ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 02, 2016

Was Charles Darwin a science fraud?

A buster of supermyths claims that Darwin was, in fact, a plagiarist:
Sutton has himself embarked on another journey to the depths, this one far more treacherous than the ones he’s made before. The stakes were low when he was hunting something trivial, the supermyth of Popeye’s spinach; now Sutton has been digging in more sacred ground: the legacy of the great scientific hero and champion of the skeptics, Charles Darwin. In 2014, after spending a year working 18-hour days, seven days a week, Sutton published his most extensive work to date, a 600-page broadside on a cherished story of discovery. He called it “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.”

Sutton’s allegations are explosive. He claims to have found irrefutable proof that neither Darwin nor Alfred Russel Wallace deserves the credit for the theory of natural selection, but rather that they stole the idea — consciously or not — from a wealthy Scotsman and forest-management expert named Patrick Matthew. “I think both Darwin and Wallace were at the very least sloppy,” he told me. Elsewhere he’s been somewhat less diplomatic: “In my opinion Charles Darwin committed the greatest known science fraud in history by plagiarizing Matthew’s” hypothesis, he told the Telegraph. “Let’s face the painful facts,” Sutton also wrote. “Darwin was a liar. Plain and simple.”

Some context: The Patrick Matthew story isn’t new. Matthew produced a volume in the early 1830s, “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture,” that indeed contained an outline of the famous theory in a slim appendix. In a contemporary review, the noted naturalist John Loudon seemed ill-prepared to accept the forward-thinking theory. He called it a “puzzling” account of the “origin of species and varieties” that may or may not be original. In 1860, several months after publication of “On the Origin of Species,” Matthew would surface to complain that Darwin — now quite famous for what was described as a discovery born of “20 years’ investigation and reflection” — had stolen his ideas.

Darwin, in reply, conceded that “Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection.” But then he added, “I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views.”

That statement, suggesting that Matthew’s theory was ignored — and hinting that its importance may not even have been quite understood by Matthew himself — has gone unchallenged, Sutton says. It has, in fact, become a supermyth, cited to explain that even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper genius.

Sutton thinks that story has it wrong, that natural selection wasn’t an idea in need of a “great man” to propagate it. After all his months of research, Sutton says he found clear evidence that Matthew’s work did not go unread. No fewer than seven naturalists cited the book, including three in what Sutton calls Darwin’s “inner circle.” He also claims to have discovered particular turns of phrase — “Matthewisms” — that recur suspiciously in Darwin’s writing.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Sutton is correct. Although non-writers don't have much confidence in it, to the expert, or even the experienced amateur, literary style is very nearly as distinguishable as a fingerprint. This is particularly true in cases where the two works are supposed to be entirely unrelated.

Labels:

110 Comments:

Blogger The Kurgan May 02, 2016 11:34 AM  

Even more damning for evolution is this:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/wistar-institute-evolution/

Anonymous mature craig May 02, 2016 11:46 AM  

Good youtube channel on these subjects is CMI creation station.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 02, 2016 11:47 AM  

It is why Scalzi couldn't mimic H. Beam Piper for even one book or Heinlein for more than one. He is a copyist out of necessity, not a talented forger.

Darwin's stuff has always been a problem without the forgery. His colleagues were particularly concerned about the innatention and sloppy consideration of species convergence in his Origin. The descent of Man is worse.

Now that it appears to be cribbed ftom a Scottish park ranger, not an anatomist, it actually makes more sense.

Anonymous Leonidas May 02, 2016 11:48 AM  

Although non-writers don't have much confidence in it, to the expert, or even the experienced amateur, literary style is very nearly as distinguishable as a fingerprint.

I can't find the article now, but I recall reading somewhere that if you copy a given amount of text from nearly any author and paste it into Google, you'll almost never find another author who's written exactly the same thing unless it's plagiarized. I can't recall the exact length of text, but I want to say it was in the vicinity of three sentences.

Anecdotally, I can easily say that my own experience matches with this. If I can remember the specific phrasing of even a small piece of an article, I can almost always find the original very quickly on Google. But if my memory of the phrasing is off by even a little, it can be an almost impossible task to find it again.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 02, 2016 12:06 PM  

It has, in fact, become a supermyth, cited to explain that even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper genius.
---

Goa'uld Tell

Blogger Quadko May 02, 2016 12:06 PM  

Stigler's law of Eponymy: No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer.

I knew natural selection had been previously published, but plagiarism by Darwin! Cool. Even from their own assumptions, theories of scientific dating and evolution are due for a huge paradigm shake-up, maybe this will help it come sooner. It's really just the belief systems and commitments of fundamentalist atheists holding the current structure together.

Anonymous fop May 02, 2016 12:08 PM  

That completes the 3P trifecta.

Plodder. Puppy beater. Plagiarist.

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 12:09 PM  

Darwin's stuff has always been a problem without the forgery. His colleagues were particularly concerned about the innatention and sloppy consideration of species convergence in his Origin. The descent of Man is worse.

Can you point me to a link on this?

Of course, the question of whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the state of things is separate from the question of whether or not Darwin plagiarized or failed to acknowledge others who suggested the idea earlier.

OpenID frankluke.com May 02, 2016 12:13 PM  

And the difference in styles is even more jarring working with translations. When I was studying the Septuagint, from the way different pieces of grammar were handled, it was at times painfully obvious when a different translator was at work. For example, the Septuagint's Genesis 1-11 consistently translates the waw-consecutive with kai. However, beginning in Genesis 12, the waw-consecutive is translated half the time with kai and half the time with de.

