The "Darwin Year"

Wilkins, I believe, is way off the mark here. The first three of his arguments that Darwin is touted too highly are as follows:

"In fact, evolution as we now have it is the result of all those "minor" figures contributing to both the logic and the empirical work; it doesn't resemble much of Darwin's views in many respects. Some changes since Darwin:

1. The branching tree is now a net, much of the time, because of lateral genetic transfer and hybridism
2. Selection is rarely if ever thought to cause speciation in sexual organisms; at best it makes isolated populations adapt to novel surroundings, causing some degree of reproductive isolation as a side effect
3. Inheritance is regarded as particulate: Darwin thought it blended"

Well, the "net" is not much of a net for complex organisms, because "lateral gene transfer and hybridism" haven't made much of a dent in their genomes. Is the genome of primates, cats, teleosts, or angiosperms irrevocably messed up by gene exchange, so that we can't construct a valid evolutionary tree? I don't think so. Trees are still made and used routinely, and are quite informative.

I don't understand #2 unless Wilkins is referring to Darwin's idea that species evolve to fill up the polity of nature. In some respects this view survives, especially in ideas of sympatric speciation and ecological speciation. BUt at any rate, this is again a quibble. The main idea--that new species arise from old ones--is what is important.

Finally, so what if Darwin got the mechanism of inheritance wrong? It DIDN'T MUCH MATTER for his theory. Whether variation arises due to mutation or via "changed conditions," it is still, as Darwin thought, the stuff of evolution.

The fact is that EVERY scientific discovery would eventually have been made by someone. Without Newton, we'd still have calculus, without Einstein, relativity. Darwin's greatness did not lie in the fact that evolution was a unique, one-off contribution that couldn't have been made by another. It lay in the fact that in The Origin and in his other works, Darwin put so much evidence together, in such a convincing way, that his theory was almost impossible to reject. His genius lay in waiting decades while accumulating evidence until that evidence crushed any intellectual opposition, in making clever analogies and arguments, such as the parallel with artificial selection, in his rhetorical skills, and in his use of evidence that other people might not have thought of, such as island biogeography. Above all, Darwin proposed all major tenets of evolutionary theory AT ONCE, rather than piecemeal. There is no guarantee that had he not done this, somebody else would have proposed such a complete theory. A.R. Wallace certainly didn't, and probably wouldn't have. At any rate, remember that The Origin contains all of the following six propositions, every one of which still holds in modern evolutionary theory

1. Organisms evolved (and began with one or a few early forms.
2. Organisms split, so that one lineage could become two or more (speciation)
3. That speciation led to common ancestry between any pair of species, so you could trace the tree back to nodes, and find
evidence for those common ancestors
4. Natural selection was the main engine of evolutionary change, and the only process that could produce adaptation
5. Not all features, though, are adaptive--there are other processes of evolutionary change.
6. Evolution is gradual rather than instantaneous.

Who else could have proposed--and documented with evidence--ALL of these hypotheses in one neat package?

Jaco said: Wilkins, I believe, is way off the mark here. The first three of his arguments that Darwin is touted too highly are as follows: 2. Selection is rarely if ever thought to cause speciation in sexual organisms; at best it makes isolated populations adapt to novel surroundings, causing some degree of reproductive isolation as a side effect

Jaco said: The fact is that EVERY scientific discovery would eventually have been made by someone. Without Newton, we'd still have calculus, without Einstein, relativity.

Einstein flatly admitted that if he hadn’t come up with special relativity, somebody else would have soon enough.

Henry J said: Especially given that the equations of electromagnetic theory predicted a constant speed of light. Sooner or later somebody would have looked at the logical consequences of that prediction. Henry

I'm just a layman here, but it seems obvious to me that having all the major elements of and evidence for evolution together, published in one book, accounts for most of Darwin's reputation. Grains of sand blowing against adamantine may never make an impression. Sometimes you need a hammer.

midwifetoad said: I'm just a layman here, but it seems obvious to me that having all the major elements of and evidence for evolution together, published in one book, accounts for most of Darwin's reputation. Grains of sand blowing against adamantine may never make an impression. Sometimes you need a hammer.

Einstein was almost scooped to special relativity by Poincare. I believe Poincare hesitated at the idea of non-absolute time and so Einstein trumped him.

— iml8

This form of argument, "Darwin is overrated because he synthesized so many other people's ideas and work", is a complete non-starter.

There was, for example, very little economics that was original with Adam Smith. But Smith put everything together for the first time, made the issues extremely clear, and wrote engagingly and persuasively. His predecessors have mostly disappeared from consideration. Why? Because they were stamp collectors, identifying charming little facts and nearly trivial laws, and not much more. Smith made economics a science.

The second kind of argument, "Darwin is overrated because biology has long since transcended so much of Darwin" is also a complete non-starter.

Again, a comparison with Smith makes this clear. Economics itself has long evolved into a huge discipline, at times barely recognizable, let alone compatible, with Smith's work. It doesn't matter. He started that particular ball rolling, and that was the most important contribution of all.

To be fair, I don't think Wilkins was making the argument that Darwin is overrated. Instead, he was arguing that Darwin is merely a historical figure in science, and not actively affecting the course of biology today. He is quite right that scientist do not appeal to Darwin's writings for our orthodoxy, but instead appeal to nature herself. As long as Darwin's writings concur with nature, we will agree with them.

I concur with this belief. It simply happens to be the cause that Darwin saw nature for what she was. Since nature has not changes since the time of Darwin we could still most of his writing as a text book, even if it would the occasional foot note would be needed.

Former state science director sues over intelligent design e-mail 05:20 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News tstutz@dallasnews.com AUSTIN – A former state science curriculum director filed suit against the Texas Education Agency and Education Commissioner Robert Scott on Wednesday, alleging she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a lecture that was critical of the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. ...