247. ROY DAVIES EXPOSES CHARLES DARWIN’S PLAGIARISM

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#1
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.
 
Last edited:
#3
I am usually not very interested in this sorts of discussions, but I guess this has happened time and time again among inventors and pioneers working simultaneously on the same idea.

First thing that comes to mind is the anger of Nicola Tesla when Marconi "pioneered" long distance wireless communication when in fact he had "taken inspiration" from Tesla's earlier patents.

Similarly Eddie Van Halen is considered the pioneer of two-handed guitar playing (tapping) when in fact the same technique had been extensively developed by an Italian player in the 50s on acoustic guitar :)
 
#5
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.
With you Bart. Bucky and Paul have nailed it too. I'm sure Wallace deserves more credit, but a lot of us thought that anyway (his PR sucked :D). I sense Alex is trying to make a point here, but I can't see what it is. This is about personalities, not data.
 
#7
I think I'm with Bart on this too when it comes to the Darwin vs Wallace thing.

This is part of the reason I have suggested to Alex to get Bruce Lipton on the show for an interview. Lipton is a follower of Lamarck's work on evolution, which is supposed to emphasize cooperation between species and individuals, and not so much on survival of the fittest. I think if the Lamarckian view of evolution won out than that would have been a different story for how the TOE would have turned out. At the same time, I'm not sure that eventuality was even possible. I think Lamarck's ideas were ahead of the time and it's only in today's age where maybe they can start taking a more prominent role, but even now that is still debatable apparently.

Either way, I think it would make for a more interesting interview.
 
#8
I think that because Wallace had a non-materialist world-view, Alex believes that Wallace's contribution to evolutionary theory is downplayed. To Alex this is just additional evidence of materialist bias in science even in the face of clear and convincing evidence.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#9
I think that because Wallace had a non-materialist world-view, Alex believes that Wallace's contribution to evolutionary theory is downplayed. To Alex this is just additional evidence of materialist bias in science even in the face of clear and convincing evidence.
Did Alex even know about Wallace's beliefs? And didn't Wallace come to those beliefs years later?
 
Top