The translator of Numbers was so word-for-word that I wound up describing the work as "Greek vocabulary forced onto Hebrew syntax." Because of this, where the Septuagint of Numbers differs from the Hebrew, one can postulate that the translator of Numbers was working from a different Hebrew text than what was preserved as the Masoretic text.

Anonymous Faceless May 02, 2016 12:14 PM  

I remember being taught this in intro to historical methods in college.

It is not a scientific method for testing the credibility of a historical artifact.

It is a rigorous, quantifiable, repeatable, and self-correcting process for comparing inter- and intra-textual information to determine truth or falsehood.

How else would we know Bill Ayers wrote Barack Obama's book? The credible testimony of Mr. Ayers to that very same fact?

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier May 02, 2016 12:15 PM  

Having written a whole but unpublished book, I definitely noticed habits and words that I would gravitate to. Many of them were unfortunately poor choices, both stylistically and grammatically. Even after I noticed that and tried to consciously avoid them, I would still find those forms and words in new writing.

That was actually part of how Cahill figured out that Obama had "Dreams of My Father" ghostwritten by Ayers. That analysis is actually interesting to read if you can still find it.

Blogger RobertT May 02, 2016 12:18 PM  

Will my faith in science & scientists ever be restored?

Blogger RobertT May 02, 2016 12:18 PM  

Will my faith in science & scientists ever be restored?

Anonymous Faceless May 02, 2016 12:18 PM  

The Other Robot wrote:Darwin's stuff has always been a problem without the forgery. His colleagues were particularly concerned about the innatention and sloppy consideration of species convergence in his Origin. The descent of Man is worse.

Can you point me to a link on this?

Of course, the question of whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the state of things is separate from the question of whether or not Darwin plagiarized or failed to acknowledge others who suggested the idea earlier.


It would just be funny given how insufferably unpleasant the average Evoluation-as-ultimate-explanation-of-all-science biologist is and how disrespectful and derogatory they were and are of ideas that preceded Darwin.

Why, I remember the ridicule heaped upon cartoon drawings of giraffes, saying, "This is what Lamarck believed! He was a GRADE A MORON! Everyone knows that only genes transfer traits to the next generation! Darwin proved it!"

Combining that new research last year about there being environmentally-stressed proteins and other things that get passed to the offspring outside the DNA, I can now look back fondly to count at least three errors in that Bio 101 professor's rant.

Blogger Cloudswrest May 02, 2016 12:31 PM  

These retroactive claims of plagiarism seem pretty common. It reminds me of patent lawsuits. These ideas are almost always out there in the "cloud" before somebody writes a concise comprehensive thesis on the subject. For example, with Relativity, Poincare, Hilbert, Lorentz had all derived most of the formulas. Poincare thought it was too bizarre and rejected it. He then died young from a prostate operation and could not pursue the subject. Even Newton was not in a vacuum. There was Leibniz, the Bernoulli brothers, and others had already figured out the gravitational cause of Keplerian orbits. But Newton was the first to PUBLISH the definitive thesis. And summarize everything concisely. Is Vox a plagiarist for writing a definitive thesis on Cuckservatives? He didn't invent the term.

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 12:33 PM  

Why, I remember the ridicule heaped upon cartoon drawings of giraffes, saying, "This is what Lamarck believed! He was a GRADE A MORON! Everyone knows that only genes transfer traits to the next generation! Darwin proved it!"

Are you paraphrasing? Darwin did not know about genes and could only, AFAIK, suggest blending inheritance.

Combining that new research last year about there being environmentally-stressed proteins and other things that get passed to the offspring outside the DNA,

The problem with all these things that people jump on is that they fail to suggest a mechanism for how these 'environmentally-stressed' proteins transfer that information to the genes in the already produced ova.

Perhaps they believe that only males pass on these 'environmentally-stressed' proteins.

Let's see if you understand.

Personally, I think that what Vox is saying is that the possibility that Darwin plagiarized (or failed to acknowledge) is another flaw in the deification of scientists, especially in the biological sciences.

Blogger YIH May 02, 2016 12:34 PM  

Darwin a fraud? Quite possibly, but I doubt it will matter unfortunately. But just like MLK's ''I have a dream'' speech, the 6 million, and global warming not only are these ''facts'' considered unassailable, it's considered ''hate'', heretical, and there is a movement to criminalize even the questioning of these ''long established facts''.
I mentioned elsewhere that even the term ''species'' isn't well defined. Is your dog a wolf? Or even a coyote? Who knows? ''Science'' sure doesn't.

Blogger Elocutioner May 02, 2016 12:40 PM  

@9 Faceless - you meant Jack Cashill. You can find a few vids of it. Saw one years ago. Seemed far more believable than non-writer Obama cranking out a professionally written memoir in a few months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkyD1_VChI0

Anonymous rubberducky May 02, 2016 12:45 PM  

Matthews? Try Lucretius. He explained natural selection 2000 years before Darwin. Also, atoms. His description of Brownian motion is to this day considered the best non-mathematical treatment of it.

Blogger VD May 02, 2016 12:47 PM  

Is Vox a plagiarist for writing a definitive thesis on Cuckservatives? He didn't invent the term.

No, but John Red Eagle totally is.

Blogger CM May 02, 2016 12:50 PM  

Are you paraphrasing? Darwin did not know about genes and could only, AFAIK, suggest blending inheritance.

Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin. Depending on availability of Mendel's work, its possible Darwin could have known something about the mechanism.

I don't know enough about timelines to say definitevly, but Mendel d. 1884 a Darwin in 1882.

Anonymous rubberducky May 02, 2016 12:52 PM  

Oh, and on the physics stuff Lucretius doesn't get credit for anything because he didn't produce an equation.

Fine. Now, show me Charles Darwin's equations. Go on.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 02, 2016 12:55 PM  

Search engines make moderns grossly overestimate the likelihood of running across relevant information by chance in the 19th century.

For that matter, evolution had been a hypothesis since the day of Erasmus Darwin; what wasn't concisely stated was the theory of natural selection.  It was definitely "in the cloud".

Last, I'd like the dismissive ones here to tell me if the predictions of General Relativity would suddenly be wrong if someone else had plagiarized Einstein.

Anonymous Cyclone Bob May 02, 2016 12:59 PM  

No, but John Red Eagle totally is.

Indian givers.

Blogger Achilles May 02, 2016 1:00 PM  

Although non-writers don't have much confidence in it, to the expert, or even the experienced amateur, literary style is very nearly as distinguishable as a fingerprint. This is particularly true in cases where the two works are supposed to be entirely unrelated.

Why do I think that comment has little to do with Darwin?

Anonymous WinstonWebb May 02, 2016 1:01 PM  

Darwin's Origin of the Species

"Fake but accurate"?

Anonymous rubberducky May 02, 2016 1:03 PM  

Mr. Rational, if Darwin concisely stated natural selection where is his equation? How is his statement of it either better or more concise than Lucretius?

Blogger Badmojo May 02, 2016 1:03 PM  


"Although non-writers don't have much confidence in it, to the expert, or even the experienced amateur, literary style is very nearly as distinguishable as a fingerprint. This is particularly true in cases where the two works are supposed to be entirely unrelated."

Key point there. And why its hard to be truly anonymous on the internet. Technical layers are irrelevant if you still sound like you.

Blogger tz May 02, 2016 1:05 PM  

@20 Darwin postulated "gemmules" which transmitted genetic information but that information would be modified by environmental conditions, e.g. colder and dryer. Then we discovered DNA and thought it static. Then we found epigenetics (javascript, not just HTML), and more.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 02, 2016 1:06 PM  

Why hasn’t Hugo Award Nominated Author Dr. Chuck Tingle not written anything about this yet? “Darwin Slammed In The Butt By A Galapagos Turtle-Velociraptor Cross-Mutation” or something.

Ok, I admit that I just wanted to post Hugo Award Nominated Author Chuck Tingle again.

Just wondering what would happen to SJW’s heads if enough people used that term that it showed up in a Google search?

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 1:08 PM  

@20: According to Wikipedia (yes, I know it is suspect in many areas) Mendel published his results in 1866, most likely in German, but:

The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the independent rediscovery of these laws.[5] Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and William Jasper Spillman independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings, ushering in the modern age of genetics.[6]

I do find it amusing that, contra much mythology, the father of modern genetics was a Augustinian friar.

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 1:13 PM  

@28: So, tell me, how does epigentics work?

Please provide a mechanism for how the 'environmental stresses' are able to track down the correct genes to modify in the germ line during the lifetime of the organisms so affected by those 'environmental stresses'.

Hand-waving about gene imprinting is not enough.

Blogger Cloudswrest May 02, 2016 1:18 PM  

For an interesting essay on "1984" style history rewrite regarding Lamarck and Darwin, read James Donald's essay on jims blog linked below. The party line on Lamarck and Darwin seems to have changed abruptly around 1972. http://blog.jim.com/science/a-tell-revealing-central-authority-over-the-official-line/

Anonymous Roundtine May 02, 2016 1:23 PM  

@3 Leonidas
I recall reading somewhere that if you copy a given amount of text from nearly any author and paste it into Google, you'll almost never find another author who's written exactly the same thing unless it's plagiarized. I can't recall the exact length of text, but I want to say it was in the vicinity of three sentences.

I find it's often the case that several words is enough. Even in economics reporting, where the subject matter is exactly the same and there's only so many ways to say it, a few words is usually enough to distinguish an article.

Anonymous BGKB May 02, 2016 1:29 PM  

One of the great advantages the US had was it was a land full of white people that all spoke the same language. If were an expert on something in the UK, and the only other peer expert was in Austria you wouldn't be able to collaborate or assess the others ideas as easily as an Vermont/Florida pair.

Blogger Phunctor May 02, 2016 1:31 PM  

Stipulating arguendo all of Sutton's points, would Darwin's misbehavior weigh against the usefulness of "his" theory? Or would that be an instance of the Genetic Fallacy?

Blogger Krul May 02, 2016 1:42 PM  

Eh, who cares?

Sure, it's amusing to think that this Revolutionary World Changing Paradigm Shifting etc etc theory was first published as a tangential note in the appendix of some quaint paper “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture”, in a "Hey, didja know Darwin ripped off a tree trimmer?" kind of way, but it's not really significant.

Blogger Matthew and the Heaving Bosoms of Liberty May 02, 2016 1:43 PM  

Phunctor wrote:Stipulating arguendo all of Sutton's points, would Darwin's misbehavior weigh against the usefulness of "his" theory? Or would that be an instance of the Genetic Fallacy?

Don't be dull.

