Talk:Charles Darwin

compelling evidence

See Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 7#compelling evidence.

To Gerard von Hebel Is that your conception of an open discussion? I looks exactly like the dogmatic mantras of creationist! The mecanism proposed by the author in my footnote is auto-organisation and is based on the chaos-theory, auto organisation is also proposed by Dyson and fox and others supporters of the protein first cell first theory and concerning natural selection you seems to choose to ignore science history all the same, and I agree with the last intervenant proposition to modify the wording.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds irrelevant, I disagree with your proposal. . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been an highly controversial subject during the first half of this century. The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transpecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species. A well-informed minority, however, including such outstanding authorities as the geneticist Goldschmidt, the paleontologist Schindewolf, and the zoologists Jeannnel, Cuenot, and Cannon, maintened until the 1950's that neither evolution within species nor geographic speciation could explain the phenomena of "macroevolution", or as it is better called , transpecific evolution. These authors contended that the origin of new "types" and of new organs could not be explained by the facts of genetics and systematics."Mayrs, E (1970) Does it sound so irrelevant now? If Darwin had provided so compelling evidences even on the "macroevolution" level would have such a debate endured until 1950 (and it does still indure between evolutionist).So I propose the wording : "Darwin did provide compelling evidences that species weren't fixed but were evolving from common ancestors, and give natural selection as explanation of this phenomenon" wich is the all truth about it. --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the current wording "presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors," and my understanding is that none of these authors were disputing that evolution occurred through common descent. The second part of the sentence "through the process he called natural selection" is about something that was debated until at least the 1930s, and could perhaps be better phrased. As a possibility, "and explained this by the process he called natural selection" is reasonably concise. Darwin made no comment on Mendelian genetics. . dave souza, talk 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It remains that Darwin evidences were only compelling in relation with microevolution thus it is not accurate to says "all species", because "extrapolation and magnification" are not evidences, in particular today that it is experimentaly proved that eucaryotes evolved from bacteria through endosybiosis (Lynn Margulis) and not through a darwinian process of minute modifications and natural selection, and that macroevolution seems to be much more saltorial than Darwin imagined (Gould). --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the world of biological science before and after Darwin shows that it is reasonable to say "compelling evidence". The phrase does not mean that Darwin got every detail correct, or that he convinced everybody, then or now. Johnuniq (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is not if the evidences were compelling or not, but on what, if you say that he brought "compelling evidence" on the phenomenon evolution he was observing I would totally agree with you, however the actual wording implies much more and is not justified, not historicaly and not scientificaly, it's only the ideological stance of the new synthesis(nowadays is obsolete)and doesn't even make justice for Darwin real contribution. Furthermore if you do place yourself in a historical perspective (vs ideological)it would have been correct to mention for whom and when was it compelling.(for Dave)"Darwin made no comment on Mendelian genetics", for a very good reason Mendel's work was only published in 1866, eventhough his research began before "the origin's of species" publication, Darwin was believing in "pangenesis" a Lamarkian-like theory (transmission of acquirered characteristics).--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As stated by Bowler, by the mid 1870s the scientific consensus was that evolution occurred and common descent was accepted, the debate was over the mechanism. That was resolved by the MES, when natural selection was agreed to be the basic mechanism of evolution. That's stated in the lead. My intention is to add some more about this in a reassessment of the biography section. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Dave but this is not to the point, we are not discussing the actual state of the theory, but the extent of Darwin contribution, for exemple if we refer to the fossil record, it was already pinpointed by Lamark as proof of evolution, but in relation to Darwin's own theory, it would have been a "compelling evidence " only if numerous intermediates would have been found, wich is not actually the case, at the point that neodarwinians are now under-estimating the importance of paleonthology (my source is neither creationist nor even ID oriented). The actual consensus concerning macro-evolution is based on evidences wich were not available to Darwin, like comparative sequencial analysis of genome, wich don't give more credit to the darwinian and neodarwinian paradigm than to an other thesis(like Goldschmidt's f.e.), and the cytoplasmic genes (Margulis) wich is clearly not Darwinian, so why does the redactor of this article affirm that Darwin brought evidences that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor, when others and not Darwin did it, if not to cling to the legend created by Huxley.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you studied the subject? Darwin based his arguments on a range of evidence, but played down the fossil record as too fragmentary to reconstruct a history of life. That morphologists went where Darwin cautioned against treading was one cause of the eclipse of Darwinism. Later evidence supported Darwin's theorising, but obviously didn't contibute to the shift in thinking in the 1860s. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be partialy right on this point, though Darwin himself was hoping for more fossil finds to prove his point, but let me bring some citations from recent research in the field of the so called "homeobox" :

"Another aspect of the model I am suggesting is that it demonstrate how a mutation involving the expression of homeobox genes can produce a morphological, physiological, or bchavioural novelty that would emerge in a full-blown and viable state. [ ... ] Given the potential of homeobox genes to be fully rather than partially expressed, we can appreciate why "missing links" are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist. The lack of transitional evolutionary stages between adult invertebrates and chordates [ ... ] is a case in point." (Schwartz, 1999: 369, m.c.)
"We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology [ ... ] through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages." (Adoutte et. Al, 2000: 4455, m.c.)
"Aangetoond werd dat er een verschil is tussen micro-evolutie (puntmutaties in structurele genen binnen één soort) en macro-evolutie (speciatie ten gevolge van mutaties in regulatieve genen)." Nathalie Gontier De oorsprong en evolutie van leven p322, traduction "It is demonstrated that there is a difference between micro-evolution (punctual mutation in structural genes inside a sort) and macro-evolution (speciation caused by mutation in regulatory genes)"
If micro and macro evolution are two different phenomenons, then the evidences of Darwin are only relevant in regard to the first and there no possible extrapolation to the second so the wording has to be changed.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very much like a WP:FRINGE view, and offtopic for this article which is based on relevant biographies. See microevolution and macroevolution. . dave souza, talk 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary resumption of 'No compelling evidence'

Logicus to von Hebel: You invalidly deleted my justified flagging of the first sentence as having failed verifications in the quotations provided for the claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for the two theses mentioned.

And on the substantive issue of whether Darwin did present any such evidence, you have claimed:

“Evolution as put forward by Darwin is in my understanding an inductive empirical theory. Darwin did give empirical evidence for the proposition that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection. Although it must be admitted that much (perhaps even most) of the evidence was actually found when the theory was tested in the 150 years that have passed since. [Since when ? Since the publication of Origin ?] Darwin did show that the proposition was empirically demonstrable through the inductive method..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)“

But these comments seems very confused. But at least you now seem to be claiming that at most only very little of the alleged compelling evidence for the two theses in question was presented by Darwin in the first edition of Origin. But what then do you claim was that evidence presented by Darwin in that 1859 first edition, and also what subsequent compelling evidence do you claim he presented, if any ? And if you can find any such evidence he presents, perhaps you would be so kind as provide a reference to where it may be found in his collected works on Darwin Online.

Or are you even now only claiming Darwin showed "that the proposition was empirically demonstrable through the inductive method.", but did not empirically demonstrate it himself anywhere, rather than the stronger claim that he also empirically demonstrated it, by whatever method ? But of course on 'the inductive method' itself, as such as Leibniz, Kant, Duhem, Popper, Feyerabend and Lakatos et al have conclusively demonstrated, that method is an illogical myth. And of course as the self-professed Darwinian Popper has pointed out, in particular the theory of natural selection is a non-empirical untestable (i.e. irrefutable) and thus metaphysical theory, albeit a metaphysics he personally favoured.

What evidence did Darwin present that ALL species are descended from common ancestry ? None !

And what evidence did he present that natural selection has been responsible for most of the extent of evolutionary modification ? None ! And in fact contrary to your claim that he showed his theory of natural selection was empirically demonstrable, he claimed it was not empirically demonstrable, for he even admitted it is empirically impossible to determine what proportion of any evolutionary variation has been due to natural selection, as follows:

"When a variation is of the slightest use to a being,we cannot tell how much of it to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the conditions of life." [p116 Origin (Ed1) Watts & Co 1950 My italics.]

But of course it follows immediately from this that not only he could never empirically determine whether natural selection had been responsible for the most part of any variation, his key thesis, but he could not even tell whether any part whatever of any variation was due to natural selection, but rather all of it due to other factors.

Thus he could not empirically demonstrate his proclaimed key innovatory revisionist thesis within Lamarckian evolution that not all of any evolutionary variation was explicable by the conditions of life, the primary cause of cumulative variation according to Darwin's 'Lamarckian' theory of evolution in which natural selection was only a secondary cause, if any. But nevertheless, even so he himself speculated natural selection had played no role whatever in some evolutions such as the blindness of some cave-dwellers, which he speculated were wholly explicable by habit of disuse and the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

"From the facts alluded to in the first chapter I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them, and that such modifications are inherited. Under free nature we can have no standard of comparison by which to judge of the effects of long continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent forms; but many animals have structures which can be explained by the effects of disuse." [p116-7 ibid My italics] ....

It is well known that several animals, belonging to the most different classes, which inhabit the caves of Styria and Kentucky, are blind. ...As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, though useless, could in any way be injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse. In one of the blind animals, namely the cave-rat, the eyes are of immense size...natural selection seems to have struggled with the loss of light and to have increased the size of the eyes; whereas with all the other inhabitants of the caves, disuse by itself seems to have done its work." [p119 ibid My italics]]

Small wonder Darwin apologised in the Introduction and elsewhere for the rank inadequacy of his evidence for his theory, and small wonder he could only repeatedly fall back on the evidentially empty last refuge of the opiniated arrogantly self confident middle-class Victorian gentleman who imagines his personal conviction is acceptable as a gaurantor of truth

"Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the main, but not exclusive means of modification."

Small wonder his empirically undemonstrable theory was rejected by the scientific community, who presumably required evidence rather than personal conviction, and especially when Darwin himself had not only failed to demonstrate that not all of any variation could be explained by the then accepted Lamarckian factors, and so required his innovative auxiliary factor of natural selection to explain the remainder, but had even identified variations that he claimed could be wholly explained without it, by habit and inheritance of acquired characteristics by pangenesis.

Do wake up and read Origin critically rather than hagiographically ! It is purely a work of metaphysical speculation rather than of any empirical scientific progress. So far as I am aware it made no testable empirical novel predictions whatever, unlike Newton's Principia that at least predicted some novel facts, albeit it seems they were all refuted or unconfirmed in his lifetime, during which it was therefore at best empirically degenerate science.. However, this does not mean Darwin did not make any contribution whatever to an empirical theory of evolution, for he may have articulated heuristic methods that have subsequently born fruit.

A period of silence and non-interference by you would be most appreciated while you go away and read Origin and also learn something about scientific method.

Meanwhile I once again flag the first sentence for its failed verification in the quotations given. Please do not remove this flagging unless a verifying quotation is provided.

--Logicus (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, but nobody else agrees with your assessment that the sentences: "the strongest piece of evidence for evolution ...lines of evidence that Darwin mustered in 1859" and "magnificent synthesis of evidence...a synthesis...compelling in honesty and comprehensiveness" don't amount to "realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors" in the article. This is verging upon disruptive editing, particularly when considered alongside the drawn-out and tedious discussions of May this year. Why are you bringing this up again? Editors are entitled to test whether a consensus has changed, but this was only a few weeks ago, and the discussion above should plainly indicate that it hasn't. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus, Darwin brought evidence to the table that there was a correlation between variations that arose in species and changes in their environment. That correlation strongly suggest environmental influence on what changes in organisms are selected for. The Galapagos finches are an example. Origins clearly brings evidence to the table for that. Evidence you may or may not agree with, but: a) it made his theory work b) evidence that countered the idea was not around. That may not constitute "proof" in the way you prove a mathematical proposition, but it is a compelling achievement. He achieved that in Origins. Not "proof" but evidence brought to the table that supported his position. Popper recanted his view of evolution being metaphysical btw. Your claim that induction is a myth is your POV. Induction works just fine as long as you limit yourself to the premisses that it may show you that a proposition that you came to by induction 'may be the case"' "is most likely to be the case"or even "is probably the case". In the realm of pure logic, induction has it's limits. In the real world however an inductive theory can be based on so many observations that all confirm it's premisses, that abandoning the theory causes more explanatory problems than it would solve. Those are the strongest theories we have in matters like these. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Karl you are still clinging to the same dogmatical stance that macroevolution can be infered from microevolution, even if fossil record and other evidences are contradicting this simplistic extrapolation, I am reading a very interesting work about all actual evolution's theses (exept creationism and ID)and it gives ground to Logicus critics--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a work of Nathalie Gontier De oorsprong en evolutie van leven in dutch. Citation : "Aangetoond werd dat er een verschil is tussen micro-evolutie (puntmutaties in structurele genen binnen één soort) en macro-evolutie (speciatie ten gevolge van mutaties in regulatieve genen)." Nathalie Gontier p322 Translation (mine)"It is demonstrated that there is a difference between micro-evolution (punctual mutation in structural genes inside a sort) and macro-evolution (speciation caused by mutation in regulatory genes)" To say that she does base herself on the papers of Gehring(1998)Schwartz(1999),Adoutte (2000),on the role of the so called "homeobox". One citation : "We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology [ ... ] through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages." (Adoutte et. Al, 2000: 4455, m.c.), this means that micro-evolution (the Darwinian one) caused by micromutation of structural genes can only explain variation inside a sort "The Galapagos finches are a good example", but this old paradigm doesn't explain the macro-evolution and the extapolation doesn't fit with the facts, the new can well : "Another aspect of the model I am suggesting is that it demonstrate how a mutation involving the expression of homeobox genes can produce a morphological, physiological, or behavioural novelty that would emerge in a full-blown and viable state. [ ... ] Given the potential of homeobox genes to be fully rather than partially expressed, we can appreciate why "missing links" are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist. The lack of transitional evolutionary stages between adult invertebrates and chordates [ ... ] is a case in point." (Schwartz, 1999: 369, m.c.)it answered a lot of objections found in M Denton book, that were not only justified, but also fertile. What would you say if somebody had written "that Newton brought compelling evidences on the theory of relativity"? To write that Darwin brought "compelling evidences that all species descended from a common ancestor" is the same in my opinion. To limit the contribution of Darwin to it's true limit is not lessing it, in the contrary, the false conception implicated by the incriminate wording is crippling research in both field of micro and macro evolution.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By what mechanism is microevolution limited then? There is only a quantitative difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Not a qualitative one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids

Discussion on candidacy of the article about Darwin's significant but not very well known book Fertilisation of Orchids is in progress at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1. Any comments much appreciated. dave souza, talk 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Death Anne Darwin

There seem to be several dates for the death of Anne Darwin. In this article the 22nd of April is her day of death, which was introduced a long time ago with the source "child article". In said article Anne Darwin this used to be the 22nd and was changed twice to the 23rd which is what stayed in the article. This is also correct assuming that this letter is dated correctly. Also this letter suggests it was the 23rd and here Darwin writes explicitely that she died on the 23rd:

At Malvern on the 23d inst; of Fever, Anne Elizabeth Darwin, aged ten years, eldest daughter of Charles Darwin Esq. of Down Kent.

— Letter 1416 — Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, E. A., [25 Apr 1851]

But in his autobiography, Darwin himself writes:

We have suffered only one very severe grief in the death of Annie at Malvern on April 24th, 1851, when she was just over ten years old. She was a most sweet and affectionate child, and I feel sure would have grown into a delightful woman.

— Autobiography p. 97

It really looks like Darwin got it wrong in his autobiography. But I wonder where the date of the 22nd comes from which is still here in the english wikipedia. Are there any other sources out there? Greetings --hroest 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out, the 22nd was an error, don't know where that originated. Darwin's journal shows the 23rd, as does this timeline and Desmond & Moore p. 383. Thanks for your help on this, dave souza, talk 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ok great. Maybe we should reference the date or put a note there to prevent future mistakes. Greetings --hroest 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Natural Selection never seen as the primary explanation of evolution

The introduction 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, and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory....'

This claim is partly sourced to a van Wyhe article.

But this is a failed verification, for the van Wyhe source only claims "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s.", but not that it is the primary explanation of evolution, which it is not.

Rather it is a secondary explanation of evolutionary variation, supplementary to the primary cause of Mendelian random genetic variation, upon which it then operates. This Mendelian primary cause replaced Darwin's 'Lamarckian' primary cause of adaptive variations induced by the conditions of life and the inheritance of acquired characteristics by pangenesis, which Darwin speculated were then further modified by the secondary cause of natural selection. Thus natural selection is only a secondary cause/explanation of evolutionary variation both in Darwin's modified 'Lamarckian' theory of evolution and also in the contemporary theory of evolution based on Mendelian genetics as the primary explanation of evolutionary variation. The following passage from Origin makes it particularly evident that the 'Lamarckian' Darwin thought the primary cause and sine qua non of evolutionary variation was the conditions of life and changed conditions, to which natural selection was rather only a secondary cause:

"We have reason to believe, as stated in the first chapter, that a change in the conditions of life, by specially acting on the reproductive system, causes or increases variability; and in the foregoing case the conditions of life are supposed to have undergone a change, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection by giving a better chance of profitable variations occurring; and unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing." [pp70-71 The Origin of Species Thinkers Library 1951]

I propose to replace the current phrase with ‘whilst the theory of natural selection came to be seen as an important part of the secondary causes of evolutionary variation that operates upon Mendelian random genetic variations.’ --Logicus (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While there's some merit in rethinking this on the grounds you set out, your proposed replacement is convoluted and confusing. Will review it and consider better phrasing. . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "primary" in this case means "of primary importance", not "primary in sequence" — as indicated by the fact that natural selection is described as the primary explanation, rather than as the primary mechanism (which would indeed be misleading). Regardless, if that statement is relying only on the van Wyhe source, then another source must be supplied as well, since "canonization" suggests neither that something is the primary explanation nor that it's "the basis". I think a case can be made for the current wording, once it's better-cited, on the grounds that the empirical phenomenon the theory of evolution primarily (or "basically") seeks to explain is the nonrandom distribution of traits among organisms, not the precise process by which those traits first arose. It is true that selection would be impotent without some pre-existing variation to act upon, but only in the same sense that gravity would be impotent without mass-bearing objects to act upon. I'm open to suggestions of other, stricter possible wordings however, provided that they maintain the clarity and basic informational content of the current wording. -Silence (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Silence: Thanks for your observations, but the current wording is unclear and misleading rather than clear with basic information. For what does "primary explanation" mean, and what does your proposed interpretation of it as "primary importance" mean here ? Again, it is not of primary importance as outranking genetic variation, but is only a secondary auxiliary cause of variation amongst others, such as sexual selection e.g., and of course there is the ongoing genetic drift debate, in which “Vigorous debates wage among scientists over the relative importance of genetic drift compared with natural selection” according the Wikipedia.

But was NS widely seen as 'the most important' of these secondary factors in the 1930s? When Darwin said in the Introduction to Origin that he was convinced that natural selection had been the main if not exclusive means of modification, it seems from reading the rest of Origin that what he meant by that was that although he thought it was only a secondary cause of evolutionary modification - secondary to the primary cause of environmentally caused variation - nevertheless it was responsible for a greater or even major part of the whole extent of the observed variation compared with the extent of it that the other factors were responsible for, either singly or jointly. But of course he then blatantly scuppered his theory of natural selection as nothing more than non-empirical metaphysical speculation by his own admission that it is impossible to tell whether NS or changed conditions have been responsible for most of any modification:

"When a variation is of the slightest use to a being, we cannot tell how much of it to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the conditions of life." [p116 Origin 1950 Watts & Co]

And of course one reason for this is that we do not know the original parent forms in the wild:

"From the facts alluded to in the first chapter I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them, and that such modifications are inherited. Under free nature we can have no standard of comparison by which to judge of the effects of long continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent forms; but many animals have structures which can be explained by the effects of disuse." [pp116-7 ibid]

Small wonder nobody accepted his theory of evolution, quite apart from his glaring failure to explain speciation by natural selection, rather than by pangenetic mutation and changed conditions inducing sterility, for example, as in his theory of domestic variation in which changed conditions induce sterility.

The original problem here is that Darwin produced neither theoretical reasons nor empirical evidence for the pseudo-problem he posed in the Inrtroduction that changed conditions of life and inheritance of acquired characteristics were insufficient to explain the whole extent of evolutionary variation rather than just a part of it, thus requiring a supplementary cause of natural selection to explain the remainder of its full extent. Thus he presented a non-empirical pseudo-solution to a non-empirical pseudo-problem.

But so far as Darwin's theory of NS goes, even when its now discredited 'Lamarckian' basis is replaced by Mendelian genetic variation in contemporary evolution theory, surely the intractable problem still remains of being unable to empirically determine whether genetic variation or NS has been responsible for most of the evolutionary variation ?

Hence it seems it is, or should be, a bridge too far to say NS was/is seen as the most important factor or of primary importance in explaining evolutionary modification, rather than just as at least an important factor, and hence as my provisional edit proposal has it. --Logicus (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the reason natural selection can be considered the 'primary explanation' is because it is what accounts for the nonrandom distribution of traits in organisms. The nonrandom distribution, not the existence of diversity in the first place, is what the theory of evolution was primarily intended to explain, so natural selection is "primary" within the explanatory framework, even though it couldn't have gotten the job done on its own (nor could mutation or any other process, acting alone, have). This was the purpose of my 'gravity' analogy: Gravity (or, more strictly, general relativity — and related, less well-understood factors, like the cosmological constant) could be considered the 'primary explanation' for the nonrandom distribution of matter in the universe, even though gravity would not have resulted in any such thing if matter/energy hadn't existed in the universe in the first place. In the same way, even though natural selection would have been useless without variation to act upon, that doesn't necessarily rule out natural selection as the 'primary explanation' for the macrophenomenon in question. For example, natural selection also would have happened to be useless if, say, there had been no stars in the universe, or no H2O; does that mean that neither variation nor selection is 'primary', but rather that the existence of H2O, or of stars, or even the initial physical constants of the universe, is the only 'primary' explanation we can appeal to? This is plainly absurd, and I would argue that it is a straightforward extension of your logic, if we are not careful to specify what phenomenon the theory is trying first and foremost to explain, and what phenomena it more or less takes (or took) for granted. -Silence (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"cause of variation amongst others, such as sexual selection" - Sexual selection is a type of natural selection, in modern usage. Strictly speaking, asexual selection is preferably called ecological selection, not 'natural selection'.

"Small wonder nobody accepted his theory of evolution" - "Nobody" Mm. As I suggested, I think the question for us is not "Exactly how much observed variation is selected vs. 'random'?", but rather "Was the theory of evolution primarily answering the question 'Why don't organisms just have a random distribution of traits?' or the question 'Why aren't all organisms in the world just completely identical?'" My view is that the latter issue was assumed, not addressed (just as the pre-existence of matter was assumed as needing no special explanation in early discussions of gravity), and the former question was instead originally focused upon. -Silence (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowler gives a useful summary, confirming that by the consolidation of the MES in the 1950s there was a broad consensus that natural selection is the basic mechanism of evolution, so have edited accordingly. Oh, and of course several eminent scientists accepted natural selection theory in Darwin's lifetime, not least Wallace and Weismann. . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to souza: My text here was perfectly adequate, simple and hopefully non-contentious, whereas your replacement text is prolix, multiply contentious and unclear.

First natural selection is not the basic mechanism of evolution, but only a secondary auxiliary mechanism to the basic mechanism of genetic variation. My text avoided raising this contentious issue, but yours does not. (Note here how Silence’s strenuous but degenerate efforts to establish NS is the basic mechanism of evolution redefine the explanandum of the theory of evolution to be at odds with this article’s conception of it, as well as being plain wrong and unsourced.)

Secondly, your text apparently equates ‘Darwinian selection theory’ with the theory of natural selection adopted by the modern evolutionary synthesis, but it is contentious and debateable whether the modern natural selection theory is the same as Darwin’s. Even the article’s very next sentence apparently recognizes this in its opening qualifying clause “In modified form…’

Thirdly your text raises the apparently contentious issue of what exactly ‘Darwinian selection theory’ was, and whether it means Darwin’s selection theory, which was much more than just natural selection, also including such other selectors as habit and changed conditions etc, and which has never been accepted.

Fourthly the term ‘revived’ erroneously implies Darwin’s selection theory was once alive and kicking, which it never was.

I therefore restore my uncontentious and superior simpler text, which also preserved the original van Wyhe source, and which was as follows:

“…but it was not until the 1930s that natural selection came to be widely accepted as an important factor in explaining the process of evolution.”--Logicus (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what van Wyhe says, "Natural selection's canonisation" does not mean "an important factor". In your anxiety to minimise the significance of Darwin's findings you misrepresent the source. I've restored the properly sourced statement, please discuss any proposals you have for improvement and seek consensus before reinstating your provisional wording. . dave souza, talk 10:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to souza: In your anxiety to practice Darwin hagiography rather than practice objective evolutionary history of science you have misrepresented the source given, for neither of the two pages of Bowler’s 2003 cited express the claims made here. And Bowler certainly does not claim NS is the basic mechanism of evolution there. Nor do any of the sources quoted below by the functionally illiterate Cashman do so, even Larson’s.

I propose to re-instate my provisional wording. It cited van Wyhe for dating of acceptance of NS, not for its relative importance, which is surely implied by ‘canonisation’. --Logicus (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Which bit of "Natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution" didn't you read? . dave souza, talk 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to souza: Since my copy of Bowler's 2003 Evolution contains no such sentence nor concatenation of words on its p337 nor on its p348, as cited in your footnoted reference, the logically correct answer to your question is [I never read] 'Any bit of it !'. In fact no sentence whatever on either of those two pages begins with 'Natural selection'. Thus I validly and boldly restore my original text. Do not change it again unless you first clearly establish some valid reason to do so on the Talk page that also has my explicit approval, thus securing consensus ! --Logicus (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of troll feeding and dead horse beating here are some other quotations from sources that could be used to support the current wording or even the stronger wording we started with. This is from Edward J. Larson's Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (2004) page 242:

From the shift of gene frequencies within populations through the orign of similar species to the divergence of biologic kingdoms, modern neo-Darwinian theory relies on the cumulative selection of favorable genetic variations over enumerable generations to account for life's diversity.

— Logicus , — (continues after insertion below.)LogicusThis quote clearly does not support the claim that NS is the basic mechanism of evolutionary variation.--Logicus (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Larson uses "neo-Darwinian theory" as a synonym for the modern synthesis. This is from David Quammen's The Reluctant Mr. Darwin (2006) page 231:

As Darwin himself conceded — and as Sewell Wright, Motoo Kimura, and certain other biologists have since affirmed — natural selection is not the sole mechanism of evolutionary change. But it's the primary mechanism. It is the lathe and the chisel that shape adaptations.

— Logicus , — (continues after insertion below.)LogicusThis quote certainly but mistakenly uses the word 'primary', but not the word 'basic', and does not support the claim made in view of the following muddled metaphorical sentence about lathes and chisels that presumably means NS shapes those favourable variations produced by the basic mechanism of genetic variation ? It is thus an inconclusive muddle--Logicus (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally here is Ernst Mayr from The Evolutionary Synthesis, Mayr and Provine (1998) page 1:

The term "evolutionary synthesis" was introduced by Julian Huxley in Evolution the Modern Synthesis (1942) to designate the general acceptance of two conclusions: gradual evolution can be explained in terms of small genetic changes ("mutations"), and recombination, and the ordering of this genetic variation by natural selection; and the observed evolutionary phenomena, particularly macroevolutionary processes and speciation, can be explained in manner that is consistent with the known genetic mechanisms.

— Logicus , — (continues after insertion below.)LogicusThis quote clearly does not support the claim that NS is the basic mechanism of evolutionary variation.--Logicus (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these sources, in addition to the two that Dave has provided, can be cited to support the statement that the core idea of the modern evolutionary synthesis was that the primary source of evolutionary change was natural selection acting on genetic variation. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowler and Morus Making Modern Science (2005) p. 158 has a nice turn of phrase:

The final phase of the Darwinian revolution emerged from a complex process of reconciliation by which the geneticists were brought round to the idea that selection was indeed necessary to explain the accumulation of favorable genes in a population. It turned out that Darwin had been right after all, even though a generation of biologists had turned their backs on his theory.

.dave souza, talk 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

LogicusThis quote clearly does not support the claim that NS is the basic mechanism of evolutionary variation.--Logicus (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I entered "Natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution" and Bowler into Google and immediately found it. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Logicus wrote:

"Since my copy of Bowler's 2003 Evolution contains no such sentence nor concatenation of words on its p337 nor on its p348, ... "

Well, it might help if you were to check the pages actually cited (338 & 347), rather than two that were not. Here's a verbatim extract from the latter of the two cited pages (it's the 4th sentence on the page):

"Natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution, and biologists had to work out the details of how that mechanism operated to produce the diversity of species we observe."

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Dougweller (and Wilson): Thank you so very much indeed for your very speedy apparent confirmation that Logicus was at least half right that Dave souza's two sources for the article's blatantly mistaken claim that NS is THE BASIC mechanism of evolution, namely p338 & p347 of Bowler's 2003 Evolution, are failed verifications. Logicus's untypical error in not spotting that Bowler does indeed make this egregious blunder on his p347, whereby like the usually more mistaken souza even Logicus was also at least half wrong on this occasion, is explained by the fact that in haste, and working from memory, Logicus confused pp338 & 347 for pp337 & 348. But certainly subsequent inspection of Bowler's p338 confirms that at least Bowler makes no such blunder there. So it may be that he only made this blunder just once in Evolution, namely on its p347, as you have discovered.

I am most grateful for your drawing my attention to Bowler's egregious methodological error that I had previously overlooked. I would be even more grateful if you would be so kind as to let Logicus know whether Bowler also commits this blunder anywhere else in any of his other manifold works. And in accordance with your apparent confirmation by default that Bowler does not make this blunder on p338 of Evolution, I appropriately propose to flag that p338 source as the failed verification it is, preliminary to its deletion. I hope that you would agree with the Wiki-policy justice of this on the basis of your own Google research on this issue.

On the more general issue of the current status of this article's attempts to justify its grossly mistaken claim that in the MES 'NS is THE basic mechanism of evolution', I note that the Darwin hagiography lobby spearheaded by souza has now at long last found at least just one academic who has been foolish enough to make this claim, no doubt in just a slip of the pen..But Logicus had anticipated that the intellectual disease of English Darwin hagiography contra Mendel is so intense that it could well contain such foolish hyperbole.

But the Wiki Darwin hagiography lobby having now at last found just one such source, the question now arises of whether this is just an extremely idiosyncratic POV, in an extreme minority of just one, or is rather representative of 'a broad consensus' amongst that elite social class that Wikipedia elects to privilege and source as providing reliable knowledge to humanity, namely 'university academics', from whose ubiquitous misrepresentations of the world may God preserve us ! And the evidence on my fairly extensive if radically incomplete reading of the literature on the history of evolution theory is that, in addition to being blatantly wrong, Bowler may even be in a very small minority in his wrongheaded methodological analysis of the MES that NS is THE basic mechanism of evolution in it. For as I have already pointed out, NS is neither the basic nor primary mechanism of evolutionary variation in the MES, which is rather Mendelian random genetic variation. In the multifactoral causality of evolution in the MES, which also includes factors such as geographical migration and environmental change etc., NS is only a secondary cause that acts upon the variations that are the results of the primary and basic cause of variation in genetic variation. Thus in Larson's confused metaphor for NS, his lathe and chisel would have nothing to work on without the products of the basic mechanism of evolution, namely genetic variation. And as St Darwin of Downe, he no less, observed “unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.”.

So Logicus challenges Dougweller, and indeed also the usual suspects of the Wikipedia Darwin hagiography lobby, to find anybody else who agrees with Bowler's profoundly mistaken methodological analysis, and thus disprove the charge that it is an idiosyncratic minority POV that should not be included in the article. Good hunting !

However, before you do that I recommend you Search Google on "natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution”, whereupon you should see that the first 4 references confirm Logicus’s POV that NS is not THE basic mechanism of evolution, but only one amongst others. For example, as the Wikipedia article on NS itself says, “The TWO main mechanisms that produce evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.” Thanks for indirectl;y drawing this to my attention.--Logicus (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Darwin as geologist?

Just reading a book about the Inca, and there is a mention of Darwin as a geolist, who was one of the first to theorize that mountains were 'ever-changing structures', among other things. I just skimmed through the article and don't see much of anything related to this. The reference in question is

Hires an editor (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See Charles_Darwin#Works as his geological work is mentioned. Vsmith (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a lot in the article about this geologising, but naturally enough more detail has to be given about his species work. The lead states "His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian ideas", the Journey of the Beagle section begins by noting that "as FitzRoy had intended, Darwin spent most of that time on land investigating geology and making natural history collections" and covers geology in most of its paragraphs, and publication of the geological books is discussed in the sections after that. To give geology a little more emphasis, I've made some minor changes. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 09:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

James Hillman and John Henslow

"In the year 1831 one of those marvellous old-fashioned scientific expeditions was to set forth; a schoolmaster named John Henslow suggested that one of his former pupils be appointed naturalist. The lad was then 22; he had been rather dull at school, hopeless in maths, although a keen collector of beetles from the countryside; he was hardly different from the others of his type and class: hunting and shooting, popular member of the Glutton Club aimed for the clergy. He had a 'typical family complex' as we might say today, soft in the mother and dominated by a 300-pound father. But Henslow saw something and persuaded the parties involved, including the pupil named Charles Darwin, that he make the journey." -James Hillman "Egalitarian Typologies versus the Perception of the Unique" -- noosphere 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Amusing, a bit inaccurate. Evolution of psychology? . . dave souza, talk 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what is this 'typical family Complex'? . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, different people define the term in different ways. But Hillman was a Jungian; rather than seeing the resolution of family relationships through the Oedipal complex, he would say it comes through the experience of the "night-sea journey", as embodied in myths involving the descent into Hell = immersion in the unconscious, or being swallowed by a monster or imprisoned. Equivalent to Joseph Campbell's myth of the hero. So Hillman is saying that Darwin's journey was the "solution" to his family problem, and that by immersion in "uncivilized/primitive/raw/vital" nature he performed a heroic function and was remade in a form greater than that he would have achieved if left in the bosom of his family. Nunh-huh 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes some sense in relation to Darwin's father fearing that his son would turn out an idler, and relief when Darwin returned from the voyage to acclaim that he was ready to join the scientific ranks as a geologist and naturalist. Not sure about "soft in the mother" given that he barely remembered his mother, and as "the man who walks with Henslow" he had become an outstanding student naturalist at Cambridge. . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, sometimes psychologists don't let facts stand in the way of a good generalization or pointed story. :) - Nunh-huh 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)