From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 05:57:18 EDT
To continue . After 1870 most scientists accepted evolution but not natural
selection. This is expounded by Peter Bowler in The Non-Darwinian
Revolution. Bowler has written loads on the history of evolution and his
books are always very good. I sometimes diverge in details and am sure Ted
does as well - but then he and I diverge as well!!
The best one book on the history of evolution is Bowler's Evolution, The
history of an idea. Cal Univ Press. Also good on the history are the various
books by Michael Ruse, but I more frequently question his conclusions. I cut
my historical teeth on their writings 20 years ago and have a great regard
for their historical skills and as people.
On a more popular level is Denis Alexander Rebuilding the Matrix 2001 and
pbk.
This is better than me rushing an explanation of Darwin on Natural Selection
here
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Darwin quote
> I have always been a Darwin fan, thinking that he really made hay with
what is
> basically a tautology. His concept of natural selection (or survival of
the
> fittest) is so basic that could, in fact, be applied to formation of any
> reasonably stable entity, such as an ocean or a star, or a galaxy. In the
later
> cases we have come to understood the underlying mechanisms and need not
use so
> broad a concept.
>
> In biology, much the same seems to be happening but there is a tendency to
make
> Darwin's concept to be more than the author claimed for it himself, and to
make
> excuses for him that he did not even present for himself.. This outlook
that
> glorifies Darwin instead of evolutionary concepts really confuses me. I
think
> that Gould made some significant suggestions that often are ridiculed by
> Darwinian purists. It really bewilders me.
>
> I really think that it is bad to tie evolution so strongly to Darwin that
it
> becomes known as "Darwinism". But it is not my field -- so what I
know?.
>
> Walt
>
>
> Ted Davis wrote:
>
> > I've only recently returned to this list, so I may have missed an
important
> > earlier point or two. Let me jump in anway:
> >
> > I agree that the sentence quoted below comes from the end of the
> > introduction to Darwin's first edition. Yet there is much truth in what
> > Michael wrote. Darwin clearly envisioned an evolutionary process that
> > involved billions of years--he thought that the erosion of southwestern
> > England had taken around 300 my, the only number of that kind he offered
in
> > the first edition of the Origin. Darwin was nonplussed by what the
> > quantitative scientists (physicists, geologists, astronomers) were
coming up
> > with, for upper limits on the ages of the earth and the sun. And he did
> > make very significant changes in later editions of the Origin and in the
> > Descent of Man. These included at least, removing his 300 my estimate
and
> > inventing (in the Descent) a hypothesis about "'pangenesis," a mechanism
> > whereby some acquired characteristics could be inherited in the next
> > generation. It is difficult not to interpret these as implicit
> > acknowledgement of the force of the argument against his seat of the
pants
> > conception of a very old earth.
> >
> > ted
> >
> > >>> Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> 08/11/03 12:33PM >>>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Both you and Glenn Morton imply that this was
> > backtracking from his original position. This is
> > not the case, since he was quoting his original
> > contention in the first edition. I quote from the
> > introduction of that first edition.
> >
> > "I am fully convinced that species are not
> > immutable; but that those belonging to what are
> > called the same genera are lineal descendants of
> > some other and generally extinct species, in the
> > same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any
> > one species are the descendants of that species.
> > Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection
> > has been the main but not exclusive means of
> > modification."
> >
> > What he did not say is that species arose from
> > anything other than natural descent. That would
> > apply no matter what Kelvin's time frame was.
> > However, the total exclusivity of natural
> > selection as a mechanism is something he dienies
> > in the first edition and then emphasices in the
> > 6th edition.
> >
> > It is nice for mind readers to tell us what he
> > really thought, but why not take him at his word?
> >
> > I really have no desire to read a complete book on
> > the subject but would welcome any insights you
> > could provide from your own readings.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > Part of the reason Darwin back-tracked over Nat
> > > Selection was the shortness of geological time
> > > insisted on by Lord Kelvin and others where
> > > 100my was seen as the upper limit. Thus there
> > > was too little time for NS to do its work.
> > > Kelvin was wrong and also Darwin in giving into
> > > a mere physicist. See Joe Burchfield's books and
> > > articles on this Michael
> >
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> >
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 12 2003 - 05:51:43 EDT