Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein - Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe (41 page)

The Accelerating Universe:
Livio 2000.

I mean reductionism:
This often-abused term is sometimes used incorrectly to imply that one can ignore complexities and completely reduce one discipline into another. No one should attempt to understand Lord Byron’s “Don Juan” from the perspective of the laws of physics. A good discussion of reductionism in the sense that I am using it here can be found in Weinberg 1992.

the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane is cited:
Eg, Hutchinson 1959.

a fresh water ameboid:
Given that the genome determination was done with earlier methods, it may be somewhat uncertain; McGrath and Katz 2004.

The basic idea underlying natural selection:
A comprehensive book is Bell 2008. See also Endler 1986.

In a letter to Darwin:
Darwin and Seward 1903.

Here is how Darwin himself:
Darwin 1964 [1859], p. 61.

by the term of Natural Selection:
A highly accessible description of natural selection can be found in Mayr 2001. A textbook on selection is Bell 2008. Endler 1986 presents much of the evidence for natural selection.

Wallace wrote to Darwin:
Marchant 1916, p. 171.

philosophical radicals such as the political economist Thomas Malthus:
Malthus argued in his
An Essay on the Principle of Population
(published in 1798) that humans produce too many offspring and that, consequently, if unchecked, famine and “premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” Malthus’s ideas influenced not just Darwin and Wallace but also economic and political philosophy.

Darwin himself wrote to the geologist:
The geologist Frederick Wolaston Hutton (1836–1905) reviewed
The Origin
for the
Geologist.

no fewer than a half million patients:
Bowersox 1999.

the evolution of the peppered moth:
The British geneticist Bernard Kettlewell (1907–79) conducted much research on the peppered moth and industrial melanism. His findings have been questioned by some (eg, Wells 2000; Hooper 2003), and supported by others (eg, Majerus 1998). A popular-science summary of the debate is de Roode 2007.

the famous philosopher of science:
Popper 1976, p. 151.

did recognize his error:
Popper 1978; also Miller 1985.

termed by modern evolutionary biologists
genetic drift: There exists vast literature on genetic drift. An online lecture by Stephen Stearns can be found at
www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/neutral-evolution-genetic-drift-66
87. Other easy-to-access online resources include Kliman et al. 2008, and
www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/InbrDrift/InbrDrift.html
. A comprehensive textbook on population genetics is Hartl and Clark 2006.

Ellis-van Creveld syndrome:
This is a manifestation in the Amish community of what is known as the “founder effect.” When a population is reduced to a very small size because of some environmental changes or because of migration, the genes of the “founders” of the resulting population are represented disproportionately.

suffragist and botanist Lydia Becker:
Lydia Ernestine Becker (1827–90) published the
Women’s Suffrage Journal
between 1870 and 1890. The citation on Darwin is from her address, as president of the Manchester Ladies’ Literary Society, on January 30, 1867. It was published in Becker 1869. It is also described in Blackburn 1902, part 2.

Chapter 3: Yea, All Which It Inherit, Shall Dissolve

confessed candidly in
The Origin: Darwin 2009, p. 13.

In this “paint-pot theory”:
This phrase was first used by Hardin 1959, p. 107.

“After twelve generations”:
Darwin 2009, p. 160.

Jenkin was a multitalented individual:
Brownlie and Lloyd Prichard 1963.

Fleeming Jenkin published his criticism:
Jenkin 1867. The article is reproduced in Hull 1973, p. 303, and can also be found online at
www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/jenkins.html
.

Jenkin’s approach was quantitative:
Excellent discussions of Jenkin’s arguments can be found in Bulmer 2004, Vorzimmer 1963, and Hull 1973.

only Arthur Sladen Davis:
Davis 1871.

The modern theory of genetics:
An engaging description of Mendel and his work can be found in Mawer 2006.

A simple example will help to clarify:
The description here is largely a simplified version of the explanation in Ridley 2004a, pp. 35–39.

it needed Mendelian heredity:
First explained in detail in Fisher 1930.

In his autobiography, he acknowledged:
Darwin 1958 [1892], p. 18. A more detailed analysis of Darwin’s numerical attempts can be found in Parshall 1982.

“I was blind and thought that single”:
Letter to Wallace on February 2, 1869, in Marchant 1916, vol. 1. Also in Darwin 1887, vol. 2, p. 288.

“If in any country or district”:
Darwin 1909 [1842], p. 3.

In reality, Darwin even relied:
Hodge 1987.

“When a character which has been lost”:
Darwin 2009 [1859], p. 160.

This notion of some latent “tendency”:
Darwin returned to this notion of a latent tendency in a letter he wrote to Wallace on September 23, 1868 (Darwin and Seward 1903, vol. 2, p. 84). Darwin wrote: “I think impossible to see how, for instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which are at first transmitted to both sexes, would come to be transmitted to males alone. It is not enough that females should be produced from the males with red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers; but these females must have a latent tendency to produce such feathers, otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers of their male offspring.”

In a letter to Wallace on January 22:
Darwin was working on the fifth edition of
The Origin;
in F. Darwin 1887, vol. 3, p. 107. See also Bulmer 2004, Morris 1994.

“I saw, also, that the preservation”:
Peckham 1959, p. 178.

of which
two
survive to reproduce:
Peckham 1959, p. 178.

“Approaching the subject [of evolution]”:
The precise date of this letter is not known, but because it was sent from Moor Park, it had to be before November 12, 1857. In Darwin and Seward 1903, vol. 1, p. 102.

he wrote in his book
The Variation: Darwin 1868, vol. 2, p. 374.

First, in a letter written on January 22:
Marchant 1916, vol. 1, p. 166.

Wallace replied on February 4:
Marchant 1916, vol. 1, p. 168.

Darwin was quick to correct Wallace:
Letter dated “Tuesday, February, 1866.” Marchant 1916, vol. 1, p. 159.

Darwin points out the obvious fact:
The exchange between Darwin and Wallace and its significance is also discussed beautifully in Dawkins 2009.

Gregor Mendel read the seminal paper:
In addition to Mawer 2006, Orel 1996 gives a detailed account of Mendel’s life and work. See also Brannigan 1981.

no fewer than three books:
Kitcher 1982, p. 9; Rose 1998, p. 33; Henig 2000, p. 143–44.

and a fourth book:
Dover 2000, p. 11.

Andrew Sclater of the Darwin Correspondence:
Sclater 2003. See also Keynes 2002.

In contrast to Darwin’s total lack:
An excellent description of the influences (or lack thereof) between Darwin and Mendel is de Beer 1964.

“If the change in the conditions”:
Mendel 1866 [1865], p. 36 (cited in de Beer 1964).

“No case is on record”:
Darwin 1964 [1859], p. 7; or Darwin 2009, p. 8.

“If it be accepted that”:
Mendel 1866, p. 39 (cited in de Beer 1964).

Although the Vatican itself:
For a discussion of the early Vatican responses to evolution, see Harrison 2001.

the
illusion of confidence: The effect was demonstrated by Kruger and Dunning 1999. A popular description can be found in Chabris and Simons 2010.

Chapter 4: How Old Is the Earth?

the Hindu sages of antiquity:
The ancient Hindus believed that a single cycle of destruction and renewal lasted 4.32 million years (eg, Holmes 1947, p. 99–108).

In one of the earliest estimates:
Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 115–180 CE) was converted to Christianity as an adult. Only one of his writings has survived, in an eleventh-century manuscript, quoted in Haber 1959, p. 17, and in Dalrymple 1991, p. 19.

among these biblical scholars were John Lightfoot:
Ussher (1581–1656) calculated that Creation occurred in the year 710 of the Julian period; Brice 1982.

added as a marginal note to the English:
The note was removed at the beginning of the twentieth century. Kirkaldy 1971, p. 5.

“The knowledge of . . . nearly everything”:
Spinoza 1925, vol. 3, p. 98.

“It would be a mark of great”:
Philo, first century, book I.

He pointed out in 1754:
Kant 1754. An English translation appears in Reinhardt and Oldroyd 1982.

Referring to a sarcastic passage:
The reference is to Fontenelle’s
A Plurality of Worlds
.

Benoît de Maillet carried out:
An English translation of de Maillet’s 1748 book is Carozzi 1969.

“Why the bones of great”:
MacCurdy 1939, p. 342.

De Maillet humbly dedicated:
de Maillet 1748; Cyrano de Bergerac was the author of the imaginative two-volume
Travels to the Moon and the Sun
.

“a globe of red hot iron”:
Newton 1687; see the English translation by Motte 1848, p. 486.

Buffon assumed that the Earth started:
The twentieth volume in Buffon’s
Natural History: General and Particular
was entitled
Epochs of Nature
. In
it, he divided the history of the Earth into seven epochs, and he attempted to estimate the length in time of each. A good description can be found in Haber 1959, p. 118.

“no vestige of a beginning”:
Hutton 1788.

“how fatal the suspicion”:
Richard Kirwan was president of the Royal Irish Academy. He wrote a series of articles and a book in support of the biblical description and against Hutton. The quote here is from Kirwan 1797.

with the publication of Charles Lyell’s:
Lyell 1830–33.

published a eulogy of Lord Kelvin:
There are quite a few detailed biographies of Lord Kelvin. The ones I found most illuminating are Gray 1908, Thompson 1910 (reprinted in 1976), Smith and Wise 1989, Lindley 2004, and Sharlin and Sharlin 1979. Wilson 1987 describes side by side the physics of Kelvin with that of Victorian physicist Sir George Gabriel Stokes (Stokes lived 1819–1903, Kelvin 1824–1907). Burchfield 1990 concentrates on Kelvin’s work on the problem of the age of the Earth.

“after making himself Second Wrangler”:
The “Senior Wrangler” was the undergraduate student who received the highest grades in the mathematical honors examinations at Cambridge, known as the “Tripos.” William Thomson was expected by most to be Senior Wrangler. In fact, his tutor, Dr. Cookson, noted that it would be “a great surprise to the University if he were not.” Thomson himself was somewhat less convinced. When the competition began, another student, Stephen Parkinson, who was apparently more efficient in answering very rapidly and economically, emerged as a candidate to win. At the end, the more talented but less speedy Kelvin indeed came in second. Thomson did beat Parkinson, however, for the Smith’s Prize, awarded for the best performance in a series of examinations and thought to require more profound analytical understanding.

“I may say that the one thing”:
Kelvin made this comment in his Baltimore Lectures on molecular dynamics and the wave theory of light, given at the Johns Hopkins University in 1884.

“On the Secular Cooling”:
Kelvin 1864.

“On the Age of the Sun’s”:
Kelvin 1862.

“For eighteen years it has pressed”:
Kelvin 1864. The paper was read on April 28, 1862.