Subject: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 22 Jun 2001 17:53:04 GMT From: dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if It is often noted that two of the most influential men of the nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, were born on the same day-- February 12, 1809. Challenge: Make Abraham Lincoln the author of *The Origin of Species.* Make Charles Darwin (who in this ATL will for some reason be brought to the US at an early age) president of the United States during the Civil War and author of the Emancipation Proclamation. (The one pre-1809 change I will permit here is to have the US Constitution allow foreign-born presidents provided they have been US citizens for, say, 30 years.) Certainly both men are agreed, even by their opponents, to have been very intelligent. Could Lincoln's talents have served him as well in biology as in law and politics? (Note also that as a young man Lincoln was something of a religious skeptic, so contradictions between the theory of evolution and a literal intepretation of the Bible would not necessarily hold any terrors for him.) Could Darwin have become a successful lawyer, and Whig (later Republican) politician? Anyway, thinking about a Darwin-Douglas or Lincoln-Wilberforce (yes, I know it was Huxley rather than Darwin who debated Wilberforce but maybe we can have Lincoln in this ATL do some of Huxley's work in popularizing evolution) debate is intriguing. -- David Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:08:33 -0700 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 22 Jun 2001, David Tenner wrote: > It is often noted that two of the most influential men of the nineteenth > century, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, were born on the same day-- > February 12, 1809. > > Challenge: Make Abraham Lincoln the author of *The Origin of Species.* > Make Charles Darwin (who in this ATL will for some reason be brought to the > US at an early age) president of the United States during the Civil War and > author of the Emancipation Proclamation. _Origin of Species_ gets published around 1838. The Emancipation Proclamation gets issued in mid-1865, on its 543rd draft, when Darwin gets word that Sherman and Grant are about to include emancipation in Confederate surrender agreements. President Darwin known ever after as The Great Procrastinator. Conrad Hodson Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 24 Jun 2001 18:02:30 GMT From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article , conradh@efn.org (Conrad Hodson) wrote: > President Darwin known ever after as > The Great Procrastinator. The OTL Darwin seems to have been quite religious. However he was forced into publishing his original paper on evolution when another biologist developed the theory independently and sent a copy to Darwin for criticism. Their work was published as a joint paper. Origin of Species was written as a follow up to this paper, primarily to provide a popular account with added evidence. Origin has no mention of the evolution of man and Darwin never took place in any of the debates. Huxly had been engaged in earlier disputes with the scientific establishment and seems to have been delighted to have another club to beat his opponents with. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 23 Jun 2001 20:20:46 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Grant and Sherman had no authority to make that kind of peace settlement. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 23 Jun 2001 10:33:53 -0700 From: jonyurchak@hotmail.com (Blue Team) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) wrote in message news:<90C883ACEdtennerameritechnet@enews.newsguy.com>... > It is often noted that two of the most influential men of the nineteenth > century, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, were born on the same day-- > February 12, 1809. > > Challenge: Make Abraham Lincoln the author of *The Origin of Species.* > Make Charles Darwin (who in this ATL will for some reason be brought to the > US at an early age) Don't you have to be born on US soil to be President? Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 23 Jun 2001 17:37:02 GMT From: dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Blue Team wrote in <2eec5f13.0106230933.62e69c4@posting.google.com>: >dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) wrote in message >news:<90C883ACEdtennerameritechnet@enews.newsguy.com>... >> It is often noted that two of the most influential men of the >> nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, were born on >> the same day-- February 12, 1809. >> >> Challenge: Make Abraham Lincoln the author of *The Origin of >> Species.* Make Charles Darwin (who in this ATL will for some reason >> be brought to the US at an early age) > >Don't you have to be born on US soil to be President? Uh, that's exactly why I say: > >>(The one pre-1809 change I will >> permit here is to have the US Constitution allow foreign-born >> presidents provided they have been US citizens for, say, 30 years.) >> -- David Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:03:36 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 David Tenner wrote: > have Lincoln in this ATL do some of Huxley's work in popularizing > evolution) debate is intriguing. > I can just see alternate-Lincoln argueing with Soapy Sam Wilberforce --- "If you call your Uncle a monkey then you are a Monkey's Nephew" and Lincoln replying "Calling your Uncle a monkey does not make him one". Also alternate-Lincolns Origin of Species would be filled with some of that aw-shucks homespun humor. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 23 Jun 2001 17:50:40 -0700 From: Lovell-Smith@Xtra.co.nz (Tim) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) wrote in message news:<90C883ACEdtennerameritechnet@enews.newsguy.com>... > > Challenge: Make Abraham Lincoln the author of *The Origin of Species.* > Make Charles Darwin (who in this ATL will for some reason be brought to the > US at an early age) president of the United States during the Civil War and > author of the Emancipation Proclamation. (The one pre-1809 change I will > permit here is to have the US Constitution allow foreign-born presidents > provided they have been US citizens for, say, 30 years.) > > Certainly both men are agreed, even by their opponents, to have been very > intelligent. Could Lincoln's talents have served him as well in biology as > in law and politics? (Note also that as a young man Lincoln was something > of a religious skeptic, so contradictions between the theory of evolution > and a literal intepretation of the Bible would not necessarily hold any > terrors for him.) Could Darwin have become a successful lawyer, and Whig > (later Republican) politician? > > Anyway, thinking about a Darwin-Douglas or Lincoln-Wilberforce (yes, I know > it was Huxley rather than Darwin who debated Wilberforce but maybe we can > have Lincoln in this ATL do some of Huxley's work in popularizing > evolution) debate is intriguing. You end up with a lazy. procrastinating and bad lawyer, who even if he become president, would have been one of the least distinguished ones - all sorts of butterfly wings for the ACW. And we have wallacism (or bucklandism, or Brogniartism, or given a few more twitches of PODs, Mendelism, Mantellism or even Fitzroyism) rather than darwinism - I cannot see lincolnism (the American entry could be sillimanism or Danism). BTW, religious scepticism is not necessary for someone to formulate a theory of evolution -most of the above, including Darwin, despite their religious backgrounds, proved themselves capable of facing scientific theory, however uncomfortqble it may be. The exception was Fitzroy, but as pioneering meteorologist, he could, with a minor twitch - a single phrase, even on the voyage of the Beagle - have stumbled across the theory himself. Know less about Lincoln's interest in natural history, but I cannot asee him idly chatting with racing pigeon breeders... Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 24 Jun 2001 16:56:28 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Why not? Lincoln was pretty comfortable with the common man and there's plenty of stories of him personally seeing inventors while in the white house (Lincoln himself had a patent for a set of inflatable bladders to lift ships off of sandbars). If he went into biology instead I'd have no doubt he'd be chatting up everyone around. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:08:43 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote: > sandbars). If he went into biology instead I'd have no doubt he'd be chatting > up everyone around. The Illinois schmoozer. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 23 Jun 2001 02:04:57 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Lincoln would be hampered by his almost total lack of schooling. << (Note also that as a young man Lincoln was something of a religious skeptic, so contradictions between the theory of evolution and a literal intepretation of the Bible would not necessarily hold any terrors for him.)>> IIRC Lincoln never belonged to a church. I'd see no trouble with him contradicting religious orthodoxy. Incidentally does anyone know if there's any writing by Lincoln with regards to his thoughts on evolution? Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 25 Jun 2001 03:57:40 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <<>Lincoln would be hampered by his almost total lack of schooling. Of course, ignorance is not a handicap for a political career.>> Lincoln built his political career on things other than book learning. I doubt as succesful a biology career could have been done by a backwoodsmans son with only a minimal one room schoolhouse education. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 03:31:24 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote: > <<>Lincoln would be hampered by his almost total lack of schooling. > > Of course, ignorance is not a handicap for a political career.>> > > Lincoln built his political career on things other than book learning. I doubt > as succesful a biology career could have been done by a backwoodsmans son with > only a minimal one room schoolhouse education. Consider the background and history of Michael Faraday in OTL. A poor boy with virtually no education who was an autodidact and practically invented the field (pun intended) of electro-magnetism. If a Faraday can do it, so can a Lincoln. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 02:59:26 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Ture. Lincoln did train himself in the law and became one of, if not the, most succesful lawyers in Illinois. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 02:15:24 -0700 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Robert J. Kolker wrote: > > Lincoln built his political career on things other than book learning. I doubt > > as succesful a biology career could have been done by a backwoodsmans son with > > only a minimal one room schoolhouse education. > > Consider the background and history of Michael Faraday in OTL. > A poor boy with virtually no education who was an autodidact and > practically invented the field (pun intended) of electro-magnetism. > > If a Faraday can do it, so can a Lincoln. You're right, and Lincoln _did_ that; self-educated in what today we would call pre-law. Reckon he could have studied critterology the same way. (Sorry, couldn't help it!) For that matter, our first hundred years or so were full of that; Nathanael Greene was a blacksmith who taught himself Latin by reading Caesar; enough rubbed off to make him one of the best generals in the American Revolution. Formal educational credentials can be somewhat overrated. In the immortal words of Robert E. Lee: "The greatest mistake of my life was taking a military education." And Lee was first in his class at West Point, it's not exactly sour grapes. Conrad Hodson Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 25 Jun 2001 14:09:20 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Conrad Hodson wrote: >For that matter, our first hundred years or so were full of >that; Nathanael Greene was a blacksmith who taught himself Latin by >reading Caesar; enough rubbed off to make him one of the best generals in >the American Revolution. OTOH, Darwin's family was scholar-gentry-industrialist -- one grandfather was Erasmus Darwin, who also had a theory of descent and inheritance, and the other was Josiah Wedgwood, the great porcelain maker. I'm not one much for inherited genius, but I am one for shared family culture -- and that extended family had a respect for learning and speculation that lasted well into the 20th century. (Odd note: Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, was a deep believer in the heritability of intelligence, and was one of the pioneers of the eugenics movement.) Hm. Erasmus Darwin in America would be an interesting WI. The Lunar Society of Philadelphia? And of course, politics. Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:24:01 +0100 From: philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) Organization: Unlikely Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 23 Jun 2001 02:04:57 GMT, Prestorjon wrote: > >Lincoln would be hampered by his almost total lack of schooling. Of course, ignorance is not a handicap for a political career. :-) -- ==== Philip Hunt == philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ==== Want to stop global warming? Do you support the Kyoto Treaty? Then boycott Esso (ExxonMobil in the USA). See www.stopesso.com for details. Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:22:33 -0700 From: "Dr. Argent" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 David Tenner wrote: > Certainly both men are agreed, even by their opponents, to have been very > intelligent. Make that "some of their opponents". "The Illinois Ape" was one of the kinder things some of Lincoln's own generals and Cabinet called him. Darwin got it just as bad from from many religious and scientific authorities of his time. Regards, Dr. Argent Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 03:48:01 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Dr. Argent" wrote: > David Tenner wrote: > > > Certainly both men are agreed, even by their opponents, to have been very > > intelligent. > > Make that "some of their opponents". "The Illinois Ape" was one of the kinder > things some of Lincoln's own generals and Cabinet called him. Darwin got it > just as bad from from many religious and scientific authorities of his time. Actually Darwin was villified by the religious extremists (Sam Wilberforce comes to mind). His scientific colleges had great respect for Darwin who proved his mettle with the quality of his samples, drawings, measurements and exhibits that he made while he was on the Beagle. Darwin's scientific skill was NEVER in question. It was his interpretation of the evidence (which everyone agreed was valid) that made for contraversey. Even if Darwin could not sell his concept of variation and descent of species his reputation as a naturalist was safe and sound. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:06:54 -0700 From: "Dr. Argent" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > Darwin's scientific skill was NEVER > in question. It was his interpretation of the evidence (which everyone > agreed was valid) that made for contraversey. Even if Darwin > could not sell his concept of variation and descent of species his > reputation as a naturalist was safe and sound. I stand corrected. Thanks, Dr. Argent Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:23:34 +0100 From: Brett Paul Dunbar Organization: Minimal Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In message <90C883ACEdtennerameritechnet@enews.newsguy.com>, David Tenner writes >It is often noted that two of the most influential men of the nineteenth >century, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, were born on the same day-- >February 12, 1809. > >Challenge: Make Abraham Lincoln the author of *The Origin of Species.* >Make Charles Darwin (who in this ATL will for some reason be brought to the >US at an early age) president of the United States during the Civil War and >author of the Emancipation Proclamation. (The one pre-1809 change I will >permit here is to have the US Constitution allow foreign-born presidents >provided they have been US citizens for, say, 30 years.) > >Certainly both men are agreed, even by their opponents, to have been very >intelligent. Could Lincoln's talents have served him as well in biology as >in law and politics? (Note also that as a young man Lincoln was something >of a religious skeptic, so contradictions between the theory of evolution >and a literal intepretation of the Bible would not necessarily hold any >terrors for him.) Could Darwin have become a successful lawyer, and Whig >(later Republican) politician? Charles Darwin originally joined the crew of HMS Beagle as a supernumerary passenger (he later took over the role of ships naturalist), this was due to Captain Fitzroy's inherited tendency towards