Darwin

so are darwin's original books worth reading? readable even? or have they been superseded by modern stuff?

I've never read it, but I always planned to write a novel that stole its chapter titles from Descent of Man:

Part One - Introduction

Chapter I - The Evidence of the Descent of Man from some Lower Form

Chapter II - On the Manner of Development of Man from some Lower Form

Chapter III - Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals

Chapter IV - Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals (continued)

Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

Chapter VI - On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man

Chapter VII - On the Races of Man

Part Two - Chapter VIII - Principles of Sexual Selection

Chapter IX - Secondary Sexual Characters in the Lower Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Chapter X - Secondary Sexual Characters of Insects

Chapter XI - Insects, Continued- Order Lepidoptera. Butterflies and Moths

Chapter XII - Secondary Sexual Characters of Fishes, Amphibians,and Reptiles

Chapter XIII - Secondary Sexual Characters of Birds

Chapter XIV - Birds- Continued

Chapter XV - Birds- Continued

Chapter XVI - Birds-Concluded

Chapter XVII - Secondary Sexual Characters of Mammals

Chapter XVIII - Secondary Sexual Characters of Mammals- Continued

Part Three - Chapter XIX - Secondary Sexual Characters of Man

Chapter XX - Secondary Sexual Characters of Man-Continued

Chapter XXI - General Summary and Conclusion

Supplemental Note - On sexual Selection in Relation to Monkeys

They're very readable! Voyage of the Beagle is a good read.

Birds should have been listed last. In my opinion, they are far more evolutionarily streamlined & are better than mammals.

http://www.darwinday.org/events/

http://www.darwin200.org/

One of the good guys

Thanks for creating evolution, mister.

Before Darwin wrote his books biology was almost purely a descriptive science that sorted living things into groups, described what they looked like, where they lived and what they ate, and little else; the idea of evolution was just a vague thought entertained by a few crackpots, with nothing to back it up.

After Darwin wrote The Origin of Species evolution instantly became a powerful tool that explained vast expanses of biology and suddenly all those classifications and observations started to make sense as they never did before. He did such an exacting and thoroughgoing job of it that even Alfred Russell Wallace, who independently discovered natural selection, totally deferred to Darwin and always called the new science "Darwinism".

In 150 years of intensive bilogical research, very very little in Darwin's original books has been refuted or even modified in its fundamental concepts. You could almost use them as textbooks today.

My favorite line in any Simpsons ep is something like:

NED: We want you to stop teaching Darwinian evolution in our schools!
PRINCIPAL SKINNER: Can I teach Lamarkian evolution?

http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/1/1534327ece5d347f8fe2828c8fdb7677/giraffe.gif

THIS IS NOT HOW INHERITANCE WORKS

THANKING U DARWIN FOR SAYING FUCK OFF TO THE EXPANDO-NECK GIRAFFES

...except he didn't know anything about how inheritance worked!

Before the re-discovery of Mendel's work in the early 20th century most naturalists in Darwin's day, including Darwin himself, accepted some form of the inheritance of acquired traits.

But that's just nitpicking. Darwin's the shit.

I just finished reading "The Origin of Species" to honor this dude. Such awesome things, evolution and natural selection.

i'm considering starting 'origin of species' today, in honor of the old boy. i've got a nice replica of the first edition, original typeset and all.

My favorite line in any Simpsons ep is something like:

NED: We want you to stop teaching Darwinian evolution in our schools!
PRINCIPAL SKINNER: Can I teach Lamarkian evolution?

don't forget when mr burns is explaining to a television audience why the three-eyed fish is a naturally occurring variation, not a genetic mutation, and he goes "but don't take my word for it -- let's ask an actor portraying charles darwin what he thinks!"

Sorry, I know, both Darwin & his pops got ideas from/respected Lamarck, who is a pretty interesting dude in his own right (not to derail thread).

who else is surprised it's as high as 39%?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

I hate the way that article, and all the debates around this, conflate evolution with natural selection.

What an awful question : "Do you, personally, believe in the theory of evolution?
" ... belief is a very loaded word, v. much entangled with religion - as posed, it almost amounts to "do you reject God?"

if the question was "do you think that the evidence in support of theories of evolution and natural selection is strong enough to use them as a basis for further scientific inquiry" then I reckon you'd have a much more reasonable response.

They should just ask "Do you think that characteristics are passed down from one generation to the next?"

Or "Do you think that species change over time?"

I'm not doing very well here, but they could find a formula that didn't include the e word.

"Do you think that the universe changes over time, or that everything is entirely static?"

thing is, tho, is that lots of ID types think that there is *some* kind of evolution going on, just that it's guided by the invisible hand or whatever, and that major species jumps have been mediated by God

cf the "irreducible complexity" dude that latebloomer linked to on another thread. eyes/clotting mechanisms/immune systems/whatever are proof that SOME kind of intelligence was at work. dude otherwise believes in an old earth/universe, and local selection pressures and the like

haven't kept up with the news, but i think that this has been the Church's take, as well?

That's kind of my point: the complete failure of the media to distinguish between the phenomenon (evolution) and the theory describing its cause (natural selection) and the mechanism by which it happens (genetics) annoys the hell out of me. Because denying evolution is on a whole different level of craziness to challenging natural selection, which IS a theory, and is kind of impossible to prove, although I wholeheartedly agree with it, myself.

ID accepts evolution, but not natural selection, right? Although presumably that would come as a shock to some of its adherents.

i don't keep up with ID stuff, but i'm sure *some* are okay with natural selection? in the thickest, "only the strong survive" kinda way. because, while natural selection (broadly defined) might still be a theory, there are plenty of compelling data to support it.

(cf microbial selection pressures like antibiotic proliferation, etc)

again, don't keep up with ID literature, but: i was under the impression that ID types were pushing the idea that certain archetypical or fundamental structures/processes had been designed (DNA, "eyes" *in general*, "nervous systems" *in general*) and that everything we see now is a byproduct of that initial design. the genesis of supposedly ancient biological ...stuff is something we can only extrapolate, making it an easy target for people that want to teach the controversy.

but as i said, i don't keep up with this stuff at atll

i wonder how many americans believe in dark matter, the theory of relativity, and wormholes

http://i40.tinypic.com/2573x9c.gif

Anyone been to see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/darwin/ yet? Should I go tomorrow?

I've never read it, but I always planned to write a novel that stole its chapter titles from Descent of Man:

i stole this from u btw

sucka

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

Good luck USA. Oh wait The Telegraph has another piece on the film which uncritically lists the 'top five' arguments for creation. In fairness though it lists the top five arguments for evolution too, one of which apparently is "Space - Objects in space, which are more than 8,000 light years away, can be seen from earth."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6163313/Creation-film-sparks-evolution-arguments.html

More like Darlose, innit?

"according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. "

um, what?

"We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules. "

Sorry, SF.

But I really think it's having a hard time finding a distributor in the US because it's a historical film not related to the British royalty or Jane Austen.