Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

spelling

could someone PLEASE spell check the article? The word "organized" is spelled wrong every time, and that's just what stands out. I'm sure there are others... sorry, this just bothers me and it won't let me fix it, so whoever is in charge... please fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluckyea (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ran a spellchecker—UK spellchecker—over it: no changes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the British spelling of "organized" and it is perfectly acceptable everywhere, including here in the States. This article was likely written by a Brit, and I'd like to thank them for it. Perhaps a few articles are missing though.

Megatherium and Africa

Could someone clarify this mentions found in the article: Though he correctly identified one as a Megatherium and fragments of armour reminded him of the local armadillo, he assumed his finds were related to African or European species and it was a revelation to him after the voyage when Richard Owen showed that they were closely related to living creatures exclusively found in the Americas. Why he did thought so? I could get access to only one source: [1] but it does not say anything about this. QWerk (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, worth reviewing. The statement is based closely on Desmond & Moore, p. 210 – regarding Owen's finding that fossil faunas are closely related to their living replacements in the area, "Darwin had never expected this; on the voyage he had assumed that he had found European and African mastodons and rhinos, not exclusive South American species. It pulled him up sharp, causing him to ask the key question: why is present and past life on any one spot so closely related?" Browne pp. 349–352 goes over the same revelation, but is less explicit about the idea of European and African relationships. I don't think she mentions the "rhino" comparison, that D & M make much of: some sources have been investigated and cited at Second voyage of HMS Beagle#Surveying South America, and it rather looks as though Darwin started with the rhino comparison, but by the time he wrote home he was describing the giant skull correctly as a megatherium. The mastodon issue is interesting – he clearly thinks a number of his fossils are from mastodons, but these are commonly North American as much as European. Was he right about thinking his findings in Patagonia were mastodons, or were these some of the hitherto unknown species Owen identified from the fossils? I'll try reading this a bit, and consider rephrasing this point.Thanks, . dave souza, talk 21:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the more complicated it looks. However, there's enough to suggest that D & M's statement is exaggerated and the large skull was actually from a near complete Scelidotherium skeleton, so I've modified the related statements accordingly. Owen did confirm mastodon (and horse) fossils in the finds, will work on clarifying points in the more detailed article about the Beagle voyage. . dave souza, talk 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Does "Infobox Scientist" supersede the need for "Infobox Person" in in the same way that categories are hierarchical? At present the article has two, not of the same width, with much of the information appearing twice (or three times if you include the article text). I suggest that one or other should make way. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Dave Souza, for the fixes.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Agree, so have removed the "Infobox Person". It suffered from listing piped links to the Darwin's children who have no artile of their own, and to his siblings who only appear under the article about his father. All useful links already appeared in the Infobox Scientist or the first section, whith the one exception being Erasmus Alvey Darwin so I've mentioned him as being at school and uni with Charles. . . dave souza, talk 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Influences

Thomas Malthus should be included among the list of people who influenced Darwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedmemes (talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The template's not a very nuanced place, and so many people influenced Darwin. Of those he met, Lyell is outstanding, Henslow and Grant could also be named. His work was influenced by Lamarck, Humboldt, de Candolle and others. While Malthus was certainly influential at a crucial moment, his influence shouldn't be given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Malthus should definately been in this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.227.124 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander von Humboldt should also be added as an influence. Please let me know if you need any proof of this. Alexander Von Humboldt Jsopher (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you notice "He read John Herschel's new book which described the highest aim of natural philosophy as understanding such laws through inductive reasoning based on observation, and Alexander von Humboldt’s Personal Narrative of scientific travels. Inspired with "a burning zeal" to contribute..." And, for that matter, "...I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population..." . . dave souza, talk 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

more on religion

The Selfish Gene said that macabre behavior such as the golden digger wasp's laying larvae on paralyzed grasshoppers on which the larvae would dine drove Darwin from an all-loving God. 67.243.6.204 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid point which is covered under Charles Darwin#Religious views – "he questioned... the problem of evil of how the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs could be reconciled with Paley’s vision of beneficent design." . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

i warn all you religious ppl out there. i'll get my The God Delusion (Dawkins) copy ready soon and look up all the original references and put them all here and watchlist this page til i die. hahaha!! darwin was an atheist!!!!! you'll see. --Sophieophil (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Splendid as Dickie Dawkins often is, he's not very strong on Darwin's history. As the good man wrote, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."... dave souza, talk 11:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best and most logical thing to do is to keep religion out of this article all together as Darwin's contributions were mainly biological, and also the unavoidable fact that religion in an article like this would most definately attract bias. --192.88.124.200 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of interest in Charles Darwin's views on religion which this biography concisely summarises. His contributions to biology are appropriately given more attention. . dave souza, talk 10:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I disagree with the grammar in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which reads: "Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge." It makes it sound like he was studying "first medicine" at Edinburgh. Delete the word "first" altogether, the reader can infer it was first because of the "then" later in the sentence.Mojodaddy (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "firstly", but perhaps the sentence is still a little awkward. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It seems to work ok without "first", so will remove it. Always glad to trim out excess, and if anyone's puzzled they can read the detailed section. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Historicians do not reject that Charles Darwin converted to Christianity. James Moore who is a neutral historician confirms this. It is also false that his children rejects it - only Darwins oldest son does. Not only did Darwin convert he also regret his theory as he says it only "mislead" people. He did not do it as a fight against the thought of Creation. He also has much doubt about his own theory. He instance he said "The eye alone can prove my theory wrong." he also said at the end of his life "I know with myself, that I am in the middle of a hopeless darkness. I do not believe that the world as we see it is a result of random chance; and yet I cannot see every little thing as a result of a plan."—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDaniel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2009

That's not what good reliable sources say, and note that this talk page is for improvements to the article, not debating opinions or presenting creationist quote mining. . . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

q

um... there is a thingy blocking one of the pictures (under overwork illness and marage) and I dont know how to fix it. You can delete this section once it is fixed. Mr. Invisible Person (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem in Internet Explorer: it's fine with Firefox. Don't know how to fix it either, sorry. Mcewan (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1860 Essays and Reviews

From Reaction to the Publication

"In 1860, the publication of Essays and Reviews by seven liberal Anglican theologians diverted clerical attention from Darwin. An explanation of higher criticism and other heresies, it included ..."

This seems to imply that higher criticism is a heresy. Is that intended? Mcewan (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As always, trying to say a lot very concisely creates problems. Yes, it was a heresy in the views of church authorities at the time, though a decade or so later the fuss seemed ridiculous. I've rephrased it to clarify the issue –

In 1860, the publication of Essays and Reviews by seven liberal Anglican theologians diverted clerical attention from Darwin, with its ideas including higher criticism attacked by church authorities as heresy. ..

Thanks for picking that up, hope the revision meets your concerns. . . dave souza, talk 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, many thanks. No soapbox here, just interested :) Mcewan (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Desmond and Moore biography

I've been reading this great biography a little lately, and have created a gallery for it at Commons, Darwin. The book itself is copyrighted but many of its images are ineligible for copyright. We already have a lot of them at Commons (and some of them perhaps here, i.e. not yet moved to Commons, much like Image:Jim_moore.jpg at the time I'm writing), though there may be others that will be new uploads (and others still that may be copyrighted). I created a similar gallery for Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - copyrighted books are certainly not something we should ignore. Richard001 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact or theory

The introductory paragraph to this article is untrue. Since the article is protected from editing, this error will remain thus undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. The paragraph should be re-written as follows:

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was an English naturalist,[I] who theorized that all species of life evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.[1] The theory of evolution gradually grew acceptance in the scientific community during his lifetime. His theory of natural selection came to be seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory.[2]

The reason for the re-write is that evolution cannot be proven and therefore must remain a theory. The statement that Darwin demonstrated evolution is false. The phrase The fact that evolution occurs is false. The statement about acceptance in the scientific community and by the general public during his lifetime has no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, there continues to be significant rejection of the theory among scientists and the general public. There is no scientific proof of the theory of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy7l (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you are objecting to has a wikilink to the article Evolution as fact and theory where your objection is answered. Also see Talk:Evolution/FAQ where this very same issue is addressed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin never claimed he proved his own theory. It was his postulated explaination of the origins of life. Terming the open paragraph to suggest "Darwin proved/demonstrated" the validity evolution misrepresents Darwin's theory and studies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.175.225 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 November 2008

The opening paragraph states "who realised and demonstrated that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection. The fact that evolution occurs became accepted by the scientific community and the general public in his lifetime, while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s" The cited source says "Darwin's name is so linked with evolution because his works convinced the international scientific community that evolution was true. In the two decades after the publication of Origin the great majority of the scientific community came to accept that Darwin was right about the evolution of life. But natural selection was often not accepted. In fact, a generation of biologists regarded Darwin as correct in uncovering the evolution of life but mistaken in stressing natural selection. Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s."[2] . dave souza, talk 11:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Just as the theory of gravity attempts to explain the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution--RLent (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC). Darwin Quote: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (in a letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohre6 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 February 2009

Lack of transitional fossils indicate that evolution is not fact?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.161.212 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TALK, transitional fossil and evolution as theory and fact. . dave souza, talk 10:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote mine. Darwin's not doubting evolution, but teleology.

Here's the whole letter, note at least some of the context:

"thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably-written Creed of Science...... You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation—and no doubt of the conservation of energy—of the atomic theory, &c., &c., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness, existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" Read and enjoy. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

This page needs some work on images. Text is sandwiched between some images. And on my monitor the blockquote from Malthus obscures a good part of the image of Emma. Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, some images have been added which don't contribute as much as the main images, so I've selected the best and moved them a bit to overcome the problems you report. It may be a browser thing as I don't have the same problem, so let me know if that's an improvement. Thanks, dave souza, talk 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better, but I wonder if too much is being attempted with images and templates. I'm looking at it on a wide monitor; I don't know if image crowding may be worse on a narrower monitor, or if the narrower text column width gives adequate spacing. One of the problems is the quote format, as the quote boxes can overlay the images. As you can see, I experimented with the earlier version using the <blockquote></blockquote> method and that does not overlay the image. But where the image is on the left margin, that method also justifies the quote margin at the image's right margin, rather than indenting, as it would if the image were not there.

I wandered by here because next year will be the 150th anniversary of publication of Origin of Species; I wanted to see how many relevent articles are at FA. It would be an excellent featured topic if more could be brought up to FA standards. I do not however claim knowledge sufficient to help in that area. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, Darwin's 200th birthday comes in January, then the 150th anniversary of OTOOS next November gives us some time to aim for FA, if anyone's game. I'm looking at this article at 1280 x 800 on a laptop, seems ok in Camino. Is this more a technical issue with the quotation boxes? They give good emphasis, and are less intrusive in a way than cquote big curly quotes. Blockquote seems a bit lacking in emphasis, but guess we can change if the others have problems with some browsers. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now seen it on a laptop and it spaces much better. I think the quotation box format is the issue. The "Darwin's children" box takes up a lot of space also. Kablammo (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather agree, this is getting a bit technical for me – if you want to try out different quote formats and widths of that box, that would be worthwhile. Looking at other biology FA biographies, maybe better go back to blockquotes. . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He did doubt his theory and he also said that.

He did not prove an evolution or development, but a variation. The article also puts it up as he had demonstrated that species evolve but he did not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VDaniel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 February 2009

That's not what good reliable sources say, and note that this talk page is for improvements to the article, not debating opinions. . . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible FA dates

To follow up on the discussion in the previous section:

It looks like the offspring articles are not at FA, and several of the main articles (including this one) have already been featured on the main page. Here however are a few possibilities for TFA:

• Alfred Russell Wallace on 8 January, his birthday;
• History of evolutionary thought on 12 February, Darwin's birthday;
• On the Origin of Species (not yet FA) on 24 November, 150th anniversary of publication.

Origin of Species would have to be brought up to FA standards. Kablammo (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good analysis and I agree with the suggestions. I'm really bogged down with detail just now, could you look at proposing the first two for those dates? . . 23:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted this suggestion to the talk pages of the first two articles. (The first step for the Wallace request would be in two weeks.) The third article is not yet at FA, and the proposed date is a year out. Kablammo (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

8 February 2009 would be a better idea: it is on the anniversary of his birth! What do you think? --Marianian (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:History of evolutionary thought#Main page request? for discussion about getting that article featured on 12 February 2009, Darwin's birthday. Too early just yet to get it onto WP:TFAR, but Alfred Russell Wallace is already approved for 8 January. A lot of work is needed to get On the Origin of Species up to standard and through WP:RFA so that's the next big project on these articles, hopefully with assistance coming up sometime from Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month. Before that, there's also the idea of Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009 so must try to get some new articles ready. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Stale external link

External link to "Digitized titles..." should be updated from:

http://www.botanicus.org/creator.asp?creatorid=93

to:

http://www.botanicus.org/Search.aspx?searchTerm=Charles%20Darwin

JmCor (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. Looking at the search, they only seem to provide scans of two titles, both of which appear as scans and text at Darwin Online.[3][4] I'll remove the link for now, if anyone has good reason for it to be added again we can review that. Thanks again for the useful link, dave souza, talk 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of scientist

The term scientist was only coined in 1833 (see scientist and did not come into widespread use until the late 19th century. It therefore seems inappropriate for there to be references to scientists such as "Early in March Darwin moved to London to be near this work, joining Lyell's social circle of scientists and savants such as Charles Babbage" in Inception of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Naturalist/natural historian would be better. (Admittedly when scientist came into widespread use is debatable!)Smartse (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A fair argument, but we're trying to communicate to modern readers, and Whewell (who coined the term in 1833) was part of that social circle, as well as having been one of the Dons who Darwin learnt from at Cambridge University before 1831. So it seems very likely that Lyell, Babbage and Co. would have been well aware of the term by 1837. Desmond & Moore p. 212 say Babbage's parties "were glittering affairs, 'brilliantly attended by fashionable ladies, as well as literary and scientific gents.' " That seems to come from Lyell's Life and Letters[5] ... So, could change it to scientific gents and savants, but concise is good. . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Scientist" was coined as something derogatory, not something Whewell and his friends would have called themselves. "Men of science" (and maybe similar things like "scientific gents" or "scientific men") was typical. I think "men of science" would work in this passage, and it would also serve to underscore the gender dimension of Darwin's scientific circle. But I also agree that it's not a big deal is "scientists" stays, since at least by some definitions of "scientist", they were.--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise it was derogatory. My preference would be for "scientific gents" as these circles were very much of the gentry, unlike the up and coming surgeons and anatomists of the private medical schools and the University of London who were trying to overturn the gentlemanly Church of England establishment medical colleges and in some cases favouring transmutation. Desmond & Moore touch on that, and what I've read so far in Desmond's The Politics of Evolution gives a detailed picture. So, anyone against changing it to "scientific gents"? . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"scientific gents" seems awkward. I'm not that concerned by the issue of when the term "scientist" came into use since it is the most accurate word to describe them in English. Naturalists also might be ok but that has to many modern readers an emphasis on biology that isn't quite accurate in this context. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin commemorative two pound coin 2009

thumb|150px|Charles Darwin commemorative two pound coin

Someone may wish to add to the commemoration section details about the Royal Mint issuing a commemorative two pound coin in 2009 to celebrate 200 years since his birth and 150 years since publication of "On the Origin of Species". I have uploaded an illustration of the coin which may also be included (if added to fair use). Other details can be found on the two pound coin page. --Delta-NC (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's excellent news. Will aim to sort that out shortly. . dave souza, talk 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the rationale to the image page and the image illustrating a paragraph about the coin as part of a new commemorations section. Thanks again, . dave souza, talk 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

im doing a project on him too its so hard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.42.224 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist as a concise reliable source. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating Darwin

For other people of the same surname, and places and things named after Darwin, see Darwin.

This was briefly removed, I've restored it as a useful link to a lot of other uses of the name. Any better ideas? . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Genius of Charles Darwin

There is a TV show called The Genius of Charles Darwin, available from google video, made this year (the anniversary) by Richard Dawkins. I propose there be some mentioning of it in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.109.200 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 December 2008

Thanks, I saw it on Channel 4 and it's an interesting series about Dawkins, but historically inaccurate about Darwin so unfortunately not really appropriate here. Just for example, he shows the Galapagos finches instead of mockingbirds and puts that as though it came before the Punta Alta fossils. Nice thought, though. . . dave souza, talk 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

evolution by common descent should read evolution by descent with modification

The introduction is very well written. But the second last paragraph starts with a mistakable sentence:

"His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature."

should better read:

""His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature."

Os schipper (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an interesting point. I'll have a look through the sources and see what wording they support. . . dave souza, talk 00:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, that's close to what van Wyhe says and so I've modified it to "evolutionary descent with modification", since descent with modification is a redirect to evolution. . dave souza, talk 23:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"demonstrated that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection"

Even if I strongly believe that species evolved over time, I'm not sure the previous formulation is OK. Actually, he did not "prove". Instead, he provided a suitable scientific theory that was able to explain existing lifeform diversity and fossil record, and which is accepted today by virtually all scientists. This is not "proof". User:Dpotop 18:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proof is for whisky, especially at this time of year, and I don't see us using that term. However, a possible reformulation would be –

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist,^[I] whose meticulous observation and innovative thinking showed that the immense variety of life is explained by all species having evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.

It would be an option to add the Natural History Museum[6] or the American Museum of Natural History[7] as references. . dave souza, talk 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he did not "prove" anything. He traveled the world, recorded what he saw, and came up with a theory that -at that time- seemd to explain what he saw. However, what he saw, most notably in the finch beak series, was small changes occuring within a species. This is known as microevolution or adaptation, and is a proven fact. He did not see finches turning into other birds, or anything else, just adapting within their species. I do not know how he drew the conclusion that animals evolved from a common ancestor, or macroevolution, from that. Also, one of the above edits: "he provided a suitable scientific theory that was able to explain existing lifeform diversity and fossil record..." Fossil record strongly disproves macroevolution, as there are no transition fossils showing one species turning into another. In addition, Darwin said that macroevolution occurs through natural selection, which destroys the bad mutations and promotes the good. How could this process possibly have developed a single cell? Cels are extremely complex, and each of their organelles can only work properly if all of the necessary parts are present at once. E.G.- the bacterial flagellum: The bacterial flagellum is a whiplike structure used by cells to move; it is, in essence, a small propeller. This bacterial flagellum has several parts, all of which must evolve at once -and in the right places, respective to the cell and each other- for the flagellum to work. How could this be? They could not possibly have evolved just-so. But if the parts mutated and appeared slowly, one at a time, over many centuries as Darwin said, they would not work. They would be of no use without the others, and "natural selection", by its own definition, must destroy them. Irreducable complexity, E.G. mousetrap example. I remind everyone that evolution -on a major, trans-species scale- is only a theory, and a poorly constructed one at that.

-The Skeptical Student --71.116.162.54 (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. However you really need to read more on the subject, pretty well every sentence you wrote contains errors. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the previous response, I think to prevent this discussion from taking off and clogging this talk page with yet another rehash of the creation-evolution controversy anyone interested should consult Talk:Evolution/FAQ which explains why Wikipedia policy prevents giving the creationist viewpoint equal weight in an article such as this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor student is a more apt name, because there are many papers outlining how the bacteria evolved a system of secretion that eventually generated strong motility. Remove a number of the parts responsible for this secretion system and it will still act as a secretion system, but not as a form of strong motility. Students should develop their capacity to do their own research. Sometimes reading long papers is involved. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the argument for evolution is an inference to the best explanation, as most of science is, and thus it does seem a bit overstating it to call it a proof, which suggests deductive certainty based on undeniable premises. Calling it a demonstration is at least ambiguous between calling it a proof and treating it as if you can simply observe speciation in the past when you're not there, both of which would be a little misleading. So I do agree that it should be reworded. Demonstration is a bit strong for most scientific theories, perhaps with the exception of outright laws, which are fairly rare in science. Parableman (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I was left looking for a citation after the word "demonstrated". I am not aware of any books by Darwin that include demonstrations after the scientific method to affect the use of "demonstrated" in this context. I recommend that this sentence be re-written. Perhaps "...who realised and explained how all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection." fogus (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, but it doesn't convey the mass of evidence he presented to support his ideas. A convenient phrase appears in the intro to a New Scientist article, and on that basis I've changed it to "who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." Hope that conveys things better, further suggestions welcome. . . dave souza, talk 14:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. fogus (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The debate on Darwin and Darwinism

In the same spirit as Channel 4's Christmas message, I offer the following on Darwin/Darwinism!

http://wainwrightscience.blogspot.com:80/

nitramrekcap 91.110.220.117 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

darwin200.org

Dear Wikipedia Darwin article editor people It's worth including up on the links page for websites the www.darwin200.org URL for Darwin200 2009 bicentenary activities in the UK hosted by the Natural History Museum. Lots of links for students, schools and general public NqZooArchive1969 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There do seem to be some useful resources listed as well as events listing at Darwin 200: Celebrating Charles Darwin's bicentenary, Natural History Museum. It's topical, and I've added it to the external links at the same time as reordering the links and removing the following which seemed to me to be low value, or in the first case appropriate for the French wiki rather than this article:

• Institut Charles Darwin International
• Twelve different portraits of Charles Darwin, National Portrait Gallery, U.K.
• Works by or about Charles Darwin/Archive 8 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• The Darwin Digital Library of Evolution
• Darwin 200: Celebrating Charles Darwin's bicentenary, Natural History Museum
• Joint initiative of Research Councils UK aimed at educating public about evolution

Anyone feel differently? . dave souza, talk 18:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Death and burial

Could somebody write up his death, and the 'corpse-snatch' which led to his burial at Westminster?

Johnbibby (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms#Death. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"In Our Time"

The 4 broadcasts this week have been magnificent[8]. Jim Moore on his death, and the 'corpse-snatch' was magnificent. Could somebody insert ref to these please?

Johnbibby (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Curate's egg, rather appropriately. Good in parts, seemed to forget Darwin's career as a geologist. James Moore (biographer) was making a dramatic flourish, not really as good a source as those we're using and too much detail for this article. The issue is covered in Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms#Funeral on the basis of Desmond and Moore's Darwin, feel free to add more information with reliable sources, but "corpse-snatch" is unencyclopedic and overblown. . dave souza, talk 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Consequences for Anthropology

On the basis of Darwins Theory a "periodic table of human sciences" could be developed. For more Information see: Tinbergen's four questions. This aspect could be used for a link in "see also".--193.171.79.65 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored portrait

Restored portrait, 5MB.

Ragesoss suggested restoring a portrait of Darwin and trying to get it promoted to featured picture in time for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Couldn't find an exact date for this one, although obviously it's from the end of his life. Not sure where it would fit best in the article. So dropping word here. The sooner the better, because it'd be asking a favor to get something onto the main page on this short notice. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A162&viewtype=image&pageseq=533
• http://jadepricephoto.com/darwiniana/postcards.htm

--ragesoss (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. It could readily replace the 1880 picture of him with a hat on in the Commmemoration section, would also fit well with the theme of the Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany section, but it's a bit crowded – could move the 1872 Cameron portait up a paragraph, push the "worms" caricature to the top of the section and try squeezing the portait in, but all rather tight so the Commemoration option is easier. Any ideas? . dave souza, talk 10:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Will defer to the local regulars about placement. Encyclopedic use matters at featured picture candidates, so the sooner this goes into the article the sooner it can be nominated. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have added it to Charles Darwin#Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany in an arrangement which works for me – how do others feel? The picture also appears in Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms, will review the positioning and caption when doing some needed revisions to the lead of that article. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Day on the Main Page

Similarly, editors here might want to participate in creating new evolution and history of biology-related articles for the Main Page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009--ragesoss (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As closely related to Darwin as possible would be good. I'm working on an article for Worms, and there are many other possibilities other than his books. Richard001 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to Keynes ([9]) seems to be broken, assuming it once worked. I'm not familiar with this sort of code so I'll let someone else deal with it. Richard001 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on the page numbers still works, but the seeming link on Keynes isn't clickable. I can't fix it either, sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my error. It seems that the linking from the harvnb template is case sensitive,[10] works now. . dave souza, talk 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. More: [11] (two aren't clickable); [12]. Richard001 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks for them. This time one reference had probably been attacked by a bot removing the year field when I'd a range of years in the "date" field, and the other was a reference I'd forgotten to add! The second linked reference, ref 78 Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 29, seems to work for me. Working on religion today, will try to find time to check them over. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Logical

The first paragraph says the explanation is "logical". This is sometimes thought to mean "a conclusion that is certain if the premises are true" (which would require a presentation of premises). Among logicians, it most often means "not illogical" or "not invalid". How would "coherent & consistent" be as substitutes? --JimWae (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference", and if the premises of scientific theory (linked earlier in the paragraph) are "true", then the definition stands as natural selection is clearly neither illogical nor invalid. The proposed substitute appears to me to give undue weight to anti-evolution philosophy. I appreciate that the Problem of induction can be held to call all science into question, but in an article on an explicitly scientific topic that seems to me to be taking logic chopping too far. dave souza, talk 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chagas

I recently saw a documentary on Darwin on the History Channel and in it they reported that Darwin's illnesses were caused in part by Chagas, which he contracted in South America, I can't find a legit source so i'm not gonna add it in to the article, but if anyone does find a source it can be a good addition to the article. (I'm assuming that it's a true statement since the History Channel is pretty credible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.166.77 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good point which is covered in detail in Charles Darwin's illness, linked in this article from the sentence "The cause of Darwin’s illness remained unknown, and attempts at treatment had little success.[64]" The Chagas hypothesis is one possibility, but there are others which also need to be given equal weight, and this main article has to be kept as concise as possible. The latest authoritative biography I have to hand, van Wyhe's Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theories of Evolution, covers the issue by stating that "We will probably never know exactly what he suffered from, but the consequences are well recorded." Thus the current level of coverage in this article seems appropriate to me, the more detailed article can be improved as reliable sources are found. . dave souza, talk 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

re cause of illness

In response to the cause of Darwins illness is suspected to be Chagas transmitted by a blood sucking bug. it would make perfect sense considering that he suffered from heart palpitations. I also saw a piece on Darwin where they suspected that it was a manchuka bug. I can not seem to find that specific name but that was what the locals referred to as manchuka bug (the show I was watching.) When this bug was shown it looks exactly like a triatomine bug aka the kissing bug. I have included some reference on this bug. If I am correct in saying there should be in Darwin`s journal(s) from his time in south america, he apparently mentions that during one night he was bit by this supposed bug. Since the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention state that triatomine bugs do carry the protozone parasite symbioticly in there system, it would also make sense. it is suspected that several million have Chagas, most do not know they have it.

The centres for disease control and prevention mention the possible ways to get chagas is the bug defacating on you after being bit, eating food that wasnt properly cooked with the fecal matter of the bug in the food, congenitally, accidental lab exposure, blood transfusion or organ transplant. considering he was having stomach and heart problems which are linked to chagas, being bit by this bug makes the most sense.

The only way to be sure is either finding some autopsy of Darwin or confirming if his journals report this.

references

triatomine bug

kissing bug

centres for disease control and prevention: chagas

detailed info on chagas from cdc

from ~~elle quence~~ (i do apologize if anything in my post is not in compliance with wiki, first post and still getting use to where everything is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elle quence (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 April 2009

Thanks, I've tidied up the formatting of this and will copy it to Talk:Charles Darwin's illness where more detailed discussion is appropriate. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Darwin with Ape body picture.

There was little "goodhumor" in Darwin's depiction as an ape in the popular media. That adjective should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder puck (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Read Browne, pages as cited. And it's humour. . dave souza, talk 23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin and his eldest son William Erasmus Darwin in 1842

Just to confirm, the picture that appears above this caption under the section about his children, that is really his 3 year old SON IN A DRESS?

