7 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. Every such speculation must be rejected, because it is self-contradictory. It professes to develop a Theory of Creation, -- to explain the beginning of things; and in order to do so, it is obliged to assume that the present or ordinary succession of phenomena, the common sequence of causes and effects which we every day witness, has continued from eternity; -- that is, that there never was any Creation, and that the universe never began to be. It professes to untie the knot, and ends by denying that there is any knot to untie. Mr. Darwin is too imaginative a thinker to be a safe guide in natural science; he has unconsciously left the proper ground of physics and inductive science, and busied himself with questions of cosmogony and metaphysics.

      This article as a whole has really baffled me. Like I stated before, Darwin is a figure in a lot of scientific classes and history, so to read such a critical piece about him is fascinating. It really makes me rethink about how we learn and what we learn in our educational system. What kind of biases are present when writings, such as this one, are not present in the curriculum? Although I am not fully aware of the impacts this writing has had on the sciences as a whole, it seems to be a great piece that promotes the scientific method and does not shy away from pointing out the flaws of a very influential person. From my point of view and personal experiences, it does not seem to have a huge impact on the way Darwin or his theories are taught, which is quite a shame, as it is very important work.

    2. Numerous Species of the same genus now coexist, often within the bounds of a not very extended territory, without any one of them showing any tendency to supplant or exterminate another. Thus, South Africa is the country par excellence of the antelope; about fifty species of this animal have been found there, many of them very abundant, notwithstanding the numerous Carnivora that prey upon them, and yet none of them showing any tendency to die out before civilized man came thither and brought gunpowder along with him.

      This is a good point to bring up that goes against Darwin's theory once again. Animals on their own will not exterminate another species. They do have a sort of "circle of life" which is an instinct in my opinion. Yes predatory carnivores have a killer instinct, but they do it to survive. When they are hungry, they will hunt, but only to satisfy their pride (or whatever their group is called). Some of the only examples of extinctions or exterminations, that we can verifiably measure or have witnessed are due to mankind. Nowadays, this is an even more important idea in regards to nature and preserving the naturalness of our surroundings. That was a great point to end to that idea.

    3. If the indications from analogy, on which the whole speculation is based, are so faint that the work cannot have been completed except in an infinite lapse of years, these indications practically amount to nothing.  The evidence which needs to be multiplied by infinity before it will produce conviction, is no evidence at all.

      I found this whole paragraph, but specifically these final sentences to be especially interesting. When taking science classes and learning about the history of great scientists like Darwin, I feel we do use more of a personalist approach. It is very refreshing to see the flaws that are not always well known. I had never really heard or read about these objections to Darwin's theory before, which makes me question how we learn about these important topics in academia.

    4. And though only one out of a hundred of these Individual Variations is transmitted by inheritance, yet, after collecting as many instances of such transmission as they can find, they affirm that a Variation tends to become hereditable. But it is not so. Tendency is rightly inferred only from the majority of cases; a small minority of favorable instances merely shows the tendency to be the other way. Thus, the cars do not tend to run off the track, although one train out of a thousand may be unlucky enough to do so; but the general law is, that they remain on the track.

      This portion once again shows the use of great scientific practice. Bowen is have a healthy skepticism on Darwin's ideas and conclusions. He does state the positives of his work, but is not shy to highlight the flaws of it. This one, in particular, shows that maybe some of the conclusions made were more trying to support an idea rather than state actual facts.

    5. the direct evidence fails altogether, and we are left exclusively to the guidance of conjecture and analogy and estimates of what is possible for all that we know to the contrary.

      Although it may not seem to be very important, this statement is. It represents the idea that we, as humans, do not know fully about the validity of Development Theory. Acknowledging the short-comings of the theory and the past research is just as important to do than showing evidence in support of it. This is a good, scientific approach, that shows figuring out the "truth" is of most importance.

    6. And generally, putting aside the question whether the offspring of certain races when crossed are entirely sterile or only partially so, there is no doubt that animals or plants belong to distinct Species when they cannot be crossed or made to interbreed at all. It is enough to say, then, that only Cumulative Variation -- and that of a vast number of successive steps -- will account for the common origin of animals which will not copulate with each other, or of plants which cannot be crossed.  

      This shows further evidence about the Development Theory. Even though before, there was a rebuttal, this counters it with more evidence to why the classifications for different species, and to treat them as different species, is important.

    7. But with whatever success the doctrine of Inherited Variation may be applied to explain the existence of Varieties, it is certain that the origin of Species can be accounted for on the Development Theory, if at all, only by Cumulative Variation, -- that is, only by supposing a vast number of Inherited Variations to be successively superinduced one upon another. Doubts have been raised upon this point only on account of ambiguity in the meaning of words, or from want of agreement as to the principles of classification. Many races, both of animals and vegetables, appear to be so nearly allied to each other, that certain naturalists consider them as mere Varieties; others persist in considering them as so many distinct Species.

      This is quite important to Development Theory, as it presents ideas about different ways of thinking. It shows that people, including scientists think differently about this topic even when evidence may be presented for a different side. There is also evidence for that other side as well, which may bring up we do not know exact origins of species, especially back then.