next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</a&
James’ comment is a bit of heresy, but I too admit to reading ‘The Origin’ superficially as a student and also found it quite dull at that time. Someone in Biology at Dalhousie decided to re-read it for the 150th anniversary of the 1st edition (1859), and a small group of us did just that, one chapter at a time. This totally changed my opinion, though I think it depends partly on which edition you read. A few things to put the book in perspective as to its readability:
1) Wallace catch-up: Darwin received a big shock and knew he was in danger of being scooped by A. R. Wallace, who had written to Darwin from S.E. Asia where he was collecting, disclosing that he had had the same idea while recuperating from severe illness (malaria?). The idea of evolution itself was not popular but was certainly not original (Erasmus Darwin avowed it) and much older than either of them: the originality of the Darwin-Wallace idea was as the explanation (mechanism) for evolution: natural selection, competition between individuals leading to the greater success of some (therefore more surviving offspring), later called 'survival of the fittest'. Wallace did not have much weight of evidence developed, though, just the basic idea, while Darwin had the idea over a decade earlier and had been amassing a huge amount of supporting evidence of various kinds for years. This got cobbled together hastily as 'The Origin', laying out much of this evidence to make the story as complete as possible. This was expressed cautiously with little fanfare, to counter the inevitable backlash expected to come from creationist-religious sources (his wife was devoutly religious and worried about his book). Many think that Darwin must have been a closet atheist, so it is a miracle (really) that his colleagues managed to get him buried in Westminster Abbey.
2) No genetics yet to explain heritable persistence of new characteristics. Genetics (discrete particulate inheritance of indivisible genes on chromosomes) following rediscovery of Mendel did not get going until the early 20th century with T.H. Morgan. Darwin and others believed in blended inheritance, the seeming consequence of which is that any new selected mutant’s advantage would gradually get diluted out and lost by cross-breeding with the original stock. It is hard to read parts of The Origin, now it is known how it really works, with indivisible Mendelian characters: Darwin along with everyone else simply did not understand inheritance.
3) No pictures in it (well almost none, and only one perfunctory Tree of Life). Illustrations in books and scientific papers used to be very expensive, colour especially, but now any science book or paper is replete with numerous illustrations usually in colour. This reflects the switch to the cheaper, faster digital image processing in the 1980s, plus the realization in science that human communication is dominantly visual so illustration are needed to allow easier interpretation of associated complex test. Some non-science Faculty of Arts-type people still haven't cottoned on to this.
4) Unfamiliar dense writing style. People with English backgrounds often write longer sentences with more dependent clauses than many N. Americans, many of whom currently seem to prefer shorter punchier prose. The former allows more subtle linked expression if not carried too far, but this prolixity was much 'worse' in the 19th century (think Dickens, some sentences half a page long though beautifully written). Darwin wrote in this tradition but in an understated fashion, without the entertaining florid expression of a Dickens.
5) Which Edition? Purists inexplicably down-load the 1st edition, but a much better idea is to get hold of the 6th, last edition, e.g. Dover Books, which has his further matured thoughts. It has an extra chapter and many additions, including the expanded early chapter in which Darwin deals carefully with a list of others who might have preceded and anticipated him, and with the several detractors post-1859 who had complained that his ideas were not original, and/or that they had thought of them first; Richard Owen comes in for a real pasting.
A very readable recent book that you would enjoy more explores the history of previous ideas about evolution starting with Aristotle, including some predecessors who were not on Darwin's list: 'Darwin's Ghosts' (2012) by writer-historian Rebecca Stott (Bloomsbury Publishing, London, paperback edition 2013, ISBN 978 1 4088 3101 4). It even has a few pictures.
Were Darwin's ideas all his own? He held an extensive correspondence with other naturalists of the day within and outside Britain, and incorporated some of their findings into his book, as any scientist would today. He was scrupulous in giving credit for this and dealing with criticism in the 6th edition and probably earlier editions. He was a keen original observer but also a careful experimentalist. For example (from memory), in the part on explaining the geographic distribution of species, he speculated that certain unusual grasses found in Africa might have been spread there by recently fed locust swarms migrating in from the Azores. Supposedly, these then defecated in Africa, such that a few incompletely eaten grass seeds in the droppings might have germinated these plants there, explaining their unusual geographical distribution -- a seemingly far-fetched idea. So he got a foreign correspondent to mail him some of these dry locust droppings and then managed to germinate six appropriate seedlings from them, demonstrating the viability of his original idea. Nowadays, someone would check further for a DNA match.
Steve (Hfx)
________________________________________
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on behalf of Brian Bartlett [bbartlett@eastlink.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:57 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Darwin's - Origin of Species
The Voyage of the Beagle is one of my favourite 19th-century books by
naturalists. Chock-full of precisely rendered observations, intense
descriptions, a wealth of exploratory curiosity, fresh reflections,
fascinating narratives, colourful scenes, cultural commentary, provocative
questions, philosophical asides.... (But not satisfying if you're only
looking for a book of hard science.)
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:18 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Darwin's - Origin of Species
Hi,
It has been many years since I read it. My opinion was similar. I also
read Voyage of the Beagle. This disappointed me since he left out too
much of his analysis of his observations.
--
Gerald
On 9/2/14 20:35, James Hirtle wrote:
> Hi all:
>
&