From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 18:05:41 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Huttonism
> Nothing really new Wells also in 1818 and Matthew in c1830. Also breeders
> would have noticed this generally . Darwin took that idea, which he did
not
> get from any of those 3 according to what I read in Darwin's notebooks or
> writings and used it as the basis of his mechanism for evolution over
myriad
> generations. That was D's originality.
>
> Someone asked
>
> A question for Darwin scholars:
>
> Did Darwin, as Wells here states, actually say that "living things
> originated without God's purposeful, creative activity"?
>
> I have never read anything like that to my knowledge but Wells always
> provides a bit of moonshine to all he says, so I am inclined to regard it
as
> a misquote as he is quite good at that.
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:17 PM
> Subject: Huttonism
>
>
> > Interesting article re James Hutton, publishing in 1794 a chapter on
> > trait transmission to successive generations and a "most liable to
> > perish" (natural selection, though not by that name) argument. It
> > preceeded Origin of the Species in 1859.
> > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/cu-ste101403.php
> >
> > JimA
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 02:08:01 EDT