Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I suppose that can be argued, but on the other hand I thought Darwin was a better scientist who'd spent years and years observing and refining his theory and text, while Wallace was just going to publish a paper on an idea he'd just thought up. Since they had roughly the same idea, I'm sure Wallace's theory would have prevailed -- eventually, but it might well have taken a lot longer to get accepted, like what happened to Chandrasekhar and black holes.
Darwin/history of biology vs. Churchill/history of England ... an interesting battle but perhaps a little off topic.
|
What? No. Alfred Russel Wallace did a LOT of fieldwork. His fieldwork was really important at the time.
He just gets a bad rap by some people because he had some nonconventional ideas among evolutionary scientists. He was a big fan of Human Consiousness not having a physical concept and instead being immatieral. Believed in souls... stuff like that.
I'd argue Wallace may be more important then Darwin, because if it wasn't for Wallace... there is no gurantee Darwin would of even released his findings.
It almost seemed as if he was willing to die with his research before Wallace sent him his thesis. Which is actually something i'm guessing this movie is going to talk about.
|
Well, I guess my memory was mistaken. But ... Darwin might not ever have published? Really?
|
Either never or posthumorsly... I think it was due to the aforementioned religious troubles. He was afterall going to be a priest at first... that beign his goal in college.
Wallace actually sent him his thesis because they were friends and that's why Darwin did publish.
Darwin took 20 years to publish after the trip that supposidly inspired him.
20 years after 5 weeks of research... he had plenty of info... but was unwilling to go foward with it for whatever reason.
It's why he and Wallace presented jointly in the same year.
It should also be noted by the way that Darwin and Wallace weren't actually the first peope to write about Natural selection.
A few papers before them existed... they just weren't as widely talked about.
The thing about just about every "great" scientist is... they're usually not supremely smarter then everybody else. Just slightly smarter then 3-4 people who are on the same trail.
