Talk:Charles Darwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Charles Darwin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2007.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Evolutionary biology      (Rated FA-Class)
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Megatherium and Africa

Could someone clarify this mentions found in the article: Though he correctly identified one as a Megatherium and fragments of armour reminded him of the local armadillo, he assumed his finds were related to African or European species and it was a revelation to him after the voyage when Richard Owen showed that they were closely related to living creatures exclusively found in the Americas. Why he did thought so? I could get access to only one source: [1] but it does not say anything about this. QWerk (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, worth reviewing. The statement is based closely on Desmond & Moore, p. 210 – regarding Owen's finding that fossil faunas are closely related to their living replacements in the area, "Darwin had never expected this; on the voyage he had assumed that he had found European and African mastodons and rhinos, not exclusive South American species. It pulled him up sharp, causing him to ask the key question: why is present and past life on any one spot so closely related?" Browne pp. 349–352 goes over the same revelation, but is less explicit about the idea of European and African relationships. I don't think she mentions the "rhino" comparison, that D & M make much of: some sources have been investigated and cited at Second voyage of HMS Beagle#Surveying South America, and it rather looks as though Darwin started with the rhino comparison, but by the time he wrote home he was describing the giant skull correctly as a megatherium. The mastodon issue is interesting – he clearly thinks a number of his fossils are from mastodons, but these are commonly North American as much as European. Was he right about thinking his findings in Patagonia were mastodons, or were these some of the hitherto unknown species Owen identified from the fossils? I'll try reading this a bit, and consider rephrasing this point.Thanks, . dave souza, talk 21:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The more I look into this, the more complicated it looks. However, there's enough to suggest that D & M's statement is exaggerated and the large skull was actually from a near complete Scelidotherium skeleton, so I've modified the related statements accordingly. Owen did confirm mastodon (and horse) fossils in the finds, will work on clarifying points in the more detailed article about the Beagle voyage. . dave souza, talk 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Does "Infobox Scientist" supersede the need for "Infobox Person" in in the same way that categories are hierarchical? At present the article has two, not of the same width, with much of the information appearing twice (or three times if you include the article text). I suggest that one or other should make way. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Dave Souza, for the fixes.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Agree, so have removed the "Infobox Person". It suffered from listing piped links to the Darwin's children who have no artile of their own, and to his siblings who only appear under the article about his father. All useful links already appeared in the Infobox Scientist or the first section, whith the one exception being Erasmus Alvey Darwin so I've mentioned him as being at school and uni with Charles. . . dave souza, talk 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was able to prove his theory of evolution by showing how meat evolves into maggots. When meat is left in a jar, it will evolve into maggots. This proved his theory of evolution. Furthermore, since everything evolved from one big rock, it would have taken billions of years for this to happen, thus disproving the well known idea that the earth was only around 6 thousand years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.116.60 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

Thomas Malthus should be included among the list of people who influenced Darwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedmemes (talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The template's not a very nuanced place, and so many people influenced Darwin. Of those he met, Lyell is outstanding, Henslow and Grant could also be named. His work was influenced by Lamarck, Humboldt, de Candolle and others. While Malthus was certainly influential at a crucial moment, his influence shouldn't be given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Malthus should definately been in this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.227.124 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more on religion

The Selfish Gene said that macabre behavior such as the golden digger wasp's laying larvae on paralyzed grasshoppers on which the larvae would dine drove Darwin from an all-loving God. 67.243.6.204 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid point which is covered under Charles Darwin#Religious views – "he questioned... the problem of evil of how the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs could be reconciled with Paley’s vision of beneficent design." . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

I disagree with the grammar in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which reads: "Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge." It makes it sound like he was studying "first medicine" at Edinburgh. Delete the word "first" altogether, the reader can infer it was first because of the "then" later in the sentence.Mojodaddy (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "firstly", but perhaps the sentence is still a little awkward. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. It seems to work ok without "first", so will remove it. Always glad to trim out excess, and if anyone's puzzled they can read the detailed section. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] q

um... there is a thingy blocking one of the pictures (under overwork illness and marage) and I dont know how to fix it. You can delete this section once it is fixed. Mr. Invisible Person (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem in Internet Explorer: it's fine with Firefox. Don't know how to fix it either, sorry. Mcewan (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1860 Essays and Reviews

From Reaction to the Publication

"In 1860, the publication of Essays and Reviews by seven liberal Anglican theologians diverted clerical attention from Darwin. An explanation of higher criticism and other heresies, it included ..."

This seems to imply that higher criticism is a heresy. Is that intended? Mcewan (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As always, trying to say a lot very concisely creates problems. Yes, it was a heresy in the views of church authorities at the time, though a decade or so later the fuss seemed ridiculous. I've rephrased it to clarify the issue –
In 1860, the publication of Essays and Reviews by seven liberal Anglican theologians diverted clerical attention from Darwin, with its ideas including higher criticism attacked by church authorities as heresy. ..
Thanks for picking that up, hope the revision meets your concerns. . . dave souza, talk 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Perfect, many thanks. No soapbox here, just interested :) Mcewan (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond and Moore biography

I've been reading this great biography a little lately, and have created a gallery for it at Commons, Darwin. The book itself is copyrighted but many of its images are ineligible for copyright. We already have a lot of them at Commons (and some of them perhaps here, i.e. not yet moved to Commons, much like Image:Jim_moore.jpg at the time I'm writing), though there may be others that will be new uploads (and others still that may be copyrighted). I created a similar gallery for Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - copyrighted books are certainly not something we should ignore. Richard001 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact or theory

The introductory paragraph to this article is untrue. Since the article is protected from editing, this error will remain thus undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. The paragraph should be re-written as follows:

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was an English naturalist,[I] who theorized that all species of life evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.[1] The theory of evolution gradually grew acceptance in the scientific community during his lifetime. His theory of natural selection came to be seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory.[2]

The reason for the re-write is that evolution cannot be proven and therefore must remain a theory. The statement that Darwin demonstrated evolution is false. The phrase The fact that evolution occurs is false. The statement about acceptance in the scientific community and by the general public during his lifetime has no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, there continues to be significant rejection of the theory among scientists and the general public. There is no scientific proof of the theory of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy7l (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you are objecting to has a wikilink to the article Evolution as fact and theory where your objection is answered. Also see Talk:Evolution/FAQ where this very same issue is addressed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin never claimed he proved his own theory. It was his postulated explaination of the origins of life. Terming the open paragraph to suggest "Darwin proved/demonstrated" the validity evolution misrepresents Darwin's theory and studies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.175.225 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 November 2008

The opening paragraph states "who realised and demonstrated that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection. The fact that evolution occurs became accepted by the scientific community and the general public in his lifetime, while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s" The cited source says "Darwin's name is so linked with evolution because his works convinced the international scientific community that evolution was true. In the two decades after the publication of Origin the great majority of the scientific community came to accept that Darwin was right about the evolution of life. But natural selection was often not accepted. In fact, a generation of biologists regarded Darwin as correct in uncovering the evolution of life but mistaken in stressing natural selection. Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s."[2] . dave souza, talk 11:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This page needs some work on images. Text is sandwiched between some images. And on my monitor the blockquote from Malthus obscures a good part of the image of Emma. Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, some images have been added which don't contribute as much as the main images, so I've selected the best and moved them a bit to overcome the problems you report. It may be a browser thing as I don't have the same problem, so let me know if that's an improvement. Thanks, dave souza, talk 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It's better, but I wonder if too much is being attempted with images and templates. I'm looking at it on a wide monitor; I don't know if image crowding may be worse on a narrower monitor, or if the narrower text column width gives adequate spacing. One of the problems is the quote format, as the quote boxes can overlay the images. As you can see, I experimented with the earlier version using the <blockquote></blockquote> method and that does not overlay the image. But where the image is on the left margin, that method also justifies the quote margin at the image's right margin, rather than indenting, as it would if the image were not there.
I wandered by here because next year will be the 150th anniversary of publication of Origin of Species; I wanted to see how many relevent articles are at FA. It would be an excellent featured topic if more could be brought up to FA standards. I do not however claim knowledge sufficient to help in that area. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, Darwin's 200th birthday comes in January, then the 150th anniversary of OTOOS next November gives us some time to aim for FA, if anyone's game. I'm looking at this article at 1280 x 800 on a laptop, seems ok in Camino. Is this more a technical issue with the quotation boxes? They give good emphasis, and are less intrusive in a way than cquote big curly quotes. Blockquote seems a bit lacking in emphasis, but guess we can change if the others have problems with some browsers. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now seen it on a laptop and it spaces much better. I think the quotation box format is the issue. The "Darwin's children" box takes up a lot of space also. Kablammo (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Rather agree, this is getting a bit technical for me – if you want to try out different quote formats and widths of that box, that would be worthwhile. Looking at other biology FA biographies, maybe better go back to blockquotes. . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible FA dates

To follow up on the discussion in the previous section:

It looks like the offspring articles are not at FA, and several of the main articles (including this one) have already been featured on the main page. Here however are a few possibilities for TFA:

Origin of Species would have to be brought up to FA standards. Kablammo (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good analysis and I agree with the suggestions. I'm really bogged down with detail just now, could you look at proposing the first two for those dates? . . 23:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have posted this suggestion to the talk pages of the first two articles. (The first step for the Wallace request would be in two weeks.) The third article is not yet at FA, and the proposed date is a year out. Kablammo (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stale external link

External link to "Digitized titles..." should be updated from:

http://www.botanicus.org/creator.asp?creatorid=93

to:

http://www.botanicus.org/Search.aspx?searchTerm=Charles%20Darwin

JmCor (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. Looking at the search, they only seem to provide scans of two titles, both of which appear as scans and text at Darwin Online.[3][4] I'll remove the link for now, if anyone has good reason for it to be added again we can review that. Thanks again for the useful link, dave souza, talk 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] im doing a project on him

OMG he is sooo cool i am doing a project about him omg he had a beard i go to learn about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.44.147 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin commemorative two pound coin 2009

thumb|150px|Charles Darwin commemorative two pound coin

Someone may wish to add to the commemoration section details about the Royal Mint issuing a commemorative two pound coin in 2009 to celebrate 200 years since his birth and 150 years since publication of "On the Origin of Species". I have uploaded an illustration of the coin which may also be included (if added to fair use). Other details can be found on the two pound coin page. --Delta-NC (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's excellent news. Will aim to sort that out shortly. . dave souza, talk 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added the rationale to the image page and the image illustrating a paragraph about the coin as part of a new commemorations section. Thanks again, . dave souza, talk 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

im doing a project on him too its so hard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.42.224 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist as a concise reliable source. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating Darwin

For other people of the same surname, and places and things named after Darwin, see Darwin.

This was briefly removed, I've restored it as a useful link to a lot of other uses of the name. Any better ideas? . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Genius of Charles Darwin

There is a TV show called The Genius of Charles Darwin, available from google video, made this year (the anniversary) by Richard Dawkins. I propose there be some mentioning of it in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.109.200 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 December 2008

Thanks, I saw it on Channel 4 and it's an interesting series about Dawkins, but historically inaccurate about Darwin so unfortunately not really appropriate here. Just for example, he shows the Galapagos finches instead of mockingbirds and puts that as though it came before the Punta Alta fossils. Nice thought, though. . . dave souza, talk 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Darwin"
Personal tools