next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--_fbd3123c-5834-40af-9fc8-663a4e769df0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to thank all who responded to my post. Previously I was most =
aware of the studies done by Darwin on the Galapogos Islands and his travel=
s on the Beagle. I read the book Origin of Species as an e-book posting on=
a site at work. So I do not know which edition was used. I got to read 5=
-10 pages per day with lots of interruptions inbetween. So my analysis of t=
he book is probably biased by that fact. If I could have sat down and full=
y focused on it=2C I probably would have enjoyed it more and got more out o=
f it=2C and maybe even have a different opinion. Knowing more about the pr=
ocess of how the book was written is enlightening. I'm not sure how my co=
mments could be heresy=2C it was just my opinion on how things sounded by r=
eading the book that some of what Darwin presented was burrowed or he was u=
sing ideas of others. Which=2C "Were Darwin's ideas all his own? He held a=
n extensive correspondence with other naturalists of the day within and out=
side Britain=2C and incorporated some of their findings into his book=2C as=
any scientist would today." seems to attest to. =20
=20
I never said that any of Darwins ideas were wrong and never critiqued his t=
hought processes=2C methods or studies presented. Thank you Steve for poi=
nting out what actually happened=2C when the book was written. I had under=
stood that his chance to post his ideas were threatened by Wallace also wor=
king on the same ideas. What Steve posted below makes me better understand=
why things were written the way that they were.=20
"Wallace catch-up: Darwin received a big shock and knew he was in danger =
of being scooped by A. R. Wallace=2C who had written to Darwin from S.E. As=
ia where he was collecting=2C disclosing that he had had the same idea whil=
e recuperating from severe illness (malaria?). The idea of evolution itsel=
f 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=
=2C competition between individuals leading to the greater success of some =
(therefore more surviving offspring)=2C later called 'survival of the fitte=
st'. Wallace did not have much weight of evidence developed=2C though=2C j=
ust the basic idea=2C while Darwin had the idea over a decade earlier and h=
ad been amassing a huge amount of supporting evidence of various kinds for =
years. This got cobbled together hastily as 'The Origin'=2C laying out muc=
h of this evidence to make the story as complete as possible. This was expr=
essed cautiously with little fanfare=2C to counter the inevitable backlash =
expected to come from creationist-religious sources (his wife was devoutly =
religious and worried about his book). "
=20
I also enjoyed reading others posts so thank you again to all.
=20
Sincerely=2C
=20
James
=20
=20
> From: srshaw@Dal.Ca
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Darwin's Origin of Species
> Date: Wed=2C 3 Sep 2014 21:13:54 +0000
>=20
> James=92 comment is a bit of heresy=2C but I too admit to reading =91The =
Origin=92 superficially as a student and also found it quite dull at that t=
ime. Someone in Biology at Dalhousie decided to re-read it for the 150th a=
nniversary of the 1st edition (1859)=2C and a small group of us did just th=
at=2C one chapter at a time. This totally changed my opinion=2C though I t=
hink 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 dang=
er of being scooped by A. R. Wallace=2C who had written to Darwin from S.E.=
Asia where he was collecting=2C disclosing that he had had the same idea w=
hile recuperating from severe illness (malaria?). The idea of evolution it=
self was not popular but was certainly not original (Erasmus Darwin avowed =
it) and much older than either of them: the originality of the Darwin-Wall=
ace idea was as the explanation (mechanism) for evolution: natural selectio=
n=2C competition between individuals leading to the greater success of some=
(therefore more surviving offspring)=2C later called 'survival of the fitt=
est'. Wallace did not have much weight of evidence developed=2C though=2C =
just the basic idea=2C 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'=2C laying out mu=
ch of this evidence to make the story as complete as possible. This was exp=
ressed cautiously with little fanfare=2C 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 b=
een a closet atheist=2C so it is a miracle (really) that his colleagues man=
aged to get him buried in Westminster Abbey.
>=20
> 2) No genetics yet to explain heritable persistence of new characteristic=
s. Genetics (discrete particulate inheritance of indivisible genes on chro=
mosomes) following rediscovery of Mendel did not get going until the early =
20th century with T.H. Morgan. Darwin and others believed in blended inher=
itance=2C the seeming consequence of which is that any new selected mutant=
=92s advantage would gradually get diluted out and lost by cross-breeding w=
ith the original stock. It is hard to read parts of The Origin=2C now it =
is known how it really works=2C with indivisible Mendelian characters: Darw=
in along with everyone else simply did not understand inheritance.
>=20
> 3) No pictures in it (well almost none=2C and only one perfunctory Tree o=
f Life). Illustrations in books and scientific papers used to be very expe=
nsive=2C colour especially=2C but now any science book or paper is replete =
with numerous illustrations usually in colour. This reflects the switch to=
the cheaper=2C faster digital image processing in the 1980s=2C plus the re=
alization in science that human communication is dominantly visual so illus=
tration are needed to allow easier interpretation of associated complex tes=
t. Some non-science Faculty of Arts-type people still haven't cottoned on =
to this.
>=20
> 4) Unfamiliar dense writing style. People with English backgrounds often=
write longer sentences with more dependent clauses than many N. Americans=
=2C many of whom currently seem to prefer shorter punchier prose. The for=
mer allows more subtle linked expression if not carried too far=2C but this=
prolixity was much 'worse' in the 19th century (think Dickens=2C some sent=
ences half a page long though beautifully written). Darwin wrote in this tr=
adition but in an understated fashion=2C without the entertaining florid ex=
pression of a Dickens.=20
>=20
> 5) Which Edition? Purists inexplicably down-load the 1st edition=2C but =
a much better idea is to get hold of the 6th=2C last edition=2C e.g. Dover =
Books=2C which has his further matured thoughts. It has an extra chapter a=
nd many additions=2C including the expanded early chapter in which Darwin d=
eals carefully with a list of others who might have preceded and anticipate=
d him=2C and with the several detractors post-1859 who had complained that =
his ideas were not original=2C and/or that they had thought of them first=
=3B Richard Owen comes in for a real pasting.=20
> A very readable recent book that you would enjoy more explores the hi=
story of previous ideas about evolution starting with Aristotle=2C includin=
g some predecessors who were not on Darwin's list: 'Darwin's Ghosts' (2012=
) by writer-historian Rebecca Stott (Bloomsbury Publishing=2C London=2C pap=
erback edition 2013=2C ISBN 978 1 4088 3101 4). It even has a few picture=
s.
> Were Darwin's ideas all his own? He held an extensive correspondence =
with other naturalists of the day within and outside Britain=2C and incorpo=
rated some of their findings into his book=2C 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 ob=
server but also a careful experimentalist. For example (from memory)=2C in=
the part on explaining the geographic distribution of species=2C he specul=
ated that certain unusual grasses found in Africa might have been spread th=
ere by recently fed locust swarms migrating in from the Azores. Supposedly=
=2C these then defecated in Africa=2C such that a few incompletely eaten gr=
ass seeds in the droppings might have germinated these plants there=2C expl=
aining their unusual geographical distribution -- a seemingly far-fetched i=
dea. So he got a foreign correspondent to mail him some of these dry locus=
t droppings and then managed to germinate six appropriate seedlings from th=
em=2C demonstrating the viability of his original idea. Nowadays=2C someon=
e would check further for a DNA match.
> Steve (Hfx)
> ________________________________________
> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on be=
half of Brian Bartlett [bbartlett@eastlink.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday=2C September 3=2C 2014 11:57 AM
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Darwin's - Origin of Species
>=20
> The Voyage of the Beagle is one of my favourite 19th-century books by
> naturalists. Chock-full of precisely rendered observations=2C intense
> descriptions=2C a wealth of exploratory curiosity=2C fresh reflections=2C
> fascinating narratives=2C colourful scenes=2C cultural commentary=2C prov=
ocative
> questions=2C philosophical asides.... (But not satisfying if you're only
> looking for a book of hard science.)
>=20
> Brian
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald
> Sent: Wednesday=2C September 03=2C 2014 11:18 AM
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Darwin's - Origin of Species
>=20
> Hi=2C
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> --
> Gerald
>=20
> On 9/2/14 20:35=2C James Hirtle wrote:
> > Hi all:
> >
> > I just finished reading Charles Darwin's - The Origin of Species. For
> > the sake of argument has anyone else read this and what was your opinio=
n
> > of it? I found it rather drab and a hard read. There were really only
> > two things of real interest to me=2C which was the lifespan of an eleph=
ant
> > and the time it takes a female to produce it's first young. Also=2C
> > that ants will tickle the bottom of an aphid to make it excrete and the=
n
> > eat this as food.
