Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Edward Blyth
Edward Blyth (1810-1873)

Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher.

— Michael White, 2002

1. Was Darwin a plagiarist and charlatan of limited intellect rather than the deity his followers portray him to be?

2. Was the creationist Edward Blyth the true pioneer of natural selection?

3. Was Blyth’s conception of natural selection as a mechanism of preservation versus a mechanism of innovation the more accurate characterization of what natural selection really is?

I wish to remain open-minded on these issues as they deal with history, and history is difficult to reconstruct. I assert is that these hypotheses are worth exploring, though not necessarily absolute truth. However, as I studied the topic further, it became clear a cloud of suspicion regarding Darwin could not be put to rest.

I now turn to the work of a very prominent anthropologist and ecologist by the name of Loren Eiseley (1907-1977). Eiseley was the head of the Anthropology Department at University of Pennsylvania and president of the American Institute of Human Paleontology before becoming the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. By all counts he was a first rate scholar. He published several books about Darwin: Charles Darwin, Darwin’s Century, and Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists.

Edward Blyth in Wikipedia:

Loren Eiseley, Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, spent decades tracing the origins of the ideas attributed to Darwin. In a 1979 book, he claimed that “the leading tenets of Darwin’s work “the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection” are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835. He also cites a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regards as evidence of Darwin’s debt to Blyth.

The above is taken from Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists which was, curiously enough, published posthumously by Eiseley!

My hypothesis is that Edward Blyth should have been given far more credit for the theory of natural selection. Because Blyth was a creationist, he did not see natural selection as an adequate mechanism for biological innovation. He believed natural selection as primarily a means of preserving species, not primarily creating large scale biological innovations. Even though a creationist, he seemed open to some forms of evolution (as creationists are today), and it would be hard to argue that he believed in the absolute fixity of species. Blyth’s position on natural selection would be consistent with many IDers and creationists today.

It was Darwin who promoted the hypothesis that natural selection could be a designer substitute, but the basic concept of natural selection is attributable to Blyth. At the end of the essay I will provide links to papers by Blyth which I believe Darwin plagiarized. Keep in mind, Darwin’s book was published in 1859, 24 years after Blyth stated the fundamental tenets of Natural Selection. Here are a few highlights however:

Blyth in 1836:

It is a general law of nature for all creatures to propagate the like of themselves: and this extends even to the most trivial minutiae, to the slightest individual peculiarities; and thus, among ourselves, we see a family likeness transmitted from generation to generation.

When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain given peculiarity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature for that peculiarity to increase; and if the produce of these animals be set apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more remarkable degree; and so on, till at length the variety I designate a breed, is formed, which may be very unlike the original type.

The examples of this class of varieties must be too obvious to need specification: many of the varieties of cattle, and, in all probability, the greater number of those of domestic pigeons, have been generally brought about in this manner. It is worthy of remark, however, that the original and typical form of an animal is in great measure kept up by the same identical means by which a true breed is produced.

The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form; and, as the sexual passions excite to rivalry and conflict, and the stronger must always prevail over the weaker, the latter, in a state of nature, is allowed but few opportunities of continuing its race. In a large herd of cattle, the strongest bull drives from him all the younger and weaker individuals of his own sex, and remains sole master of the herd; so that all the young which are produced must have had their origin from one which possessed the maximum of power and physical strength; and which, consequently, in the struggle for existence, was the best able to maintain his ground, and defend himself from every enemy.

The concepts of natural selection and even sexual selection are laid out plainly, even the concept of adaptation and the struggle for existence!

Here is Blyth in 1836 again:

The true physiological system is evidently one of irregular and indefinite radiation, and of reiterate divergence and ramification from a varying number of successively subordinate typical plans; often modified in the extremes, till the general aspect has become entirely changed, but still retaining, to the very ultimate limits, certain fixed and constant distinctive characters, by which the true affinities of species may be always known; the modifications of each successive type being always in direct relation to particular localities, or to peculiar modes of procuring sustenance; in short, to the particular circumstances under which a species was appointed to exist in the locality which it indigenously inhabits, where alone its presence forms part of the grand system of the universe, and tends to preserve the balance of organic being, and, removed whence (as is somewhere well remarked by Mudie), a plant or animal is little else than a “disjointed fragment.”

This is astonishing! Blyth offers the concept of environments creating adaptive radiations!

Then Blyth in 1837:

A variety of important considerations here crowd upon the mind; foremost of which is the inquiry, that, as man, by removing species from their appropriate haunts, superinduces changes on their physical constitution and adaptations, to what extent may not the same take place in wild nature, so that, in a few generations, distinctive characters may be acquired, such as are recognised as indicative of specific diversity? It is a positive fact, for example, that the nestling plumage of larks, hatched in a red gravelly locality, is of a paler and more rufous tint than in those bred upon a dark soil.17 May not, then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage?

Is this a stretch? Note what Ernst Mayr had to say:

The Missing Link

Eiseley (1959) vigorously promoted the thesis that Edward Blyth had established the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1835 and that Darwin surely had read his paper and quite likely had derived a major inspiration from it without ever mentioning this in his writings … Darwin quite likely had read Blyth’s paper but paid no further attention to it since it was antievolutionary in spirit and not different from the writings of other natural theologians in its general thesis

In fact what is a bit incriminating is Darwin owned copies of Blyth’s work, and that these copies have Darwin’s notes in the margin. Reading Blyth, it really is hard to see that Darwin made any innovation except the illogical conclusion that natural selection can create large scale biological complexity and design. As Allen Orr said, “selection does not trade in the currency of design”.

Something interesting is also apparent: there were a lot of naturalists who doubted the permanence of species, and Blyth was among them. Nevertheless, Darwin wrote in 1876, contrary to the truth:

I never happened to come across a single [naturalist] who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species …

Darwin effectively claims that he was singularly exceptional in his belief that species could be transformed by the environment. This claim is clearly untrue! The suspicion then arises whether Darwin was lying. In fact, Professor George Simpson acknowledges the appearance of lying with a bit of disbelief (the missing link):

These are extraordinary statements. They cannot literally be true, yet Darwin cannot be consciously lying, and he may therefore be judged unconsciously misleading, naive, forgetful, or all three.

Thus, Darwin’s behavior was so obviously suspicious to some that his admirers had to make excuses to explain away the appearance of lying.

The discussion of this topic will obviously be more than I have space for here, and I welcome input in the comments section if there are any relevant data points. But I close with some thoughts regarding Darwin’s genius (or lack thereof) or Darwin’s integrity (or lack thereof):

Professor C.D. Darlington writes The Mystery Begins

[Darwin] was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue.

Thomas Henry Huxley Darwiniana Obituary:

Shrewsbury School could find nothing but dull mediocrity in Charles Darwin. The mind that found satisfaction in knowledge, but very little in mere learning; that could appreciate literature, but had no particular aptitude for grammatical exercises; appeared to the “strictly classical” pedagogue to be no mind at all. As a matter of fact, Darwin’s school education left him ignorant of almost all the things which it would have been well for him to know, and untrained in all the things it would have been useful for him to be able to do, in after life.

Thus, starved and stunted on the intellectual side, it is not surprising that Charles Darwin’s energies were directed towards athletic amusements and sport, to such an extent, that even his kind and sagacious father could be exasperated into telling him that “he cared for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat-catching.”

Sir Gavin de Beer:

The boy [Darwin] developed very slowly: he was given, when small, to inventing gratuitous fibs and to daydreaming

and

Lies-and the thrills derived from lies-were for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history or the joy of finding a long-sought specimen.

John and Mary Gribben:

… he devised a plan so cunning that even Machiavelli would have been proud of it. During 1845, Darwin worked on a second edition of his successful journal of the Beagle voyage, and added new material to the descriptions of the living things he had seen in South America. These new passages look innocuous enough in themselves. But as Howard Gruber pointed out in his book Darwin on Man (Wildwood House, London, 1974), if you compare the first and second editions … you can locate all the new material … string it together to make a coherent ‘ghost essay’ which conveys almost all of Darwin’s thinking about evolution [in 1845]. It is quite clear that this material must have been written as that coherent essay, then carefully chopped up and inserted into the journal.

The whole case of Darwin’s plagiarism was laid out rather tediously in Charles Darwin — The Truth? Interestingly the essay mentions Brian Goodwin and our very own John Davison here.

I hope this essay inspire some to revisit these important issues. If the hypothesis inspired by Eiseley is true, and if natural selection is an inadequate explanation for biological design, and if it turns out that Darwin was little more than a plagiarizing opportunist making illogical extrapolations of Blyth, then Blyth will be the one history smiles on, and Darwin will be the one history despises.

References to Blyth:

An Attempt to Classify the ‘Varieties’ of Animals with Observations on the Marked Seasonal and Other Changes Which Naturally Take Place in Various British Species, and Which Do Not Constitute Varieties by Blyth in 1835.

Varieties of Animals Part 2 by Blyth in 1835

Observations on the Various Seasonal and Other External Changes Which Regularly Take Place in Birds by Blyth in 1836

Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds – Part 2 by Blyth in 1836

Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds – Part 3 by Blyth in 1836

Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds – Part 4 by Blyth in 1836

On the Psychological Distinctions Between Man and All Other Animals by Blyth in 1837

Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other Animals – Part 2 by Blyth in 1837

Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other Animals – Part 3 by Blyth in 1837

Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other Animals – Part 4 by Blyth in 1837

UPDATE 8/31/2006 I will link to opposing opinions on the net if I feel the scholarship is worthy. Here is Dr. N. Wells at ARN : Salvador on Blyth and Darwin

Comments
[…] natural selection and misappropriated the idea from the work of other scientists (see for example https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-p…). This claim is as false as the “science” of creationism itself.As any student of science and […]Edward Blyth: Creationist or Just Another Misinterpreted Scientist? – Jim Willmot
January 12, 2016
January
01
Jan
12
12
2016
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
[…] The ID friendly version of Natural Selection was pioneered by the creationist Blyth. I argued that there is credible evidence that Darwin plagiarized and distorted Blyth. […]Evidence of natural selection is not evidence against design, the Designer made NS | Uncommon Descent
April 15, 2014
April
04
Apr
15
15
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
[...] Was Blyth True Scientist and Darwin Merely a Plagiarist and Charlatan [...]God's iPod - Uncommon Descent - Intelligent Design
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
[...] Was Blyth True Scientist and Darwin Merely a Plagiarist and Charlatan [...]The de-origination of species by means of reunion | Uncommon Descent
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
[...] Natural Selection was pioneered by the creationist Blyth, and Darwin later plagiarized Blyth’s work and published his own corrupt variation of Blyth’s ideas. (See: Was Blyth the True Scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan). [...]God's iPod - Uncommon Descent - Intelligent Design
July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
[...] Natural Selection was pioneered by the creationist Blyth, and Darwin later plagiarized Blyth’s work and published his own corrupt variation of Blyth’s ideas. (See: Was Blyth the True Scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan). [...]Selection is falsely called a mechanism when instead it should be labeled an outcome | Uncommon Descent
July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
DaveScot: "A sling has a projectile that is rotated repeatedly about a pivot point with energy added on each rotation." once again, DaveScot quotes a wikipedia article which he obviously hasn't read all the way throught and directly contradicts him: "How to sling For a conventional throw, one does not make multiple rotations of the sling, a proper slinging action requires just one rapid rotation. The more times you swing it, the less likely you'll hit anything. (Some slingers will rotate the sling slowly once or twice to seat the projectile in the cradle.) "steveh
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
trrll: Speculation that results in testable hypotheses that have already led to major discoveries about genes that regulate development. And again regulating development is not the same as determining it. trrll: This is how a genuine scientific theory expands knowledge–not by explaining everything all at once, but by providing a basis for discovery. Have you read "The Privileged Planet"? It provides a basis for future discoveries. and even though he can't respond: Zachriel: As far as vision, there are ample precursers to indicate why an eye might form by modification of simple photoactive chemistry and a simple focusing mechanism. Reality demonstrates that we have no idea how or why an eye might form. However it is very telling that you use the very typical MO of trying to simplify the issue. Too bad we know that vision systems are not simple at all...Joseph
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Even though I found this argument over arms and slings to be rediculous I let the relevant comments through (whether other mods did the same I have no idea). And I\'m not surprised Dave is giving up...Patrick
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Sal, The Blyth issue was taken up on Dr. Dembski's "Some of My Favourite Darwinist Quotes" post when Poul (http://evilution-is-good-for-you.blogspot.com/2006/08/denyse-oleary-and-darwinian-fairy.html) introduced the same idea there that he did here. https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/70#comment-56764 Although it died here we are still kicking it around on that thread.Charlie
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
trrll, I appreciate the thought in most of your comments, but this idea that everything physically possible is encoded in the laws of physics must depend upon some imaginary definition of "encoded". You seem to me to be ignoring the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. An ice sculpture is certainly physically possible, and it is certainly dependent upon the laws of physics, but without begging the question of mind reduced to physics how can you possibly say that the ice sculpture was coded for by the laws of physics?Charlie
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
The discussion so far has been good. It think the original topic of Blyth has been explored well, and the subsequent discussion of other topics has been interesting. I'm giving the giving the green light now for you all to take the conversation wherever you all would like it to go within bounds of civil discourse. Thank you all for your participation.scordova
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
One last reply trrll. According to your logic EVERYTHING physically possible is encoded in the laws of physics. Therefore this encoding explains everything. And thus explains nothing.
Of course, by definition, everything physically possible is encoded in the laws of physics. It is the ultimate front-loading.trrll
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
IOW we have NO idea. We also don’t have any idea whether any process can afford the changes required to get from Urbilateria to flies & mice. Nothing but speculation under the assumption such changes did occur.
Speculation that results in testable hypotheses that have already led to major discoveries about genes that regulate development. This is how a genuine scientific theory expands knowledge--not by explaining everything all at once, but by providing a basis for discovery. The best criterion whether an idea constitutes a scientific theory is that scientists using the theory to guide their work produce a continuing stream of discoveries.trrll
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
zach You're banned here. I'm sure by me a long time ago. I unspammed a couple of your comments because they were interesting. Most of them are stupid which is of course why you were banned. I'm allowing one last stupid one through for an example. You said: "People sling mud. You must be using a special, private definition." No Zach. I'm using a sling as a weapon and I already provided a link to it which I'll do again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon) Anyone who doesn't recognize that an arm isn't a sling after I was kind enough to provide an encyclopedia article describing a sling quite frankly shouldn't be cluttering up our blog and wasting our time arguing with you. There are smarter foes to engage. Don't expect any more of your comments to appear so stop wasting your time. I see there's about a dozen of them in the sandbox.DaveScot
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
One last reply trrll. According to your logic EVERYTHING physically possible is encoded in the laws of physics. Therefore this encoding explains everything. And thus explains nothing. Have a nice life.DaveScot
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
DaveScot: "Arms are not slings." People sling mud. You must be using a special, private definition.Zachriel
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
trrll Arms are not slings. Nematocysts are not blowguns. And I've grown weary of your silly replies. Adios.DaveScot
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
trrll: Nematocysts. Joseph: "Yup a great intelligent design for defense and hunting on an otherwise 'simple' organism." The question was to provide an example of a poison dart in biology. Gelatinous zooplankton are not normally considered intelligent.Zachriel
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
trrll: "Nobody knows [Urbilateria] had eyes." Reconstructing the eyes of UrbilateriaZachriel
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
trrll: "Nobody knows if [Urbilateria] had eyes." Reconstructing the eyes of UrbilateriaZachriel
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
trrll: The hypothesized common ancestor of flies and mice is a long-extinct organism dubbed Urbilateria. It is presumed to have hox genes, which are even found in roundworms. Nobody knows if it had eyes. That's the rub isn't it? Of course it is presumbed to have HOX genes for the reason you posted earlier: Evolutionary theory prohibits separate origins for genes with such a high degree of similarity; the must have been present from a common ancestor. IOW we have NO idea. We also don't have any idea whether any process can afford the changes required to get from Urbilateria to flies & mice. Nothing but speculation under the assumption such changes did occur. trrll: Nematocysts. Yup a great intelligent design for defense and hunting on an otherwise "simple" organism.Joseph
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
A sling has a projectile that is rotated repeatedly about a pivot point with energy added on each rotation. A heavy projectile can thus be gradually accelerated so that its momentum becomes far greater than a human arm can impart in a single motion. A discus throw is analogous but a human being can’t spin his whole body either as rapidly or for as many rotations as he can a sling. But the principle is the same, the spin rate accelerates over multiple spins and with it the momentum in the discus.
Actually, you can "wind up" for a throw by rotating your arm multiple times. It happens not to be the most efficient way to throw, but it works OK. Basically a sling simply extends the range of the arm, and enables throwing techniques that are not as efficient with a short arm. But an arm is a multiple-purpose device, not purely a throwing tool, so its design reflects optimization for multiple tasks.trrll
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Another example would be a blowgun with poison tipped darts.
Nematocysts.
If these devices are encoded in the laws of physics then why is this simple and highly effective weapon not found on organisms possessing other things of a complexity that far, far outstrips a simple blowgun? Once again, it’s because RM+NS is inadequate to task of designing a simple blowgun. If a blowgun wasn’t in the original design library then it just doesn’t appear in nature.
Although the fact that we can in principle conceive of an exhaustive search through all the possible biological structures encoded by the laws of nature proves that all such structures are encoded within those laws, natural selection is a heuristic search rather than an exhaustive one. Because natural selection does not constitute an exhaustive search through the possible structures encoded in the laws of nature, not every conceivable structure will be found and implemented.trrll
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
DaveScot: "Another example would be a blowgun with poison tipped darts." That some structures are only available to design and not to nature is actually expected. Evolution can't create arbitrary structures, but has to work by a process of modifying existing structures. Nevertheless, some varieties of Cobras can spit jets of venom. Archer fish also spit to catch prey, though the spit is non-poisonous. There is a tube in the roof of its mouth which it closes with its tongue, and it can hit insects several feet above the water. I'm sure if you look, you'll also find examples in the insect world. As far as vision, there are ample precursers to indicate why an eye might form by modification of simple photoactive chemistry and a simple focusing mechanism. Various light-sensing mechanisms are thought to have evolved independently several times in nature.Zachriel
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
DaveScot: "A sling has a projectile that is rotated repeatedly about a pivot point with energy added on each rotation." Why do you try to argue with obvious points? There is no doubt that people can sling rocks or sling mud. The arm acts as a sling when a person uses the arc of the extended arm's movement to build momentum in a projectile. The longer one's arm, the more momentum can be built. It doesn't require an artificial tool. sling http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sling DaveScot: "A discus throw is analogous but a human being can’t spin his whole body either as rapidly or for as many rotations as he can a sling." And that's another example of a natural sling. As the projectile is heavier, the person uses his entire body to impart the momentum by rotation.Zachriel
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Another example would be a blowgun with poison tipped darts. Again, these are less complex than a camera eye and can be constructed of biological components long available to evolution (poison, hollow bone, lung to provide gas pressure, sharp quills, feathers for flight stabilization). This is a terribly efficient weapon for a predator. Yet none have it except through intelligent design (spitting cobra is the closest thing I can think of but its range doesn't come close to a blowgun's and it's just a liquid stream not a penetrating projectile). If these devices are encoded in the laws of physics then why is this simple and highly effective weapon not found on organisms possessing other things of a complexity that far, far outstrips a simple blowgun? Once again, it's because RM+NS is inadequate to task of designing a simple blowgun. If a blowgun wasn't in the original design library then it just doesn't appear in nature.DaveScot
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
And by the way, a sling as described above is far less complicated than a camera eye, is a superior weapon that can kill large animals at great removes, can be constructed of organic components long available to evolution (skin and ligaments) with the exception of the projectiles which are stones found almost everywhere, and according to trrll's ridiculous logic this device is "encoded in the laws of physics" so it's available to evolution in a way that must be, because it is simpler, the same as the camera eye. So I ask again, why if this (and I can think of many more things that must be encoded in the laws of physics according to trrll) is encoded in the laws of physics don't we see it employed as we see the camera eye employed? The answer is that the camera eye was part of the original front-loaded design of life and a force-multiplying sling was not. Thanks for playing trrll but you should stick to sticking needles in frogs too and leave the design stuff to people who know a little more about design than you do.DaveScot
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
No Zach, the arm is not a sling. This is a prime example of why biologists have a difficult time recognizing design. You can't even distinguish the mechanical principles that separate an arm from a sling. A sling has a projectile that is rotated repeatedly about a pivot point with energy added on each rotation. A heavy projectile can thus be gradually accelerated so that its momentum becomes far greater than a human arm can impart in a single motion. A discus throw is analogous but a human being can't spin his whole body either as rapidly or for as many rotations as he can a sling. But the principle is the same, the spin rate accelerates over multiple spins and with it the momentum in the discus. Thanks for playing but you should really leave the design issues to the experts in design and stick to rearranging the entries in the phylogenetic tree or whatever it is you goofballs do for a living.DaveScot
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
DaveScot: "Your arm isn’t a sling." The artificial sling you mention merely increases the length of the arm which by itself is more than capable of traversing an arc to build momentum before releasing the trajectile. The arm is a sling.Zachriel
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply