Evolution: the Facts.

[fishkr]

I think your criticism is misplaced. After all, most evolutionists have never read Darwin either.

Why would they? He was the first person to write about the theory of evolution. Science progresses, it gets better and better, so we should want to read the last person to write about evolution, not the first.

Darwin wrote his book a hundred and fifty years ago. He knew nothing about genetics and DNA, and he didn't know about all the excellent fossils recovered from the fossil record since his time. If someone asked me for the best proof of the theory of evolution, then about 90% of what I'd say would be stuff that Darwin never heard of.

I've read Darwin, 'cos I'm interested in the history of science, and because it's interesting to watch a genius figure things out. But I wouldn't recommend his book to someone who was interested in biology as we now understand it.

Now you're talking sense. It's fine if they don't read Darwin, but most of 'em have also apparently missed out on the sort of science which can be found in basic textbooks about biology which I learnt in school as a teenager.

Well . . . C.D. may have been writing 150 years ago, but reading him, for me, is spellbinding. I have E.O. Wilson's compilation in front of me and it's pretty hard to top. I guess Wilson, an argueably qualified "Evolutionist" got past your instant gratification principle. So it would seem from the preface anyway.

If "evolutionists" don't read Darwin because of an abundance of new information, then it's their loss. That's like saying you don't need to hear Mozart because you got Stravinsky. Etc.

Interesting you mention Darwin not knowing about DNA, because this to me is one of the best who-dunnit aspects of Origin, you can just feel the tension, that he understood that the actual mechanism of heredity was just beyond his grasp.

Scientific knowledge is about progression, the building of observation, experiment, and all the mundane stuff, up and over the backs of all the worker ants and stellar minds. Maybe there are just a handfull of examples of real genius accessable to math impaired minds like mine. String theory is such a stretch (*) that I welcome a great idea that I can get my head around. And even if the idea IS 150 years old, the shot is still rattling walls around the world.

Another reason to read Darwin's actual words is that is the best way to appreciate the quality of a really good brain.

Survival of the fittest is a simple idea, in hindsight. Reading the Voyage of the Beagle will fill in blanks you couldn't think of unless you were on deck or in the Pampas with him, or as a fall-back, reading what for me is a great story of the ultimate Paradise Lost. The context Voyage provides sets the stage for Origin and Descent in a way . . . well the proportions are almost Biblical. (sorry)

As a side note, another really interesting thing about reading Voyage, to a modern mind at least, is that 150 years ago Darwin was constantly encountering human caused extinction, habitat destruction, etc., many prescient issues. Hearing about the same dynamics presenting themselves in Darwin's time is a bit shocking.

M

 

[fishkr]

I

Why would they? He was the first person to write about the theory of evolution. Science progresses, it gets better and better, so we should want to read the last person to write about evolution, not the first.

.

And he was not the first person to write about a theory of evolution. Darwin identified the causality of natural selection. A lot of people make that mistake.

M

 

[steenkh]

If "evolutionists" don't read Darwin because of an abundance of new information, then it's their loss. That's like saying you don't need to hear Mozart because you got Stravinsky. Etc.

I cannot agree here. Science is not art, though writing a science paper may be so. In order to understand science, it is not necessary to read the history of that science, only the newest textbooks. How many physicists are reading the the papers of Bohr today?

I believe I have a working knowledge of evolutionary theory, even though like the creationists I have never in my life read any other biology textbook than what was given to me at school, and to be honest, that was pretty lousy stuff. I have, of course, read lots of other stuff, not least on the internet, and this forum is a great science teacher where it is even possible to ask questions and get top answers back. The difference between people like me and the creationists is that I am willing to absorb what is presented to me, and they have hardened themselves against anything that is not presented by their preacher.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why would they? He was the first person to write about the theory of evolution. Science progresses, it gets better and better, so we should want to read the last person to write about evolution, not the first.

And he was not the first person to write about a theory of evolution. Darwin identified the causality of natural selection. A lot of people make that mistake.

Actually you're both correct and Dr. A didn't make a mistake. Darwin was not the first person to write about a theory of evolution, but he was indeed the first to write about the theory of evolution as it has survived with some modification to this day.

 

[EHLO]

.
.
Primordial soup -> life + ~3-4 bn years = humans doing repairs in space to a vehicle capable of carrying them there and [hopefully] getting them back.
.
.

The Primordial soup -> life step makes me cringe a little. Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread but do you intend to tackle abiogenesis as well, or is there a more definitive way to start the evolution story?

 

[The Atheist]

The Primordial soup -> life step makes me cringe a little. Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread but do you intend to tackle abiogenesis as well, or is there a more definitive way to start the evolution story?

Well, that's really where evolution starts, so it needs to be at the front.

I can't separate it from the rest of evolution and I don't think we should.

Open to opinion, though.

 

[fishkr]

Actually you're both correct and Dr. A didn't make a mistake. Darwin was not the first person to write about a theory of evolution, but he was indeed the first to write about the theory of evolution as it has survived with some modification to this day.

Actually, if my memory serves me Wallace and Darwin shared the opportunity of the first publication of what is we now call Darwins theory. It was very nearly Wallace's theory - Darwin had thought of natural selection first, but published nothing on it for 30 years, heard that the younger Wallace had come across the same idea, and was then pressed to publish.

As I've read it, it's a great story of Victorian chivalry. When Dr. Hooker heard of Alfred Wallace's discovery, long after Darwin's, he brought the two of them together on the first presentation of Natural Selection. So no, Darwin was not the first. I guess I've just contradicted my earlier post.

M

 

[fishkr]

I cannot agree here. Science is not art, though writing a science paper may be so. In order to understand science, it is not necessary to read the history of that science, only the newest textbooks. How many physicists are reading the the papers of Bohr today?

Yes, you can also read the Cliff Notes version of a great novel . But why would you want to?

Of course you can absorb data about evolution without going back and actually reading Darwin. My point is that if you do, you are missing out on something important. It wasn't just the idea of Natural Selection that made Darwin a great man. The quality of his thinking drips off (almost) every page. O.K. a lot of it is better than a sleeping pill, but still worth the effort . . .

I fundamentally dissagree that learning the history of science isn't necessary for a complete understanding of an idea. By suggesting this you are overlooking one of the most important aspects of scientific knowledge - that theory must be linked to previous knowledge, either confirming it or over-turning it. Scientific knowledge is a great example of how context, history if you will, really does matter. Scientific ideas are 5 dimensional. You can't get the whole picture taking in just 4.

Forget Origin if you want, read other later works on theory, there are many great ones. But read Voyage of the Beagle. You will be shocked at how modern, clear, and bright Darwin sounds today, and what an incredible observer he was.

Read him because you will see how the theory of natural selection "evolved' in his mind as he travelled the world and took in the myriad of plants, animals, fossils, geological structures, etc. and CONNECTED his experiences with his really vast, ecclectic learning. He really did earn his place in history.

Lastly, read him so you can say you did. It's an trump card when duelling with a creationist. "Have you actually read Darwin? No? Well I've read the Bible . . . (you fill in the rest)"

M

 

[steenkh]

But read Voyage of the Beagle. You will be shocked at how modern, clear, and bright Darwin sounds today, and what an incredible observer he was.

My main interest is actually history, and I might read Darwin because of that, but the experience that you describe is a common one when reading diaries of practically any period: the people at the time were often surprisingly modern in their thinking (when stripped of religion and prejudices) and with the means of their time they clearly came to the same solutions of problems that we come today.

Lastly, read him so you can say you did. It's an trump card when duelling with a creationist. "Have you actually read Darwin? No? Well I've read the Bible . . . (you fill in the rest)"

This is clearly a great argument that I might use some day, but it also opens up for attacks from creationists that think that Darwin's person is in any way important to the theory today. (You know, the false recant of Darwin on his death-bed; false accusations that he was a racist, and that the entire theory must therefore be wrong, and so on)

 

[articulett]

You can download it and listen to it when you are doing chores. It makes things like shopping in crowded grocery stories much more pleasant if you listen on an mp3-- plus it's well written, poetic, and very easy to understand. Plus, it is more inspirational than any bible. You get to hear Darwin as he figures things out and pieces his theory together and the excitement of understanding something for the first time.

http://librivox.org/the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/

You'll probably find yourself really liking it in spite of yourself. I've listened to bits and pieces while at the dentist, and dental work has never been so fun. I'm a big fan of skeptic podcasts too and have posted my favorites in the skeptic section. There are some great science podcasts too. PM me if you are interested.

Darwin is so much easier to understand than creationists, that's for sure. And much more comprehensible than the bible.

 

[fishkr]

false accusations that he was a racist, and that the entire theory must therefore be wrong, and so on)

Ouch. Well, there lies one potential rub. While not exactly racist, per se, many examples exist in Voyage, commentary on aboriginal people for example, that are strongly ethnocentric. Let's just say that, judging from Darwin, Victorians may not have felt compelled to express themselves n a P.C. way regarding other cultures. Again, it's a matter of context. Rue Brittania and all that . . .

M

 

[fishkr]

You can download it and listen to it when you are doing chores. It makes things like shopping in crowded grocery stories much more pleasant if you listen on an mp3-- plus it's well written, poetic, and very easy to understand. Plus, it is more inspirational than any bible. You get to hear Darwin as he figures things out and pieces his theory together and the excitement of understanding something for the first time.

http://librivox.org/the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/

You'll probably find yourself really liking it in spite of yourself. I've listened to bits and pieces while at the dentist, and dental work has never been so fun. I'm a big fan of skeptic podcasts too and have posted my favorites in the skeptic section. There are some great science podcasts too. PM me if you are interested.

Darwin is so much easier to understand than creationists, that's for sure. And much more comprehensible than the bible.

This sounds like a terrific idea! I'll check it out.


Your comment on his excitement about discovery is spot on. That's exactly why I find this work so moving, you're looking over his shoulder as he makes each connection, you can share his thoughts, all the while knowing, with hindsight, how important it was. Hero worship.

 

[articulett]

And I just think how well Darwin as been validated and vindicated in the years since he first wrote Origins... The mapping and comparison of human and chimp genomes (with the chromosome 2 fusion thing) has been amazing.

 

[The Atheist]

Rue Brittania and all that . . .

Sorry, but it actually makes so much more sense like that!

 

[tracer]

Well, [the primordial soup -> life step] really where evolution starts, so it needs to be at the front.

I can't separate it from the rest of evolution and I don't think we should.

Open to opinion, though.

ACK!!!

You must must must make it absolutely clear that the theories on how the first self-replicating life arose are completely separate and distinct from the theories on how evolution has progressed since then.

Yes, Creationists often do pull the old bait-and-switch of asking, "So how did the first life get here, then?" in discussions of common descent and natural selection. But that doesn't mean that those theories should be lumped together as part of the "evolution" package, because they are not part of it. The very first life could have arisen because an almighty deity screamed "Fiat lux!" in Ecclesiastical Latin, and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity or lack thereof of the evolutionary process that took hold thereafter.

 

[steenkh]

Ouch. Well, there lies one potential rub. While not exactly racist, per se, many examples exist in Voyage, commentary on aboriginal people for example, that are strongly ethnocentric.

That was in times where racism (or ethnocentrism) was the norm. We cannot judge history from modern standards. I have seen nothing that indicates that Darwin was worse than his contemporaries.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have never, ever once, spoken with a creationist or ID person that has bothered to read Darwin. Most I've come across cannot even quote a book on the subject.

I often share forums with creationists/ID supporters who are quite well-read. They usually admit to having read even Dawkins. It's all a load of hockey though and here are the reasons why: [insert standard list of PRATTs].

This why I hate women. Women virtually never have that trouble, they save after every page.

Rubbish! Utter tripe! Completely wrong!

 

[The Atheist]

ACK!!!

You must must must make it absolutely clear that the theories on how the first self-replicating life arose are completely separate and distinct from the theories on how evolution has progressed since then.

Yes, Creationists often do pull the old bait-and-switch of asking, "So how did the first life get here, then?" in discussions of common descent and natural selection. But that doesn't mean that those theories should be lumped together as part of the "evolution" package, because they are not part of it. The very first life could have arisen because an almighty deity screamed "Fiat lux!" in Ecclesiastical Latin, and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity or lack thereof of the evolutionary process that took hold thereafter.

I agree, evolution stands on its own, but you can't divorce the start of life from it in any way. Evolution only got a chance to work thanks to life being present. Rocks, I believe, haven't evolved at all.

How do you suggest the two subjects are kept separated?

 

[arthwollipot]

Easy - evolution and abiogenesis are both essential components of naturalism - but the one does not necessarily depend on the other. Evolution would still work even if life was divinely created, and can easily be examined and demonstrated without any kind of reference to abiogenesis. Naturalism, however, requires both.

 

[The Atheist]

Easy - evolution and abiogenesis are both essential components of naturalism - but the one does not necessarily depend on the other. Evolution would still work even if life was divinely created, and can easily be examined and demonstrated without any kind of reference to abiogenesis. Naturalism, however, requires both.

No, I don't buy the divinely-created first organism as fitting with evolution at all. If the first organism was divinely-inspired, then that organism could have contained the necessary equipment to evolve in the manner prescribed by its creator.

Hey, if the problem's insurmountable, then I'd rather let the entire thing go - either we have sufficient explanation for the initial life form or we don't. If we don't, the whole evolution debate becomes quite meaningless. Saying that evolution works regardless is just opening the way for a "goddidit", in which case I may as well hop on the creationist bandwagon Arti's so obsessed with putting me on.

I'm quite happy to go with a theory for the start of life which has a few holes - as long as we can show that amino acids can either form spontaneously or arrive from space, I see no real problem. The fact that we can't pin-point an exact method is merely a case of us not having had the ability to study DNA for very long. There's no doubt in my mind that we will discover a means of replicating the first origins of life in the future.