This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
could someone PLEASE spell check the article? The word "organized" is spelled wrong every time, and that's just what stands out. I'm sure there are others... sorry, this just bothers me and it won't let me fix it, so whoever is in charge... please fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluckyea ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the British spelling of "organized" and it is perfectly acceptable everywhere, including here in the States. This article was likely written by a Brit, and I'd like to thank them for it. Perhaps a few articles are missing though.
Could someone clarify this mentions found in the article: Though he correctly identified one as a Megatherium and fragments of armour reminded him of the local armadillo, he assumed his finds were related to African or European species and it was a revelation to him after the voyage when Richard Owen showed that they were closely related to living creatures exclusively found in the Americas. Why he did thought so? I could get access to only one source: [1] but it does not say anything about this. QWerk ( talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Does "Infobox Scientist" supersede the need for "Infobox Person" in in the same way that categories are hierarchical? At present the article has two, not of the same width, with much of the information appearing twice (or three times if you include the article text). I suggest that one or other should make way. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Malthus should be included among the list of people who influenced Darwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedmemes ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Malthus should definately been in this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.227.124 ( talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Alexander von Humboldt should also be added as an influence. Please let me know if you need any proof of this. Alexander Von Humboldt Jsopher ( talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The Selfish Gene said that macabre behavior such as the golden digger wasp's laying larvae on paralyzed grasshoppers on which the larvae would dine drove Darwin from an all-loving God. 67.243.6.204 ( talk) 03:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i warn all you religious ppl out there. i'll get my The God Delusion (Dawkins) copy ready soon and look up all the original references and put them all here and watchlist this page til i die. hahaha!! darwin was an atheist!!!!! you'll see. --
Sophieophil (
talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the best and most logical thing to do is to keep religion out of this article all together as Darwin's contributions were mainly biological, and also the unavoidable fact that religion in an article like this would most definately attract bias. -- 192.88.124.200 ( talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the grammar in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which reads: "Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge." It makes it sound like he was studying "first medicine" at Edinburgh. Delete the word "first" altogether, the reader can infer it was first because of the "then" later in the sentence. Mojodaddy ( talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Historicians do not reject that Charles Darwin converted to Christianity. James Moore who is a neutral historician confirms this. It is also false that his children rejects it - only Darwins oldest son does. Not only did Darwin convert he also regret his theory as he says it only "mislead" people. He did not do it as a fight against the thought of Creation. He also has much doubt about his own theory. He instance he said "The eye alone can prove my theory wrong." he also said at the end of his life "I know with myself, that I am in the middle of a hopeless darkness. I do not believe that the world as we see it is a result of random chance; and yet I cannot see every little thing as a result of a plan."—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDaniel ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2009
um... there is a thingy blocking one of the pictures (under overwork illness and marage) and I dont know how to fix it. You can delete this section once it is fixed. Mr. Invisible Person ( talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
From Reaction to the Publication
This seems to imply that higher criticism is a heresy. Is that intended? Mcewan ( talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading this great biography a little lately, and have created a gallery for it at Commons, Darwin. The book itself is copyrighted but many of its images are ineligible for copyright. We already have a lot of them at Commons (and some of them perhaps here, i.e. not yet moved to Commons, much like Image:Jim_moore.jpg at the time I'm writing), though there may be others that will be new uploads (and others still that may be copyrighted). I created a similar gallery for Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - copyrighted books are certainly not something we should ignore. Richard001 ( talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph to this article is untrue. Since the article is protected from editing, this error will remain thus undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. The paragraph should be re-written as follows:
Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was an English naturalist,[I] who theorized that all species of life evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.[1] The theory of evolution gradually grew acceptance in the scientific community during his lifetime. His theory of natural selection came to be seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory.[2]
The reason for the re-write is that evolution cannot be proven and therefore must remain a theory. The statement that Darwin demonstrated evolution is false. The phrase The fact that evolution occurs is false. The statement about acceptance in the scientific community and by the general public during his lifetime has no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, there continues to be significant rejection of the theory among scientists and the general public. There is no scientific proof of the theory of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy7l ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Charles Darwin never claimed he proved his own theory. It was his postulated explaination of the origins of life. Terming the open paragraph to suggest "Darwin proved/demonstrated" the validity evolution misrepresents Darwin's theory and studies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.175.225 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 November 2008
Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Just as the theory of gravity attempts to explain the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution-- RLent ( talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC). Darwin Quote: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (in a letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohre6 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 February 2009
This page needs some work on images. Text is sandwiched between some images. And on my monitor the blockquote from Malthus obscures a good part of the image of Emma. Kablammo ( talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
He did doubt his theory and he also said that.
He did not prove an evolution or development, but a variation. The article also puts it up as he had demonstrated that species evolve but he did not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDaniel ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2009
To follow up on the discussion in the previous section:
It looks like the offspring articles are not at FA, and several of the main articles (including this one) have already been featured on the main page. Here however are a few possibilities for TFA:
Origin of Species would have to be brought up to FA standards. Kablammo ( talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
External link to "Digitized titles..." should be updated from:
http://www.botanicus.org/creator.asp?creatorid=93
to:
http://www.botanicus.org/Search.aspx?searchTerm=Charles%20Darwin
JmCor ( talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The term scientist was only coined in 1833 (see scientist and did not come into widespread use until the late 19th century. It therefore seems inappropriate for there to be references to scientists such as "Early in March Darwin moved to London to be near this work, joining Lyell's social circle of scientists and savants such as Charles Babbage" in Inception of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Naturalist/natural historian would be better. (Admittedly when scientist came into widespread use is debatable!) Smartse ( talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thumb|150px|Charles Darwin commemorative two pound coin
Someone may wish to add to the commemoration section details about the Royal Mint issuing a commemorative two pound coin in 2009 to celebrate 200 years since his birth and 150 years since publication of "On the Origin of Species". I have uploaded an illustration of the coin which may also be included (if added to fair use). Other details can be found on the two pound coin page. -- Delta-NC ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
im doing a project on him too its so hard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.42.224 ( talk) 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This was briefly removed, I've restored it as a useful link to a lot of other uses of the name. Any better ideas? . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a TV show called The Genius of Charles Darwin, available from google video, made this year (the anniversary) by Richard Dawkins. I propose there be some mentioning of it in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.109.200 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 December 2008
The introduction is very well written. But the second last paragraph starts with a mistakable sentence:
"His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature."
should better read:
""His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature."
Os schipper ( talk) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if I strongly believe that species evolved over time, I'm not sure the previous formulation is OK. Actually, he did not "prove". Instead, he provided a suitable scientific theory that was able to explain existing lifeform diversity and fossil record, and which is accepted today by virtually all scientists. This is not "proof". User:Dpotop 18:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the argument for evolution is an inference to the best explanation, as most of science is, and thus it does seem a bit overstating it to call it a proof, which suggests deductive certainty based on undeniable premises. Calling it a demonstration is at least ambiguous between calling it a proof and treating it as if you can simply observe speciation in the past when you're not there, both of which would be a little misleading. So I do agree that it should be reworded. Demonstration is a bit strong for most scientific theories, perhaps with the exception of outright laws, which are fairly rare in science. Parableman ( talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I was left looking for a citation after the word "demonstrated". I am not aware of any books by Darwin that include demonstrations after the scientific method to affect the use of "demonstrated" in this context. I recommend that this sentence be re-written. Perhaps "...who realised and explained how all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection." fogus ( talk) 02:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
In the same spirit as Channel 4's Christmas message, I offer the following on Darwin/Darwinism!
http://wainwrightscience.blogspot.com:80/
nitramrekcap 91.110.220.117 ( talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Darwin article editor people It's worth including up on the links page for websites the www.darwin200.org URL for Darwin200 2009 bicentenary activities in the UK hosted by the Natural History Museum. Lots of links for students, schools and general public NqZooArchive1969 ( talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody write up his death, and the 'corpse-snatch' which led to his burial at Westminster?
The 4 broadcasts this week have been magnificent [8]. Jim Moore on his death, and the 'corpse-snatch' was magnificent. Could somebody insert ref to these please?
On the basis of Darwins Theory a "periodic table of human sciences" could be developed. For more Information see: Tinbergen's four questions. This aspect could be used for a link in "see also".-- 193.171.79.65 ( talk) 10:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ragesoss suggested restoring a portrait of Darwin and trying to get it promoted to featured picture in time for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Couldn't find an exact date for this one, although obviously it's from the end of his life. Not sure where it would fit best in the article. So dropping word here. The sooner the better, because it'd be asking a favor to get something onto the main page on this short notice. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
-- ragesoss ( talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, editors here might want to participate in creating new evolution and history of biology-related articles for the Main Page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The link to Keynes ( [9]) seems to be broken, assuming it once worked. I'm not familiar with this sort of code so I'll let someone else deal with it. Richard001 ( talk) 06:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph says the explanation is "logical". This is sometimes thought to mean "a conclusion that is certain if the premises are true" (which would require a presentation of premises). Among logicians, it most often means "not illogical" or "not invalid". How would "coherent & consistent" be as substitutes? -- JimWae ( talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently saw a documentary on Darwin on the History Channel and in it they reported that Darwin's illnesses were caused in part by Chagas, which he contracted in South America, I can't find a legit source so i'm not gonna add it in to the article, but if anyone does find a source it can be a good addition to the article. (I'm assuming that it's a true statement since the History Channel is pretty credible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.166.77 ( talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
re cause of illness
There was little "goodhumor" in Darwin's depiction as an ape in the popular media. That adjective should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder puck ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to confirm, the picture that appears above this caption under the section about his children, that is really his 3 year old SON IN A DRESS?
{{
editsemiprotected}}
On the section "Journey of the Beagle", the last line of the first paragraph, ends in 'calm shell'. This is a typo and should be corrected to 'clam shell'.
Happy Birthday! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.9.211 ( talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass." Numbers 22:28. - Nunh-huh 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Mark Liberman points to an interesting quote from Origin of Species that demonstrates that the idea of descent with modification was borrowed by Darwin from historical linguistics, rather than the other way round.
It's time to include this aspect in articles related to the subject evolution, most of which don't even mention languages or linguistics at all, even when the application of the idea to other fields is discussed, as in Evolution#History of evolutionary thought. (As an aside, languages are not the only aspects of human culture to develop in a broadly analogous way to species, just think of musical genres, sports or games, but they are by far the most prominent aspect to do so.) Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was reading this article, and then I wondered something: why isn't Abraham Lincoln's birthday mentioned anywhere in the entire article? It seems only fitting to mention him since he was born on the same day as Darwin and they're both 200 today. Hcx0331 ( talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the special significance of the fact that they shared a birthday? Does it mean anything? Is there some cause and effect here that I am not aware of that links the two? There are billions of coincidences going on around us, what makes things worthy of reporting is whether they really are coincidences or whether they are more than that. The whole reason people are attracted to coincidences is because of an ingrained desire to find patterns regarding cause and effect. Include this sort of trivia and someone will be crying that you are not including trivia about astrology. Nino 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Illness section:
"The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits."
