Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 9

Influences
The Template:Infobox Scientist has a space for a couple of influences, and scientists he influenced. That page includes a guideline which states "The intention is to only list those influences that had physical contact with the scientist. Do not insert those influences that were not in person (e.g. via study of works or books) as this is more tenuous and there are generally too many for each scientist." A difficult choice: Lyell is pretty obvious, Henslow and Sedgwick were considerable influences but are already listed as academic advisors, he met John Herschel and was hugely influenced by him, but more by books than personal contact. Wallace influenced the timing of publication, but by letter and not by physical contact, and had limited influence when they did meet after publication of the Origin. Robert Edmond Grant and Richard Owen could also be cited, but their influence on his thought is arguable. To me, Joseph Dalton Hooker was a considerable influence while Darwin was developing the theory, and remained a close friend, so is the best choice without getting too extended a list, or having only Lyell which somehow suggests no other influences. . . dave souza, talk 10:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Huxley? From my very limited knowledge of the subject I wouldn't rate his influence as being on the same level as Hooker's, but I should think that if any of Wallace, Owen or Grant were to get a guernsey, then he should too.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "influences" currently include Lyell and Hooker, and Huxley's listed immediately under them as "influenced" which seems fair enough as he promoted Darwin's ideas rather than having great influence on them. Romanes is also included under "influenced", again a reasonable choice. I've left Wallace out as he had limited influence on Darwin, though it's arguable that he was greatly influenced by Darwin. This section is rather invidious, as there are just so many names that could be added, but the infobox would then get out of hand. . dave souza, talk 14:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Darwin give up his natural selection theory and become a Lamarckian ?
[This section continues the discussion in Archive 6 Mentioning Darwin gave up natural selection and became a Lamarckian]

Logicus: Against the unsourced and unfounded claim of Dave Souza that Darlington's 1950 thesis that Darwin became a Lamarckian is mistaken and has been superseded, the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008 article on 'Evolution' by Phillip Sloan @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/  surely confirms Darlington's analysis that in defence against Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 critique of natural selection, Darwin later changed to Lamarckian environmentalist use/disuse as the most important selector in explaining the evolutionary origin of new species rather than natural selection. For this seems to be the implication of Darwin's 1868 'pangenesis' theory of inheritance as recounted by the Stanford Encyclopedia, as follows:

"The difficulties in Darwin's arguments by 1866 were highlighted in a lengthy and telling critique of Darwin's theory in 1867 by the Scottish engineer Henry Fleeming Jenkin (1833–85). Using an argument previously raised in the 1830s by Charles Lyell against Lamarck, Fleeming (as he was generally known) Jenkin cited empirical evidence from domestic breeding that suggested a distinct limitation on the degree of variation, and the extent to which selection upon this could be taken (Jenkin 1867 in Hull, 1973). Using a loosely mathematical argument, Jenkin argued that the effects of intercrossing would continuously swamp deviations from the mean values of characters and result in a tendency of a population to return to the normal values over time. For Jenkin, Darwin's reliance on continuous additive deviation was presumed undermined by this argument, and only more dramatic and discontinuous change could account for the origin of new species.

....

As a solution to the variation question and the causal basis of this phenomenon, Darwin developed his “provisional hypothesis” of pangenesis, which he presented the year after the appearance of the Jenkin review in Darwin's two-volume Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication (1868). Although this theory had been formulated independently of the Jenkin review (Olby 1962), in effect it functioned as his reply to Jenkin. This offered a causal theory of variation and inheritance through a return to a theory resembling Buffon's theory of the organic molecules of the previous century. Invisible material “gemmules” were presumed to exist within the cells, and according to theory, they were subject to external alteration by environment and circumstance. These were then shed continually into the blood stream (the “transport” hypothesis) and assembled by “mutual affinity into buds or into the sexual elements” (Darwin 1868, 1875, vol. 2, p. 370). In this form they were then transmitted—the details were not explained—by sexual generation to the next generation to form the new organism out of “units of which each individual is composed” (ibid.). In Darwin's view, this hypothesis united together numerous issues into a coherent and causal theory of inheritance and explained the basis of variation. It also explained how use-disuse inheritance, which Darwin never abandoned, could work."

I conclude this article should therefore mention Darlington's important point that Darwin later converted to a Lamarckian use/disuse theory, as I have already proposed. But it should be supplemented by Ernst Mayr's equally important point, made in his Introduction to the 1964 Harvard edition of the 1859 Origin but not mentioned by Darlington, that Darwin had anyway always maintained use/disuse was also an important selector in addition to natural selection, if not the most important, right from his 1859 first edition of Origin. Thus Darwin had always been a Lamarckian to some extent in this sense.

But the upshot of the Stanford Encyclopedia analysis seems to be that by 1868 use/disuse must have become the most important or even sole selector for Darwin in explaining the evolutionary origin of species, albeit possibly with natural selection still explaining some variations, if not speciation. It seems the crucial theory shift Darwin made was just from that of use/disuse of a trait being a secondary selector to that of it being the most important selector that ensured the generational retention of environmentally advantageous variations. For it seems to have been the repeated environmental use/disuse imprinting in each generation that would ensure the retention of a variation to prevent its dilution and eventual regression to the norm by blending inheritance.

On this analysis then, Darwin's claim in the Introduction to the 1872 sixth edition that "I am convinced Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." must have expressed a decidely hollow conviction by that time insofar as he was by then convinced of the primary role of use/disuse nature of modifications leading to the origination of new species, if not explaining all variation.

Those Wiki editors who oppose some such edit should surely review and withdraw their opinions and opposition in consideration of the Stanford Encyclopedia's analysis of this issue.

In fact I propose Wikipedia should consider incorporating the direct quotation of its analysis in this article.

--Logicus (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as reliable a source as the ones we're using, and it doesn't draw the conclusion that you're drawing from it. See WP:NOR. . dave souza, talk 16:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Logicus on dave souza's three points here:

1) "Not as reliable a source as the ones we're using,..." To what source and sources do you refer ? The main source I quoted for the claim that Darwin became a Lamarckian was Darlington 1950, and the Stanford EP is only quoted here as apparerntly supporting Darlington's claim. And as I have already pointed out, your dogmatic bald assertions without good evidence that one source is more reliable than another are surely unacceptable. So what sources do you wish to use for your claim that Darwin did not eventually become a Lamarckian, maintaining that use-disuse is the main or most important selector in evolutionary speciation ? And what is your evidence that those sources are more reliable than Darlington ? Presumably Bowler 2003 is one such source. So why is Bowler more reliable on Darwin than Darlington F.R.S. ? Or indeed than Loren Eiseley 1958? You previously quoted Bowler as contra Darlington as follows:

"1: Bowler, Peter J. (2003), Evolution: The History of an Idea - 3rd Edition, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-23693-9 p. 200 – "Some later commentators, especially Loren Eiseley (1958), have implied that Jenkin's review destroyed Darwin's confidence in the selection theory, and led him to abandon it in favor of Lamarckism. [Pangenisis does allow for a Lamackian effect] But there is no evidence that Darwin gave up natural selection, although Jenkin forced him to think seriously about its operation." .... . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)"

But Bowler's claim that "there is no evidence that Darwin gave up natural selection" is logically irrelevant to this issue inasmuch as nobody claims Darwin ever gave up natural selection as being one evolutionary selector amongst others so far as I am aware, neither Darlington nor presumably Eiseley. Rather the issue is surely whether Darwin gave up the theory that natural selection has been the main or most important selector in evolutionary speciation, in favour of use/disuse being the main or most important selector according to his later pangenesis theory of inheritance.

The only logically conflicting claim you have quoted from Bowler is

"2: "that what Darwin called "use and disuse inheritance" was given increased weight in later editions, but he continued to hold that natural selection was the main evolutionary mechanism, even though other scientists favoured other mechanisms including what was later called neo-Lamarckism." .......... . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)"

But as I have already pointed out in my above comments of 24 April to which I now refer you, if taken to mean natural selection has always been the main selector amongst others, as seems the most plausible and usual interpretation, then Darwin's Introductory claim in Origin1 was falsified by his own claims in the text that use/disuse has sometimes been the main selector, with natural selection only playing a secondary supplementary role to use/disuse as the main selector in some evolutions, and that sometimes use/disuse has even been the sole selector in some other evolutions in which natural selection played no role at all.

So given Darwin always held from the very first edition of Origin that Lamarckian use/disuse has also been an important evolutionary selector, sometimes even the main or even sole selector, then what Darwin meant by "the main but not exclusive means of modification" in Origin1 and then by "the most important, but not exclusive, means of modification" in Origin6 becomes a considerable problem of interpretation. Does it mean 'most frequently occurring selector in all evolutions', and thus a claim that cannot possibly be empirically determined ? Or was it simply the selector most frequently occurring in all the few evolutions Darwin considered in the text ? Or did Darwin's 1872 proclamation of his conviction that natural selection has been the most important selector simply flagrantly contradict his advocacy of pangenesis by that time and subsequent in the 1875 second edition of Variation (e.g was he lying?) ?

But you notably made no response to my previous comments on these apparently challenging issues of interpretation.

What seems to require clarification here by you is whether you agree or deny Darwin did adopt a pangenesis theory of evolutionary speciation or not from 1868 onwards or thereafter, and whether use/disuse rather than natural selection was the main or most important selector in that pangenesis theory or not.

But certainly the Stanford EP article conveys the impression Darwin switched to a pangenesis theory of inheritance in which environmental use/disuse was the main evolutionary selector, which thus surely supports Darlington's account that Darwin eventually fell back on Lamarckian environmental heredity as the chief selector. Or do you claim the Stanford account of Darwin's later adoption of pangenesis does not support Darlington's claim ?

2) "... it doesn't draw the conclusion that you're drawing from it."

But what conclusion is that ? I only claimed that it confirms Darlington's analysis that Darwin later changed to Lamarckian environmentalist use/disuse as the most important selector in evolutionary speciation, as follows:

"Against the unsourced and unfounded claim of Dave Souza that Darlington's 1950 thesis that Darwin became a Lamarckian is mistaken and has been superseded, the following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008 article on 'Evolution' by Phillip Sloan @  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/  surely confirms Darlington's analysis that in defence against Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 critique of natural selection, Darwin later changed to Lamarckian environmentalist use/disuse as the [chief] selector in explaining the evolutionary origin of new species rather than natural selection.  "

Do you deny the Stanford article supports Darlington's claim ?

3) "See WP:NOR."

Please desist from repeatedly referring me to Wiki policy articles. If you wish to charge me with breaching any Wikipedia policy in any respect anywhere, then please just directly quote what specific statement of policy you wish to charge I am in breach of, and then try to demonstrate when, how and what action/statement breached it. I shall at least then try to oblige you by deploying my expertise on Wikipedia policy to demonstrate why your charge fails, if so, rather than just ignoring your otherwise repeatedly vacuous reading advice. However, my beneficent advice to you on the past evidence of your literacy level is that you would be well advised to desist from attempts to charge me with and demonstrate Wiki policy breaches. In my view you would be well advised just to stick to the substantive points of evidence at issue that you are failing to establish without extending your failure to procedural issues as well.

--Logicus (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:TLDR, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and reputable modern biographers, suggest Bowler, van Wyhe, Desmond & Moore and Janet Browne. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering how many times you've been told this, the fact that you continue discussions on the subject of Darwin that involve much personal speculation, what you are doing here is bordering on vandalism. If you feel the need to discuss this, then do it on your own talk page.  If you continue to ignore all sensible responses and just plow on with more pages of original research (you have what could be considered a moderately sized research paper here already), then I'm going to start reporting it as vandalism.  Basically, enough with the nonsense. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Logicus: Please just answer the questions with the requested evidence rather than making unitelligibly vague comments, and also please re the following reasonable request carefully:


 * Please desist from repeatedly referring me to Wiki policy articles. If you wish to charge me with breaching any Wikipedia policy in any respect anywhere, then please just directly quote what specific statement of policy you wish to charge I am in breach of, and then try to demonstrate when, how and what action/statement breached it. I shall at least then try to oblige you by deploying my expertise on Wikipedia policy to demonstrate why your charge fails, if so, rather than just ignoring your otherwise repeatedly vacuous reading advice.
 * However, my beneficent advice to you on the past evidence of your literacy level is that you would be well advised to desist from attempts to charge me with and demonstrate Wiki policy breaches. In my view you would be well advised just to stick to the substantive points of evidence at issue that you are failing to establish without extending your failure to procedural issues as well.
 * --Logicus (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not impressed by your argument. The first problem I am having with it is that the passage you are citing from the Stanford Encycopedia does not support the broad claim you are making.[No, but as I said, it supports Darlington's claim --Logicus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)] The text "In Darwin's view, this hypothesis united together numerous issues into a coherent and causal theory of inheritance and explained the basis of variation. It also explained how use-disuse inheritance, which Darwin never abandoned, could work." In no way implies that Darwin ever abandoned natural selection,[But I never said it did--Logicus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)] merely that he also always believed what would later come to be called Lamarckian inheritence and what Darwin referred to as use and dissuse was an additional mechansim of evolution that supplemented natural selection.[FALSE ! It neither implies this and it is also false that Darwin claimed use/disuse was only an additional selector. For in some cases use/disuse is the main selector, and even the sole selctor in others.--Logicus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)] He made this quite clear in the first edition of Origin of Species as the article on that book makes quite clear.[Then the article is wrong--Logicus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)] In additon to the sources Dave cited I could cite Quammen (2006), and Larson (2004). They are all clear (and consistent with the sources that Dave cited like Bowler (2003)) that Darwin considered "use and dissue" as a viable additional mechanism of evolution in addition to natural selection in the very first eddition of Origin, and that he expanded the attention he gave it in subsequent editions, but none of them in anyway support the contention that he ever abandonded natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution.[Again, nobody has made that contention--Logicus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)] Now if you want to make the case that "use and disuse" ought to be mentioned in this article that would be a different argument (one that would revolve arround space, importance, and coverage by other articles), but you have provided nothing that would support a contention that Darwin abandonded natural selection except a source that is more than a half century old and has been superceded by numerous more recent sources that do not support your position. [But I have presented arguments that Darwin made use/disuse a more frequent selector than natural selection, and thus arguably more important. You have ignored these --Logicus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)] Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Logicus to Rusty Cashman: Thank you for these more constructive comments. However, they misunderstand the logical issue here in misrepresenting both myself, and also Darlington F.R.S., as claiming Darwin relinquished the thesis that natural selection is an evolutionary selector, and indeed that it is also an important one. But I have never done so on these pages, as I hope you will see if you care to re-read them carefully. And nor did Darlington. Thus you tilt at a straw dog, if not so very quixotically as our dear colonial friend Caliban v2.0 (-:


 * Rather the logical issue here is whether Darwin ever came to propose that environmental change of use/disuse has been a more frequent/more important evolutionary selector than natural selection since life began. It seems Darlington's 1950 claims that he did in later editions of Origin, as it seems also does Eiseley 1958 according to Bowler. And some accounts of Darwin's later 1868 and subsequent pangenesis theory of inheritance also suggest he did. For they depict the continued inheritance of an adaptation as being transmitted in reproduction from the organism's continued environmental use/disuse of it, thereby apparently rendering any natural selection of it redundant in principle. For example, such is the Stanford Encyclopedia account I have quoted.


 * However, the Wikipedia Evolution article currently conveys the impression that Darwin claimed adaptations inherited from use/disuse were then always also acted upon by natural selection, as follows:


 * "..Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by natural selection. Like Lamarck, he thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[201] a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[202]"


 * On this account then, it seems Darwin never held that selection by use/disuse has been more frequent than natural selection, but rather as being at least equi-frequent with natural selection, whether of greater, lesser or equal causal importance in each or any case.


 * However, a cardinal problem with this interpretation is that on the other hand it seems that in all six editions of Origin, in addition to giving speculative examples of natural selection acting jointly with selection by use/disuse, and even sometimes not being the main or most important selector, but only the supplementary secondary selector, Darwin also gave examples of evolutionary adaptations selected WHOLLY by use/disuse, without the assistance of any natural selection at all. For example, in the case of the evolution of blind cave-dwellers in Kentucky and Styria, he said in Origin1 :


 * "As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, though useless, could in any way be injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse." [p119 of the 1950 Watts & Co. edition]


 * Thus, if even after he adopted pangenesis, Darwin never relinquished his various examples of evolutionary adaptation without any natural selection, selected solely by Lamarckian use/disuse inheritance, then the logical conclusion is surely that use/disuse has at least been the more frequent selector than natural selection on Darwin's later pangenesis theory of inheritance, setting aside the issue of whether he also accounted it as also having been the more important selector in some sense.


 * (For clarity here, I should perhaps again repeat the logical point that Darwin's own examples of evolutions in which natural selection was not the main selector, either because it was only secondary to use/disuse or even did not play any role at all, ostensibly contradict Darwin's introductory proclamation that natural selection has been the main if not exclusive selector.)


 * Perhaps you would therefore be so kind as to clarify, with reference to some reliable clarificatory source, whether Darwin's pangenesis theory of the inheritance of characteristics acquired by use/disuse also required the additional selector of natural selection to explain evolutionary adaptations at all, or else rather just replaced it or at least just made it optional. This is unclear from the current Wikipedia Pangenesis article and others.


 * And most especially would you be so kind as to source references, by means of verifying quotations from them, that reliably show Darwin never documented or accounted natural selection as having been a less frequent or less important evolutionary selector than selection by use/disuse, contrary to the apparent claims of such as Darlington, Eiseley and others ? The leading question here that dave souza has never answered is why any such sources, if any, are more reliable than Darlington and Co. Being later does not thereby confer greater reliability.


 * In response to your welcome proposals for possible changes of the article to recognise Darwin's Lamarckianism, I do think the article should at least make clear as Mayr 1964 so emphatically pointed out, that Darwin always gave a role to use/disuse as an important evolutionary selector.


 * And it should at least discuss and try to clarify the debate over whether he later made it the main or most important selector, especially in the context of his later pangenesis theory of inheritance.


 * Finally, I do hope you find the inserts I shall put in your comments helpful in clearing up misunderstandings.


 * Thank you !


 * --Logicus (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For someone that talks like a nutter in the third person and in generally acts like a man in clown pants wandering into a classroom and wondering why everyone is laughing, you have a lot of balls for repeatedly making accusations of my being illiterate, not to mention comments about nationality. I understand from your repeated ramblings that you do not reside in the same realm of rational discourse as the rest of us, and the fact that you go by the name "Logicus" even leads me to wonder if this isn't all just a grand event in Wiki trolling.
 * You keep coming back to the same points, regardless of responses. In fact, you've ignored most of the rational responses, and when you have shown that you have read them you do not address any of the criticisms of your claims or the truthful statements that what you are doing here has no place on Wikipedia and serves no purpose other than annoy editors that are actually trying to contribute and make you look like the aforementioned "Man in Clown Pants".
 * A has been mentioned several times, use/disuse was always a theory Darwin considered, before and after his major statements involving natural selection. It's also an incorrect assumption that statements of one method being a primary or significant influence on evolution also means that it must be the sole contributor.
 * "For this seems to be the implication", "must have expressed a decidely hollow conviction"; both of those are statements that directly relate the fact that these are your own interpretations, and not the statements of individuals suitable for use as references. While a small number of your quotes throughout these discussions can be used as evidence for your own train of logic, not a single one actually states that opinion on it's own without personal interpretation and as far as Wikipedia is concered that is what matters.
 * The most important response to the original question of your current rant, "Did Darwin give up his natural selection theory and become a Lamarckian", is "regardless of your opinions or theories, they do not matter. They are your opinions and theories, and are thus Original Research (yes, I am linking you to that again, since you do not seem to grasp what it means).  Regardless of whatever conclusions you make, they will never influence the historical and current accounts of Charles Darwin on Wikipedia, largely due to the fact that is is Original Research.  If you feel like including mention of this, and you have reliable sources that directly speak on the topic of Darwin giving up natural selection and moving to Lamarckism, then you can do so because that would not be Original Research.  To close this response, the discussion pages are not here for you to discuss your wp:Original Research, but instead to discuss additions, removals and changes to the Wiki based on the published works of knowledgeable individuals, groups or organizations who have qualifications, expertise, or notable history with the topic; not the Original Research of editors. Please take your discussions of Original Research elsewhere, such as to talk your own Talk page, a sandbox of your own design, or another location outside of Wikipedia that is actually suited for these discussions." --Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
OK folks, that's enough. Let's keep this civil on all sides and stick to discussion of the article not degenerate into tit-for-tat ad hominem comments. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The above "discussion" is unreadable. I suggest we archive it and move on. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying Variations versions
The article currently claims:

"The first part of Darwin's planned “big book”, Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication, grew to two huge volumes, forcing him to leave out human evolution and sexual selection. It sold briskly in 1868 despite its size, and was translated into many languages. He wrote most of a second section on natural selection, but it remained unpublished in his lifetime.[126]"

But should “section” here rather be ‘edition’ or ‘volume’ ? The current last sentence does not seem to make sense.

--Logicus (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good point. I've changed to "He wrote most of a second part, on natural selection, but it remained unpublished in his lifetime." which ties in with the opening about the first part. Hope that meets your concern. Your assistance is much appreciated, . dave souza, talk 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Logicus (in haste): Thanks, but I fear I am still no clearer, even after some continuing research on it. Does 'second part' mean 'second edition' ? Seems much confusion about Variations. Stanford EP has an 1875 second edition, and van Wyhe's complete works site has an 1883 Second Edition, obviously posthumous. R these both right? Were they both two volume works ? If so, so what does 'second part' mean ? Thanks. BTW, please see my latest Talk:Lamarck comments--Logicus (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stauffer, R. C. ed. 1975. Charles Darwin's Natural Selection; being the second part of his big species book written from 1836 to 1858. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's racism
Hello. It might be that this issue have been discussed before, if so, I apologize. The phrase "Darwin did not share the racism common at that time" is in conflict with "In making his case for the reality of one human species, Darwin contrasted "civilized races of man" with "the savage races", like almost everyone else at that time (except Alfred Russel Wallace) making no clear distinction between biological races and cultural races. He also noted the likelihood of "savage races" being wiped out at that time of colonial expansion, but gave no support to such extermination." in this page.

True, this second one continues with an apology "However, although Darwin was not racist and throughout his life strongly opposed slavery". This sentence follows the previous one very strangely. So, Darwin talked about "civilized races" and "savage races" yet he was not a racist(!). If a contemporary person uttered such ideas, he would be prosecuted because of racism in many countries.

Moving from those somewhat contradictory statements to what Darwin actually wrote:
 * "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and selection in relation to sex.

From Darwin's letter to W. Graham,July 3rd, 1881.
 * "Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."


 * "Do the races of or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace each other, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as is indeed obvious with most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals." Darwin, Charles. On the origin of species by means of natural selection.

If these words of highly offensive and racist nature are not proof of racism of Darwin, at least at certain points of his life, what could be? Back to the phrase in this article, ""Darwin did not share the racism common at that time" is wrong and should be deleted. Darwin was racist at least in certain points of his life. Not only his personal opinions were of racist nature, his theory of evolution was so.

I am aware of the articles that are dedicated to "save" Darwin from criticisms of racism. Those articles are undertaking a very difficult feat of proving their point, that Darwin was not racist, and their neutrality is highly questionable. There are also ones who admit racism of Darwin. See for example this page (click "show transcript).

I suggest we remove the phrase claiming Darwin was not racist and instead, state that he made racist remarks in his work, and that he shared the "racism common at his time". Filanca (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are going to have to go with a more nuanced treatment than that. You need to mention that Darwin's writings occasionally reflect some of the attitudes on race and gender common in Victorian society, but you also need to balance this by mentioning his support for the anti-slavery movement, and some of his more sympathetic comments on the treatment of South American Indians in his journal on the voyage of the Beagle. One of the problems here is that there has been a great deal of quote mining on this topic by creationists (or at least anti-Darwinians), and that has skewed discussion about this. On balance Darwin's views on race were probably more progressive than those of the majority of Victorian intellectuals. That probably doesn't justify a blanket statement that he was "not a racist", but any revision should be carefully balanced not to skew in the opposite direction. In no case can anyone justify a claim that the theory of evolution is racist. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rusty Cashman, what you say is very plausible. So, I think we should write something more balanced than either he was racist or he was not. But we must certainly change the article, it is misleading in its current shape. Filanca (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Filanca, Darwin was a lot less racist than most authors of the time, and didn't make obviously racist remarks like Abraham Lincoln did, but did draw a distinction between civilised and savage. It may astonish you, but these are cultural traits, not inherent racial traits. By a remarkable coincidence your interpretation of primary source material from Descent coincides with a common creationist quote mine. Your quote beginning "Do the races of or species of men" is an opening set of questions, and despite the name of the compendium volume you cite, is from Descent, not the Origin. They are hardly words of highly offensive and racist nature, they are the opening questions at the start of a large book in which he presents evidence, presents various competing views of the time, and gives his own answers. Your assertions about the meanings and implications of these passages are based on primary sources, and as such fail to comply with no original research policy. Do please present verification from reliable secondary sources of the assertions you make. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Souza, you and I might know civility and savagry are cultural rather than racial, but Darwin certainly did not think so when he spoke about "higher civilized races" and "lower savage races". Why do you find my interpretation coinciding with some creationists as remarkable? Is everything creationists say wrong? Should we reject what they say just because of they are creationists? Or is there something else implied when you say "a remarkable coincidence"? Yes, when Darwin says "The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Jewish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." this is very offensive, so as his other racist remarks. Imagine yourself as a member of the targeted race and you will feel the level of offence. About secondary sources, what is wrong with the one I already gave? And, of course No original research policy does not categorically refuse use of primary sources, what it says is:


 * Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge

And certainly we can use them in a talk page. As long as they serve writing a good encyclopedia, primary sources are welcome. So, I say, with so explicit, strong primary sources, we can not keep the phrases about Darwin not being a racist in this article.

In fact, the article itself make use of primary sources, for example at subnote VI:


 * Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior, and regarded his taxidermy tutor John Edmonstone, a freed black slave, as a "very pleasant and intelligent man"

The claim "Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior" has no source, except Darwin's own words about a black slave. I think this subnote must be deleted if since it is with obvious conflict with his other sayings, or must be re-written with a more balanced approach, taking Darwin's racist remarks about blacks in general. Filanca (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The balanced view we are presenting is sourced in the article to John Wilkins, and his book basically covers the instances we show in the footnote with citations to the primary source material by Darwin himself. If you wish, we can repeat inline cites to Wilkins in the footnote. As a historian he is clear that Darwin was not racist, but held the ethnocentric view that European civilisation was superior to the culture of what Darwin called the Turkish, Negro and Australian "races", conflating race with culture. He was Eurocentric, but expressed the opinion several times that Negroes and others were as capable of being civilised as Europeans, as he had seen with the Fuegians, and that Europeans were cabable of being as degraded as any savage. As Wilkins notes, Darwin was "rabidly anti slavery, and respectful of blacks in particular", noting partiuclarly Darwin having learnt taxidermy from Edmonstone. These views are supported by Darwin's biographers, and Desmond and Moore's new book pays particular attention to Darwin's opposition to slavery. As for your quotes from "what Darwin actually wrote", see the source cited in the other article that you've quoted. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Filanca: It is precisely for this sort of case that Wikipedia recommends secondary sources rather than original research. We know that terms like "savage races" are unacceptable today, but a historian (see Dave's comments on John Wilkins) might know that in the time and culture where Darwin wrote, those terms were pretty well the only available language. Darwin wrote an enormous amount of material, and you would need several years study to decide whether the couple of sentences Filanca is referring to indicate racism. If Wilkins says Darwin was not racist, that is an adequate reason for the very brief statements in the article (until suitable secondary sources say otherwise). Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that Darwin was conflicted, he harbored the victorian racial attitudes of the time, but he also thought about it independently, this is a quote from Descent.

''Although the existing races differ in many respects, as in color, hair, shape of the skull, proportions of the body, etc., yet, if their whole structure be taken into consideration, they are found to resemble each other closely on a multitude of points. Many of these are so unimportant or of so singular a nature that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes, and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was constantly struck, while living with the Fuegians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character showing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded Negro with whom I happened once to be intimate .'' Wapondaponda (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, I don't think it's accurate to say that "Darwin was conflicted, he harbored the victorian racial attitudes of the time". As Desmond and Moore argue, Darwin was passionately opposed to slavery, and had been brought up to view negro slaves with sympathy – his uncle produced medallions showing a negro slave in chains with the slogan "am I not a man and a brother". He was writing at a time where racist ideas were rife, including the common idea that human races had been created as separate species. In opposing these ideas he used the language of the time. There's also the issue of terminology, for example "races" then meant varieties, as is still does in botany, and his words can easily be misunderstood by a modern reader. He did see genocide in action in South America, and found Rosas a colourful and dramatic figure, and in Australia he noted the sad remnant of the Tasmanians who did not survive long after that visit, but his diaries show sympathy with these native peoples. . dave souza, talk 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This article Charles Darwin's formative friendship discusses Darwin's relationship with John Edmonstone, a black man from Guyana, the aforementioned "full-blooded negro". Wapondaponda (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find, thanks. . dave souza, talk 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I used Darwin directly to illustrate my point, I completely agree with secondary sources are needed in this encyclopedia, that is why I referred to one in the beginning. I don't know if anyone read it, but here is an article, written by a historian who studied Darwin's work, telling us about Darwin's fascination with eugenics and the idea that some races should be exterminated he held even near the end of his life and how Hitler made use of those. Although it is easily possible to find many articles that criticise Darwin for being racist, I picked that particular one because of its rare more neutral approach to this issıe.


 * Some arguments against Darwin's racism are his being against slavery and friendship with certain individuals of different races. Of course that is not enough to prove someone being not racist. That is like arguing Hitler was not racist since he was friendly with Japanese and that he was vegetarian so he respected even animal rights yet alone human rights.


 * Reading Wilkins' article on the web, I can not see him touching directly to racism issue. His article is rather tuned to be a philosophical defence of Evolution Theory against various criticisms, not one about Darwin himself being racist or not. So yes, I would like direct quotations from him, and also from the historian I quoted and we must indicate this is a controversial issue.


 * I think there is a rarity of reliable secondary sources here. Since Darwin is a very controversial person today, secondary sources tend to try and prove a point so they get either critical or apologetic. We must question neutrality of such secondary sources no matter if they are pro or against Darwin. And we must remember, this is a historical issue, not a biological one. Filanca (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article you cited above, this page (click "show transcript), is a March 2007 talk about how Hitler misused a version of Darwin's ideas, but as far as I can see it does not state that Darwin was a racist. It does describe him as someone who "should be our model of what intellectual perseverance, humility and honesty can be. He knew the life of the mind operates in a natural and historical world." It says he had a fascination with his half-cousin Galton's ideas on eugenics, but doesn't have the time to set out Darwin's concern that eugenics should only be voluntary, and should not be misused. When Darwin described civilised human cultures as beating others hollow in the struggle for existence, leading to elimination of more primitive peoples, the historian states that there was "no incitement here, but no comfort, either". That's accurate, Darwin had a bleak view of nature and gave no false comfort. However he also held that the evolved human instinct of sympathy was "the noblest part of our nature". As for reliable secondary sources, Desmond and Moore are two of the most respected historians of Darwin, and they evidently back up the assessment explicitly set out by Wilkins in his book. This overview article should not give undue weight to fringe anti-evolution historians, such as Weikart, who make all sorts of accusations about Darwin. These issues are explored in more depth on related articles, as you've noted. Now, if you want a historical racist of the period, you may be interested in the sad case of Louis Agassiz whose views on race were diametrically opposed to Darwin's views. . . dave souza, talk 08:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see in the whole article evidence of racism of Darwin, but if you ask for particular quotations, here:


 * "When Darwin subtitled the 'Origin' with 'The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life' he did not have human races in mind. But when, twelve years later, he published 'The Descent of Man', he did not evade the issue"


 * "he was always forthright in defending the key principles of evolution and in applying them to human affairs. Right at the end of his life"


 * "His voyage on the 'Beagle' was to promote Britain's global power, and he saw first hand the victims of expanding civilisation: the indigenous people being cleared off their land by European settlers"

Evidently, the historian in question is fond of Darwin, so he chose his words carefully, yet the facts are there. Also, consider his speaking of Darwin's "fascination with eugenics" and the first-hand quotations he made from Darwin (which are also the ones I made). Filanca (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your problem in a nutshell. You're applying modern meanings of wording to see racism where Darwin was actually arguing against the racism of the day. There's a danger in reading 19th century statements through the lens of modern political correctness, and while you may treasure the culture of Fuegians who slept half naked in sleet as part of their hunter-gatherer existence, Darwin could feel that European civilisation was culturally superior without holding the racist view that the difference was inherent in the people – quite the opposite, Darwin knew that the Fuegians could learn to be civilised if they wanted to. The historian does not say "Darwin was a racist", we've cited other historians who say "Darwin was not a racist", and your interpretation seems to be original research which goes beyond what we can or should include in articles. . dave souza, talk 10:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's words about supremacy of some races are so clear that it is hard to apologize him just because of him living in the 19th century. After all, not all people of his age made such racist comments, some were even openly against racism. Of course it is very easy to find secondary sources which openly claim "Darwin was racist" or "Darwin was not racist", since there are so many lovers and haters of him, the problem is to find ones which could remain neutral on this contraversial person. So, by making use of available material, my suggestion is to add the following changes to the article:
 * Delete "Darwin did not share the racism common at that time" (this is not referenced anyway)


 * Add "Darwin believed some human races were more fit for survival than others and consequently some races will disappear in the future (reference Tony Barta interview, relevant direct quotes from Darwin). Darwin made a distinction between lower, savage races and higher, civilized races and he stated the latter will eventually exterminate the former. (reference relevant direct quotes from Darwin)"

Since we will not make a further comment on what Darwin himself wrote, making such a direct quotation will not be a problem. Filanca (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not what our cited source says, your synthesis which is misleading, as discussed. Giving undue weight to your interpretation of one talk by Barta, contrary to historians with more expertise in Darwin. . dave souza, talk 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Darwin claimed favored human races will survive in the struggle for existance" with reference to Barta is not "my synthesis". This is only paraphrasing of what Barta says. For "Undue weight to Barta", please explain how he is contradicting to which historians. As to deleting "Darwin not sharing racism common in his time", may I assume there is no objection for those? I should think not, since even historians who take an apologetic stance for Darwin's questionable remarks claim although those sound racist today, they were normal for 19th century. Finally, I assume there is no objection to making direct reference to Darwin's works. Filanca (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation of what Barta says and a misunderstanding of what Darwin says. You should be aware of the requirements of WP:SYN restricting use of direct quotations of primary sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Barta said:
 * "When Darwin subtitled the 'Origin' with 'The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life' he did not have human races in mind. But when, twelve years later, he published 'The Descent of Man', he did not evade the issue"

With reference to that I propose to add:
 * "Darwin claimed favored human races will survive in the struggle for existance"

Please explain where the misrepresentation is.

Darwin said:
 * "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

With reference to that I propose to add:
 * "Darwin made a distinction between lower, savage races and higher, civilized races and he stated the latter will eventually exterminate and replace the former."

Pease explain if you have any objection to that. WP:SYN is irrelevant here since I do not add any conclusion on what Barta and Darwin say. Filanca (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're paraphrasing Darwin and a not very informative talk by Barta, who appears to have limited expertise as a historian on the question of what Darwin meant, without explaining the terms "race" and "savage". This is misleading in modern terms, as what we mean by human races is not what Darwin meant by the term, according to the published sources. Any such statement has to be shown in context, which you proposals fail to do. They also seem to be going beyond your sources. . dave souza, talk 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing itself is not a problem in this encyclopedia. If you see any mistake in the way it is done, please indicate exactly where and how. By the way, I am perfectly ok with a direct quotation from Darwin. The same goes with Barta. For your claim "He appears to have limited expertise as a historian", Barta is a respectable historian who published (see ) and gave speech (see ) about racism and Darwin. This might be a reason why ABC invited him for a program about racism and Darwin. Please show exactly where "my proposals go beyond my sources". Filanca (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My reply is below. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Darwin was an as convinced racist as Agassiz, he might even be better than average Victorian intellectual, but he was not completely against racism. Filanca (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts are irrelevant, please cite explicit statements by historians. . . dave souza, talk 10:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not consider the above statement alone, it is based on what I and other users wrote above. Filanca (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwin, did use some language, that today would be considered racist. However, we have to look at the big picture. Darwin's whole theory of evolution, the idea that humans descended from some great ape, was a big blow to the prevailing ideas of human uniqueness and human exceptionalism of the time. Darwin was also of the view that the all humans shared a common ancestry and that the racial differences were superficial. Darwin also frequently spoke ill of uneducated or low class people in England as well.


 * One other thing to note, during much of his journey, Darwin spent most of his time in South America. Only briefly was he in Australia, and spent just a short time in Cape town, South Africa. The five years he spent on the beagle were the only time he ever left England. The notion that the savage races would be displaced by civilized races was highly influenced by what he saw in South America, where native american populations were decimated by European small pox and other diseases to which they had no immunity due to their isolation from the rest of the world. Had he traveled to Asia or tropical Africa, he may not have held that view because these regions were not affected by European diseases the way native americans initially were. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically agree, minor correction. Darwin left England as a child on holiday to Wales, went to Scotland for university and a few outings, and in 1827 visited Ireland and France. Darwin met Juan Manuel de Rosas in South America during one of Rosas's genocidal campaigns against unruly natives, and noted this in his Journal. He also saw natives under pressure from settlers in New Zealand and Australia, and his notes reflect sympathy rather than racism. However, by today's liberal standards his words sometimes look dreadful. Wilkins, Desmond and Moore are pretty clear that "savages" referred to a lack of civilisation, not a racial characteristic in modern terms. Terms which are, of course, very dubious. Darwin's own work goes a long way to showing that race is too blurred a definition to be a useful concept. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
I am replying here to some comments above where Filanca proposed to add:
 * "Darwin made a distinction between lower, savage races and higher, civilized races and he stated the latter will eventually exterminate and replace the former."

I read the complete references posted by Filanca:
 * Full text of "Mr Darwin's shooters...", Tony Barta, 2005
 * Transcript: "Darwin and Social Darwinism...", Tony Barta, 2009

Here is my quick opinion on the above two references. Barta's work is typical of some humanities writing where one can't actually tell what point is being made, although the emotion is quite clear. However, Barta makes absolutely no suggestion of racism by Darwin. Re Darwin's subtitle mentioning "favoured races", Barta states "'Races' here were not the visible divisions of the single human species". Barta points out that some people used Darwin's ideas as a justification for eugenics and genocide.

The first reference includes "Darwin was not responsible for 'euthanasia', racial categorization and genocide. But the legacy of Darwin promoted the idea that it is natural for beings with more power to displace others, and to intervene in nature for such ends. Darwin did not confront this as directly as he might have in his later work."

The second reference refers to "a kind of intellectual lapse on Darwin's part" (the suggestion being that Darwin should have chosen different language that would not have easily allowed future misuse).

Summary: No reference has been given with even a hint that Darwin was racist. The references include some hand-wringing about the "savage races" quote from Darwin, but there is no analysis of the phrase (i.e. would such words indicate racism in the 1850s?). Barta noted that Darwin did not believe the Fuegians were in any way innately inferior.

I oppose Filanca's proposal as a complete misunderstanding of the words written by Darwin. In addition, the references contain no justification for the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, Barta would not say Darwin was a racist, nor this is my proposal. General opinion in this talk page is that Darwin could not be considered more racist than average intellectual of his age. However, the encyclopedia article as it is now claims that Darwin "did not share the racism common in his time", which is misleading: "In social and political questions, he (Darwin) retained the worldview of his class and time. The basis of that view was historical: it held that the advance of civilization was a triumphant progress, morally justified and probably inevitable. When Darwin lent his great gifts and influence to making the disappearance of peoples 'natural' as well as historical, his theory—conceived amid a worldwide human catastrophe—could serve as an ideological cover for policies abhorrent to his humanitarian and humanist principles" (Barta, Mr Darwin's shooters...)


 * Your reference to Barta is incomplete. After saying the subtitle of the Origin ("preservation of favored races) was not alluding to visible differences between the human species, he continues: "Darwin later recalled that visible human difference had sparked his interest. Darwin then gives a long quotation from Wells about the ability of some African peoples to better adapt to climate and disease. 'This race would consequently multiply, while the others would decrease; not only from their inability to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their incapacity of contending with their more vigorous neighbours". So, yes, when Darwin spoke of "favored races" this also covers humans. Filanca (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion under the heading "Darwin's racism", yet the reference you provided contains no hint of support for that claim.
 * Your quote from Barta starting "In social and political questions..." is perplexing. The "advance of civilization" sentence is referring to the "worldview of his class and time" (it does not refer to Darwin, except for the unsupported claim that Darwin retained that worldview). As I noted earlier, it is often hard to see what point Barta is trying to make; I think your quote is one of those occasions because any attempt to associate Darwin with "triumphant progress, morally justified and probably inevitable" would be absurd.
 * Darwin spent years studying details in barnacles, so of course he would also be interested in "visible human difference" (and any other difference between groups of an organism). Darwin realized that humans are animals so "favored races" certainly applies to both. However, the words do not mean what you appear to think. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing that reviewers and "experts" are non-biased editing these articles. I base this notion after looking at Mr. Souza's user page which reads: "[Dave] strayed into the history of creationism leading to an unhealthy fascination with the great intelligent design con." Science is based on research available and a quote as this Mr. Souza is your opinion based on facts you have learned. But not to just pick on you I agree that Filanca's claim of Darwin’s personal beliefs on racism are lacking sufficient references; however, "The Decline of Man" does make references to what would now be considered racially motivate in this day and age...but not necessarily in that time and era. Regardless I propose quotations be used from both sides of this apparent argument to prevent “quote mining” and let the reader make up their own mind. Whether you believe in evolution or creation good research involves giving the reader as much information as possible in a non-biased manner to let the reader make up their own mind.CyChippy (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles reflect published expert opinion verified from reliable sources, and various biases are dealt with according to WP:NPOV policy which does not give undue weight to fringe views, or give "equal validity" to "both sides". All sources must be treated on their merits and, regrettably, intelligent design has a poor record for reliability. . . dave souza, talk 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again Mr. Souza I’m not worried about “articles biasness" so much as your biasness as it pertains to this article and the biasness of the individuals which you have been debating. My suggestion has nothing to do with "intelligent design' nor do I care about its reliability.  My point is to acknowledge that there is controversy in whether or not Darwin was racist, which is unfounded; however it is factual by the original source Mr. Darwin did make statements which (as above debate acknowledges) may be misconstrued today from its original context in the Victorian period.  Google “Was Darwin Racist?”  if you feel the need to debate whether or not there is controversy and your will be met with 1000's of references. Whatever the answer, it cannot detract from the impact his work has made on philosophical, religious and scientific thought. FinCyChippy (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A similar discussion is mentioned at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes It seems to be a common argument that is used against Charles Darwin. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Such quote mining is indeed common, and is used dishonestly to promote religious views and denigrate science. In particular, attempts are made to discredit Darwin. Our remit is to reflect reliable expert opinion, and the best sources on the subject are all clear that Darwin was not racist, so that's what we show. We acknowledge that other attitudes have been "later attributed to him", but spelling these dubious claims out would give them undue weight. . dave souza, talk 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwin prophesied the extermination of "Jewish hollow" and blacks, therefore happy (not "sad" as now is written in the article) with the difference thereby widened between man and ape. Until this article gives due weight to Darwin's such ideas, I will consider it as biased therefore not deserving its current status of a featured one. Filanca (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your unsourced opinions are at wild variance with the reputable sources we cite. dave souza, talk 17:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Filanca asserts that Darwin wrote "The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Jewish hollow in the struggle for existence." This is from a letter to W. Graham, included in his autobiography. The line is in fact "The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence", a reference to the decline of the Ottoman empire in the light of long-standing fears that the Turks would take over Europe. Someone has deliberately rewritten this to portray Darwin as some sort of prophet of the Holocaust. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add Darwinius masillae to the list of species named in Darwin's honour
The following needs to be added to Charles Darwin:

In 2009, the discovery of a type specimen of a now-extinct species and genus of primate was reported. It lived 47 million years ago (during the Eocene) and appears to be a transitional fossil linking primitive primates and humans. The new species was named Darwinius masillae, a name meaning "Darwin's creature from the Messel pit."

I suggest adding it right after the following:
 * Although related to American Emberizidae or Tanagers rather than finches, the group of species related to those Darwin found in the Galápagos Islands became popularly known as “Darwin's finches” following publication of David Lack's book of that name in 1947, fostering inaccurate legends about their significance to his work.

Thanks. 67.100.222.146 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Could you provide a reference for this fact, as well? Celestra (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both, ref added and the text tweaked to focus on it being named for Darwin's bicentenary. Note that any link to humans is speculative and disputed, but a very significant fossil find. . dave souza, talk 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The following needs to be corrected:

"In 2009, the discovery of a type specimen of a now-extinct species and genus of primate was reported. It lived 47 million years ago (during the Eocene) and appears to be a transitional fossil linking primitive primates and humans.  The new species was named Darwinius masillae, a name meaning "Darwin's creature from the Messel pit."

The fossil was originally discovered in 1983, sold in two halves and the reassembled in 2006. Please correct as "In 2009 scientists published their findings on a fossil originally discover in 1983 and is a type specimen of a now-extinct species and genus of primate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillaeCyChippy (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having reexamined the way that article's developed, I've revised the statement to "In 2009, a remarkably complete fossil primate from 47 million years ago found in the Messel pit was announced as a significant transitional fossil, and named Darwinius to celebrate Darwin's bicentenary." . . dave souza, talk 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the full title of Darwin's book should be put in the opening paragraph, instead of way down at the end. Just move what you said about it usually being abbriviated to the top. --Apologia2000 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at that, the full title is a detailed matter dealt with in the relevant article about the book. As it wasn't even Darwin's own proposed title, it's not got much relevance here so I'll remove it from this article and leave the detailed explantions to On the Origin of Species. . dave souza, talk 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Realized in the first sentence is spelled "realise." This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.186.25 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ENGVAR. It's a big world. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ano ba ang height mo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.82.63 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Role of women and superiority of men

 * ''The following subsection added today is rather detailed for this overview of Darwin's life, and makes very dubious assertions:

Darwin's work developed from the great chain of being in which women were less perfect than men.[ref>] Females play a part in evolution only in that they choose their mates. In the Descent of Man he wrote that males, "transmit their superiority to their male offspring".[ref>Darwin, Descent of Man p. 291]
 * ''Will comment further in a minute. . dave souza, talk 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Here is the chapter quoted from the Descent of Man. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part of this paragraph, attributed to a book about women's historic role in general rather than a specialist biography of Darwin, appears incorrect – Darwin's big change from earlier evolutionary ideas involved getting away from the revival of the great chain of being, and introducing branching evolution in which he tended to think of all branches as equal, though he was influenced enough by the general culture of his time to be inconsistent in this. Either way, the great chain is a bit of a red herring at this stage. The cited page 291 doesn't support the assertion: in Vol. 1 it covers peacocks and insects, and in Vol. 2 monkeys. The quote appears to be an extract from page 271–272, Vol. 1 of first edition (page 221 of 2nd edition) in which the context doesn't support the suggestion that he's talking about women:

"The Male generally more modified than the Female.—Throughout the animal kingdom, when the sexes differ from each other in external appearance, it is the male which, with rare exceptions, has been chiefly modified; for the female still remains more like the young of her own species, and more like the other members of the same group. The cause of this seems to lie in the males of almost all animals having stronger passions than the females. Hence it is the males that fight together and sedulously display their charms before the females; and those which are victorious transmit their superiority to their male offspring. Why the males do not transmit their characters to both sexes will hereafter be considered. That the males of all mammals eagerly pursue the females is notorious to every one. So it is with birds; but many male birds do not so much pursue the female, as display their plumage, perform strange antics, and pour forth their song, in her presence. With the few fish which have been observed, the male seems much more eager than the female; and so it is with alligators, and apparently with Batrachians......"


 * Looking ahead to page 275 onwards, it's pretty clear that he's talking about the effects of sexual selection rather than evolution in general, and he does comment on somewhat sparse evidence that human males vary more than females, while also pointing to exceptional species where the opposite applies, and numerous cases where both sexes are similar and sexual selection is thought to apply to both. Not really a very clear case for the assertion in the proposed section. This could perhaps appropriately be developed in more detail in the article on The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, preferably with analysis from a subject expert such as Janet Browne. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the statement of Females play a part in evolution only in that they choose their mates. is not attributed to anybody, it seems to be made as a statement of fact. I'd disagree strongly with that assertion, since natural selection for traits such as disease resistance, ability to gather food, ability to avoid predators etc. all apply equally to male and female animals. In the mechanism of sexual selection the statement might be closer to the truth, but not for evolution in general. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right. It is sexual selection. Woe is me for misquoting Ms. Tuana. I tried to add this very high level and failed to notice the difference. Dave Souza, thanks a lot for the pointer to Ms. Browne. Although it will be years before I have finished the books sitting in front of me I can add her to my list. Is anything I added salvageable at this time? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth thinking about in the long run as development of the article on Descent, but the proposal doesn't really work as it is at present. We'd really have to attribute the claim to Ms. Tuana in the text, and take care to represent it properly. Janet Browne is probably the leading biographer of Darwin, and you'd be likely to enjoy her two volume biography but it's a big read. Some minor quibbles about a tendency not to make the date sequence clear and some minor errors, but very strong on his social and family life as well as his work. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd personally turn the viewpoint around, and say Females are the drivers of sexual selection, since they tend to choose their mates from a pool of competing males. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a better (or worse as the case may be) chapter maybe, in the Descent of Man where Darwin wrote that women's skulls are "intermediate" between child and man. I do think--and imported that perhaps into Tuana--that Darwin might have had some of the old chain of being in his head and if so it belongs here. Tim Vickers, yes, except where marriage is arranged. The statement about females having no part is very close to her words (it could be cited to p. 37). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As with the issues of race, care has to be taken when Darwin, as in this instance, is reporting the comments of other experts and it shouldn't be assumed that this is his prejudice. Pretty sure I've seen it argued that he thought women were less intellectual or the like, but that goes against the obvious respect he had for Harriet Martineau's rather formidable intellect, so in these areas it's best to look for opinions in the best biographies, and Browne's is probably the most balanced. This main article is already rather oversized and has been subject to pretty harsh pruning with detail being covered in the linked sub-articles. So, something to develop either in the relevant the biographical sub-article for the time, or in relation to Descent if that's in question. Because of cultural changes, great care has to be taken when using the primary source of Darwin's writings, and it's always best to ensure that the interpretation is in line with expert historians as secondary sources in accordance with WP:NOR. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy you are up to 117K already. I will think about it and if there is a concise way to say it then will post here on the talk page (I expect there might be). Thanks very much for your work on this biography. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

SusanLesch: I would like to explain some background because the extract from Tuana is a total misunderstanding of what Darwin was saying. Males generally invest less energy and time in producing offspring than females, with the result that a male impala, for example, can pass his genes to many offspring, via different females in one season, while a female impala can only pass her genes combined with one male, each season. It is therefore in a male impala's evolutionary interest to establish a herd of females, and drive away other males. Only males that are superior to other males can achieve that, and pass genes to the next generation. Another example is the bowerbird where a male is superior to other males if he can build a bower that a female selects in preference to the bowers of other males. Darwin's quote is saying absolutely nothing about males with respect to females.

With regard to your second find, what Darwin actually wrote is "The female, however, ultimately assumes certain distinctive characters, and in the formation of her skull, is said to be intermediate between the child and the man.[3]" (my emphasis). The "[3]" is a refence to a book by Ecker and Welcker. Darwin had no idea about male/female human skull differences, but as a scientist he had to include information gathered by others. If we are to read anything from Darwin's tea leaves, we should concentrate on the "said to be" which could easily be interpreted as Darwin saying that he thought the claim was dubious. The information that we take for granted simply wasn't available in 1870, but in a section on male/female differences, Darwin had to record what is said to be. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree in the second case that said to be is significant. In the first case, a new book my boyfriend ordered, Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, says sexual selection has two parts: direct competition between males (which you have explained above and incidentally he mentioned bowerbirds), and female choosiness. I only skimmed it but think he concludes that "Darwin was right" (as opposed to Wallace) on this point. I am not ready however to throw out all of Tuana over it. Thanks for your note. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Browne vol II discussion
Ms. Browne's volume II arrived today ahead of volume I. The index is good enough to point to references to "women." Objections to adding this? Ways to say this more concisely? I cut the details in light of the length constraint. She suggests that he was a product of his time and people which he thought had reached evolution's highest rung. "Role of women and superiority of men According to Darwin, females play a part in evolution only when they choose their mates. In the Descent of Man he wrote that by choosing tools and weapons over the years, 'man has ultimately become superior to woman' and he thought that males were intellectually superior. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)"
 * As you note, Browne does indeed indicate that these ideas were due to Darwin being a product of his time and people, and "his vision of mating behaviour was an explicit expression of his class and gender" from p. 346. She says a lot more about his views of the role of sexual selection in humans on these pages, and it would be ideal to develop that more fully in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex which needs expansion. Biographical aspects can also be added to Darwin from Descent of Man to Emotions. However, as Darwin's views were typical, they don't really seem very notable in terms of this main biography page which is struggling to be concise. Nancy Tuana's sixteen year old book appears to be out of print, again it seems that you're missing the point that females play a part in sexual selection both when they choose their mates and when they're chosen as mates, and they also play a full part in other aspects of natural selection and evolution. Does she cite the quote "man has ultimately become superior to woman"? It's from an interesting context,Difference in the Mental Powers of the two Sexes as it does indeed look typically paternalistic for the time: "Woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness... Woman, owing to her maternal instincts, displays these qualities towards her infants in an eminent degree; therefore it is likely that she should often extend them towards her fellow-creatures. Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness. These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright. It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation." He then follows Galton in arguing that "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain..." which to us looks like circular reasoning, but again it seems pretty typical of the time. Something to examine in these more detailed articles. Trust you're enjoying Browne, from looking at the items for "women" in the index, we could do with a bit more info in our article about the redoubtable Clémence Royer, at least in relation to her work on translating and adding her own opinions to On the Origin of Species, and Lady Dorothy Nevill could do with a link from Darwin from Orchids to Variation as her article seems to be an orphan. . dave souza, talk 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote "man has ultimately become superior to woman" is cited to the Descent of Man. Unless there are objections or corrections I will try to add the above to this article tomorrow. Yes it is significant that a woman worked on his text but that costs more characters. I am sorry but Janet Browne who is the source to which you agreed says unmistakably what Darwin thought of men and women. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Descent is a primary source, and since a simplistic quote can be misleading out of context WP:PSTS requires a secondary source such as Browne for interpretation whenever there's doubt. The only problem with a statement based accurately on what Browne says, including making it clear that Darwin had normal views for his class and gender at the time, is that it's a statement of the pretty near obvious and thus it's a bit questionable how significant it is. We already state under Social Darwinism that "Darwin's views on social and political issues reflected his time and social position". Please clarify your proposal, and where you think it should be added. It would also be useful if you've more sources stating that this is a significant issue, and as stated above it would be really helpful if you could develop this in more depth on the detailed articles linked above. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The secondary source is Evelleen Richards, "Darwin and the descent of women" in David Oldroyd and Ian Langham. eds., The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, pages 57–111, published by D. Reidel (you can look in the Bibliography section of Browne p. 560 for it and in note 60 on page 522). I propose to add the above in the same place I added it before. With some luck another editor will notice it and refine it. For additional source there is one in the sexual selection article: Ruth Hubbard, “Have Only Men Evolved?” in The Politics of Women’s Biology (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990), pp. 87-106. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read these books? WP:CITE requires you to state where you got the info, not imply that a source you've not seen has information. The proposal is, rightly, too short and of relatively limited significance to start introducing extra subsections, much as you'd like to highlight the issue, but a brief mention in relation to sexual selection could well be appropriate. Again, providing additional sources on the related articles will be worthwhile and helpful, but we're trying to keep this article concise and minimise the overall size of the article. . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read some of Hubbard and Tuana but not Richards or Browne. I'll see if I can get a peek at Richards today but its cost is prohibitive (US$244.00). Also "Have you actually read these books? WP:CITE requires you to state where you got the info, not imply that a source you've not seen has information" does not mean that I need to track down Janet Browne's sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the above, dave souza has pointed out that while it may be accurate to portray Darwin as typical of his time and place, that seems rather obvious, and is not worth mentioning unless an analysis in a reliable secondary source concludes that the information has some importance. In view of the large Darwin Industry, there really should be more than one such analysis before claiming something that other authors have missed. In your reply to Dave, you mentioned books other than the one by Browne, and you mentioned them in connection with a proposal to add information to the article. That is why Dave noted that if you have read Browne, WP:CITE says to source Browne. By the way, I don't know what "females play a part in evolution only when they choose their mates" means, but I doubt whether anyone claimed that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, please take it easy on the addition and improve it if possible. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 It really doesn't look justified, and clearly isn't an issue for a subsection of its own. You also still seem to have some misconceptions. Will discuss further shortly, please get consensus on the talk page before making further additions. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. The issue is mentioned in a couple of books on sexism, making the point, which Browne mentions as part of a paragraph, that Darwin was male centred in a typical way for a Victorian gentleman of his class. Maybe something to explore in one of the more detailed sections, as suggested above, but hardly one of the half dozen most significant and notable things about Darwin's life. Note that Browne devotes a chapter to heredity and pangenesis, which we don't mention because we're covering two thirds of her book in one short section. As for "According to Darwin who was a Victorian anthrocentrist (male-centered)," I don't think that means what you think it means. As it happens, Darwin was less anthropocentric than most people of his time, few would have appreciated ants in the way he did. "In the Descent of Man he wrote that by choosing tools and weapons over the years, "man has ultimately become superior to woman"." is simply inaccurate, it's not what Darwin wrote, and the superiority he's talking about in that section is specifically intellectual. "Darwin thought that males are intellectually superior" is a commonplace for gentlemen of his time, it would have been more notable if he didn't. This really looks like a breach of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Accurately developing a nuanced treatment of this issue at Descent of Man could be useful, but it doesn't look justified in this overview of Darwin's biography. . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the passage misuses the word "anthro(po)centrist"; while I'm not familiar with the term "anthrocentrist", anthropocentrism is human-centred, not male-centred. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to the removal and its edit summary calling it "sexist". I came through the talk page. I purchased the best source on the market which is supposed to be Janet Browne and I quote two secondary sources. One was Ruth Hubbard, who was a biologist at Harvard University. Guettarda, I agree however it is the word Prof. Hubbard chose. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the edit summary which you've taken amiss, my intention was to note that these are remarks accusing Darwin of sexism. The removal of incoherent or incorrect information is well justified, your insistence on adding it with a new section heading when you'd been asked not to and clearly had no consensus led to this removal. Discussion is best before adding controversial information. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also object to the characterization of what I added as "incoherent and incorrect". And "when you'd been asked not to" by whom other than yourself? Why not suggest that the material be added throughout the article instead of in a section? I liked Guettarda's criticism of stringing together three sources in what he or she read as approaching WP:SYNTH. It was actually condensed in deference to the overflowing 117K article (I can't please everybody). WP:CRITICISM allows the mention of racism in Enid Blyton (your example below) and it is a good basis for a note about sexism here. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a good basis for developing this issue in the Descent article, and when that's done we can review if a pointer to it here is appropriate. At the moment the evidence ssems to be that Darwin was pretty ordinary. We should probably also review the issue of pangenesis and heredity, a subject to which Darwin biographers give more emphasis. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no OED entry for "anthrocentrism" or similar word, so what's the basis for your linking it to the anthropocentrism article? As for the issue of Hubbard using the word, why no quotation marks for a quote?  Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) The word is androcentrism - but, whatever, this insertion of what looks like some sort of anachronistic attack on Darwin for not being enough of a feminist is quite out of place in the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the context. I copied this out of Amazon (my copy will arrive next week) and agree with Snalwibma that she probably said androcentrsim. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The ethnocentric bias of Darwinism has been widely acknowledged, but its blatant sexism--or, more correctly, anthrocentrism (male-centeredness)--although noted by a few nineteeth century feminists, went largely unexplored until the 1970s, when feminist scientists and historians became interested in Darwin."
 * Snalwibma wins the prize for best reader. Prof. Hubbard indeed said androcentrism. I apologize for the typo. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a few things:

Apart from the most obvious problems with this bit (it's ungrammatical and inserts American English spelling into an article that uses British English spelling), the first problem I see here is that it connects a few distinct issues into something that strikes me as "more than the sum of its parts" The first problem lies with connecting these disparate elements. It's hard to say much about the first statement until we know what it means, but it seems to be saying "Darwin was typical of his time". Why is that important here? He was the product of his time in many regards. Why does that need restatement here? The second sentence seems out of place. What does Darwin's opinion about sexual selection in animals have to do with his view of humans? Or is this section not about humans? After all, the "classic" view of sexual selection is that where female choice is important in sexual selection, it shows up in male ornamentation. Especially to a Victorian, this wouldn't be seen as applying to humans. The final bits, as Dave has pointed out, don't seem terribly remarkable. So why add a new section, and why title it "the role of women and the superiority of men"? What does this even have to do with the "role" of women? It feels like you've taken a few distinct bits and cobbled them together; see WP:SYNTH.
 * 1) Darwin was an Victorian anthropocentrist 'or had a male-centred view (Hubbard) [Since these are two different things, it's important to clarify which one we're talking about here'']
 * 2) females play a part in sexual selection when they choose their mates (Tuana)
 * 3) In the Descent of Man he wrote that by choosing tools and weapons over the years, "man has ultimately become superior to woman"
 * 4) Darwin thought that males are intellectually superior

Finally, there's the issue of due and undue weight. Given the "Darwin industry" that Dave alludes to, surely there's some scholarship that addresses this directly. It seems to boil down to a simple statement that Darwin was typical of his time when it came to the role of women. Which seems to be about as relevant as stating that he wasn't a supporter of voting rights for women, or equal pay for women. True, but trivial. People are the product of their time. That's not news. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[Missed Snalwibma's comment and Susan's reply. Surprised I didn't get an edit conflict. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)]


 * Guettarda, thank you for taking the time to describe the problem. I can settle #1 next week when Hubbard's book gets here. Regarding "that's not news," Darwin could have responded during his life to those who remarked at his male-centeredness. I think if I was a biologist that nothing would excite me more than the possibility that there could be more to evolution. Science is ever-changing. When I studied evolution in college nobody mentioned (nobody knew) that it grew out of a male-centered science. Today I would expect to be told so up front in this biography. I wish someone would improve the addition and add it instead of finding fault. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I read Enid Blyton in school nobody knew it was racist, because essentially it wasn't, but it's seen that way now. Science at that time was male-centred, as George Elliot would no doubt tell you. The issue of science as a whole is a topic for a general article, not a tag to bold bolt onto the biography of every male-centred scientist. Don't know who said Darwin was male-centred at the time, evidence would be interesting, but self-centred might be a better description and he was rather more complex than that. As for female choice, he evidently discussed the sexual attractiveness of beards (or otherwise) but according to Browne he essentially thought that in advanced civilisations men did the choosing. Little did he know.
 * Try reading the section which Browne cites, Darwin does note that he's "aware that some writers doubt whether there is any inherent difference" in mental powers, but draws on the evidence at that time and Galton's maths to say "that if men are capable of decided eminence over women in many subjects, the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman". We think he was wrong, as he was about pangenesis, but he didn't have the data to go on. The last paragraph is interesting in suggesting that equality could be attained through education, but then on the basis of his incorrect notions about soft inheritance he thinks this impractical. Anyway, more in a minute. . dave souza, talk 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Frances Power Cobbe
Darwin's encounter with Frances Power Cobbe in Wales is covered briefly in Darwin from Descent of Man to Emotions, based closely on Desmond and Moore p. 572. The extraordinary scene, with the two conversing by yelling across a 60 foot wide bramble patch separating their paths, is described in Browne pp. 331–332, but she makes no mention of him responding to Cobbe's suggestion that he read John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women by yelling back that Mill '"could learn some things" from biology, and that the "struggle for existence" produced man's special "vigour and courage" from battling "for the possession of women". This looked rather like the section we've been discussing from Descent, and it struck me that Desmond and Moore might have transposed things, but their version is largely supported by Cobbe's autobiography. However, rather contradicting their concluding remarks about Cobbe offering a loan of Kant "to sort out his obvious ethical problems, but he refused", Cobbe's biography notes that she sent it anyway and he responded after at least attempting to read it. Far from being offended at Darwin's sexism, this pioneering feminist records that "In writing at this time to a friend I said : — 'I am glad yon like Mill's book. Mr. Charles Darwin, with whom I am enchanted, is greatly excited abont it, bnt says that Mill oonld leam some thinga from physical science ; and that it is in the struggls tor existence and (especially) for the possession of women that men acquire their vigour and courage. Also he intensely agrees with what I say in my review of Mill about [inherited] qualities being more important than [education], on which alone [Mill] insists." [corrected obvious OCR problems bracketed] So, it's not so evident that feminists of the day took offence at the ideas. Must now improve that other article. dave souza, talk 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

compelling evidence
The word clues would have been more objectif, because as Michael Denton pointed it in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Darwin himself was enough honnest to admit that for the general implication of his theory he didn't have any proof. It is worth to note that Denton himself isn't a creationist as his last book Nature's Destiny bear's testimony.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the pioneering cdesign proponentsist no longer displays his creationism openly, and has recanted many of the things he said in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Which doesn't really give it any credibility. . dave souza, talk 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarcasme never did bring any scientific progress, it's the weapon of dogmatism, and darwinian dogmatism is the best trump of creationism. It is quite possible that some critics from his book are now out dated, but many of them are inspiring open minded scientist to better the old paradigm or to find alternatives in the frame of true science.cf Schitterend ongeluk of sporen van ontwerp?/Cees Dekker, Ronald Meester, René van Woudenberg / Ten Have 2005 (ISBN 90 259 5483 9). But the evidence of my remark are to be found by Darwin himself. --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When Darwin was writing his stuff, there were no planes, no computers, and no quite a lot of other things. That is, science has learned an enormous amount since Darwin's time. Many things that puzzled Darwin are commonly understood now, although not by everyone. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't get my point, and commonly understood is not a garanty of scientific accuracy if you look at science history --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Compelling evidence is exactly right. And it's not the same as proof either. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you further elaborate on this, even I have a academic background (veterinary MD), french is my primary language not english --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is an empirical and inductive theory. A theory like that is considered "proven" when all evidence that we find points to the conclusions of the theory and the theory succeeds in integrating the evidence, making it compelling. It basically means that a rejection or replacement of the theory causes more problems, in an explanatory sense, than it would solve. In the case of a succesfull inductive empirical theory, the problems that are caused by rejection are for the most patently absurd and unsurmountable. Proof is generaly used in mathematical, theoretical and deductive hypotheses. However, a deductive hypothesis that has a theoretical nature can never be as "compelling" as an empirical inductive theory. Hence the objections made by the persons you named, that are purely academic, cannot stand up against the empirical observations and the conclusions that are, by now, nessecarilly derived from that. Therefore "clues" is too weak an expression to describe what is basically evidence. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Ha-y Gavra: You are quite right that Darwin never presented any compelling evidence for his theory that “all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.”, contrary to the claim of this article’s first sentence. And indeed as you say, he even admitted this himself. Indeed it seems he presented no empirical evidence at all for it, compelling nor otherwise. And this was no doubt why his theory was unaccepted. And nor does any serious historian of science claim he did present any compelling evidence to the best of my knowledge, which is most likely why those improvement blocking Wiki editors who dominate this article have been unable to find any justifying source for this claim to date.

This claim was originally justified by a John van Wyhe source, first challenged by Logicus in the 26 April Talk topic ‘Wot compelling evidence ?’, item 51 in Talk Archive 6 as a result of which this attempted ventriloquism was then withdrawn, since van Wyhe makes no such claim. But it was then most risibly replaced by another source that does not justify it either, but rather only claims Darwin presented compelling rhetoric for this theory, which, incidentally, is also false. Concerning this replacement failed verification, also see the Archive 6 3rd May Logicus Talk topic ‘Failed verification for 'Darwin presented compelling evidence that evolution has been mainly by natural selection'.

It seems this article is not a serious history of science article, concerned with accurate analysis of the historical evolution of scientific ideas, but clearly rather a Darwin hagiography article concerned with defending this bourgeois culture hero from any criticism or possible suggestion he was not God’s gift to empirical scientific progress.

But in view of the issue you raise, it just may be worthwhile flagging this claim as having a failed verification yet again to try and elicit the provision of a valid justifying source to replace the current Wiki-scandalous situation, or else its timely deletion in the event of continued failure. Maybe a higher wisdom now prevails (-:

By the way, note that von Hebel above is not talking about Darwin's theory, but rather about 'evolution', whatever he thinks that is.

--Logicus (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus on Old Moonraker's response: Well, we must surely heartily welcome Old Moonraker’s positive response to my request for a remedy for this article’s long outstanding failure to provide a justifying source for the claim that Darwin ‘presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.’ It is a most welcome alternative to the invalid short-minded abuse, insult and quasi-censorship such requests have previously met with.

But does the quotation he(?) kindly provides really do the job ? It is as follows:

“Glass, Bentley (1959). Forerunners of Darwin. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. iv. ISBN 0801802229. "Darwin's solution is a magnificent synthesis of evidence...a synthesis...compelling in honesty and comprehensiveness" “

This certainly seems to testify that Darwin presented evidence that was compelling in its honesty and comprehensiveness. But for what ? The state of his bank account ? His lifelong basic ‘Lamarckian’ theory that the primary cause of evolution is the variation induced by changed conditions of life and the inheritance of acquired characteristics ? Or his theory that the secondary cause of evolution is natural selection, and that it has been responsible for even more of the extent of variation than the primary cause ?

And solution to what problem ?

In the first instance we surely need more of Glass's quotation quotation to demonstrate he claims that the compelling evidence was for the empirically undemonstrable proposition that ‘all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.’ --Logicus (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Evolution as put forward by Darwin is in my understanding an inductive empirical theory. Darwin did give empirical evidence for the proposition that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection. Although it must be admitted that much (perhaps even most) of the evidence was actually found when the theory was tested in the 150 years that have passed since. Darwin did show that the proposition was empirically demonstrable through the inductive method. The observations he made were undoubtebly empirical and as Glass remarked, Darwin (and his successors) synthesized it into the theory in question, thereby solving a problem. That is how empirical inductive theories work in science. In the end it is the synthesis that makes the evidence compelling. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your first answer, but I agree totally with Logicus that we are confronted with a "a Darwin hagiography article" wich Darwin himself would not have agreed with, but which is in total accord with Huxley's ideologic approach, though I think that our misunderstanding comes from the well spread confusion between microevolution on which Darwin provided compelling empirical evidence and his hypothetis on the origin of all life known as macroevolution, and I think as if a clear epistemologic line was drown between the two facets of Darwin's theory, an critic approach of macroevolution wouldn't cause any "absurd and unsurmountable" problems and would at the contrary lead to more insights in the mecanisms of microevolution by freeing the research from philosophical debates, and also to progress in our scientific understanding in the origins of life. The modern synthesis is soon a century old and they are more than 15 new paradigms to be tested!.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There can be no clear epistomologic line between microevolution and macroevolution because they are basically the same concept. Only looked at on a different scale. I'm sure Darwin knew that when he realised that paleonthology would be vital in confirming his theory, as it did. Micro and macroevolution are basically terms used in creationism and perhaps ID. That macroevolution (ape to men) is the logical consequence of microevolution (finches with staight beaks to finches with curved beaks) stands to reason and is confirmed by the nested hierarchy that exists in biology. An alternative hypothesis is therefore not nessecary. I'm not sure what new paradigms you're talking about, but I'm not sure either what a new paradigm would add to a theory that doesn't have any main explanatory problems. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Gavra & von Hebel: Re your albeit interesting mutual discussion of contemporary evolution theory, please note that this article on Charles Darwin is not the appropriate forum for such, which is rather the Evolution article if anywhere. This article is or should be about Charles Darwin and his specific theory of evolution, a theory which as a matter of historical fact has never been accepted and for which he presented no empirical evidence. And this particular discussion topic is ostensibly about, or was apparently intended to be about, the issue of whether Darwin himself ever presented any compelling evidence for the specific thesis that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." It is not about whether some contemporary theory of evolution, or some contemporary theory of natural selection, have any compelling evidence in their favour, whether or not they do. --Logicus (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Old Moonraker: In response to the above request for a source and its quotation that justifies the claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for the specific thesis stated, you kindly provided excerpts from a quotation from Glass that seem to say Darwin produced some compelling evidence. But it unfortunately failed to say for what proposition it was for which Darwin presented that compelling evidence (and indeed what exactly that evidence was). Thus this source provided was yet another failed verification.

Hence I requested you provide more of Glass's quotation that might possibly demonstrate it was the specific thesis that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." for which Darwin produced such evidence.

But you failed to do so. Instead it seems you have now (1) Changed the thesis for which the Glass justifying source is provided to the reduced thesis that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors", thus omitting any attempted justifying source for the additional claim that this was "through the process he called natural selection."

(2) Added a second justifying source for this claim from Prothero, who you quote as follows:

"Prothero, Donald R (2007). Evolution: What the Fossils Say. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-231-13962-5. "...the fossil record provides...the strongest piece of evidence for evolution. ...lines of evidence that Darwin mustered in 1859."  "

(3) Shifted the Carroll quotation originally provided to try and justify the "compelling evidence" claim of first sentence to now become the second justifying source of the mistaken claim of the last sentence of the first paragraph that "In modified form, Darwin’s scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, providing logical explanation for the diversity of life.[4][5][not in citation given]."

So unfortunately it seems we now have a thoroughgoing dog's breakfast of failed verifications.

The summarise the main point here, on the immediate issue of providing a justifying source for the claim that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." or the reduced claim that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors", instead of rectifying the Glass failed verification, you have instead provided an additional failed verification in the Prothero quotation, which fails for the following reasons.

It is logically irrelevant to the issue here, since it only concerns evidence for evolution itself, which was anyway not in doubt by Darwin's time, rather than for the specific theory of evolution stated that "all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection." Thus whether or not the fossil record is indeed the strongest evidence of evolution is irrelevant to the issue of whether Darwin presented any compelling evidence for his theory of evolution from common ancestry by (primarily adaptive variations caused by changed conditions with inheritance of acquired characteristics, then eked out by secondary cause of) natural selection. And of course the further irony here is that the radically discontinuous fossil record of the time was of course a massive evidential refutation of Darwin's theory of gradual evolution that he fully recognised, and on which he spent some two chapters of The Origin trying to resolve, but unsuccessfully, without making any empirical scientific progress. But it should also be noted that it seems Prothero may only refer to the present fossil record, rather than that in Darwin’s day, for he says ‘the fossil record provideS’, rather than ‘provideD’. Thus this may be a further irrelevancy.

In conclusion, I propose to flag these two attempted justifying sources of Glass and Prothero as unfortunately failed verifications.

In passing, I also note that the last sentence of this paragraph is quite likely correctly flagged as having failed verifications of its justifying sources in Darwin Online and Carroll. The latter clearly fails. As for the Darwin Online source, a particular justifying passage surely needs to be identified and quoted to establish this is not yet another example of the widespread Wikipedia vice of ventriloquism.

--Logicus (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please wait for consensus in the forums before making any more inappropriate flags. Wiki articles must reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, and those sources you flagged actually -do- say what the article says they do. Further, there was already a discussuion on this exact same issue less than 3 months ago. Logicus, I think you were a part of that one, and I fail to see what new information or arguments you are bringing to the table.Quietmarc (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Quietmarc at table: Is that a round table or long table ? Whatever,

(1)	Please note that consensus in the forums, whatever ‘consensus’ may mean, is not required for flagging. And nor was this flagging inappropriate.

(2)	Contrary to what you say, the flagged sources clearly do not actually say what the article says, as I have repeatedly pointed out. If you bother to read them, I hope you can agree. If not, please read them again, slowly and carefully. But if you then still have difficulty agreeing, please apply the following heuristic to aid your faulty understanding. The article claims Darwin presented compelling evidence for X and Y, namely X = 'all species have evolved over time from common ancestors' and Y = 'by the process of natural selection'. But the supposedly verifying sources provided mention neither X nor Y. Thus they are failed verifications. If you still cannot agree after this third reading, then please consider the serious possibility that you are insufficiently literate to be interfering with encyclopedia editorial matters and should desist.

For literate readers to verify that neither of the two sourced quotations provided for sentence 1 mention X nor Y, I reproduce them here:

Prothero, "...the fossil record provides...the strongest piece of evidence for evolution. ...lines of evidence that Darwin mustered in 1859."

Glass "Darwin's solution is a magnificent synthesis of evidence...a synthesis...compelling in honesty and comprehensiveness"

(3)	In your edit commentary on deleting the failed verification flag you claim the argument that it is a failed verification was refuted in an April 2009 discussion in Talk Archive 6, presumably in 'Wot compelling evidence ?'. But if you care to read that discussion carefully, hopefully you will see that my argument that no valid verification was provided for the specific claim in question was very clearly not refuted by anybody, contrary to your claim that it was in your edit commentary. But if not, perhaps you would be so kind as to identify who you imagine refuted it, when, and how so.

(4)	I am not bringing any new information to any table. Rather in support of Ha-y Gavra I was just informing him of the previous archived discussions of this failed verification and pointing out that it remains such, even after re-edits to try and comply with my reasonable requests for verifying quotations.

Sentence 1 flagging: I therefore restore the failed verification flag for sentence 1 as fully appropriate.

Sentence 3 flagging: I also restore the failed verification flag for sentence 3 which I did not erect, but which is also valid and appropriate for the case of its invalid Carroll source.

In respect of the sentence 3 bizarre mistaken claim that Darwin's theory 'provides a logical explanation for the diversity of life', I also flag that as a failed verification, because the Darwin Online van Wyhe source cited makes no such ludicrous claim that Darwin's theory explained the diversity of life in terms of logic, but only claims "His theory of evolution by natural selection, now the unifying theory of the life sciences, explained where all of the astonishingly diverse kinds of living things came from and how they became exquisitely adapted to their particular environments."

Sentence 2 flagging: I also flag sentence 2 as having a failed verification in the van Wyhe source cited in respect of its mistaken claim that natural selection is now seen as the primary explanation of evolution. The van Wyhe source only claims "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s.", but not that it is the primary explanation of evolution, which it is not. Rather it is a secondary explanation of evolutionary variation, supplementary to the primary cause of Mendelian random genetic variation, upon which it then operates. This Mendelian primary cause replaced Darwin's 'Lamarckian' primary cause of adaptive variations induced by the conditions of life and the inheritance of acquired characteristics by pangenesis, which Darwin speculated were then further modified by the secondary cause of natural selection. Thus natural selection is only a secondary cause/explanation of evolutionary variation both in Darwin's 'Lamarckian' theory of evolution and also in the contemporary theory of evolution based on Mendelian genetics.

The following passage from Origin makes it particularly evident that the 'Lamarckian' Darwin thought the primary cause and sine qua non of evolutionary variation was the conditions of life and changed conditions, to which natural selection was rather only a secondary cause:

"We have reason to believe, as stated in the first chapter, that a change in the conditions of life, by specially acting on the reproductive system, causes or increases variability; and in the foregoing case the conditions of life are supposed to have undergone a change, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection by giving a better chance of profitable variations occurring; and unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing." [pp70-71 The Origin of Species Thinkers Library 1951. My italics.]

Please do not remove these flags again unless valid sources are provided.

--Logicus (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Logicus, the remark that Darwin gave compelling evidence can hardly be negated by the fact that the sources mentioned don't actually use the word. The rest is your POV. It also doesn't mean that Darwin proved his thesis beyond any doubt at the time. The evidence he gave was compelling in the sense that, as Glass remarks, he sythesized the available data at the time, however incomplete, in a way that worked for them. The fact that his evidence was compelling at the time is the only reason it gave rise to further investigation that confirmed his hypothesis in the inductive empirical sense of the word. But basically we're repeating the discussion that's in the archives at this point. Basically you seem to think that the evidence gathered and synthesized at the time of Darwin's publication cannot be called compelling because the theory he proposed wasn't as well established then as it is now, which doesn't do away with the "compellingness factor" the available evidence had even then. Is it that you don't believe that the mentioned sources express the idea that Darwin made a compelling case for his thesis with the evidence (again, that's not the same as proof) that he found or had at his disposal? Or don't you believe he actually did, regardless of what the sources mentioned may or may not say? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * I know logicus is right that it's not the right place for my debate with Hebel, but I can't refrain to answer his last argument:not every evolutionist is agreeing with is statement, macroevolution may have involved a quite different mechanism than microevolution, and writing "that Darwin gave compelling evidence etc" is taking a stance in an open debate, and not an objective historic statement like for exemple "that Darwin gave compelling evidence that species were not fixed" or "were evolving" would have been more neutral and correct.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * after re-reading the original formulation "who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors,through the process he called natural selection." I realize that what bother me is the fact that this formulation mixed history with today certitudes,I would propose "who realised and presented compelling evidence that species were not fixed,but have evolved over time from common ancestors,and attributed this to a process he called natural selection.",(evidences of natural selection came much later). This reformulation would enhance the objectivity of the article, without damaging it.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Much of the evidence for natural selection may have come later but Darwin didn't pull it out of his sleeve either. He presented evidence for it and integrated it into a theory that worked. Even at the time. Also, if macroevolution works through a quite different mechanism than microevolution, what is that mechanisma and also what makes it "quite different"? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The macro micro diversion aside, it is fair to avoid implying that everyone was convinced by natural selection. Perhaps changing "who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection" to "who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, and proposed that the main mechanism was a process which he called natural selection." . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave, you say "and proposed that the main mechanism was a process which he called natural selection". Darwin brought evidence to the table for that proposition. It may not have convinced everyone at that time, but that is not the point. The point is if the evidence given then can be called `compelling´. It was compelling enough at the time to bring about a real scientific empirical and inductive theory that worked. The fact that it worked and was internally consistent may not have convinced some observers that lived at the time, but the integrated evidence that Darwin gave still justifies the word compelling, even if the quotations in the article may not... (I think they do btw.., they observe that the evidence was regarded as compelling) If you think differently, remove the quotations, but not the actual text in the article. The actual text there is not at fault. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

English spelling reform
Darwin, along with friend and colleague Lubbock, was an activist in the English spelling reform movement, and became Vice-president of the Spelling Reform Association, precursor to the Simplified Spelling Society. There is no mention of this in the current article. Darwin's grandson, Charles Galton Darwin, continued this work as Vice-president of the SSS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 June 2009
 * Interesting, but citation of reliable sources is needed to verify any such information. Looks like a historical section could be added to Spelling Society, and if dates are shown this could be added to the appropriate detailed biographical sub-article on Darwin. As above, it really isn't notable enough to go in this overview article which is struggling to be concise, but presumably Lubbock's article has more room for such detail. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)