O.k. then, here’s your chance, TSZ folks. Have at it.
Darwin made errors, even Darwinian evolutionist Mike Elzinga agrees.
What are/were those errors/mistakes?
Perhaps the odd closet ‘Darwinist’ might even think to change their mind about calling them-self a ‘Darwinist’ as a result of answers provided in this thread…or it could be a rather short thread, with few admissions.
Context: Preprint for a Douglas Allchin paper in American Biology Teacher, 2009 (same Journal that published Theodosius Dobzhansky’s theistic evolution: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense…” paper, 1973) Celebrating Darwin’s Error’s.
Title Changed: from “How Darwin Was Wrong” to “How Was Darwin Wrong?” – 06-12-2013
Darwin was wrong about blended inheritance.
I don’t much care for your “gotcha!” style. I’m not an expert on Darwin. So I’ll limit myself to a few “mistakes”. I put “mistakes” in quotes, because we are looking at this in hindsight. Given what was known at the time, he did pretty well.
1: He appeared to have a somewhat Lamarckian view of inheritance. Given that he did not know of Mendel’s work, this is not entirely surprising.
2: He failed to provide an adequate explanation for variation. Again, not surprising, given what was known at the time. However, a source of variation is crucial to his theory, so this was a significant gap.
3: He put too much weight on artificial breeding as a guide.
Those are the “mistakes” that stand out as most obvious, at least from my perspective.
Darwin had a lot to say about a lot of things, so one can go on for a long time listing things that he got wrong — the geological explanation for The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, for example. Pangenesis. And much more.
But when someone asks “Was Darwin Wrong?” most people think of one or the other (or both) of his great assertions: that there is common descent of organisms from common ancestors, and that natural selection explains why there can be so many adaptations. If you say “Darwin was wrong”, people won’t think you are talking about pangenesis or the geology of Glen Roy.
Whether I call myself a “Darwinist” or not (and that depends on the context of the discussion) I think Darwin was right about those two central assertions. He could be wrong about absolutely everything else (he wasn’t!) and we should still say “Darwin was right”.
Darwin was wrong about pangenesis, although it wasn’t a terribly bad idea at the time.
He was wrong to think that Paley made very good arguments, although he eventually destroyed Paley’s notions.
In geology, Darwin thought that Loch Ness had ancient beaches stranded high above present-day Loch Ness. Agassiz had an idea of glacial origin that turned out to be right.
Now why would anyone call himself a “Darwinist” anyhow? Some Brits do, I realize, but I think that’s pretty much pride in their native scientist.
Glen Davidson
Yep. The things he got wrong were due to insufficient information and immature technology.
No critic of Darwin really cares about anything other than common descent and contingency in speciation.
The glorious list of Darwins errors is a book too far.
As Mr Felsenstein says Darwin is about his idea of evolution creating the diversity and complexity of nature.
However if Darwin is wrong about so much in his research in other matters then it suggests his competence in his main point is suspect and just as superficial.
darwin said women were innately intellectually inferior to men and only remedy was by lamarkian concepts.
Darwin said retarded people were more hairy because they retreated back to a original ape brain and the hair indicated it.
Darwin mused about strange ideas about facial muscles and why we like music. In fact a whole spectrum of wild ideas.
Darwin said his biological hypothesis demanded a prior belief in geological conclusions of long time etc. So nullifying his biological hypothesis as being a scientific investigation. One can’t criticize a biological hypothesis if one is dealing with geological evidence and not biological. A major flaw here still missed.
his whole entire hypothesis is based on mere lines of reasoning from minor raw data but he says it coults as svientific evidence for his hypothesis.
or rather he says its up to critics to prove WHY NOT could small changes not be the origin of nature.
A major flaw in scientific investigation. You make the case Chuck and not ask us to prove why not. Thats not science. its just lines of reasoning.
He greatly makes his case by saying how unreasonable is ideas about a creator creating life in its kinds etc. In other words he says THAT not being true suggests my stuff is true.
A final error is dismissing the enormity of crossing major morphological and so on thresholds in order to evolve complexity and diversity.
He just says look at pigeon types. A pigeon is a pigeon.
All told this guy was a flop as a thinker and researcher of nature.
Brits have to get other heros.
The Newton or Einstein of biology has not yet come. Darwin is just a dark ages speculator.
Byers nicely illustrates the intellectual naivety of the ‘cult-of-Darwin’ school. Attacks on evolution ping off the side like arrows on a battleship, so let’s try and tackle the man.
Everyone gets things wrong. Everyone. Newton, Einstein … everyone. But some ideas survive the test of time, and the garnering of new facts. Evolution is one such. Sadly, so is Creationism, impervious to any and all ‘lines of reasoning’.
Yet ID is all about disproving “Darwinism” which IDists seem to think will somehow prove ID is correct. Double standard much? How can you complain about that with a straight face when it’s all your side actually has to offer?
All the effort (such as it is) seems to be on picking holes in ‘Darwinism’ rather then building ID up.
Why do you suppose that is Robert?
Robert Byers,
As opposed to … this suggestion? (Comment #2) 😉
Folks, I suggest not getting distracted by a YEC, nor indulging him with your comments.
Mr. Robert Byers has not yet responded to his own errors here. He is obviously too busy on a personal ideological vendetta pointing out the plank in other peoples’ eyes to realise the plank in his own sorry YECism. Responding to someone like this is bound to disappoint. Imo, Byers not just badly represents Canadians, but also thinking people of faith.
This thread responds to petrushka’s question about “Darwin’s errors,” not just specifically, but also generally. Allchin helps to set the table.
“How is it possible to do science without making mistakes?” Elzinga profunded.
Please keep us on track to the OP’s basic question: What are/were those errors/mistakes…that Darwin made? This is *NOT* a thread intended to be about IDT or IDists. Period.
Surely someone will bring up “The Descent of Man” and Darwin’s anthropomorphism, zoo-centrism or species egalitarianism eventually…?
I got sucked into a length debate with Andrew McCarthy (styling himself The Thought Criminal) over DoM at Sandwalk. Never again! Like being buttonholed by a rabid conspiracy theorist in a bar. One could always make one’s excuses and leave, of course.
It is a ripe one for the judicious wielder of a Quote Razor. Excise the quote just so and … bingo! Darwin was racist! He looked down on the mentally infirm! He advocated eugenics! etc etc. I don’t buy these, but either way, I’m not sure such viewpoints, whether truly held or not, really fall into the category of Darwin’s errors.
Allan Miller’s perspective: “Darwin made *NO* mistakes/errors in The Descent of Man”?
Gregory,
Dunno. Not sure I have the time to comb it in great detail for factual errors. Allchin doesn’t mention them. I merely point out that the quotes I see regularly paraded don’t (to me) count as factual errors. They may express a political viewpoint one finds difficult to affirm (though, on examination in context, frequently do not), but that’s different. But I’m happy to examine any case on its merits.
Gregory, you are way out of line in your assertion about me. I never said or implied Darwin made no errors. I said PaV’s Darwin quote regarding life before the Silurian was correct. It remains correct even if the geologists of his time were fuzzy about labelling periods.
For someone steeped in philosophy, you seem unable to parse simple sentences.
I regard Darwin’s speculations regarding the mechanics of inheritance to be his only serious errors. They affect the plausibility of his whole enterprise. They are why it took 80 years for biologists to reach consensus on evolution.
The person here known as ‘petrushka’ (who apparently won’t give his real name) is simpy being disrespectful.
First, he should capitalise “G-O-D” when he writes “If a prophet of god says the earth underwent a global flood in historical times, based on revealed information.” Not doing so simply shows his committment to atheism.
Second, “We might observation a process of evolution, as Lenski has…”
What has Lenski actually ‘observed’ with his own eyes vs. extrapolated from digital data?
Go away, petrushka, with this line of thought. THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT IDT OR IDists. Please do not raise IDT or IDists again in this thread. You just reveal how insular and narrow is your thinking by making this appeal to preferred opponents.
What are/were those errors/mistakes…that Darwin made?
We’ve got a few answers at TSZ so far.
What else?
Okay, I confess that I recently started a thread and didn’t contribute as much as I planned to the discussion. My bad.
But I did drop in to discuss my motives for starting the thread, and I summarized my thoughts.
I think it is rude to start threads and harp from the sidelines, without revealing ones motives or thoughts on the subject.
I want to know why Gregory started this thread, why he thinks it’s an interesting question.
It’s pretty obvious that no one here worships Darwin or thinks he was infallible.
Darwin earned a lot of respect by thinking long and hard about extremely difficult subjects, and by being correct on many things in advance of his peers.
Among the things he could easily have been wrong about were:
1. The extreme age of the earth, and the necessity of age for his theory.
2. Common descent from one or a few organisms.
3. Out of Africa for human origins.
4. The existence of sexual selection and female choice.
One and two are critical. Three and four, not critical. Most of his musings about specific lineages are not critical.
So how about it Gregory. Are you going to show your hand and tell us what’s on your mind?
Darwin could have got 99.999% of everything he ever said wrong and it would not matter. Most people are 100% wrong 100% of the time. It just takes one person to be right 1% of the time, just once, and the world shifts on it’s axis.
It’s a trivial question. tell us why you are interested.
And while you are at it, apologize to me for implying I think Darwin made no errors.
I didn’t say it. I needn’t imply it. i don’t think it. I think you are sadly misinformed about what we think.
But you have the power to explain yourself. I hope you will.
Repeat for petrushka:
This thread responds to petrushka’s question about “Darwin’s errors,” not just specifically, but also generally. Allchin helps to set the table.
NB: Thanks Neil
But why are you interested? I never said or implied that Darwin made no errors. I don’t know anyone who thinks Darwin made no errors.
I will assert categorically PaV’s attempt to discredit evolution by finding errors in Darwin is silly. I also assert that PaV is wrong in his judgement of the specific quotation regarding the Silurian.
So I continue to ask: why the obsession with Darwin errors?
I must say I am curious as to the purpose of this topic. It does not appear that Gregory wishes to start a discussion; he has not answered a single question on his own thread and insists on repeating that it is only appropriate on this thread to provide a laundry list of errors. Why should I or any one else care about such if we are forbidden from discussing whether some concept was indeed an error on Darwin’s part, was in fact on accurate statement given the status of knowledge, or was an error, but moved a given concept accurately forward nonetheless?
Perhaps the odd closet ‘Darwinist’ might even think to change their mind about calling them-self a ‘Darwinist’ as a result of answers provided in this thread
It seems that Gregory equates what Darwin got wrong with what is wrong with modern evolutionary theory. Kind of like listing the errors with Newtonian physics to discredit modern physics.
In short, please get over with accusation of obsession. There’s no obsession (unlike many over in that ‘other’ camp). I’m a scientist/scholar, not an IDist. And get over Silurian. This thread is bigger than that and bigger than what you said.
Our theme here: What are/were those errors/mistakes…that Darwin made?
“Kind of like listing the errors with Newtonian physics to discredit modern physics.”
Ah, but there are few if any Newtonists, aren’t there?
Joe’s contribution was helpful, as was Neil’s first one and Glen’s. Let’s get back to that spirit of skepticism about what Darwin didn’t get right, i.e. Darwin’s errors. After all, we’re only 130 years since he died and ‘natural science’ has obviously moved forward since then.
So are you counting pebbles, Gregory, or are you making observations that might be for or against some view?
Blending inheritance was a killer error. If it had been correct, evolution as Darwin envisioned it would have been impossible.
So not only was it an error of fact, the failure to see its implications was a major error of thought.
How about that?
Begging the question. If you’re unsure of the number of Newtonists, how can you be sure there are many Darwinists? Kind of depends on how you define those terms, no?
And it seems to me we went down a similar road before. My response back then was:
My response remains the same today. If you wish to call me a “Darwinist” or a “Newtonist”, it makes no difference to me. Note however the title is nearly always applied from an external source regardless of whether one embraces said title or not. So there’s really no point in asking “ah, but there are few if any Newtonists…” when the question indicates only that you do not seem to think there’s a reason to apply the label as often as you wish to apply the label Darwist.
The point is, making a list of Darwin’s errors would hardly do anything to reduce the number of pro-evolutionary folk who embrace the term “Darwinist” since as noted, by an large that label was dropped on them from some other source.
I get the feeling that the scholar Gregory is looking for evidence of ideological rigidity. He could confirm or deny that.
It’s another manifestation of apologetic reasoning, ad hominem argumentation, and name calling.
Gregory, what possible argument is furthered by counting Darwin errors?
I would conjecture that Gregory is interested in having us catalog what we take to be Darwin’s errors because he wants evidence that our acceptance of “Darwinism” is not ideological.
Touché KN. Just as I patted a Kazakh on the back yesterday after he scored an excellent goal against our team, I am not against patting USAmericans or Brits on the back for points well-made. Touché.
Gregory,
🙂
If so, Gregory is more of a fool than I took him to be.
Cataloging errors is not relevant to “ideological” acceptance. It happens all the time that people catalog the failings of their heroes. It also happens all the time that people catalog the failings of their opponents/ideological enemies. It is quite possible, as happens all the time, to idolize a person while paying zero attention to any errors they might have made. It is also quite possible, as happens all the time, to detest a person while paying zero attention to any specific errors they might have made.
If Gregory is relying on our cataloging errors to prove anything one way or the other, I pity his inability to notice even the most common social behavior. He is apparently blinded to reality by his own ideology. Too bad if he has to go through his whole life like that.
If Gregory would get off his ass and actually make a case – any case – for what he apparently believes, that “Darwinism” is both prevalent and a problem in modern times, then I might gain a teensy tiny bit of respect for his self-inflated scholar status. But since all Gregory has shown capable of, so far, is presumptuous scolding, what’s the point in sieving his words for possible significance.
Perhaps a bit harsh.
To me, it is quite obvious that the biologists here are not ideological about evolution. I can see that in their ordinary discussion of biology and evolution. But apparently Gregory is unable to see that. I’ll assume that’s because he is less aware of the science and less familiar with the way scientists talk about their work.
I was initially surprised to realize this but, in retrospect, perhaps it is not that surprising. If Gregory plans to work in sociology of science, this is a deficit that he needs to deal with. Perhaps it does not matter in other areas of sociology. In comparison to what we repeatedly see coming from some of the posters at UD, Gregory’s problems are minor.
I expect people, when asked a direct question, to answer it, at least on forums of this kind. What excuse is there for refusing to answer questions. It’s not like I expect an encyclopedic answer. Just straight talk.
I can’t help but suspect that this search for a list of errors is related to the common creationist assertion that evolutionary biologists are members of a “Darwinist” cult, treating Darwin’s statements as not only infallible but as being the main focus of activity in modern evolutionary biology.
That is why they insist on trying to get evolutionary biologists to confess to being “Darwinists” (as opposed to, say, “Darwinians”). They want to identify us as followers of an “-ism”.
It reminds me of a colleague’s experience. She was attending an Evolution meeting (of several evolutionary biology societies) and there were creationists across the street picketing and leafleting. So she went over to talk to them. After a bit she realized to her surprise that they thought that what we were doing in the meeting was endlessly discussing what Darwin had said and how right he was about everything. She showed them the program of the meeting — talks on how molecular data sheds light on biogeography, talks on fitness consequences of mating systems in beetles, and so forth. They were astonished and did not know what to say — it wasn’t the sort of meeting that they expected.
Gregory should address his question to historians of science specializing in Darwin. Biologists, by and large, don’t really know what Darwin got wrong.
That’s generally the case in science, not just in biology. I am a physicist and I don’t know (neither do I care) what Newton got wrong. Or Einstein. The scientific body of knowledge is vast. Things you got wrong are useless to other scientists, so no one cares to remember those.
That’s what distinguishes science from philosophy or literature. Evolutionary biology isn’t Darwinism just like classical mechanics is not Newtonianism.
iD and YEC demonstrate the errors of evolution/Darwin because its wrong and a opposition to whats right. We all do that.
Darwin however made a practive of this to prove he was right.
He really was too impressed with his own conviction about errors in the fixness of species and persuaded it HAD to be from evolution.
This is not science and poor investigation.
The link is irrelevant.
The thread was about Darwin’s errors, where it touched on evolution, and his women stuff is a classic case. Though ignored by the evolution establishment.
its embarrassing too them. SHHHHH.
There is so much wrong with Darwins ideas. Just read his second book. REGRESSION theory alone ruins any reputation as a serious thinker of science.
One day a creationist will write a book called DARWINS ERRORS.
It will be a great revelation on his intelligence and general competence .
Just another upper class dude with superficial conclusions to overthrow already rejected Christian ideas and hope to be the NEWTON of biology. ALL Englishmen wanted to be the NEWTON of their field of study.
he was newton. A minor special case of selection within kind was wrongly extrapolated to the origin of nature.
The Einstein of biology has not yet come. I think he will. Or she (Take that Darwin).
Like Bill Dembski is the Fig Newton of Information Theory. Got it.
I followed the thread and very well. I have no sims of omission from other threads.
I could mention heaps of errors from Darwin especially in his second book.
So much error suggests poor investigator and thinker.
Are you saying my list are not errors of Darwin? Who agree with him?
If you single me out then demonstrate with evidence for my forced retirement.
Joe Felsenstein,
Darwin is always presented as a great scientific thinker and so its par for the course for creationists to point out why he is not.
If a long list of errors is long enough then it casts a shadow of doubt on his credibility as a intelligent researcher in biology. so then one can extrapolate to his main two points as you put it.
His list of errors are about his evolutionary concepts.
Have you read his second book? Regression theory,girl brains, vocal cords in Tatars, music, claimed hariness of retarded people, reliance on geology as opposed to biology evidence, lines of reasoning from minor attrition in nature to account for great complexity and diversity threshold evolution, and so much more.
Finally the hunch of common descent from common design of traits! Yet exactly the same hunch of a creationist for a creator with common design concepts not much different then in physics. Just more complicated.
They just rejected the bible and SOMETHING else had to be true. So it was quickly accepted before actual scientific biological evidence was accumulated.
In fact the upper class of Britain just read the book and that was good enough and like they were the judge.
Darwin was perfect. Won’t hear a word said against him. Any day now I expect the overthrow of genetics and a return to environmental fluctuations as a source of variation.
Robert Byers,
Not if one wants to point out hypocrisy, it ain’t!
Your question has been answered several times in this comment-thread. What do you find unsatisfactory about the answers it’s received thus far, that you persist in repeating your question?
A lot of incredulity is on display already in this thread.
Allan Miller wrote (seemingly sarcastically): “Darwin was perfect. Won’t hear a word said against him.”
Others have spoken about how Darwin was imperfect, how he made errors. And we have Allchin’s paper (published link not yet discovered) to guide us.
Pseudonymous posters ‘hotshoe’ and ‘cubist’ yet again show their anti-spiritual cards too easily. But folks, notice that they haven’t yet and likely won’t address the single, simple question in the OP? They don’t seem to care about truths or fair play discussion.
We’re 150+ yrs after the publication of Darwin’s OoS and many errors in Darwinian thought have been detailed by competent scholars globally across a range of worldviews. Does anyone really care what a couple of Darwin-idolaters or ‘evolutionists’ have to say on this topic? The reality is there to observe and learn from beyond simple anti-theist hostility displayed by hotshoe and cubist and others here at TSZ.
Let us learn together rather than swallowing their hostile rage. The question is open and welcome here at TSZ: What are/were those errors/mistakes…that Darwin made? We’ve seen some heat and a lot of smoke so far. And a (habitual avoider) Canadian YECist having a joke of things, rather than making a serious inquiry into the topic.
Can we elevate from this level?
@Gregory:
Since any errors real or imagined made by Darwin occurred well over 130 years ago and have long since been corrected in current evolutionary theory what’s your point?
Your evasive and antagonistic attitude makes it hard to believe you’re posting in good faith. Try elevating your own level first.
thorton, you are welcome to start another thread about ‘corrections’ to Darwin’s ideas in ‘new’ (post-Darwinian) evolutionary theories. I assume you have posting priviledges to do so. Don’t let me stop you from doing this.
This thread asks a simple, clear, concrete question. Please stick to that question in this thread. Those who wish to answer it openly will do so without imputing any motives or attacks on me, who is just asking it.
As for ‘good faith,’ did I not interpret correctly that you are an atheist, anti-faith – you are not a ‘man of faith’ are you, thorton? Neither was Charles Robert Darwin.
I think that what Plantinga calls “Darwin’s Doubt” is a profound philosophical mistake, though I don’t know if Darwin had the conceptual and factual resources for avoiding it.
Like others here, I’d like Gregory to show his hand — why is it important that we talk about this? What makes the conversation interesting and worth having?
What the heck does it matter if Darwin made mistakes? He sowed a seed that grew a vast quantity of productive science – even if it was only because intelligent people were waiting for an alternative to the highly unsatisfactory hand-wavings of the theistic alternative
I don’t think doubt in the face of insufficient evidence is ever a mistake.
One of the reasons we are having this conversation is that Darwin was a very cautious and thorough thinker. He was very good at drawing the line between speculation and strongly supported theories.
He was also very good at arguing against his own theories. so much so that creationists have no trouble finding Darwin quotes to defeat Darwin.
So when we discuss his errors we are mostly discussing speculations — clearly identified as such — that turned out to be off track.
The only places where an error would be truly important are in the age of the earth and common descent.