Why didn't anyone came up with it before?

Generally the ancients thought that creatures and people were changed by the climate of the lands they lived in.

>>3135399
the church bro

>>3135410
>>3135412
did either of you graduate high school?

>>3135416
I'm in college you saucy fellow

>>3135417
community?

>>3135416
yes

>>3135420
stop it, your hurting my self esteem

>>3135399
read The Discovery of Evolution by David Young, it's a very interesting read
Darwin and Wallace expanded on the work of naturalists started in the seventeenth century
as plants and animals started being discovered and cataloged across the world, people started noticing patterns and similarities between far distant regions, the fields of biology and geology developed from these exploration discoveries

>>3135399
Somebody did -- some Scottish naturalist put forward the hypothesis of natural selection several years before Darwin. But he did not have Darwin's carefully compiled reams of evidence to back up his idea, he just tossed it off as a footnote in a book about timber for the ship-building industry.

>>3135399
There were some similar ideas before Darwin proposed his theory, but Darwin was the most right.

>>3135412
No

There were people all throughout history who came up with what we'd recognize as evolutionary theories, like Empedocles.
Even Darwin didn't invent the notion of progressive evolution, though the term was not used, and came up with Natural selection at the same time as another guy, whose name escapes me*.
*It's Wallace

The reason why he was so successful, is that he had the head for it, and was able to observe it in a very straightforward manner, with his finches. He was in the right system at the right time, with the right mindset to put the pieces together.

The same thing with Mendel and his peas: he was the right man in the right place with the right organism.

Aristotle believed in teleology, which is similar to the basic outline of evolution,
insofar as things would become better suited to their end purpose i.e. the final cause for a dog would to become a perfect dog and would alter thusly.
Though, of course this supposes a bit more and isn't truly the case for Darwinian evolution.

Although, unironically the Catholic church (namely Aquinas and the Scholastics) stymied this chain of thought a bit by altering Aristotle's work to
more perfectly reflect the Christian truth, though it is not fully their fault as Aristotle was warped some prior to them studying him by the Stoics anyways.

>>3135434
"The Species Seekers" is also an interesting read for the background of hw the naturalists paved the way for Darwin and scientific bilogy.

>>3135436
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Matthew

>>3135399

What's the best source on primitive humans? Around the area of 10,000 B.C. or earlier than that? Does such a source even exist? Do we know anything about that time period that isn't just speculation?

>>3135399
there was an ancient philosopher that had similar theories but i forget which one it was

>>3136840
This guy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander

>>3135429
you're