On the Origin of the Species



On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life , Eugenia ,On the Origin of the Species

Francis Darwin, of astronomer

[KINDLE] ❂ On the Origin of the Species ❅ Charles Darwin – E17streets4all.co.uk
  • Paperback
  • 868 pages
  • On the Origin of the Species
  • Charles Darwin
  • Arabic
  • 10 February 2019

10 thoughts on “On the Origin of the Species

  1. says:

    such a freakin genius and the sadest part is, that his science literally killed him if you ve read a lot in Darwin as I have you come to understand that as a religious man, his studies seriously conflicted with his beliefs I hate it when I hear someone say that Darwin says, we come from monkeys because that is not the case.his theory is on EVOLUTION, not monkeys all he wanted people to understand was adaptation and survival of the fittest is really a simple concept, and daily life proves just that.his theories don t have to impede on your beliefs in God he was a Christian man, himself, but could still see the science before his very eyes give it a shot if you are intrigued by species changing, growing, dying, extinction, over time

  2. says:

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life On Natural selection Natural selection, Charles Darwin Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations Charles Darwin popularized the term Natural selection , contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not 1972 1351 536 19 1359 618 1363 1380 9644072677 618 1389 9786005541877 1394 77 9786007339534 1859

  3. says:

    Charles Darwin changed the world when he wrote this book.I mean if you think about it logically, no other book has had such a powerful impact on the way humanity views the earth yes, we have countless religious doctrine, but never before had there been a book that so drastically alternated our perceptions of the mechanisms that are behind our existence I m not talking about on a spiritual level, a level of ideas that cannot be scientifically proven or unproven, but on an actual physical level These ideas weren t accepted overnight, few things are, but over time they began to be and accepted Even today we still refer to Darwin s ideas as the theory of Evolution despite the fact that it is now empirically proven as to how we got where we are It is, generally speaking, a culturally accepted idea The fact that we still refer to something most accept to be fact as a theory is a phenomenon It s unusual Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not seek to debunk any religious beliefs In fact, the research he carried out put him in constant confusion about his own Christianity For a time he believed religion and science could work together he believed that science helped to explain some of the ideas in creation stories, but eventually he stopped believing He lost his faith and embraced the logical mind of the scientist again, he didn t seek to counter religion It was just a simple case that over time he could no longer personally and logically believe in it it could not be proved rationally As a student of literature, as a lover of stories, history, nature and narrative, I find myself drawn to ideas of religion and science For anybody to call religion groundless I say this from my own agnostically driven perspective is to divulge a massive lack of judgment Without wanting to offend any atheists, or anybody of faith, we will never know either way which is ultimately right But, I do most ardently think that we can only begin to understand what it is to be human by reading and exploring the ideas of both religion and science They have both been perpetuated by man, so I think we owe it to ourselves to try and understand why Some of you may have noticed how eclectic my reading tastes have become I pretty much read anything I have many reading lists both shortlists and longlists but four works I simply need to read in my lifetime are The Qur an I have a beautiful edition I picked up from a used book store a late 19th Century edition , The King James Bible I ve recently finished genesis , Relativity The Special and the General Theory by Einstein and A Brief History of Time by Hawkins The point is, I think in today s world we need to understand both religion and science Both parts form a larger part of our society Well, anyway, that was a rather large digression I read the origin of species back in 2013 for the first time My second reading was of a gloss over of certain key ideas, and a revisit of passages that I flagged down before The ideas in the book are obviously ground breaking, though not the first historical example of them But, for me, this book is of a slog than leisure driven reading The writing isn t great and it is terribly repetitive at times, but I suppose that s what comes with observing the natural world in such scientific detail From the findings here Darwin would eventually go on to lay down his full arguments in The Decent of Man, a read that sounds compelling and all encompassing So it s another one to add to my list

  4. says:

    Dear Carol,Thank you for your mail, and of course I remember meeting you on the flight last month It was a very interesting discussion and I m still thinking about it The semester has now started here at Creationist U and I am working hard, but I found time to read the book you recommended And I m glad I did, because it was really a lot better than I thought it would be.I guess I was expecting Darwin to be like Richard Dawkins, but he was respectful of religious ideas And it was great that he liked Paley s Natural Theology so much he says he almost knew it by heart We read Paley last year in History of Creation Science, and I also thought it was a terrific book So I could see Darwin was an open minded person who was prepared to look at both sides of the question Richard Dawkins could learn a lot from that The way he sets up his argument is smart He starts off talking about how stockbreeders can improve their breed well, I m a country boy, and I could see he knew his stuff This is someone who s spent time down at the farm and understands how country people feel about livestock And I liked that he d done all that work raising pigeons Not the kind of scientist who just hangs out at the lab all day After that, he introduces his Big Idea about the survival of the fittest and he almost made evolution sound sensible He s a good writer And then he was honest when he explained all the problems with the theory He really got me I was wondering if he was going to mention any of that stuff, and a page later he came out and said just what I was thinking Nice work, Mr Darwin But I did wonder what he was doing, cutting out the ground from under his own feet He said he could explain things like the eye and how bees could evolve to make honeycombs, but even if he was real good at making his case, I wasn t buying any.So by the halfway mark, I figured he was done, but like ol Dubya used to say, I misunderestimated him he d saved all his best stuff for last He had some good shots I got to admit, he made me think Why does God put the species that look alike in the same place Like he says, it is weird how you have a mountain range, and there s one kind of animals and plants on one side, and a different kind on the other side God s ways are inscrutable to us, but why does He care about those mountains And the islands, they were even worse He says if you look at the species on a lot of islands, you don t have any mammals there, except you do have bats Why I could see where he was going with this one the bats could blow in off the mainland and evolve, but other mammals couldn t do that I admit it, I don t have an answer, except maybe God s testing our faith again But I can see not everyone will like that I m still wondering about those bats Okay Mr Darwin, I said it already but I ll say it again, you were a smart guy So how s life at MIT And I hope you read the book I recommended to you A Canticle for Leibowitz will show you that faith and science have in common than you might think Take care,Bob

  5. says:

    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.

  6. says:

    One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species It is amazing to think that this mild, scientific book published a little less than 155 years ago caused and is still causing such a complete storm I m surprised at how adapted we have become or at least the segment of those people on the planet who don t reject Darwin s theory of natural selection as counter to their own idea of the way God makes and shakes to Darwin s revolutionary idea s Like with many of the pantheon of scientific geniuses Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc there was a bit of random chance involved The ground was ready for Darwin s adapted seed There were enough scholars and scientists and rationalists around to carry his idea s hither and his theory thither So while this book, and Darwin himself, were both stellar examples of scientific restraint, the force and momentum of OftS can t be under appreciated It was just the right time and right place for a scientific revolution Darwin and his little book walked by a labour of scientific mouldywarps who happened to find themselves on the chalk cliffs of science, pushed those sterile hybrids off, and never looked back Evolve bitches

  7. says:

    Ah, you can t really review a book like this It s almost complete transcended its role as a seminal scientific tome and become a legitimate historic artefact You can t review a historic artefact.This is a fantastic read, even viewed in a completely different way to how it would have been read at the time It really is amazing how much evolutionary biology Darwin was able to formulate almost a century before Watson and Crick s discovery of DNA It boggles the mind what Darwin could have been capable of if he d had access to the last 150 years of genetic research.

  8. says:

    Too much to unpack here and not an easy read as it was written 150 years ago Despite all of the knocks against reading Origin for enjoyment, I can only express extreme awe and state the obvious how much of a genius Darwin was From his theory of natural selection to glacier theory, to hybrid plants, to fossil theory and a dozen other biological and geological theories that he developed or contributed to, it is remarkable to me how very little Darwin got wrong in a book that was 600 pages long We live in a science based world, or at least we like to think so, and this man manages to remain so relevant It is the scientific method at its best, one part rigorous logic, one part observation, and one part intuition The recipe works.

  9. says:

    I swear I cannot figure what all the fuss is about This is a science book It was sometimes a bit tough to read because of the depth into detail If I were an anthropologist I m sure I would appreciate that detail, but as a layman it did at times seem too thick If I were lost in an uncivilized world and had only two books, I would want a Webster s dictionary and this Origin of Species The dictionary to learn word definitions and this book to learn about the flora and fauna around me For all those people who get upset because you think this book may contradict another one you are so fond of, just be very careful not to fall off the edge of the flat 6,ooo year old earthmgc

  10. says:

    Decry or applaud it, there s no question this work has had a profound effect not just on science, but the culture at large What I wouldn t read this book for is the science, or in an effort to either defend or refute the argument for evolution The core of Darwin s argument certainly is still what was taught in my Catholic high school biology class taught by a nun In a nutshell, the theory is that given there are wide ranging subtle Variations among organisms, the Malthusian Struggle for Existence causes by means of Natural Selection of the inheritable traits that are the best Adaptations to the environment the Origin of Species or as Darwin calls it, the theory of descent with modification But, after all, this book is now over 150 years old Science is about explaining natural phenomenon and correcting mistakes through observation, experimentation and falsification not dogma and so is always a moving target I know that But I still raised an eyebrow when in the first chapter of the book Darwin said he believed the most frequent cause of variability was caused by the experiences of the parents before conception such as cows udders being larger in countries where they re milked because the habit of milking by itself alters in the reproductive organs what is inherited by the next generation WTF Darwin When Darwin first propounded his theory of evolution a word never used in the book by the way through natural selection, Mendel had yet to discover the basic principles of genetics in his experiments with peas and Watson and Crick had yet to unravel the structure of DNA Nor was continental drift known and understood, so there were notable gaps in Darwin s reasoning that has since been filled Stephen Jay Gould, one of the staunchest defenders and popularizers of evolution is famous within science particularly for where he differs from Darwin Darwin thought changes in species were very gradual Gould favors punctuated equilibrium where there are rapid changes followed by long periods of stability That s why scientists today talk of the theory of evolution, not of Darwinism as if a scientific principle is an unchanging creed and Origin of Species scripture.So, the book is dated and filled with lots of details I m sure are just plain wrong and might be onerous to unlearn That does make me reluctant to give this book top marks despite its profound impact Someone interested in modern evolutionary science would be better off picking up a copy of a book by Jared Diamond, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan although by now I suppose his very readable Dragons of Eden is dated or Stephen Jay Gould So, was there no value in reading On the Origin of Species I wouldn t say that It s surprisingly readable or at least understandable There are definitely dry passages that were a slog to get through, my eyes glazing over as Darwin gave example after exhaustive example to make his points However, I couldn t help but be impressed by the knowledge of nature shown by his wide ranging examples from every continent from ants and bees and algae to pigeons to zebras Given the way he cited various authorities and spoke about his own experiments, I definitely felt that here was a master generalist and enthusiast on nature Moreover Darwin does have a gift for metaphor and illustrative examples I was particularly taken by his explanation of inter crossing and the function of sex in creating biological diversity I also was struck by how cautious and civil in tone Darwin is in his arguments, devoting an entire chapter on what he saw could be the flaws and holes in his theory particularly the issues of transitions between species and intermediate forms Bottom line Arguably this specific book had as much influence on the literature and politics of the next century as Freud or Marx, so I think there is historical value in reading this, preferably in the first edition which is what I read that exploded upon the world in 1859.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *