I'm Reading Darwin

[R. S. Martin]

The book I'm reading is Origin of the Species where he introduces his theory about how evolution works. It's online here. I read it all the way through and he doesn't even mention monkeys. He mentions many different kinds of animals, birds, insects, etc. Maybe there are monkeys in there somewhere but I don't remember them. I don't remember dinasaurs, either. Mostly he talks about ordinary creatures that exist in the world today. He explains how his theory works and why he believes people should think about it seriously. He openly confesses that there is a lot of stuff he doesn't know but he trusts later generations would learn it in their research. I found it a very refreshing piece of work. Here is the final paragraph:

 

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

 

[Legion]

I think it’s cool that you’re reading the Origin of Species Ruby. I’ve only read bits and pieces of it. Darwin was very meticulous and thorough and his writing reflects this. It makes for a laborious read at times.

 

It’s unfortunate in my opinion that when many hear the word “evolution†they immediately think “monkeyâ€. I believe the culture wars have had a huge impact on how evolution is perceived. When I hear the word evolution I think of things like interconnectedness, progress, change, and immense times. I also think “incomplete†because I know that our knowledge of evolution does not exhaust what is knowable about organisms.

 

I think fundamentalists revile Darwin to the extent that they do because it truly exposes Genesis for the myth that it is. In my opinion the more appropriate response is not to deny that it is myth, but rather to embrace that it is myth and to subsequently explore what power the myth has.

 

But there is no doubt about it. Darwin has forever secured a place in human history. So I think it’s cool that you are taking the time to read what the man had to say himself.

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, unless more of us have tails than anyone let on... we're a type of ape... or apes are a class of hominids...

[SWIM]

Well, all dogs don't look like schnauzers, or great danes. Monkeys are a primate. So are apes and baboons. They ALL looked different in the past. So to, humans.

 

It goes back to early breeds of the species. Like for example, cromaganum man. It is not just one source of animal, but many, each branching off into different species.

 

We may not have evolved from the modern day looking ape, but it likely looked similar, but it wasn't that precise species.

 

Make sense?

[Grandpa Harley]

But from a genetic POV, a Great Dane could breed with a Chihuahua, and depending who was sire, the pups would carry to term, although it would be cruel an unusual to allow that... Last I checked, Tarzan could have got jiggy with Gorillas and Chimps and nothing would happen other than monkey sex...

 

A better simile would be Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and Hyenas. There are genetic markers indicating a common ancestor, and the subtle morphology of the bones of the inner ear.

 

The gross morphological resemblance between us and primates is there, but the genetic similarity between us, and chimpanzees indicate a relatively modern common ancestor, between us and gorillas more ancient... et seq.

[Brother Jeff]

Well, unless more of us have tails than anyone let on... we're a type of ape... or apes are a class of hominids...

I dedunt cum frum no munkey, and I ain't a fukin ape!

 

[Thurisaz]

Shame on me...

 

...for years I've been wanting to read TOOS but I never realized that it's all on the talkorigins.org site

 

Halfway into chapter 1 currently. And like I expected, what little I've read already hits babblical cretinism square in the face every third line.

 

With a sledgehammer.

 

[Fweethawt]

It makes for a laborious read at times.

That's the way I felt when I tried to read his book. At first, I was like, "Aww cool! I'm gonna read Origin of Species!"

 

Then, after about five pages I was like, "Zzzzzzzzzzzzz..."

[Grandpa Harley]

It's more exciting if you're from the 19th Century...

[R. S. Martin]

It's more exciting if you're from the 19th Century...

 

Maybe that's why I liked it so much. Literally, I was born in the middle of the 20th century. But the more research I do into the history of thought, the more convinced I am that the mindset of my community had more in common with the 18th or 19th centuries than the 20th. It's written in simple language that I can understand.

 

Thurisaz said:

 

Halfway into chapter 1 currently. And like I expected, what little I've read already hits babblical cretinism square in the face every third line.

 

With a sledgehammer.

 

I'm glad someone is reading it. Here's my summary of the book originally posted here:

After only one quick reading of Origin of the Species, I get the impression that his general argument is as follows: Based on the distribution of the species of animal and plant life throughout the world today, it makes more sense to believe that everything evolved from one origin than that each species was created individually and placed in its natural environment (natural environment as opposed to being introduced by humans) as indicated by the Creation Story in Genesis.

 

The book explains how he thinks this may have worked and why he thinks so. He seems really timid about presenting his ideas and goes to great lengths to point out the weaknesses of his arguments. If one reads with an open mind to learn what this man has to say, one is impressed that this man is writing under conviction that will not let him go; he HAS to speak. He knows he will be hated for it. He says so in his last chapter but he hopes the new generation will value the truth.

What I find heart-breaking is that for all his effort and hard work, nearly a hundred and forty years later we still have a significant Western population that vehemently rejects his theory.

[R. S. Martin]

But from a genetic POV, a Great Dane could breed with a Chihuahua, and depending who was sire, the pups would carry to term, although it would be cruel an unusual to allow that... Last I checked, Tarzan could have got jiggy with Gorillas and Chimps and nothing would happen other than monkey sex...

 

A better simile would be Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and Hyenas. There are genetic markers indicating a common ancestor, and the subtle morphology of the bones of the inner ear.

 

The gross morphological resemblance between us and primates is there, but the genetic similarity between us, and chimpanzees indicate a relatively modern common ancestor, between us and gorillas more ancient... et seq.

 

What I meant by the title that we're not related to monkeys is that Darwin does not say in so many words that we are related to monkeys. Based on what the fundies are always saying about evolution and Darwin, I thought Darwin said humans are related to monkeys. Maybe he said it in some of his other writings, but not in Origin of the Species.

[Evolution_beyond]

What I meant by the title that we're not related to monkeys is that Darwin does not say in so many words that we are related to monkeys. Based on what the fundies are always saying about evolution and Darwin, I thought Darwin said humans are related to monkeys. Maybe he said it in some of his other writings, but not in Origin of the Species.

 

No. Darwin doesn't say it in Origin of Species. Like you say, he was timid about attracting controversy. Did you know he kept putting off the publishing of his theories because he was scared of the controversy they would attract? That's why it is all the more painful that so much controversy was caused by Origin of Species, even though he never mentioned humans descending from apes (but many people could see the implications for human origins in the theory).

 

He dealt with human origins in a later book called The Descent of Man. Oddly enough the controversy had begun to die down a bit by then.

[LordofGondor]

I just bougth a collection of Darwin's writing about a month ago. Commentary by James Watson. Started reading Origin of Species but lost interest, and due to a printing error an entire chapter was unaccounted for.

 

Anyways I found Voyage of the Beagle far more engaging than the science lit.

[Mythra]

I think that most fundies ridicule the idea that we are descended from monkeys.

 

Which is not what any evolutionary biologist claims.

 

It's my understanding that we are certainly related - with chimpanzees being our closest "cousin". Although I always assumed that Darwin clarified this in his famous book. E/B is probably right. Darwin didn't state it definitively at first in order to keep his head attached to the rest of his body.

 

P.S. - "On the Origins of Species" is also available at Gutenberg.org. (also in audio form)

[Grandpa Harley]

I think that most fundies ridicule the idea that we are descended from monkeys.

 

Which is not what any evolutionary biologist claims.

 

It's my understanding that we are certainly related - with chimpanzees being our closest "cousin". Although I always assumed that Darwin clarified this in his famous book. E/B is probably right. Darwin didn't state it definitively at first in order to keep his head attached to the rest of his body.

 

P.S. - "On the Origins of Species" is also available at Gutenberg.org. (also in audio form)

 

and unless one is one's own Grandpa, your cousin shouldn't be your ancestor... Unless you live in one of those places where the hills rise high and wild, and the place is sealed off by heavy snow or bad rains...

[Thurisaz]

...where the family tree is basically one straight line... perhaps even with an occasional loop or two...

[LordofGondor]

...where the family tree is basically one straight line... perhaps even with an occasional loop or two...

There is the Kirk Cameron model of evolution in which extant species produce offspring of another extant species.

[pneuma]

I think that most fundies ridicule the idea that we are descended from monkeys.

 

Which is not what any evolutionary biologist claims.

 

It's my understanding that we are certainly related - with chimpanzees being our closest "cousin". Although I always assumed that Darwin clarified this in his famous book. E/B is probably right. Darwin didn't state it definitively at first in order to keep his head attached to the rest of his body.

 

P.S. - "On the Origins of Species" is also available at Gutenberg.org. (also in audio form)

 

Hi Mythra, from my understanding of what evolutionary biologist beleive is not that we are descended from apes but that the ape and man have a common ancestor and that the 2% or so differance in our DNA is the reason some became man and others became ape.

 

Hmmm I wonder what our common ancestor looked like

[Grandpa Harley]

Let's see... something like an ape, probably...

[Mythra]

Probably something like this fella right here. Pierolapithecus catalaunicus - roughly 13 million years ago.

 

 

[Grandpa Harley]

I expected something with more of a military bearing...

[pneuma]

Cool pic M.

[Mythra]

Nah. No way. I'm pretty sure they didn't have guns 13 million years ago.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...s/ape_ancestor/

[Mythra]

Here's another good one of the little guy:

 

 

I can tell that this truly is one of humans' ancient ancestors.

 

Looking in his eyes, I can tell he has a soul.

 

 

[Grandpa Harley]

"Looking in his eyes, I can tell he has a soul."

 

So, humanity was a backward step...