15
   

CHARLES DARWIN: CHARLATAN OR SNAKE OIL SALESMAN

 
 
Setanta
 
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 02:59 pm
You decide. Some profound thinkers here, such as Gunga Dim are not fooled. Whaddayathink?
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 03:02 pm
wait, are you saying that Darwin was really Charlemagne?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vnk11UAaKTM/TyOSncykHmI/AAAAAAAAHZc/1P478YDdQHY/s1600/09_charlemagne.jpg

interesting theory
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 03:12 pm
@Setanta,
Well, he DID end up selling a lot of books....
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 03:59 pm
@Setanta,
Well! He did steal the theory from Alfred Russel Wallace

Rap
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 04:54 pm
He was obviously full of it for stating that birds on various islands evolved from the sort of tortoise that inhabits the Galapagos. Taint possible.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 05:04 pm
@raprap,
raprap wrote:

Well! He did steal the theory from Alfred Russel Wallace

Rap


Slight exaggeration there, Rap, as you well know. Darwin and Wallace corresponded from the git-go and found that they were in general agreement on nearly everything as regards evolution. (Wallace, however, never used the expression "natural selection", as far as I know, but did voice opinions not in opposition to the noton.)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:37 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Also, Darwin had outlined his germinating theory is an essay that he penned in 1844 almost a decade before Wallace . This essay was the basis of the joint paper that was agreed upon to be published under joint credit.
Darwins "Origin of Species..." became a description of evolutions mechanism, something that he was working on for the remaining 15 years before its publication. Also Wallace had a bit of spiritual leanings in his short paper and he viewed natural selection proceeding to an ultimate perfection whereas Darwin had none of that (And neither does modern science). Wallace saw only adaptation to a changing environment while Darwin looked at interaction within species themselves, ( besides adaptation). So Darwin presaged stuff like gene flow .

Darwin had, in previous letters to Wallace, provided some insights into what he was thinking about by describing his notebooks on transmutation of species, and, it was already in 1842, an letters to Lyell, who was visiting AMerica at the time, that Darwin had coined the term "Natural Selection'
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:40 pm
@raprap,
wow, that blurb on Wallace needs some major fact editing. One of the reasons I dont like Wikipedia as a primary source is that its rarely peer reviewed, or when it is, it gets "bandwagoned " by ike mindeds
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:56 pm
@farmerman,
Wallace in the Malay Archepelago had an advantage over Darwin as he had the opportunity to observe species from two different origions (Asia vs Australia) occupying nearly identical environs. I find that a facinating consequence of evolutinary theory. One so significant that his biogeography is used to support plate techtonics.

Granted Wallace's spiritualism and social activism became a little strange as he became older but it was nothing compared to the wierding of the maturing minds of Tesla or Cantor.

Rap
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 08:08 pm
@raprap,
Im aware of all that . Ive posted several times in the past about the "Wallace line". However,the "birth pains" of his spiritualism is quite easily read in his early papers. His belief was that evolution (not his term eiother) continued to "perfection".
Your statement that Darwin Stole his theory from wallace is incorrect as Darwin's abstract and structure was avaiabe for more than 10 years before his publication and segments of his work were actually available as entire volummes for years prior.
He always called these works "Volumes that noone will read". Between 1842 and 1854 he produced Works , like the "Journals of Research into Geology and Natural History of the Countries Visited by H M S Beagle" "The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs", "Geological Observationsof Volcanic Islands visited During the Voyages of the BEagle", "Geological Observations of South America""A Monograph on Subclass Cirripedia" "A Monograph on Fossil Lepadidae of Great Britain" ( The Beagle volumes were- geology and paleo volume dressed as travelogues, and his works on copepods andcirrepedes, incidental abstracts and submissions prove without doubt that Darwin didnt just sit there at Down House and wait for 1859 .
BTW Darwin (and Wallace) scholars seem to agree that Wallace had a copy of Darwins copepod work and the "Voyage" . If you read "Voyage" you will see how DArwins idea of transmutation was born and how his collection of notebooks got started and developed. I know that Its been popularized that Wallace was the nucleus of Darwins ideas and thats just incorrect. DArwin was well on the way to being done well before Wallace submitted his little monograph .



.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 08:25 pm
@farmerman,
Wikipedia is not a primary source. Furthermore, it explicitly does not rely on primary sources. (Or, at least, primary sources do not automatically override conflicting accounts.)

It relies on "he who has the most sources wins" even if the sources can be shown to be complete bunk.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:05 pm
@DrewDad,
I use Wikipedia primarily for dates and the spelling of proper or place names. It's like any print source, though. Most histories you read are not only not primary sources, they often site other seconary sources. One needs to be aware of this for printed sources, and it applies online, too. I've given up on getting Wikipedia to edit their articles, even when one article contradicts another. I only link their articles here if, when i read them, they are essentially history as i understand it, or the article is reliably sourced.

But all of this is a distraction from the real subject here--the Chucky Darwin dog and pony show.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:53 pm
@farmerman,
Farmerman I concede--and as an excuse I'll cede to Setanna's thread theme--kinda akin to saying 'Murphy was an optimist.'

Nevertheless--I've always felt that there is a time and a place for any discovery-- Newton had Liebnetz; Edison had Westinghouse; the Wrights had Langley; and Darwin had Wallace. It was time for that discovery, the name assigned to that discovery is more a factor of luck than it is of sweat-

Granted I also agree with Pasteur--Chance favors the prepared mind--but IMHO both Wallace and Darwin possessed prepared minds.

BTW Right now I find myself in Posey County not too far from New Harmony, Indiana--one of Robert Owens' Harmony experiments. Strangely this little corner of Indiana also had an influence on this great debate. Owens was an influence on Wallace. The educated children and disciples of Owens became some of the first paleontologists, geologists, and evolutionary scientists in America. And the Workingman's Institute Library and the Arboretum Museum in New Harmony has several of the first editions of both Darwin and Wallace along with a phenomenal collection of natural science exhibits.

Rap
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 10:14 pm
Chuck Darwin is a legitimate candidate for stupidest mother ****** ever to walk the Earth, that is, stupidest in the sense of the person whose bullshit ideas have done the most harm. The most major idea which arises from Darwinism of course is the notion that your neighbor is basically a meat byproduct of random events. The real world consequences of people believing that sort of **** are not difficult to discern...

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1l_pWg5mYo9auakAp5rrGfxRZZ_5MDvv7T6SWqdRihWfG-FZsdw

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJR-muoITfoXqc0i8XsO08322kmLCJGkDxpYQFDFUuOqEWA078Qg

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnQoc_UqyzP8wCOSe-vVBP_rSQKq-2L7cemtmH4zJwjmMAxRkg

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQJltKUe15NYwUbZ82DWfcvyfEgGFSwF08L8EV3Thi7eH3siqI
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 10:37 pm
@gungasnake,
Hey Ganja, How do you use Darwin to explain the Spanish Inquisition?



This is one I'd really like to hear.

Rap
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 11:01 pm
@raprap,
American Heritage Dictionary:
ir·rel·e·vant

Top
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
(ĭ-rĕl'ə-vənt)
adj.
Unrelated to the matter being considered.

irrelevantly ir·rel'e·vant·ly adv.
SYNONYMS irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, impertinent. These adjectives mean not pertinent to the subject under consideration: an irrelevant comment; a question extraneous to the discussion; an objection that is immaterial; mentioned several impertinent facts.
ANTONYM relevant


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/irrelevant#ixzz1sGrDYe13
raprap
 
  6  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 11:12 pm
@gungasnake,
Then Ganja, it is your contention that mankinds cruelty to it fellow men only started 150 years ago after the publication of the Origion of Species?

As a correllary to that question
Then Ganja, would you now be holding that same theory against Alfred Russel Wallace if he had beat Darwin to the punch?

Waiting with baited breath for your 'irrelevance, Ganja.

Rap
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 04:22 am
@raprap,
He started a thread once in which he claimed that there had been no wars in Europe from the fall of Napoleon to the outbreak of the First World War, claiming that was a by-product of Darwin's theory. I tore him a new asshole on that one, and restricted myself to the period before 1860, so as not to exceed Darwin's publication date. He's been careful to be far less explicit in his claims since that time. Of course, he's still full of ****.
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 04:31 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The most major idea which arises from Darwinism of course is the notion that your neighbor is basically a meat byproduct of random events.


you've met my neighbour?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 04:54 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
He started a thread once in which he claimed that there had been no wars in Europe from the fall of Napoleon to the outbreak of the First World War, claiming that was a by-product of Darwin's theory...


I said, no MAJOR wars, which is a fact. Major wars means anything like WW-II, WW-I, Genghis Khan's invasion of China, the 30-Years War, and that sort of thing. They'd all but eliminated serious warfare in Europe by 1913 and, then, Chuck Darwin's asshole ideas plunged the world into a new barbarian age and turned Europe into a pigpen.

 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CHARLES DARWIN: CHARLATAN OR SNAKE OIL SALESMAN
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/03/2020 at 05:14:13