Sign in with Facebook
Stephen M's Reviews > The Origin of Species
The Origin of Species
by
by
Edits for NR because I love him that much.
This:
"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful not injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.
"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants would almost immediately undergo a change, and some species might become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, ever slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement.
"We have reason to believe, as stated in the first chapter, that a change in the conditions of life, by specially acting on the reproductive systems, cause or increases variability; and in the foregoing case the conditions of life are supposed to have undergone a changes, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by giving a better chance of profitable variations occurring; and unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing." (I DIDN'T WRITE THIS. DARWIN DID IN THIS BOOK.)
Or .
This:
"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful not injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.
"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants would almost immediately undergo a change, and some species might become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such case, ever slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement.
"We have reason to believe, as stated in the first chapter, that a change in the conditions of life, by specially acting on the reproductive systems, cause or increases variability; and in the foregoing case the conditions of life are supposed to have undergone a changes, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by giving a better chance of profitable variations occurring; and unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing." (I DIDN'T WRITE THIS. DARWIN DID IN THIS BOOK.)
Or .
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Origin of Species.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 4, 2012
–
Started Reading
March 4, 2012
– Shelved
March 12, 2012
– Shelved as:
philosophy
March 12, 2012
– Shelved as:
textbook
March 12, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 53 (53 new)
message 1:
by
Riku
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 05, 2012 12:41AM
courage. respect.
reply
|
flag
God didn't want us to eat coconuts.
Stephen, your review reminded me of Michael Moore's famous opening in Capitalism: A love story :)
I haven't seen it. What is it? and that's too bad... I can't say I'm much of a fan of his.
The structure is similar. He starts his narration with "I wonder how our coming generations will remember us. By Or
This (a home made video by a middle-class family that is being evacuated from their home by police)"
Some thoughts:The importance of this book can't be understated but as I have read through it, I've realized that what Darwin proposed so long ago is past the point of common knowledge now. That, coupled with the fact that Darwin likes to restate his case ad nauseam, made for a slow read. An important one, but boring nonetheless. I shelve it as "homework reading" for anyone who considers themselves a fan of modern-day science. Because if it weren't for all this literature-fanaticism that I've found myself hopelessly caught up with, I'd most likely be working as an evolutionary biologist. What's not to love? You get to study the natural habitat, discover new species, track the endangerment of other species (my love for animals is spilling out a bit here) and most of all, you get to laugh at creationist arguments while having a wealth of scientific knowledge to back it up. I can't recommend this book enough. Because sure, it can be quite dry at times, but I'd lovingly forward you a chapter out of my Biology textbook. It truly makes Darwin into something of a poet. There are a few select moments where Darwin breaks out of strict scientific discourse to ponder the implications of descent with modification and the theory as a whole. It is quite a famous part of the book; it's the end. If that seems like a spoiler of some kind, then I wouldn't read on:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life and as a consequence to Natural selection entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Just wonderful. Thanks Darwin, you were a true genius and way ahead of your time.
Mohit wrote: "The structure is similar. He starts his narration with "I wonder how our coming generations will remember us. By ThisOr
This (a home made video by a middle-class family that is being evacuated f..."
I see. Yeah, that seems like a particularly Michael Moore thing to do. I did enjoy Bowling for Columbine, despite the politics that sneaks its way in at the end.
that banana video... oh lordy, that made me chuckle :)
Bennet wrote: "Thanks Darwin, you were a true genius and way ahead of your time.Amen to that, and a great job reviewing a tough book to review. Did you happen to see Darwin's Darkest Hour with Henry Ian Cusick ..."
No, I haven't. Is it a recent release?
Jennifer wrote: "that banana video... oh lordy, that made me chuckle :)"The comments in that video are priceless. (They're pretty edgy, so read at your own discretion)
Some gems:
(view spoiler)
Bennet wrote: "Here's a link to info on Darwin's Darkest Hour.And I second the cheers about the banana video. I kept expecting the guy to go off..."
I almost spit my coffee on my monitor when I read that. Te he :)
woah waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait......Desmond from Lost plays Darwin? Oh my, thanks for showing me. I'll have to watch it.
Bennet wrote: "And I second the cheers about the banana video. I kept expecting the guy to go off about this being yet another affirmation of god wanting men to be in charge, you know, because they're designed like bananas.."Or proof that banana's were made to be gripped, as she said. I just kind of cringed when he talked about the mouth entry aspect, and he even sort of mimed it... &O&
I would love to see you back the bang theory that scientists propose. What evidence supports the formation of amino acids within the theoretical atmosphere of that time? Oh wait the evidence states the opposite. Evolution does exist but to state that the proposed theory is accurate is ignorant at best.
Woooooo! A sock-puppet troll and one that doubts scientific consensus! It's my lucky day!1. I never talk about the big bang.
2. I never talk about amino acids.
3. I never say the theory is 100% accurate, only that Darwin's contribution is invaluable.
4. There is little consensus on the origin of life and how it came about (even though I don't even mention it here. What the hell are you talking about?). Scientists have some vague ideas based on tests that they did using a hypothetical "old earth" scenario. Dare I ask for the evidence to support whatever it is you're asserting in that second and third sentence?
In a quotation consisting of multiple paragraphs, the standard English practice is to place a quotation mark at the beginning of each paragraph, but only at the end of the final paragraph. Thus, you lack two initial quotation marks. Alternatively, the blockquote strategy is also available. Please. Thank you. In gratitude, please make a donation to your favorite Darwinian Nature Preserve. [and you have just been slapped also for not citing your material] It just goes on like this. . . you also failed to place the full stop posterior to your video link of the monkeys. And you mis-shelved this book as "philosophy" which it clearly is not. Nor is it a textbook, although you may have read it for a course. [It just won't stop] Maybe your entire Theory of Review needs to come back under Review. Maybe you need some troll traps.--This Review Correction brought to you by the power of Fred.
Thanks for being pedantic NR. I know I can always count on you.
There is a strong consensus among actual biologists of spontaneous formation. You made a snide remark involving creationism and reference to evolutionary biology thus I assumed you were in favor of the popular bang theory. My refutation to this was the inability to form amino acids using the proposed atmosphere of that time. I do not understand how my response was not easily derived.
Well, considering you are just a sock puppet for someone else, I'd much prefer to have a conversation with who you really are (considering NR's history of sock-puppetry and how he just "happened" to post a critical comment here after you did. Just sayin')Being critical of something does not imply a positive assertion of its opposite. That's a fallacy. But I'm still waiting on some kind of citation of "spontaneous formation" that "actual" biologists have converged on. Because it's not something that I'm aware of at all.
And snide remarks involving creationism are always justified. It is neither scientific nor rational. It's just a bunch of religious malarky.
Just because this threads needs more proper trolling, I'll just pedanticize further and suggest that the phrase "evolutionary biology" is nearly redundant, although I do get the distinctions and differentiations among various bio-scientific specializations. The paradigmatic shift in life sciences to a methodological assumption of evolutionary processes as fundamental underlying structure is fully completed. But can we return to the topic of conventions of English and composition?
Stephen M wrote: "Thanks for being pedantic NR. I know I can always count on you."No, just that I was misled by the missing " into the assumption that the second paragraph was your own parody. Then I was disappointed to find that it was not your parody but clunky Charles himself.
Talk to a biologist who holds their doctorate because I work with a fair amount of them. If something is not scientific then it is considered irrational?? The absurdity of that comment reflects ignorance at its finest. I am not a puppet I just recently obtained a smart phone and downloaded the good read application. I am a science enthusiast thus I looked at view while looking at Darwin's literature.
Dpocci wrote: "I am not a puppet"I think the evidence is still too short for us to determine the truth of that hypothesis.
I hate autocorrect on this damn iPhone.
Haha kind of like your male trumpet??? Have a great weekend.
I don't think Dpocci is NR-- there's too many differences in small details. It is easy to put up an act regarding tone and register; but the devil is in the details.
...on the other hand, a person with only a single book on their shelves, which just happens to be Darwin's Origin of Species?Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........
Oh, btw- i swear it isn't me.
Dpocci wrote: "If something is not scientific then it is considered irrational?? The absurdity of that comment reflects ignorance at its finest."I believe I wrote that creationism does not possess two qualities, being scientific and being rational.
A conjunction does not imply any causation between the two, only correlation.
Go back to basic logic.
Get the fuck off my thread.
And he's obviously a sock-puppet of someone who is having a lot of fun or just being an asshole.No pictures, no reviews, no ratings, no friends and when he first left a comment he didn't have any books in his currently-reading shelf.
I think you should relax, though Stephen. While i do promise it isn't me, and i honestly have no idea who it might be (time might tell) it doesn't look as if he/she is doing any harm (yet) ha ha.Sometimes when i find trolls on my threads, i just sit back and smile. Ok, i admit i sometimes get irritated if they are being... irrational, but i really think you should just relax in this case, because if it is a troll, they might be giggling mightily if you get all upset.
Actually, i'm kinda glad the debate re the amino acids -->> life formation has been opened again, because it made me realize that i had not investigated the latest material regarding the issue in a lot of detail, and certainly not recently, so i'd like to put that on my list as something to read more about soon.
I have a few Big-bang books on my list as well, and i really need a trigger to push me into actually reading them.
It's 2013 and trolls like this still appear? Perhaps the world would be better off if it ended in 2012 and erased all the stupidity. LOL!
Trav. I would love for you to post something here (I don't think it's you as the sock puppet). If you did, maybe we could have a good discussion and I could learn a lot about topics that I am very unfamiliar with.This person has done nothing but be insulting and when asked to present evidence in support of his views, has only given some vapid anecdotal evidence. I just don't have the patience right now.
But Trav. If you were post something, I would love the fodder for positive discussion. Thanks for the words of encouragement.
I'm sure we could have a nice discussion, but what i mean to say, is that i've been wanting to read more on the topics of 1) the Big bang - the most recent post- Hawkins theories and positions, and2) How possible/probable spontaneous life formation really is.
I'll be sure to be back once i have read up a bit more, thanks! This is actually just the kind of prompt that i needed. :)
Those quotation marks are so beautifule, Stephen M, Sir. My theory of the origin of our present troll is that he was only recently born, just popped out of the ole birth canal, and hasn't yet learned for his own self that goodreads and more so among the smart set that reads stuff like Origin of Species and such not doesn't much take to unruly internet behavior of the sort which is common and all elsewhere and everywhere. He'll shape up into a nice little trollette before too many more whippings. Can I get an amen and can we get a little discipline in here?
LOL, Nathan, i love to see yew in action. Do you enjoy seeing my LOL'ing as well?
Traveller wrote: "LOL, Nathan, i love to see yew in action. Do you enjoy seeing my LOL'ing as well?"Let me see if I can do this.
"LOL."
How'd eye do?
Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Traveller wrote: "LOL, Nathan, i love to see yew in action. Do you enjoy seeing my LOL'ing as well?"Let me see if I can do this.
"LOL."
How'd eye do?"
Hi 5!
Feels a bit strange at first, but it grows on you.
Traveller wrote: "Feels a bit strange at first, but it grows on you. "R their any others I should have a goe at?
*walks in*...
...
*hurriedly walks out*
Heheheheh- it's working!PS: @ Nathan: have a goe at ROFL, there's more to it.
To wit.
Dpocci wrote: "There is a strong consensus among actual biologists of spontaneous formation."I would love to see an actual biologist of spontaneous formation.
I've never seen one, but my imagination runs wild.
Traveller wrote: "Dpocci wrote: "There is a strong consensus among actual biologists of spontaneous formation."I would love to see an actual biologist of spontaneous formation.
I've never seen one, but my imaginat..."
Oh, come, Traveller! Surely all biologists are spontaneously formed. Nobody plans a biologist!
And I've spent the last 12 years working very closely with biologists. Too closely... I can safely say that there's no such thing as a "strong consensus among actual biologists".
Traveller wrote: "I'm sure we could have a nice discussion, but what i mean to say, is that i've been wanting to read more on the topics of 1) the Big bang - the most recent post- Hawkins theories and positions, and..."Try:
A Universe from Nothing Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing. otoh, it didn't impress me: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Thanks for the links Derek!I don't pretend to know the nuances (if there are any) of the sock-puppet's argument but it seemed like it focused more on the beginning of life on earth. So, perhaps he is suggesting divine intervention to bring about amino acids? I don't know. I would like to learn more about theories on the origin of life on earth.
I have watched a couple Lawrence Krauss videos and didn't find the answers I was really looking for. That's no surprise and they might be too lofty of expectations. I'm off to read your review.
In regards to the divine amino acids, there's the Miller-Urey experiment to consider, which suggests that the conditions of early Earth favored spontaneous formation of organic molecules from inorganic (methane, water, etc), involving temperature changes and lightning.Not much divinity in that, unless you want to bring Zeus into the equation.
I've heard of that one as well Aubrey. Thanks for bringing it up.I am sympathetic with the whole "how could it all have begun? Kalam cosmological" argument for God, in its various forms. There's also the closely related "why there is anything at all" question.
I am sympathetic because it makes me think that the existence of a God could be possible. But it's only a possibility. It's certainly not grounds to make any kind of assertion at all. And I think that's a crucial distinction that is lost on a lot of people.
Stephen M wrote: "I've heard of that one as well Aubrey. Thanks for bringing it up.I am sympathetic with the whole "how could it all have begun? Kalam co..."
I agree completely.
Derek wrote: "Oh, come, Traveller! Surely all biologists are spontaneously formed. Nobody plans a biologist!"
Well.... i disagree.
Firstly when they are formed in the womb, that is not a spontaneous formation. The process had a catalyst. I could explain, but...
Secondly, just the formation of the person alone, does not imply automatic biologistness. It still has to form into a biologist from just being a plain human being. ..and that transformation from non-biologist human beings, into actual biologists- (and note, we here are working with actual biologists, not pseudo, or quasi, or imaginary biologists), also require catalysts.
So i think it will be quite easy for me to refute your claim. ;)
Thanks for the rec. I actually think i might already own that book.
Traveller wrote: "Derek wrote: "Oh, come, Traveller! Surely all biologists are spontaneously formed. Nobody plans a biologist!"Well.... i disagree."
I think we have a problem of definitions. OK, sure, the embryo doesn't form spontaneously, so you don't really have to explain that to me, but it doesn't form as a "biologist", so I think you're throwing out a red herring (Clupea harengus), here.
And while there are actions that promote the formation of a "biologist" from a non-biologist larva, I believe they are essentially internal to the instar - external forces do not operate to create the biologist. This would fit most definitions of .
