Charles Darwin - April 13 8:13 PM - New Book!
My loyal followers! I just published a new masterpiece - The Power of Movement in Plants. It's about the wonderful energy and motion that is captured in plants. In this book I discuss the newest theory for the mechanism of root growth. It is also in a very limited print and may contain a holographic picture of myself.
Act fast and get an almost free t-shirt, supplies are limited and so is my generosity. So act fast before I change my mind.
(Note shirts may not come in your size or at all)
! Good Stuff !
Act fast and get an almost free t-shirt, supplies are limited and so is my generosity. So act fast before I change my mind.
(Note shirts may not come in your size or at all)
! Good Stuff !
Julius Sachs - April 15 2:30 PM
Darwin you are a fool and an idiot.
Charles Darwin - April 15 2:41 PM
And why is that, my dear sir?
Julius Sachs - April 15 3:02 PM
I told you already when you sent a copy of the manuscript to me - this is all wrong. Your methods are improper and introduce error into all of your methods. Not to mention the fact that your conclusions are completely wrong! I get that you spend most of your time observing humans and animals, but you do not understand how to properly research plants at all. One needs discipline to do real science, like the kind of science you'll find in my own book, Lehrbuch der Botanik.
Charles Darwin - April 15 3:08 PM
Excuse me! My theory makes perfect sense if you think about it. It explains "many single phenomena as different adaptions evolved from one primary form"1, just as all life evolved from one primary form today. You're mad because I'm finally proving your foolish idea that one-sided growth causes root extension as wrong. I've clearly proved in my book that it is the tip of the radicle that is sensitive to gravity. In all my experiments when it was removed, the root stopped responding to gravity. And when the tip regrew, the root started responding to gravity. It's obvious I'm right!
Gertrude Himmelfarb - April 16 11:15 AM
Charles, it's true your methods were horrible. I've been to your so-called "lab", which is more like a hobby garden.
Julius, I agree with you that his methods are horrible. When I was visiting, I noticed that "his three-foot rule was old and batered, the common property of the household; the seven-foot deal rod used in measuring plants had been roughly calibrated by the village carpenter, while for millimeter measurements he used paper rules...it apparently never occurred to him that his instruments were anything by precise. He thought the trade of instrument making, when he thought of it at all, rather mysterious, and he had implicit faith in all his instruments per se. It may be that many of his experiments required no great precision, but it was not on this assumption that he acted. On the contrary, he took great pains to be precise, to obtain perfect measurements with his imperfect seven-foot ruler." (2)
Julius, I agree with you that his methods are horrible. When I was visiting, I noticed that "his three-foot rule was old and batered, the common property of the household; the seven-foot deal rod used in measuring plants had been roughly calibrated by the village carpenter, while for millimeter measurements he used paper rules...it apparently never occurred to him that his instruments were anything by precise. He thought the trade of instrument making, when he thought of it at all, rather mysterious, and he had implicit faith in all his instruments per se. It may be that many of his experiments required no great precision, but it was not on this assumption that he acted. On the contrary, he took great pains to be precise, to obtain perfect measurements with his imperfect seven-foot ruler." (2)
Gertrude Himmelfarb - April 16 11:17 AM
Look at the state of his work! he has plants on the windowsill in uneven light (if he's even measuring it or keeping it constant. There is no separation between kinds of plants, so there may be cross-contamination between different species. And, they're not separate from his house at all. What would happen to your research if your kids knocked the plants over or killed them? The results would be horribly skewed, as they probably are! You or your scientific contributions cannot be taken seriously in the scientific world until you revise your methods (1).
Julius Sachs - April 15 4:16 PM
Well said, Gertrude, well said! It is clear to myself and my assistant, Detlefsen, that your incorrect results are due to your inability to do science. Your radicles were dry, and the amputation of radicles injured the plants, causing your "reported" insensitivity to gravity. Every single time I have done this experiment the roots have not responded to gravity in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Hmm...maybe because I'm right and you are wrong? The second you showed me your book, "I realized that here we were dealing with literary rascals." (3)
General Public- April 17 9:00 AM
Charles Darwin may be a respected naturalist, but he is no plant physiologist. Julius Sachs is the only one with the technique that could achieve good results.
Julius Sachs - April 17 11:47 AM
Charles I have to call into question your competence as an experimenter. You have no idea what you are doing in terms of laboratory science. I intent to disqualify your scientific enterprise as a whole. (1)
Charles Darwin - April 17 1:28 PM
Well gee, I'm sorry you feel that way.
Wilhelm Pfeffer- April 21 5:49 PM
Hey, actually Darwin was right. (1)
Julius Sachs - April 21 5:51 PM
I will not listen to this "mere heap of undigested facts!" (3)
Charles Darwin - April 25 7:19 pm
(1) Soraya De Chadarevian, "Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin," BJHS 20 (1996): 17-41.
(2) Gertrude Himmelfarb qtd. in Soraya De Chadarevian, "Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin," BJHS 20 (1996): 17-41.
(3) Julius Sachs qtd. qtd. in Soraya De Chadarevian, "Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin," BJHS 20 (1996): 17-41.
(2) Gertrude Himmelfarb qtd. in Soraya De Chadarevian, "Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin," BJHS 20 (1996): 17-41.
(3) Julius Sachs qtd. qtd. in Soraya De Chadarevian, "Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin," BJHS 20 (1996): 17-41.