Well, I think that I probably simply misremembered whatever I read about the situation with Wallace's thesis rather than there being any badmouthing involved.  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.

^ Just like Churchill being a "great" statesman?

I don't know.  I don't see anyone else doing what Churchill did at the time.

A lot of great leaders i would argue are unreplaceable.

Not to play down scientsits... but the level on which scientists that make discoveries play off of existing research and common threads of knowledge other sceintists are going by is greatly downplayed.

Although i wouldn't say Churchill was a great statesman so much as he was a unique statesman that existed at the right time.

Another example is George Washington.

A great number of revolutions never work out for their people because the leader of their revolutions weren't like George Washington.

He had the power to enshrine himself as an asbsolute ruler... but didn't.   Now, give command to any of those other revolutionary officers... and I imagine we'd be celibrating a quite different history after the US won.

Ha, well, I think the main difference is simply that scientific discoveries can be done by any old jerk (as long as they are able to get an audience), whereas leaders have to be in a specific position for the critical event in question.  Somewhat similar to what you said, but from a different angle I think.

Who really knows what the odds were on someone else doing just as well in Churchill's place?  Particularly, who might have been in his position (before he became PM) if he hadn't been there? Also, for instance, how realistic was that temptation Washington was faced with, really?  (Given the situation in America and the other founding fathers.)

[edit:  edited some stuff.  I think I'm done now -- 1:04 local.]

Well with Washington...  there were plans for an insurrection... and had he decided to get behind it.  There would of been nothing to stop him.

Congress... just refused to pay these guys what they were promised... and really were treating the army like shit.

Had Washington not only refused but made a speech that disauded them... someone else might of even taken over.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm

George Washington is one of the worlds most confusing historical figures.

"Had Washington not only refused but made a speech that disauded them... someone else might of even taken over."

Not sure what you mean by that, since he DID do those things ... maybe you meant "had not"?

Anyway, the real question there is, 'What would have come of it had Washington not stepped in so effectively?' And we don't know. Maybe he made a huge change there -- I'm skeptical (though I confess lacking any in-depth knowledge here). Certainly he did so much for the revolution that it seems hard to believe that any single man could have stepped in for all of it had he not been there.

It's all how you perceive greatness, like in that old saying.

"Some men are born with greatness,
Some men have to work for greatness,
some men have greatness thrust upon them"


Churchill is the latter, he had greatness thrust upon him. Darwin is the first one, he worked to become great.

No.  What i propose is that Washington telling him men that they shouldn't rebel was something no one else would of been willing to do.

As that showed the reset of the army was ready to mutiny.

The thing is... with people like Washington and Churchill we DO know.  We know because they were the ONLY People saying the things they were at the times they were.

Everyone else of an equal position and standing was of the opposite opinion.

Unlike Darwin who had numerous people of the same opinion.

Darwin acknowledges a lot of people that did fieldwork in the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, he also states that he had to rush his abstract so it could be released before other competing theories of evolution were released. So yes if Darwin hadn't developed the theory of evolution someone else would have, Wallace being one of the forerunners. But most scientists work in this way, a lot of them "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were. It's an ugly business really, when you think about it like that.

While I acknowledge that Darwin by no means the only person working on a theory of evolution and if I he hadn't existed someone else would have taken his place. I also certainly wouldn't begrudge him of the accolade, because then we must start saying people like Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Curie, Faraday, Bacon, etc. weren't important because people would have taken their place had they not existed.