- This topic is empty.
- Posts
It appears that many thought Charles Darwin was an intellectual leech who took others ideas and called them his own. Is this true of Darwin? Did he plagiarise the work of others? Even if he did, are his conclusions sound or just a belief? The following quotes perhaps says it all.
Quote Blyth recognised that Darwin had been feeding from him, as from so many others, like some intellectual leech – Andrew Bradbury. Quote “Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion” – Francis Hitching
Or is it a case of sour grapes because he got the credit instead of them.The following is taken from these web sites, which have citations if you care to look them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.htmlOne forgotten chapter in history, neglected by most of Darwin's biographers, concerns a gentleman by the name of Edward Blyth. Blyth was a chemist in South London, a year younger than Darwin, but unlike Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth had not been born into wealth. His father died when he was ten, leaving his widowed mother to raise four children. She managed to send her eldest son, Edward, to school where he excelled in chemistry and natural history, spending his every spare moment at the British Museum.
Edward Blyth wrote three articles on variation, discussing the effects of artificial selection and describing the process in nature (later called natural selection) as restoring organisms in the wild to their archetype (rather than forming new species). However, he never actually used the term “natural selection”. These articles were published in The Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837. There can be no doubt of Darwin's regard for Edward Blyth: in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species he wrote “Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, …”
Darwin's own copy of Magazine of Natural History in 1837 showed that he made use of Blyth's paper of that year, the same year when he first claimed to have come up with the idea of natural selection on his own, wherein Blyth had written essentially the same basic doctrine that Darwin took credit for. Eiseley wrote, “At that moment, probably in 1837, the Origin was born.”
Francis Hitching, an evolutionist, wrote: “Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion” i.e. the denial of the miraculous and of special creation. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all.
William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813 (as had many others, however it was Blyth's writing that Darwin clearly was impressed by during his voyage, and it was Blyth who saw natural selection in a creationist context) but Darwin claimed that he was unfamiliar with Well's writings at the time of the original publication of The Origin of Species.
Later on, after being brought to task by certain individuals for taking credit for an idea that was not his own, Darwin gave Wells credit for the idea; however Wells originated nothing novel either: as noted, the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time.
Janet Browne wrote of Darwin: “There was a sliver of ice inside enabling him to make the most of all the advantages he possessed and the circumstances in which he found himself.” (Janet Browne is a noted historian. According to one critic of this chapter she must have loathed Darwin, or is it only creationists that loathe him when they speak critically of him? Alfred Russel Wallace was a colleague of Darwin's who, prior to Darwin's presentation of his paper before a group of scientists shortly before the publication of the Origin, had written a nearly identical paper on evolution, at least in substance. After Darwin read Wallace's paper he hurriedly published his own and read his paper first. Years later, Wallace refused to go to Darwin's funeral.
Samuel Butler was a contemporary of Darwin and was the grandson of Darwin's old headmaster at Shrewsbury. He had been a former admirer of him until he read the work of earlier evolutionists like Lamarck and Buffon, then he launched an attack on Darwin's early claim to having originated his theories on his own, first in a book titled Evolution Old and New published in May of 1879, then in a letter to the Athenaeum on the 31st of January, 1880. Later he renewed the attack in another book titled Unconcious Memory, in which he documented Darwin's “borrowing” much of his work from others. (There are legitimate axes to grind, and Butler definitely had one. Blyth was relatively unknown, died in obscurity and poverty, and his theories were from an entirely different outlook, creationism, not evolution, thus Butler had no ax to grind with Blyth).
World famous geneticist and anthropologist C.D. Darlington, an evolutionist (I have put his credentials here because his qualifications definitely carry weight, and should counter the tired evolutionist argument that no serious scientists question Darwin), although he doesn't come right out and say it, still comes about as close as one could get to accusing Darwin of plagiarism without actually spelling it out. He said that Darwin “was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue” (Did Darlington, a noted evolutionist, have “an ax to grind” with Darwin? Apparently so, and a legitimate one.)
Yes I did think that it might be offensive to Stu's prophet. However, these forums are about testing all things.
Who is Charles Darwin that there seems to be so much discussion surrounding him?
Are we call him a new God?
Ask him two question from his grave:
1: Why?, For what purpose do we and all of creation exist?;2 – Where does the 'spirit' of life come from?
To discuss Darwin by True Christians is to dwell on Earthly, Fleshly matters rather than Heavenly, Spiritual matters.
Studying Darwin is dancing with Satan!
Let the flesh study the fleshly things of earthly man, let the spirit study the spirit things of God!
This particular forum is about “Creation & Science” and it is a good place for Sceptics to hang out which has the added benefit of leaving the Believers Area for believers.
Also consider the following:
Titus 1:9: He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
2 Corinthians 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
Good to see so many keen to explore the origins of the Origin of Species. A much more fruitful activity than counting angels dancing on pinheads.
Stuart
Yes, and it is good to see that Blythe believed in God and saw the mechanism of natural selection before Darwin, and in a creation context. A pretty smart guy and a wise person too. Up there with Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, and many others who also believed in God.
Except that Blyth was wrong, whereas Darwin,Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Mendel were right.
Stuart
Ha ha. I have to let you into a little secret. If Blyth was wrong, then so was Darwin. Darwin took a lot of his ideas. He even said himself that this man helped him more than any other. Both Blyth's belief in God and Darwin's Evolution cater or rely on Natural Selection. If Natural Selection was wrong, then both Blyth and Darwin were wrong.
Also, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel believed in God just like Blyth. So I agree that they were right as you said, but I would also add Blyth too.
Thanks for the support. You are doing a great job for helping to prove God by asking the right questions and even sometimes being honest in your weakness, by showing that you are powered by bias and belief more so than science.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2010,20:06) Ha ha. I have to let you into a little secret. If Blyth was wrong, then so was Darwin. Darwin took a lot of his ideas. He even said himself that this man helped him more than any other. Both Blyth's belief in God and Darwin's Evolution cater or rely on Natural Selection. If Natural Selection was wrong, then both Blyth and Darwin were wrong. Also, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel believed in God just like Blyth. So I agree that they were right as you said, but I would also add Blyth too.
Thanks for the support. You are doing a great job for helping to prove God by asking the right questions and even sometimes being honest in your weakness, by showing that you are powered by bias and belief more so than science.
Ha Ha?Blyth believed that natural selection only removes bad mutations in order to maintain species unchanged, whereas Darwin explained how as well as natural selection removing the bad ones, advantageous mutations would also be retained and increase in frequency.
Blyth was wrong, and Darwin was right. That's what the evidence says. You don't even need to see the evidence in the fossil record, just ask any doctor for an antibiotic prescription and ask him why he is not prescribing you penicillin.
Did I hear the sound of backfire then?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2010,20:58) Blyth believed that natural selection only removes bad mutations in order to maintain species unchanged, whereas Darwin explained how as well as natural selection removing the bad ones, advantageous mutations would also be retained and increase in frequency. Blyth was wrong, and Darwin was right.
Hi Stu,Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say Blyth was only half right? But because he believes in a Creator, he's wrong.
Your predjudice is showing through.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2010,13:48) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2010,20:58) Blyth believed that natural selection only removes bad mutations in order to maintain species unchanged, whereas Darwin explained how as well as natural selection removing the bad ones, advantageous mutations would also be retained and increase in frequency. Blyth was wrong, and Darwin was right.
Hi Stu,Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say Blyth was only half right? But because he believes in a Creator, he's wrong.
Your predjudice is showing through.
peace and love,
mike
What does belief in a creator have to do with it?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2010,20:58) Ha Ha? Blyth believed that natural selection only removes bad mutations in order to maintain species unchanged, whereas Darwin explained how as well as natural selection removing the bad ones, advantageous mutations would also be retained and increase in frequency.
Blyth was wrong, and Darwin was right. That's what the evidence says. You don't even need to see the evidence in the fossil record, just ask any doctor for an antibiotic prescription and ask him why he is not prescribing you penicillin.
Did I hear the sound of backfire then?
Stuart
No you didn't hear the sound of backfire. It sounds like this.It is not Natural Selection that says that genetic traits allow for new species. That is what Evolution says.
Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. – Wikipedia
Darwin concluded that Natural Selection was a key mechanism of Evolution. Blyth said that Natural Selection was a key mechanism for preserving a species.
Even Darwin would agree that Natural Selection was a key mechanism for preserving a species. His theory of Evolution is not denying that point for obvious reasons, and Darwin did say that Blyth contributed more to him than any other man, so go figure.
So on that count, Blyth wasn't wrong. Yes he believed in God, but so do many others. You said that Isaac Newton was right but Blyth was wrong. That is not the case. If you are talking about their belief in God, then both would be wrong according to you.
So your quoted post is kind of mixed up.
Quote No you didn't hear the sound of backfire. It sounds like this. It is not Natural Selection that says that genetic traits allow for new species. That is what Evolution says.
Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. – Wikipedia
Darwin concluded that Natural Selection was a key mechanism of Evolution. Blyth said that Natural Selection was a key mechanism for preserving a species.
Even Darwin would agree that Natural Selection was a key mechanism for preserving a species.
That is where this is wrong.
Quote His theory of Evolution is not denying that point for obvious reasons, and Darwin did say that Blyth contributed more to him than any other man, so go figure. So on that count, Blyth wasn't wrong. Yes he believed in God, but so do many others. You said that Isaac Newton was right but Blyth was wrong. That is not the case. If you are talking about their belief in God, then both would be wrong according to you.
So your quoted post is kind of mixed up.
No, my post is very clear. Blyth was wrong because he thought that species were preserved intact. They are not. The evidence for that is the fossil record, and the mechanism for it is natural selection, which Blyth misunderstood. Darwin may have considered Blyth’s ideas, but he also saw why they were wrong.This is the kind of mistake you could make if you had a preconceived notion of what you thought you would find. Creationists expect to find intact species, and so are blind to the fact that there is change in species over time.
Stuart
Actually Stu, Blyth wrote his version of Natural Selection (Artificial Selection) 20 or so years before Darwin. So the point of Evolution was not being discussed at that time as far as I know, and if it was, then how could Darwin lay claim to the theory?
Blyth said that Natural Selection was a process that aided in the preservation of species. He wasn't wrong was he? It is not obvious that certain traits that favour certain environments will be passed on more regularly, thereby giving the species a greater chance at survival. How is that wrong?
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2010,20:15) Actually Stu, Blyth wrote his version of Natural Selection (Artificial Selection) 20 or so years before Darwin. So the point of Evolution was not being discussed at that time as far as I know, and if it was, then how could Darwin lay claim to the theory? Blyth said that Natural Selection was a process that aided in the preservation of species. He wasn't wrong was he? It is not obvious that certain traits that favour certain environments will be passed on more regularly, thereby giving the species a greater chance at survival. How is that wrong?
Darwin sought Blyth's advice concerning the domestication of animals, not natural selection, which is a phrase that Blyth never used.Yes Blyth was wrong, because the species are not preserved in the way he suggested. He did not say that traits that favour certain environments will be passed on more regularly, he said that any change will be eliminated to preserve the purity of the species.
That is wrong.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2010,20:34) Yes Blyth was wrong, because the species are not preserved in the way he suggested. He did not say that traits that favour certain environments will be passed on more regularly, he said that any change will be eliminated to preserve the purity of the species.
How can he be wrong about preserving the best of a species when the environment forces certain traits to be favoured because of environmental change. Any species has a range of code in the gene pool that can become more common depending on what traits work better in different environments. That is preserving the best of the species right there.If a species has within its gene pool traits that favour certain environments, then that is not only incredibly believable but is observable too. Look at dogs. You tend to see dogs with thick coats in cold climates and dogs with thinner coats in warmer climates and when was the last time you saw a documentary where an explorer found a sausage dog in the Artic? The facts speak for themselves. Variety in the gene pool has allowed dogs to survive as dogs in many types of conditions. They didn't become giraffes, but dogs that were able to adapt. Even with human intervention, mixing up the traits and breeds has only resulted in more dogs.
Whereas your belief that species change into new species comes from a whole lot of old bones and heaps of imagination, and it seems, the hope that there is no God.
What Blyth said is easily observable.
What Darwin said requires faith in his theory or a belief.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
