The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin

[Florinda]

In Origin of Species Darwin challenged many of the most deeply held beliefs in the Western world. Arguing for a material, not divine, origin of species, he showed that new species are achieved by "natural selection." Development, diversification, decay, extinction, and absence of plan are all inherent to his theories. Darwin read prodigiously across many fields; he reflected on his experiences as a traveller, he experimented.

[anu_]

Read the book out of curiosity in high school, at a time when I was introduced to the origin of world. Liked some of his theories, especially survival of the fittest. It seems practical and time tested. Have never seen a weak animal being allowed to pass on his genes in nature, with it being eliminated in his initial years. He was a practical scientific man, a rare species indeed!

[Butterbescotch]

Did you actually read the book? I thought the book was only in the museum for preservation.

[anu_]

Butter, till now I did believe that the book my teacher gave me to read was indeed 'The origin of species' written by Darwin, had all his theories that my teacher used to teach. But, after your above comment , I was not so sure and so did a google search and found that the book is available as an e-book on literature.org and as paperback and hardcover on amazon and flipkart.

[utopiadream]

The Origin Of Species is a good book but Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed it does not explain the missing link, why some animals did not evolve and many more questions are unanswered..

[Butterbescotch]

@Anu

Oh thanks for the information. Isn't hard to read a book beyond our era? I mean the writing styles, grammar and all.

@utopiadream

No one ever discovered the missing link even Jane Goodall, who studied primates for 45 years. But it is fair to say that Darwin's book is one of the ideas which spark modern science.

[anu_]

Language is nothing if not flexible. Whenever I read books written years ago, the first thing that strikes me is how the usage of words change over time. I found it quite strange that son-in-law was used to describe a step-son in Jane Austen's Emma, and the word "Nice" once had a negative connotation.

Yes, of course, it is difficult to understand books from a bygone era, strictly in terms of syntax and vocabulary. But, no one can change the basic idea. I found the same is true for translated versions as well. However, as far as, Origin of Species is concerned, I read the book some ten-twelve years ago, and that was the time, I was first introduced to never heard before scientific theories, with a good teacher to assist in my endeavor to understand them. I was greedy enough to gulp down as many books as I could. I am not sure, whether I would be able to re-read some of those again, without being bored to death. Times change, languages alter and so does the literary taste.

[Butterbescotch]

Well said anu_. (Do you happen to be a Filipino?) Though I am not interested in the book, I was impressed that somebody was reading this book. I tried to read "In A Different Voice", a classic psychology book, by Carol Gilligan. I have not yet reach page 5 and it already "suck the marrow out of my life."

I always have a hard time understanding scientific ideas and so I'm impressed when somebody have already done it.

[utopiadream]

@Anu

Oh thanks for the information. Isn't hard to read a book beyond our era? I mean the writing styles, grammar and all.

@utopiadream

No one ever discovered the missing link even Jane Goodall, who studied primates for 45 years. But it is fair to say that Darwin's book is one of the ideas which spark modern science.

I agree, but are you aware that there have been many new discoveries that completely go against his theory, read about living fossils...

[Butterbescotch]

utopiadream

I might not know that. Can you fill me in?

[utopiadream]

here's a little information about it, I would be happy to tell you more about it later, its festival time in my country so a bit busy..
since 1822 thousands of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as "living fossils" - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as "proof" of evolution. But then, to the embarrassment of scientists, these animals were later found to be alive in remote parts of the world.

Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."

Living fossils are living proof of the accuracy with which plants and animals reproduce themselves and the fact that many are not changing at all.

The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.

[anu_]

Well said anu_. (Do you happen to be a Filipino?)

No, Butter, I am an Indian

@Utopia, good deal of information. This is what I most love about scientific theories and discoveries, they hold onto one theory for decades, and then happily cancel it out , ever looking for greener pastures.

[Artdude]

Just a thought - why is everyone talking about this as if it's the latest trashy Stephen King novel?

Everyone's talking about it in terms of: "I liked some of his theories." I hate to - as we say in England - 'piss on the parade,' but Darwin couldn't care less if you 'liked' his theories. Nor would anybody else who has ever come up with a theory. It's a factual paper?! Whether you 'like' it or not is irrelevant, it's the same as 'liking' a cookery book? Or a News article? or a maths textbook? Unless you are religious - in which case your theories about the world are completely worthless - I think The Origin of Species deserves more respect than whether you 'like' it, which is a non-sequitor to begin with.

It's just a really strange way of talking about it.

Anyway: my main point.

Someone or other also mentioned 'the missing link' and how Darwin's theory is 'flawed.' It is certainly not flawed. Darwin didn't seek to find the missing link - in a funny sort of way, the missing link found Darwin. It was only because of The Origin of Species anyone even thought that there might be a 'missing link.'

Anu_ has it right: always looking for the new field of enquiry, always wanting to expand and explore - that is science's greatest achievement.

[Malachi]

I have read about a quarter of 'The Origin of Species' over about 10 years.There is a lot of it that I don't understand but the bits that I do have given me a deeper understanding of Darwins theory.

I agree with Artdude there is nothing flawed about Darwins theory of evolution, like all good scientists His theories explain what He had discovered.Of course there are some things he couldn't explain but it would take more than one lifetime to fully understand the natural world.
Charles Darwin advance our understanding of the world we live in like very few people in history (up there with Newton and Einstein).What he did is even more amazing considering that he practically started from scratch as few people had even considered evolution before Darwin.

[Mel Carriere]

I've never read it, but my 19 year old son is in the middle of it, and claims it is highly readable. Apparently Mr. Darwin was very obsessive over the quality of his prose, which is why we remember him and not Alfred Russel Wallace. Can you imagine fundamentalist complaints over the heresy of Wallaceism?