The "Theory of Evolution" had a co-founder... Alfred Wallace, do you know why we don't talk about him?

Question

Wallace in fact, concluded that natural selection could not explain the orgin of our higher intellectual and moral faculties. He claimed that savages and prehistoric humans had brains almost as large as thoses of Englishmen but, in adapting to an environment that did not require abstract thought, they had no use for structures and therefore their brains could not have resulted from natural selection.

To this day no one has completed Darwins claims that our level of consciousness rose from natural selection. Why do you take it as fact?

Gerald M Edelman, M.D. Ph., D winner of the Noble Prize for medical science closes his book,"wider than the Sky" "the phenomenal gift of consciousness" this way

"Even if someday, we are able to embed both of theses modes in the construction of a conscious artifact and thus further extend our comprehension, the particular forms of consciousness that we possess as humans will not be reproducible and will continue to be our greatest gift."

My question is to whom do we owe thanks for this gift?

punch- I don't

kinshin-quote the paper where darwins work has been completed specificly on human consciousness. I will read it.

spychick-I used Wallace as a starting point not the concluding point. For that I chose Edelman. any problem with that? Is his Noble Prize for his specific work in the area of consciousness not recent enough for you?

corission- Read it allready I do not find his arguments sounder than Edelman. Specificly his thought on conscious neurons... they might be used for that purpose for one moment and then not the next.

most of you have presumed a belief structure on me. Why?

Mr TT- I have not mentioned Hoyle

Answer 1

Appeal to Authority; logical fallacy 122.

Evolution is real. It is the best explanation there is.

Propose a counter theory that has as much evidence as evolution for human consciousness and we can debate it.

From above:
"A teacher tells them it's true.
They believe it.
They defend it.
They condemn anyone who questions it."

That's priceless.

"A pastor / priest / immam / rabbi tells them it's true"
"They believe it."
"They defend it"
"They condemn anyone who questions it."

In science you can get just as much fame proving a theory incorrect as you can by proposing a new one. Science thrives on finding innacuracies it it's own conclusions. It isn't dogma.


And to answer your question:
"Alfred Wallace, do you know why we don't talk about him?"

Because he was wrong. We don't talk much about Ptolemy for the same reason.

"My question is to whom do we owe thanks for this gift?"

Again, Appeal to Authority. You cherry pick quotes from credited individuals and you use their authority as a means to justify their own (and your) opinion.

The opinion of an individual (which both the quotes are -- NOT STATEMENTS OF FACT, BUT OPINIONS!) are not relavent.


"kinshin-quote the paper where darwins work has been completed specificly on human consciousness. I will read it."

First off, Darwin's work is archaic compared to what we have today regarding evolution. Even if he had been 100% wrong, it would not impact the veracity of evolution as it is known today. Get it? Science (evolution) isn't dogma based on the Authority of the founder. It isn't religion. Try to let that sink in.

Second, I said that evolution is "the best explanation we have". I didn't say that it proves consciousness was a direct result of evolution, but that is the only scientific theory we have that explains how speciaition, and consciousness can occur.

YOU claim that it is flawed. Yet you provide no counter theory. You have no argument.

Answer 2

I think your research is a little outdated. Wallace died in 1913. We are learning new information about evolution everyday.

Anyone that has taken a college Biology class knows that Alfred Russell Wallace was doing his studies at the same time as Darwin, and contributed to the research. However, Darwin is usually credited because he wrote the book that explained the theory in a simple, easy-to-understand way.

Answer 3

Isn't it arrogant to assume that we are the ones with the "higher intellectual... faculties"? This seems to be answering a question with a question but maybe "savage and prehistoric humans" chose not to use structures because they were more in touch with the natural balance!!! Look at the negative ecological results of all of our higher faculties and tell me that; in this case we are more like a regression from natural selection and possibly we will soon no longer be "selected".

Answer 4

Actually, the theory of evolution predates both men by centuries...it dates back to Ancient Greece. A philosopher named Anaximander (610-545 B.C.E.) formulated the ideas that early life originated in the oceans, and eventually made its way to land, adapting along the way to deal with changing environmental conditions. Newton and Linnaeus even wrote papers on the subject. The credit Darwin receives is a combination of hard work (Darwin actually did the traveling and gathering of evidence, as opposed to sitting around thinking about it) and good marketing.

In all fairness, Darwin does acknowledge Wallace's work in "The Origin of Species"...I didn't mean to imply that Darwin himself claimed to "invent" evolution.

Answer 5

See Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

Alfred Russell Wallace got weirder as he got older. That's why Darwin rules the roost as 'founder' though he was not the first.

I knew someone would bring up that buffoon Hoyle, the laughingstock of physics. Another one whose marbles fell out and rolled under the sofa.

Presume a belief structure, based on your previous fundie posts? Oh, please.

Answer 6

the reason we don't talk about him is because his ideas were not as well fleshed out as Darwin's. Darwin had been sitting on his thesis for years. Although Wallace's impending publication spurred Darwin to publish Origin, Darwin's ideas were much more complete and detailed.

Answer 7

First of all we don't really know if we have higher intellectual or moral capacities. I have seen no evidence of this, have you? The only difference I see is that we have opposible thumbs and complex vocal cords.

Answer 8

We assume it to be true because it's the best theory there is to explain the complexity and variety of life. We can't see electrons neutrons or protons either but we have good reasons to believe that they exist.

Answer 9

I think the answer is in the politics of their time & place.
I think politicians did use those ideas in war & in controling people.

Answer 10

I see you mentioned Hoyle so I'll waste my time somewhere else.