An Origin virgin reads the book

For anyone without a copy then go here: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

It is a classic, but then again, it is merely a classic, and I suppose we all know the place of "the classics" in science.

Woo Hoo!!! We're doing 3 days of lectures and presentations, including showing off some of our early editions of Origins here at the UCD Health Sciences library.

It is a classic, but then again, it is merely a classic, and I suppose we all know the place of "the classics" in science.

But in the history of science...

The most interesting aspect might be how ID was shot down so well 150 years ago. Nothing new since, except the claim that we find "design" that doesn't look like design, in order to avoid falsification.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Horrendously boring book. I had to read it at university and I hated it. The most boring book since the last 19th century book I had the misfortune of reading.

Strange actually. 18th century - great; 20th century - great: it's only the 19th century books that are dull, stilted, confusingly written and generally a waste of good trees.

John Whitfield wrote:

"I wonder whether I really want to call myself a Darwinian, and suspect that the fact that the label Darwinian can be attached to people as well as ideas illustrates evolution's contentious and insecure place in wider society, relative to other branches of science -- no one's a Einsteinian, or a Lavoisierian.)"

If followers of Christ call themselves Christians and followers of Buddah call themselves Buddhists, why shouldn't followers of Darwin call themselves Darwinists?

@#6 APOTAMKIN
Scientists are not followers of Darwin, and therefore are not Darwinists. They are followers of the knowledge of the truth. The word "science," after all, means "state of knowing." They are scientists, not Darwinists.

#6

If followers of Christ call themselves Christians and followers of Buddah call themselves Buddhists, why shouldn't followers of Darwin call themselves Darwinists?

In that case, "realityists" would really be the best description. I don't "follow" Darwin, I follow the observations of reality. It just so happens that Darwin noticed first (and Wallace of course...).

Just a thought.

(CNN) -- A woman in rural Papua New Guinea was bound and gagged, tied to a log and set ablaze on a pile of tires this week, possibly because villagers suspected her of being a witch, police said Thursday.

Her death adds to a growing list of men and women who have been accused of sorcery and then tortured or killed in the South Pacific island nation, where traditional beliefs hold sway in many regions.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/08/png.witchcraft/index.htm

For a smile:

http://thetimchannel.com/?p=339

Enjoy.

That evening, I settle in the parlour, put a taper to the gaslight, toss another urchin on the fire, and begin reading.

I believe he's thinking of the Georgian period, as described by Dickens. For Victorian times he'd toss another Wog on the fire, yes?

I've never known a scientist who "venerated" Darwin (nor any other historical figure.) That kind of hagiography is the product of poor-quality science journalism; a good science writer also knows better.

If followers of Christ call themselves Christians and followers of Buddah call themselves Buddhists, why shouldn't followers of Darwin call themselves Darwinists?

You people just can't stand the fact that evolutionary theory isn't a religion, can you?

Cause then it might be as stupid as your beliefs.

That's what science is about, though, avoiding the stupidity of belief systems, and instead following the evidence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

I can imagine the fundie lurkers, jaws dropped, saying "He's never read Darwin?!"

Well, I'm not a PhD Biologist, just a studio monkey at a public access TV station, but I've never read it either. I'd rather reread Carl Zimmer's book, actually.

Late last year I got the illustrated edition on Amazon for £10, they may have a few left...

Glen #12

You people just can't stand the fact that evolutionary theory isn't a religion, can you?

I'm fine with it

Also the rest of your statement appears to contradict itself.

"Cause then it might be as stupid as your beliefs."

Indeed...

Well, if this is his first time reading it, I think it will be an... enlightening experience. I read it last winter. Darwin's theories were more different from the modern consensus than I had been lead to believe. He explicitly (but tentatively) believes in and allows for Lamarckianism, for instance. Such assumptions had not been tested much, I suppose. But other than than that, it's a beautifully written and clear book, despite what others have said here. He also lacks the bias towards zoological evidence that modern evolutionary biologists tend to possess.

The format is quite unique... not only does he set out his views, but he responds to literally every reasonable criticism he can think of ahead of time, in the most convincing fashion. He had already responded to most of the creationist's arguments 150 years ago. Now they can only offer disguised variations on them.

"Darwin Worship"

It's strange how the fundagelicals always try to claim that any acknowledgment of a great scientist's (or anyone else's) work is somehow "worship". To me, it just shows a failure to make any sort of a connection with fellow human beings. It's the same sort of mindset that thinks that no one can be thankful or humble or appreciative unless they worship a god. Quite frankly, the mindset scares me.

The difficult job will be to maintain a balance between hero worship and reactionary criticism, and to show the real man and the real work.

That will be difficult for me. I'm a couple of chapters into Origin of Species, and his clarity, completeness and the very simple way he puts his ideas together are amazing.

It's almost like reading 19th century Bill Nye (without the jokes). And since Bill Nye is a hero of mine, it will be very difficult not to think the same thing about Darwin.

Does that make him a god?.....Um.. No. But it does make him much smarter than I am, and that is deserving of respect.

hinschelwood
Strange actually. 18th century - great; 20th century - great: it's only the 19th century books that are dull, stilted, confusingly written and generally a waste of good trees.

Blasphemer!!

Seriously, I guess you have to like the writing style from the 19th Century. I love reading Walter Scott, Joshua Chamberlain, Mark Twain and many others from the 19th century. So I guess I'm a little biased.

Darwin's theories were more different from the modern consensus than I had been lead to believe. He explicitly (but tentatively) believes in and allows for Lamarckianism, for instance.

Yep, Darwin had his own theory of heredity, and it was rather embarrassing -- more similar to 18th-century ideas than mid-late 19th-century ones.

You hear that, APOTAMKIN? Darwin got some things wrong. To worship him would be to live in denial.

More interesting would be how the Origin evolved over several editions which would include the phrase "suvival of the fittest" which was not an original Darwin idea (Herbert Spencer), as well as the increasing Lamarkism in later editions (Darwin was much more successful in convincing others that evolution had occurred than he ever was about his own contribution, Natural selection.) For readibility, Voyage of the Beagle is more enjoyable.

Only religibots refer to evolutionary biologists as 'Darwinists.' Also, the term 'theory of evolution' has become a brand name much like Scotch tape and Xerox machine. Evolution is a fact. The theory Darwin proposed is natural selection as a major explanation for the observed fact of evolution.

Wait, what kind of evolutionary biologist has not read the Origin of Species? How is it possible to continue upstream in the educational gradient without having read the most seminal piece of introductory literature that has ever graced the origin of multiple fields? We're not talking about some obscure piece from a dry scientific paper, but a book written by the actual grand master.

Mind you, the educational system is partially to blame as well. In any case, let this be a lesson to you kids interested in biology, please find some time to read the Origin of Species and even the Descent of Man. Your future self will be extremely grateful.

@ #20, in part.

Yes, his gemmule theory (or however you spell it) was wrong. But to be fair, I've heard it said multiple times that his notebooks show Darwin was on the verge of discovering particulate inheritance.

We always need to remember that just because scientists were wrong doesn't make them lesser, and the ones that were right were not necessarily better scientists. It's easy to criticize in modern times when we sit on a mountain of data much larger than it used to be. Which is why I dislike the lack of respect people like Lamarck are sometimes given (not @ anyone here).

Whitfield needs to make certain he's reading a copy of the first edition. In trying to answer his critics in later editions of the Origin, Darwin watered down the forcefullness of his arguments. The first edition is a must. Unfortunately it is not the most commonly available.

@ 25, if I recall correctly, the Barnes & Noble edition is based on the 1st edition, with notes on changes in later additions.

It seems that he says he'll be reading the first edition.

There are PDFs and texts avalable online at:

Darwin Online: Darwin's Publications

Just scroll down (or use your browser's find) to "On the Origin of Species."

Posted by: C Barr | January 8, 2009 12:02 PM #25

The first edition is a must. Unfortunately it is not the most commonly available.

Here you go: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/otoos11.txt

// gotta love gutenberg!

Wait, what kind of evolutionary biologist has not read the Origin of Species? How is it possible to continue upstream in the educational gradient without having read the most seminal piece of introductory literature that has ever graced the origin of multiple fields?

I think Origin's value would be more historical than scientific. While Origin did revolutionize the field a lot of knowledge has been gained in the 150 years since its writing. As mentioned, Darwin didn't know the mechanism of heredity and thus the whole field of genetics goes unmentioned. Many fossils have also been found since then. Some of the strongest arguments for evolution werent' available to Darwin and aren't presented in Origin/ Darwin probably wouldn't have recognized the field in its modern form.

To go to a field I'm more familiar with, I think very few physicists have read Newton's Principia Mathematica. Newton mostly uses geometrical arguments, rather than the modern, more convenient analytical ones. If someone wanted to learn about classical mechanics this wouldn't be the best text to use.

Usually pioneer works in scientific fields aren't the best place to learn from.

Just buy the book. Its out of copyright so its very inexpensive on Amazon or other online booksellers.
For those who prefer audio-books there is a version read by Richard Dawkins available online to download for your ipod.
By the way, don't forget Wallace.

Would you also recommend "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones? I'm reading it these days. It follows "Origin" chapter by chapter, filling in stuff that Darwin could not possibly have known at the time.

To go to a field I'm more familiar with, I think very few physicists have read Newton's Principia Mathematica. Newton mostly uses geometrical arguments, rather than the modern, more convenient analytical ones. If someone wanted to learn about classical mechanics this wouldn't be the best text to use.

I did my graduate research in acoustics. Specifically, it was on an aspect which has many optical analogies (of course -- they're all waves!), and Newton did many of the first experiments (and made geometrical arguments for explanations) on evanescent optical fields. I was able to take some of his arguments from Principia and at least use them as background material in my dissertation. Though his arguments were almost entirely wrong, the immediate results were correct (having to do with the Goos-Hanchen effect, and parabolic paths in rare media), and prescient by at least 100 years. Brilliant.

Alternatively, you can all read along with Denyse O'Leary here as she calls you all tools and drops scientific knowledge bombs such as:

Personally, I have only one reason for doubting Darwin: An essentially conservative process like natural selection does not create anything much. I don't claim that it cannot create anything ever, but only that it cannot create the abundance of intricate life we see around us -and that it is obvious that the universe we live in is designed.

Awesome.

Shame on me. I've read the bible and the Principia Discordia, but not Darwin. The copy I have is the 1958 Mentor version... in a pile, somewhere.

@#23

Well, I got a zoology degree without reading it. While we were encouraged to read it on our own time, the assigned readings were slightly more current/relevant articles. Lots and lots of them. So Darwin got put on the "To Do Someday" list.

Sorry to disappoint.

Last month I decided to do something about a gap in my own library and bought a copy of The Origin of Species, and started reading it (I was an Engineering major...but not one of the ones folks here love to complain about). I find it very readable, though quite dense. Darwin doesn't waste words. Rather like Churchill's WW2 memoirs in that way.

On the whole the book is fascinating. It's interesting to see the changes in both evolutionary thought and language (what "humble-bees" are is plain even though the term is no longer in use where I live, for example).

I'm about a third of the way through.

I read the Origin years ago and agree it is well written. The level of detail may be tedious for some readers though. I can remember thinking at the time, "Oh boy, another twenty pages about pigeons!" more than once.

@#23
I'm currently working on a bachelor's degree in biotechnology and On the Origin of Species is not a big deal. Evolutionary theory has changed enough that Darwin would not recognize it. After all, genetics was unknown at the time (I know Mendel was a contemporary, but his work was largely ignored until the 20th century). Speaking of Mendel, by degree is largely based on genetics and I haven't read anything he wrote either. Because it's irrelevant at this point. And like Darwin he got a lot of it wrong.

Just like I'm willing to bet that 150 years from now the books by Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, and Sagan will be outdated and have incorrect details.

Wow, I just finished my book two days ago and I decided to pick up Origin as my next read, I've been meaning to read it for awhile. Completely oblivious to the fact that I am reading it for the first time in the so-called Year of Darwin. I will definitely be following along to this. Is this like when everybody read The Secret, The Davinci Code and the Celestine Prophecy at the same time.

Eric: Speaking of Mendel, by degree is largely based on genetics and I haven't read anything he wrote either. Because it's irrelevant at this point. And like Darwin he got a lot of it wrong.

Mendel also faked his data! Fortunately, he was right enough that it doesn't matter. But I remember that a statistically analysis found his results a) suspiciously on the money b) incorrectly on the money, since he had divided his analysis into lots which would have guaranteed an error due to the small size of the lots.

But once again, personal credibility is at the end irrelevant -- it's the method and not the personalities.

Does this mean I can stop sacrificing goats to Darwin in my backyard in the hopes of having good fortune in my social and business ventures? 'cause the neighbors are starting to complain that the burnt offerings smell bad.

Only a complete bore would think Origins is boring.

And while you can easily be a practicing biologist without having read it (just as you can be a practicing physicist without having read Principia), I don't think you can reasonably take on the mantle of spokesperson (however modest) in biology with such a literary gap on your record.

I received my biology degree in 1973 (shoulda been 1969 but that's another story) without ever reading Darwin. About 3 years ago I got interested enough to check what was available in my local library. Rather than read each individual book, I picked up a compendium which contained the most relevant excerpts from Species, Beagle, Descent and other writings. Charles Darwin was astonishing in the amount of field work, note taking and lab work that he did. Experiments taking decades with detailed observations. He was a naturalist, which in his day meant a in-depth knowledge of multiple sciences: botany, zoology, geology, paleontology, meteorology, and on and on. I was impressed. Reading the books gives tremendous insight into the man and a great understanding of how he came to his conclusions. Hint: it wasn't just finch beaks.

An evolutionary biologist who hasn't read The Origin of Species? Isn't that kind of like a military leader who hasn't read The Art of War?

I mean, I'm not an evolutionary biologist (or any kind of biologist, for that matter), and I've read The Origin of Species.

And The Art of War, but that's neither here nor there.

"...the universe we live in is designed", well, if the designer was an idiot with a super duper anti-gravity, gravity, heat shield, with the idiot knob turned up to full power. However, if the universe is naturally evolving it would show some chaos together with some amount of balance. If a christian would care to look through a sampling of Hubble telescope images they would clearly see that the christian god-idea is toast (burned even).

I purchased and read From So Simple A Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books. Which features Beagle, Origin, Descent of Man, and Expression of Emotions. It is edited by E. O. Wilson, a Deist (I think) which is OK because Deists by definition don't gum up the works, as christians do.

Beagle was just plain fun to read and provided a great background for the other three books. Its a big hardcover but, I'm very happy to have it and love to display it with my small fossil collection.

I've only read one Lamarck book (Zoological Philosophy), he had the correct assumption that all life was related and built upon the "lesser animals" but, he missed the mark on how it works, resorting to a somewhat magical fluid as the essence of life.

Darwin goes to great lengths to explain what is going on and gives many references to those that helped him. Whereas, Lamarck repeats his ideas over and over seemingly in an attempt to demand that they are facts. However, I don't know what the state of the science was in Lamarck's time and the thoughts that he expressed might have been a reflection of what he was fighting against. That is, his writing may have been directed toward dispelling prevailing christian whackaloons. I think Darwin did a bit of that in his writings as well.

It surprises me that even that long ago christianity was shown to be a failed mythology and yet the christian idiocy persists.

I will love the blogging of the really good book at bloggingtheorigin. Thanks to John Whitfield.

"Wait, what kind of evolutionary biologist has not read the Origin of Species? How is it possible to continue upstream in the educational gradient without having read the most seminal piece of introductory literature that has ever graced the origin of multiple fields?"

Perhaps because it is 150 year old science? I don't read many journal articles from even 100 years ago, regardless of how "seminal" they are. It is easy to be an expert in modern evolution without even knowing Darwin existed.

Your question, to me, is like asking, "How can someone be a chemist without having read Pauling's 'The Nature of the Chemical Bond.'?" Easy. The stuff in there worth knowing is now in elementary textbooks (resonance, electronegativity, inter alia).

BTW, the audio version of Origins of the Species is available from librivox.org. I don't know if it is the 1st edition. Listen to it on your iPod!

The Origin is one of the few books out there which proves evolution for the general reader. It's a wonderful read.

Darwin-worship lies behind the canard that Darwin recanted (sic) on his deathbed. It's false, of course, but that aside it's irrelevant because it's true irrespective of who believes it. Contrast the rabbi hailed as the Messiah, who converted to Islam at swordpoint and disappointed his followers

I enjoyed reading Origin, and Beagle. I even liked the pigeon discussion - it's using pigeons to illustrate the point, in a way that would be familiar to a lot of people back then.

But of course they are historical. No scientist in any field *needs* to read 150 year old books to learn their science.

I don't know, PZ. It's a little too late for me in regards to Darwin worship. Every time I visit the Melbourne Museum here in Melbourne, Australia, I get a little thrill when go to the Evolution Gallery there and see their South American finch, sparrow and guinea pig with original collection tags written by Charles Darwin himself.

The museum curators only realized what those specimens were when they came out of storage after more that a century, during the museum's move to new digs about 10 years ago.

Does this mean I can stop sacrificing goats to Darwin in my backyard in the hopes of having good fortune in my social and business ventures?

Heretic.

You're supposed to sacrifice finches.

Horrendously boring book. I had to read it at university and I hated it. The most boring book since the last 19th century book I had the misfortune of reading.

Try reading John A. Hobson's Imperialism. It's an economic critique of British imperialism and a guaranteed cure for insomnia. There's also Lewis Morgan's League of the Iroquois, which made made me want to kill small, furry animals. For absolute brain-numbing boringness, Marx & Engel's Das Kapital, Volumes II and III would be hard to beat. Volume I, the only part of the book finished by Marx during his lifetime, isn't too bad. Marx was a fairly good writer. Volumes II and III were written by Friedrich Engels from notes left by Marx. Engels writing is boring with a capital BORE!

I am a physicist, but I have never read Newton's Principia. Of course the fact that it is written in Latin is an obstacle for me. From what I have heard of it, it would be quite hard for me to follow. Even though Newton invented calculus, he did many of the proofs geometrically. Newton got the physics right, but many people have figured out better ways of explaining it.

I find evolutionary biology interesting, especially evo-devo. So much has been learned about evolution since Darwin and I think I would want the much more complete view that is available now, than you would get from the Origin of the Species.