is a result of integrated efforts, we should recognize Wallace’s role in curating the theory that has changed science forever. Wallace had various obstacles that prevented him from publishing his concepts. His desire and need to constantly be moving around and not settle down diminished his privilege of having the time to articulate his findings. Darwin on the other hand was financially stable that allowed him to have more spare time to write down and express his ideas to a society that at least listened to what Darwin had to say. However, publishing does not mean Wallace’s legacy should perish and be ignored by the scientific community. We have to take into account that Darwin had a renowned family and legacy which perpetuated the respect from other naturalists of the time whereas Wallace was always an outsider to this group of people. It is only fair that we recognize Wallace’s ideas just as significantly we do with Darwin.

- Lauren

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Wallace get the same props as Darwin?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Wallace get the same props as Darwin?

# data[].attributes.body
Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin were both incredibly accomplished scientists that brought fourth a lot of new ideas about evolution. Wallace does deserve the same credit as Darwin for discovering evolution and natural selection. Unlike Darwin who grew up quite privileged, Wallace grew up very poor and struggled making money. Also later in life, a boat of his with thousands of specimen and tons of lost research. Wallace did bring his theory of evolution due to natural selection to the public before Darwin. "His idea, which he published in 1855, approached a full-blown theory of evolution, concluding that “every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a preexisting closely-allied species.” Many of his writings had radical ideas that deterred many peoples focus away from him and towards Darwin. Even with those, Wallace had traveled far and his studies of over 100,000 specimen shouldn't be ignored.
It is even shown in the reading how Darwin read Wallace's papers and  stated “I never saw a more striking coincidence. . . . Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters”. Wallace directly affected Darwins work. Wallace might have even helped push Darwin to discover his theory of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Alfred Wallace does deserve more recognition alongside Darwin for their co-discoveries of evolution by natural selection, but Darwin should still be considered the “father of evolution”. Looking at the evidence, Wallace “in 1858, he dashed off a paper proposing a theory of evolution by means of natural selection.” On the other hand, Darwin published his book Origin of Species in 1859, where Wallace should have theoretically been the one with the major recognition for proposing his ideas first. Major obstacles blocked Wallace from getting the same historical props due to unfortunate circumstances such as his luck and also conflicting independence from public opinion that would sway people away from supporting Wallace. I do not think that Wallace having unfortunate luck is a solid reason why we should give him more recognition, as Wallace being born into a poor economic class, having his personal collection of evidence burnt, and also sending his theories to Darwin is a series of bad events that is mostly outside of Wallace’s control. Looking at Wallace's situation pragmatically, major setbacks to Wallace’s career does not entitle him to more fame. Also, Wallace did really harm his reputation from his other views such as reincarnation, anti-vaccination, and ideas of spirituality which help discredit his opinions from modern scientists. I know I am saying a bunch of factors that are negative towards Wallace, but I think it's important to highlight the setbacks of Wallace compared to what he did accomplish. Comparing Darwin to Wallace, Darwin has way more beneficial factors to bolster his reputation. Darwin was already in a good standing with the scientists, was able to collect vast amounts of evidence without any interference such as a ship fire(which happened to Wallace), and did not also have conflicting views that delved more into divinity. It is possible to argue that if Wallace had more fortunate circumstances that he would have more recognition, yet that is just speculation and does not answer what Wallace factually contributed. Also, Wallace did send his work towards Darwin which may have also hindered Wallace even more, as it is possible that Darwin was able to incorporate Wallace’s ideas into a more refined version with Darwin’s own ideas. Wallace was still able to contribute to the ideas of evolution, and did have papers discussing evolution and natural selection around or even earlier than Darwin, which is why Wallace does deserve recognition instead of complete obscurity to the general public. However, Darwin had a much better reputation among scientists, amount of evidence to work with, and better circumstances overall(such as birth status and no major setbacks) to help propel him to receive major recognition for the discovery of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Alfred Wallace was cheated by Darwin and the scientific community. During Wallace's trip to Singapore, he essentially solved a question that had been plaguing the minds of humans for centuries prior, "Where did we come from?". Although Wallace was able to independently come up with the theory of natural selection, his timing was extremely unfortunate as, across the world, Darwin was studying the same theory while in the Galapagos. It is necessary that Wallace receive the same praise and treatment as Darwin as his theory and notetaking were more concrete and better formed. Lyell, who was loyal to Darwin, ended up reading Wallace's paper, and he was the force that pushed Darwin to publish his findings quicker than Wallace. So while both theories were valid, the only real reason why Darwin took all of the fame was because he was able to publish his earlier than Wallace. Darwin also borrowed a few elements from Wallace's findings, for example, his theory of natural selection. Without this information, it is very likely that Darwin's theory might've been discredited due to insufficient evidence. As stated in the passage, "Wallace was now a scientist of stature, and he had earned Darwin’s gratitude and respect even before his return. After 'On the Origin of Species' came out, Darwin wrote to him, 'Most persons would in your position have felt bitter envy and jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of mankind.' He added that he had no doubt that Wallace would have written his own definitive book on the subject just as well or better 'if you had had my leisure.'". This quote goes to show that even Darwin admits that if Wallace had the tie to better formulate and publish his findings, there is no doubt that he would've been the one to harbor all the glory from these findings. -Pedro

# data[].attributes.body
Both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace are incredibly smart and accomplished Scientists. In regards to evolution and natural selection, there is no question that Wallace and Darwin should get the same amount of credit. Each one of them came up with this idea on their own while on a voyage. This made them question how things came to be and they both ended up on the same idea, which was natural selection. When it comes to natural selection and evolution specifically I respect Alfred Wallace more than Charles Darwin. Even though both scientists came up with the idea on their own, Wallace had the guts to state his mind, not caring what other people thought. It was only until Wallace released his theory that Darwin decided it was time to finally release The Origin of Species. I think there are multiple reasons as to why when we mention evolution and natural selection we only hear Darwin’s name. Even though Wallace released one of the most controversial and revolutionary theories he still believed that someone had the ability to read his character by feeling the bumps on his head. Along with his campaign against vaccines and other events, I am not surprised that Darwin’s name is talked about much more than Wallace’s. It is still extremely impressive what Wallace was able to accomplish in his lifetime. He had many setbacks like his ship catching fire and sinking losing countless amounts of data. Even after all Wallace had been through trying to discover evolution “in 1858, he dashed off a paper proposing a theory of evolution by means of natural selection.” Cementing himself along with Darwin as the first people to discover evolution and theorize natural selection. In turn, both men should get an equal amount of credit when the topic of natural selection and evolution is to arise.