Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'52. Comment #185092 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Why is it that Darwin keeps getting conflated with how "life began" as we don't know that information as of yet. Seems there have been hypothesis about it but nothing solid yet.
Can anyone lend information about this claim?
53. Comment #185106 by Ian on May 27, 2008 at 12:32 am
I do agree, but I'll add one small point: the English are at least as bad...
54. Comment #185109 by BaldySlaphead on May 27, 2008 at 1:49 am
55. Comment #185114 by bujin on May 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
Guys, don't taken anything icWales says as serious. They have the worst journalists in the world!56. Comment #185136 by Adam Morrison on May 27, 2008 at 4:02 am
57. Comment #185143 by aquilacane on May 27, 2008 at 4:40 am
58. Comment #185150 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 27, 2008 at 5:20 am
59. Comment #185229 by emmet on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am
I think it time I introuced Braidwood's first law: Other people's patriotism is boring.
60. Comment #185238 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 8:38 am
As a non-American, non-Welsh, non-English person, American, Welsh, and English media seem bizarrely jingoistic. As an Irish person, Irish media never seemed quite so bad, but I'm sure they are if you're American, Welsh, or English.
61. Comment #185243 by hyposcada on May 27, 2008 at 8:53 am
Here is what Wallace expert Charles Smith has to say about the question "was Wallace Welsh?":-62. Comment #185261 by cam9976 on May 27, 2008 at 9:44 am
63. Comment #185263 by Geodesic17 on May 27, 2008 at 9:51 am
Great. We can call ourselves Wallacists now, but the Creationists will not catch on and still call us evil Darwinists.64. Comment #185281 by MorituriMax on May 27, 2008 at 11:00 am
65. Comment #185287 by Prankster on May 27, 2008 at 11:17 am
66. Comment #185445 by theantitheist on May 27, 2008 at 8:19 pm
67. Comment #185480 by LizW on May 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm
at the begining of his book Davies says68. Comment #185555 by GodMyArse on May 28, 2008 at 4:15 am
Surely if Darwin stole evolution form Wallace there would be evidence of disagreement and animosity between the two men. If not then Wallace does not seem to have felt cheated at the time, so why invent controversy? Every documentary seems to have to have an 'angle' nowadays, to sound exciting, rather than just being informative about an interesting subject. It sounds to me like there were two men who came up with similar theories at a similar time and even shared knowledge and ideas. One of these men has been better remembered possibly because he presented his theory in a more accessible/coherent way or had more publicity at the right time, and that's just the way it worked out.69. Comment #185776 by FSMTeapot on May 28, 2008 at 1:47 pm
70. Comment #186299 by agki on May 30, 2008 at 5:17 am
David Quamen discussed this in his "The Song of the Dodo." As I recall from the book, the notion that Darwin received Wallace's letter that elucidated the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection about two weeks before he claimed he did is held by a number of other historians of science. One worker (whose name I don't recall and I no longer have the book) was trying to locate the bils of lading from the Dutch company that picked up the mail from Wallace's station. He could not locate the bills from the specific period that would have put the Wallace letter in Darwin's hands two weeks earlier than he claimed to have received it. If the bills have been located, it certainly casts doubt on Darwin's honesty.71. Comment #186833 by agki on May 31, 2008 at 11:34 am
Theantitheist: " I would not have respect for someone who ripped off my work and i'm sure Wallace would not either."72. Comment #188740 by Roy Davies on June 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm
How amazing. All these comments based on total prejudice and not one of you seems to have read the book. And your ideas, even those of Richard Dawkins himself, are those based on generations of authors devoted to Darwin's own account of his work. OK. So most of you think the arguments in the book are indefensible - so read the book and then let the arguments commence. In the meantime, don't simply keep on repeating things you have been told all your scientific lives by tutors and professors who may not have gone back themselves to check all the details of the story. And to take one simple point: Richard Dawkins like so many others argues that Darwin had the theory of natural selection in 1842. He didn't. What he had in the sketch of 1842 expanded into the Essay of 1844 was an entirely different mechanism than that which eventually appeared in Origin of Species. In 1844 his idea of natural selection operates only as an organic response to changed geological conditions. By 1859 it had become an ongoing process working constantly at the improvement of organisms without there having been any change in environmental conditions. [Read Ospovat D. The Development of Darwin's Theory]. Darwin in 1856 began working on an entirely different theory from that held in 1844 and where did his new ideas come from? Well, just read the book. Oh, and by the way. In the book Wallace is an Englishman OK?73. Comment #293613 by PvM on November 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm
in comment 73 of this thread, Roy Davies wonders where Darwin's new ideas came from. Since he seems familiar with the work by Ospovat, he should understand the evolution of Darwin's understanding of the principle of divergence as well as it explanations. It is undeniable that Darwin understood the concept of divergence as early as his Notebook B (Transmutation of species (1837-1838)). His explanation of the concept of divergence underwent an evolution from a totally static environmental driven to a struggle in which species divergence. Davies makes much of the 'fact' that Darwin wrote 3 weeks after he received Wallace's first paper, which had little to contribute to the concept of divergence btw, while Roy also seems to ignore the footnote by Ospovat that much of what Darwin wrote a few weeks later had been captured in his notes several weeks before the Wallace paper had been published. See also DAR205.5 p157.
51. Comment #185089 by ICONIC FREEDOM on May 26, 2008 at 10:35 pm
BTW - my post on religious blogs is: Intelligent Design is neither.
Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM