New Data. New Paradigm?

Charles Darwin Totally Lied about Patrick Matthew's (1831) book and its readership

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

New Data. New Paradigm?

#1  Postby OnNavalTimber » Jan 20, 2016 3:31 pm

I joined here today. My real name is Mike Sutton. I'm a criminologist (from a law and social sciences background).

I found the site after looking at the arguments against the plausibility of the Many Worlds Theory interpretation of discoveries made in quantum physics.

I've joined the site to discuss what newly discovered dis-confirming evidence means for the current 'majority view' paradigm that both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each conceived the idea of macro-evolution by natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the first conception of the theory http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Patrick_Matthew:_priority_and_the_discovery_of_natural_selection

The 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection that proves - as opposed to the old 'knowledge claim'' of none - that in fact seven naturalists known to Darwin/ Wallace did read (indeed they cited) Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Abroriculture' pre-Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and and Darwin's (1859) replications of the orignal idea.

Much about the story of Matthew' Darwin and Wallace can be found on PatrickMatthew.com .

The discovery and my claims for the significance of the 'new data' can be read in my peer reviewed article: The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discoveryhttp://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf

I think Stanley Cohen's (2001) book 'States of Denial' provides some very plausible explanations for why I - and not an 'expert' Darwin Scholar discovered the 'New Data'. I wrote a moderated blog post on that topic here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/mike-suttons-states-of-denial-spectrum.html
OnNavalTimber
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Mike Sutton
Posts: 3

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#2  Postby Doubtdispelled » Jan 20, 2016 10:02 pm

:coffee:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11836

Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#3  Postby Weaver » Jan 20, 2016 10:21 pm

An admittedly incomplete review of the paper seems to suggest it is one giant argument from incredulity.

There is no PROOF - only supposition and conjecture. There isn't even very much evidence.

In the end, it comes down to re-using the same 4 titular words? But Darwin's work did so much more than simply post a title - his reams of evidence were what mattered, and what Matthew didn't have, although he had the germ of the idea before Darwin.

In the end, this is not evidence of plagiarism, nor is it strong evidence of scientific misconduct. It might at best raise a little doubt on whether Darwin truly independently developed the theory - but even that is a stretch.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#4  Postby Macdoc » Jan 20, 2016 10:38 pm

There are very few theories not based on prior work. Seem tempest in a teapot....I'm just glad to see Wallace get his due.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#5  Postby Macdoc » Jan 20, 2016 10:39 pm

There are very few theories not based on prior work. Seem tempest in a teapot....I'm just glad to see Wallace get his due.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#6  Postby LucidFlight » Jan 20, 2016 11:36 pm

Titular. :tehe:
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#7  Postby zoon » Jan 21, 2016 12:32 am

OnNavalTimber wrote:I joined here today. My real name is Mike Sutton. I'm a criminologist (from a law and social sciences background).

I found the site after looking at the arguments against the plausibility of the Many Worlds Theory interpretation of discoveries made in quantum physics.

I've joined the site to discuss what newly discovered dis-confirming evidence means for the current 'majority view' paradigm that both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each conceived the idea of macro-evolution by natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the first conception of the theory http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Patrick_Matthew:_priority_and_the_discovery_of_natural_selection

The 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection that proves - as opposed to the old 'knowledge claim'' of none - that in fact seven naturalists known to Darwin/ Wallace did read (indeed they cited) Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Abroriculture' pre-Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and and Darwin's (1859) replications of the orignal idea.

Much about the story of Matthew' Darwin and Wallace can be found on PatrickMatthew.com .

The discovery and my claims for the significance of the 'new data' can be read in my peer reviewed article: The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discoveryhttp://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf

I think Stanley Cohen's (2001) book 'States of Denial' provides some very plausible explanations for why I - and not an 'expert' Darwin Scholar discovered the 'New Data'. I wrote a moderated blog post on that topic here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/mike-suttons-states-of-denial-spectrum.html

It's good that Patrick Matthew doesn't go forgotten, I'm not persuaded on the evidence you provide that Darwin or Wallace were aware of his idea before 1860, though more evidence could yet turn up. You say, in your reviewed linked article:

That Matthew (1860b) informed Darwin that Loudon had read his book, commented upon it and reviewed it, means that Darwin seemingly lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (Darwin, 1861), and in every edition thereafter, that Matthew’s ideas had passed unnoticed until he bought them to Darwin’s personal attention in 1860. (Darwin 1861: xv-xvi)

"Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered pages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle..."

Moreover, on the subject of that same apparent lie published in the Origin of Species (Darwin, 1861) that Matthew’s book had gone unnoticed, ...


Darwin does not say there that the book had gone unnoticed, only that the specific suggestion of evolution by natural selection, which was not the main subject of the book, had gone unnoticed.

In your second article you quote Loudon's review of Matthews' book:
That review contained the following line:(Loudon, 1832: 702-703) 'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.
Loudon is saying that Matthew could well have an original idea, but, in your quote, he does not bother to say what that idea is; the implication is that he thinks it's probably cranky but doesn't want to be rude? There's no indication at all that Loudon found Matthew's idea interesting, does he restate it later in that review? Loudon does there use the phrase "origin of species", it seems likely that he would have used it in other contexts as well as in the review of Matthew's book?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#8  Postby OnNavalTimber » Jan 21, 2016 3:24 pm

There are many facts here that people appear unable - weirdly - to see. I think the psychological phenomenon is called "blindsight" - a negative illusion. In other words: You don't see the obvious and significant fact = because to see it (cognitively) is too distressing (see Stanley Cohen's 'States of Denial for an explanatory example of this phenomenon) .

Let me take just one of the many facts. It is an obvious and (arguably significant) fact that in his two letters to the Gardener's Chronicle Matthew informed Darwin that the orignal "ideas" in his book had been read. The point is that Matthew informed Darwin that (1) John Loudon read his ideas, and that (2) that an unnamed professor (Matthew refers to him as a naturalist) read the ideas but feared to teach those ideas for fear of pillory punishment - for teaching heresy on species and (3) thirdly that the the Perth Public Library in Scotland (Matthew calls it by its nickname "the Fair City" banned his book. And so to ban it the heretical ideas in it were obviously read). Here then we have written evidence supplied by Matthew that the ideas in his book had been read.

That means - having been informed in writing of the exact oppose by Matthew in 1860 - that it is a fact that Darwin lied thereafter - from 1861 onwards when he wrote that Matthew's ideas had gone unread until 1860. It is a fact that Darwin's lies have been parroted by Darwin scholars ever since as 'gospel truth' evidence that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin nor anyone else. The premise upon which that argument rests being the now 100 per cent disproven one that Matthew's ideas were unread before 1860.

Now we have obvious (and arguably significant) proof that Darwin lied by way of Matthew's two letters and by way of what Darwin then wrote after reading those letters https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23118%2c23118

Now we also newly know that scholars who influenced both Darwin and Wallace - and/or influenced or facilitated the work of their known influencers - in fact - did read Matthew's ideas before 1858: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/leading-evolutionary-biologists-are.html

So far then on Rational Sketpticsm . org - the replies sent to the obvious and significant facts supplied in my original post are indicative that the facts are being denied through "states of denial".

The question of the real history of the discovery of natural selection can be rationalised away as inconsequential in order to make these dreadfully disturbing facts less disturbing. That's called being in a "state of denial" about the facts.

I raised this same criticism on Dr Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project comments pagehttps://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-6/#comment-1042. States of Denial of dreadfully uncomfortable facts are manifest in many ways. If blindsight (negative hallucination) is not the reason why did Darwinists for 155 years (indeed the individuals who also responded to the obvious facts here by denying them) fail to see the obvious facts and their clear significance that was literally right under their noses as they read them? If not blindsight then choose one of the following from Cohen's (2001) book 'States of Denial' - many of which are evidenced in the replies above:

Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
‘Negation by wishful thinking’
‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
‘Compartmentalization’.

And if not any of the above explanations for failing to engage with the obvious and clearly presented dis-confirming facts for Darwin's supposed Matthew-free conception of natural selection- and the dis-confirming facts for his legendary honesty, why are they seemingly "impossible to see". Genuinely inquisitive scientists should be intrigued by the data that is in the responses above. I am.

Calling for more such data, I ask: Is it unreasonable for me to hope that members of a site called "Rational Skepticism" might be rationally skeptic when presented with hard and obvious facts that dis-confirm major 'prior 'knowledge claims' made in the literature by leading, Royal Society Darwin Medal winning, scholars in the history of discovery of the unifying theory of biology?

After all, religion is the organisation of certain beliefs. Fundamental beliefs of any religion are not subject to change or challenge. They are fixed. Alternatively, science is meant to be belief-free organised skepticism. Immortal great thinkers and discoverers in science have written things, often long ago, that every new generation of scholar improves upon. The words and ideas of scientists, such as Charles Darwin, are not holy tenets. Scientists may be brilliant people, but they are not our gods. Each scientist is just one step in the evolution of knowledge that is greater than ourselves. The history of discovery of natural selection evolved in 2014, with the original discovery of the New Data (Sutton 2014) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-Greatest-Secret-ebook/dp/B00M5DP46U, which proves that Darwin was wrong about the prior readership of the original conception of the full hypothesis of natural selection before 1858. Because, rather than none whatsoever, as Darwin wrote, seven naturalists in fact did read Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection. And three of their number played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace on that topic pre-1858.

So can we please address the facts presented for debate and not be in a classic "state of denial" about their existence?
OnNavalTimber
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Mike Sutton
Posts: 3

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#9  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 22, 2016 8:11 am

OnNavalTimber wrote:
So can we please address the facts presented for debate and not be in a classic "state of denial" about their existence?


If you want to do it like science, then you better have some facts, and be prepared to vet them one at a time instead of ganging them together as part of some grand theory of which only you see the structure and know the details. Theories that are worth anything are developed over a period of time, with care, and if you want a critical evaluation of your 'theory' you're going to have to develop it in the same painstaking sort of way with your present audience. They're your observations, you present them. Otherwise, we have all the usual ingredients of a crank theory, blasted at people whole cloth from the outset.

Rewriting history is a tough job, not something I'd sign up for without a professorship somewhere, at least if I were you. Your 'hard and obvious facts' are nowhere to be seen except in your contention of them as such. And what's the point, other than the usual Quest For Historical Truth? Give me a break. That you're paying out the rope in your welcome thread is a very bad sign.

OnNavalTimber wrote:Let me take just one of the many facts. It is an obvious and (arguably significant) fact that in his two letters to the Gardener's Chronicle Matthew informed Darwin that the orignal "ideas" in his book had been read. The point is that Matthew informed Darwin that (1) John Loudon read his ideas, and that (2) that an unnamed professor (Matthew refers to him as a naturalist) read the ideas but feared to teach those ideas for fear of pillory punishment - for teaching heresy on species and (3) thirdly that the the Perth Public Library in Scotland (Matthew calls it by its nickname "the Fair City" banned his book. And so to ban it the heretical ideas in it were obviously read). Here then we have written evidence supplied by Matthew that the ideas in his book had been read.

That means - having been informed in writing of the exact oppose by Matthew in 1860 - that it is a fact that Darwin lied thereafter - from 1861 onwards when he wrote that Matthew's ideas had gone unread until 1860. It is a fact that Darwin's lies have been parroted by Darwin scholars ever since as 'gospel truth' evidence that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin nor anyone else. The premise upon which that argument rests being the now 100 per cent disproven one that Matthew's ideas were unread before 1860.


Most people, when confronted with stuff like this, will yawn and ask you if the significant content of the theory itself changes at all based on better observation and analysis by the wronged party. That, for you, will be the money shot, the genuine anti-Darwinist porn.

OnNavalTimber wrote:Is it unreasonable for me to hope that members of a site called "Rational Skepticism" might be rationally skeptic when presented with hard and obvious facts that dis-confirm major 'prior 'knowledge claims' made in the literature by leading, Royal Society Darwin Medal winning, scholars in the history of discovery of the unifying theory of biology?

After all, religion is the organisation of certain beliefs.


Yes, it seems your real aim is to present a crank theory that will be dismissed without what you will consider a proper hearing in order to accuse your audience of a failure of skepticism with respect to the canonical story and too much skepticism with respect to the crank theory. You don't really care about Matthew. You care about discrediting "rational skepticism', so I'll just wait around for the punchline in terms of religious apologetics, thank you very much. Not necessarily any that you want to give, but perhaps only that you think rational skepticism has too hard a line toward religion, even if you don't profess any.

OnNavalTimber wrote:I'm a criminologist (from a law and social sciences background).


Crimes against history, right? No. Let's see what you know about biology, and about how much less important niggles about scientific priority are in relation to how it might have affected the content of the theory at which we eventually arrive.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#10  Postby zoon » Jan 23, 2016 10:01 am

OnNavalTimber wrote:There are many facts here that people appear unable - weirdly - to see. I think the psychological phenomenon is called "blindsight" - a negative illusion. In other words: You don't see the obvious and significant fact = because to see it (cognitively) is too distressing (see Stanley Cohen's 'States of Denial for an explanatory example of this phenomenon) .

Let me take just one of the many facts. It is an obvious and (arguably significant) fact that in his two letters to the Gardener's Chronicle Matthew informed Darwin that the orignal "ideas" in his book had been read. The point is that Matthew informed Darwin that (1) John Loudon read his ideas, and that (2) that an unnamed professor (Matthew refers to him as a naturalist) read the ideas but feared to teach those ideas for fear of pillory punishment - for teaching heresy on species and (3) thirdly that the the Perth Public Library in Scotland (Matthew calls it by its nickname "the Fair City" banned his book. And so to ban it the heretical ideas in it were obviously read). Here then we have written evidence supplied by Matthew that the ideas in his book had been read.
………
Calling for more such data, I ask: Is it unreasonable for me to hope that members of a site called "Rational Skepticism" might be rationally skeptic when presented with hard and obvious facts that dis-confirm major 'prior 'knowledge claims' made in the literature by leading, Royal Society Darwin Medal winning, scholars in the history of discovery of the unifying theory of biology?
…….
So can we please address the facts presented for debate and not be in a classic "state of denial" about their existence?

For the purposes of this discussion, Patrick Matthew put forward two ideas in his book:
1) The idea of evolution
2) The idea of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

The idea of evolution was not new, for example, Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin’s grandfather, had both written on the subject well before Matthew. Charles Darwin did not need to read Matthew in order to pick up the idea of evolution. Then as now, Christian fundamentalists objected to the idea of evolution, and that would have been the reason why the unnamed professor did not want to promote the book, and why the city of Perth banned it.

For modern readers, the far more significant idea in Matthew’s book is that the mechanism of evolution is natural selection. It is clear that Matthew published that idea long before Wallace and Darwin, and he rightly holds an honourable position in the history of science on that account. The question at issue here, is whether Wallace and/or Darwin were aware of Matthew’s idea of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.

While you have shown evidence that Wallace and Darwin could have been aware of Matthew’s book, and that it promoted the (already well-known) idea of evolution, I see no evidence that anyone was interested in Matthew’s idea of natural selection. The people who objected to evolution would not have been interested in such details. The closest evidence appears to be the line which you quote from Loudon’s 1832 review of Matthew’s book (when Alfred Russell Wallace was 9 years old and Charles Darwin was on the Beagle):
One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.

This is an offhand one-liner which may not even be about the idea of natural selection. Supposing that it is, the line suggests that Loudon was unimpressed by Matthew’s idea of natural selection as the mechanism for the evolution of species: he effectively dismisses Matthew’s possibly “original views” by categorising them as offbeat and not saying what they are; he only mentions them at all because he’s reviewing the book?

By all means look for more data, but it would need to be data showing that someone had picked up on the idea of natural selection as the mechanism for macro evolution, not just on the idea of evolution, from Matthew’s book.

Even after the Origin of Species was published and convinced most educated people that evolution had happened, the idea of natural selection as the primary mechanism for adaptive evolution remained controversial until the “modern synthesis” in the 1930s, because it seemed too chancy and undirected for the fantastic degree of adaptation shown in living things. Natural selection is now a cornerstone of biological thinking, but it was off the radar before the Origin was published. It is not too surprising if naturalists who had read Matthew’s book still failed to notice the significance of his idea of natural selection, and I don’t think you have presented any clear evidence that they did, though as you say more evidence may still come up.

Wikipedia on the slow uptake of the idea of natural selection:
Wikipedia wrote: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 it was revived by developments in biology that occurred during the 1920s through the 1940s. Before that time most biologists regarded other factors as responsible for evolution. Alternatives to natural selection suggested during "the eclipse of Darwinism" (circa 1880 to 1920) included inheritance of acquired characteristics (neo-Lamarckism), an innate drive for change (orthogenesis), and sudden large mutations (saltationism). Mendelian genetics, a series of 19th Century experiments with pea plant variations rediscovered in 1900, was integrated with natural selection by Ronald Fisher during the 1910s to 1930s, and along with J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright he founded the new discipline of population genetics. During the 1930s and 1940s population genetics became integrated with other biological fields, resulting in a widely applicable theory of evolution that encompassed much of biology—the modern evolutionary synthesis.


