Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, April 26, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Darwin nearly failed to evolve in print

by Shirley English, Times Online

Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1701409.ece

As rejection letters go, it would have taken some beating. The publishers of Charles Darwin's seminal work, On the Origin of Species, considered turning down his manuscript and asking him to write about pigeons instead.

The near-miss was unearthed in 150-year-old correspondence between Darwin's publisher, John Murray, and a clergyman, the Rev Whitwell Elwin. Elwin was one of Murray's special advisers, part of a literary panel that was the Victorian equivalent of a modern focus group.

He was asked by the London publisher for his opinion of Darwin's new work, which challenged Old Testament ideas of Creation. Unsurprisingly for a man of the cloth, Elwin disapproved. Writing back from his rectory in Norwich on May 3, 1859, he urged Murray not to publish. Darwin's theories were so farfetched, prejudiced and badly argued that right-thinking members of the public would never believe them, he said. "At every page I was tantalised by the absence of the proofs," Elwin wrote, adding that the "harder and drier" writing style was also off-putting.

He suggested that Darwin's earlier observations on pigeons should be made into a book as "everybody is interested in pigeons". He enthused: "The book would be received in every journal in the kingdom and would soon be on every table."

Fortunately, Murray chose to ignore the advice. He went on to publish On the Origin of Species. The rest, as they say, is history.

The letters are among more than 150,000 literary items that form the vast John Murray archive, a collection of documents from some of the greatest thinkers of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

Built up over seven generations of the publishing family, and valued at £45 million, the collection is now housed at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh.

It includes manuscripts, private letters and journals from such figures as Jane Austen, Lord Byron, Benjamin Disraeli, Sir Walter Scott, David Livingstone and Darwin.

It was offered to the nation last year at the reduced price of £31.2 million and was bought with the help of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Scottish Executive. However, there was a £6.5 million shortfall.

Since the archive moved from London to Edinburgh last March, more than £1.5 million has been raised by anonymous private donations, ranging from "£5 to just under £1 million", said Giles Dove, the national library's director of development.

But £5 million is still needed to meet the asking price, which must be paid in full within 3½ years.

Sir Sean Connery and the Edinburgh author Ian Rankin joined the library in announcing a public appeal yesterday to raise the final balance. Sir Sean, who visited the archive last summer, said that it was of "world-class importance". A library spokesman refused to say whether the actor had made a donation.

Rankin, who will speak at the Edinburgh fundraising launch tonight, said that the archive was a "vast and unique treasure trove", and one of the most important literary collections in the world.

A public exhibition featuring 11 writers from the John Murray archive will open at the National Library of Scotland at the end of June.

Comments 1 - 14 of 14 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #35016 by scottishgeologist on April 26, 2007 at 1:11 am

 avatarGood to see this collection of work in Edinburgh. Edinburgh was very much the centre of the Enlightenment, the "Athens of the North"

Lets hope the fundraising goes well

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

2. Comment #35044 by gcdavis on April 26, 2007 at 4:20 am

 avatar.
.
.
.
.
.
Publisher: So you want us to publish your book erh?
God: Yes
Publisher: Got a name for it yet?
God: I thought "How I made the earth in six days, on the..."
Publisher: Too long!
God: How about Genesis?
Publisher: Sounds like a rock band
God: Well I did make it out of rock
Publisher: We need something snappy like First Among Equals
God: I think you'll find that's a Jeffrey Archer
Publisher: Damn! Kane and Abel?
God: Jeffrey Archer too
Publisher: I got it... The Bible!
God: Surely nobody would read a book with a title that nobody understands?
Publisher: Leave it to me, its all down to the marketing.....
etc etc

Other Comments by gcdavis

3. Comment #35083 by FXR on April 26, 2007 at 6:48 am

 avatar"He was asked by the London publisher for his opinion of Darwin's new work, which challenged Old Testament ideas of Creation. Unsurprisingly for a man of the cloth, Elwin disapproved. Writing back from his rectory in Norwich on May 3, 1859, he urged Murray not to publish."

A close call by any means! I can't help wondering how many works have been lost because they were too advanced for their time. Perhaps works by Leonardo Da Vinci are gathering dust somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican.

Other Comments by FXR

4. Comment #35108 by scottishgeologist on April 26, 2007 at 8:18 am

 avatarThe Murray publishing business makes interesting reading - another Enlightenment enterprise by the looks of it.

Short wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray_(publisher)

Interesting that Charles Lyell also features - Lyell of course being a major influence on the young Charles Darwin.

That must have been a fascinating time to have been around - all these scientific discoveries in a rapidly evolving industrial age, the ghastly horrors of the medieval period slipping away.

Horrors of superstition still with us however...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

5. Comment #35129 by nickthelight on April 26, 2007 at 9:45 am

 avatarIt is a pity that the shifting moral zeitgeist that we hear so much about cannot be applied to religious thought. The Rev Whitwell Elwin states..."Darwin's theories were so farfetched, prejudiced and badly argued that right-thinking members of the public would never believe them..." So far fetched? -my word has the man thought about what his 'good book' actually claims?! ha ha! Hilarious, at least it would be if it wasn't so tragic and still so true of many 'men of the cloth'

Other Comments by nickthelight

6. Comment #35315 by umeshbilagi on April 26, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs

Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
By
Dr Umesh R. Bilagi
Associate Prof of Medicine
KIMS Hubli
Karnataka
INDIA
umeshbilagi@gmail.com

http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligent-design-vestigial-organs.html


Topic :-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin


I would postulate that it is possible to have a vestigial organ [ananatomical structure in organisms in a species, thought to have lost its original function through evolution] without the process of evolution. Let me illustrate this idea using an analogy drawn from popular computer software.

Assuming, I have a reasonable amount of storage space on my computer hard disk, if I first create an unformatted document using Microsoft(MS) Word, and then a second MS Word document that I format very rigorously, I do so because I consider MS Word software to be the best option for my purposes, as opposed to using, say, the less sophisticated Notepad software, where little formatting of documentsis possible.

Now, if you argue that there is a vestigial structure to the first MSWord document (the capacity - in this case, unused - for formatting)and that this only became functional in the second document,ultimately concluding that the first document evolved from the second document, you would be incorrect, since I am the creator of both documents.

Similarly, I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily confirm evolution; they only point to what tools - improvable overtime - the creator used while making the species. This same principle is seen even in electronic gadgets today.

Most probably, such an explanation did not occur to Darwin given that, in his time, there were no common tools to carry out varied, complex,seemingly disconnected jobs. So he concluded that unless a creator planned to mislead us, vestigial organs should not have existed

It is tendency of creators of to make some useful common tools, which can be used to carry out multiple jobs (or to make machines). so by virtue of this comman tools (if tools get fitted into machines), vestigenesity will come up.


Vestigial organs can be classified in to verticle & tranverse ones

Verticle ones are like appendix which are inherited from ancestor to next species

Tranverse one are in which one sex has fuctional capacity & in opposite sex it is vestigineous

Example
Vertiginous Male breast can be better explained tools of intelligent design than Darwin evolution now look at male nipple which are functional in female. Male & female have come much before mammals, so presence of male nipple in mammals can be explained by theory of tools of intelligent design better than Darwin evolution

Other Comments by umeshbilagi

7. Comment #35364 by gcdavis on April 27, 2007 at 2:14 am

 avatarI am not sure what your point is umeshbilagi.

As a man of science I assume that you would accept that any scientific theory is open to revision or even rejection when a better explanation comes along. But even if the Darwin's entire thesis was wrong it is just too lazy too cite god as the explanation, so keep looking.

The other problem with god is his unfortunate association with religion. All religions exploit man's insecurity, ignorance and readiness to believe in myth and superstition, each one claims to be the word of god when clearly they can't all be.

Believe in a creator if you must, but please condemn all religion as a fraud.

Other Comments by gcdavis

8. Comment #35375 by Philip1978 on April 27, 2007 at 2:48 am

 avatarumeshbilagi,
There are so many things I could say about this but your argument holds about as much weight as those idiots who claim bananas were designed by your god.

I am not calling you an idiot, far from it, but you need to understand magic is not a decent explanation "why" something happens or is made that way.

Sam Harris asks if the male prostrate is intelligently designed, go ask men around the age of 50+ that one, Professor Dawkins states that if god designed all those things, who designed god for he could not go about creating himself could he? Hitchens in his most recent book reminds us that it was man who created and designed gods, not the other way around.

I agree with gcdavis, once you start invoking a deity you have to then as a scientist review each one in turn from Zeus to The Spaghetti Monster, for all should exist if you say your god is possible

I think I may be accused of not having any original thoughts about this matter but biology I will leave to experts, I simply do not believe in gods!

Other Comments by Philip1978

9. Comment #35416 by John Phillips on April 27, 2007 at 5:06 am

umeshbilagi: I was about to put pen to paper, so to speak, to offer a list of rational answers to your gibberish. But I thought, why bother wasting even more of my time, for anyone capable of such gibberish wouldn't recognise a rational argument if it hit them between the eyes with a baseball bat. Though I will add that if you really are medically trained I have great sympathy for any sick humans you may have contact with in your professional capacity.

Other Comments by John Phillips

10. Comment #35486 by gcdavis on April 27, 2007 at 10:46 am

 avatarJohn Phillips re umeshbilagi's post. To refer to someone's opinion as gibberish particularly when they may not be writing in their native language is needlessly insulting.

Other Comments by gcdavis

11. Comment #35986 by John Phillips on April 29, 2007 at 6:00 pm

gcdavis: Gibberish is gibberish, irrespective of the language used and was based on his flawed analogies and lack of apparent understanding of biological processes, especially for someone who claims to have medical qualifications. Though being an Indian, he probably has a better grasp of English than most native English speakers I know. At least if my experience over many years of dealing with professional people from the sub-continent is any guide.

Other Comments by John Phillips

12. Comment #36360 by DavidMcC on May 1, 2007 at 1:48 am

 avatarUnmesh, male nipples are simply the result of the fact that the skin (including the nipples) is formed before an embryo's gender is expressed. Thus, if men didn't have nipples, nor would women!

Other Comments by DavidMcC

13. Comment #41562 by umeshbilagi on May 16, 2007 at 9:57 am

I thought that People will discus on the topic rathwer then just talking on my english & about my patient which is not relavant to this topic
I know that my english not good but at the same time it is not so bad that you can not understand
You can tell me errors in my topic I will correct them
Give your opinion on the topic I think that is more repecteble
Discuss on topic

Other Comments by umeshbilagi

14. Comment #41564 by umeshbilagi on May 16, 2007 at 9:59 am

DavidMcC
Thanks for your comment
male nipple are from the skin but why are they present is my problem
hopeing that you will give reply

Other Comments by umeshbilagi
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE