Talk:On the Origin of Species/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"American" non-scientists.

A minor note, but I think that opposition to Origin is certainly more widespread than just America. I suppose it could be argued that in places like Africa, it's more ignorance than opposition, but it's still far from accepted, so best not to mislead readers into thinking that Origin is accepted everywhere but America. SnowFire 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In my opinion this article at present places too much emphasis on "the controversy", which is amply covered elsewhere, and not enough on the actual book. So when I can tear myself away from other distractions I'll expand book sections and reduce the controversy. .. dave souza, talk 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that'd be for the best. As for Africa - maybe, maybe not. The issue is whether we can source it and whether there is opposition. If people don't even know about it (as many Africans may not) it is kind of hard to -oppose-. Most RSs relate to the first world because of accessibility and education reasons; its hard to know what Africans think on issue X because our polling methodology has a hard time with people in such primitive conditions as exist in most of Africa. I've seen brief mention of Middle Eastern fundamentalism/rejection of evolution, but not much. Titanium Dragon 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Theory in a nutshell

Per my earlier comment, I plagerized a pre-existing section and combined with the theory as presented in the book into a new section called theory in a nutshell. This is largely based on a quick reading of CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION, here.[1] It does leave the problem that this is again recapitulated later in the article. It is a work in progress, but I think putting the theory in a nutshell earlier in the article is high priority.

StudyAndBeWise 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and hardly plagiarising: once I've added references, it'll be properly cited usage, and anyway Darwin's Public Domain. This link is to the section you refer to, but at a first glance it doesn't seem to relate: any particular page number? My intention is to remove the Mayr list anyway and substitute the paragraph Darwin has in his intro page 5.

Have been diverted by a troll lately, will try to get down to it now.... dave souza, talk 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to adjust the theory in a nutshell. Mostly I used terms Darwin used like "slowly effected" and "interminable", and "varieties." To this extent, and upon reflection, I wonder if I added detail that did not exist in the book. StudyAndBeWise 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Peer review.

Dave and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and I would like some other feeback as to what I can do to improve this article. I think it is coming along fine, but want other input, being relatively new. StudyAndBeWise 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whiggist views of creationism

There seems to be confusion here between the views of creation as espoused in Darwin's time, and 21st Century American Creationism.

The article claims OoS "was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs and the doctrine of "created kinds", which underlay the then widely accepted theories of biology".

Now when was the "created kinds" created? I don't know - but I doubt whether it is more than 20 years old.

Can someone who knows more about this than me go through and cut out these false Whiggisms please?

Johnbibby 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, don't know what Whig history has to do with it: of course Darwin was a Whig, but then the term's changed meanings a few times since the Whiggamore Raid. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up the intro. Looks to me like an improvement. Fair point about Created kind being a neologism, but in many ways YEC ideas revive concepts that were being pushed around when Darwin was a laddie: that article is framed in post 1941 terms, but a lot of the ideas were current around 1810 – see Moore's broadcast for a brief overview of the context, and History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth for a lot of detail. Think we should pipe the link as "kinds in the Genesis creation"? .. dave souza, talk 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, looking at whig related articles brought up this essay which includes a crack about whig history oversimplifying, then asks for pre-Darwin to be put into the sort of political context mentioned briefly in the background section here. Could be a useful link. .. dave souza, talk 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

This is from Larson 2004, p. 187. I am not sure how it could be worked into the article, but that a translator of Darwin's book was making social-darwinistic arguments might merit inclusion in this or another article. (Probably already done in other articles). I just came across this and thought it was interesting. StudyAndBeWise 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ill informed"

Using the phrase "ill-informed" to describe the creation-evolution controversy is definitely weasel-wording.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.11.83.13 (talk) 5:17, 26 February 2007

Squeak! ;) dave souza, talk 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its kinder than; "willfully ignorant".--THobern 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

darwin's theory

did darwin ever study molusks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.127.223 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you click on one of the links to editions of The Origin and search for "mollusc" you'll find numerous references. Darwin was well aware of information on molluscs, but didn't do a major study devoted to them – his big work was on barnacles. Have a look here. .. dave souza, talk 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with Neo-Darwinism

I have put a lot of effort into writing a page on Neo-Darwinism, a page which once existed but was replaced by a redirect to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Sadly, it is marked for deletion. I feel strongly that Neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history, and in frequent use, by Evolutionary experts like Gould and Dawkins. It is used to mean 'the current theory that' rather than, 'the consensus arrived at in the 1940's' a distinction that I feel is important. There has been nothing agressive or improper about my approach, and I have supplied copious explanations on the talk pages of both articles. I feel badly treated, with unwarranted accusations that I have some hidden creationist agenda, which is total nonsense. Support on the page, and in the vote (see link on Neo-Darwinism would be appreciated. --Memestream 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayr

The Philosophical influence section seems to place far too much focuse on Mayr, who's unicited claims seem somewhat irrelevant. I move to strike, or at very least condense.--THobern 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's 'philosophical implications' and though I find that paragraph hard going it's interesting and relevant and I would not like to see it removed. Mayr is regarded by many as THE central figure in the modern synthesis, which is at the root of current accepted theory, so he is important. People like Herbert Spencer, also a very important figure in Darwin's day, did indeed see perfection as the goal of evolution, so I think it makes sense to point out this shift in thinking. --Memestream 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species?

The redirect of this page from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species brings it into line with the earlier editions, but the "On" was omitted for the final (and arguably definitive) 6th edition.[2] I've always taken care with this distinction when adding links to articles, so it means that all links, whether piped or not, are now to a redirect. .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Dave and I was shocked to see that this page had been renamed when I thought this distinction was well understood. Yes, I think the latest has to be taken as the definitive version, even though we know that the earlier versions are important to those searching for Darwin's true position. Yes the change has messed up links, and I will support you in putting things back as they were. --Memestream (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• So should this remain at "On the Origin of Species" or moved back to "The Origin of Species"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered either way, Darwin Online: On the Origin of Species. Retrieved on 2007-11-22. uses the full title for all save the 6th edition, so from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#When the title version "best known in English" can't be determined "try to determine which of the widely spread versions of the book in the English-speaking world was the most authoritative original (that is, the version that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world)" the "On the Origin of Species" version appears preferable. Oddly enough, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles gives as an example "The Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, nor On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (see example →)" Will raise the issue on that talk page, guess this may have to go to a wider request of consultation. ... dave souza, talk 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I have always known it as "On the Origin of Species" and never heard of "The origin..." Also the photograph that is used on the page says "On ..." I think it is safe to say almost every college, university and high school uses "On ...". Britannica also uses "On ..." Either way, I do not have a strong feelings about this, but have never heard the name of the book without "On". I always remember it with "On" when I was in school. When was the "On" taken "Off"? And Why? Why did the history books and Britannica, etc. never take off the "on"?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS-Dave, okay, wow, so I just spent a few hours trying to correct the "On" on all the pages you asked me to. I did it on a few, but 95% of all the pages that linked into "On the Origin of Species" already use "On", so I did not even have to add anything, but I checked most of them anyway.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move