tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1116485196020521003..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Alfred Russel Wallace (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913)Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91801893034724833742013-11-09T03:40:40.434-05:002013-11-09T03:40:40.434-05:00IDiot-creationists like to blurt something along t...IDiot-creationists like to blurt something along the lines of:<br /><br />'Hey Darwinists, Wallace came up with the same evolution stuff as Darwin, which makes Wallace just as much an <b>authority figure</b> as Darwin, and Wallace believed that there's more to that evolution stuff than Darwin did, so at the very least that puts Creationism on equal ground with Darwinism! And since Wallace was a bigger thinker and was robbed of the credit and authority he deserves, Creationism wins!'<br /><br />---------------------------------------------<br /><br />Of course when it comes to evolution and evolutionary theory it doesn't matter one bit what Wallace may have believed about spirits or gods. IDiot-creationists desperately want Wallace to be recognized as a (or THE) major 'authority figure' on evolution, evolutionary theory, and especially on spirits/god stuff even though neither Wallace nor anyone else in the world has ever produced an iota of evidence for spirits/god, and appeals to 'authority' don't prove squat, especially when alleged 'authority' is about imagined things for which there is no evidence whatsoever and never going to be. <br /><br />Hey IDiot-creationists, Wallace and Darwin should get positive credit for what they discovered and accurately explained, but they're both long dead and neither of them is an 'authority', at least in the way that you perceive and appeal to 'authority'. Except for the purpose of proper credit it doesn't matter who initially came up with evolutionary inferences, hypotheses, or theory. You IDiots think that everyone is and should be as sychophantic as you, and that everyone should worship whichever so-called 'authority' or 'authority figure' that you choose. Dream on. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89017456117062729392013-11-09T02:05:55.565-05:002013-11-09T02:05:55.565-05:00Some Id people accept descent by evolution but que...Some Id people accept descent by evolution but question details and like a creator to be involved. so Wallace is okay since he limits evolutions ability's.<br />Wallace is used to make the point evolution fails in any rejection of a hands on creator. So a "discoverer" of evolution in nature rejects its ability at some degree of complexity and so this is stressed.<br />no contradiction going here .<br />i am yEC and reject any evolution outside of kinds etc.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56915681279336376172013-11-08T17:53:40.427-05:002013-11-08T17:53:40.427-05:00It's more or less the Vatican Interpretation o...It's more or less the Vatican Interpretation of the theory of evolution, too.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33810769337342157312013-11-08T13:12:47.388-05:002013-11-08T13:12:47.388-05:00LOL! Well, nobody can ever accuse the IDiots of be...LOL! Well, nobody can ever accuse the IDiots of being intellectually consistent.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30986873183539616222013-11-08T11:58:50.917-05:002013-11-08T11:58:50.917-05:00Agreed. There were a couple areas where Wallace di...Agreed. There were a couple areas where Wallace differed from Darwin. One being that Wallace could not fully see how the human mind could have <i>only</i> evolved. Marcolihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00542204027681831657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7662044161676443442013-11-08T07:19:21.901-05:002013-11-08T07:19:21.901-05:00Writing a book called 'Darwinism' may have...Writing a book called 'Darwinism' may have served somewhat to help eclipse Wallace's own contribution ...<br /><br />(Funny, in passing, that IDers try so hard to recruit Wallace to their anti-Darwin cause. Never mind that he came to precisely the same conclusions as D re: Natural Selection, a theory that IDers unanimously try and discredit or restrict in scope. Darwin was wrong! And so was Wallace! But Wallace was hard-done-by because he has been overlooked for his contribution to this ... er ... wrong theory!)AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58888993800905877622013-11-08T05:28:16.674-05:002013-11-08T05:28:16.674-05:00I understand Wallace came from the smarter class a...I understand Wallace came from the smarter class and his father just lost his money in bad deals. Its not about being rich but about being intelligent. rich people tend to be more intelligent. So indeed it was the upper classes in brit who dominated intellectually. they embraced evolution and got it wrong because of lack of diversity in those circles.<br /><br />Coming to the same error that evolution is the origin of biology makes sense. its a superficial observation of variation in kinds and then a extrapolation betweens kinds.<br />Its lines of reasoning on raw data of in species variation. Possibly many people thought of this if they rejected creationism.<br /><br />his ideas on evolution are no better then his ideas on spiritualism . Same lack of evidence but a lively hunch to explain things.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33103303379109984932013-11-08T04:24:54.323-05:002013-11-08T04:24:54.323-05:00"""It's time everyone agreed to..."""It's time everyone agreed to be honest about Wallace -- about the important historical truth that one of the two men to first spell out the modern theory of evolution came to reject that theory as an adequate explanation of life's development, in favor of proto-intelligent design. Toward that end, please join us in refuting the history deniers."""<br /><br />Another lie, as usual. Wallace never *rejected* the theory he co-authored with Darwin. What Wallace didn't believe was that the theory could explain Human intelligence and other mental faculties. Quite different from what the IDiots are now spinning.<br /><br /><br /><br />And just for general interest, Wallace, in correspondence with Darwin, once wrote this:<br /><br />"[there are] no opponents left who know anything of natural history, so that there are none of the good discussions we used to have." (Wikipedia)<br /><br />I think I see an ironic parallel to the present ID vs Evolution situation. Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38394712356380915082013-11-07T18:25:14.194-05:002013-11-07T18:25:14.194-05:00Well, true, but consider how, despite being quite ...Well, true, but consider how, despite being quite a successful scientist in his own right (part of my work deals with diatoms and cocolithophores and Huxley was a pioneer in studying those among many of his other talents), he was better known both now and then as being basically Darwin's press agent.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32987101505190122102013-11-07T17:45:42.894-05:002013-11-07T17:45:42.894-05:00In the Victorian era, the opinion of "gentlem...<i> In the Victorian era, the opinion of "gentlemen" mattered more than that of people from the lower classes. </i><br /><br />Then it's pretty hard to explain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley" rel="nofollow">Thomas Henry Huxley</a> who was no better off than Wallace. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52176889826284596062013-11-07T16:04:50.031-05:002013-11-07T16:04:50.031-05:00Wallace was a mixed bag -- a great codiscoverer of...Wallace was a mixed bag -- a great codiscoverer of natural selection, a great founder of biogeography, and also a kook on the subject of spiritualism. He was also perhaps the nicest person ever. Klinghoffer is correct that Wallace's last, posthumous book backed intelligent guidance of evolution. But creationists are wrong to imagine that he would have backed them. Wallace's triumphs and foibles are well-known and there has been increasing discussion of them.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9789854379018158902013-11-07T13:11:38.336-05:002013-11-07T13:11:38.336-05:00To the IDiots it's all about "the good gu...To the IDiots it's all about "the good guys"(believers) vs "the boogeyman"(nonbelievers). This is how the whole paranoid edifice is upheld. The grand conspiracy theory of the "Darwinists", out to kill god with evolution. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91293047406538707392013-11-07T12:48:35.139-05:002013-11-07T12:48:35.139-05:00Besides his personal modesty (as brought up on Coy...Besides his personal modesty (as brought up on Coyne's blog), another important thing to remember is that Wallace came from a rather poor family whereas Darwin was rich. In the Victorian era, the opinion of "gentlemen" mattered more than that of people from the lower classes. <br /><br />And of course there was Wallace's obsession with seances and like later in life -- but was that well after the bulk of his work and was at a time when such nonsense was unfortunately popular in society.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.com