> >
> > It was my impression after reading the book that a lot of Darwin's
> > thoughts and discoveries were not his own=2C but based on the research =
of
> > others and possibly taken as his own. In comparison to other writings
> > by him and of others about his research=2C which by the way I really
> > enjoyed at the time. I was really disheartened after reading the actua=
l
> > Origin of Species also written by him. I'll look forward to others
> > thoughts on this book.
> >
> > James R. Hirtle
> > Bridgewater
>=20
>=20
=
--_fbd3123c-5834-40af-9fc8-663a4e769df0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'><font color=3D"#000000" size=3D"=
6">I would like to thank all who responded to my =3Bpost. =3B =
=3BPreviously I was most aware of the studies done by Darwin on the Galapog=
os Islands and his travels on the Beagle. =3B I read the book =3BOr=
igin of Species as an e-book posting on a site at work. =3B So I do not=
know which edition was used. =3B I got to read 5-10 pages per day with=
 =3Blots of interruptions inbetween. =3BSo =3Bmy analysis of th=
e book is probably biased by that fact. =3B If I could have sat down an=
d fully focused on it=2C I probably would have enjoyed it more and got more=
out of it=2C =3Band maybe even have a different opinion. =3B Knowi=
ng more about the process of how the book was written is enlightening. =
=3B =3B =3BI'm =3Bnot sure how my comments could be heresy=2C i=
t was just my opinion on how things sounded =3Bby reading the book that=
some of what Darwin presented was burrowed or he was using ideas of others=
. =3BWhich=2C "<font size=3D"5" style=3D"font-size: 20pt=3B">Were Darwi=
n's ideas all his own? He held an extensive correspondence with other natu=
ralists of the day within and outside Britain=2C and incorporated some of t=
heir findings into his book=2C as any scientist would today." seems to atte=
st to. =3B =3B =3B </font></font><BR><font color=3D"#000000" si=
ze=3D"6"></font> =3B<BR><font color=3D"#000000" size=3D"6">I never said=
that any of Darwins ideas were wrong and never critiqued his thought proce=
sses=2C methods or studies presented. =3B =3B =3BThank you Stev=
e for pointing out what actually happened=2C when the book was written.&nbs=
p=3B I had understood that his chance to post his ideas were threatened by =
Wallace also working on the same ideas. =3B =3BWhat =3BSteve po=
sted below =3Bmakes me better understand why things were written the wa=
y that they were. =3B</font><BR><font color=3D"#000000" size=3D"6">&nbs=
p=3B"<font size=3D"3">Wallace catch-up: Darwin received a big shock and kn=
ew he was in danger of being scooped by A. R. Wallace=2C who had written to=
Darwin from S.E. Asia where he was collecting=2C disclosing that he had ha=
d the same idea while recuperating from severe illness (malaria?). The ide=
a of evolution itself was not popular but was certainly not original (Erasm=
us Darwin avowed it) and much older than either of them: the originality o=
f the Darwin-Wallace idea was as the explanation (mechanism) for evolution:=
natural selection=2C competition between individuals leading to the greate=
r success of some (therefore more surviving offspring)=2C later called 'sur=
vival of the fittest'. Wallace did not have much weight of evidence develo=
ped=2C though=2C just the basic idea=2C while Darwin had the idea over a de=
cade earlier and had been amassing a huge amount of supporting evidence of =
various kinds for years. This got cobbled together hastily as 'The Origin'=
=2C laying out much of this evidence to make the story as complete as possi=
ble. This was expressed cautiously with little fanfare=2C to counter the in=
evitable backlash expected to come from creationist-religious sources (his =
wife was devoutly religious and worried about his book). =3B"</font></f=
ont><BR> =3B<BR><font size=3D"5">I also enjoyed reading others posts so=
thank you again to all.</font><BR><font size=3D"5"></font> =3B<BR><fon=
t size=3D"5">Sincerely=2C</font><BR><font size=3D"5"></font> =3B<BR><fo=
nt size=3D"5">James</font><BR> =3B<BR> =3B<BR><div>>=3B From: srs=
haw@Dal.Ca<br>>=3B To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<br>>=3B Subject: RE: [Na=
tureNS] Darwin's Origin of Species<br>>=3B Date: Wed=2C 3 Sep 2014 21:13:=
54 +0000<br>>=3B <br>>=3B James=92 comment is a bit of heresy=2C but I =
too admit to reading =91The Origin=92 superficially as a student and also f=
ound it quite dull at that time. Someone in Biology at Dalhousie decided t=
o re-read it for the 150th anniversary of the 1st edition (1859)=2C and a s=
mall group of us did just that=2C one chapter at a time. This totally chan=
ged my opinion=2C though I think it depends partly on which edition you rea=
d. A few things to put the book in perspective as to its readability:<br>=
>=3B 1) Wallace catch-up: Darwin received a big shock and knew he was in=
danger of being scooped by A. R. Wallace=2C who had written to Darwin from=
S.E. Asia where he was collecting=2C disclosing that he had had the same i=
dea while recuperating from severe illness (malaria?). The idea of evoluti=
on itself was not popular but was certainly not original (Erasmus Darwin av=
owed it) and much older than either of them: the originality of the Darwin=
-Wallace idea was as the explanation (mechanism) for evolution: natural sel=
ection=2C competition between individuals leading to the greater success of=
some (therefore more surviving offspring)=2C later called 'survival of the=
fittest'. Wallace did not have much weight of evidence developed=2C thoug=
h=2C just the basic idea=2C while Darwin had the idea over a decade earlier=
and had been amassing a huge amount of supporting evidence of various kind=
s for years. This got cobbled together hastily as 'The Origin'=2C laying o=
ut much of this evidence to make the story as complete as possible. This wa=
s expressed cautiously with little fanfare=2C to counter the inevitable bac=
klash expected to come from creationist-religious sources (his wife was dev=
outly religious and worried about his book). Many think that Darwin must h=
ave been a closet atheist=2C so it is a miracle (really) that his colleague=
s managed to get him buried in Westminster Abbey.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B 2) N=
o genetics yet to explain heritable persistence of new characteristics. Ge=
netics (discrete particulate inheritance of indivisible genes on chromosome=
s) following rediscovery of Mendel did not get going until the early 20th c=
entury with T.H. Morgan. Darwin and others believed in blended inheritance=
=2C the seeming consequence of which is that any new selected mutant=92s ad=
vantage would gradually get diluted out and lost by cross-breeding with the=
original stock. It is hard to read parts of The Origin=2C now it is know=
n how it really works=2C with indivisible Mendelian characters: Darwin alon=
g with everyone else simply did not understand inheritance.<br>>=3B <br>&=
gt=3B 3) No pictures in it (well almost none=2C and only one perfunctory Tr=
ee of Life). Illustrations in books and scientific papers used to be very =
expensive=2C colour especially=2C but now any science book or paper is repl=
ete with numerous illustrations usually in colour. This reflects the switc=
h to the cheaper=2C faster digital image processing in the 1980s=2C plus th=
e realization in science that human communication is dominantly visual so i=
llustration 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.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B 4) Unfamiliar dense writing style. Peopl=
e with English backgrounds often write longer sentences with more dependent=
clauses than many N. Americans=2C many of whom currently seem to prefer sh=
orter punchier prose. The former allows more subtle linked expression if =
not carried too far=2C but this prolixity was much 'worse' in the 19th cent=
ury (think Dickens=2C some sentences half a page long though beautifully wr=
itten). Darwin wrote in this tradition but in an understated fashion=2C wit=
hout the entertaining florid expression of a Dickens. <br>>=3B <br>>=3B=
5) Which Edition? Purists inexplicably down-load the 1st edition=2C but a=
much better idea is to get hold of the 6th=2C last edition=2C e.g. Dover B=
ooks=2C which has his further matured thoughts. It has an extra chapter an=
d many additions=2C including the expanded early chapter in which Darwin de=
als carefully with a list of others who might have preceded and anticipated=
him=2C and with the several detractors post-1859 who had complained that h=
is ideas were not original=2C and/or that they had thought of them first=3B=
Richard Owen comes in for a real pasting. <br>>=3B A very readable r=
ecent book that you would enjoy more explores the history of previous ideas=
about evolution starting with Aristotle=2C including some predecessors who=
were not on Darwin's list: 'Darwin's Ghosts' (2012) by writer-historian R=
ebecca Stott (Bloomsbury Publishing=2C London=2C paperback edition 2013=2C =
ISBN 978 1 4088 3101 4). It even has a few pictures.<br>>=3B Were Da=
rwin's ideas all his own? He held an extensive correspondence with other n=
aturalists of the day within and outside Britain=2C and incorporated some o=
f their findings into his book=2C as any scientist would today. He was scr=
upulous in giving credit for this and dealing with criticism in the 6th edi=
tion and probably earlier editions. He was a keen original observer but a=
lso a careful experimentalist. For example (from memory)=2C in the part on=
explaining the geographic distribution of species=2C he speculated that ce=
rtain unusual grasses found in Africa might have been spread there by recen=
tly fed locust swarms migrating in from the Azores. Supposedly=2C these th=
en defecated in Africa=2C such that a few incompletely eaten grass seeds in=
the droppings might have germinated these plants there=2C 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=2C demons=
trating the viability of his original idea. Nowadays=2C someone would chec=
k further for a DNA match.<br>>=3B Steve (Hfx)<br>>=3B ________________=
________________________<br>>=3B From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [nat=
urens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on behalf of Brian Bartlett [bbartlett@eastlink=
.ca]<br>>=3B Sent: Wednesday=2C September 3=2C 2014 11:57 AM<br>>=3B To=
: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<br>>=3B Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Darwin's - Orig=
in of Species<br>>=3B <br>>=3B The Voyage of the Beagle is one of my fa=
vourite 19th-century books by<br>>=3B naturalists. Chock-full of precisel=
y rendered observations=2C intense<br>>=3B descriptions=2C a wealth of ex=
ploratory curiosity=2C fresh reflections=2C<br>>=3B fascinating narrative=
s=2C colourful scenes=2C cultural commentary=2C provocative<br>>=3B quest=
ions=2C philosophical asides.... (But not satisfying if you're only<br>>=
=3B looking for a book of hard science.)<br>>=3B <br>>=3B Brian<br>>=
=3B <br>>=3B -----Original Message-----<br>>=3B From: Gerald<br>>=3B =
Sent: Wednesday=2C September 03=2C 2014 11:18 AM<br>>=3B To: naturens@che=
bucto.ns.ca<br>>=3B Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Darwin's - Origin of Species<=
br>>=3B <br>>=3B Hi=2C<br>>=3B <br>>=3B It has been many years sinc=
e I read it. My opinion was similar. I also<br>>=3B read Voyage of the Be=
agle. This disappointed me since he left out too<br>>=3B much of his anal=
ysis of his observations.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B --<br>>=3B Gerald<br>>=
=3B <br>>=3B On 9/2/14 20:35=2C James Hirtle wrote:<br>>=3B >=3B Hi a=
ll:<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3B I just finished reading Charles Darwi=
n's - The Origin of Species. For<br>>=3B >=3B the sake of argument has=
anyone else read this and what was your opinion<br>>=3B >=3B of it? I=
found it rather drab and a hard read. There were really only<br>>=3B &g=
t=3B two things of real interest to me=2C which was the lifespan of an elep=
hant<br>>=3B >=3B and the time it takes a female to produce it's first =
young. Also=2C<br>>=3B >=3B that ants will tickle the bottom of an aph=
id to make it excrete and then<br>>=3B >=3B eat this as food.<br>>=3B=
>=3B<br>>=3B >=3B It was my impression after reading the book that a=
lot of Darwin's<br>>=3B >=3B thoughts and discoveries were not his own=
=2C but based on the research of<br>>=3B >=3B others and possibly taken=
as his own. In comparison to other writings<br>>=3B >=3B by him and o=
f others about his research=2C which by the way I really<br>>=3B >=3B e=
njoyed at the time. I was really disheartened after reading the actual<br>=
>=3B >=3B Origin of Species also written by him. I'll look forward to =
others<br>>=3B >=3B thoughts on this book.<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B &=
gt=3B James R. Hirtle<br>>=3B >=3B Bridgewater<br>>=3B <br>>=3B <br=
></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_fbd3123c-5834-40af-9fc8-663a4e769df0_--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects