Patrick Matthew (October 20, 1790 - June 8, 1874) were Scottish grain merchants, fruit growers, foresters and landowners, contributing to the understanding of horticulture, silviculture, and agriculture in general, the British navy and feed the new colony. He published the basic concept of natural selection as a mechanism in evolutionary adaptation and speciation (ie, the result of positive natural selection , unlike the widely known, negative rÃÆ'Â' le in the elimination of individuals in Struggle to Survive), but failed to develop or publish his ideas. Consequently, when Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species, he and Alfred Russel Wallace were regarded by their scientific colleagues as originating (independently of each other) the theory of evolution by natural selection; it has been suggested that Darwin and/or Wallace have found Matthew's work before, but there is no compelling evidence of this. After the publication of the Species Origins, Matthew contacted Darwin, who in subsequent editions of the book acknowledged that the principle of natural selection had been anticipated by Matthew's short statement, which is mostly contained in the appendix and addendum from his 1831 book, At Naval Timber and Arboriculture .
Video Patrick Matthew
Life
Patrick Matthew was born October 20, 1790 in Rome, on a farm held by his father John Matthew near Scone Palace, in Perthshire. His mother is Agnes Duncan, a relative of Adam Duncan, Viscount 1 Duncan. He was educated at the Perth Academy and the University of Edinburgh, but did not graduate, as in the death of his father and while only seventeen, he had to take over the responsibility of managing and running real property affairs at Gourdiehill at Carse of Gowrie, between Perth and Dundee. Over the years he has managed to cultivate, cultivate, and transform much of the farmland and grasslands in several large plantations of apple and pear trees, totaling more than 10,000. He became a passionate advocate and well-attracted researcher of silviculture and horticulture, both of which influenced his growing consciousness of the forces of nature. This consciousness, together with its own experiences gained from years of working on its own little estate, will eventually frame a strong base of reference to shape its own opinions and theories.
Between 1807 and 1831 (when At Naval Timber and Arboriculture was published) he regularly traveled to Europe, sometimes in business, sometimes seeking scientific enlightenment or agricultural or economic advice: a trip to Paris in 1815 being cut short when Napoleon returned from Elba. Between 1840 and 1850, Matthew traveled extensively in what is now northern Germany; recognized the commercial potential of Hamburg he bought two farms at Schleswig-Holstein.
Matthew married his first cousin Christian Nicol in 1817, and they had eight children: John (1818), Robert (1820), Alexander (1821), Charles (1824), Euphemia (1826), Agnes (1828), James Edward (1830), and Helen Amelia (1833). Robert farmed Gourdiehill in Patrick's old age, Alexander took over German interests; the other three sons emigrated, originally to America. Matthew became interested in New Zealand colonization and was instrumental in establishing "Scottish New Zealand Land Company". At his urging, James and Charles Matthew emigrated to New Zealand, where they established one of Australia's earliest commercial gardens using seeds and seedlings from Gourdiehill. John Matthew remained in America, sending botanical specimens back to his father; these included (in 1853) the first known seeds to have been planted in Europe both Giant Redwood (Sequoiadendron giganteum) and Coastal Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ). A group of trees from this species still developing near Inchture in Perthshire comes from this seed. Matthew gives more seeds to friends, relatives and neighbors, and redwoods can be found throughout the Carse of Gowrie; this as well as several other places in Scotland (eg at Gillies Hill near Stirling Castle) are thought to have grown from 1853 seedlings.
Maps Patrick Matthew
Work
In managing his orchard, Patrick Matthew became familiar with issues related to the principles of livestock in horticulture for food production (and hence, by silvicultural extension).
Charles Darwin and natural selection
In 1860, Matthew read in the Gardeners' Chronicle for March 3 a review (by Huxley), reprinted from The Times About Charles Darwin About the Origin of Species , which says Darwin "claimed to have found existence and the modus operandi natural selection, and described its principles". A letter by Matthew, published in the Gardeners' Chronicle on April 7, says that this is what he has "fully published and brought into practical application for forestry" at Naval Timber and Arboriculture in 1831, as published in the review. He quoted a quote from his book, first the opening words of Note B of pages 364-365 of the Appendix, stopping before his discussion of hereditary and generational nobility.
He then quotes in whole sections from pages 381 to 388 of the Appendix. It has no title, but in the Contents appears as "Accommodation organized life for circumstances, with divergent consequences". In it, he commented on the difficulty of distinguishing "between species and varieties". The change of the fossil record between the geological eras implies living organisms that have "the power of change, under changing circumstances", in the same way as "chaos and change in organized existence, caused by changing circumstances of human intervention" superior "which he calls" state-setting power. " After the past deluges, "an empty field will be formed for different new life consequences" in "time travel, printing and accommodating those new to changing circumstances". He proposes that "the offspring of the same parent, under the great difference of circumstances, may, in several generations, even be different species, are incapable of reproducing together."
Self-organizing adaptive dispositions of organized life may, in part, be traced to extreme fecundity of nature, which, as previously stated, possesses, in all its breeds varieties, productive forces far beyond (in many cases a thousand) what is required for filling in the blanks caused by senile decay. Because the sphere of existence is limited and pre-occupied, only the harder, the stronger, is better suited to individual circumstances, capable of struggling toward maturity, which inhabit only situations where they have superior adaptation and greater power. occupancy compared to other types; weaker, less fit, prematurely destroyed.
He described this as "an adaptive-state law, operating on a bit but continuing a natural disposition for sport in the progeny". Matthew then quotes the opening paragraphs of Part III of his book, Miscellaneous Items Connected with Naval Timber: Nurseries , pages 106 to 108, on "luxury and size of wood depending on the specific variations of species" and the need to choose the best individual seeds when planting trees.
While reading this, Darwin commented in a letter to Charles Lyell:
Now for the strange thing about my Book, & amp; then i do. In the Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr. Patrick Matthews [ sic ] published a long extract of his work on Naval Timber & amp; Arborician was published in 1831, where he briefly but fully anticipated the Nat theory. Selection. I have ordered the Book, because some parts are somewhat unclear but, of course, I think, a complete anticipation but not developed! Erasmus always said that surely this would prove to be his case someday. Anyhow someone can be forgiven for not finding the facts in work at Naval Timber .
Darwin later wrote his own letter to Gardener's Chronicle, stating,
I am very interested in Mr. Patrick Matthew at your Paper Number, dated 7 April. I freely admit that Mr. Matthew has anticipated for years the explanation that I offer about the origin of the species, in the name of natural selection. I think no one will be surprised that both me and other naturalists seem to have heard Mr. Matthew, considering how short they were given, and that they appeared in the appendix for work at Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can not do anything but offer my apology to Bpk. Matthew for my ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is requested, I will include a notice for the above effect.
As promised, Darwin included a statement about Matthew who had anticipated "exactly the same view of the origin of the species" in the third and subsequent editions of the On the Origin of Species, referring to correspondence, and quoting from the answer by Matthew published in Gardener's Chronicle. Darwin wrote it.
Unfortunately, that view was given by Mr. Matthew briefly in the scattered passages in an Appendix for a work on a different subject, thus remaining unconscious until Mr. Matthew himself caught his attention in the 'Nomad Kronor', on April 7, 1860. Matthew from me is not so important: he seems to assume that the world is virtually uninhabited in later periods, and then recharged; and he gives, as an alternative, that new forms can be produced without the presence of molds or aggregate ex- tract germs. I'm not sure that I understand some parts; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of living conditions. He clearly sees, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection. In reply to my letter (published in Gard Chron., 13 April), fully recognizes that Mr. Matthew had anticipated me, he generously wrote letters (Gard Chron.12 May) which contained the following passage: - - "To me the conception of the law of Nature comes intuitively as a self-evident fact, almost without the effort of concentrated thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more benefits in the discovery than I have: for me it does not appear an invention, He seems to have done it on the inductive, slow and cautious reason to make his way synthetically from fact to fact, while with me it is with a general view on the Nature scheme that I anticipate this select the production of species as recognizable facts - - axioms that need only be shown to be recognized by the unprejudiced mind of sufficient understanding. "
Matthew, Darwin and Wallace are the only three who are considered to have independently discovered the principle of natural selection as a mechanism for speciation (macroevolution). Others before Matthew proposed natural selection as a mechanism for the generation of varieties or races in species: James Hutton suggested a mechanism in 1794 as leading to an increase in varieties, and a 1813 paper by William Charles Wells proposed that it would form varieties. In 1835, after Matthew's book, Edward Blyth published a description of the process as a mechanism that preserves the unstable stable essence of the species.
Matthew's legacy in the evolutionary study
The false claim was made in the name of Victorian evolutionists, with all the boring irregularities predicted by Stephen Jay Gould in his work on Natural Selection as Creative Strength ,
The following incident happened repeatedly, ever since Darwin. An evolutionist, who traces some pre-Darwinian books in natural history, finds a description of natural selection. Aha, he said; I have found something important, a proof that Darwin is not authentic. Maybe I have even found a source of Darwin's direct and cruel theft! In this most famous claim, anthropologist and great writer Loren Eiseley thinks he has detected such anticipation in Edward Blyth's writings. Eiseley laboriously worked through the evidence that Darwin had read (and used) Blyth's work and, making important etymological errors along the way, finally accused Darwin might have pinched the central notion of his theory from Blyth. He published his case in a long article (Eiseley, 1959), then expanded by the actors into a posthumous volume titled "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X" (1979).
The equally inevitable rebuttal of these claims, tends to require a highly disproportionate investment investment (see Earp 2016 for explanation), sometimes merely concluding after years of arguments (eg >, Roy Davies' Darwin Conspiracy: The Origin of Scientific Crime ). Unfortunately, the media coverage that accompanies this revisionist campaign, is the version most likely to be seen and remembered by the public, not the peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature a year later. Damage is therefore diverse and dangerous, from time lost to individual, to mass misinforming en masse . Contrary to the stated intentions, the unfavorable outcome of the final claims made on Matthew's behalf might be better at damaging more than good. Modern claim for Matthew priority
Although Darwin insists that he is unaware of Matthew's work, some modern commentators argue that he and Wallace may have known it, or may have been indirectly influenced by other naturalists who read and quote Matthew's book. Ronald W. Clark, in Darwin's 1984 biography, commented that only Darwin's transparent honesty... allowed him to believe that in the 1850s he did not remember Matthew's work. This raises the question, considering that he is reading Matthew's book. Clark goes on to suggest: If Darwin had prior knowledge of Arboriculture , it sneaked into the subconscious .
However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and his letter to Charles Lyell stating that he had ordered the book clearly showed that he had no copies in his vast library or access to other places. The special claim that Robert Chambers has read and disseminated Matthew's ideas relevant to natural selection is not supported by facts. The article in Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (1832, vol 1, no. 8, 24 March, p.63) is not a review but only a summary summary of pp.Ã, 8-14 of On Kayu Laut which is no more than a prescription for pruning and does not contain any relevance to natural selection. This goes to "ON TRAIN PLANNING" and ends with ".-- Matthew on Naval Timber." Even if it was written by Robert Chambers, this does not mean that he has read or understood, let alone transmitted, another part of Matthew's book that does contain something relevant to natural selection. Furthermore, The Vestiges of Natural History of Creation contains no relevance about natural selection. By combining these facts, Robert Chambers may not read or receive messages about natural selection in Matthew's book, but certainly not in Vestiges, and probably not in conversation.
In subsequent editions of The Origin of Species Darwin acknowledges Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew "clearly sees... the full force of the principle of natural selection." It is an urban myth that, from 1860 onwards, Matthew will claim credit for natural selection and even have called a card printed with the Discoverer of the Principle of Elections. This may begin with Loren Eiseley (1958. Darwin Century), who seems to misunderstand the comments made by Darwin in a letter to Hooker (October 22 and 28, 1865). Regarding the finding that William Charles Wells had published the idea of ​​evolutionary change through natural selection before Matthew, Darwin wrote to Hooker: "So poor Patrick Matthew, not the first, & he can not or should not use his title. Selection of Nature "!" However, this is not accurate in Darwin's part. What is the page title of Matthew's Schleswig-Holstein pamphlet that really is said to be: Claim claim
The challenge for Matthew's claim to priority, or made since his death, essentially refers to the same problem, that his description of natural selection is inaccessible and has no longer development. Other critics have focused on the differences between Darwin's and Matthew's natural selection versions, and sometimes Wallace as well (eg, Weale 2015). If Matthew's ideas had made an impact on subsequent evolutionary thinking, as claimed, those signals should have been there, either during the lifetime of Matthew, or Darwin. However, modern claims for Matthean priority can not provide evidence for this, which has been proven true.
Accessibility and development
The historian of science Peter Bowler summarizes some of the main reasons given why Matthew does not deserve priority for natural selection of Darwin and Wallace,
Such attempts to undermine Darwin misunderstand the essence of the history of science: Matthew did propose the basic idea of ​​selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in an appendix to a book on tree-raising for shipbuilding. No one takes it seriously, and he does not play a role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priorities are not enough to get a place thinker in the history of science: one must develop ideas and convince others of their worth to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebook confirms that he does not draw inspiration from Matthew or from other alleged precursors.
Ernst Mayr's opinion is even more obvious:
Patrick Matthew undoubtedly has the right idea, as Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to turn it into a convincing theory of evolution. The result has no impact.
Richard Dawkins also conferred that Matthew had understood the general concept of natural selection, but failed to appreciate significance, or expand it further,
I agree with W.J. Dempster, the modern champion Patrick Matthew, that Matthew is treated badly by history. 'But, unlike Dempster, I hesitate to give her full priority. Partly, it was because he wrote in a style that was much less obvious than Darwin or Wallace, which made it difficult to know in some places what he was trying to say (Darwin himself noted this). But mostly it's because he seems to have underestimated the idea, to the extent that we have to doubt whether he really understands how important it is. The same can be said, even stronger (which is why I do not treat the case in the same detail as Matthew), from W.C. Wells, also recognized by Darwin (in the fourth and subsequent editions of The Origin). Wells made the leap to generalize from artificial selection to nature, but he applied it only to humans, and he regarded it as choosing among human races rather than individuals such as Darwin and Wallace. Therefore, Wells seems to have arrived at a form of 'group selection' rather than true, Darwin's natural selection as Matthew did, choosing individual organisms for his reproductive success. Darwin also lists other partial predecessors, who have images of natural selection. Like Patrick Matthew, none of them seem to understand the significance of the earth from the idea that they have awakened, and I will use the name Matthew to represent them all. I am increasingly inclined to agree with Matthew that natural selection itself is extremely rare. What needs to be discovered is the importance of natural selection for the evolution of all life.
In response to Sutton's e-book, Darwin biographer James Moore says many people came to the same perception during the nineteenth century, but Darwin was the only one who developed this idea entirely:
Patrick Matthew always thought I was okay. Many people understand the problem of natural selection but only Darwin applies it to everything on this planet, as the whole vision of life. That is his legacy. I would be very surprised if there is new evidence that has never been seen and interpreted in the opposite way.
Responding to Sutton (2015), Darwin and Wallace experts, John van Wyhe commented,
This conspiracy theory is so ridiculous and is based on an imitation of a compelling and changeable method of history that no qualified historian can take it seriously.
Coinciding with Sutton's presentation to Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group, Darwinian writer Julian F. Derry sent an open letter saying,
Contrary to what Dr. Sutton tonight, Patrick Matthew does not affect the course of evolutionary history in the manner claimed....] Dr. Sutton is not a myth-buster he calls himself [and,] has been wrong, wrong, inaccurate or irrelevant in his conclusion [....] Darwin and Wallace were the first to propose adaptive change through gradualism gradually resulting in species more suited to their environment, making natural selection quite new in this regard....] The title of Darwin's book may be inspired by several sources [...] The rooms may never have seen Matthew's book [...... and, t] is how history will still exist, despite Dr.'s efforts. Sutton to have been modified
Biological concepts
The History of Science website Natural Histories has compiled a comprehensive series of blog posts on Patrick Matthew who have studied his writings in depth, while most importantly ensuring the appropriate historical context. The resulting piece of evidence is largely at odds with Sutton's claim. This is primarily the case of the biological context, which compares and evaluates the core differences between the concepts of Matthew and Darwin, particularly those relating to relative adaptation (Matthew occupancy power), and diversification as an adaptive process (Darwin deviation principle ),
In conclusion, Matthew's theory of evolution is a chimera that pairs the old doctrine that natural selection (usually) keeps species constant with catastrophism that allows rapid transformation and species radiation by natural selection after a disaster. The principle of Darwinian difference, however, is his final breakup from the doctrine that natural selection keeps species constant. The principle of difference differs from Matthew's ideas in its development (from Darwin's own systemic study and economic analogy), causal structure and its consequences. This is a negative DNA test for Matthew. This freed Darwin from the claim of copying Matthew for a time after he shifted from the beginning (1844) to his adult theory (1856-58). His early theory, without the principle of distinction, is equally different from Matthew's ideas:
This freed Darwin from the time of return from the voyage of the Beagle until 1844. Therefore, a period with no evidence that Matthew's ideas were present in Darwin's work, his developmental notes, and the expression of those concepts in his book. writing can be shown to extend from the moment he will set out for the voyage of the Beagle, until the fusion of his ideas into his cohesive evolutionary system through natural selection in 1858. Niles Eldredge, showing a very valid point that saw Matthew's description at any point during that period long, it will likely produce an integral, previously formed model illustrated by Darwin from the outset, while what we actually have in the record is the realization of the full picture of the development of additional sketches,
And while some argue that Darwin, in particular, has actually co-opted Matthew's ideas, it seems to me that it is highly unlikely. Remember that Darwin knew that adaptation should be explained, and that there was actually a causal explanation for adaptation that should involve 'generation' (including offspring) as well as inherited variations, as early as Notebook B by the end of 1837. It took him another year or so to find Malthus and growth geometric populations that supply the third component, till then disappear from the complete selection theory articulated in Books D and E. If Darwin read Matthew, he would see them all - all three components of natural selection - in a concise statement.
Analysis of the concept of comparative speciation
Sutton's claim that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized evolution through the natural selection of Matthew has been disputed,
Matthew's contemporaries
By accepting irreconcilable differences in this theory, a remnant route has been proposed, whereby Darwin may have to gain knowledge of Matthew's evolutionary ideas, that is, with knowledge passed along the association's network, through word of mouth, or equally indirect. path, such as through the influence of the editor. Evidence that such a network exists can be found if there is any documentation from anyone discussing Matthew's ideas about evolution. However, there is not a single contemporary record of anyone who even recognizes any value in Matthew's concept. From three sources to mention the existence of evolutionary content in On Naval Timber , two are rejections.
- Prideaux John Selby writes,
However, Matthew, in his capable treatise on seaweed, seems to think that native locations in such districts do not arise so much from the preference of the above mentioned properties, for from having a greater residential power in such lands than another. crop country; and this opinion he seeks to support by stating that Pin Pine sylvestris is planted in good or rich soils, attaining greater dimensions and best wooden properties, and it is driven only from this superior ground by the greater occupancy power, and it is driven only from this superior land by a greater force than the dwellings owned by oaks and other deciduous trees, an opinion in which we can not fully agree, for we see no reason why cypress, if it grows with such extra strength in the richer soil, as Mr. Matthew emphasizes, should, at the same time, not be able to maintain a contest with oak or other trees.
- while an anonymous reviewers in the United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine wrote,
we reject participation in its provocation of the laws of Nature, or anger perpetrated on grounds and justice by the authority of the hereditary nobility, our property, and the insane rebellion.
- Others are in the review where the author, assumed as John Claudius Loudon, confesses to being confused,
One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is ​​confusing, about the origin of species and varieties; and if the author here comes no original view (and this we are far from certain), he certainly exhibited himself in the original way
Darwin Darwin's contemporaries
While completing his doctoral thesis on Plagiarism Disputes in Darwin's Evolutionary Theory at Zielona Gora University, where the journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy (FAG) (Philosophical Aspect of Genesis) was based, Grzegorz Malec published a review critical of Sutton (2015), where the main difficulty of identifying valid communication lines has been discussed, along with observations on Sutton's alternative approach,
If Sutton is right and Darwin is a plagiarist, it will be the most surprising discovery in the history of science. But he must show strong evidence to convince anyone that Darwin read Matthew's book before 1859 and has known the fragments about natural selection. Finally, he must prove that Darwin learned about Matthew's idea from one of his friends or his correspondent [...] Sutton's reasoning circuit can be reduced to a simple pattern: since Wilkin can read Matthew, he must have done it, and because he could have discussed his evolutionary views with Joseph Hooker (1817-1911), then he did, and because Hooker could tell Darwin about Matthew's book, then he did it. But all of this is concluded by Sutton without offering solid evidence that this really happened. A similar situation concerns Mudie, Main, Conrad, Roget, Johnson, Selby, Emmons, Laycock, Powell, and Leidy [...] Seems Darwin's claim to Matthew in his letter to The Gardener's Chronicle, and puts the last name on the predecessor's list in the historical sketch in On the Origin of Species, fair enough.
Natural Histories analyzed the series of pathways that Sutton claims could convey information about the evolution from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace, also noted the same arbitrary determinism detected by Malec ( above ) , they explained it,
Sutton [...] has used google, to track the proof of certain quotation marks that are often associated with incorrectly. He now thinks he has enough evidence to conclude that both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarized Patrick Matthew (1831. About Naval Timber and Arboriculture) and stole Matthew's evolutionary idea through his natural selection. One part of his practice [...] is finding a phrase in Matthew (1831) that seems to have never been used before. When concluding that Matthew was the first to coin and use these phrases (called Matthewisms), writers who used the same phrase were later taken to possess it from Matthew (1831). These writers are called first to be second [...] the implication is that they all read Matthew's book and, if they do not quote Matthew, betray this with the use of the phrase in question [...] Let me summarize [...] :
Natural theology
Writing to Darwin in 1871, Matthew included an article he wrote for The Scotsman and, hoping that he had time to write a critique of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relations to Sex , expresses the belief that there is evidence of design and virtue in nature, and that beauty can not be accounted for by natural selection. Such a belief is a mainstream natural theology, and reveals the extent to which Matthew came from Darwin in realizing the potential of evolutionary explanation: for him and for others, man is a tricky point.
There is little or no evidence that Matthew considers this view as a younger person: there is no discussion of the religious nature in Arboriculture.
Socio-political views
Matthew's idea of ​​society is radical for their day. Although he is a landowner, he is involved with the Chartist movement, and argues that the hereditary noble institution harms the public. It has been argued that these views worked against the acceptance of the theory of natural selection, which was politically incorrect at the time (see Barker, 2001). A more likely reason is the ambiguity of the location hiding the idea of ​​many people who might be interested. Just after Darwin's Origin did Matthew forward in the popular journal, Gardeners' Chronicle . Matthew also published a book in 1839, Emigration Fields (Black, Edinburgh), indicating that the overpopulation, as predicted by Malthus, can be solved by mass migration to North America and Dominion.
Matthew supported Schleswig-Holstein's invasion by Bismarck in 1864: his pamphlet on the occasion was denounced by Dundee Advertisers . He also supported Germany against France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), a war that marked the final unification of the German Empire and the end of the Second French Empire.
In 1870 Matthew became aware of the poor housing conditions of the workers at Dundee. In a letter to Dundee advertisers he told readers that the under-five mortality rate in cities was 40%, and outlined a blueprint for rebuilding the city.
Tay Bridge
When Edinburgh and Northern Railway (E & N) and Dundee and Perth Railway (D & amp; P) were seeking Parliamentary approval in 1845, it was proposed by their engineers that from Perth they should share a line extending along the southern edge of the Tay as far as Newburgh, where D & amp; P will cross to the northern bank, and E & amp; N left Tay and headed south to ferry across to Forth. Matthew is in a very small minority supporting this, and D & amp; P was built across the Tay in Perth. In 1864, when a bridge over Tay in Dundee was proposed, Matthew insisted that the bridge at Newburgh was better than the bridge at Dundee, the Newburgh bridge provided much of the same reduction in rail distance between Dundee and the Forth ferry from which passengers could cross into Edinburgh as a bridge in Dundee but does it with a shorter (and therefore cheaper) Tay crossing. He argues the Dundee bridge costs are being too under-estimated: "To establish a large bridge, instead of a thin spectral object, which may or may not disappear as the first storm ghost, or breaks below the vibrations caused by heavy, fast trains, moves, I almost doubled the cost, and probably more than doubled, the amount the Engineer said, after this I risked my judgment on the Engineer, "cursoryly noted," from the geological index, I hope the foundation will be more organized in Newburgh than in Dundee , the result is better ".
The financial crisis of 1866 concluded the proposal of the 1864 Tay Bridge, but was revived in 1869. Matthew responded with a series of letters to Dundee's letters arguing for a Newburgh bridge, and advancing all sorts of additional arguments against the Dundee bridge; it would have a damaging effect on siltation and ups and downs in Firth; it will prevent navigation upstream; it will be torn apart by the centrifugal force of heavy trains that quickly descend the curve at the north end; it is vulnerable to earthquakes, ships collide with docks, or high winds.
Matthew's objections are unnoticed, and do not last long Parliament has passed a bill authorizing the construction of the Tay Bridge. During the construction of the bridge, some of Matthew's criticisms are proved: it becomes clear that the bedrock can not be found at the depth that allows the use of a brick pile; the design should be modified to use a working-grid iron grating with reduced width, and there are many costs that are flooded. The bridge opened in June 1878 and was destroyed in a storm in December 1879: the latticework pillar supporting the center of the bridge (high beam block) failed simultaneously as the train was crossing the bridge. High galleries and trains fell to Tay and about seventy-five souls were lost. While it was recalled shortly after the disaster that Matthew's prediction collapsed in high winds as one of the horrific ends that bridges at Dundee could come, a disaster generally thought to have come from a defect in the design and making of a working pillar lattice put into design well after Matthew's campaign against the bridge.
See also
- Evolution
- History of evolutionary thought
- Natural selection
- Tay Bridge Accident
- William Charles Wells
Note
Note
Quotes
References
- Barker, J.E. (2001). Patrick Matthew - Forest Geneticist (1790-1874) , Forest History Today .
- Dempster, W.J. (1996). Natural selection and Patrick Matthew: the concept of evolution in the nineteenth century . The Pentland Press, Edinburgh.
- Desmond, Adrian (1989). The politics of evolutionary morphology, medicine, and reform in London radically . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0-226-14374-0.
- Matthew, Patrick (1831). At Naval Timber and Arboriculture; with a note about the author who recently treated the planting subject . Edinburgh: Adam Black, London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green.
- Norman, Andrew (2013). Charles Darwin: the destroyer of the myth . Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & amp; Discovery of the Sword. ISBN: 978-1-78159-278-6.
- Sutton, M. (2014). High-tech detection of Darwin and Wallace science fraud: Criminology of large data rewrites the history of contested discovery, Paper from the British Criminology Conference . Vol. 14: 49-64 Panel Paper. British Criminology Society. ISSNÃ, 1759-0043 Accessed July 2015. But see Dagg (2018).
- Weale, M. E. (2015), law of natural selection Patrick Matthew., Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. doi: 10.1111/bij.12524 Accessed April 2015
- Wells, K.D. (1974). The historical context of natural selection: the case of Patrick Matthew. J. Hist. Biol. 6 , 225-258.
- Zirkle, C. (1941). Natural selection before Origin of Species . Proc. I. Phil. Soc. 84 , 71-123.
External links
- Patrick Matthew Biography - UC Berkeley
- The Patrick Matthew Project - Link to Matthew's writing
- Natural Selection as Creative Power by Stephen Jay Gould
- "Scottish horticultural expert Patrick Matthew proposed a more accurate gradual evolution theory before Charles Darwin did it, said the geologist." University of New York (2010, 9 November) . ScienceDaily. April 25, 2012 . Retrieved July 2 2012 .
- Patrick Matthew.com
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments