Interesting story about history of science, If a consensus of science historians would conclude Darwin's work is based on plagiarism, i would accept that without a problem.
But i really do not see what it has to do with modern interpretation of evolution.
The theory of evolution has become the basis of all biology, most of what we know about the TOE was not published in "On the origin of species". Would all the research, done since Darwin's time, have come up with different data if the basic idea came from Wallace? If so, why?
And even if we forget all that for a moment, to say that a TEO emanating through Wallace would make any difference would be saying that the content of Wallace's TEO is different, thus refuting the hypothesis of plagiarism.
So either the content is the same, and plagiarism is committed but then there is no problem with the theory, there's only the discussion of who get's the credit.
Or the content differs, and there is no plagiarism. In that case the difference must explain the modern evidence equally or better to be relevant.
The question whether Darwin did or did not plagiarise is an important one from the standpoint of history, but to me the more important one is , does this matter in any way to the modern interpretation of the TOE?
For me it is an obvious no, but Alex seems to think it does.
I am interesting to know what does everybody else thinks.
Maybe this subject will bring OM to the new forum, it was one of his favorite ones.
But i really do not see what it has to do with modern interpretation of evolution.
The theory of evolution has become the basis of all biology, most of what we know about the TOE was not published in "On the origin of species". Would all the research, done since Darwin's time, have come up with different data if the basic idea came from Wallace? If so, why?
And even if we forget all that for a moment, to say that a TEO emanating through Wallace would make any difference would be saying that the content of Wallace's TEO is different, thus refuting the hypothesis of plagiarism.
So either the content is the same, and plagiarism is committed but then there is no problem with the theory, there's only the discussion of who get's the credit.
Or the content differs, and there is no plagiarism. In that case the difference must explain the modern evidence equally or better to be relevant.
The question whether Darwin did or did not plagiarise is an important one from the standpoint of history, but to me the more important one is , does this matter in any way to the modern interpretation of the TOE?
For me it is an obvious no, but Alex seems to think it does.
I am interesting to know what does everybody else thinks.
Maybe this subject will bring OM to the new forum, it was one of his favorite ones.
Last edited: