Darwin's Pain

[atanu]

Darwin, wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species:

"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."​

Why Darwin lamented? Imagine that bearded man lamenting "No, No, No", while scratching his beard. What would Darwin say today about Neo Darwinism? OTOH, what would Dawkins, Dennett, Churchland, Maynard et al say to Darwin?

Can we be light hearted?

 

[Nakosis]

Darwin, wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species:

"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."​

Why Darwin lamented? Imagine that bearded man lamenting "No, No, No", while scratching his beard. What would Darwin say today about Neo Darwinism? OTOH, what would Dawkins, Dennett, Churchland, Maynard et al say to Darwin?

Can we be light hearted?

Just out of curiosity, did he ever mentioned what other means of modification might have been involved?

 

[atanu]

Just out of curiosity, did he ever mentioned what other means of modification might have been involved?

I really do not know. I expect fellow posters to throw some light.

I can provide one example however. At K-T boundary big life forms were wiped away. If that event had not happened what would be the composition of living beings today? So, the point is that do we know all factors with 100% certainty?

 

[Duke_Leto]

Just out of curiosity, did he ever mentioned what other means of modification might have been involved?

I've not read this myself, and so I'm not sure exactly what Darwin meant, but there are forces other than natural selection which drive evolution, namely random mutation, genetic drift (natural, "random" changes in the frequency of genes), and gene flow (the transfer of genes from one population to another). My guess is that processes like these are what he was referring to, and that he was complaining that people took his work to mean that natural selection was the only cause of evolution.

 

[sayak83]

Darwin, wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species:

"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."​

Why Darwin lamented? Imagine that bearded man lamenting "No, No, No", while scratching his beard. What would Darwin say today about Neo Darwinism? OTOH, what would Dawkins, Dennett, Churchland, Maynard et al say to Darwin?

Can we be light hearted?

Every one of the persons you mentioned will agree with what Darwin said. They have always done so. There is genetic drift, sexual selection, group selection, founder effect and many others.

 

[sayak83]

I really do not know. I expect fellow posters to throw some light.

I can provide one example however. At K-T boundary big life forms were wiped away. If that event had not happened what would be the composition of living beings today? So, the point is that do we know all factors with 100% certainty?

A meteor strike is a natural event. So it remains natural selection.

 

[siti]

OTOH, what would Dawkins, Dennett, Churchland, Maynard et al say to Darwin?

I imagine Dawkins would say something like this:

 

[columbus]

"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented,

Perhaps because Christians are quite vicious, and made Darwin's life difficult, because they don't like the truth?
Tom

 

[siti]

A meteor strike is a natural event. So it remains natural selection.

That's one interpretation - another is that the KT-boundary event was pre-programmed by some supernatural architect to ensure that some little furry four-legged ancestor of Beethoven wouldn't get stepped on by a passing brontosaurus and the world be denied the divine pleasure of his 5th symphony. I'd say its about 50/50 which one is correct and since we can't be sure - best to go with the divine architect thing - we wouldn't want to be KT'd out of existence along with Darwin, Dawkins and Dennett would we?

 

[Skwim]

Just out of curiosity, did he ever mentioned what other means of modification might have been involved?

Not sure what Darwin had in mind, but there are four basic mechanisms of evolutionary change

1.- Natural Selection

2.- Genetic Drift

3.- Mutations.

4.- Gene Flow
​

For an excellent explanation of each see HERE.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I imagine the people you mentioned would have a wonderful time catching Darwin up on the vast majority of evolutionary biology he was not around long enough to delve into, including everything related to genetics and parts of microbiology.

 

[atanu]

A meteor strike is a natural event. So it remains natural selection.

Not selection though. Ha ha.

 

[sayak83]

Not selection though. Ha ha.

It is selection. The strike altered the weather conditions, and those animals who could survive them were selected for, others went extinct.

 

[atanu]

Every one of the persons you mentioned will agree with what Darwin said. They have always done so. There is genetic drift, sexual selection, group selection, founder effect and many others.

That is debatable. Let us first find out as to what Darwin actually meant. Was it against rabid Christians or was it against those who proposed evolutionary origin of life itself.

 

[atanu]

I imagine the people you mentioned would have a wonderful time catching Darwin up on the vast majority of evolutionary biology he was not around long enough to delve into, including everything related to genetics and parts of microbiology.

Yes that is very possible. Or not.

 

[sayak83]

That is debatable. Let us first find out as to what Darwin actually meant. Was it against rabid Christians or was it against those who who proposed evolutionary origin of life itself.

An isolated quote can't be assessed like this at all. As far as I understand, his fellow scientists thought natural selection was not an important mechanism and objected to Darwin making it the primary mechanism. They thought Lamarckian mechanisms were more important as well as held the idea that life had an innate tendency towards progress to higher forms. Darwin here is saying that he never ruled out other mechanisms, but still thought natural selection is central.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

OTOH, what would Dawkins, Dennett, Churchland, Maynard et al say to Darwin?

"O, our great God!"

Lol.

 

[Polymath257]

That is debatable. Let us first find out as to what Darwin actually meant. Was it against rabid Christians or was it against those who proposed evolutionary origin of life itself.

IIRC, he was talking about sexual selection, which he saw as different than natural selection.

Note: Darwin did write a book about sexual selection.

 

[David T]

I've not read this myself, and so I'm not sure exactly what Darwin meant, but there are forces other than natural selection which drive evolution, namely random mutation, genetic drift (natural, "random" changes in the frequency of genes), and gene flow (the transfer of genes from one population to another). My guess is that processes like these are what he was referring to, and that he was complaining that people took his work to mean that natural selection was the only cause of evolution.

Don't forget the whole enviroment and entire cosmos and all of time from the begining moments and including this and all conversations. It's a huge huge topic treated in tiny tiny ways.bigger than science even. Omg thats heresy.

 

[sayak83]

Darwin, wrote in the last (1872) edition of The Origin of Species:

"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."​

Why Darwin lamented? Imagine that bearded man lamenting "No, No, No", while scratching his beard. What would Darwin say today about Neo Darwinism? OTOH, what would Dawkins, Dennett, Churchland, Maynard et al say to Darwin?

Can we be light hearted?

Continuation of my earlier reply.
Darwin faced big headwinds in trying to establish that natural selection is the main process for evolutionary change. In this quote he is debunking the charge that he said it was the exclusive mode. Yet, he always considered it the primary mode. This was not accepted by other biologists till about 1910 when elucidation of Mendelian genetics proved him right.

See link below,
Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought

For 80 years after 1859, bitter controversy raged as to which of four competing evolutionary theories was valid. “Transmutation” was the establishment of a new species or new type through a single mutation, or saltation. “Orthogenesis” held that intrinsic teleological tendencies led to transformation. Lamarckian evolution relied on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. And now there was Darwin’s variational evolution, through natural selection. Darwin’s theory clearly emerged as the victor during the evolutionary synthesis of the 1940s, when the new discoveries in genetics were married with taxonomic observations concerning systematics, the classification of organisms by their relationships. Darwinism is now almost unanimously accepted by knowledgeable evolutionists. In addition, it has become the basic component of the new philosophy of biology.

All current research is adding extra dimensions to the bedrock of Darwin's theory of variational evolution through natural selection.