Quite common for small children, right up to the early part of this century, and especially in the upper classes. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in this site: "Throughout the 19th century, babies and toddlers were kept in dresses-- little different from those worn by their sisters. The dresses tended to be long, extending to the feet in the Empire style. Some time between the ages 3 or 6 years, depending on mother's whims, boys were "breeched" or put into various styles of smocks/tunics." - Nunh-huh 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} On the section "Journey of the Beagle", the last line of the first paragraph, ends in 'calm shell'. This is a typo and should be corrected to 'clam shell'.

No, it is not a typo. The text is "calm spell" not "calm shell".Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The source cited supports "calm spell", not "clam shell". -Nunh-huh 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin200

Happy Birthday! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.9.211 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass." Numbers 22:28. - Nunh-huh 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolution and historical linguistics

Mark Liberman points to an interesting quote from Origin of Species that demonstrates that the idea of descent with modification was borrowed by Darwin from historical linguistics, rather than the other way round.

It's time to include this aspect in articles related to the subject evolution, most of which don't even mention languages or linguistics at all, even when the application of the idea to other fields is discussed, as in Evolution#History of evolutionary thought. (As an aside, languages are not the only aspects of human culture to develop in a broadly analogous way to species, just think of musical genres, sports or games, but they are by far the most prominent aspect to do so.) Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's uncontroversial that Darwin was aware of ideas of languages diverging from a common stock over a very long time: see "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 346 — Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, C. S., 27 Feb 1837". "As far as I know everyone has yet thought that the six thousand odd years has been the right period but Sir J. thinks that a far greater number must have passed since the Chinese, the [space left in copy], the Caucasian languages separated from one stock." That refers to John Herschel writing to Charles Lyell, 20 Feb 1836.[13] "when we see what amount of change 2000 years has been able to produce in the languages of Greece & Italy or 1000 in those of Germany, France & Spain we naturally begin to ask how long a period must have lapsed since the Chinese, the Hebrew, the Delaware & the Malesass had a point in common with the German & Italian & each other." Desmond and Moore cover that on page 215, and on page 283 they refer to Hensleigh Wedgwood thinking it "absurd... that [a] tiger springing an inch further..." despite having a developmental approach to language. However, these are small mentions and we must be careful to avoid giving this too much weight in this article which is a broad overview. My suggestion would be to develop more about this in Inception of Darwin's theory#Transmutation and Development of Darwin's theory#Married life, and see if we can work out a very concise mention for the main article. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was reading this article, and then I wondered something: why isn't Abraham Lincoln's birthday mentioned anywhere in the entire article? It seems only fitting to mention him since he was born on the same day as Darwin and they're both 200 today.Hcx0331 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would Abraham Lincoln be mentioned on the Charles Darwin article? Their sharing a birthday isn't really a strong enough association alone to link them... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How often are two such famous people born on the same day? This isn't just some irrelevant piece of trivia. Actually, keeping this information off of Wikipedia detracts from the main purpose of Wikipedia. (Because this isn't like "what was Darwin's shoe size" -- that would be trivia.)Hcx0331 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The information was previously there, I removed it a day or so ago. I don't care particularly if you put it back in (not in the lead, though), but I'm afraid it is an irrelevant piece of trivia. The fact that such a thing occurs rarely does not make it important. Hadrian89 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You assert that because the odds of Darwin and Lincoln being born on the same day are small, it isn't worthy of inclusion. However, consider this: the fact that a person like Darwin was even born at all is pretty rare. Does that mean the entire Darwin article should be deleted? No, of course not. And neither should the fact about Darwin and Lincoln being born on the same day. I don't see why you're so adamant about deleting it.Hcx0331 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, I'm not adamant. I said I don't mind if you put it back in. All I stated was that it does count as trivia, because it is only a statistical curiosity, not something which had any documented influence on anyone's lives (except, now, us, it would seem). And, in the unlikely event that your counter-argument was actually in earnest: I never suggested that unlikelihood was a reason to exclude something, merely that it is not enough of a reason to include something. Hadrian89 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read WP:TRIVIA. I came to the conclusion that the birthday fact would probably fall under the category of trivia, until I realized something: the main point of WP:TRIVIA is to eliminate lists of trivia. Would keeping one sentence of what some consider to be trivial be in violation of this Wikipedia guideline?Hcx0331 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. As before, just don't put it in the lead because that's where the most important information is summarised. Happy? Hadrian89 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's completely trivial; in the past there were long discussions, endless edit wars, resulting in blocks, and finally consensus that it does not belong in this article. If you think it belongs, please try to obtain consensus that it does belong, here, on the talk page, before adding it unilaterally against previous consensus. -Nunh-huh 03:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

'long discussions, endless edit wars, resulting in blocks...' Haha. And I thought our discussion had gone on too long. I've only now noticed the archived debate, and I reckon the same goes for Hcx0331. Well, as already stated, my initial reaction was that it was not worth inclusion so I'm hardly going to try and contest the previous consensus. Hadrian89 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the special significance of the fact that they shared a birthday? Does it mean anything? Is there some cause and effect here that I am not aware of that links the two? There are billions of coincidences going on around us, what makes things worthy of reporting is whether they really are coincidences or whether they are more than that. The whole reason people are attracted to coincidences is because of an ingrained desire to find patterns regarding cause and effect. Include this sort of trivia and someone will be crying that you are not including trivia about astrology. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Tolled" not "Told"

In the Illness section:

"The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits."

"Told" is the past tense of "tell." "Tolled" is the past tense of "Toll," as in "The strain tolled on Charles Darwin," although "took its toll" is the more common colloquial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbutz (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Told" is actually perfectly correct. The verb is "tell"; the pertinent meaning is "to have a marked effect", and the past form is "told". - Nunh-huh 03:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Charles Darwin" Foundation

As an Ecuadorian I'm so proud for the Galapagos Islands and the role they played in the formulation of the "Theory Of Evolution Through Natural Selection" by Charles Darwin. Thus I was disappointed when the article's Commemoration section failed to recognized this organization and the important work its scientific station does at the islands. To the "Charles Darwin Scientific Station" comes scientists from all over the world in order to understand and protect better such an inestimable natural place. Ecuador has a tradition to recognize all world class scientific personalities that has visited and worked in this land, such as Humboldt and La Condamine. Therefore, the name of Darwin is huge in this land. There are streets, parks and schools with his name. In fact, Darwin Street is the main avenue of Puerto Ayora, which is one of the Galapagos Islands largest towns. There's a very fanny thing in that avenue: In the last years, in Ecuador have proliferated many fundamentalist christian sects that believe in creationism, and strongly deny the Theory Of Evolution because they consider as a part of an evil plan to destroy the Christianity. Unfortunately, these sects have vigorously spread at the Galapagos Islands due its poor educated inhabitants. Paradoxically, one of these churches is located right at Darwin Street, and above the municipal sign with the name of the street, they have placed a big sign that states: "...and God created the world in seven days..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.163.58 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, we do have a Charles Darwin Foundation article and it makes sense to mention it, but that article is based on its own website and to meet WP:V and WP:NOTE we really need to find third party sources about the foundation and its work in the Charles Darwin Scientific Station. . dave souza, talk 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, found a news story about their contribution to a Darwin 2009 commemoration conservation project, so have added it. The Charles Darwin Foundation and Charles Darwin Research Station articles still need improvement. . dave souza, talk 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read the added note. Thanks for taking it into account.--Pheuticus (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To be an evolutionist, according to Darwin, is not necessarily to be an atheist

Of those who "are under the illusion that to be an evolutionist is essentially to be an atheist", Dinesh D'Souza — quite an expert in the field of religion — points out (in The Two Faces Of Darwin) that "when Darwin published his work on evolution, the American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin to say that his book had shown God's ingenious way of ensuring the unity and diversity of life. From Gray’s point of view, Darwin had exposed divine teleology. Darwin praised Gray for seeing a point that no one else had noticed. In later editions of his books, Darwin went out of his way to cite the English writer Charles Kingsley, who described evolution as compatible with religious belief. To the end of his life, Darwin insisted that one could be 'an ardent theist and an evolutionist'." Asteriks (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean liberal clergymen interpreted natural selection as an instrument of God's design, with the cleric Charles Kingsley seeing it as "just as noble a conception of Deity".... Asa Gray discussed teleology with Darwin, who imported and distributed Gray’s pamphlet on theistic evolution, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology.... like it says in the article? Have a look at the cited sources, which cover these issues more accurately than Dinesh. "In later editions" should read p. 481 of the second edition published in 1860, onwards. See Charles Darwin's views on religion for more on the subject. . dave souza, talk 23:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to "The Two Faces of Darwin" on "Townhall.com - the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website"

This edit provides a link to "The Two Faces of Darwin" on "Townhall.com - the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website". It seems to be an essay on Christian belief, rather than Darwin: "Evolution does seem to turn many Christians into unbelievers..." Should it remain? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to link to reliable sources that provide useful information about the subject of our article: this is a discursive ruminative essay by a single person on a web page that will probably not be up for very long. It's a low-value link. I think we're better off without it. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. There are good sources on this, [14] and [15] are of interest. . dave souza, talk 23:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A question on the format of date of birth (and death)

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm wondering if Charles Darwin has archieved something so exceptional that his date of birth has to be "12 February 1809" instead of "February 12 1809". Considering that every other person on Wikipedia has the latter format on articles about them.

According to the manual of style most English-speaking countries outwith the U.S. use "day before month". --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

The question's been raised that "Further reading" includes an "audio slideshow" and audiobooks which cannot be read. The section complies with WP:FURTHER, and the reason for not having the optional External links as the last section is that it includes templates providing a large number of internal links. Is this enough of a concern to go for a non-standard heading? . . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO it's such a minor distinction as to make no difference: the heading is fine as it is and this edit should stand.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth shared with Lincoln

The Smithsonian magazine put on the cover that Darwin and Lincoln shared a birthday. I feel thoroughly thoroughly thoroughly vindicated in my much humbler ambition four years ago of merely ensuring this factoid was mentioned somewhere... (See Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln.) Vincent (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there can be one site for relevant facts called wikipedia and another site called triviapedia, where coincidence drowns out cause and effect. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin and eugenics

The article writes:"Galton named the field of study Eugenics in 1883, after Darwin’s death, and developed biometrics. Eugenics movements were widespread at a time when Darwin's natural selection was eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, and in some countries including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Sweden and the United States, compulsory sterilisation laws were imposed. Following the use of Eugenics in Nazi Germany it has been largely abandoned throughout the world.[V]" These sentences have some lies: 1-Brazil and Belgium never had any compulsory sterilisation laws imposed.Both were catholic countries and eugenics hadn't any popular support there.Such as abortion today, eugenics was supported by jews and protestants. 2-Eugenics compulsory sterilisation was in law in countries such as United States and Sweden decades after the end of the Third Reich.Eugenics itself didn't fell after the end of Third Reich, in 1945.Eugenics decided to call themselves as neo-malthusianists, ecologists,etc.The goals were the same;just the titles were exchanged. 3- Natural selection wasn't eclipsed by Mendelian genetics, because both are scientific.One isn't against the other in any sense.Agre22 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

Thanks for bringing this up, looking through the cited sources there's no confirmation of laws in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Sweden, so I've deleted these countries from the article. Wilkins says ""negative" eugenics, which involved the forced sterilisation of the "feebleminded"... became widely popular in America, Canada, Australia and other English speaking nations" but doesn't make it clear if there were laws apart from in the US so a better source is needed. The "eclipse of Darwinism" at that time meant that, to quote Edwards, "scepticism... surrounded Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection 70 years ago and... Mendelism itself was regarded in some quarters as antithetical to it." We're not specific about how soon after Nazi misuse it has been "largely abandoned throughout the world", perhaps we can find more precise wording. . dave souza, talk 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What did he die of?

Just old age? -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question, while most brief biographies seem vague, the death certificate gave "Angina Pectoris Syncope" as the cause of death, according to Browne 2002, p. 495. More detail at Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms#Death. . dave souza, talk 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cosans on Owen

This edit reverted and moved from article:

Owen agreed with Darwin that evolution occurred, but thought it was more complex than outlined in the Origin. Owen's approach to evolution can be seen as having anticipated the issues that have gained greater attention with the recent emergence of evo-devo theory, but in 1860 Owen’s objections were not well understood. Owen did praise, however, the Origin's description of Darwin's work on insect behavior and pigeon breeding as "real gems", but stated that the Origin did not have enough other observations on that level to support Darwin’s model of evolution over earlier theories of evolution such as that as had been proposed by Chamber's Vestiges.

This is excessive detail for this article, and could perhaps go into the more detailed subarticle or into Owen's bio. Don't have these references to hand, it's something I'd like to review before commenting. . dave souza, talk 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Darwin vs. Kant

In the Who killed God debate, there has been a rivarly betwen Darwin and Kant on who spawned the greatest amount of atheism. If the debate ever comes up on this article, I would argue that Kant was more influential in the history if atheism than Darwin, since Kant had already built up a refutation to the ontological argument long before Darwin had even been born. ADM (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg

Recently the file File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a great picture and it fits well in the commemoration section. . dave souza, talk 08:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC) revised 09:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Section about biographies

It would be good to have a section listing the significant biographical books and films about him. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This, as the main article, is already overweight, and there would be enough to make a new article which could cover the area, and be linked from the commemoration section. Possible titles: list of biographies of Charles Darwin, the Darwin industry or, to widen it a little, commemoration of Charles Darwin. Several appropriate links are already in the article, and the main bios are listed in the References section, mixed in with primary sources and more general references. Feel like starting that? . . dave souza, talk 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of one paragraph or two listing the main biographies, so that people know where to go from here. I certainly don't know enough to write that paragraph though. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the most cited biographies we use are pretty obvious from the Citations and References sections, and not sure we should be giving more of a recommendation on the article page without a source for that recommendation. The talk page is easier, we can have our own opinions here. Barlow 1958 is Darwin's autobiography, Janet Browne's two volumes are commonly described as "magisterial" but have a few minor errors and tend to deviate from sequence at times. Lots of human interest stuff, gets a bit confusing to me at times. Desmond & Moore's Darwin is sold in the US as Darwin: the Life of a Tormented Evolutionist and is very readable but a bit controversial, tending to hammer the social context and exaggerate Darwin's fear of exposure. These are the main ones I've come across. Darwin Online and the Darwin Correspondence Project give a great deal of good info. Films and TV programmes tend to be a bit inaccurate in places, some are better than others. . dave souza, talk 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Panoramas

If you fell neccesary, you can add two panaramas I made a few days ago and uploaded on the wikicommons. One of them is about outside the house and the other one inside. See them on the Spanish Wikipedia clicking HERE --Mario modesto (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, these are really nice images, not sure how they best fit with the articles but they'll be a welcome addition to Down House for a start. . dave souza, talk 08:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning Darwin gave up natural selection and became a Lamarckian

The article currently makes no mention of the historically important fact that Darwin himself converted from the natural selection theory of evolution to a Lamarckian environmentalist position in later editions of The Origin of Species, which went into 6 different editions by 1872. Hence I propose the following insert at the first Darwin quotation in the current section ‘Publication of the theory of natural selection’, which I also propose should be retitled ‘Publication of the Darwin’s theory of evolution’.

Proposed insert:

'However, even in the first edition of his book Darwin only claimed natural selection was the main means of selection, but not the only one. In the last sentence of its Introduction he said “Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”

But by 1872 he had published six editions of the book with corrections and revisions, and in later editions in response to criticism of his theory of inheritance Darwin even gave up the theory of natural selection as the main selector of evolution, with its strong principle of inheritance, in favour of Lamarckian environmentalism, with a changing environment as the main selector. As C.D. Darlington wrote in 1950 in his Foreword to a new and first reprint of the otherwise unavailable first edition of The Origin:

"Let no one imagine, however, that, in the world of science, Darwin's theory has enjoyed an unchequered prosperity. On the contrary the dust of battle is only now beginning to settle on the hotly disputed ground....The most abiding source of trouble was that discovered by the Professor of Engineering at Edinburgh. Professor Fleming[sic] Jenkin pointed out in 1867, that any new variation appearing in one individual would be lost or swamped in later generations when that individual was compelled to cross with others of the old and established type, and its differences, as Darwin believed, blended in inheritance. Nature would never be able to keep any differences to select.

Darwin's defence against this objection was already prepared. He had hinted it in the first edition of The Origin of Species: at the end of the Introduction he had said that "Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification." In later editions he hedged further. He fell back on the other means. These depended chiefly on the action of a changing environment: its direct effect in altering living things so as to suit it must be inherited. In adopting this view Darwin was giving up his own, and Wallace's, peculiar claim to originality: he was giving up the argument implied in the title of the book: and he was falling back on the discarded and disreputable theory of Lamarck." [p. xvii On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection first edition reprint in The Thinker's Library by Watts & Co, 1950.] '

But Darlington failed to establish Lamarck's theory was discarded or disreputable. In fact the theory of natural selection only became accepted in the mid-20th century with the ‘Mendelian-Darwinian synthesis’ in population genetics. But even by 1950 Darwinism was still not accepted in academia according to Darlington:

"In view of the triumph of his ideas it might be thought that Darwinism, in all civilised countries, would be taught as one of the foundations of thought, that in the universities everywhere it would be critically expounded and experimentally developed. That is true of its remote and general applications to such sciences as astronomy and geology. But where, as in its applications to ourselves, in the study of the genetics of men, and to the histories of nations, as exact knowledge of the principles of variation, hybridization and selection is required, we hear on every side nothing but confused and ignorant speculations. At the same time the foundation of Darwinism in the experimental study of evolution has largely been smothered in Darwin's own country. The Universities, with their museums and botanic gardens, are happy to forget what, in 1859, they were unable to resist. They contain no memorial of his work, and all the means of developing his doctrine they frustrate by an arrangement of teaching which the theory of evolution is not allowed to disturb. The old pedantic learning of botany and zoology, which Darwin treated as one subject, they continue to cleave asunder, burying the halves under their ancient schedules of instruction." [ibid pxviii-xix]. '

---

I also propose the following edit of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the article's current introduction:

His 1859 book ‘’On the Origin of Species’’ posited natural selection was the main selector in the evolution and origin of species, but by its 1872 sixth edition Darwin had abandoned this theory in favour of Lamarckian environmentalism with the changing environment as the main selector.[ref>C.D.Darlington FRS, pvii Foreword to On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, first edition reprint in The Thinker's Library by Watts & Co, 1950.<ref/]

I shall implement this later edit provisonally for consideration now.

--Logicus (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but Watts has been superseded by a lot of historical research, and makes confusing use of the term Darwinism. It's a fair point that what Darwin called "use and disuse inheritance" was given increased weight in later editions, but he continued to hold that natural selection was the main evolutionary mechanism, even though other scientists favoured other mechanisms including what was later called neo-Lamarckism. This is covered in more detail in On the Origin of Species, I'll review adding a brief point about it in this article. . dave souza, talk 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darwin was influenced by many scientists, but Lamarck wasn't especially notable among them, AFAIK. Do you have a source that makes the claim that Lamarck was a leading influence on Darwin? The only real mention of Lamarck in the article is Darwin's rejection of his idea of independent lineages. If it's going to be mentioned in the infobox, the information needs to be reflected in the article. Adding material to the infobox that isn't present in the article is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Dave souza: Thanks Dave, but you surely need to justify your claim that Darlington FRS was unreliable and also his use of the term Darwinism is confusing. (I take it you refer to Darlington’s view as superseded rather than Watts, the publisher.) Are you therefore claiming that Darlington’s apparent claim that in later editions of The Origin Darwin changed to claiming the action of a changing environment is the chief selector is FALSE ? Are you therefore claiming Darwin still maintained natural selection was the main evolutionary selector in the final Edition 6, for example  ? I am shortly going to check through Editions 2 to 6, and especially 5 & 6 that postdate the 1967 Fleming Jenkin criticism. I would therefore be most grateful if you would either kindly cite your evidence for your claim against Darlington with Edition numbers and page numbers, or else withdraw your objection. And I would be grateful to know if your claim that Darlington is unreliable is based on your own reading of all the subsequent 5 editions of ‘’The Origin’’ (i.e. Original Research), or your source is some other author. And if the latter, who ?

And what exactly do you claim is covered in more detail in ‘’The Origin’’ ?

And in what respect was Darlington's use of the term Darwinism confusing ?

--Logicus (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1: Bowler, Peter J. (2003), Evolution: The History of an Idea - 3rd Edition, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-23693-9 p. 200 – "Some later commentators, especially Loren Eiseley (1958), have implied that Jenkin's review destroyed Darwin's confidence in the selection theory, and led him to abandon it in favor of Lamarckism. [Pangenisis does allow for a Lamackian effect] But there is no evidence that Darwin gave up natural selection, although Jenkin forced him to think seriously about its operation." See also Origin 6th edition (1872) p. 4, "Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."

2: "that what Darwin called "use and disuse inheritance" was given increased weight in later editions, but he continued to hold that natural selection was the main evolutionary mechanism, even though other scientists favoured other mechanisms including what was later called neo-Lamarckism."

3: In what way did Darlington think Darwinism applied to astronomy? Did he think that stars pass on heritable variations, or did he support Darwin's suggestion that the laws impressed on matter by the Creator include the fixed law of gravity? . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Guettarda: I know of no Wiki rule that things can only be in an info box if they are also in the article, so could you kindly refer me to where it is stated ? But I must admit I suspect you may have just made it up. So I restore the info pro tem for the article to include something on Lamarck's significant influence on Darwin, in line with Gould's opinion in the Wiki article on Lamarck quoted in its Legacy section.

Briefly here, on one aspect of Lamarck’s influence see Darwin's acknowledgment on p362 of the Watts edition of ‘’The Origin’’, and also see the Wiki article on Lyell, who influenced Darwin, himself massively influenced by Lamarck, who founded evolution theory and thus a most significant influence on all evolutionists. Also in his online article on Darwin @ http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html van Whye says:

"Darwin then sought to explain how living forms changed over time. He was familiar with the evolutionary speculations proposed earlier by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin and by the great French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck."

--Logicus (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Dave Souza: Thanks very much indeed for providing these references to try and answer some of my questions. This issue gets most interesting, but we need to sharpen the logical analysis here. First on your para 1, the issue raised by Darlington is whether or not Darwin later gave up his theory that natural selection is the ‘’main’’ selector of evolution in favour of the theory that changing environment is the ‘’main’’ selector. Thus the issue is not whether Darwin ever gave up natural selection as a selector, and Darlington does not claim he did. Rather the issue is whether he changed to the theory that changing environment is the ‘’main’’ selector, and natural selection only a minor selector. Thus the Bowler quotation is inconclusive on this issue, and I fear an instance of the illogical rambling typical of academic historians of science, quixotically tilting at a red-herring.

But where your quotations become most interesting and relevant is in your Darwin quotation from the 6th edition, because of its subtle revision of the 1st edition’s claim that natural selection has been the ‘’main’’ selector to the significantly weaker claim that it has been ‘’the most important’’ selector. Thus logically it could be the most important of many different selectors as the most frequent of them all, but still not the main selector but rather only a minority selector because the majority of selection is by a conjunction of various others selectors. Depending on the classification of selectors, environmental ones could possibly be in the majority.

Thus deciding whether Darlington’s claim is true or false may boil down to having to count the proportion of non natural selection selectors Darwin appealed to in the 6th edition. What do you think ?

On your para 2, is it a Bowler quotation ? What are we to make of it ? That Darwin still gave “use and disuse inheritance” less than 50% of the evolutionary mechanisms in later editions, in spite of increasing its weight, and natural selection never less than 51% ? Is that true ?

Yes, Darlington’s astronomy comment is surely bizarre.

So in conclusion, do you know where we should be looking in The Origin Ed6 to most easily determine what proportion of evolution Darwin attributed to natural selection, and thus whether Darlington was wrong or right ? (I suppose the illiterate incompetence of academic historians of science will entail the need for doing some Original Research. God forbid. ☺)

--Logicus (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

dave to Logicus, come in.... which part of Origin 6th edition (1872) p. 4, "Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." don't you follow? While Darlington is understandably incompetent by today's standards, Bowler is good. . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And the next sentence after your above quote is "But already Darwin's theorizing had extended in novel directions." Any reliable source discussing Darwin will clarify that Lamarck was not a significant influence on Darwin. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Dave: You are apparently missing the logical point of interpretation I am making here. Does ‘most important’ here mean ‘most frequently occurring selector in evolution’ or ‘always the leading or main selector because all others have all been at most secondary to this main selector’ ? Now we know the second possible interpretation is false because the book says natural selection is not always the main selector, as in the case of moles’ reduced eye size. And in other cases, such as cave mammals’ eye loss, it is not even a selector at all, disuse being the sole cause of that evolution according to Darwin. In short, Darwin’s introductory claim in the first edition that natural selection has been the main selector, if not the exclusive selector, is arguably falsified by his book’s own Lamarckian disuse counterexamples of where it was not the main selector.

Thus we are left with a possible frequency interpretation of Darwin’s claim, namely that of all the selectors operating in evolution, natural selection has been the most frequently occurring selector out of all instances of evolutions, whether as a main or secondary selector. Thus on this interpretation Darwin was claiming natural selection has operated more frequently in all cases of evolution than disuse, for example. Now I don’t know how on earth we estimate whether this is true or not in general for all instances of evolution from the year dot. But presumably it can be textually determined whether it is the most frequently occurring selector of all the cases of evolution considered in The Origin ? To be determined…. The implication of Darlington’s claim would seem to be that by the 6th edition it was not, or else that it became only a secondary selector to the main selector of use/disuse in most cases.

For your relevant info and other editors, I reproduce Mayr’s comments in his 1964 Intro to The Origin Ed 1 as follows:

“Curiously few evolutionists have noted that, in addition to natural selection, Darwin admits use and disuse as an important evolutionary mechanism. In this he is perfectly clear. For instance,…on page 137 he says that the reduced size of the eyes in moles and other burrowing mammals is “probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection.” In the case of cave animals, when speaking of the loss of eyes he says, “ I attribute their loss wholly to disuse” (p137) On page 455 he begins unequivocally, “At whatever period of life disuse or selection reduces an organ…” The importance he gives to use or disuse is indicated by the frequency with which he invokes this agent of evolution in the Origin. I find references on pp. 11, 43, 134, 135, 136, 137, 447, 454, 455, 472, 479, and 480. “

But Mayr does not say how that frequency increased in the 6th edition, and how it compared with the frequency with which he appealed to natural selection as the sole, main, or secondary case. And he is notably evasive on the issue of whether it is true to say, as some do, that Darwin became a Lamarckian by the 6th edition. --Logicus (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: Against the unsourced and unfounded claim of Dave Souza that Darlington's 1950 thesis that Darwin became a Lamarckian is mistaken and has been superseded, the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008 article on 'Evolution' by Phillip Sloan @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ surely confirms Darlington's analysis that in defence against Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 critique of natural selection, Darwin later changed to Lamarckian environmentalist use/disuse as the most important selector in explaining the evolutionary origin of new species rather than natural selection. For this seems to be the implication of Darwin's 1868 'pangenesis' theory of inheritance as recounted by the Stanford Encyclopedia, as follows:

"The difficulties in Darwin's arguments by 1866 were highlighted in a lengthy and telling critique of Darwin's theory in 1867 by the Scottish engineer Henry Fleeming Jenkin (1833–85). Using an argument previously raised in the 1830s by Charles Lyell against Lamarck, Fleeming (as he was generally known) Jenkin cited empirical evidence from domestic breeding that suggested a distinct limitation on the degree of variation, and the extent to which selection upon this could be taken (Jenkin 1867 in Hull, 1973). Using a loosely mathematical argument, Jenkin argued that the effects of intercrossing would continuously swamp deviations from the mean values of characters and result in a tendency of a population to return to the normal values over time. For Jenkin, Darwin's reliance on continuous additive deviation was presumed undermined by this argument, and only more dramatic and discontinuous change could account for the origin of new species.

....

As a solution to the variation question and the causal basis of this phenomenon, Darwin developed his “provisional hypothesis” of pangenesis, which he presented the year after the appearance of the Jenkin review in Darwin's two-volume Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication (1868). Although this theory had been formulated independently of the Jenkin review (Olby 1962), in effect it functioned as his reply to Jenkin. This offered a causal theory of variation and inheritance through a return to a theory resembling Buffon's theory of the organic molecules of the previous century. Invisible material “gemmules” were presumed to exist within the cells, and according to theory, they were subject to external alteration by environment and circumstance. These were then shed continually into the blood stream (the “transport” hypothesis) and assembled by “mutual affinity into buds or into the sexual elements” (Darwin 1868, 1875, vol. 2, p. 370). In this form they were then transmitted—the details were not explained—by sexual generation to the next generation to form the new organism out of “units of which each individual is composed” (ibid.). In Darwin's view, this hypothesis united together numerous issues into a coherent and causal theory of inheritance and explained the basis of variation. It also explained how use-disuse inheritance, which Darwin never abandoned, could work."

I conclude this article should therefore mention Darlington's important point that Darwin later converted to a Lamarckian use/disuse theory, as I have already proposed. But it should be supplemented by Ernst Mayr's equally important point, made in his Introduction to the 1964 Harvard edition of the 1859 Origin but not mentioned by Darlington, that Darwin had anyway always maintained use/disuse was also an important selector in addition to natural selection, if not the most important, right from his 1859 first edition of Origin. Thus Darwin had always been a Lamarckian to some extent in this sense.

But the upshot of the Stanford Encyclopedia analysis seems to be that by 1868 use/disuse must have become the most important or even sole selector for Darwin in explaining the evolutionary origin of species, albeit possibly with natural selection still explaining some variations, if not speciation. It seems the crucial theory shift Darwin made was just from that of use/disuse of a trait being a secondary selector to that of it being the most important selector that ensured the generational retention of environmentally advantageous variations. For it seems to have been the repeated environmental use/disuse imprinting in each generation that would ensure the retention of a variation to prevent its dilution and eventual regression to the norm by blending inheritance.

On this analysis then, Darwin's claim in the Introduction to the 1872 sixth edition that "I am convinced Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." must have expressed a decidely hollow conviction by that time insofar as he was by then convinced of the primary role of use/disuse nature of modifications leading to the origination of new species, if not explaining all variation.

Those Wiki editors who oppose some such edit should surely review and withdraw their opinions and opposition in consideration of the Stanford Encyclopedia's analysis of this issue.

In fact I propose Wikipedia should consider incorporating the direct quotation of its analysis in this article.

--Logicus (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not as reliable a source as the ones we're using, and it doesn't draw the conclusion that you're drawing from it. See WP:NOR. . dave souza, talk 16:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When did the theory of natural selection first come to be accepted by a great majority of the scientific community ?

The article’s first paragraph currently claims

“[Darwin’s] theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1 “

But contrary to this, the Wikipedia article History of evolutionary thought claims the theory was not widely accepted until the 1940s:

“The 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 the 1940s.”

And Darlington’s 1950 report on Darwinism in academia in the immediately above section suggests it was not until after 1950.

I therefore flag the current dating for a reliable citation.

I propose a vaguer dating to ‘until the mid 20th century’ might be an easy resolution.

But I suggest the reference should be to ‘THE theory of natural selection’ rather than Darwin’s inasmuch as it was not specifically Darwin’s theory of natural selection that came to be accepted. --Logicus (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This article has a reliable source (John van Whye), while the history of evolutionary thought article lacks one. As the modern synthesis took hold over a period of time, it's difficult to draw a clear line as to when an idea could be considered "the primary explanation". Nonetheless, van Whye has a better perspective than did Darlington. I'm going to undo the tagging, since the statement is already cited to a reliable source...that isn't a comment on your concern, but the tag you added is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: This article has a source, but who is to say it is reliable ? I have the impression the 1940s is quite widely accepted. And in what respect,. if any, does van Whye have a better perspective than Darlington? Surely Darlington was much closer to the event than van Whye, with a consequently better perspective ?

I am going to put a clarification tag I hope you find more appropriate. I request the actual quote from van Whye and also his reliable evidence, if any, for his 1930s claim. Otherwise I propose my suggested edit.

--Logicus (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As Guettarda mentioned, there is no point at which one could say that natural selection (or any major new explanation) switched from being "rejected" to "accepted". The John van Whye reference concludes "1930s". Perhaps it wasn't until a few years later, but it would be misleading to say "mid 20th century" because that suggests a date which is too late. A reader would want an indication of when natural selection was accepted, but it is an inconsequential point as to whether we can prove it was 1930 or 1940 or 1950. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical debates about the nature of science are beyond the scope of this article. Guettarda (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Logicus to Johnuniq & Guettarda: You are quite wrong Johnuniq, as is Guettarda. There must be a point at which theories switch from bring ‘rejected’ to being ‘accepted’ if these terms are sufficiently well defined, such as in terms of unanimity, or a great majority, or simple majority of the scientific community, for example. And you clearly think there was such a point that was earlier than mid 20th century. But Darlington’s testimony suggests 1950 would be too early rather than too late. And it is not inconsequential to rationality theories of scientific revolutions whether we can prove when it was, since dating should be in accordance with when the theory first proved itself evidentially over its predecessor(s) and competitor(s). Rationality theorists regard even a decade out as a counterexample. Moreover as the philosopher of science Imre Lakatos pointed out in his 1973 LSE Lectures on Scientific Method, "...nobody to date has found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific." [p24 Motterlini’s 1999 For and Against Method]. And it seems this may still be the case. So dating community conversions is important to identifying the logic of scientific revolutions.--Logicus (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC) <ri>As already explained, questions like this are outside of the scope of this article. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: Surely you are wrong yet again Guettarda, because the current article demonstrably gives an answer to this question, thus bringing that question firmly and even centrally within its scope. For the article clearly makes claims on the ‘’dating’’ and also ostensibly on the ‘’rationale’’ of the alleged Darwinian revolution. Thus it brings such issues as the rationality and rationale of scientific revolutions and the nature of scientific method very firmly and centrally within its scope, as indeed all histories of science do. For on the one hand it claims the theory that evolution is mainly caused by natural selection was not widely accepted until the 1930s (dating), but on the other hand also claims that Darwin presented compelling evidence for that theory (rationale). The remaining mystery this POV Wikipedia history of science therefore raises for any evidential theory of the logic of scientific revolutions and scientific method such as Wikipedia presents elsewhere in its articles is why it took at least some 80 years for Darwin’s theory to be widely accepted if the evidence Darwin presented for it was indeed compelling. In conclusion, if questions like this really are outside the scope of this article as you and your Wiki pals may undemocratically elect to define the scope of Wiki history of science articles, then the article must surely relinquish (i.e. delete) making any claims on the dating and rationale of that alleged revolution as it currently does in order to achieve a NPOV on such issues. This is of course exactly what my original proposed edit of the first sentence at was designed to achieve. But it was reverted by Souza in an apparent act of Tendentious editing that satisfies the following Wiki criterion of such: You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.69.110 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Surely you are wrong yet again Guettarda. Mmm, nope. This article is about Charles Darwin. Philosophical debates about the nature of science are beyond the scope of this article. Debating the nature of science with you is beyond the scope of any part of Wikipedia. Seriously, you should familiarise yourself with the project's policies and guidelines, and with the basic scope and aims of the project. Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Guettarda: But nobody is claiming philosophical debate about the nature of science is or should be within the scope of this article. Certainly I have not proposed any edit to include philosophical debate about the nature of science in it. So why this bizarrely illogical intervention ? --Logicus (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't copy discussion from one article talk page to another. Guettarda (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did the theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution first become widely accepted in the 1930s or 1940s, if either ? Here Logicus posts a relevant discussion of this issue from the Talk:History of evolutionary thought pages: In a related question, the wording relating to Darwin's theory, "but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s", has been questioned in relation to the Charles Darwin article where we state "while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s". That's sourced to van Wyhe, who states "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s." It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s, so both are reasonable. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Agree, clear and logical, well done Dave!Tmol42 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus: No unclear and illogical. It is unclear who makes the claim "It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s,”, which is not included within the van Wyhe quotation marks. And Souza’s conclusion from this statement that both datings of when it first became widely accepted that natural selection is the main selector of evolution are reasonable is itself unreasonable because “coming to be widely accepted” obviously means ‘not yet widely accepted’ here. Thus the reasonable conclusion from this statement is that the theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution first became widely accepted in the 1940s. And this dating is in line with what this article claims, but contradicts what the Darwin article currently claims. Thus on this basis Logicus’s proposed edit to ‘mid 20th century’ becomes more reasonable. And also Darlington’s implicit post 1950 dating becomes more plausible. So perhaps Dave would kindly tell us here in this section of Talk:Darwin who makes the claim "It was coming to be widely accepted in the '30s, and was widely accepted in the '40s,”. --Logicus (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Guettarda: Since you apparently imagine you know and understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines better than Logicus, would you please be so kind as to point out where this rule ‘Don't copy discussion from one article talk page to another’ is stated. I cannot recall seeing it anywhere but it may have appeared since I last reviewed policy and guidelines. --Logicus (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wot compelling evidence ?

Statement is adequately sourced; not the place to discuss whether modern scholarship is right or wrong. Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article’s opening sentence currently claims “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. It would seem the scientific community did not find any compelling evidence for natural selection until the 20th century. I flag this claim for a reliable citation, but propose the following edit would be less contentious “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” --Logicus (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean. Why do you not see his evidence as "compelling"? Can you source that assertion? Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally. The mechanism he proposed - natural selection - was accepted as a mechanism of change, but it took a while for it to be accepted as the main mechanism of change. No one seriously doubted natural selection, they just doubted whether it was powerful enough. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: Thanks, but I find this response very confused. I repeat my simple question “But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ?” The request is to be told what specific evidence this refers to that was compelling. For example, in the case of Newton’s theory of gravity it has been claimed that the successfully predicted return of Halley’s comet was the compelling evidence that persuaded the French Academy to discontinue its prize for refuting Newton. So please tell me what the specific compelling evidence presented in The Origin or elsewhere was. I am not claiming there was none, as was the case in Newton’s Principia. If there was such, I just want to know what it was please. On your other points, surely natural selection as the primary selector, based on the strong principle of inheritance explicitly appealed to by Darwin in the article’s quotation, was not accepted, and especially not by Fleming Jenkin, contrary to your claim that it was. And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution ? I reflag the claim, this time with the clarification tag instead, which I hope is more to your liking. In line with Wikipedia verification etiquette policy, I shall be requiring provision of the quotation from a reliable source that identifies the allegedly compelling evidence. If there was any such, then the question then becomes why it was not regarded as compelling at the time. (Certainly there was a compelling refutation of Darwin's gradualism in the discontinuous fossil record.) --Logicus (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) It seems you want a reliable source about how compelling was Darwin's evidence for the items mentioned. The reference at the end of the second sentence ([16]) is satisfactory; it contains "Although Darwin convinced most of the scientific community within 15-20 years that descent with modification, or evolution, was true, many rejected natural selection as the primary mechanism ... Nevertheless to the end of his life Darwin was regarded as a great scientific revolutionary who had overturned the ideas of his generation." The reference also discusses the actual evidence, and provides further references. Another quote from reference [1]: "In 1909 over 400 scientists and dignitaries from 167 different countries gathered at Cambridge to celebrate the centenary of Darwin's birth and the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. The event was an unprecedented success - never before had such a celebration been held, not for an institution or a nation - but for an individual scientist." In science, major changes in outlook generally take a significant time, and certainly require compelling evidence; if the only thing we knew about Darwin was that the 1909 celebration occurred, that would be sufficient to justify the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, with a source for that identification. Thanks for your comments but they are unfortunately logically irrelevant to rebutting my challenge. Rather you do not even seem to notice that the quotation you provide from van Wyhe implies the evidence Darwin presented for evolution by natural selection was not compelling, since it tells us many scientists rejected natural selection. On this evidence from van Wyhe then, it seems perfectly justified to edit out the claim of compelling evidence for natural selection as I originally proposed, which I shall now do. I fully agree with you that major changes in science take a significant time, such theories typically being born well refuted and without any successfully predicted novel facts, which take some time to produce as the theory is developed. The heliocentric revolution proposed by Copernicus had to wait until the 1729 compelling evidential novel fact of stellar aberration predicted by the conjunction of the hypothesis of the earth's annual solar orbit with that of the finite speed of light. And its seems Newton’s theory had to wait until the 1759 return of Halley’s comet. And it seems acceptance of Darwin’s natural selection theory of evolution had to wait until the mid-20th century in the so-called ‘ Mendelian-Darwinian’ synthesis. But what the compelling evidential novel fact(s) was/were that induced it seems to be something of a mystery. Do you know ? --Logicus (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Off the top of my head, variation under domestication, variation in nature, the struggle for existence and natural selection. Took a while for its significance to overcome 19th century teleology, but got there in the end. . dave souza, talk 12:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to dave souza:Thanks for the top of your head, but sorry but I just don’t understand it. Is this supposed to be four separate pieces of evidence ? But what did Darwin predict about any of these four phenomena that was novel, confirmed and compelling ? Maybe the simple truth is that Darwin did not present any compelling scientific evidence, which was why his theory was quite rationally not widely accepted until after the neo-Darwinian synthesis ? Whether Darwin made and novel, confirmed or compelling predictions is fairly irrelevant to whether he 'realized and presented compelling evidence'. The four examples given by Dave Souza are examples of evidence presented in the origin of species and IMHO the consensus among scientists is that these are compelling evidence. Cubathy (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Cubathy:But it is a quite widespread view that compelling evidence for a theory in science consists of it predicting novel facts that are then evidentially confirmed. So on that view the only relevant evidence that is compelling is evidence that confirms a novel fact predicted by the theory. But what in your view constitutes compelling evidence if it is not novel facts predicted by the theory ? As for Souza’s ‘examples’, they are not examples of evidence presented in The Origin. Nor were any of those phenomena novel facts as he apparently claimed. What compelling evidence, if any, was presented in The Origin that confirmed evolution is mainly by natural selection ? And on what page(s) ? Darwin's failure to present any compelling evidence at the time would surely explain why his theory of evolution mainly by natural selection was not accepted at the time. It was not accepted until the 1930s according to the article ? The article's current notion of there being compelling evidence that did not compell people to believe the theory is surely bizarre and silly.--Logicus (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus - the editors on this page have been very patient in dealing with your queries and attempting to sort through some of your more bizarre logic. I think all that is left to do is refer you to WP:TPG, WP:ETIQ, WP:TEND and WP:CIVIL Cubathy (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) To Logicus -- Since the sentence in question states that the evidence was compelling, I think that a reference showing that the evidence was in fact compelling is the only sort that would be germane. I'm for reverting to the previous wording. Agathman (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Not clear to me what you're proposing, which previous wording? Thanks, dave souza, talk 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I was vague. I'm agreeing with the wording "...who realised and presented compelling evidence that...", since it is apparent (and cited in refs) that the evidence was found compelling at the time, to say nothing of the fact that vast amounts of that evidence are available linked to this lead. Agathman (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence. I'm in agreement with Agathman that the current references do more than enough to support the usage of the word.Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to All: Can none of you people see the plain utterly absurd stupidity of the article's current first paragraph in claiming on the one hand in its first sentence that Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution by natural selection, but on the other hand then inconsistently claiming in its second sentence that his theory that natural selection is the primary selector of evolution was not widely accepted until the 1930s ? For if the latter claim is true, then clearly the evidence Darwin presented was not compelling at the time, if ever, contrary to the contentious and unsourced claim of the first sentence that it was. I cannot see why the more modest and far less contentious proposed opening sentence edit to ‘Darwin claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by the process he called natural selection ‘ is not acceptable to some. This does not preclude the article subsequently discussing whether the evidence Darwin presented for evolution mainly by natural selection was scientifically compelling or not, and thus whether scientists were irrational for some 80 years in not accepting it, or whether it required some 80 years or more to acquire some compelling scientific evidence. (But note that nobody in this discussion has yet identified what exactly that alleged compelling evidence was, including Souza. What specific novel prediction did Darwin's theory make that was also evidentially confirmed at the time ? The 1713 second edition of Newton's Principia predicted the return of Halley's comet some 45 or so years later, and it did, to provide the first compelling scientific evidence for it in the opinion of some philosophers and historians of science. But what novelty, if any, did Darwin ever predict ? --Logicus (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Darwin's evidence, both for common descent and natural selection as the primary means of change, was considered to be compelling more or less immediately. The sentence about acceptance of natural selection in the 1930s oversimplifies the situation. Natural selection was broadly accepted right away, from about 1859 to 1900, but when the science of genetics developed, there was a period from about 1900-1930 when many people thought that Darwin's idea of small, imperceptible changes acted on by selection was untenable. This was mainly because most of the mutations studied early in the history of genetics were fairly large, dramatic ones. The modern synthesis, which united genetics and evolutionary biology, came about in the 1930s and 1940s, and reaffirmed the essential validity of Darwin's model, including the primary role of selection, much of it quite gradual. The article does already make clear that the evidence for common descent was accepted pretty much from the start. Agathman (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Agathman: And what is your evidence for this string of unsourced and unevidenced dogmatic assertions ? They are clearly in conflict with the Wikipedia articles that claim natural selection was not accepted as the main evolutionary selector until the 20th century, so perhaps you had better start rewriting them. Why can nobody identify what the alleged compelling evidence was that Darwin presented ? --Logicus (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC) You're right in that I've overstated the initial level of acceptance of natural selection as the mechanism, but all the rest the history can be found in The eclipse of Darwinism. Acceptance of natural selection as the mechanism declined in the early 20th century; the section in that article on saltationism is relevant, but I may try to expand it a bit, as it was an important aspect of the problem. Agathman (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Why can nobody identify what the alleged compelling evidence was that Darwin presented ? It's really not that important for our purposes. There are sources that identify it as such. That's all we need. Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: Exactly who is the royal ‘our’ here and what are your purposes ? For my part, speaking for Wikipedia of course, our purposes here in its history of science articles include the important aim of being reliable and accurate in claims made about major theory change in the history of science and its rationale and dating because this is important for determining scientific method, which Wikipedia claims to be based upon empirical evidence. And if Wikipedia claims that some major theory change was caused by compelling evidence, then there is clearly a pedagogical duty to identify what that evidence was. Now in this case you claim there are sources that identify that evidence that was found compelling by Darwin's contemporaries, presumably sufficiently compelling to cause them to convert to his theory that natural selection is the main selector of evolution (which theory we learn from the article was not widely accepted until the mid 20th century ☺). Could you therefore please now kindly identify those sources and also identify that evidence which those sources claim Darwin’s contemporaries found compelling ? --Logicus (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I have provided you links to our governing policies and guidelines. If you choose to doubt what I say, you should really read them yourself. I have already answered the rest of your question in my comment below from 15:47 on the 21st. Guettarda (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: This comment you refer to does not answer my question in any way whatever. To repeat, the question asks you to identify the allegedly compelling evidence Darwin presented in ‘’The Origin’’ that compelled scientists to accept his theory of evolution mainly by natural selection, since you claim there was such. This request follows my previous citation flag on the article’s claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for his theory that evolution was mainly by natural selection, and a request for your compliance with Wikipedia Verification policy I made in my 16:10, 20 April 2009 contribution above, but with which you did not comply. This policy etiquette I refer to in Wikipedia:Verifiability is as follows: ^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources. ^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. So to explain, what I am requesting in the first instance is that you provide an actual quotation from some reliable source that fully justifies the article’s current claim that ‘Darwin presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.’ And I am also requesting the further detail that the source quoted should also specify what that compelling evidence was and where it is identified in ‘’The Origin’’ or elsewhere. For otherwise the reliability of the claim is suspect if it does not name that evidence, but merely handwaves. --Logicus (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus's Lesson 1 for Guettarda in Wikipedia policy and guidelines: For your first homework from Logicus’s lessons in Wikipedia policy and guidelines for Wiki Admins, you should consider whether the following defect of Disruptive Editing policy posted on its Talk page also applies analogously to Tendentious Editing policy in respect of its 10 criteria of tendentious editing: So wot is a disruptive editor? The current definition of a disruptive editor in this project is crucially unclear about whether it is one who must satisfy all of the four conditions listed, or else just at least one of them, or else some other minimal number of them from 1 to 3. Which is it ? --Logicus (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC) And then you should consider whether you are a Tendentious Editor by virtue of your commission of the following sin amongst its list of sins in its policy statement: You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Now please stop evading answering issues by policy referrals and answer the question: What was the compelling evidence Darwin presented ? Or tell us who has identified this compelling evidence. --Logicus (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC) To clarify - having seen a steady stream of Darwin scholars this semester, it's safe to say that while some opinions differ (John Lynch, for example, doesn't see it as a Darwinian "revolution", since it took 70 years from Origin the modern synthesis, while John van Whye disputes the common wisdom that Darwin sat on his ideas for 20 years before publishing them). But no one disputes the impact that Darwin had on scientific thought within his lifetime, the impact that Origin had on scientific thought. In the 40s and 50s Darwin's contemporaries were aware of his ideas, encouraged him to publish them, but did not believe in evolution. Publication of Origins changed that - because of the compelling arguments. It doesn't matter if we find his arguments compelling. What matters is that we have good sources that say that his contemporaries found them compelling. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution Descent with modification from a common ancestor was original, as was the mechanism. Lamarck's lineages had distinct origins. Guettarda (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus: This point is logically irrelevant. For the sentence being challenged here makes no mention of common ancestry. Rather it says: "His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[2]" Do you therefore wish to revise this with the following sentence ?: "His 1859 book The Origin of Species established evolutionary descent with modification from common ancestors as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[2]" This sentence emphasises the specificity of what The Origin is claimed to have established that was not already fairly widely established. --Logicus (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) When did that become the sentence under discussion? I thought it was the first sentence in the article -- Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection. And that sentence clearly does make reference to common ancestry. Agathman (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Agathman: Yes, a good question Agathman, given the topic of this section is challenging the very first sentence of the article. So I try to reconstruct its displacement onto challenging the first sentence of the third para that happened here, at least in order to demonstrate the sort of intellectual mayhem caused by logically confused Wiki Admins. In response to the question I had raised at 13:56, 20 April 2009 of what compelling evidence, if any, Darwin presented for his theory of evolution ‘’mainly by natural selection’’, at 14:05, 20 April 2009 Guettarda claimed on a quite different issue “Withing[sic!] a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.” Thus Guettarda invalidly shifted the question I had raised about the date of acceptance of Darwin's natural selection theory of evolution to the logically quite different question of whether “descent with modification” was accepted almost universally within a few decades of the publication of ‘’The Origin’’., which is the issue raised by the first sentence of the third para, but which I had not yet got around to challenging if it were to mean ‘’subsequent’’ decades rather than ‘’preceding’’ decades. And my response to Guettarda’s logically shifted question at 6:10, 20 April 2009 was: “And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution ? “ Now after this point at 15:21, 21 April 2009 Guettarda elected to respond invalidly as though I had been challenging whether the theory of Darwin’s book was original in any way, rather than challenging whether descent with modification was only established after Darwin’s book. Thus in effect he raised the issue of whether the first sentence of the third para is true or false. And since I had that sentence on the shelf for challenge anyway, it seems I then responded such as to create the false impression it was the sentence being challenged in this section. But the whole issue of the truth-value of the first sentence of the third para can maybe easily be resolved by determining whether it is true or false. And here I submit it is most likely false because “evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.” had already been largely accepted and established before the publication of The Origin. But whatever, does this answer your question ? --Logicus (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) <ri>Umm, no. You seem more than a little confused. Your initial comment said: But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. In response to this, I corrected your misconception that "few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day". You responded by saying that: And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution ? This suggested that you didn't understand the difference between Darwin's ideas of branching descent, and Lamarck's more lineal idea. Again, I tried to explain the difference to you. In response to my attempt to correct your misconception, you said: This point is logically irrelevant. For the sentence being challenged here makes no mention of common ancestry. Unfortunately, if you look back to the start of this section, you said: “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” [Emphasis added] Mind-boggling. At this point, I think the only thing left to do is to refer you to our guideline on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and this essay on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Guettarda (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Guettarda: I offer the following commentary, emboldened in square brackets, on your comments here to help you try to understand how you confuse and misinterpret things. <ri>Umm, no. You seem more than a little confused. Your initial comment said: But what compelling evidence, if any, was this ? Certainly it seems few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day and thus that he had presented any compelling evidence. In response to this, I corrected your misconception that "few regarded Darwin’s theory as compelling in his day". [You did not correct any misconception of mine. Rather you perversely misinterpreted my point that few regarded Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the main selector of evolution as having compelling evidence for the logically quite different claim that few thought that the theory that there is some natural selection had compelling evidence. Of course as Mayr rightly emphasizes in his 1964 Intro, right from its very first edition The Origin proposed both Lamarckian use-and-disuse inheritance and also natural selection inheritance as evolutionary selectors, and in some cases the former is the main selector or even the whole selector, with natural selection only a compounding secondary selector at most. And reports suggest Darwin significantly increased the role of use & disuse as the main selector in the 6th Edition. But you wholly ignored the main question of identifying exactly what evidence Darwin presented for his distinctive theory that natural selection is the main selector in evolution overall, compelling or otherwise] You responded by saying that: And surely descent with modification was accepted long before Darwin’s book, in Lamarck’s founding theory of evolution ? [This was not my main response, which was rather that I found yours confused and not dealing with the main question of identifying the alleged compelling evidence. Rather this was a secondary response challenging your logically irrelevant claim about evolution “Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.”] This suggested that you didn't understand the difference between Darwin's ideas of branching descent, and Lamarck's more lineal idea. Again, I tried to explain the difference to you. [It suggested no such thing., except in your imagination. I referred solely to evolution i.e. just to descent with modification, but not to any specific theory of its form. Rather you invalidly presumed I confused evolution in general with Darwin’s branching descent form of it , which I did not.] In response to my attempt to correct your misconception, you said: This point is logically irrelevant. For the sentence being challenged here makes no mention of common ancestry. [Yes, but you misinterpret “here” as referring to the whole section, rather than to what was being challenged here within that section by the sentence of mine you quoted. That sentence was challenging your implication that evolution was only accepted after ‘’The Origin’’ in claiming “Withing a few decades of the publication of Origin the idea of "descent with modification" was accepted almost universally.” and which (I suspect mistaken) view is also reflected in the article in the first sentence of its third para , which states “His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[2]” and makes no mention of common descent. You may wish to remedy this omission.] Unfortunately, if you look back to the start of this section, you said: “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” [Emphasis added] [Yes, but unfortunately the first sentence of third para I was referring to omits common descent.] Mind-boggling. [Indeed !] --Logicus (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. The following continuing discussion of this issue is most pertinent. Logicus to Michael Johnson: Thanks for your following contribution to this discussion: “Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) “ However, your points are mistaken and misrepresent what I said. But first I just recapitulate the issue that you and other editors misunderstand. The article’s first sentence claims Darwin “realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.[1]”. But the quotation from the source given does not verify this controversial highly misleading claim, as follows: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." This statement does not mention any evidence whatever that Darwin presented for anything, neither compelling nor otherwise. So this is a failed verification. And indeed even the editor who provided it effectively modestly admitted as much, as follows: “Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) and as Cubathy correctly pointed out: “I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence…..Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) “ In the first instance what needs to be provided on Wiki rules is a reliable source that claims Darwin somewhere presented evidence for the theory stated, and also that it was compelling. So I agree with your claim that “we have to produce a reliable source that shows that [all or most ] others [in the scientific community] found the evidence compelling.” But it seems nobody to date has found any such source. (For whatever my views may be worth, I conjecture the reason why is that no serious contemporary scholar would make this bold claim given it is now so widely accepted that Darwin’s theory that natural selections has been the main selector of evolution was not generally accepted until the mid 20th century. For if they did claim Darwin presented compelling evidence for it, they would then land themselves with the problem, inter alia, of explaining why it did not compell everybody in the scientific community to accept the theory. In fact I believe the scholarly consensus to be that Darwin did not provide any compelling evidence for that theory, neither in The Origin nor elsewhere. And moreover as Jenkin pointed out, the theory was anyway ruled out by the then widely accepted theory of blending inheritance.) So the current situation seems to be that the claim in question should be tagged for failed verification. And so I propose it should be in the absence of any valid reason why not. Now I turn to the mistakes and misrepresentations in your above comments. “Earlier, Logicus said: Logicus to Johnuniq: No, I do not want a source for how compelling Darwin's evidence for evolution by natural selection was. I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, [What I meant here is that in the first instance I just wanted that evidence identifying as a preliminary to finding a source that claims it was compelling. This is clearer in what I actually said, but which you have truncated, as follows: “I just want identification of the specific evidence that was allegedly compelling, WITH A SOURCE FOR THAT IDENTIFICATION.”] IMHO this shows that Logicus does not understand WP:OR or WP:RS. [Your honest opinion is thus clearly mistaken. Please consider the logical possibility that Logicus has the very highest understanding of these policies of all Wikipedia editors, and also of their massive breaches in Wikipedia articles. ☺] In effect we do not have to show that the evidence was compelling or not, or even that it exists in any substantial form, as this would be original research. [But surely the source should at least identify the evidence that ‘exists in any substantial form’  ?] Rather we have to produce a reliable source that shows that others found the evidence compelling. [Agreed, but of course they should be shown to be at least a great majority of the scientific community, rather than just Darwin’s mum and dad, say, and even if not including Thomas Henry Huxley, who did not accept Darwin presented compelling evidence for natural selection as the main cause of evolution, and nor of speciation in particular, but which was the leading claim of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection as expressed in its title. Darwin presented no explanation nor evidence that natural selection could induce sterility, the defining characteristic of the origination of a new species.] If Logicus does not find the evidence compelling, [But Logicus is still trying to find out what this evidence is, so cannot possibly judge whether it is compelling or not.] or even believes that there was no evidence at all, that is fine, but irrelevant to the article. For such a point of view to be incorporated into the article, Logicus would have to provide a reliable source of sufficient weight that expressed that point of view. [Logicus has never proposed such a point of view be incorporated in the article. Rather at the very outset of this discussion he has only proposed the highly controversial POV stated in the first sentence should be amended to a more NPOV claim if no reliable citation can be found for it, as follows: “I flag this claim for a reliable citation, but propose the following edit would be less contentious “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.” “ 13:56, 20 April 2009 But I now propose the following sentence would be more accurate “{Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by natural selection.” since Darwin denied all evolution was purely by natural selection, and claimed use & disuse was also an important selector.] [Your comments here seem to fail to understand Logicus is challenging the controversial and unsourced POV expressed in the first sentence. Thus the onus is not on Logicus to provide a reliable source for some other point of view as you claim, but rather the onus is on Wikipedians to provide a reliable source that justifies the claim made which has been challenged, or else to delete it. May I refer you to the first section on ‘Burden of evidence’ of Wikipedia:Verifiability to verify this.] Otherwise this is a philisophical debate that belongs somewhere else. [So otherwise this is not a philosophical debate, but just a simple issue of whether a justifying reliable source can be found for a controversial POV claim, and deleting that claim if not. OK ?] --Logicus (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC) "[Your honest opinion is thus clearly mistaken. Please consider the logical possibility that Logicus has the very highest understanding of these policies of all Wikipedia editors, and also of their massive breaches in Wikipedia articles. ☺]" Hehehe. Sorry, I'm just over here trying to catch my breath. Ego dude, ego. Misplaced ego. Referring to yourself in the third person while argueing against not only evolution, but specifically the line of "compelling evidence" does nothing to enhance your credibility, btw. The amount of reputable sources that use the phrase "compelling evidence" verbatim are... many. If I was home I could get you a couple books and page numbers from my shelves alone. You're flogging a dead horse; if you're going to insist on continuing a closed discussion then please at least drop the 3rd-Person shtick. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to Human.v2.0: We conclude from the intellectual level of your comments that you are most likely an American visitor to our shores, thus overlooking the English sense of humour and irony, in addition to being illiterate in English. If you care to re-read our contributions carefully this time, we do hope you will see that nowhere do we argue against evolution as you illogically claim. That is not what this issue is about. Nor is it about finding reputable sources that use the phrase “compelling evidence”, of which there are no doubt thousands. Rather it is about finding a reliable source that specifically claims Darwin presented compelling evidence for the theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution. We await with baited breath the fruits of your efforts to find such in the two titles or yours you mention.--Logicus (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC) On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. Please see my contribution of 25 April in the now hidden discussion for the demonstration of this failed verification. --Logicus (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, yes, cracks at Americans. I have to say that I enjoy them myself; more than a few arn't far from fact. You're misinterperting my having a hard time taking you seriously due to your apparent predelictions to speak as a lunatic (including and beyong referring to yourself in the third person) with the possibility that I "don't get it" or somesuch. That's ok. My reaction pushes the boundaries of assuming good faith on your part, but on the counterpoint you arn't exactly helping your case there. On the point: You state that there are many sources describing/referring to Darwin's work verbatim with "compelling evidence", and then you turn around to state that there needs to be... more evidence? No, I'm sorry, but that just isn't how things really work. "Compelling evidence" is, as mentioned previously more than a few times, a valid phrase to use and this is not the place to try and analyze exactly how compelling it is, which is what you are suggesting. (Before you toss in a "you don't understand" response once again; even if that (original research into how compelling the evidence is) is not how you wish to word it, it is what you are trying to require.) I await with baited breath the point where you can discuss this topic like a sane individual, and as I said before: drop the shtick. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary Guettarda, the statement is not adequately sourced, but rather has a failed verification. And nor is this discussion about whether modern scholarship is right or wrong, as you wrongly imply, but rather about whether a justifying reliable source can possibly be found for a controversial POV claim that has been challenged. Please see my contribution of 25 April in the now hidden discussion for the demonstration of this failed verification. --Logicus (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.94.3 (talk)

The article treats evolution like a fact, not a theory

If you find yourself confused by this this, see Evolution as fact and theory. Guettarda (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The opening sentence in the article says that Charles Darwin "realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." However, he did not actually present any evidence of evolution ("Darwin's Finches" prove natural selection, not evolution). Plus, even Darwin never said that evolution was a fact, only a theory. Could someone fix it? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see an issue. He presented a take on speciation by natural selection. Speciation is an evolutionary process, even if he did not use that term. I also fail to see where that sentence is presenting evolution and Darwin's understanding of it incorrectly. Maybe check out the Evolution as theory and fact and Scientific method articles? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) If you search this page for "compelling" you will see a lot of words have been used on the topic lately. Most of the discussion is pointless and I don't suggest you read it all, but there are some gems, such as this New Scientist article posted by Dave souza. Reading even a little of the work written by Darwin (see links in article) is also very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC) On the fact v. theory issue, I would recommend T. Ryan Gregory's Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path. On the issue of natural selection v. evolution: natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. You can't show natural selection, what you can show is its effect, evolution. Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) High Fin to Guettarda: Actually, natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. If there are two Finches and one of them has a better shaped beak for eating tough seeds, one will die and the other will be better off. Neither one has evolved. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Differential survival leads to changes in allele frequencies in the population. Change in allele frequency = evolution. Not that Darwin made much use of these finches in his discussion of evolution, and was quite unaware of the role they would later play in the study of evolution. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I do not see what the first three sentences have to do with what we've been talking about. And also, why do the finches play any role in the study of evolution? As I said before, all the finches prove is how natural selection works. Natural selection does not have anything at all to do with evolution. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Natural selection does not have anything at all to do with evolution. Well that is a POV not widely accepted in the scientific community. But while you are entitled to hold it, this debate is not helping improve the article. So I suggest we all just move on. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to High Fin: A good main point which I agree with. But without prejudice to the truth of your claim that Darwin presented no evidence of evolution in ‘’The Origin’’, it should certainly be pointed out that Darwin’s finches did not prove Darwin’s natural selection theory of evolution, namely that natural selection has been the most important selector in evolution, because obviously no single instance of an evolution of the many billions there have been could logically do so. In fact it seems Darwin provided no evidence for this theory, and editors such as Guettara, Johnuniq and Dave Souza have notably failed to identify any in the immediately above discussion, which is very far from pointless as Johnuniq mistakenly claims. I recommend you read it very carefully re the issue of what evidence Darwin presented for his theory of evolution by natural selection.--Logicus (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Please see Theory of gravity. That is also "only a theory". You need to understand the proper scientific use of the word "theory", it differs from the usual every-day meaning. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC) True, gravity is a theory, but a proven theory. Evolution is not. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Whose theory of gravity? And it is not proven, no scientific theory is proven - only well supported by all the evidence and tests - or not. And evolutionary theory is well supported by a vast amount of evidence and tests. Your use of proven indicates a serious lack of understanding. Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC) If it is so well supported, could you please give me one good example of this? And also, gravity is a theory which is, if the theory is correct, should be happening in the present and is therefore testable, repeatable and observable. However, evolution should still be happening, but no one has observed it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for making your POV clear. In fact if you bothered reading the article on the Theory of gravity you will discover there are many anomalies and alternative theories that clearly demonstrate that it has not been "proven". Again, if you read the article on Theory, you would discover that scientific theory is the best explanation of the facts available. While the facts of gravity don't quite fit the theory (yet) the facts of evolution fit the theory like a glove. But none of this helps improve the article so I'll stop. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Which facts exactly are you talking about? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I'd refer you to Evidence of common descent, and if you want evidence of evolution actually being observed, the E. coli long-term evolution experiment. But I doubt any of this will help. You appear to have made up you mind, and given your user page indicates you have sniffed around zoology for some time, have chosen to ignore the evidence you must have encountered before. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, I have never encountered any evidence. I would not say that just because two animals have similar DNA does not necessarily mean they have a common ancestor. All I'm saying is that there are still a lot of gaps in the evolutionary theory and it should still be considered a theory, not unquestionable fact. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but are you actually reading what we have posted here? Do you understand what a theory means in science? Have you even attempted to, say, click on the article links suggested here? Because if not, there's not a real point in continuing this with you. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But which this is this this ? ☺ --Logicus (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'Freethinkers'

Hi, I don't get the idea behind attributing the term 'Freethinker' to Darin's father. Before it was given to both Darwin's father and grandfather, but it seems the article was edited. Anyway, I'm a biology student and I've heard the Darwin story a million times; and it includes his father pressing him to become a doctor and being opposed to the Beagle journey. The latter is mentioned briefly in the article, but it's hard to associate those actions with 'freethinking'. In addition there is no clear definition for 'freethinker' in the article, or in real life.

I think that we should address these issues to improve the article.

--SunshineOdyssey (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Freethinker" in this context relates to religion rather than any general benevolence towards freedom of action. A Freethinker in the early 19th Century opposed the concept of an established church (as the Church of England was), and also the literal reading of the Bible. Darwin's father's opposition to Darwin joining the Beagle was nothing to do with religion, but rather a father's concern that his son settle down to a worthwhile profession. As for a definition of "Freethinker" I have tightened the link on the page to the relevant section in the article on Freethought, to assist you. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification for 'Darwin presented compelling evidence that evolution has been mainly by natural selection'.

Overlong opinion-piece that will not help to improve the article. See WP:SOAP, not to mention WP:TLDR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current verification cited for the article's controversial POV opening claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence that natural selection is the main selector of evolution is as follows: "As Darwinian scholar Joseph Carroll of the University of Missouri–St. Louis puts it in his introduction to a modern reprint of Darwin's work: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." Carroll, Joseph, ed (2003). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview. p. 15. ISBN 1551113376." But this quotation clearly fails to verify the claim made, as in effect already admitted by its contributor Old Moonraker and also by Cubathy, as follows: "Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence. I'm in agreement with Agathman that the current references do more than enough to support the usage of the word.Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)" Morover nobody has challenged the Logicus analysis and proposal of 25 April above that this claim should therefore be flagged as having a failed verification. This analysis is reproduced here below. I therefore now flag the claim as having a failed verification. This means that either a verifying source must be found, that is, a reliable source that claims Darwin did present compelling evidence somewhere for the theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, or else the claim must be deleted as an unaccepted POV and Wiki Original Research. Please do not remove the 'failed verification' flag unless to replace it with a properly verifying source and quotation, or else to delete the claim. For whatever it is worth, my opinion is that no verifying source will be found for this claim because the contemporary scholarly consensus seems to be that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theory that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, which is why the theory was not accepted in his lifetime. Even Darwin's great champion Huxley rejected Darwin's theory that natural selection has been the main selector. The article previously cited van Wyhe's 2008 Darwin book as a verifying source of this claim, but notably that citation has now been withdrawn. This may well be because van Wyhe's opinion is part of an academic consensus that Darwin did not present any such evidence as the article claims. Thus the Wikipedia claim that Darwin did present some compelling evidence for his theory of evolution mainly by natural selection therefore currently seems to be an idiosyncratic POV that constitutes Original Research. Logicus's 25 April analysis and proposal of failed verification flagging: "The article’s first sentence claims Darwin “realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.[1]”. But the quotation from the source given does not verify this controversial highly misleading claim, as follows: "The Origin of Species has special claims on our attention. It is one of the two or three most significant works of all time—one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world....It is argued with a singularly rigorous consistency but it is also eloquent, imaginatively evocative, and rhetorically compelling." This statement does not mention any evidence whatever that Darwin presented for anything, neither compelling nor otherwise. So this is a failed verification. And indeed even the editor who provided it effectively modestly admitted as much, as follows: “Tentatively added a reference. Doesn't completely satisfy the concerns expressed above, so please take it away if it's not thought useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) and as Cubathy correctly pointed out: “I don't think this reference is useful here because 'compelling' is referringto Darwin's rhetoric rather than the body of evidence…..Cubathy (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) “ In the first instance what needs to be provided on Wiki rules is a reliable source that claims Darwin somewhere presented evidence for the theory stated, and also that it was compelling. So I agree with your claim that “we have to produce a reliable source that shows that [all or most ] others [in the scientific community] found the evidence compelling.” But it seems nobody to date has found any such source. (For whatever my views may be worth, I conjecture the reason why is that no serious contemporary scholar would make this bold claim given it is now so widely accepted that Darwin’s theory that natural selections has been the main selector of evolution was not generally accepted until the mid 20th century. For if they did claim Darwin presented compelling evidence for it, they would then land themselves with the problem, inter alia, of explaining why it did not compell everybody in the scientific community to accept the theory. In fact I believe the scholarly consensus to be that Darwin did not provide any compelling evidence for that theory, neither in The Origin nor elsewhere. And moreover as Jenkin pointed out, the theory was anyway ruled out by the then widely accepted theory of blending inheritance.) So the current situation seems to be that the claim in question should be tagged for failed verification. And so I propose it should be in the absence of any valid reason why not." Logicus 25 April --Logicus (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I am struggling to grasp what the problem is here. I agree that the reference in question is more concerned with the compelling nature of Darwin's rhetoric than with the compelling nature of his evidence. But in that case why not just delete the reference? Or is your real problem simply the word "compelling"? Would you be happier if that word was deleted, leaving a statement that Darwin presented evidence? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) There is no issue here. The current sources throughout the paragraph, including the marked quote do more than the enough to justify the word 'compelling'. Whether this word is used directly in the sources is fairly irrelevant - from the lengthy discussion above (which I recommend nobody wastes their time reading) it is clearly the consensus of editors here that this sentence is a good reflection of the source material.Cubathy (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, on reflection you are right. I think the objection above is based on paying more attention to the precise word used than to the meaning. It is true that the quote given only uses the word "compelling" in respect of the rehtoric, but "one of those works that fundamentally and permanently alter our vision of the world" is more than adequate justification for the phrase "compelling evidence". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Logicus to SNALWIBMA: You wrote "I am struggling to grasp what the problem is here. I agree that the reference in question is more concerned with the compelling nature of Darwin's rhetoric than with the compelling nature of his evidence. But in that case why not just delete the reference? Or is your real problem simply the word "compelling"? Would you be happier if that word was deleted, leaving a statement that Darwin presented evidence? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)" Thank you for drawing my attention here to the insufficiency of my exposition in this new section in respect of its omission of the alternative opening sentence for the article I have proposed in previous discussions in response to the failed verification of the current opening sentence's claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence that evolution has been mainly but not exclusively by natural selection. It was as follows: ‘[Darwin] was an English naturalist[I] who claimed that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors mainly by natural selection.’ Hence it is not merely a case of deleting the reference as you suggest or also deleting the word 'compelling', but rather one that requires replacing the mistaken unsupported POV sentence the reference fails to justify with a NPOV sentence such as I have proposed and repeated here. Note that rather than going so far in the opposite direction as stating the truth of the matter that the contemporary scholarly consensus seems to be that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theory that natural selection has been the main evolutionary selector, the sentence I propose just eliminates the idiosyncratic heterodox POV claim that Darwin did present such evidence without also pointing out that he never did so. For your possible edification on this issue, the actual truth of the matter is of course that Darwin failed to provide any evidence whatever, compelling or otherwise, that natural selection has been the main selector of evolution, or indeed even compelling evidence of evolution itself, that is, that the origin of all species has been by descent through many gradual modifications from some preceding species, whether by natural selection or otherwise. For obviously our intractable ignorance of all the innumerable evolutionary modifications and all innumerable species since life began makes it impossible to decide Darwin's quantitative theories of evolution and of natural selection: for example, how can we possibly determine whether natural selection has been the most frequently occurring selector of all the innumerably many unknown evolutionary selections since life began, especially given Darwin's own Lamarckian theory that use/disuse has also been an important selector, and in some cases, such as eyeless cave animals [e.g. see p119 Origin], the sole selector without any natural selection ? To proclaim Darwin's theory was/is evidentially justified would be akin to the folly of proclaiming some candidate has won a majority of votes cast when we don't know all the votes cast. Clearly the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection cannot be evidentially decided. The plain truth of the matter is that Darwin's theories of the evolution of species by gradual modifications of descent and of evolution by natural selection are both quantitatively evidentially undecidable. And Darwin himself acknowledged this serious and even intractable evidential problem in such as the following passage in Origin: "Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory; and I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modifications." [p394. My emboldening.] So far from claiming to present compelling evidence for descent with gradual modifications, rather Origin is only at most an apologia, a plea that there is no compelling evidence against that theory sufficient to reject it by virtue of our ignorance of the possible evidence. Darwin's central argument for accepting his theories is not that he presents compelling evidence for them, but rather only that their serious counterevidence is not sufficiently compelling to reject them, and that he is personally convinced of them. In other words, believe in them just because I do, for I have no compelling evidence ! [More Darwin quotations to follow] --Logicus (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC) All very interesting, I'm sure - but could you try to express the essence of the problem in 50-100 words at most? Remember - we are trying to write a succinct encyclopaedia article here, not a PhD thesis on Darwin, or on logic. Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC) More significantly, this looks like blatant original research in an attempt to giving undue weight to the minority view that evolution isn't valid – against the requirement of Making necessary assumptions. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC) If nothing else (and trust me that there is a lot "else" incorrect with your theories, presentation and logic, but as said before there are many reasons why this is not the place for debates on these matters), your notion that Darwin himself stating that there are obviously gaps in our knowledge of the Geological Record negates the complete theory of evolution as presented to him or even (in the smaller and more pertinent sense) invalidates the phrase "compelling evidence" is flat out incorrect. For starters, "compelling evidence" does not mean "inarguable evidence". In fact, that's one of many reasons that it is called the "Theory of Evolution" and not the "Solid Rules and History of Evolution". What you don't seem to get, and what you seem to specifically ignore from comments, is that regardless of all of your claims to POV and even "controversial POV" is specifically the results of your own minority-formed POV, and as I have to state from your (massive and overly verbose) monologues an incorrect knowledge of both "scientific theory" and even "evidence". Not that I terribly expect you to impartially process any of our responses, seeing as you have essentially rehashed the same statements roughly a dozen times here regardless of various counterpoints based on history, scientific method, peer review, or even the lesser matters of Wikipedia policies. Regardless of that, you now have several more responses here, and I truly do hope that you will take them into consideration before your next response. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC) LOGICUS CONTINUES: I shall respond to these three mistaken comments, in addition to those two outstanding comments of the three mistaken comments of SNALWIBMA and Cubathy of 27 April asap. Meanwhile I continue with and complete the quotations I was previously providing, before I was so rudely interrupted ☺, for the argument that the contemporary scholarly consensus, reflecting even Darwin's own view, is that Darwin did not present any compelling evidence for his theories of evolution and of natural selection. I now provide some verifying quotations from the well respected Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But would more illiterate editors please note that none of this is in any way opposing the theories of evolution or natural selection or claiming they are mistaken or not accepted. It is rather purely concerned with correcting the Wikipedia mistaken presentation of Darwin's proposed theoretical innovations as also evidentially grounded and proven by evidence presented by Darwin. This is a profound empiricist misunderstanding of his theoretically innovative contribution and more generally of the nature and patterns of scientific development and method. And it is an unsupported POV. [Continuation] So far from claiming to present compelling evidence for descent with gradual modifications, rather Origin is only at most an apologia, a plea that there is no compelling evidence against that theory sufficient to reject it by virtue of our ignorance of the possible evidence. Darwin's central argument for accepting his theories is not that he presents compelling evidence for them, but rather only that their serious counterevidence is not sufficiently compelling to reject them, and that he is personally convinced of them. In other words, believe in them just because I do, for I have no compelling evidence ! Consequently Darwin himself acknowledged any evidence he might appeal to could not compell scientists of an opposite factually based viewpoint as follows: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the forms of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation,", "unity of design," &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt on the immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed." [p408 Origin My emboldening.] But Darwin's last claim is surely or hopefully quite wrong. For it is not conscientious declarations of personal conviction that persuade scientists, but rather crucial evidence. And Darwin had none, neither that all species have originated from gradual modification of descent, nor that natural selection had been the main selector of such evolution. Consequently Darwin was admirably honest about the evidential inadequacy of The Origin and its failure to evidentially justify his theoretical conclusions in that work: " I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. " [p2 1950 My emphases.] Consequently in its page 5 final paragraph Darwin's Intro notably fell back on relying just on Darwin's proclamations of his own personal convictions of the truth of the various theories of evolution and speciation he presents there, rather than on any compelling evidence he presented for them therein. This was because of ignorance of the relevant facts of contemporary beings and also the absence of the required historical evidence of past beings he fully admitted as follows: "No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all beings which live around us. ...Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history." The non-evidential nature of Darwin's arguments for his key theories of evolution and of its natural selection is fully recognised by the well respected Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 'Evolution' article @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/ in its following extracts: "For reasons related both to the condensed and summary form of public presentation, and also to the bold conceptual sweep of the theory, the primary argument of the Origin could not gain its force from the data presented by the book itself. Instead, it presented an argument from consilience in Whewell's sense, gaining its force from the ability of Darwin's theory to draw together a wide variety of issues in taxonomy, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, and embryology under the simple principles worked out in the first four chapters. ...The theory rested its case on its claim to be able to unify numerous fields of inquiry and on its potential theoretical fertility. " "The broad sweep of Darwin's claims, the brevity of the empirical evidence actually supplied in the text, and the implications of his theory for several more general philosophical and theological issues, immediately opened up a controversy over Darwinian evolution that has waxed and waned over the past 149 years." Thus inevitably insofar as scientific theory change requires crucial new evidence, Darwin's main theories were not accepted by the scientific community, as the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia attests: "Historical studies have revealed that only rarely did members of the scientific elites accept and develop Darwin's theories exactly as they were presented in his texts. Statistical studies on the reception by the scientific community in England in the first decade after the publication of the Origin have shown a complicated picture, in which there was neither a wide-spread conversion of the scientific community to Darwin's views, nor a clear generational stratification between younger converts and older resisters, counter to Darwin's own predictions (Hull et al., 1978). These studies also reveal a distinct willingness within the scientific community to separate acceptance of the broader claims of species descent with modification from common ancestors from the explanation of this descent through the action of natural selection. To utilize the categories of a Lakatosian “research program” analysis of scientific theories in their historical extension, one can distinguish between a “hard core” of central assumptions, a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses that protect this central core from refutations, and a “positive heuristic” of applied research applications that are subject to continued revision and even refutation (Lakatos 1974 in Lakatos and Musgrave, 1974). [All these Lakatos & Musgrave datings should instead be to the 1970 Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge] Employing these distinctions, it is difficult to claim that anything more than the belief in descent from common ancestry was maintained by a broadly international scientific community at the “hard core” level in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. The “eclipse” of natural selection theory, if not of the theory of common descent with transformation, in the period between 1870–1930 (Bowler 1983; idem., 2004 in Lustig et al., 2004) meant that the historical impact of Darwin was based on deviations from his actual formulations of his theory." [My emboldening] In conclusion from this testimony, Darwin's arguments for his theory were clearly not evidence- based and this is so widely recognised by contemporary scholarship that it seems likely that the reason for repeated failed verification of the current POV Wikipedia claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for his theories of evolution and natural selection, and why no reliable source can be found making this claim, is simply that no reliable scholar makes it. The claim thus stands as unsourced unverified Original Research. It is apparently not even a minority viewpoint, but rather a viewpoint that no reliable scholars hold, although it seems a very very few idiosyncratic Wikipedia editors do. Consequently I submit at least the 'failed verification' tag must be restored, prior to the unjustifiable claim being removed. --Logicus (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Glutton, Gourmet And/or Vegetarian

There is no mention of young Darwin's involvement in the Glutton/Gourmet Club at Cambridge - which led Darwin to sampling the gustatory delights of a range of endangered and rare animals.

There are also many internet rumours that darwin was (later?) a vegetarian. is anyone able to confirm or deny this?--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A brief episode in 1830 when pals dined in each other's rooms on "birds and beasts which were before unknown to human palate" and tried hawk and bittern, but gave up after eating an old brown owl. Given the interest, have added this to Charles Darwin's education, 3rd year. Highly improbable that he was ever vegetarian, the water cure spas tried for Charles Darwin's illness put him on strict diets, as I recall this meant a little toast and mutton. He was told to cut back on milk puddings, ‘At no time must I take any sugar, butter, spices, tea, bacon, or anything good’ but was not good at sticking to such restrictions.[17] . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There was also the incident on the pampas of Argentina where he was dining with gauchos on rhea, only to recognise as the meal progressed that it was a "new" species, Darwin's Rhea. He had to grab a few bones from the fire, most of the carcase having been consumed. Certainly a case of consuming a rare species, but not intentionally. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)