Anonymous Instasetting May 02, 2016 1:47 PM  

The Neo Darwinian Syntheses came about in the 20's or 30's when Darwinists were forced to accept Mendel's science. So yeah, Darwinism has held back science.

And as to plagiarism...
1. Saint Darwin, bad philosopher, second-rate experimenter, handwaver (he told the paleontologists of the day that they would find supportive evidence despite not doing so already...they were his biggest enemies.), and now plagiarist.
2. Of course this does not disprove Darwinism. Thats already been accomplished. No, this just makes it easier to rhetorically attack
Evos.

The cloud is real. I've had personal experience with it. One wonders if there is some low level psi connection across Humanity.

Blogger Ingot9455 May 02, 2016 1:52 PM  

As they say, "Many people discovered America. After Christopher Columbus, it stayed discovered."

Anonymous Stephen J. May 02, 2016 2:11 PM  

Digression question: What is a "supermyth"? This is the first time I have come across the term.

Blogger Krul May 02, 2016 2:24 PM  

Stephen J. wrote:Digression question: What is a "supermyth"? This is the first time I have come across the term.

From the link: "This wasn’t just any sort of myth, he decided, but something he would term a “supermyth”: A story concocted by respected scholars and then credulously disseminated in order to promote skeptical thinking and “to help us overcome our tendency towards credulous bias.” "

Blogger Krul May 02, 2016 2:26 PM  

The old story about how all Europeans before Columbus thought the world is flat would qualify as a supermyth.

Blogger LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G. May 02, 2016 2:30 PM  

Gen X doesn't buy Darwin just like we recoil with HILLBERNELIZWarrenChelHUma, its just deception and half assed, what did our host use, sceintody, theories in time through eras simply do not hold true.

It's like Vox's, The Irrational Atheist as Vox explains the truth behind these jokerboomers, which is not actually on topic but still: http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens-ebook/dp/B0041D8428?ie=UTF8&keywords=irrational%20atheist%20vox%20day&qid=1461414306&ref_=nav_ya_signin&sr=8-1

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 2:31 PM  

@38: I think it's called TCP/IP.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 02, 2016 2:47 PM  

Krul wrote:The old story about how all Europeans before Columbus thought the world is flat would qualify as a supermyth.

and...

Amerika has a two party system wherein voters have an actual choice.
Diversity is our strength.
Global warming is caused by people.
Patriarchy is bad.
Matriarchy is good.
Dirt is magic.

Anonymous Richardthughes May 02, 2016 2:47 PM  

It wouldn't make him wrong, though. (He was wrong about certain things, but evolution is true)

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 2:53 PM  

It's entirely sensible to be skeptical of anyone (whether scientist or clergyman) who claims to offer us truth without evidence, but finding fault with Darwin's character -- even assuming the allegations against him are true
-- does nothing to damage the theory of evolution or to help the theory of Biblical creation.

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 02, 2016 2:57 PM  

Cloudswrest wrote:These retroactive claims of plagiarism seem pretty common. It reminds me of patent lawsuits. These ideas are almost always out there in the "cloud" before somebody writes a concise comprehensive thesis on the subject. ... Is Vox a plagiarist for writing a definitive thesis on Cuckservatives? He didn't invent the term.

This is my first instinct too, but it doesn't square with Matthews' accusation.

Blogger Arthur Isaac May 02, 2016 3:05 PM  

Isn't it obvious that Darwin was Bernankified? Evolution is for the butthexor lollllz!

Blogger Noah B May 02, 2016 3:08 PM  

Evolution is merely a concept, hypothesis, or idea. It doesn't even rise to the level of being a theory.

Anonymous Richardthughes May 02, 2016 3:11 PM  

Does it have testable entailments?

Blogger Noah B May 02, 2016 3:17 PM  

No, it doesn't.

Anonymous A Visitor May 02, 2016 3:28 PM  

When I was in grad school, the lady that correct our papers said she once looked at a student's paper and could tell immediately they had not written it. She was dead on right.

My literary style, even though it follows the correct norms, even bleeds over into Spanish. Just ask any of my friends or my clients.

Blogger Krul May 02, 2016 3:36 PM  

Blackburn #0040 wrote:and...

Amerika has a two party system wherein voters have an actual choice.

Diversity is our strength.

Global warming is caused by people.

Patriarchy is bad.

Matriarchy is good.

Dirt is magic.


Those aren't "supermyths" because they aren't promulgated specifically to promote skeptical thinking.

Anonymous fop May 02, 2016 3:43 PM  

Does it have testable entailments?

Epic goalpost move, bro!

Blogger Noah B May 02, 2016 3:51 PM  

"When I was in grad school, the lady that correct our papers said she once looked at a student's paper and could tell immediately they had not written it. She was dead on right."

This is a frequent occurrence for many, possibly most, language arts teachers/professors. One lady I know who taught intro composition used to have a few of these every month, on average, per ~30 students. It's a dead giveaway when someone struggling to form complete sentences one day turns in beautiful prose the next. And these students are typically unable or unwilling to make the slight modifications necessary to hide the fact that they've copied and pasted an entire essay.

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 4:01 PM  

Noah B wrote: "Evolution is merely a concept, hypothesis, or idea. It doesn't even rise to the level of being a theory."

As opposed to the idea that God created the world in six days several thousand years ago? Just curious to see how far your scientific rigor really goes.

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 4:10 PM  

Given that we now know that it takes quite a long period of reproductive isolation (several million years) for speciation to occur, it now seems likely that natural selection is not the mechanism.

Natural selection will change allele frequencies, however.

Blogger Austin Ballast May 02, 2016 4:15 PM  

@57 The Other Robot,

I didn't know someone ran those tests. Do you have any references to that? Amazing that we can completely know something that was never directly observed.

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 4:16 PM  

@57: although, in the case of Muntjacs, it seems to be shorter.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 02, 2016 4:16 PM  

@8
The text from which the Septuagint translators were working cetainly couldn't have been what was preserved in the Masoretic text as the text wasn't settled until about Ad 900-1000. As you know, there are significant differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.

@19
Coauthors can be handy from time to time.

@47
Which theory of evolution is true? There are two forms, and Darwin didn't deal with the true form.

Blogger The Other Robot May 02, 2016 4:19 PM  

@58: Heh. I guess that cosmology (and indeed, large parts of Astronomy) are in the same class.

Well done, sir.

Anonymous FP May 02, 2016 4:30 PM  

Off topic but in the realm of fiction... political fan fiction we have Hugh Hewitt on part 6 of "Brokering a convention":

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/brokering-a-convention-part-vi/article/2590070

Wherein SC gov Nikki Haley is offered by Mittens and Ryan as a compromise candidate that everyone can get behind.

Blogger Arthur Isaac May 02, 2016 4:44 PM  

Isn't it obvious that Darwin was Bernankified? Evolution is for the butthexor lollllz!

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 02, 2016 4:52 PM  

Krul wrote:Blackburn #0040 wrote:and...

Amerika has a two party system wherein voters have an actual choice.

Diversity is our strength.

Global warming is caused by people.

Patriarchy is bad.

Matriarchy is good.

Dirt is magic.


Those aren't "supermyths" because they aren't promulgated specifically to promote skeptical thinking.


Thanks for the correction. Sometimes I forget I am not (yet) quite tall enough for this ride.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 02, 2016 5:00 PM  

As Bertrand Russel pointed out, Darwinism is Whig economics entered into the biological realm. Natural selection is simply Adam Smith's Invisible hand moved to biology.

Blogger Ahazuerus May 02, 2016 5:22 PM  

The problem with Darwin's followers as skeptics is none of are any more.

Question neiDarwinian dogma and you're promptly denounced as a heretic and excommunicated.

Look what was done to Stephen J Gould, a true believer who got a bit too honest with the fossil record for his own good.

Anonymous JAG May 02, 2016 5:50 PM  

The only way to truly test Darwinian propaganda is the fossil record. Evolution has utterly failed in that regard to the point that the only thing keeping it going is the leftist agenda.

@61 - yes cosmology and large parts of astronomy are in the same class. The leftist agenda in what used to be actual science has been busy inventing pixie dust and unicorns like Dark Matter and Dark Energy rather than admit the evidence is piling up against Relativity (including the Pioneer Anomaly as well as the much more successful theory of Quantum Mechanics showing Relativity cannot be correct on the smallest and most extreme physical scales).

Some scientists who have not completely sold their souls are beginning to admit that String Theory and the Multiverse theory have been a colossal waste of time and money.

Anonymous Stickwick May 02, 2016 5:56 PM  

Cloudswrest: For example, with Relativity, Poincare, Hilbert, Lorentz had all derived most of the formulas.

Einstein acknowledged, and many physicists were well aware, that special relativity was “ripe for the picking.” Poincare and Lorentz had done some appreciable work on it, and if Einstein hadn’t formalized it and trimmed the extraneous bits, it was only a matter of time before someone else did. (Poor old George FitzGerald, who should also be credited with its mathematical development, rarely gets credited for his contribution.)

General relativity is another thing altogether, and is unquestionably largely the work of Einstein, who deserves the credit for it. Hilbert had not already derived the math, but later amended his work to agree with Einstein, who he acknowledges was the first to correctly derive the field equations.

Your general point that priority disputes arise in science all the time and that no one works in a vacuum is valid. However, it doesn’t detract from the main point of the article, which is that, if the claim is true, Darwin should not necessarily be regarded as one of the great heroes of modern science. For me, the test is whether a scientist builds on the work of others or merely copies it. The legendary priority dispute between Newton and Hooke (aka the Ted Cobbler of 17th century physics) over gravitation is a good example of the former. While Hooke had indeed come up with a plausible notion of gravitation, there is no question Newton was the one who developed the idea and worked out the mathematics for it. So, the question is, did Darwin similarly build appreciably on the work of Matthew or just copy it? And in any case, why didn’t he cite Matthew’s work if it had indeed influenced his own work?

Anonymous Stickwick May 02, 2016 6:02 PM  

JAG: The leftist agenda in what used to be actual science has been busy inventing pixie dust and unicorns like Dark Matter and Dark Energy rather than admit the evidence is piling up against Relativity (including the Pioneer Anomaly as well as the much more successful theory of Quantum Mechanics showing Relativity cannot be correct on the smallest and most extreme physical scales).

This is balderdash. I have worked in the field for 20 years, and this simply is not true. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of dark matter and dark energy on a scientific basis, but to say that they are political inventions is just retarded.

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 6:20 PM  

Joe Keenan wrote: "As Bertrand Russel pointed out, Darwinism is Whig economics entered into the biological realm."

Not really, because evolution doesn't imply any kind of natural progress from lower to higher. A potent enough virus, for example, could wipe out a "higher" or more intelligent species. What Whiggism ultimately does derive from is the idea that the world is heading from its current state of sin and ignorance towards a post-apocalyptic one of holiness and perfect wisdom, and I think it's fair to say that the latter idea existed long before Darwin.

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 6:28 PM  

"Question neiDarwinian dogma and you're promptly denounced as a heretic and excommunicated."

Dear me! Good thing there aren't any Christian denominations which behave that way.

Look: human beings are very zealous in forming tribal in-groups, reinforcing the solidarity of those in-groups by enforcing shared beliefs and customs, and casting out (and often also viciously castigating) those who don't conform to those beliefs and/or customs for whatever reason. The fact that Christians as well as scientists often fall short of their professed ideals is no surprise to any student of human nature, but neither does it inherently represent a disproof of the beliefs of the group in question.

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 6:37 PM  

JAG wrote: "The only way to truly test Darwinian propaganda is the fossil record. Evolution has utterly failed in that regard to the point that the only thing keeping it going is the leftist agenda."

Two points here: 1) those who point to real or alleged "gaps" in the evolutionary model are almost always advocating an alternative worldview for which they themselves have no proof whatsoever other than faith; 2) the charge of "leftism" here is totally anachronistic, especially when it comes to impugning the work of a 19th-century English scientist connected to the minor aristocracy who advocated no politically revolutionary ideas.

Anonymous Eduardo May 02, 2016 6:39 PM  

Alasdair

I think what WOULD be a huge blow is to have Darwin as a robber of ideas, like I heard once that Galileo actually stole the telescope from a visit to Holland. The problem here is not even the man's work but rather the man himself.

Imagine how bad Darwin Day would look to the moral betters...

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 6:41 PM  

Ahazuerus wrote: "Look what was done to Stephen J Gould, a true believer who got a bit too honest with the fossil record for his own good."

Gould knowingly falsified his data on skull measurement in order to preserve the illusion of intellectual equality between the races. Why are we supposed to accept him as an honest authority on anything?

Anonymous JB May 02, 2016 6:50 PM  

"even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper genius."

Change that to: "even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper marketing and promotion."

Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 6:53 PM  

Eduardo wrote: "I think what WOULD be a huge blow is to have Darwin as a robber of ideas"

Enemies of Christianity also imagine that they can deal a death blow to religion by pointing out that this or that religious figure was a pedophile or a hypocrite or an embezzler or whatever else. The fact is that, unfortunately, character assassination is almost the only way in which people in our debased age try to attack beliefs they don't like, and it goes both ways: non-Christians attack Christians over child-molesting priests or corrupt televangelists, whereas Christians search frantically for gaps in the personal lives of Darwin or Dawkins. Why not focus on the competing ideas and discuss those instead, for a change?

Blogger Phillip George May 02, 2016 6:58 PM  

unicorns, See: unicorns
http://www.timesofisrael.com/humans-and-unicorns-may-have-walked-earth-together/
Elasmotherium sibiricum

What's still in some degree of doubt is Pixie dust. What will constitute evidence for pixies?

If pixies are, for example, hyperdimensional vertically challenged, transentities who can't quite decide to use the demon or angel change rooms and have invented dark energy powered portals into arts students back yards, what will be the evidence for them? I for one will accept sufficient anecdotal evidence if affidavits are attached.

The plural of anecdote is data.

the quest of pixie dust goes on. And the point, in all honesty is, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That should be tattooed to the inside of every 'scientists' forehead so they can still get media time and not look like they're wearing Hawaiian big boob girl shirt like Matt Taylor.

So the real stakes, as Spinal Tap, co-authored, what's the difference between sexy and sexist?

and acclimatization, adaptation and speciation are not macromorphic, entropy lowering, information adding evolution. There's much more evidence for pixies than there is for that.

Anonymous MendoScot May 02, 2016 7:11 PM  

@65. Joe Keenan
As Bertrand Russel pointed out, Darwinism is Whig economics entered into the biological realm. Natural selection is simply Adam Smith's Invisible hand moved to biology.

It was Darwin's Russian contemporaries who pointed this out. In essence, “a theory developed by an island mentality analyzing an island ecology; all is competition for limited resources”.

Blogger SirHamster May 02, 2016 7:12 PM  

How fitting that Darwinism is named after a fraud.

Blogger Joe Keenan May 02, 2016 7:14 PM  

@70 Errr....no. Neither does laissez faire economics. Both Wallace and Darwin had their aha moment after reading an economics book by Malthus.
See: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

Anonymous Eduardo the Magnificent May 02, 2016 7:24 PM  

John Taylor Gatto theorized that Darwin was ripping off John Calvin, Spinoza and Malthus, seeing as how Darwin was originally trained to be an Anglican minister and certainly knew Calvin very well. Descent of Man is nothing more than an attempt to scientifically justify Calvin's Elect vs. the Damned and lock 95% of society into their chains.

https://ttfuture.org/academy/john-taylor-gatto/john-taylor-gatto

Blogger Joe Keenan May 02, 2016 7:50 PM  

@81 Very good points! Laissez faire capitalism is very congruent with Calvinism as success in this world was/is seen as a foreshadowing/acknowledgement of election, of going to Heaven. Under Calvinism Wealth = Salvation, Poverty = Damnation. Darwinism is of the same book, just a different page.

Anonymous MendoScot May 02, 2016 8:16 PM  

To clarify; I'm pointing out that the critique not only predated Russell, it was expressed by the Russian Academy of Science in direct response to Darwin. Their argument was that he had no knowledge of steppe ecology and thus his theory had only limited application.
Obviously, they had more than scientific reasons for doing so. Especially at the height of the British Empire.

Anonymous Malwyn's apprentice May 02, 2016 8:33 PM  

Evolution can't explain the platypus, which is a mashup of how many different animals/genomes?

Not only do these furry animals actually lay eggs like a bird, the young feed on breast milk like a mammal and make venom like a snake. Although the platypus has been an evolutionary conundrum, the structure of the platypus genome has now been deciphered. In comparing the platypus genome with genomes of the human, mouse, dog, opossum, and chicken, researchers found that the platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with these animals.

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/06/the-platypus-terrorizes-evolution/

Blogger dienw May 02, 2016 8:54 PM  

77. Phillip George

The plural of anecdote is data.

Original meaning:
1670-80; < New Latin anecdota or French anecdotes < Late Greek, Greek anékdota things unpublished
The current definition has destroyed original meaning. The original meaning does not denigrate personal knowledge; the second meaning does so with an imperious wave of the hand: it is an easy way to deny validity of another person's knowledge and experience; it is also a way of disregarding the knowledge and research of those researchers who have been denied opportunity to publish. It is a form of credentialism.






Anonymous alltandubh May 02, 2016 8:54 PM  

"Evolution can't explain the platypus"

Can anyone against the theory of evolution explain how a talking snake proffering a cursed fruit was able to cause a formerly perfect universe to develop sin, death, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, cancers, hypothermia, hyperthermia, and the Ebola virus? If not, it seems a little presumptuous to fault a competing theory on the basis of what it (supposedly) can't explain.

Anonymous Instasetting May 02, 2016 9:12 PM  

#86 Easy. Magic and the will of personal beings of great power.

You misunderstand what a miracle is. Its not science, and we don't claim it is. Now we may be able to produce evidence of its happening, but even so, we can't reproduce the Fall of Man.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 02, 2016 9:31 PM  

rubberducky wrote:Mr. Rational, if Darwin concisely stated natural selection where is his equation?
The insight comes before the quantification.

I don't have time to dig this up again, but Greg Cochoran at the West Hunter blog frequently posts quantitative calculations of selection coefficients.

Blogger Phunctor May 02, 2016 9:35 PM  

"Don't be dull." How cute, he's AMOGing!

I referred to the usefulness of Darwin's theory; in refutation Matthew claimed it was disproven. So that would be an observation that falsifies the theory. What is that observation, Matthew?

There are at least two fossil records; the rocks, and DNA cladistics.

Should you favor the heresy that the Devil can create, you should congratulate him on his thoroughness and attention to detail; the two records agree. That sucker is really determined to lead us away from the inerrant Truth of the much-translated traditions of a pre-technical people, filtered through their perceptions and linguistics. Diabolical!

Of course, if he can't create anything then these parallel records were necessarily created by God. "The Lord is subtle, but He is not malicious", (((someone))) said. I'm inclined to believe the evidence.

Blogger SirHamster May 02, 2016 10:08 PM  

alltandubh wrote:"Evolution can't explain the platypus"

Can anyone against the theory of evolution explain how a talking snake proffering a cursed fruit was able to cause a formerly perfect universe to develop sin, death, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, cancers, hypothermia, hyperthermia, and the Ebola virus? If not, it seems a little presumptuous to fault a competing theory on the basis of what it (supposedly) can't explain.


A. It is claimed that a talking snake caused sin to exist in the universe.
B. A is unbelievable
C. Therefore evolution is the best explanation of the platypus.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 02, 2016 10:27 PM  

The Other Robot wrote:Given that we now know that it takes quite a long period of reproductive isolation (several million years) for speciation to occur, it now seems likely that natural selection is not the mechanism.
Speciation has been observed in the laboratory which obviously has to have occurred in mere years, e.g. Drosophila paulistorum (there are many examples).

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 02, 2016 10:35 PM  

Ahazuerus wrote:Look what was done to Stephen J Gould, a true believer who got a bit too honest with the fossil record for his own good.
What Alasdair said.  SJG was a fraud in the tradition of Franz Boas, and for the same reason.  His anti-evidentiary attacks on the work of Morton (whose work has since been confirmed by re-measurement of the same skulls) were in the service of radical egalitarianism and race denial.  As we know, these are ideological warfare tactics of the (((tribe))).

Anonymous Eric the Red May 03, 2016 12:50 AM  

@93 Mr.Rational...
The linked examples raise some questions:
Morphology, different mating rituals, and sterile offspring are not the same as absolute genetic inability to conceive offspring. Also, have all of these results been independently reproduced? If not, how can they be claimed as proof? I also note how the author of the link is hedging his bets with the use of words like "unlikely", "might be possible", and "evidence that" instead of "proof that".

As presented, these so-called best four examples are no better than confirmation bias. Of course, you will probably have more to say on the issue...

Blogger Dire Badger May 03, 2016 12:52 AM  

If I write a book about a trip to the moon, after having read possibly hundreds of books on the subject, does that make a plagiarist or someone writing on the same subject?


'Ideas' have no value by themselves. I could give a fuck if some backwoods aristotle claims to have 'thunk it first'.

It's not plagiarism unless it's a duplicate.

Anonymous Eduardo May 03, 2016 1:05 AM  

No let me explain how it goes

You think of a theory to explain why Scalzi dress as a woman, I read your theory and sell it as mine.

I am doing plagiarism.

Blogger Ahazuerus May 03, 2016 1:06 AM  

Hey Alasdair

If you're going to reply to me, how about addressing what I actually wrote, instead of the demons in your head?

Blogger Ahazuerus May 03, 2016 1:12 AM  

Mr Rational

You and Alasdair are now talking about a different controversy altogether. Gould was honest in that he openly conceded the fossil record doesn't show the gradualism demanded/predicted by the theory. It doesn't even allow it.

Hence his borrowing of the term punctuated equilibrium to "explain" why the evidence did not match the theory but the theory was still true.

I never said he was honest as some kind of absolute, so stop chasing that invention.

Blogger LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G. May 03, 2016 1:21 AM  

46 Hi, say we forgot to add even though patriarchy was mentioned, feminism is also a failed, dying worldview that does not work anywhere.

Darwin did not want to admit and repent his sins and built an entire religion of science to explain away eugenics or whatever - Its not like I know STEMS (g)(h), Darwin always had dys-ulterior motives.

Anonymous Eduardo May 03, 2016 2:27 AM  

Wait a minute Mr Eduardo the magnificent... There WAY TOO MANY EDUARDO'S HERE!!!!!!!

That is name plagiarism u_____u

___________

Alasdair

No, I did not expressed myself well. I am saying their point is to attack Darwin. That was the objective of the research. Another thing I am talking about socially valuable things, not Darwin's work.

I am not claiming that evolution is wrong because Darwin sucks, ad hominem is a logical blunder. I was just telling you that Darwin being a robber of ideas would crack the secular myth of ideal scientist or the perfect scientist meme. See, a lot of these people cling to science in a rather irrational or overreacting way, so Darwin is made awesome just because of what he represents to them: the man who saved people's brains from creationism.

So a hit to the icon using their on method to gather knowledge would be totally destructive to them!

Did I made myself clear this time around?

Blogger Phillip George May 03, 2016 3:40 AM  

Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory. It's history so is hypothetical. As Karl Popper drilled into actual scientists, there's nothing to falsify so it is a religion for quasi grown-ups who have rejected actual resurrection accounts ie.
\
the life from non living materials eye witness accounts of first century writers is suppressed in preferment

of the non demonstrations of life from biotic soup non theorists.

Non theorists because isn't being done.

If this were a joke it might be funny. Evolution and pixie dust deserve the same page.

Blogger Phillip George May 03, 2016 3:49 AM  

a cursed fruit
the fruit wasn't cursed.

Let me bore you even further. As a scientist, man of knowledge no less, how would God demonstrate death? By breaking something and that thing totally rotting. Perfect decay. Heat death. Entropy to the max. The dead remaining dead.

Now how might He demonstrate His ability to "abiogenesis" make life. By taking the dead thing, any dead thing and making it live.

In this way the resurrection was merely a second witness of what He did with dust in the Garden [location unknown] of Eden.

Today's pantry will tomorrow be walking and talking. Someone here might appreciate that.

Blogger Ahazuerus May 03, 2016 4:50 AM  

Phillip George

One of the things I love about my wife is that we share the same "fridge-as-science-experiment" approach to food storage.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 03, 2016 8:07 AM  

"48. Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 2:53 PM
It's entirely sensible to be skeptical of anyone (whether scientist or clergyman) who claims to offer us truth without evidence, but finding fault with Darwin's character -- even assuming the allegations against him are true
-- does nothing to damage the theory of evolution or to help the theory of Biblical creation.


58. Anonymous Alasdair May 02, 2016 4:01 PM
Noah B wrote: "Evolution is merely a concept, hypothesis, or idea. It doesn't even rise to the level of being a theory."

As opposed to the idea that God created the world in six days several thousand years ago? Just curious to see how far your scientific rigor really goes.
"



You keep on swinging for the fences. You'll hit the ball someday. Really.
As Stuart Smalley says, "I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!"

Blogger Ilíon May 03, 2016 8:28 AM  

CM @21 "Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin. Depending on availability of Mendel's work, its possible Darwin could have known something about the mechanism."

I have read that a summary of Mendel's work was included in a book (*) found in Darwin's library. As I recall, the page *across* from the page on Mendel's work showed much evidence of having been perused, whereas Mendel's page appeared to have been ignored.

The truth is, Mendel's ideas were poisonous to Darwinism -- just as epigenetics is today -- and so Darwin ignored Mendel's work. When Mendel's work was "rediscovered" in 1900, it was the common belief at the time that genetics had put paid to Darwinism. It took the Darwinists another 30+ years to figure out a way to subsume genetics into evolutionism.

(*) a book published specifically to present summaries of recent/current scientific work so as to make it familiar to a wider audience.

Anonymous Richardthughes May 03, 2016 12:04 PM  

You don't adaption to environmental changes or extinction are entailments?

Blogger Joe Keenan May 03, 2016 5:46 PM  

@ 85 - Understood.

Blogger gnonanon May 07, 2016 5:21 PM  

So an idea about replication was replicated. I turns out that Charles Darwin's genetics were also a fraud, being copied.

OpenID crimereduction July 05, 2016 10:58 AM  

Many thanks for covering this story on the discovery of new data in the history of discovery of natural selection.

Please note that some of my orignal findings - explained within the context of the notion of "knowledge contamination", and how the discovery that routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of Wallace and Darwin do in fact exist (NOTE: the routes now are 100% proven to exist - not necessarily that information travelled along them ) can be read here:
http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts