FANDOM


ConclusionEdit

Patrick Matthew coined the terms natural means of selection and natural competitive selection, by which he meant the natural means of competitive selection. His ideas were both grammatically correct and meaningful, but still tautological. Matthew's and JamesHutton's ideas were a formulation of MalThus, whom Darwin credit for as the inspiration for his theories.

Darwin lifted Matthew's ideas and contracted natural competitive selection to natural selection, formulating grammatically correct but meaningless sentences - Colorless green, Chomsky. This made it even more difficult to spot the underlying tautological idea construction, which in turn was a reformulation of Democritus Atomism. Democritus believed the universe had no beginning , but existed for eternity. Darwin, Matthew probably believed the same.


http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7576 Matthew wrote: "....A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Could any fitness of things contrive a rose, a lily, or the perfume of the violet.f6There is no doubt man is left purposely in ignorance of a future existence. Their pretended revelations are wretched nonsense.

P.S. I see it stated that you cannot account for useless parts by the laws of variation & competition, general laws cannot provide against accidents in all cases..........."


Notes Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/904bf06fc71497fa#

Patrick Matthews tautology interpreted as Natural Selection by Darwin

http://probaway.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/darwins-questionable-priority-over-thomas-matthew/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Matthew

Correct grammar, meaningless sentences Edit

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/hoax_paper_accepted/

Sokal hoax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

http://www.amazon.com/Sokal-Hoax-Sham-Shook-Academy/dp/0803279957

Amazon book on Matthew Edit

Notes posted: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c87ccab9af05c086#

Matthews and JamesHutton attended Edinburgh University. A large volume of work by JamesHutton was discovered recently.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolutionary-Concepts-Nineteenth-Century-Selection/dp/1858213568/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310318307&sr=1-6

It is a long-held distortion of scientific history which claims that evolution by natural selection was a scientific innovation first promulgated by Charles Darwin. It has been a popular, yet spurious, myth in England for so long that the name of the great man has become synonymous with Evolution itself. But nearly thirty years before Darwin, a Scottish gentleman farmer and fruit-grower, Patrick Matthew, had detailed in his book, Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831), the basic principle underlying what came to be termed Darwinism. In this completely revised and updated edition of this definitive work on Matthew, Mr Dempster sets the record straight - on Matthew, on Darwin, on Lamarck and on Cuvier. Dempster shows that Darwin never used the word Evolution. The true founder of Evolution was Lamarck and the true origin of the principle of natural selection lies with Matthew. Matthew was not only a scholar, with an original and enquiring mind, rooted in the traditions of the Scottish Enlightenment, but also was a practical man, having long experience as a commercial grower with the techniques of improving fruit-tree stock by selection. He brought a distinctive Scottish contribution to the development of scientific thought which has been almost overlooked by history. Book review: http://www.darwin-legend.org/html/Review-of-Dempsters-study-of-Patrick-Matthew.htm

Various terms used by Matthews Edit

Notes posted: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c87ccab9af05c086#

Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors#United_Services_Journal_on_Matthew

..........In fact, there exists more than a hint that Darwin did, in fact, read Matthew’s book. This hint revolves around the similarity of language found in the two accounts of natural selection. Matthew states: There is more beauty and utility of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstances, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in the total destruction and new creation. Now compare this with Darwin:

There is grandeur in this view of, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into few forms or into one… Loren Eisley, in his book on Darwin (Eisley, 1959) provides evidence that, by 1844, Darwin was well aware of Matthew’s book; and that he took the phrase “natural process of selection” from it and modified it to “natural selection”. Although the term “selection” was used, by Victorians, in relation to plant and animal breeding, I can find no other reference to the use of a “natural process of selection”; as a result, it cannot be said that Darwin modified a term that was already in wide use. ......................

Lets see now, we have:

Natural process of selection
Natural competitive selection
Natural means of selection.
Natural selection (contracted by Darwin, leaves out process , competitive or means)
Natural survival.
Natural preservation.
Survival of the fittest.

Reduces:
The natural means of selection was the good animal outwitting the bad animal and thus dominating his ecological niche.