"Told" is the past tense of "tell." "Tolled" is the past tense of "Toll," as in "The strain tolled on Charles Darwin," although "took its toll" is the more common colloquial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbutz ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As an Ecuadorian I'm so proud for the Galapagos Islands and the role they played in the formulation of the "Theory Of Evolution Through Natural Selection" by Charles Darwin. Thus I was disappointed when the article's Commemoration section failed to recognized this organization and the important work its scientific station does at the islands. To the "Charles Darwin Scientific Station" comes scientists from all over the world in order to understand and protect better such an inestimable natural place. Ecuador has a tradition to recognize all world class scientific personalities that has visited and worked in this land, such as Humboldt and La Condamine. Therefore, the name of Darwin is huge in this land. There are streets, parks and schools with his name. In fact, Darwin Street is the main avenue of Puerto Ayora, which is one of the Galapagos Islands largest towns. There's a very fanny thing in that avenue: In the last years, in Ecuador have proliferated many fundamentalist christian sects that believe in creationism, and strongly deny the Theory Of Evolution because they consider as a part of an evil plan to destroy the Christianity. Unfortunately, these sects have vigorously spread at the Galapagos Islands due its poor educated inhabitants. Paradoxically, one of these churches is located right at Darwin Street, and above the municipal sign with the name of the street, they have placed a big sign that states: "...and God created the world in seven days..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.163.58 ( talk) 15:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Of those who "are under the illusion that to be an evolutionist is essentially to be an atheist", Dinesh D'Souza — quite an expert in the field of religion — points out (in The Two Faces Of Darwin) that "when Darwin published his work on evolution, the American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin to say that his book had shown God's ingenious way of ensuring the unity and diversity of life. From Gray’s point of view, Darwin had exposed divine teleology. Darwin praised Gray for seeing a point that no one else had noticed. In later editions of his books, Darwin went out of his way to cite the English writer Charles Kingsley, who described evolution as compatible with religious belief. To the end of his life, Darwin insisted that one could be 'an ardent theist and an evolutionist'." Asteriks ( talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This edit provides a link to "The Two Faces of Darwin" on "Townhall.com - the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website". It seems to be an essay on Christian belief, rather than Darwin: "Evolution does seem to turn many Christians into unbelievers..." Should it remain? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I'm wondering if Charles Darwin has archieved something so exceptional that his date of birth has to be "12 February 1809" instead of "February 12 1809". Considering that every other person on Wikipedia has the latter format on articles about them.
The question's been raised that "Further reading" includes an "audio slideshow" and audiobooks which cannot be read. The section complies with WP:FURTHER, and the reason for not having the optional External links as the last section is that it includes templates providing a large number of internal links. Is this enough of a concern to go for a non-standard heading? . . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The Smithsonian magazine put on the cover that Darwin and Lincoln shared a birthday. I feel thoroughly thoroughly thoroughly vindicated in my much humbler ambition four years ago of merely ensuring this factoid was mentioned somewhere... (See Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln.) Vincent ( talk) 08:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there can be one site for relevant facts called wikipedia and another site called triviapedia, where coincidence drowns out cause and effect. Nino 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 04:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The article writes:"Galton named the field of study Eugenics in 1883, after Darwin’s death, and developed biometrics. Eugenics movements were widespread at a time when Darwin's natural selection was eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, and in some countries including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Sweden and the United States, compulsory sterilisation laws were imposed. Following the use of Eugenics in Nazi Germany it has been largely abandoned throughout the world.[V]" These sentences have some lies: 1- Brazil and Belgium never had any compulsory sterilisation laws imposed.Both were catholic countries and eugenics hadn't any popular support there.Such as abortion today, eugenics was supported by jews and protestants. 2- Eugenics compulsory sterilisation was in law in countries such as United States and Sweden decades after the end of the Third Reich. Eugenics itself didn't fell after the end of Third Reich, in 1945. Eugenics decided to call themselves as neo-malthusianists, ecologists,etc.The goals were the same;just the titles were exchanged. 3- Natural selection wasn't eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, because both are scientific.One isn't against the other in any sense. Agre22 ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)agre22
Just old age? -OOPSIE- ( talk) 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This edit reverted and moved from article:
This is excessive detail for this article, and could perhaps go into the more detailed subarticle or into Owen's bio. Don't have these references to hand, it's something I'd like to review before commenting. . dave souza, talk 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Who killed God debate, there has been a rivarly betwen Darwin and Kant on who spawned the greatest amount of atheism. If the debate ever comes up on this article, I would argue that Kant was more influential in the history if atheism than Darwin, since Kant had already built up a refutation to the ontological argument long before Darwin had even been born. ADM ( talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to have a section listing the significant biographical books and films about him. AxelBoldt ( talk) 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you fell neccesary, you can add two panaramas I made a few days ago and uploaded on the wikicommons. One of them is about outside the house and the other one inside. See them on the Spanish Wikipedia clicking HERE -- Mario modesto ( talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The article currently makes no mention of the historically important fact that Darwin himself converted from the natural selection theory of evolution to a Lamarckian environmentalist position in later editions of The Origin of Species, which went into 6 different editions by 1872. Hence I propose the following insert at the first Darwin quotation in the current section ‘Publication of the theory of natural selection’, which I also propose should be retitled ‘Publication of the Darwin’s theory of evolution’.
Proposed insert:
'However, even in the first edition of his book Darwin only claimed natural selection was the main means of selection, but not the only one. In the last sentence of its Introduction he said “Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
But by 1872 he had published six editions of the book with corrections and revisions, and in later editions in response to criticism of his theory of inheritance Darwin even gave up the theory of natural selection as the main selector of evolution, with its strong principle of inheritance, in favour of Lamarckian environmentalism, with a changing environment as the main selector. As C.D. Darlington wrote in 1950 in his Foreword to a new and first reprint of the otherwise unavailable first edition of The Origin:
"Let no one imagine, however, that, in the world of science, Darwin's theory has enjoyed an unchequered prosperity. On the contrary the dust of battle is only now beginning to settle on the hotly disputed ground....The most abiding source of trouble was that discovered by the Professor of Engineering at Edinburgh. Professor Fleming[sic] Jenkin pointed out in 1867, that any new variation appearing in one individual would be lost or swamped in later generations when that individual was compelled to cross with others of the old and established type, and its differences, as Darwin believed, blended in inheritance. Nature would never be able to keep any differences to select.
Darwin's defence against this objection was already prepared. He had hinted it in the first edition of The Origin of Species: at the end of the Introduction he had said that "Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification." In later editions he hedged further. He fell back on the other means. These depended chiefly on the action of a changing environment: its direct effect in altering living things so as to suit it must be inherited. In adopting this view Darwin was giving up his own, and Wallace's, peculiar claim to originality: he was giving up the argument implied in the title of the book: and he was falling back on the discarded and disreputable theory of Lamarck." [p. xvii On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection first edition reprint in The Thinker's Library by Watts & Co, 1950.] '
But Darlington failed to establish Lamarck's theory was discarded or disreputable. In fact the theory of natural selection only became accepted in the mid-20th century with the ‘Mendelian-Darwinian synthesis’ in population genetics. But even by 1950 Darwinism was still not accepted in academia according to Darlington:
"In view of the triumph of his ideas it might be thought that Darwinism, in all civilised countries, would be taught as one of the foundations of thought, that in the universities everywhere it would be critically expounded and experimentally developed. That is true of its remote and general applications to such sciences as astronomy and geology. But where, as in its applications to ourselves, in the study of the genetics of men, and to the histories of nations, as exact knowledge of the principles of variation, hybridization and selection is required, we hear on every side nothing but confused and ignorant speculations. At the same time the foundation of Darwinism in the experimental study of evolution has largely been smothered in Darwin's own country. The Universities, with their museums and botanic gardens, are happy to forget what, in 1859, they were unable to resist. They contain no memorial of his work, and all the means of developing his doctrine they frustrate by an arrangement of teaching which the theory of evolution is not allowed to disturb. The old pedantic learning of botany and zoology, which Darwin treated as one subject, they continue to cleave asunder, burying the halves under their ancient schedules of instruction." [ibid pxviii-xix]. '
I also propose the following edit of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the article's current introduction:
His 1859 book ‘’On the Origin of Species’’ posited natural selection was the main selector in the evolution and origin of species, but by its 1872 sixth edition Darwin had abandoned this theory in favour of Lamarckian environmentalism with the changing environment as the main selector.[ref>C.D.Darlington FRS, pvii Foreword to On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, first edition reprint in The Thinker's Library by Watts & Co, 1950.<ref/]
I shall implement this later edit provisonally for consideration now.
--
Logicus (
talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Logicus: Against the unsourced and unfounded claim of Dave Souza that Darlington's 1950 thesis that Darwin became a Lamarckian is mistaken and has been superseded, the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008 article on 'Evolution' by Phillip Sloan @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ surely confirms Darlington's analysis that in defence against Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 critique of natural selection, Darwin later changed to Lamarckian environmentalist use/disuse as the most important selector in explaining the evolutionary origin of new species rather than natural selection. For this seems to be the implication of Darwin's 1868 'pangenesis' theory of inheritance as recounted by the Stanford Encyclopedia, as follows:
"The difficulties in Darwin's arguments by 1866 were highlighted in a lengthy and telling critique of Darwin's theory in 1867 by the Scottish engineer Henry Fleeming Jenkin (1833–85). Using an argument previously raised in the 1830s by Charles Lyell against Lamarck, Fleeming (as he was generally known) Jenkin cited empirical evidence from domestic breeding that suggested a distinct limitation on the degree of variation, and the extent to which selection upon this could be taken (Jenkin 1867 in Hull, 1973). Using a loosely mathematical argument, Jenkin argued that the effects of intercrossing would continuously swamp deviations from the mean values of characters and result in a tendency of a population to return to the normal values over time. For Jenkin, Darwin's reliance on continuous additive deviation was presumed undermined by this argument, and only more dramatic and discontinuous change could account for the origin of new species.
....
As a solution to the variation question and the causal basis of this phenomenon, Darwin developed his “provisional hypothesis” of pangenesis, which he presented the year after the appearance of the Jenkin review in Darwin's two-volume Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication (1868). Although this theory had been formulated independently of the Jenkin review (Olby 1962), in effect it functioned as his reply to Jenkin. This offered a causal theory of variation and inheritance through a return to a theory resembling Buffon's theory of the organic molecules of the previous century. Invisible material “gemmules” were presumed to exist within the cells, and according to theory, they were subject to external alteration by environment and circumstance. These were then shed continually into the blood stream (the “transport” hypothesis) and assembled by “mutual affinity into buds or into the sexual elements” (Darwin 1868, 1875, vol. 2, p. 370). In this form they were then transmitted—the details were not explained—by sexual generation to the next generation to form the new organism out of “units of which each individual is composed” (ibid.). In Darwin's view, this hypothesis united together numerous issues into a coherent and causal theory of inheritance and explained the basis of variation. It also explained how use-disuse inheritance, which Darwin never abandoned, could work."
I conclude this article should therefore mention Darlington's important point that Darwin later converted to a Lamarckian use/disuse theory, as I have already proposed. But it should be supplemented by Ernst Mayr's equally important point, made in his Introduction to the 1964 Harvard edition of the 1859 Origin but not mentioned by Darlington, that Darwin had anyway always maintained use/disuse was also an important selector in addition to natural selection, if not the most important, right from his 1859 first edition of Origin. Thus Darwin had always been a Lamarckian to some extent in this sense.
But the upshot of the Stanford Encyclopedia analysis seems to be that by 1868 use/disuse must have become the most important or even sole selector for Darwin in explaining the evolutionary origin of species, albeit possibly with natural selection still explaining some variations, if not speciation. It seems the crucial theory shift Darwin made was just from that of use/disuse of a trait being a secondary selector to that of it being the most important selector that ensured the generational retention of environmentally advantageous variations. For it seems to have been the repeated environmental use/disuse imprinting in each generation that would ensure the retention of a variation to prevent its dilution and eventual regression to the norm by blending inheritance.
On this analysis then, Darwin's claim in the Introduction to the 1872 sixth edition that "I am convinced Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." must have expressed a decidely hollow conviction by that time insofar as he was by then convinced of the primary role of use/disuse nature of modifications leading to the origination of new species, if not explaining all variation.
Those Wiki editors who oppose some such edit should surely review and withdraw their opinions and opposition in consideration of the Stanford Encyclopedia's analysis of this issue.
In fact I propose Wikipedia should consider incorporating the direct quotation of its analysis in this article.
-- Logicus ( talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The article’s first paragraph currently claims
“[Darwin’s] theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1 “
But contrary to this, the Wikipedia article History of evolutionary thought claims the theory was not widely accepted until the 1940s:
“The debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s.”
And Darlington’s 1950 report on Darwinism in academia in the immediately above section suggests it was not until after 1950.
I therefore flag the current dating for a reliable citation.
I propose a vaguer dating to ‘until the mid 20th century’ might be an easy resolution.
But I suggest the reference should be to ‘THE theory of natural selection’ rather than Darwin’s inasmuch as it was not specifically Darwin’s theory of natural selection that came to be accepted. -- Logicus ( talk) 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Philosophical debates about the nature of science are beyond the scope of this article. Guettarda ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
<ri>As already explained, questions like this are outside of the scope of this article. Guettarda ( talk) 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: Surely you are wrong yet again Guettarda, because the current article demonstrably gives an answer to this question, thus bringing that question firmly and even centrally within its scope. For the article clearly makes claims on the ‘’dating’’ and also ostensibly on the ‘’rationale’’ of the alleged Darwinian revolution. Thus it brings such issues as the rationality and rationale of scientific revolutions and the nature of scientific method very firmly and centrally within its scope, as indeed all histories of science do. For on the one hand it claims the theory that evolution is mainly caused by natural selection was not widely accepted until the 1930s (dating), but on the other hand also claims that Darwin presented compelling evidence for that theory (rationale). The remaining mystery this POV Wikipedia history of science therefore raises for any evidential theory of the logic of scientific revolutions and scientific method such as Wikipedia presents elsewhere in its articles is why it took at least some 80 years for Darwin’s theory to be widely accepted if the evidence Darwin presented for it was indeed compelling. In conclusion, if questions like this really are outside the scope of this article as you and your Wiki pals may undemocratically elect to define the scope of Wiki history of science articles, then the article must surely relinquish (i.e. delete) making any claims on the dating and rationale of that alleged revolution as it currently does in order to achieve a NPOV on such issues. This is of course exactly what my original proposed edit of the first sentence at was designed to achieve. But it was reverted by Souza in an apparent act of Tendentious editing that satisfies the following Wiki criterion of such:
|
Logicus to Guettarda: But nobody is claiming philosophical debate about the nature of science is or should be within the scope of this article. Certainly I have not proposed any edit to include philosophical debate about the nature of science in it. So why this bizarrely illogical intervention ? -- Logicus ( talk) 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't copy discussion from one article talk page to another. Guettarda ( talk) 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here Logicus posts a relevant discussion of this issue from the Talk:History of evolutionary thought pages: In a related question, the wording relating to Darwin's theory, "but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s", has been questioned in relation to the Charles Darwin article where we state "while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s". That's sourced to van Wyhe, who states "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s." It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s, so both are reasonable. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So perhaps Dave would kindly tell us here in this section of Talk:Darwin who makes the claim "It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s,”. |
Logicus to Guettarda: Since you apparently imagine you know and understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines better than Logicus, would you please be so kind as to point out where this rule ‘Don't copy discussion from one article talk page to another’ is stated. I cannot recall seeing it anywhere but it may have appeared since I last reviewed policy and guidelines.
--
Logicus (
talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Statement is adequately sourced; not the place to discuss whether modern scholarship is right or wrong. Guettarda ( talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article’s opening sentence currently claims “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. It would seem the scientific community did not find any compelling evidence for natural selection until the 20th century. I flag this claim for a reliable citation, but propose the following edit would be less contentious “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” -- Logicus ( talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Logicus to All: Can none of you people see the plain utterly absurd stupidity of the article's current first paragraph in claiming on the one hand in its first sentence that Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution by natural selection, but on the other hand then inconsistently claiming in its second sentence that his theory that natural selection is the primary selector of evolution was not widely accepted until the 1930s ? For if the latter claim is true, then clearly the evidence Darwin presented was not compelling at the time, if ever, contrary to the contentious and unsourced claim of the first sentence that it was. I cannot see why the more modest and far less contentious proposed opening sentence edit to ‘Darwin claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by the process he called natural selection ‘ is not acceptable to some. This does not preclude the article subsequently discussing whether the evidence Darwin presented for evolution mainly by natural selection was scientifically compelling or not, and thus whether scientists were irrational for some 80 years in not accepting it, or whether it required some 80 years or more to acquire some compelling scientific evidence. (But note that nobody in this discussion has yet identified what exactly that alleged compelling evidence was, including Souza. What specific novel prediction did Darwin's theory make that was also evidentially confirmed at the time ? The 1713 second edition of Newton's Principia predicted the return of Halley's comet some 45 or so years later, and it did, to provide the first compelling scientific evidence for it in the opinion of some philosophers and historians of science. But what novelty, if any, did Darwin ever predict ? -- Logicus ( talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
<ri>Umm, no. You seem more than a little confused. Your initial comment said:
In response to this, I corrected your misconception that "few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day". You responded by saying that:
This suggested that you didn't understand the difference between Darwin's ideas of branching descent, and Lamarck's more lineal idea. Again, I tried to explain the difference to you. In response to my attempt to correct your misconception, you said:
Unfortunately, if you look back to the start of this section, you said:
Mind-boggling. At this point, I think the only thing left to do is to refer you to our guideline on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and this essay on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Guettarda ( talk) 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
<ri>Umm, no. You seem more than a little confused. Your initial comment said: But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. In response to this, I corrected your misconception that "few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day". You did not correct any misconception of mine. Rather you perversely misinterpreted my point that few regarded Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the main selector of evolution as having compelling evidence for the logically quite different claim that few thought that the theory that there is some natural selection had compelling evidence. Of course as Mayr rightly emphasizes in his 1964 Intro, right from its very first edition The Origin proposed both Lamarckian use-and-disuse inheritance and also natural selection inheritance as evolutionary selectors, and in some cases the former is the main selector or even the whole selector, with natural selection only a compounding secondary selector at most. And reports suggest Darwin significantly increased the role of use & disuse as the main selector in the 6th Edition. But you wholly ignored the main question of identifying exactly what evidence Darwin presented for his distinctive theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution overall, compelling or otherwise]
And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution ? This was not my main response, which was rather that I found yours confused and not dealing with the main question of identifying the alleged compelling evidence. Rather this was a secondary response challenging your logically irrelevant claim about evolution “Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.”]
It suggested no such thing., except in your imagination. I referred solely to evolution i.e. just to descent with modification, but not to any specific theory of its form. Rather you invalidly presumed I confused evolution in general with Darwin’s branching descent form of it , which I did not.]
This point is logically irrelevant. For the sentence being challenged here makes no mention of common ancestry. Yes, but you misinterpret “here” as referring to the whole section, rather than to what was being challenged here within that section by the sentence of mine you quoted. That sentence was challenging your implication that evolution was only accepted after ‘’The Origin’’ in claiming “Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.” and which (I suspect mistaken) view is also reflected in the article in the first sentence of its third para , which states “His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[2]” and makes no mention of common descent. You may wish to remedy this omission.]
“{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” [Emphasis added] Yes, but unfortunately the first sentence of third para I was referring to omits common descent.] Mind-boggling. [Indeed !] -- Logicus ( talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. The following continuing discussion of this issue is most pertinent. Logicus to Michael Johnson: Thanks for your following contribution to this discussion: “Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) “ However, your points are mistaken and misrepresent what I said. But first I just recapitulate the issue that you and other editors misunderstand. The article’s first sentence claims Darwin “realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.[1]”. But the quotation from the source given does not verify this controversial highly misleading claim, as follows: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." This statement does not mention any evidence whatever that Darwin presented for anything, neither compelling nor otherwise. So this is a failed verification. And indeed even the editor who provided it effectively modestly admitted as much, as follows: “Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) and as Cubathy correctly pointed out: “I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence…..Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) “ In the first instance what needs to be provided on Wiki rules is a reliable source that claims Darwin somewhere presented evidence for the theory stated, and also that it was compelling. So I agree with your claim that “we have to produce a reliable source that shows that [all or most ] others [in the scientific community] found the evidence compelling.” But it seems nobody to date has found any such source. (For whatever my views may be worth, I conjecture the reason why is that no serious contemporary scholar would make this bold claim given it is now so widely accepted that Darwin’s theory that natural selections has been the main selector of evolution was not generally accepted until the mid 20th century. For if they did claim Darwin presented compelling evidence for it, they would then land themselves with the problem, inter alia, of explaining why it did not compell everybody in the scientific community to accept the theory. In fact I believe the scholarly consensus to be that Darwin did not provide any compelling evidence for that theory, neither in The Origin nor elsewhere. And moreover as Jenkin pointed out, the theory was anyway ruled out by the then widely accepted theory of blending inheritance.) So the current situation seems to be that the claim in question should be tagged for failed verification. And so I propose it should be in the absence of any valid reason why not. Now I turn to the mistakes and misrepresentations in your above comments. “Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, What I meant here is that in the first instance I just wanted that evidence identifying as a preliminary to finding a source that claims it was compelling. This is clearer in what I actually said, but which you have truncated, as follows: “I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, WITH A SOURCE FOR THAT IDENTIFICATION.”] IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. Your honest opinion is thus clearly mistaken. Please consider the logical possibility that Logicus has the very highest understanding of these policies of all Wikipedia editors, and also of their massive breaches in Wikipedia articles. ☺] In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. But surely the source should at least identify the evidence that ‘exists in any substantial form’ ?] Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. Agreed, but of course they should be shown to be at least a great majority of the scientific community, rather than just Darwin’s mum and dad, say, and even if not including Thomas Henry Huxley, who did not accept Darwin presented compelling evidence for natural selection as the main cause of evolution, and nor of speciation in particular, but which was the leading claim of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection as expressed in its title. Darwin presented no explanation nor evidence that natural selection could induce sterility, the defining characteristic of the origination of a new species.] If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, But Logicus is still trying to find out what this evidence is, so cannot possibly judge whether it is compelling or not.] or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Logicus has never proposed such a point of view be incorporated in the article. Rather at the very outset of this discussion he has only proposed the highly controversial POV stated in the first sentence should be amended to a more NPOV claim if no reliable citation can be found for it, as follows: “I flag this claim for a reliable citation, but propose the following edit would be less contentious “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” “ 13:56, 20 April 2009 But I now propose the following sentence would be more accurate “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by natural selection.” since Darwin denied all evolution was purely by natural selection, and claimed use & disuse was also an important selector.] Your comments here seem to fail to understand Logicus is challenging the controversial and unsourced POV expressed in the first sentence. Thus the onus is not on Logicus to provide a reliable source for some other point of view as you claim, but rather the onus is on Wikipedians to provide a reliable source that justifies the claim made which has been challenged, or else to delete it. May I refer you to the first section on ‘Burden of evidence’ of Wikipedia:Verifiability to verify this.] Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. So otherwise this is not a philosophical debate, but just a simple issue of whether a justifying reliable source can be found for a controversial POV claim, and deleting that claim if not. OK ?] -- Logicus ( talk) 16:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. Please see my contribution of 25 April in the now hidden discussion for the demonstration of this failed verification. -- Logicus ( talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
|
On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. Please see my contribution of 25 April in the now hidden discussion for the demonstration of this failed verification. -- Logicus ( talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.94.3 ( talk)
If you find yourself confused by this this, see Evolution as fact and theory. Guettarda ( talk) 05:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The opening sentence in the article says that Charles Darwin "realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." However, he did not actually present any evidence of evolution ("Darwin's Finches" prove natural selection, not evolution). Plus, even Darwin never said that evolution was a fact, only a theory. Could someone fix it? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 04:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
|
But which this is this this ? ☺ --
Logicus (
talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't get the idea behind attributing the term 'Freethinker' to Darin's father. Before it was given to both Darwin's father and grandfather, but it seems the article was edited. Anyway, I'm a biology student and I've heard the Darwin story a million times; and it includes his father pressing him to become a doctor and being opposed to the Beagle journey. The latter is mentioned briefly in the article, but it's hard to associate those actions with 'freethinking'. In addition there is no clear definition for 'freethinker' in the article, or in real life.