severe depression (Viscount Castlereagh had committed suicide, in 1822 whilst in office as Foreign Secretary) and the fact that the Captain did not traditionally socialise with the crew on a Royal Navy ship. Charles Darwin as a civilian passenger and a social equal of Fitzroy (Darwin was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood) could provide him with a decent dinner and social companion. Abraham Lincoln doesn't seem to have been of a suitable social status to fulfil that role. -- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Brett Paul Dunbar Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 02:52:30 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Ture. However Lincoln could be very charming, if somewhat given to down home humor. Maybe the Captain met Lincoln somewhere and becames friends with him. Then when the voyage comes up.... Of course it doesn't need to be on the Beagle that Lincoln the naturalist takes his trip. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:57:03 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote: > Then when the voyage comes up.... > Of course it doesn't need to be on the Beagle that Lincoln the naturalist takes > his trip. Were there any American expeditions with a scientific objective? Lincoln the Naturalist could sign up with one of these (if there are any). Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 03:59:03 -0700 From: Lovell-Smith@Xtra.co.nz (Tim) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message . > > Were there any American expeditions with a scientific objective? > > Lincoln the Naturalist could sign up with one of these (if there > are any). > The Wilkes expedition around the Pacific and to the coasts of Antarctica of 1836-38, obiviously - the ships were loaded to the gunwhales with naturalists and geologists (including my best bet, Dana) Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 04:13:53 -0700 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Robert J. Kolker wrote: > > > Then when the voyage comes up.... > > Of course it doesn't need to be on the Beagle that Lincoln the naturalist takes > > his trip. > > Were there any American expeditions with a scientific objective? > > Lincoln the Naturalist could sign up with one of these (if there > are any). Someone here already mentioned the Wilkes expedition, which would qualify. It was a little later than the voyage of HMS Beagle, but since Lincoln wouldn't procrastinate on the manuscript for twenty years, the difference wouldn't matter. Conrad Hodson who of course has _never_ procrastinated on a manuscript Subject: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:35:24 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010624125628.07293.00000209@ng-ft1.aol.com>, Prestorjon writes ><asee him idly chatting with racing pigeon breeders...>> > >Why not? Lincoln was pretty comfortable with the common man and there's plenty >of stories of him personally seeing inventors while in the white house (Lincoln >himself had a patent for a set of inflatable bladders to lift ships off of >sandbars). If he went into biology instead I'd have no doubt he'd be chatting >up everyone around. > And he'd certainly be able to explain biology - and in particular, evolution - in terms that would make it easy to understand. If he went into biology, I'd suggest that he would be a great TV scientist if he had been born later. -- Alison Brooks http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/ Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 02:54:42 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Yep. James M Mcpherson has an essay in a recent book about Lincolns rhetorical skills and he says that one of Lincolns strengths in relation to Jeff Davis is that Lincoln was better able to codify war aims and national mission in a way that the common man could understand. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:05:03 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Alison Brooks wrote: > > And he'd certainly be able to explain biology - and in particular, > evolution - in terms that would make it easy to understand. > > If he went into biology, I'd suggest that he would be a great TV > scientist if he had been born later. You make a very telling point. It was the matter of selective breeding practiced by fowlers and farmers that gave Darwin (OTL) the idea of natural selection. If mankind can make what amounts to new species by selective breeding, why not nature. In the ATL, Lincoln would have a very good grasp of barnyard biology. Once you glom onto the idea of selection the idea of descent with modification is not that hard to come by. NB: Darwin never called his ideas evolution. He called it descent with modification. But that does not have a ring to it. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 02:58:16 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Thats something thats always puzzled me. Selective breeding seems to be well known. So why was it that big a leap from breeding horses or birds or whatever to evolution? It seems like the next logical step. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 21:07:00 -0700 From: steven_j@altavista.com (Steven J.) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote in message news:<20010625225816.26023.00001135@ng-fb1.aol.com>... > < breeding practiced by fowlers and farmers that gave Darwin > (OTL) the idea of natural selection. If mankind can make > what amounts to new species by selective breeding, why not > nature. In the ATL, Lincoln would have a very good grasp > of barnyard biology. Once you glom onto the idea of selection > the idea of descent with modification is not that hard to > come by.>> > > Thats something thats always puzzled me. Selective breeding seems to be well > known. So why was it that big a leap from breeding horses or birds or > whatever to evolution? It seems like the next logical step. > Darwin, in _Origin of Species_, mentioned one problem: the people who conducted most of the selective breeding didn't realize how much their breeds had changed from their original forms. He mentions speaking with farmers who didn't believe that the different breeds of cattle all came from one original breed. Until you grasp that descent with modification had occurred, one had no reason either to speculate on how far it could go, or what caused it. Darwin's studies in the Galapagos led him to suspect that the variety and distribution of species there could only be explained if one species could change into several others; this came as an unpleasant shock to him. As soon as "species" was defined, it was generally assumed that species was the equivalent of the "kinds" of Genesis. Linnaeus, the founder of modern taxonomy, asserted originally that there were as many species in the world as God had originally created. There was a profound prejudice, supported by but not necessarily entirely based on religion, against the idea of one species changing into another. Michael Ruse, the philosopher and historian of science, attributes part of the problem to the enduring idea that individual organisms were instances of unchanging Platonic forms -- given such a view, a "species" was, virtually by definition, incapable of evolving into anything else. > In addition, Darwin faced the problem of what could do the selecting, in the absence of an intelligent breeder. He needed the insight that organisms typically produce more offspring than can find sustenance, and that all that the environment can support survive and, themselves, breed to the limit of the enviroment's carrying capacity. He gained this insight from the economist Thomas Malthus (who used it as a argument against trying to help the poor -- all you'd get is more poor people). Darwin realized that the survivors of the Malthusian struggle for existence would not be chosen randomly, but that some traits would help them survive and others would hinder their chances. Malthus's error was assuming that humans would never voluntarily limit their breeding; his insight into what must happen if they did not was necessary in order to imagine selection without a conscious selector. > > ----------------- > He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things > We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, > The fears of years, like a biting whip, > Had cut deep bloody grooves > Across our backs. > -Etheridge Knight -- Steven J. Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 28 Jun 2001 01:18:26 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Steven J. said: >Darwin, in _Origin of Species_, mentioned one problem: the people who >conducted most of the selective breeding didn't realize how much their >breeds had changed from their original forms. He mentions speaking >with farmers who didn't believe that the different breeds of cattle >all came from one original breed. Until you grasp that descent with >modification had occurred, one had no reason either to speculate on >how far it could go, or what caused it. Darwin's studies in the >Galapagos led him to suspect that the variety and distribution of >species there could only be explained if one species could change into >several others; this came as an unpleasant shock to him. It helped that Darwin came from a country which had been engaging in scientific farming and ranching -- including the tracking of livestock lines of descent -- for a century. That made the changes in breeds more obvious to him than it would have been to someone living in the early _18th_ century. -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 04:15:33 -0700 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 26 Jun 2001, Prestorjon wrote: > > Thats something thats always puzzled me. Selective breeding seems to be well > known. So why was it that big a leap from breeding horses or birds or whatever > to evolution? It seems like the next logical step. That's one of the best ways to spot true genius: someone who comes up with something that's so obvious no one ever thought of it before. Conrad Hodson Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:59:43 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote: > > Thats something thats always puzzled me. Selective breeding seems to be well > known. So why was it that big a leap from breeding horses or birds or whatever > to evolution? It seems like the next logical step. 20-20 hindsight. It happens all the time. Newton's 3-rd law, which seems "obvious" to us, has the same character. One of the attributes of genius is to see the "hidden" obvious. The secrets of Nature are hidden in plain sight. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 27 Jun 2001 01:23:28 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <<20-20 hindsight. It happens all the time. Newton's 3-rd law, which seems "obvious" to us, has the same character. One of the attributes of genius is to see the "hidden" obvious. The secrets of Nature are hidden in plain sight.>> Well I'm not talking so much about why no one ever thought of it. That is a pretty big leap to go from no idea of evolution to the idea of evolution. What I'm talking about is why people were (are) so reluctant to accept it. Its a big deal to come up with it but once Darwin revealed it I would have expected a lot of head smacking by folks who figure it was so obvious. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:41:26 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote: > Well I'm not talking so much about why no one ever thought of it. That is a > pretty big leap to go from no idea of evolution to the idea of evolution. What > I'm talking about is why people were (are) so reluctant to accept it. Its a > big deal to come up with it but once Darwin revealed it I would have expected a > lot of head smacking by folks who figure it was so obvious. What Darwin had to say contradicted a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. In Darwin's time orthodox christianity was very powerful in British culture (or just about any western nation). One of the reasons Darwin put off publishing until Wallace was about to scoop him, was that he (Darwin) was very nervous about the ruckus that his theory would cause. And he was right. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 07:20:11 -0700 From: msimone69@hotmail.com (Mike Simone) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote in message news:<20010625225816.26023.00001135@ng-fb1.aol.com>... > > Thats something thats always puzzled me. Selective breeding seems to be well > known. So why was it that big a leap from breeding horses or birds or whatever > to evolution? It seems like the next logical step. > One big reason is that selective breeding is very directed while natural selection is random. I think that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that moving from prokaryotes to people could happen through effectively rolling dice. (This always makes me wonder why these people think that their diety of choice is omnipotent, but can't know how the dice will roll.) There's book called 'Darwin's Black Box' that uses that as it's main point - cellular processes are so complex (in the author's view) that they could not arise through chance. The other reason is that you can make a good case for selective breeding not really creating new species, especially within historical times. Domesticated dogs can breed with wolves and coyotes, so are they really seperate species? Of course, a Great Dane and a Daschund can't readily interbreed, but they are both considered the same species, because a Dane can breed with a Sheperd which can breed with a can breed with a Daschund, so genetic material can transfer from one population to another, if rather slowly. The definition of a species is sort of a nebulous concept in biology - it's a human idea forced onto populations of animals that refuse to cooperate with it. This was a major pain when I was taking Evolution - we talked about crap like what is a species/genus/class for what felt like months on end, but spent about 30 minutes on the origin of life. Mike Simone Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:18:06 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Mike Simone wrote: > was a major pain when I was taking Evolution - we talked about crap > like what is a species/genus/class for what felt like months on end, > but spent about 30 minutes on the origin of life. Of course. No one knows how life originated. In fact the theory of descent with modification does not even address that question (abiogenesis). Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 25 Jun 2001 03:16:36 -0700 From: Lovell-Smith@Xtra.co.nz (Tim) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Alison Brooks wrote in message > > And he'd certainly be able to explain biology - and in particular, > evolution - in terms that would make it easy to understand. > > If he went into biology, I'd suggest that he would be a great TV > scientist if he had been born later. OK, let him be the Thomas Huxley to James Dana. The fame of the voyage of the Beagle is replaced by that of Wilkes Expedition of 1836-8. Dana's findings on coral reefs come so frustratingly close to breaking into a theory of evolution. The main lack is that Dana was more a geologist - one of the naturalists on the Wilkes Expedition could have given him the final push into the theory - And we end up talking about Dana's polyps rather than Darwin's finches... Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 25 Jun 2001 13:40:00 GMT From: witmergreen@aol.comNOSPAM (Steven Witmer) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 > >If he went into biology, I'd suggest that he would be a great TV >scientist if he had been born later. > >-- "Abe Lincoln, the Science Guy"...hmm...just doesn't have the same ring as "Bill Nye"... ;-) Steven Witmer Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: 26 Jun 2001 02:56:45 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <<"Abe Lincoln, the Science Guy"...hmm...just doesn't have the same ring as "Bill Nye"... ;-)>> Plus, for someone who made his living (both as a poltiician and as a lawyer) by the power of his speach Lincoln apparently had a terrible voice for speach making. Most of the contemporary accounts describe it as being very high pitched with a pronounced backwoods Kentucky twang. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Lincoln and Darwin change places Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:24:34 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010625225645.26023.00001134@ng-fb1.aol.com>, Prestorjon writes ><<"Abe Lincoln, the Science Guy"...hmm...just doesn't have the same ring as >"Bill >Nye"... ;-)>> > >Plus, for someone who made his living (both as a poltiician and as a lawyer) by >the power of his speach Lincoln apparently had a terrible voice for speach >making. Most of the contemporary accounts describe it as being very high >pitched with a pronounced backwoods Kentucky twang. > But he was an excellent crafter of words. Maybe he would have ended up much like Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known science writer. -- Alison Brooks http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/