Also discussed in Wikipedia here (Darwin himself took the modern view that natural selection was probably the main but not the only mechanism underlying evolution):
Darwin thought of natural selection by analogy to how farmers select crops or livestock for breeding, which he called "artificial selection"; in his early manuscripts he referred to a Nature, which would do the selection. At the time, other mechanisms of evolution such as evolution by genetic drift were not yet explicitly formulated, and Darwin believed that selection was likely only part of the story: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."[45] In a letter to Charles Lyell in September 1860, Darwin regretted the use of the term "Natural Selection," preferring the term "Natural Preservation."[46]

For Darwin and his contemporaries, natural selection was in essence synonymous with evolution by natural selection. After the publication of On the Origin of Species, educated people generally accepted that evolution had occurred in some form. However, natural selection remained controversial as a mechanism, partly because it was perceived to be too weak to explain the range of observed characteristics of living organisms, and partly because even supporters of evolution balked at its "unguided" and non-progressive nature,[47] a response that has been characterised as the single most significant impediment to the idea's acceptance.[48]


The same Wikipedia article points out that a Mr Wells read papers to the Royal Society in 1813 (published in 1818) which included the idea of natural selection, though only in connection with the evolution of humans. Patrick Matthew could have read those essays?
In 1813, William Charles Wells read before the Royal Society essays assuming that there had been evolution of humans, and recognising the principle of natural selection. Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were unaware of this work when they jointly published the theory in 1858, but Darwin later acknowledged that Wells had recognised the principle before them, writing that the paper "An Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro" was published in 1818, and "he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the races of man, and to certain characters alone."[74]
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#11  Postby ElDiablo » Jan 26, 2016 2:37 am

Welcome to the forum Mike Sutton.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#12  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jan 26, 2016 11:38 pm

Welcome! :cheers:

Allowing, for the sake of argument, that everything you say is true and every bit of your reasoning is, well, reasonable..... How would it result in a new paradigm? It's not as if the modern theory of evolution owes very much to Darwin or Wallace at this point. I don't see a terribly exciting new paradigm beyond the modern theory simply not owing very much to a different original author. The evidence wouldn't change, what we do with it wouldn't change.... as paradigm shifts go I think we're venturing into new realms of smallness.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#13  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 5:09 pm

I don't know about Mathew, but Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, explained evolution to his grandson. http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family.
Gareth
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#14  Postby Galactor » Jan 28, 2016 6:37 pm

Are Gareth Morgan and Mike Sutton friends of one another?
User avatar
Galactor
 
Name: Graeme
Posts: 587
Age: 55
Male

Country: Netherlands
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#15  Postby Pulsar » Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm

Regardless of whether Darwin & Wallace knew about Matthew's work, the fact is that Matthew hid his idea in the appendix of a book called On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. It's as if he didn't want anyone to know about it. In contrast, Darwin & Wallace published their theories in scientific journals, discussed them among their peers, and had to deal with the reaction of the general public. Science is more than simply coming up with an idea. You have to develop it, publish it openly, convince fellow scientists, and respond to criticism. You don't get a claim to fame if you don't stick your neck out.
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 43
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#16  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2016 7:05 pm

Gareth wrote:I don't know about Mathew, but Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, explained evolution to his grandson. http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family.

Evolution was being kicked around by many people at the time. Darwin's discovery, however, was Natural Selection.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44753
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#17  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 28, 2016 7:26 pm

Galactor wrote:Are Gareth Morgan and Mike Sutton friends of one another?

:think:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14645
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#18  Postby Gareth » Jan 29, 2016 7:43 am

No. Who is Mike Sutton?
Gareth
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#19  Postby Gareth » Jan 29, 2016 7:46 am

Oh. I see. He's OnNavalTimber
Gareth
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: New Data. New Paradigm?

#20  Postby Gareth » Jan 29, 2016 8:22 am

Curious name, OnNavalTimber. You wouldn't happen to be a fan of the late Sir Alister Hardy, would you, Mike?
Gareth
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest