Could be wrong though. Again, this is my point: the primary source of Charles Darwin (the horse himself) refutes any and all secondary opinions that contradict (in this case, your opinions). @ JVL- The BBC is not any authority and there is evidence that dead people voted. Any parallel with breeders ‘selecting’ traits in their animals, Wallace said, was ‘altogether false.’ Issues emerging from these differences kept the two naturalists engaged in close debate for the rest of Darwin’s life.” See Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place , p. 18. But the question is: are they? There are other difference too that needn’t be gone into here. We rely completely on readers like you to make our articles possible. But like I said, your first post said a lot about what your opinions were on the matter.

I’ll try not to misrepresent you too, but you’ll have to choose your words carefully. Chuck, Opinions don't make things science or not science. “O’Leary ran these facts together, like yourself. Flannery bolded a section of a book that states Darwin didn’t see the differences until after he’d made the announcement that they were the same. You’re arguing against scholars and general consensus – even among evolutionary theorists. O’Leary (#3): Ray M., Darwin was reacting in a general way to the fact that he risked being scooped. Wallace attended far more than he did to the replacement of a parent species by an offspring variety. Again, you seem unable to understand any of this. I don’t know about Flannery, but I don’t plan on ignoring you. Summary In the present report the most important sections of the Darwin-Wallace papers are summarized. The margin of Darwin’s personal copy of the Review has a large NO!!! Years later, Wallace altered his view drastically. “Wallace’s and Darwin’s theories not identical, says Wallace historian, “I pasted the Darwin quote acknowledging “identicalness”; I pointed out that scholars always give both men co-priority; and I acknowledged that Wallace broke from Darwin.”. Maybe you don’t think the differences are as major as implied? Again, no one is denying differences. Who wrote the piece you allude to, Paris Hilton, Ronald McDonald or Blowzo848? The two theories were indeed VERY different. That’s it. The Darwin quote says the Wallace paper was virtually a carbon copy of one of his own manuscripts.”. Your response was to mock the article – which I still can’t find, though I did find an online encyclopedia that ‘anybody’ can’t post in. So maybe the ID community is reluctant to “see this aspect” for two reasons: 1) it fails to comport with Wallace’s theory as he proposed and developed it; and 2) it impugns to Wallace a responsibility and guilt he doesn’t deserve. And he was refering to me while doing it, because I couldn’t remember the article. Since the time that he said that it’s become clearer to all that indeed there were differences, that the theories are not identical, and that eventually there was a split between them. He immediately wrote an essay on the subject, sending it to Darwin because he knew Darwin was interested in the subject. Here he shows the two major differences in perspective, practical and philosophical, that separated Wallace from Charles Darwin and set them on paths that would ultimately diverge radically from one another.

Sorry you feel that way.

In all history of science/Darwinism literature written by a reputable scholar, Wallace receives co-priority with Darwin. He was confirming – what appears to be general consensus on ‘the internetz’ btw – that the theories were not completely identical.

Maybe not. Fact is the Darwin and Wallace theories had fundamental differences built into them from the very beginning as a thorough reading of the Ternate Letter will reveal. 159-160; Martin Fichman, An Elusive Victorian: The Evolution of Alfred Russel Wallace , 2004, pp. If indeed there were no differences, it should be clarified, no? We need to face the fact that Wallace most probably created the Darwinism we know, and that he is therefore responsible for its side effects and un-glorious history.”.