{"id":204,"date":"2009-02-12T11:26:18","date_gmt":"2009-02-12T09:26:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/2009\/02\/12\/darwin_was_wrong\/"},"modified":"2009-02-12T11:26:18","modified_gmt":"2009-02-12T09:26:18","slug":"darwin_was_wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/2009\/02\/12\/darwin_was_wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"Darwin WAS wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Today&#8217;s the day when we all blog and celebrate Darwin.  I must admit, though, I have a lot of sympathy for <a href=\"http:\/\/propterdoc.blogspot.com\/2009\/02\/i-join-rest-and-post-on-darwin.html\">Propter Doc&#8217;s position<\/a>, Darwin was not God, and shouldn&#8217;t be treated that way.  Especially as David Attenborough is God.  But I&#8217;m a blogger so I&#8217;m not going to let this get in the way of a <del>good<\/del> post.<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/citizenship.typepad.com\/blogfordarwin\/\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/citizenship.typepad.com\/blogfordarwin\/DarwinBadge.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"135\" height=\"149\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><!--more--><br \/>\nThe thing is, Darwin&#8217;s ideas only work with a particular type of heredity: one where traits are determined by the parents.  Of course, Darwin didn&#8217;t know about genes, and his model was one of blending inheritance.  As we all know, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.accessmylibrary.com\/coms2\/summary_0286-102853_ITM\">this doesn&#8217;t work<\/a> and this cause Darwin to revise this theory towards Lamackianism.  Which is also wrong.  There is a sometimes heard lament that things would have been fine if only Darwin had read Mendel, but it&#8217;s not clear to me that that would have solved things &#8211; remember Mendelian inheritance was a challenge to Darwin&#8217;s theory, because it implies that traits are discrete.  It took R.A. Fisher to see that the two could be unified.  Would someone without a strong mathematical training have been able to do this?<br \/>\nI think these discussions about whether Darwin was right with any part of hiss theory misses the point about what he did.  I don&#8217;t think the argument that &#8220;if it wasn&#8217;t Darwin, it would have been someone else&#8221; is really accurate: if it hadn&#8217;t been Darwin, it would have been several other people, all adding bits to the overall picture.  That&#8217;s generally how science works: Wallace had worked out parts, but not all<sup><a href=\"#fn422331272502413012d8a1\">1<\/a><\/sup>.  Others, though, would have stepped in and filled the gaps &#8211; rather as Fisher did with the gulf between Darwin and Mendel.  We might not then have been talking about a Darwinian theory: look at quantum physics.  No one person invented that, it was the effort of several people and at least one unfortunate cat.<br \/>\nSo, the reason why Darwin is regarded so highly stems not from his theory being right as a theory &#8211; it was wrong in several ways.  But rather that it was correct enough, and provide a framework for us to understand the natural world.  He put together a whole paradigm<sup><a href=\"#fn9543095425024130517cbf\">2<\/a><\/sup> on his own.  He drew on other people&#8217;s work as well, but he was able to synthesize it all into one big idea.  He was, perhaps, fortunate that when he was wrong he wasn&#8217;t wrong enough that the whole edifice would collapse, but there are still a lot of ideas that had to be put together for the whole thing to make sense.<br \/>\nSo, I will endeavour to raise a glass of sherry in the <a href=\"http:\/\/network.nature.com\/people\/charlesdarwin\/blog\">general direction of Down House<\/a>.  And should anyone wish to buy Mr. Darwin a present, I&#8217;ve heard that he isn&#8217;t keen on receiving lots of small gifts, but what he really wants is a <a href=\"http:\/\/thebeagleproject.com\/donate.html\">new beagle<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"footnote\"><sup>1<\/sup> I admit it, I&#8217;m not a historian of science.<\/p>\n<p class=\"footnote\"><sup>2<\/sup> Sorry, I try to avoid (mis-)using Kuhn, but it seems particularly appropriate here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today&#8217;s the day when we all blog and celebrate Darwin. I must admit, though, I have a lot of sympathy for Propter Doc&#8217;s position, Darwin was not God, and shouldn&#8217;t be treated that way. Especially as David Attenborough is God. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/2009\/02\/12\/darwin_was_wrong\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/boboh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}