I think that we should address these issues to improve the article.
-- SunshineOdyssey ( talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Overlong opinion-piece that will not help to improve the article. See WP:SOAP, not to mention WP:TLDR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The current verification cited for the article's controversial POV opening claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence that natural selection is the main selector of evolution is as follows: "As Darwinian scholar Joseph Carroll of the University of Missouri–St. Louis puts it in his introduction to a modern reprint of Darwin's work: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." Carroll, Joseph, ed (2003). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview. p. 15. ISBN 1551113376." But this quotation clearly fails to verify the claim made, as in effect already admitted by its contributor Old Moonraker and also by Cubathy, as follows: "Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I therefore now flag the claim as having a failed verification. This means that either a verifying source must be found, that is, a reliable source that claims Darwin did present compelling evidence somewhere for the theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, or else the claim must be deleted as an unaccepted POV and Wiki Original Research. Please do not remove the 'failed verification' flag unless to replace it with a properly verifying source and quotation, or else to delete the claim. For whatever it is worth, my opinion is that no verifying source will be found for this claim because the contemporary scholarly consensus seems to be that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, which is why the theory was not accepted in his lifetime. Even Darwin's great champion Huxley rejected Darwin's theory that natural selection has been the main selector. The article previously cited van Wyhe's 2008 Darwin book as a verifying source of this claim, but notably that citation has now been withdrawn. This may well be because van Wyhe's opinion is part of an academic consensus that Darwin did not present any such evidence as the article claims. Thus the Wikipedia claim that Darwin did present some compelling evidence for his theory of evolution mainly by natural selection therefore currently seems to be an idiosyncratic POV that constitutes Original Research.
"The article’s first sentence claims Darwin “realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.[1]”. But the quotation from the source given does not verify this controversial highly misleading claim, as follows: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." This statement does not mention any evidence whatever that Darwin presented for anything, neither compelling nor otherwise. So this is a failed verification. And indeed even the editor who provided it effectively modestly admitted as much, as follows: “Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) and as Cubathy correctly pointed out: “I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence…..Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) “ In the first instance what needs to be provided on Wiki rules is a reliable source that claims Darwin somewhere presented evidence for the theory stated, and also that it was compelling. So I agree with your claim that “we have to produce a reliable source that shows that [all or most ] others [in the scientific community] found the evidence compelling.” But it seems nobody to date has found any such source. (For whatever my views may be worth, I conjecture the reason why is that no serious contemporary scholar would make this bold claim given it is now so widely accepted that Darwin’s theory that natural selections has been the main selector of evolution was not generally accepted until the mid 20th century. For if they did claim Darwin presented compelling evidence for it, they would then land themselves with the problem, inter alia, of explaining why it did not compell everybody in the scientific community to accept the theory. In fact I believe the scholarly consensus to be that Darwin did not provide any compelling evidence for that theory, neither in The Origin nor elsewhere. And moreover as Jenkin pointed out, the theory was anyway ruled out by the then widely accepted theory of blending inheritance.) So the current situation seems to be that the claim in question should be tagged for failed verification. And so I propose it should be in the absence of any valid reason why not." Logicus 25 April
Logicus to SNALWIBMA: You wrote "I am struggling to grasp what the problem is here. I agree that the reference in question is more concerned with the compelling nature of Darwin's rhetoric than with the compelling nature of his evidence. But in that case why not just delete the reference? Or is your real problem simply the word "compelling"? Would you be happier if that word was deleted, leaving a statement that Darwin presented evidence? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)" Thank you for drawing my attention here to the insufficiency of my exposition in this new section in respect of its omission of the alternative opening sentence for the article I have proposed in previous discussions in response to the failed verification of the current opening sentence's claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence that evolution has been mainly but not exclusively by natural selection. It was as follows: ‘[Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by natural selection.’ Hence it is not merely a case of deleting the reference as you suggest or also deleting the word 'compelling', but rather one that requires replacing the mistaken unsupported POV sentence the reference fails to justify with a NPOV sentence such as I have proposed and repeated here. Note that rather than going so far in the opposite direction as stating the truth of the matter that the contemporary scholarly consensus seems to be that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theory that natural selection has been the main evolutionary selector, the sentence I propose just eliminates the idiosyncratic heterodox POV claim that Darwin did present such evidence without also pointing out that he never did so. For your possible edification on this issue, the actual truth of the matter is of course that Darwin failed to provide any evidence whatever, compelling or otherwise, that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, or indeed even compelling evidence of evolution itself, that is, that the origin of all species has been by descent through many gradual modifications from some preceding species, whether by natural selection or otherwise. For obviously our intractable ignorance of all the innumerable evolutionary modifications and all innumerable species since life began makes it impossible to decide Darwin's quantitative theories of evolution and of natural selection: for example, how can we possibly determine whether natural selection has been the most frequently occurring selector of all the innumerably many unknown evolutionary selections since life began, especially given Darwin's own Lamarckian theory that use/disuse has also been an important selector, and in some cases, such as eyeless cave animals [e.g. see p119 Origin], the sole selector without any natural selection ? To proclaim Darwin's theory was/is evidentially justified would be akin to the folly of proclaiming some candidate has won a majority of votes cast when we don't know all the votes cast. Clearly the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection cannot be evidentially decided. The plain truth of the matter is that Darwin's theories of the evolution of species by gradual modifications of descent and of evolution by natural selection are both quantitatively evidentially undecidable. And Darwin himself acknowledged this serious and even intractable evidential problem in such as the following passage in Origin: "Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory; and I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modifications." [p394. My emboldening.] So far from claiming to present compelling evidence for descent with gradual modifications, rather Origin is only at most an apologia, a plea that there is no compelling evidence against that theory sufficient to reject it by virtue of our ignorance of the possible evidence. Darwin's central argument for accepting his theories is not that he presents compelling evidence for them, but rather only that their serious counterevidence is not sufficiently compelling to reject them, and that he is personally convinced of them. In other words, believe in them just because I do, for I have no compelling evidence ! [More Darwin quotations to follow] -- Logicus ( talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
LOGICUS CONTINUES: I shall respond to these three mistaken comments, in addition to those two outstanding comments of the three mistaken comments of SNALWIBMA and Cubathy of 27 April asap. Meanwhile I continue with and complete the quotations I was previously providing, before I was so rudely interrupted ☺, for the argument that the contemporary scholarly consensus, reflecting even Darwin's own view, is that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theories of evolution and of natural selection. I now provide some verifying quotations from the well respected Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But would more illiterate editors please note that none of this is in any way opposing the theories of evolution or natural selection or claiming they are mistaken or not accepted. It is rather purely concerned with correcting the Wikipedia mistaken presentation of Darwin's proposed theoretical innovations as also evidentially grounded and proven by evidence presented by Darwin. This is a profound empiricist misunderstanding of his theoretically innovative contribution and more generally of the nature and patterns of scientific development and method. And it is an unsupported POV.
Continuation] So far from claiming to present compelling evidence for descent with gradual modifications, rather Origin is only at most an apologia, a plea that there is no compelling evidence against that theory sufficient to reject it by virtue of our ignorance of the possible evidence. Darwin's central argument for accepting his theories is not that he presents compelling evidence for them, but rather only that their serious counterevidence is not sufficiently compelling to reject them, and that he is personally convinced of them. In other words, believe in them just because I do, for I have no compelling evidence ! Consequently Darwin himself acknowledged any evidence he might appeal to could not compell scientists of an opposite factually based viewpoint as follows: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the forms of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation,", "unity of design," &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt on the immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed." [p408 Origin My emboldening.] But Darwin's last claim is surely or hopefully quite wrong. For it is not conscientious declarations of personal conviction that persuade scientists, but rather crucial evidence. And Darwin had none, neither that all species have originated from gradual modification of descent, nor that natural selection had been the main selector of such evolution. Consequently Darwin was admirably honest about the evidential inadequacy of The Origin and its failure to evidentially justify his theoretical conclusions in that work: " I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. " [p2 1950 My emphases.] Consequently in its page 5 final paragraph Darwin's Intro notably fell back on relying just on Darwin's proclamations of his own personal convictions of the truth of the various theories of evolution and speciation he presents there, rather than on any compelling evidence he presented for them therein. This was because of ignorance of the relevant facts of contemporary beings and also the absence of the required historical evidence of past beings he fully admitted as follows: "No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all beings which live around us. ...Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history." The non-evidential nature of Darwin's arguments for his key theories of evolution and of its natural selection is fully recognised by the well respected Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 'Evolution' article @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ in its following extracts: "For reasons related both to the condensed and summary form of public presentation, and also to the bold conceptual sweep of the theory, the primary argument of the Origin could not gain its force from the data presented by the book itself. Instead, it presented an argument from consilience in Whewell's sense, gaining its force from the ability of Darwin's theory to draw together a wide variety of issues in taxonomy, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, and embryology under the simple principles worked out in the first four chapters. ...The theory rested its case on its claim to be able to unify numerous fields of inquiry and on its potential theoretical fertility. " "The broad sweep of Darwin's claims, the brevity of the empirical evidence actually supplied in the text, and the implications of his theory for several more general philosophical and theological issues, immediately opened up a controversy over Darwinian evolution that has waxed and waned over the past 149 years." Thus inevitably insofar as scientific theory change requires crucial new evidence, Darwin's main theories were not accepted by the scientific community, as the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia attests: "Historical studies have revealed that only rarely did members of the scientific elites accept and develop Darwin's theories exactly as they were presented in his texts. Statistical studies on the reception by the scientific community in England in the first decade after the publication of the Origin have shown a complicated picture, in which there was neither a wide-spread conversion of the scientific community to Darwin's views, nor a clear generational stratification between younger converts and older resisters, counter to Darwin's own predictions (Hull et al., 1978). These studies also reveal a distinct willingness within the scientific community to separate acceptance of the broader claims of species descent with modification from common ancestors from the explanation of this descent through the action of natural selection. To utilize the categories of a Lakatosian “research program” analysis of scientific theories in their historical extension, one can distinguish between a “hard core” of central assumptions, a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses that protect this central core from refutations, and a “positive heuristic” of applied research applications that are subject to continued revision and even refutation (Lakatos 1974 in Lakatos and Musgrave, 1974). [All these Lakatos & Musgrave datings should instead be to the 1970 Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge] Employing these distinctions, it is difficult to claim that anything more than the belief in descent from common ancestry was maintained by a broadly international scientific community at the “hard core” level in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. The “eclipse” of natural selection theory, if not of the theory of common descent with transformation, in the period between 1870–1930 (Bowler 1983; idem., 2004 in Lustig et al., 2004) meant that the historical impact of Darwin was based on deviations from his actual formulations of his theory." [My emboldening] In conclusion from this testimony, Darwin's arguments for his theory were clearly not evidence- based and this is so widely recognised by contemporary scholarship that it seems likely that the reason for repeated failed verification of the current POV Wikipedia claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for his theories of evolution and natural selection, and why no reliable source can be found making this claim, is simply that no reliable scholar makes it. The claim thus stands as unsourced unverified Original Research. It is apparently not even a minority viewpoint, but rather a viewpoint that no reliable scholars hold, although it seems a very very few idiosyncratic Wikipedia editors do. Consequently I submit at least the 'failed verification' tag must be restored, prior to the unjustifiable claim being removed. |
There is no mention of young Darwin's involvement in the Glutton/Gourmet Club at Cambridge - which led Darwin to sampling the gustatory delights of a range of endangered and rare animals.
There are also many internet rumours that darwin was (later?) a vegetarian. is anyone able to confirm or deny this?-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
could someone PLEASE spell check the article? The word "organized" is spelled wrong every time, and that's just what stands out. I'm sure there are others... sorry, this just bothers me and it won't let me fix it, so whoever is in charge... please fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluckyea ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the British spelling of "organized" and it is perfectly acceptable everywhere, including here in the States. This article was likely written by a Brit, and I'd like to thank them for it. Perhaps a few articles are missing though.
Could someone clarify this mentions found in the article: Though he correctly identified one as a Megatherium and fragments of armour reminded him of the local armadillo, he assumed his finds were related to African or European species and it was a revelation to him after the voyage when Richard Owen showed that they were closely related to living creatures exclusively found in the Americas. Why he did thought so? I could get access to only one source: [1] but it does not say anything about this. QWerk ( talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Does "Infobox Scientist" supersede the need for "Infobox Person" in in the same way that categories are hierarchical? At present the article has two, not of the same width, with much of the information appearing twice (or three times if you include the article text). I suggest that one or other should make way. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Malthus should be included among the list of people who influenced Darwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedmemes ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Malthus should definately been in this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.227.124 ( talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Alexander von Humboldt should also be added as an influence. Please let me know if you need any proof of this. Alexander Von Humboldt Jsopher ( talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The Selfish Gene said that macabre behavior such as the golden digger wasp's laying larvae on paralyzed grasshoppers on which the larvae would dine drove Darwin from an all-loving God. 67.243.6.204 ( talk) 03:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i warn all you religious ppl out there. i'll get my The God Delusion (Dawkins) copy ready soon and look up all the original references and put them all here and watchlist this page til i die. hahaha!! darwin was an atheist!!!!! you'll see. --
Sophieophil (
talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the best and most logical thing to do is to keep religion out of this article all together as Darwin's contributions were mainly biological, and also the unavoidable fact that religion in an article like this would most definately attract bias. -- 192.88.124.200 ( talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the grammar in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which reads: "Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge." It makes it sound like he was studying "first medicine" at Edinburgh. Delete the word "first" altogether, the reader can infer it was first because of the "then" later in the sentence. Mojodaddy ( talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Historicians do not reject that Charles Darwin converted to Christianity. James Moore who is a neutral historician confirms this. It is also false that his children rejects it - only Darwins oldest son does. Not only did Darwin convert he also regret his theory as he says it only "mislead" people. He did not do it as a fight against the thought of Creation. He also has much doubt about his own theory. He instance he said "The eye alone can prove my theory wrong." he also said at the end of his life "I know with myself, that I am in the middle of a hopeless darkness. I do not believe that the world as we see it is a result of random chance; and yet I cannot see every little thing as a result of a plan."—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDaniel ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2009
um... there is a thingy blocking one of the pictures (under overwork illness and marage) and I dont know how to fix it. You can delete this section once it is fixed. Mr. Invisible Person ( talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
From Reaction to the Publication
This seems to imply that higher criticism is a heresy. Is that intended? Mcewan ( talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading this great biography a little lately, and have created a gallery for it at Commons, Darwin. The book itself is copyrighted but many of its images are ineligible for copyright. We already have a lot of them at Commons (and some of them perhaps here, i.e. not yet moved to Commons, much like Image:Jim_moore.jpg at the time I'm writing), though there may be others that will be new uploads (and others still that may be copyrighted). I created a similar gallery for Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - copyrighted books are certainly not something we should ignore. Richard001 ( talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph to this article is untrue. Since the article is protected from editing, this error will remain thus undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. The paragraph should be re-written as follows:
Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was an English naturalist,[I] who theorized that all species of life evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.[1] The theory of evolution gradually grew acceptance in the scientific community during his lifetime. His theory of natural selection came to be seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory.[2]
The reason for the re-write is that evolution cannot be proven and therefore must remain a theory. The statement that Darwin demonstrated evolution is false. The phrase The fact that evolution occurs is false. The statement about acceptance in the scientific community and by the general public during his lifetime has no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, there continues to be significant rejection of the theory among scientists and the general public. There is no scientific proof of the theory of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy7l ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Charles Darwin never claimed he proved his own theory. It was his postulated explaination of the origins of life. Terming the open paragraph to suggest "Darwin proved/demonstrated" the validity evolution misrepresents Darwin's theory and studies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.175.225 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 November 2008
Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Just as the theory of gravity attempts to explain the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution-- RLent ( talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC). Darwin Quote: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (in a letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohre6 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 February 2009
This page needs some work on images. Text is sandwiched between some images. And on my monitor the blockquote from Malthus obscures a good part of the image of Emma. Kablammo ( talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
He did doubt his theory and he also said that.
He did not prove an evolution or development, but a variation. The article also puts it up as he had demonstrated that species evolve but he did not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDaniel ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2009
To follow up on the discussion in the previous section:
It looks like the offspring articles are not at FA, and several of the main articles (including this one) have already been featured on the main page. Here however are a few possibilities for TFA:
Origin of Species would have to be brought up to FA standards. Kablammo ( talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
External link to "Digitized titles..." should be updated from:
http://www.botanicus.org/creator.asp?creatorid=93
to:
http://www.botanicus.org/Search.aspx?searchTerm=Charles%20Darwin
JmCor ( talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The term scientist was only coined in 1833 (see scientist and did not come into widespread use until the late 19th century. It therefore seems inappropriate for there to be references to scientists such as "Early in March Darwin moved to London to be near this work, joining Lyell's social circle of scientists and savants such as Charles Babbage" in Inception of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Naturalist/natural historian would be better. (Admittedly when scientist came into widespread use is debatable!) Smartse ( talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thumb|150px|Charles Darwin commemorative two pound coin
Someone may wish to add to the commemoration section details about the Royal Mint issuing a commemorative two pound coin in 2009 to celebrate 200 years since his birth and 150 years since publication of "On the Origin of Species". I have uploaded an illustration of the coin which may also be included (if added to fair use). Other details can be found on the two pound coin page. -- Delta-NC ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
im doing a project on him too its so hard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.42.224 ( talk) 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This was briefly removed, I've restored it as a useful link to a lot of other uses of the name. Any better ideas? . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a TV show called The Genius of Charles Darwin, available from google video, made this year (the anniversary) by Richard Dawkins. I propose there be some mentioning of it in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.109.200 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 December 2008
The introduction is very well written. But the second last paragraph starts with a mistakable sentence:
"His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature."
should better read:
""His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature."
Os schipper ( talk) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if I strongly believe that species evolved over time, I'm not sure the previous formulation is OK. Actually, he did not "prove". Instead, he provided a suitable scientific theory that was able to explain existing lifeform diversity and fossil record, and which is accepted today by virtually all scientists. This is not "proof". User:Dpotop 18:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the argument for evolution is an inference to the best explanation, as most of science is, and thus it does seem a bit overstating it to call it a proof, which suggests deductive certainty based on undeniable premises. Calling it a demonstration is at least ambiguous between calling it a proof and treating it as if you can simply observe speciation in the past when you're not there, both of which would be a little misleading. So I do agree that it should be reworded. Demonstration is a bit strong for most scientific theories, perhaps with the exception of outright laws, which are fairly rare in science. Parableman ( talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I was left looking for a citation after the word "demonstrated". I am not aware of any books by Darwin that include demonstrations after the scientific method to affect the use of "demonstrated" in this context. I recommend that this sentence be re-written. Perhaps "...who realised and explained how all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection." fogus ( talk) 02:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
In the same spirit as Channel 4's Christmas message, I offer the following on Darwin/Darwinism!
http://wainwrightscience.blogspot.com:80/
nitramrekcap 91.110.220.117 ( talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Darwin article editor people It's worth including up on the links page for websites the www.darwin200.org URL for Darwin200 2009 bicentenary activities in the UK hosted by the Natural History Museum. Lots of links for students, schools and general public NqZooArchive1969 ( talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody write up his death, and the 'corpse-snatch' which led to his burial at Westminster?
The 4 broadcasts this week have been magnificent [8]. Jim Moore on his death, and the 'corpse-snatch' was magnificent. Could somebody insert ref to these please?
On the basis of Darwins Theory a "periodic table of human sciences" could be developed. For more Information see: Tinbergen's four questions. This aspect could be used for a link in "see also".-- 193.171.79.65 ( talk) 10:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ragesoss suggested restoring a portrait of Darwin and trying to get it promoted to featured picture in time for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Couldn't find an exact date for this one, although obviously it's from the end of his life. Not sure where it would fit best in the article. So dropping word here. The sooner the better, because it'd be asking a favor to get something onto the main page on this short notice. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
-- ragesoss ( talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, editors here might want to participate in creating new evolution and history of biology-related articles for the Main Page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009-- ragesoss ( talk) 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The link to Keynes ( [9]) seems to be broken, assuming it once worked. I'm not familiar with this sort of code so I'll let someone else deal with it. Richard001 ( talk) 06:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph says the explanation is "logical". This is sometimes thought to mean "a conclusion that is certain if the premises are true" (which would require a presentation of premises). Among logicians, it most often means "not illogical" or "not invalid". How would "coherent & consistent" be as substitutes? -- JimWae ( talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently saw a documentary on Darwin on the History Channel and in it they reported that Darwin's illnesses were caused in part by Chagas, which he contracted in South America, I can't find a legit source so i'm not gonna add it in to the article, but if anyone does find a source it can be a good addition to the article. (I'm assuming that it's a true statement since the History Channel is pretty credible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.166.77 ( talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
re cause of illness
There was little "goodhumor" in Darwin's depiction as an ape in the popular media. That adjective should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder puck ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to confirm, the picture that appears above this caption under the section about his children, that is really his 3 year old SON IN A DRESS?
{{
editsemiprotected}}
On the section "Journey of the Beagle", the last line of the first paragraph, ends in 'calm shell'. This is a typo and should be corrected to 'clam shell'.
Happy Birthday! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.9.211 ( talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass." Numbers 22:28. - Nunh-huh 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Mark Liberman points to an interesting quote from Origin of Species that demonstrates that the idea of descent with modification was borrowed by Darwin from historical linguistics, rather than the other way round.
It's time to include this aspect in articles related to the subject evolution, most of which don't even mention languages or linguistics at all, even when the application of the idea to other fields is discussed, as in Evolution#History of evolutionary thought. (As an aside, languages are not the only aspects of human culture to develop in a broadly analogous way to species, just think of musical genres, sports or games, but they are by far the most prominent aspect to do so.) Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was reading this article, and then I wondered something: why isn't Abraham Lincoln's birthday mentioned anywhere in the entire article? It seems only fitting to mention him since he was born on the same day as Darwin and they're both 200 today. Hcx0331 ( talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the special significance of the fact that they shared a birthday? Does it mean anything? Is there some cause and effect here that I am not aware of that links the two? There are billions of coincidences going on around us, what makes things worthy of reporting is whether they really are coincidences or whether they are more than that. The whole reason people are attracted to coincidences is because of an ingrained desire to find patterns regarding cause and effect. Include this sort of trivia and someone will be crying that you are not including trivia about astrology. Nino 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Illness section:
"The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits."
"Told" is the past tense of "tell." "Tolled" is the past tense of "Toll," as in "The strain tolled on Charles Darwin," although "took its toll" is the more common colloquial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbutz ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As an Ecuadorian I'm so proud for the Galapagos Islands and the role they played in the formulation of the "Theory Of Evolution Through Natural Selection" by Charles Darwin. Thus I was disappointed when the article's Commemoration section failed to recognized this organization and the important work its scientific station does at the islands. To the "Charles Darwin Scientific Station" comes scientists from all over the world in order to understand and protect better such an inestimable natural place. Ecuador has a tradition to recognize all world class scientific personalities that has visited and worked in this land, such as Humboldt and La Condamine. Therefore, the name of Darwin is huge in this land. There are streets, parks and schools with his name. In fact, Darwin Street is the main avenue of Puerto Ayora, which is one of the Galapagos Islands largest towns. There's a very fanny thing in that avenue: In the last years, in Ecuador have proliferated many fundamentalist christian sects that believe in creationism, and strongly deny the Theory Of Evolution because they consider as a part of an evil plan to destroy the Christianity. Unfortunately, these sects have vigorously spread at the Galapagos Islands due its poor educated inhabitants. Paradoxically, one of these churches is located right at Darwin Street, and above the municipal sign with the name of the street, they have placed a big sign that states: "...and God created the world in seven days..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.163.58 ( talk) 15:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Of those who "are under the illusion that to be an evolutionist is essentially to be an atheist", Dinesh D'Souza — quite an expert in the field of religion — points out (in The Two Faces Of Darwin) that "when Darwin published his work on evolution, the American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin to say that his book had shown God's ingenious way of ensuring the unity and diversity of life. From Gray’s point of view, Darwin had exposed divine teleology. Darwin praised Gray for seeing a point that no one else had noticed. In later editions of his books, Darwin went out of his way to cite the English writer Charles Kingsley, who described evolution as compatible with religious belief. To the end of his life, Darwin insisted that one could be 'an ardent theist and an evolutionist'." Asteriks ( talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This edit provides a link to "The Two Faces of Darwin" on "Townhall.com - the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website". It seems to be an essay on Christian belief, rather than Darwin: "Evolution does seem to turn many Christians into unbelievers..." Should it remain? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I'm wondering if Charles Darwin has archieved something so exceptional that his date of birth has to be "12 February 1809" instead of "February 12 1809". Considering that every other person on Wikipedia has the latter format on articles about them.
The question's been raised that "Further reading" includes an "audio slideshow" and audiobooks which cannot be read. The section complies with WP:FURTHER, and the reason for not having the optional External links as the last section is that it includes templates providing a large number of internal links. Is this enough of a concern to go for a non-standard heading? . . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The Smithsonian magazine put on the cover that Darwin and Lincoln shared a birthday. I feel thoroughly thoroughly thoroughly vindicated in my much humbler ambition four years ago of merely ensuring this factoid was mentioned somewhere... (See Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln.) Vincent ( talk) 08:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there can be one site for relevant facts called wikipedia and another site called triviapedia, where coincidence drowns out cause and effect. Nino 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 04:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The article writes:"Galton named the field of study Eugenics in 1883, after Darwin’s death, and developed biometrics. Eugenics movements were widespread at a time when Darwin's natural selection was eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, and in some countries including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Sweden and the United States, compulsory sterilisation laws were imposed. Following the use of Eugenics in Nazi Germany it has been largely abandoned throughout the world.[V]" These sentences have some lies: 1- Brazil and Belgium never had any compulsory sterilisation laws imposed.Both were catholic countries and eugenics hadn't any popular support there.Such as abortion today, eugenics was supported by jews and protestants. 2- Eugenics compulsory sterilisation was in law in countries such as United States and Sweden decades after the end of the Third Reich. Eugenics itself didn't fell after the end of Third Reich, in 1945. Eugenics decided to call themselves as neo-malthusianists, ecologists,etc.The goals were the same;just the titles were exchanged. 3- Natural selection wasn't eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, because both are scientific.One isn't against the other in any sense. Agre22 ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)agre22
Just old age? -OOPSIE- ( talk) 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This edit reverted and moved from article:
This is excessive detail for this article, and could perhaps go into the more detailed subarticle or into Owen's bio. Don't have these references to hand, it's something I'd like to review before commenting. . dave souza, talk 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Who killed God debate, there has been a rivarly betwen Darwin and Kant on who spawned the greatest amount of atheism. If the debate ever comes up on this article, I would argue that Kant was more influential in the history if atheism than Darwin, since Kant had already built up a refutation to the ontological argument long before Darwin had even been born. ADM ( talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to have a section listing the significant biographical books and films about him. AxelBoldt ( talk) 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you fell neccesary, you can add two panaramas I made a few days ago and uploaded on the wikicommons. One of them is about outside the house and the other one inside. See them on the Spanish Wikipedia clicking HERE -- Mario modesto ( talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The article currently makes no mention of the historically important fact that Darwin himself converted from the natural selection theory of evolution to a Lamarckian environmentalist position in later editions of The Origin of Species, which went into 6 different editions by 1872. Hence I propose the following insert at the first Darwin quotation in the current section ‘Publication of the theory of natural selection’, which I also propose should be retitled ‘Publication of the Darwin’s theory of evolution’.
Proposed insert:
'However, even in the first edition of his book Darwin only claimed natural selection was the main means of selection, but not the only one. In the last sentence of its Introduction he said “Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
But by 1872 he had published six editions of the book with corrections and revisions, and in later editions in response to criticism of his theory of inheritance Darwin even gave up the theory of natural selection as the main selector of evolution, with its strong principle of inheritance, in favour of Lamarckian environmentalism, with a changing environment as the main selector. As C.D. Darlington wrote in 1950 in his Foreword to a new and first reprint of the otherwise unavailable first edition of The Origin:
"Let no one imagine, however, that, in the world of science, Darwin's theory has enjoyed an unchequered prosperity. On the contrary the dust of battle is only now beginning to settle on the hotly disputed ground....The most abiding source of trouble was that discovered by the Professor of Engineering at Edinburgh. Professor Fleming[sic] Jenkin pointed out in 1867, that any new variation appearing in one individual would be lost or swamped in later generations when that individual was compelled to cross with others of the old and established type, and its differences, as Darwin believed, blended in inheritance. Nature would never be able to keep any differences to select.
Darwin's defence against this objection was already prepared. He had hinted it in the first edition of The Origin of Species: at the end of the Introduction he had said that "Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification." In later editions he hedged further. He fell back on the other means. These depended chiefly on the action of a changing environment: its direct effect in altering living things so as to suit it must be inherited. In adopting this view Darwin was giving up his own, and Wallace's, peculiar claim to originality: he was giving up the argument implied in the title of the book: and he was falling back on the discarded and disreputable theory of Lamarck." [p. xvii On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection first edition reprint in The Thinker's Library by Watts & Co, 1950.] '
But Darlington failed to establish Lamarck's theory was discarded or disreputable. In fact the theory of natural selection only became accepted in the mid-20th century with the ‘Mendelian-Darwinian synthesis’ in population genetics. But even by 1950 Darwinism was still not accepted in academia according to Darlington:
"In view of the triumph of his ideas it might be thought that Darwinism, in all civilised countries, would be taught as one of the foundations of thought, that in the universities everywhere it would be critically expounded and experimentally developed. That is true of its remote and general applications to such sciences as astronomy and geology. But where, as in its applications to ourselves, in the study of the genetics of men, and to the histories of nations, as exact knowledge of the principles of variation, hybridization and selection is required, we hear on every side nothing but confused and ignorant speculations. At the same time the foundation of Darwinism in the experimental study of evolution has largely been smothered in Darwin's own country. The Universities, with their museums and botanic gardens, are happy to forget what, in 1859, they were unable to resist. They contain no memorial of his work, and all the means of developing his doctrine they frustrate by an arrangement of teaching which the theory of evolution is not allowed to disturb. The old pedantic learning of botany and zoology, which Darwin treated as one subject, they continue to cleave asunder, burying the halves under their ancient schedules of instruction." [ibid pxviii-xix]. '
I also propose the following edit of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the article's current introduction:
His 1859 book ‘’On the Origin of Species’’ posited natural selection was the main selector in the evolution and origin of species, but by its 1872 sixth edition Darwin had abandoned this theory in favour of Lamarckian environmentalism with the changing environment as the main selector.[ref>C.D.Darlington FRS, pvii Foreword to On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, first edition reprint in The Thinker's Library by Watts & Co, 1950.<ref/]
I shall implement this later edit provisonally for consideration now.
--
Logicus (
talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Logicus: Against the unsourced and unfounded claim of Dave Souza that Darlington's 1950 thesis that Darwin became a Lamarckian is mistaken and has been superseded, the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008 article on 'Evolution' by Phillip Sloan @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ surely confirms Darlington's analysis that in defence against Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 critique of natural selection, Darwin later changed to Lamarckian environmentalist use/disuse as the most important selector in explaining the evolutionary origin of new species rather than natural selection. For this seems to be the implication of Darwin's 1868 'pangenesis' theory of inheritance as recounted by the Stanford Encyclopedia, as follows:
"The difficulties in Darwin's arguments by 1866 were highlighted in a lengthy and telling critique of Darwin's theory in 1867 by the Scottish engineer Henry Fleeming Jenkin (1833–85). Using an argument previously raised in the 1830s by Charles Lyell against Lamarck, Fleeming (as he was generally known) Jenkin cited empirical evidence from domestic breeding that suggested a distinct limitation on the degree of variation, and the extent to which selection upon this could be taken (Jenkin 1867 in Hull, 1973). Using a loosely mathematical argument, Jenkin argued that the effects of intercrossing would continuously swamp deviations from the mean values of characters and result in a tendency of a population to return to the normal values over time. For Jenkin, Darwin's reliance on continuous additive deviation was presumed undermined by this argument, and only more dramatic and discontinuous change could account for the origin of new species.
....
As a solution to the variation question and the causal basis of this phenomenon, Darwin developed his “provisional hypothesis” of pangenesis, which he presented the year after the appearance of the Jenkin review in Darwin's two-volume Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication (1868). Although this theory had been formulated independently of the Jenkin review (Olby 1962), in effect it functioned as his reply to Jenkin. This offered a causal theory of variation and inheritance through a return to a theory resembling Buffon's theory of the organic molecules of the previous century. Invisible material “gemmules” were presumed to exist within the cells, and according to theory, they were subject to external alteration by environment and circumstance. These were then shed continually into the blood stream (the “transport” hypothesis) and assembled by “mutual affinity into buds or into the sexual elements” (Darwin 1868, 1875, vol. 2, p. 370). In this form they were then transmitted—the details were not explained—by sexual generation to the next generation to form the new organism out of “units of which each individual is composed” (ibid.). In Darwin's view, this hypothesis united together numerous issues into a coherent and causal theory of inheritance and explained the basis of variation. It also explained how use-disuse inheritance, which Darwin never abandoned, could work."
I conclude this article should therefore mention Darlington's important point that Darwin later converted to a Lamarckian use/disuse theory, as I have already proposed. But it should be supplemented by Ernst Mayr's equally important point, made in his Introduction to the 1964 Harvard edition of the 1859 Origin but not mentioned by Darlington, that Darwin had anyway always maintained use/disuse was also an important selector in addition to natural selection, if not the most important, right from his 1859 first edition of Origin. Thus Darwin had always been a Lamarckian to some extent in this sense.
But the upshot of the Stanford Encyclopedia analysis seems to be that by 1868 use/disuse must have become the most important or even sole selector for Darwin in explaining the evolutionary origin of species, albeit possibly with natural selection still explaining some variations, if not speciation. It seems the crucial theory shift Darwin made was just from that of use/disuse of a trait being a secondary selector to that of it being the most important selector that ensured the generational retention of environmentally advantageous variations. For it seems to have been the repeated environmental use/disuse imprinting in each generation that would ensure the retention of a variation to prevent its dilution and eventual regression to the norm by blending inheritance.
On this analysis then, Darwin's claim in the Introduction to the 1872 sixth edition that "I am convinced Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." must have expressed a decidely hollow conviction by that time insofar as he was by then convinced of the primary role of use/disuse nature of modifications leading to the origination of new species, if not explaining all variation.
Those Wiki editors who oppose some such edit should surely review and withdraw their opinions and opposition in consideration of the Stanford Encyclopedia's analysis of this issue.
In fact I propose Wikipedia should consider incorporating the direct quotation of its analysis in this article.
-- Logicus ( talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The article’s first paragraph currently claims
“[Darwin’s] theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1 “
But contrary to this, the Wikipedia article History of evolutionary thought claims the theory was not widely accepted until the 1940s:
“The debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s.”
And Darlington’s 1950 report on Darwinism in academia in the immediately above section suggests it was not until after 1950.
I therefore flag the current dating for a reliable citation.
I propose a vaguer dating to ‘until the mid 20th century’ might be an easy resolution.
But I suggest the reference should be to ‘THE theory of natural selection’ rather than Darwin’s inasmuch as it was not specifically Darwin’s theory of natural selection that came to be accepted. -- Logicus ( talk) 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Philosophical debates about the nature of science are beyond the scope of this article. Guettarda ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
<ri>As already explained, questions like this are outside of the scope of this article. Guettarda ( talk) 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: Surely you are wrong yet again Guettarda, because the current article demonstrably gives an answer to this question, thus bringing that question firmly and even centrally within its scope. For the article clearly makes claims on the ‘’dating’’ and also ostensibly on the ‘’rationale’’ of the alleged Darwinian revolution. Thus it brings such issues as the rationality and rationale of scientific revolutions and the nature of scientific method very firmly and centrally within its scope, as indeed all histories of science do. For on the one hand it claims the theory that evolution is mainly caused by natural selection was not widely accepted until the 1930s (dating), but on the other hand also claims that Darwin presented compelling evidence for that theory (rationale). The remaining mystery this POV Wikipedia history of science therefore raises for any evidential theory of the logic of scientific revolutions and scientific method such as Wikipedia presents elsewhere in its articles is why it took at least some 80 years for Darwin’s theory to be widely accepted if the evidence Darwin presented for it was indeed compelling. In conclusion, if questions like this really are outside the scope of this article as you and your Wiki pals may undemocratically elect to define the scope of Wiki history of science articles, then the article must surely relinquish (i.e. delete) making any claims on the dating and rationale of that alleged revolution as it currently does in order to achieve a NPOV on such issues. This is of course exactly what my original proposed edit of the first sentence at was designed to achieve. But it was reverted by Souza in an apparent act of Tendentious editing that satisfies the following Wiki criterion of such:
|
Logicus to Guettarda: But nobody is claiming philosophical debate about the nature of science is or should be within the scope of this article. Certainly I have not proposed any edit to include philosophical debate about the nature of science in it. So why this bizarrely illogical intervention ? -- Logicus ( talk) 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't copy discussion from one article talk page to another. Guettarda ( talk) 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here Logicus posts a relevant discussion of this issue from the Talk:History of evolutionary thought pages: In a related question, the wording relating to Darwin's theory, "but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s", has been questioned in relation to the Charles Darwin article where we state "while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s". That's sourced to van Wyhe, who states "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s." It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s, so both are reasonable. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So perhaps Dave would kindly tell us here in this section of Talk:Darwin who makes the claim "It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s,”. |
Logicus to Guettarda: Since you apparently imagine you know and understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines better than Logicus, would you please be so kind as to point out where this rule ‘Don't copy discussion from one article talk page to another’ is stated. I cannot recall seeing it anywhere but it may have appeared since I last reviewed policy and guidelines.
--
Logicus (
talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Statement is adequately sourced; not the place to discuss whether modern scholarship is right or wrong. Guettarda ( talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article’s opening sentence currently claims “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. It would seem the scientific community did not find any compelling evidence for natural selection until the 20th century. I flag this claim for a reliable citation, but propose the following edit would be less contentious “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” -- Logicus ( talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Logicus to All: Can none of you people see the plain utterly absurd stupidity of the article's current first paragraph in claiming on the one hand in its first sentence that Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution by natural selection, but on the other hand then inconsistently claiming in its second sentence that his theory that natural selection is the primary selector of evolution was not widely accepted until the 1930s ? For if the latter claim is true, then clearly the evidence Darwin presented was not compelling at the time, if ever, contrary to the contentious and unsourced claim of the first sentence that it was. I cannot see why the more modest and far less contentious proposed opening sentence edit to ‘Darwin claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by the process he called natural selection ‘ is not acceptable to some. This does not preclude the article subsequently discussing whether the evidence Darwin presented for evolution mainly by natural selection was scientifically compelling or not, and thus whether scientists were irrational for some 80 years in not accepting it, or whether it required some 80 years or more to acquire some compelling scientific evidence. (But note that nobody in this discussion has yet identified what exactly that alleged compelling evidence was, including Souza. What specific novel prediction did Darwin's theory make that was also evidentially confirmed at the time ? The 1713 second edition of Newton's Principia predicted the return of Halley's comet some 45 or so years later, and it did, to provide the first compelling scientific evidence for it in the opinion of some philosophers and historians of science. But what novelty, if any, did Darwin ever predict ? -- Logicus ( talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
<ri>Umm, no. You seem more than a little confused. Your initial comment said:
In response to this, I corrected your misconception that "few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day". You responded by saying that:
This suggested that you didn't understand the difference between Darwin's ideas of branching descent, and Lamarck's more lineal idea. Again, I tried to explain the difference to you. In response to my attempt to correct your misconception, you said:
Unfortunately, if you look back to the start of this section, you said:
Mind-boggling. At this point, I think the only thing left to do is to refer you to our guideline on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and this essay on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Guettarda ( talk) 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
<ri>Umm, no. You seem more than a little confused. Your initial comment said: But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. In response to this, I corrected your misconception that "few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day". You did not correct any misconception of mine. Rather you perversely misinterpreted my point that few regarded Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the main selector of evolution as having compelling evidence for the logically quite different claim that few thought that the theory that there is some natural selection had compelling evidence. Of course as Mayr rightly emphasizes in his 1964 Intro, right from its very first edition The Origin proposed both Lamarckian use-and-disuse inheritance and also natural selection inheritance as evolutionary selectors, and in some cases the former is the main selector or even the whole selector, with natural selection only a compounding secondary selector at most. And reports suggest Darwin significantly increased the role of use & disuse as the main selector in the 6th Edition. But you wholly ignored the main question of identifying exactly what evidence Darwin presented for his distinctive theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution overall, compelling or otherwise]
And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution ? This was not my main response, which was rather that I found yours confused and not dealing with the main question of identifying the alleged compelling evidence. Rather this was a secondary response challenging your logically irrelevant claim about evolution “Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.”]
It suggested no such thing., except in your imagination. I referred solely to evolution i.e. just to descent with modification, but not to any specific theory of its form. Rather you invalidly presumed I confused evolution in general with Darwin’s branching descent form of it , which I did not.]
This point is logically irrelevant. For the sentence being challenged here makes no mention of common ancestry. Yes, but you misinterpret “here” as referring to the whole section, rather than to what was being challenged here within that section by the sentence of mine you quoted. That sentence was challenging your implication that evolution was only accepted after ‘’The Origin’’ in claiming “Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.” and which (I suspect mistaken) view is also reflected in the article in the first sentence of its third para , which states “His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[2]” and makes no mention of common descent. You may wish to remedy this omission.]
“{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” [Emphasis added] Yes, but unfortunately the first sentence of third para I was referring to omits common descent.] Mind-boggling. [Indeed !] -- Logicus ( talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. The following continuing discussion of this issue is most pertinent. Logicus to Michael Johnson: Thanks for your following contribution to this discussion: “Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) “ However, your points are mistaken and misrepresent what I said. But first I just recapitulate the issue that you and other editors misunderstand. The article’s first sentence claims Darwin “realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.[1]”. But the quotation from the source given does not verify this controversial highly misleading claim, as follows: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." This statement does not mention any evidence whatever that Darwin presented for anything, neither compelling nor otherwise. So this is a failed verification. And indeed even the editor who provided it effectively modestly admitted as much, as follows: “Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) and as Cubathy correctly pointed out: “I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence…..Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) “ In the first instance what needs to be provided on Wiki rules is a reliable source that claims Darwin somewhere presented evidence for the theory stated, and also that it was compelling. So I agree with your claim that “we have to produce a reliable source that shows that [all or most ] others [in the scientific community] found the evidence compelling.” But it seems nobody to date has found any such source. (For whatever my views may be worth, I conjecture the reason why is that no serious contemporary scholar would make this bold claim given it is now so widely accepted that Darwin’s theory that natural selections has been the main selector of evolution was not generally accepted until the mid 20th century. For if they did claim Darwin presented compelling evidence for it, they would then land themselves with the problem, inter alia, of explaining why it did not compell everybody in the scientific community to accept the theory. In fact I believe the scholarly consensus to be that Darwin did not provide any compelling evidence for that theory, neither in The Origin nor elsewhere. And moreover as Jenkin pointed out, the theory was anyway ruled out by the then widely accepted theory of blending inheritance.) So the current situation seems to be that the claim in question should be tagged for failed verification. And so I propose it should be in the absence of any valid reason why not. Now I turn to the mistakes and misrepresentations in your above comments. “Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, What I meant here is that in the first instance I just wanted that evidence identifying as a preliminary to finding a source that claims it was compelling. This is clearer in what I actually said, but which you have truncated, as follows: “I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, WITH A SOURCE FOR THAT IDENTIFICATION.”] IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. Your honest opinion is thus clearly mistaken. Please consider the logical possibility that Logicus has the very highest understanding of these policies of all Wikipedia editors, and also of their massive breaches in Wikipedia articles. ☺] In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. But surely the source should at least identify the evidence that ‘exists in any substantial form’ ?] Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. Agreed, but of course they should be shown to be at least a great majority of the scientific community, rather than just Darwin’s mum and dad, say, and even if not including Thomas Henry Huxley, who did not accept Darwin presented compelling evidence for natural selection as the main cause of evolution, and nor of speciation in particular, but which was the leading claim of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection as expressed in its title. Darwin presented no explanation nor evidence that natural selection could induce sterility, the defining characteristic of the origination of a new species.] If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, But Logicus is still trying to find out what this evidence is, so cannot possibly judge whether it is compelling or not.] or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Logicus has never proposed such a point of view be incorporated in the article. Rather at the very outset of this discussion he has only proposed the highly controversial POV stated in the first sentence should be amended to a more NPOV claim if no reliable citation can be found for it, as follows: “I flag this claim for a reliable citation, but propose the following edit would be less contentious “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” “ 13:56, 20 April 2009 But I now propose the following sentence would be more accurate “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by natural selection.” since Darwin denied all evolution was purely by natural selection, and claimed use & disuse was also an important selector.] Your comments here seem to fail to understand Logicus is challenging the controversial and unsourced POV expressed in the first sentence. Thus the onus is not on Logicus to provide a reliable source for some other point of view as you claim, but rather the onus is on Wikipedians to provide a reliable source that justifies the claim made which has been challenged, or else to delete it. May I refer you to the first section on ‘Burden of evidence’ of Wikipedia:Verifiability to verify this.] Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. So otherwise this is not a philosophical debate, but just a simple issue of whether a justifying reliable source can be found for a controversial POV claim, and deleting that claim if not. OK ?] -- Logicus ( talk) 16:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. Please see my contribution of 25 April in the now hidden discussion for the demonstration of this failed verification. -- Logicus ( talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
|
On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. Please see my contribution of 25 April in the now hidden discussion for the demonstration of this failed verification. -- Logicus ( talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.94.3 ( talk)
If you find yourself confused by this this, see Evolution as fact and theory. Guettarda ( talk) 05:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The opening sentence in the article says that Charles Darwin "realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." However, he did not actually present any evidence of evolution ("Darwin's Finches" prove natural selection, not evolution). Plus, even Darwin never said that evolution was a fact, only a theory. Could someone fix it? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 04:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
|
But which this is this this ? ☺ --
Logicus (
talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't get the idea behind attributing the term 'Freethinker' to Darin's father. Before it was given to both Darwin's father and grandfather, but it seems the article was edited. Anyway, I'm a biology student and I've heard the Darwin story a million times; and it includes his father pressing him to become a doctor and being opposed to the Beagle journey. The latter is mentioned briefly in the article, but it's hard to associate those actions with 'freethinking'. In addition there is no clear definition for 'freethinker' in the article, or in real life.
I think that we should address these issues to improve the article.
-- SunshineOdyssey ( talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Overlong opinion-piece that will not help to improve the article. See WP:SOAP, not to mention WP:TLDR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The current verification cited for the article's controversial POV opening claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence that natural selection is the main selector of evolution is as follows: "As Darwinian scholar Joseph Carroll of the University of Missouri–St. Louis puts it in his introduction to a modern reprint of Darwin's work: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." Carroll, Joseph, ed (2003). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview. p. 15. ISBN 1551113376." But this quotation clearly fails to verify the claim made, as in effect already admitted by its contributor Old Moonraker and also by Cubathy, as follows: "Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I therefore now flag the claim as having a failed verification. This means that either a verifying source must be found, that is, a reliable source that claims Darwin did present compelling evidence somewhere for the theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, or else the claim must be deleted as an unaccepted POV and Wiki Original Research. Please do not remove the 'failed verification' flag unless to replace it with a properly verifying source and quotation, or else to delete the claim. For whatever it is worth, my opinion is that no verifying source will be found for this claim because the contemporary scholarly consensus seems to be that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, which is why the theory was not accepted in his lifetime. Even Darwin's great champion Huxley rejected Darwin's theory that natural selection has been the main selector. The article previously cited van Wyhe's 2008 Darwin book as a verifying source of this claim, but notably that citation has now been withdrawn. This may well be because van Wyhe's opinion is part of an academic consensus that Darwin did not present any such evidence as the article claims. Thus the Wikipedia claim that Darwin did present some compelling evidence for his theory of evolution mainly by natural selection therefore currently seems to be an idiosyncratic POV that constitutes Original Research.
"The article’s first sentence claims Darwin “realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.[1]”. But the quotation from the source given does not verify this controversial highly misleading claim, as follows: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." This statement does not mention any evidence whatever that Darwin presented for anything, neither compelling nor otherwise. So this is a failed verification. And indeed even the editor who provided it effectively modestly admitted as much, as follows: “Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) and as Cubathy correctly pointed out: “I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence…..Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) “ In the first instance what needs to be provided on Wiki rules is a reliable source that claims Darwin somewhere presented evidence for the theory stated, and also that it was compelling. So I agree with your claim that “we have to produce a reliable source that shows that [all or most ] others [in the scientific community] found the evidence compelling.” But it seems nobody to date has found any such source. (For whatever my views may be worth, I conjecture the reason why is that no serious contemporary scholar would make this bold claim given it is now so widely accepted that Darwin’s theory that natural selections has been the main selector of evolution was not generally accepted until the mid 20th century. For if they did claim Darwin presented compelling evidence for it, they would then land themselves with the problem, inter alia, of explaining why it did not compell everybody in the scientific community to accept the theory. In fact I believe the scholarly consensus to be that Darwin did not provide any compelling evidence for that theory, neither in The Origin nor elsewhere. And moreover as Jenkin pointed out, the theory was anyway ruled out by the then widely accepted theory of blending inheritance.) So the current situation seems to be that the claim in question should be tagged for failed verification. And so I propose it should be in the absence of any valid reason why not." Logicus 25 April
Logicus to SNALWIBMA: You wrote "I am struggling to grasp what the problem is here. I agree that the reference in question is more concerned with the compelling nature of Darwin's rhetoric than with the compelling nature of his evidence. But in that case why not just delete the reference? Or is your real problem simply the word "compelling"? Would you be happier if that word was deleted, leaving a statement that Darwin presented evidence? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)" Thank you for drawing my attention here to the insufficiency of my exposition in this new section in respect of its omission of the alternative opening sentence for the article I have proposed in previous discussions in response to the failed verification of the current opening sentence's claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence that evolution has been mainly but not exclusively by natural selection. It was as follows: ‘[Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by natural selection.’ Hence it is not merely a case of deleting the reference as you suggest or also deleting the word 'compelling', but rather one that requires replacing the mistaken unsupported POV sentence the reference fails to justify with a NPOV sentence such as I have proposed and repeated here. Note that rather than going so far in the opposite direction as stating the truth of the matter that the contemporary scholarly consensus seems to be that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theory that natural selection has been the main evolutionary selector, the sentence I propose just eliminates the idiosyncratic heterodox POV claim that Darwin did present such evidence without also pointing out that he never did so. For your possible edification on this issue, the actual truth of the matter is of course that Darwin failed to provide any evidence whatever, compelling or otherwise, that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, or indeed even compelling evidence of evolution itself, that is, that the origin of all species has been by descent through many gradual modifications from some preceding species, whether by natural selection or otherwise. For obviously our intractable ignorance of all the innumerable evolutionary modifications and all innumerable species since life began makes it impossible to decide Darwin's quantitative theories of evolution and of natural selection: for example, how can we possibly determine whether natural selection has been the most frequently occurring selector of all the innumerably many unknown evolutionary selections since life began, especially given Darwin's own Lamarckian theory that use/disuse has also been an important selector, and in some cases, such as eyeless cave animals [e.g. see p119 Origin], the sole selector without any natural selection ? To proclaim Darwin's theory was/is evidentially justified would be akin to the folly of proclaiming some candidate has won a majority of votes cast when we don't know all the votes cast. Clearly the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection cannot be evidentially decided. The plain truth of the matter is that Darwin's theories of the evolution of species by gradual modifications of descent and of evolution by natural selection are both quantitatively evidentially undecidable. And Darwin himself acknowledged this serious and even intractable evidential problem in such as the following passage in Origin: "Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory; and I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modifications." [p394. My emboldening.] So far from claiming to present compelling evidence for descent with gradual modifications, rather Origin is only at most an apologia, a plea that there is no compelling evidence against that theory sufficient to reject it by virtue of our ignorance of the possible evidence. Darwin's central argument for accepting his theories is not that he presents compelling evidence for them, but rather only that their serious counterevidence is not sufficiently compelling to reject them, and that he is personally convinced of them. In other words, believe in them just because I do, for I have no compelling evidence ! [More Darwin quotations to follow] -- Logicus ( talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
LOGICUS CONTINUES: I shall respond to these three mistaken comments, in addition to those two outstanding comments of the three mistaken comments of SNALWIBMA and Cubathy of 27 April asap. Meanwhile I continue with and complete the quotations I was previously providing, before I was so rudely interrupted ☺, for the argument that the contemporary scholarly consensus, reflecting even Darwin's own view, is that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theories of evolution and of natural selection. I now provide some verifying quotations from the well respected Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But would more illiterate editors please note that none of this is in any way opposing the theories of evolution or natural selection or claiming they are mistaken or not accepted. It is rather purely concerned with correcting the Wikipedia mistaken presentation of Darwin's proposed theoretical innovations as also evidentially grounded and proven by evidence presented by Darwin. This is a profound empiricist misunderstanding of his theoretically innovative contribution and more generally of the nature and patterns of scientific development and method. And it is an unsupported POV.
Continuation] So far from claiming to present compelling evidence for descent with gradual modifications, rather Origin is only at most an apologia, a plea that there is no compelling evidence against that theory sufficient to reject it by virtue of our ignorance of the possible evidence. Darwin's central argument for accepting his theories is not that he presents compelling evidence for them, but rather only that their serious counterevidence is not sufficiently compelling to reject them, and that he is personally convinced of them. In other words, believe in them just because I do, for I have no compelling evidence ! Consequently Darwin himself acknowledged any evidence he might appeal to could not compell scientists of an opposite factually based viewpoint as follows: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the forms of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation,", "unity of design," &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt on the immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed." [p408 Origin My emboldening.] But Darwin's last claim is surely or hopefully quite wrong. For it is not conscientious declarations of personal conviction that persuade scientists, but rather crucial evidence. And Darwin had none, neither that all species have originated from gradual modification of descent, nor that natural selection had been the main selector of such evolution. Consequently Darwin was admirably honest about the evidential inadequacy of The Origin and its failure to evidentially justify his theoretical conclusions in that work: " I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. " [p2 1950 My emphases.] Consequently in its page 5 final paragraph Darwin's Intro notably fell back on relying just on Darwin's proclamations of his own personal convictions of the truth of the various theories of evolution and speciation he presents there, rather than on any compelling evidence he presented for them therein. This was because of ignorance of the relevant facts of contemporary beings and also the absence of the required historical evidence of past beings he fully admitted as follows: "No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all beings which live around us. ...Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history." The non-evidential nature of Darwin's arguments for his key theories of evolution and of its natural selection is fully recognised by the well respected Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 'Evolution' article @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ in its following extracts: "For reasons related both to the condensed and summary form of public presentation, and also to the bold conceptual sweep of the theory, the primary argument of the Origin could not gain its force from the data presented by the book itself. Instead, it presented an argument from consilience in Whewell's sense, gaining its force from the ability of Darwin's theory to draw together a wide variety of issues in taxonomy, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, and embryology under the simple principles worked out in the first four chapters. ...The theory rested its case on its claim to be able to unify numerous fields of inquiry and on its potential theoretical fertility. " "The broad sweep of Darwin's claims, the brevity of the empirical evidence actually supplied in the text, and the implications of his theory for several more general philosophical and theological issues, immediately opened up a controversy over Darwinian evolution that has waxed and waned over the past 149 years." Thus inevitably insofar as scientific theory change requires crucial new evidence, Darwin's main theories were not accepted by the scientific community, as the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia attests: "Historical studies have revealed that only rarely did members of the scientific elites accept and develop Darwin's theories exactly as they were presented in his texts. Statistical studies on the reception by the scientific community in England in the first decade after the publication of the Origin have shown a complicated picture, in which there was neither a wide-spread conversion of the scientific community to Darwin's views, nor a clear generational stratification between younger converts and older resisters, counter to Darwin's own predictions (Hull et al., 1978). These studies also reveal a distinct willingness within the scientific community to separate acceptance of the broader claims of species descent with modification from common ancestors from the explanation of this descent through the action of natural selection. To utilize the categories of a Lakatosian “research program” analysis of scientific theories in their historical extension, one can distinguish between a “hard core” of central assumptions, a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses that protect this central core from refutations, and a “positive heuristic” of applied research applications that are subject to continued revision and even refutation (Lakatos 1974 in Lakatos and Musgrave, 1974). [All these Lakatos & Musgrave datings should instead be to the 1970 Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge] Employing these distinctions, it is difficult to claim that anything more than the belief in descent from common ancestry was maintained by a broadly international scientific community at the “hard core” level in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. The “eclipse” of natural selection theory, if not of the theory of common descent with transformation, in the period between 1870–1930 (Bowler 1983; idem., 2004 in Lustig et al., 2004) meant that the historical impact of Darwin was based on deviations from his actual formulations of his theory." [My emboldening] In conclusion from this testimony, Darwin's arguments for his theory were clearly not evidence- based and this is so widely recognised by contemporary scholarship that it seems likely that the reason for repeated failed verification of the current POV Wikipedia claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for his theories of evolution and natural selection, and why no reliable source can be found making this claim, is simply that no reliable scholar makes it. The claim thus stands as unsourced unverified Original Research. It is apparently not even a minority viewpoint, but rather a viewpoint that no reliable scholars hold, although it seems a very very few idiosyncratic Wikipedia editors do. Consequently I submit at least the 'failed verification' tag must be restored, prior to the unjustifiable claim being removed. |
There is no mention of young Darwin's involvement in the Glutton/Gourmet Club at Cambridge - which led Darwin to sampling the gustatory delights of a range of endangered and rare animals.
There are also many internet rumours that darwin was (later?) a vegetarian. is anyone able to confirm or deny this?-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)