The Darwingate Papers (Darwin plagiarist, scientific criminal???)

ARN ^ | August 10, 2008 | David Tyler

[GodGunsGuts]

This publication marks the 150th anniversary of the joint presentation of Darwin and Wallace of their thinking about evolution by natural selection to the Linnean Society. The book is a blockbuster because it claims that "Darwin perpetuated one of the greatest crimes in the history of science". It concludes that Darwin plagiarised Alfred Russel Wallace, deceived the world about the maturity of his own ideas before 1858, and, to satisfy his personal need for glory, failed to give credit to scholars who influenced his thinking...

[CondorFlight]

He not only copied from Wallace, he also copied from his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who wrote of the same things (see his epic poem, “The lives of plants”, and other works.)

“Darwinism” was first applied to grandfather Erasmus’ ‘evolution-like’ theories, not to his grandson’s.

[saganite]

Cool. A link to an intelligent design weblog. Guess we know where this is going.

[Alter Kaker]

Only on the micro-level.

No, that's not correct. We have a huge number of observations of evolution in the fossil record, in the lab and in genetics. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is certainly not limited to "the micro-level."

I understand that to you disbelief in evolutionary science may be an article of faith and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. But hopefully there are others more susceptible to reason on this thread.

We’re not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists.

And? What does that have to do with whether or not his theory is correct?

[GodGunsGuts]

It wasn’t just Wallace, it appears he plagiarized the work of a number of scientists, to include Edward Blyth and Thomas Malthus. And it would appear that poor old Wallace went to his grave never knowing that his so-called friend ripped him off.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“The Father of Evolution is a liar.”

The Father of Evolution is the “Father of lies”.

[Coyoteman]

We’re not talking about whether Darwin is a pedophile, we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists. If so, Darwin himself will have to be dethroned, and the Darwinian ToE will have to begin with a new name (or names).

And rabid creationists will have to pick a new name to demonize.

Really, this is silly. You can't disprove the theory of evolution so you are left with trying to discredit its author -- 150 years after the fact.

This sure shows the bankruptcy of creationism and ID. And it says something about those individuals eager to believe any ill of Darwin.

[valkyry1]

No what it shows is you did not bother to read enough to find out that GGG did not introduce that statement into this thread, that or there is another answer to this routine failure of yours.

[AlaskaErik]

Somehow renaming it the Wallace Award just doesn't sound right.

[AmericaUnited]

I don't know about you but for me in my personal life, if I know a person is a liar, I SUSPECT EVERYTHING THHEY SAY. EVERYTHING! If they say "the Sun will rise tomorrow", I go out and watch to see if it happens. But... that's just me. This “quirk” has served me well over my lifetime and the proof is that the number of times I’ve been conned/hustled over a lifetime can be counted on less than 5 fingers.

[GodGunsGuts]

==We have a huge number of observations of evolution in the fossil record, in the lab and in genetics.

I won’t be waiting with baited breath for you to come up with a CLEARCUT example of observed macro-evolutionary change. I’m not talking about variation within species or even families, I’m talking about showing me an expiriment where a member of one family evolves into a new family entirely....like a dog becoming a cat or vice-versa. When you find an observed, reproducible example of this type of evolutionary change, be sure and ping me.

[dmz]

we are talking about whether he stole his theory from other scientists. If so, Darwin himself will have to be dethroned, and the Darwinian ToE will have to begin with a new name

So this of historical and intellectual interest. Scientifically, it is meaningless. Cool.

[Skooz]

wow. another crevo thread.

the same five or six people posting the same things over and over and over.

[GodGunsGuts]

==And rabid creationists will have to pick a new name to demonize.

I’m sure it won’t be difficult. There’s always plenty of dirt on those who invent theories for the purpose of denying God.

[Hoplite]

And it says something about those individuals eager to believe any ill of Darwin.

All I know is if Darwin was on the HMS Beagle, he undoubtedly ate drowned babies and spotted dogs.

[GodGunsGuts]

==So this of historical and intellectual interest. Scientifically, it is meaningless. Cool.

If the book turns out to be true, and Darwin is not dethroned, then this case will cut right to the heart of the integrity of science.

[Caramelgal]

Darwin investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838. Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority. He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described a similar theory, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.

Wallace had once briefly met Darwin, and was one of the correspondents whose observations Darwin used to support his own theories. Although Wallace's first letters to Darwin have been lost, he carefully kept the letters he received. In the first letter, dated 1 May 1857, Darwin commented that Wallace's letter of October 10th which he'd recently received as well as Wallace's paper "On the Law that has regulated the Introduction of New Species" of 1855 showed that they were both thinking alike and to some extent reaching similar conclusions, and said that he was preparing his own work for publication in about two years time. The second letter, dated 22 December 1857, said how glad he was that Wallace was theorising about distribution, adding that "without speculation there is no good and original observation" while commenting that "I believe I go much further than you". Wallace trusted Darwin's opinion on the matter and sent him his February 1858 essay, "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type", with the request that Darwin would review it and pass it on to Charles Lyell if he thought it worthwhile.

On 18 June 1858, Darwin received the manuscript from Wallace. While Wallace's essay did not employ Darwin's term "natural selection", it did outline the mechanics of an evolutionary divergence of species from similar ones due to environmental pressures. In this sense, it was very similar to the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to publish. Darwin sent the manuscript to Charles Lyell with a letter saying "he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters… he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal." Distraught about the illness of his baby son, Darwin put the problem to Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who decided to publish the essay in a joint presentation together with unpublished writings which highlighted Darwin's priority. Wallace's essay was presented to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, along with excerpts from an essay which Darwin had disclosed privately to Hooker in 1847 and a letter Darwin had written to Asa Gray in 1857.

Wallace accepted the arrangement after the fact, happy that he had been included at all. Darwin's social and scientific status was far greater than Wallace's, and it was unlikely that, without Darwin, Wallace's views on evolution would have been taken seriously. Lyell and Hooker's arrangement relegated Wallace to the position of co-discoverer, and he was not the social equal of Darwin or the other prominent British natural scientists. However, the joint reading of their papers on natural selection associated Wallace with the more famous Darwin. This, combined with Darwin's (as well as Hooker's and Lyell's) advocacy on his behalf, would give Wallace greater access to the highest levels of the scientific community. The reaction to the reading was muted, with the president of the Linnean remarking in May 1859 that the year had not been marked by any striking discoveries; but, with Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species later in 1859, its significance became apparent. When Wallace returned to the UK, he met Darwin and the two remained friendly afterwards. Over the years, a few people have questioned this version of events. In the early 1980s, two books, one written by Arnold Brackman and another by John Langdon Brooks, even suggested that not only had there been a conspiracy to rob Wallace of his proper credit, but that Darwin had actually stolen a key idea from Wallace to finish his own theory. These claims have been examined in detail by a number of scholars who have concluded that they are not credible.

Doesn’t sound like plagiarism to me. It sounds more like scientists working independently within the same field of interest and then sharing their findings and papers for peer review and critique and publishing both jointly and separately. It happens all the time in the scientific community and it’s certainly not plagiarism. Thomas Edison has been accused of much worse I might add.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

DO NOT CONFUSE this book with “The Darwin Conspiracy” by John Darnton. John’s is a novel. FYI.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Doesn’t sound like plagiarism to me.

Did you read about the new evidence the author and others have since unearthed? It’s looking very much like Darwin plagiarized the work of others.

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m not, but thanks for the headsup anyway :o)

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

I figured you wouldn’t but wanted the post there so others can see it. FReepOn!