Democritus:
The natural means of atomic selection was the good atom outwitting the bad atom and thus dominating his atomic niche.

These all are variations on the Malthus theme.


  • natural competitive selection - 1831
  • natural means of selection
  • natural selection - Darwin contracted to ns to avoid giving credit to Matthew from where he lifted the idea while reading his book on the Beagle.

Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors#Matthews.2C_last_mention_of_his_theory_of_natural_selection

Matthews, last mention of his theory of natural selection Edit The last attempt by Matthew to claim priority on natural selection appears to have been published as a footnote to a paper he wrote in 1861(Matthew,1861) which reads: See my Theory of the Law of the origin of species by natural competitive selection published in my volume Naval Timbers and Arboriculture more than thirty years ago, and again recently published by Mr Darwin, when the intellect of the country has become more able and more willing to comprehend the subject. Mathew, P.(1861). National prospects. The Farmer’s Magazine, London, Rogerson, p.357.

Matthews on natural selection Edit

Notes posted: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c87ccab9af05c086#

Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors#Patric_Matthew_Tautology_1

We can get the gist of Matthew’s ideas from the following passage quoted from On Naval Timbers by Wallace:

As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed.

This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.

asdf Edit

{{{ On Mar 29, 3:51 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > The passages below fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Matthew > reduces to:

> === asdf === > Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, fall without > reproducing, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their > own kind.

We observe that some individuals won't reproduce. This observation implies that they are "less perfect" and handicapped, but doesn't tell us the actual reason why such individuals didn't reproduce.

We observe that some individuals from the same group do reproduce. This observation implies that they were "more perfect" than their kinsmen but doesn't tell us the actual reason they were "more perfect".

Thus Patrick Matthews formulates a banality: Those that didn't reproduce were less perfect while those that did reproduce were more perfect. "didn't reproduce" and "less perfect" are terms that alludes to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition: They didn't reproduce but doesn't explain why they didn't reproduce. Obviously if individuals from a population didn't reproduce they where handicapped in some way, but why were they handicapped?

The next fallacy is the non-sequitur that these individuals all from the original same species might diverge in the future into separate species incapable of interbreeding. People failed to notice that the preceding tautology ("didn't produce" and "less perfect") , the formulation of the proposition in such a way that " the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed" to use Darwin's words , resulted in society accepting a non-sequitur. If a pack of strong dogs interbreed perpetuating their line into a million years, how would one falsify that their offspring might not be able to interbreed, they have to be able to interbreed at say 1000 years from now for the progeny to reach the next 2000 years, why suddenly would the offspring at 2010 years not be able to mate? How could one falsify such a proposition. I thus maintain that there is no Theory of Evolution, a theory is something which at least in principle must be able to be falsifiable.

And Patrick Matthews probably got his tautological thinking from James Hutton 1794 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb# }}}

asdf Edit

{{{

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/may/02/richard-dawkins-contempt-religion-charles-darwin "....Before Darwin the only known alternative to the possibility that there had been an intelligent designer behind the wonders of nature was random chance, which was no alternative at all. It wasn't even that the concept of natural selection was original when Darwin put his thoughts to paper. A Scottish landowner and fruit farmer Patrick Matthew had written a book in 1831 on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. In an appendix, Matthew recognised that the principles of artificial selection could also apply to natural selection and speculated that "the progeny of the same parents under great differences of circumstance might in several generations even become distinct species incapable of co-reproduction......"


Compare the journal paper below on Matthews to what the Guardian wrote about Matthews. The issue is what did Matthews say, what did he mean, what logical fallacies did he commit etc.... Lets take one fact for example, the term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection was coined by DArwin and used only once in his book. Matthews said "natural means of selection" and if he had anything "artificial" in mind then cite the paper, he didn't say 'artificial selection'. If he had some idea like Darwin had here: "....low though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the co adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest......" then motivate for it with reference to Herbert Spencer who coined SoF..... How for example did Spencer measure the fitness other than noting the organism survived?

> > The historical context of natural selection: The case of Patrick > Matthew > > Conclusions It should be evident from the foregoing discussion that > one man's natural selection is not necessarily the same as another > man's. Why should this be so? How can two theories, which both Matthew > and Darwin believed to be nearly identical, be so dissimilar? > Apparently, neither Matthew nor Darwin understood the other's theory. > Each man's viewpoint was colored by his own intellectual background > and philosophical assumptions, and each read these into the other's > ideas. The words sounded the same, so they assumed the concepts must > als be the same.123

> As Ghiselin has pointed out, historians attempting to evaluate > Darwin's predecessors have been similarly blinded by a preoccupation > with words, without regard to their proper context.124 In the case of > Matthew, the practice of quoting only brief passages from the appendix > to Naval Timber and Arboriculture, without relating them to the rest > of his work, has suggested a greater resemblance to Darwin's theory > than actually exists. > It is clear, both from the use which Matthew made of his ideas and > from the philosophical roots of his natural world view, that he could > not have arrived at the concept of natural selection by the same > thought process which Darwin employed. His discussion of natural > selection is presented not as an argument, but as an axiom. No theory > is proposed, no evidence marshaled to support it. Natural selection is > stated as a fact, a Law of Nature, unquestioned, and presumably, > unquestionable. > Despite his clamor for recognition as the discoverer of natural > selection, Matthew recognized and acknowledged this very fundamental > difference between Darwin and himself. In a letter to the Gardener's > Chronicle of May 12, 1860, he > wrote: }}}


post 40 Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c87ccab9af05c086#


On Jul 13, 7:22 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 5:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 4:25 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 2:28 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 6:40 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 12, 1:26 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 6:56 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 11:23 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolutionary-Concepts-Nineteenth-Century-Sele... > > > > > > > > > Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century: Natural Selection and > > > > > > > > Patrick Matthew > > > > > > > > > It is a long-held distortion of scientific history which claims that > > > > > > > > evolution by natural selection was a scientific innovation first > > > > > > > > promulgated by Charles Darwin. It has been a popular, yet spurious, > > > > > > > > myth in England for so long that the name of the great man has become > > > > > > > > synonymous with Evolution itself. But nearly thirty years before > > > > > > > > Darwin, a Scottish gentleman farmer and fruit-grower, Patrick Matthew, > > > > > > > > had detailed in his book, Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831), the > > > > > > > > basic principle underlying what came to be termed Darwinism. In this > > > > > > > > completely revised and updated edition of this definitive work on > > > > > > > > Matthew, Mr Dempster sets the record straight - on Matthew, on Darwin, > > > > > > > > on Lamarck and on Cuvier. Dempster shows that Darwin never used the > > > > > > > > word Evolution. The true founder of Evolution was Lamarck and the true > > > > > > > > origin of the principle of natural selection lies with Matthew. > > > > > > > > Matthew was not only a scholar, with an original and enquiring mind, > > > > > > > > rooted in the traditions of the Scottish Enlightenment, but also was a > > > > > > > > practical man, having long experience as a commercial grower with the > > > > > > > > techniques of improving fruit-tree stock by selection. He brought a > > > > > > > > distinctive Scottish contribution to the development of scientific > > > > > > > > thought which has been almost overlooked by history. > > > > > > > > All the more reason that you should accept the idea. Great minds think > > > > > > > alike. > > > > > > > The way Spencer used the phrase Theory of Evolution in 1852 in > > > > > > Leader magazine indicates that it wasn't the first usage or coined by > > > > > > him. ToE was a different term for Prof. Owen's Doctrine of > > > > > > Derivation. > > > > > > > Darwin lifted ToE from Spencer and others ,leading to the widespread > > > > > > delusion that Darwin coined ToE - he didn't.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > And at the end of the day, it has ab zero effect on the fact that the > > > > > ToE is correct (to the best of our ability to tell "correct"). > > > > > > So you are still stuck with denying a theory well founded on the > > > > > evidence and research. > > > > > > Harry K > > > > > Until you define what this ToE is and why it's wikipedia page doesn't > > > > exist , you're not even wrong. > > > > Note that Evolution is a word not a theory. The Theory_of_evolution > > > > redirects to a word, not an actual theory that explains how the PID > > > > differential equations are transferred from human to baby without us > > > > having to actually undestand Hamilton Jacobi theory. > > > > The notion is quite clear--descent with modification and natural > > > selection. The basic process > > > is the process of reproduction. The result is that our observations of > > > biology are understandable > > > through the notion of common descent. > > > darwin lifted 'common descent' from Halloy back in 1836 somewhere > > around, its on wikipedia look it up. Are you referring to this paper > > by this French geologist? Virtually everything Darwin wrote he lifted > > from other authors. > > > From the sources I have read,Darwin's original purpose was to be > > companionship for the captain. Nothing is made up, but I should have > > quoted the sources directly instead of from memory. > > I meant descent with modification was lifted from Halloy. It took me a > while to get this info into his page athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d'Omalius_d'Halloy > > The Epicureans rewriting history at Wikipedia did't took kindly to > this, but they eventually had to relent and report the facts. > I also wrote the main section of the wikipedia rhetorical tautology > article and specifically 'sneaked' in the phrase '...the truth of the > proposition cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another > self-referentially....' because darwin wrote that the truth of his > propositions cannot be disputed. > > Ideas for the article was lifted from TD Tone and his article 'natural > selection, Darwin's great tautology', where he ironically failed to > notice a tautology in one of the sections he quoted. As time allows I > will make a full post as well as a new entry on the issue at my wiki:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

One thing I forgot to mention was that Darwin said '... descent with modification .... or natural selection ..... This must be seen In terms of Matthew's * natural competitive selection* or really *competitive selection*. (Remember Darwin lifted Matthew's term 'natural competitive selection' (1831) and contracted it to ns, to avoid giving credit to him.

We thus interpret their ideas: As the strong animal engaged in a struggle against the weak animal ,he adapted to the environment via this process of *competitive selection* dominating his ecological niche.

This at least makes sense, 'natural selection' doesn't. We can phrase it as follows in terms of athletics(design):

One of the two teams was selected to play for the Chicago Cubs after a process of *competitive selection*. This is both grammatically correct and meaningful. The following isn't: One of the two teams was selected to play for the Chicago Cubs after a process of *natural selection*. The only way this sentence can become meaningful is we mean with 'natural' , 'competitive'.

natural <=> competitive.



Patrick Matthews Edit

There is a law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possible suited to its condition that its kind, or organized matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinctive powers to their highest perfection and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles. As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence . . .

There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation . . . [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

asdf Edit

There is a law rendering every being the best possible suited to its condition that its kind, or organized matter, is susceptible of. This law sustains the lion in his strength. As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence . . .

There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation . . . [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

asdf Edit

There is a law rendering every being suited to its condition that its kind, or organized matter, is susceptible of. This law sustains the lion in his strength. As nature has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength,fall without reproducing , their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind.

There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation . . . [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

asdf Edit

There is a law rendering every being suited to its condition that its kind is susceptible of. This law sustains the lion in his strength. Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength,fall without reproducing , their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind.

There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation . . . [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.


asdf Edit

There is a law rendering every being suited to its condition that its kind is susceptible of. This law sustains the lion in his strength. Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength,fall without reproducing , their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind.

There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation . . . [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.


asdf Edit

Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, fall without reproducing, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind. Their progeny might, in several generations, become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

asdf Edit

Those individuals who died are dead, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind. Their progeny might, in several generations, become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.


asdf Edit

Those individuals who died are dead, those that didn't die now continue the species. Their progeny might, in several generations, become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.


asdf Edit

Those monkey individuals who died are dead, those monkeys that didn't die now continue the species. From this tautology by Patrick Matthews he deduces that their monkey offspring might give birth to humans, with the humans and monkeys incapable of co-reproduction.

kjEdit

On Mar 29, 2:51 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > === Finally === > Those monkey individuals who died are dead, those monkeys that didn't > die now continue the species. From this tautology by Patrick Matthews > he deduces that their monkey offspring might give birth to humans, > with the humans and monkeys incapable of co-reproduction.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rhk86067q63l4428/

The historical context of natural selection: The case of Patrick Matthew

Conclusions It should be evident from the foregoing discussion that one man's natural selection is not necessarily the same as another man's. Why should this be so? How can two theories, which both Matthew and Darwin believed to be nearly identical, be so dissimilar? Apparently, neither Matthew nor Darwin understood the other's theory. Each man's viewpoint was colored by his own intellectual background and philosophical assumptions, and each read these into the other's ideas. The words sounded the same, so they assumed the concepts must als be the same.123

As Ghiselin has pointed out, historians attempting to evaluate Darwin's predecessors have been similarly blinded by a preoccupation with words, without regard to their proper context.124 In the case of Matthew, the practice of quoting only brief passages from the appendix to Naval Timber and Arboriculture, without relating them to the rest of his work, has suggested a greater resemblance to Darwin's theory than actually exists. It is clear, both from the use which Matthew made of his ideas and from the philosophical roots of his natural world view, that he could not have arrived at the concept of natural selection by the same thought process which Darwin employed. His discussion of natural selection is presented not as an argument, but as an axiom. No theory is proposed, no evidence marshaled to support it. Natural selection is stated as a fact, a Law of Nature, unquestioned, and presumably, unquestionable. Despite his clamor for recognition as the discoverer of natural selection, Matthew recognized and acknowledged this very fundamental difference between Darwin and himself. In a letter to the Gardener's Chronicle of May 12, 1860, he wrote:

To me the conception of this law of Nature came intuitively as a self-evident fact, almost without an effort of concentrated thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more merit in the discovery than I have had—to me it did not appear a discovery. He seems to have worked it out by inductive reason, slowly and with due caution to have made his way synthetically from fact to fact onwards; while with me it was by a general glance at the scheme of Nature that I estimated this select production of species as an a priori recognisable fact—an axiom, requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp.125 In the same letter, Matthew maintained that his ideas had not been accepted because ldquothe age was not ripe for such ideas.rdquo126 Nor, he said, was the present age. He considered the inability of most of Darwin's critics to grasp his theory to be ldquoincurable.rdquo Yet he did not argue that natural selection should be accepted because of the evidence, but rather, that it should be accepted on faith:

Belief here requires a certain grasp of mind. No direct proof of phenomena embracing so long a period of time is within the compass of short-lived man. To attempt to satisfy a school of ultra skeptics, who have a wonderfully limited power of perception of means to ends... would be labour in vain.... They could not be brought to conceive the purpose of a handsaw though they saw its action, if the whole individual building it assisted to construct were not presented complete before their eyes... Like a child looking upon the motion of a wheel in an engine they would only perceive and admire... without noticing its agency in... affecting the purposed end.127 Here, then, is the final irony. In a passage urging acceptance of Darwin's theory, a theory which was to banish design and purpose from the natural world, we find echoes of Paley and of Providence. Loren Eiseley has lamented the fact that Matthew ldquodid not bring his views into the open, because the amount of ground he was able to cover in a few paragraphs suggests that he might have been able to sustain a longer treatise.rdquo128 Now that the intellectual and historical context of Matthew's ideas are known, this statement is no longer tenable. Matthew was not a scientist, and his books were not written as biological treatises. His discussions of natural selection were not attempts to ldquocover groundrdquo in advancing a particular scientific theory, but were simply reflections of his own assumptions about the natural world.

Furthermore, despite Matthew's acceptance of evolution and natural selection, his biological thought was basically conservative on points where Darwin's was radical. Where Matthew saw a series of stable worlds interrupted by violent upheavals, Darwin saw a continuous process of change in an ever-fluctuating world. Where Matthew conceived of species in terms of Aristotelian classes and essences, Darwin revolutionized our concept of species by treating them as populations. Where Matthew saw a world of design and beauty functioning according to natural laws laid down by benevolent Providence, Darwin abolished design and Providence from nature and ushered in a world which cycles ever onward according to laws of chance and probability.

It is not even particularly useful to point to Matthew as evidence that evolution was ldquoin the airrdquo prior to 1859.129 His ideas did not represent the first wave of a coming revolution, but were the product of his own personal philosophical outlook, as expressed in the context of the biological thought of the 1830's. Matthew is important in the history of ideas, not simply because he accepted the concept of evolution or thought of something resembling natural selection, but because he did so without overthrowing, in his own mind, any of the basic philosophical assumptions which had underlain biological science since Aristotle. In recognizing Matthew's failure to do so, we are in a position to appreciate more fully the significance of the Darwinian Revolution.

postsEdit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c87ccab9af05c086#


On Jul 10, 7:27 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 10, 12:23 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolutionary-Concepts-Nineteenth-Century-Sele... > > > Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century: Natural Selection and > > Patrick Matthew > > > It is a long-held distortion of scientific history which claims that > > evolution by natural selection was a scientific innovation first > > promulgated by Charles Darwin. It has been a popular, yet spurious, > > myth in England for so long that the name of the great man has become > > synonymous with Evolution itself. But nearly thirty years before > > Darwin, a Scottish gentleman farmer and fruit-grower, Patrick Matthew, > > had detailed in his book, Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831), the > > basic principle underlying what came to be termed Darwinism. In this > > completely revised and updated edition of this definitive work on > > Matthew, Mr Dempster sets the record straight - on Matthew, on Darwin, > > on Lamarck and on Cuvier. Dempster shows that Darwin never used the > > word Evolution. The true founder of Evolution was Lamarck and the true > > origin of the principle of natural selection lies with Matthew. > > Matthew was not only a scholar, with an original and enquiring mind, > > rooted in the traditions of the Scottish Enlightenment, but also was a > > practical man, having long experience as a commercial grower with the > > techniques of improving fruit-tree stock by selection. He brought a > > distinctive Scottish contribution to the development of scientific > > thought which has been almost overlooked by history. > > > === Notes === > > natural competitive selection - 1831 Matthews > > natural means of selection - Matthews > > > natural selection - Darwin contracted to ns to avoid giving credit to > > Matthew from where he lifted the idea while reading his book on the > > Beagle. > > > NS is actually Democritus atomism . Replace natural with atom: atom > > competitive selection. > > If you like, you can start a movement to change "Darwinism" to > "Matthewsism". Will that make you happy? > > Boikat

Or for that matter Buffon or Buffonism, because Darwin understood French and extensively plagiarized his works.

Pz Myers again referred to Darwin in one of his blog posts. There is a strange type of mental block , if we are referring to Darwin and it can be shown that DArwin in turn had written sections with striking resemblance to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon, should we not rather refer to Buffon instead?

What we must determine is in what way did a French man in 1760 explain the PID flight control algorithms of a virus as it makes a rocket reverse thruster type descent.

Viruses implement math algorithms to coordinate their movements. Every single biological machine is implementing some sort of mathematical algorithm or PID control loop.

As put forth on my wiki , the question actually goes back to Aristotle and Democritus, the ideas we are really dealing with , reformulated using volitional type language i.e. selection, evolution etc. Everybody tries to impose a meaning on 'selection' instead of understanding that it was a proxy for Malthus competition between species, which in turn is an extension of the mythologies of Gods slaying seemonsters as narrated by Gandalf the tribal wizard 3000B.C. His ideas in turn were reformulated using many Deity's such as Osiris, Dagon, Zeus etc.

The catholic church coopted the Fish God's hat and infused Aristotle metaphysics into Xtianity with the mass. Greek philosophy under Democritus took the fight between Gods and Seemonsters to be the fight between atoms.

They all had a fire/water , black/white , yin/yang theme. Today we are told about the fight between the 'alleles'. Problem though arrived with genes as a cybernetic abstraction.

Notes Edit

See milton wain collection


A natural process of selection

Since it appears from what we know of natural history in general, that the whole number of varieties of form observable in nature pass into and from one another by gradations always very close and sometimes obscure and hardly traceable; since also, many modifications of specific form are undoubtedly produced by time and by long exposure to modifying circumstances; and since there is a general parallelism and resemblance traceable in different groups throughout nature; therefore it is possible that according to some law, of which at present we know nothing more than the supposed effects, species are capable of occasionally producing by the ordinary means of succession other species differently organised, which, once established occupy new ground, and become themselves the starting pointy of new changes (Ansted,1855). As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life those only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction (Matthew,1831a).

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.