Alfred Russel Wallace

1 view
Skip to first unread message

UC

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 9:48:56 AM9/10/07
to
Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_earth_wager

John Wilkins

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 10:06:56 AM9/10/07
to
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_earth_wager

Several reasons. One, and he acknowledged this until the end of his
life, Darwin got priority. Second, he held a much more restricted view
of evolution than Darwin - selection was all about survival. Darwin
recognised that it was what we now clal fitness - reproductive payoffs -
that counted. Third, he moved to become a spiritualist because he
couldn't account for human intelligence purely by the action of
selection, which was all that he thought was active in evolution.
Finally, his social position as the son of a worker meant that he had
less access to scientific reputation than Darwin did.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

r norman

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 12:03:43 PM9/10/07
to
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:06:56 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

>UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_earth_wager
>
>Several reasons. One, and he acknowledged this until the end of his
>life, Darwin got priority. Second, he held a much more restricted view
>of evolution than Darwin - selection was all about survival. Darwin
>recognised that it was what we now clal fitness - reproductive payoffs -
>that counted. Third, he moved to become a spiritualist because he
>couldn't account for human intelligence purely by the action of
>selection, which was all that he thought was active in evolution.
>Finally, his social position as the son of a worker meant that he had
>less access to scientific reputation than Darwin did.

Darwin also advanced rather an enormous mass of evidence, besides
publishing additional enormous masses of material on many other
biological topics. Darwin was by far the more prestigious scientist
in general.

spintronic

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 1:32:34 PM9/10/07
to
On 10 Sep, 14:48, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?


Funny I thought Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) should take
some blame.

Aphids do spontaneously form from the morning
dew you know!


Geoff

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 1:57:50 PM9/10/07
to

You don't have to make up ridiculous bullshit to make yourself look stupid.


richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 2:56:27 PM9/10/07
to

Yes, science investigates, corrects it's mistakes and builds coherent
theories from what it discovers.

As this example demonstrates, there is no dogma in science.

RF

John Wilkins

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 6:41:44 PM9/10/07
to
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Spontaneous generation isn't evolution. It is more like a "natural part
of the lifecycle" of a species in Aristotle's eyes. Similarly, the
Barnacle goose in the middle ages regularly forms from rotting wood
because that is the generative power of that species.

The first evolutionary view is that of Pierre Maupertuis in 1743. Prior
to that the question fo species mutability is not an issue.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 11:33:04 PM9/10/07
to
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:32:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:

Y'know, from nearly anyone else I'd assume that was a joke.
From you, however...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

spintronic

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:19:13 AM9/11/07
to

I didn't make up the "ridiculous bullshit" of spontanious generation
of life!

Lots of idiots have from "Aristotle" to "Darwin".

Its funny how the size of the organism gets smaller with every new
theory!

Where are we up to now? "Clay" & "Metabolism First".

They are the people, you listen to!

Your ears must really smell of "Bullshit".

spintronic

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:20:52 AM9/11/07
to
On 11 Sep, 04:33, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:32:34 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
> <spintro...@hotmail.com>:

>
> >On 10 Sep, 14:48, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?
>
> >Funny I thought Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) should take
> >some blame.
>
> >Aphids do spontaneously form from the morning
> >dew you know!
>
> Y'know, from nearly anyone else I'd assume that was a joke.
> From you, however...
> --

It is a joke, you just dont understand why!

Geoff

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 1:15:36 PM9/11/07
to
spintronic wrote:
> On 10 Sep, 18:57, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> On 10 Sep, 14:48, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?
>>
>>> Funny I thought Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) should take
>>> some blame.
>>
>>> Aphids do spontaneously form from the morning
>>> dew you know!
>>
>> You don't have to make up ridiculous bullshit to make yourself look
>> stupid.
>
> I didn't make up the "ridiculous bullshit" of spontanious generation
> of life!

I meant the inference that it has anything to do with evolution or science
in general.


Desertphile

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:34:19 PM9/11/07
to
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:48:56 -0000, UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?


Because evolution was discovered over two thousand years before
Wallace was born.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Bob Casanova

unread,
Sep 11, 2007, 9:50:48 PM9/11/07
to
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:20:52 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:

I think you're trying to do damage control; it's obviously
where you got your "handle". You really believe what you
posted, but you're trying to cover up.

Don't worry; your secret is safe with me. Just refrain from
tapping your feet in public.

John Wilkins

unread,
Sep 12, 2007, 2:12:01 AM9/12/07
to
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:48:56 -0000, UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?
>
>
> Because evolution was discovered over two thousand years before
> Wallace was born.

That is false. Nobody proposed evolution before Maupertuis in the 18th
century. Prior to that, the mutability or otherwise of species was not
even a question on the board.

If you mean natural selection was discovered two thousand years earlier,
that might - just - be a supportable thesis.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages