Rating: 
Summary: ONE OF THE GREAT WORKS
Review: "Origin of Species" differs from most other scientific books or original articles in that it can be understood in its original form by an average person. When Newton wrote his Principia, only a handful of people could understand it. It had math and it was written in Latin. But Darwin's method is the same as Newton's: both developed a theory which "explained" observation. Neither gave nor claimed to give the final word. Neither is a discussion of ethics, politics, religion. business, etc. It was known to everyone that variation in life existed with some sets of living organisms being more akin to one another than to other sets. Some sub-sets within a given set of organisms were able to interbreed with one another, but not with other members of the set. Darwin attempted to explain how this happened. Science is never "true" in the sense that
religion is "true". Science does not depend upon the authority of individues.
The idea that the Pope may pronounce something true and it becomes "true" is a different definition of the word "true" than Darwin or Newton or any other scientist saying someing is true--on the one hand the "truth" exists because of who made the statement, but on the (scientific) hand, the one making the statement is not relevant.
Some reviewers have stated that "Origin of Species" is hard to read. I suppose that is true compared to a novel, but compared to most scientific literature it is a piece of cake. It is about as hard to read as "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.
Darwin's work, like all science, is based upon the concept that nature is consistent over time. To throw out Origin of Species
based upon the idea that God creates inconsistencies now and again to effect this purpose or that mekes no more sense than throwing out Newton, Einstein etc and physics and chemistry as well as biology. No amount of evidence to the contrary convinces those who insist upon God's intervention because it cannot be absolutely disproved. Such views are OK, but they are not science and must not be introduced into science classes.
Rating:
Summary: The most important book of biological science.
Review: 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin is the most important book of biological science. Even though the book may be dead in detail, it is basically the "big bang" of evolutionary thought. If one is a student of Biology, this is the book they want to read in order to develop true scientific thought.
Rating: 
Summary: Hum
Review: Another reviewer boldly proclaimed "they(creationists) might see that arguing against Darwin's theory is like arguing Netwon's theory of gravity is wrong."Well, the problem is that Newton's theory of gravity is ultimately wrong.
Rating:
Summary: Darwin Has Been Vindicated
Review: Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". This is simply not true. In fact, ALL fossils are transitional. One of Darwins main points was that evolution is an on-going process. It may speed up and slow down, but on it goes. This book is a must read. Even after 120 years it's still selling and still being read. Darwins point in The Origin of Species has been overwhelmingly proven over and over. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. You cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are. As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology." Darwin has been vindicated by the remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor. Creationist can say whatever they want to and practice all the deceit they want, but the clear evidence in the geological record is not in dispute by any one except fundamentalists. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds). Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes. Even the gaps are easy to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while anyne who has studied the evidence knows they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events. Darwins revolution will continue, even if there are a few setbacks, because the evidence is real and overwhelming.
Rating:
Summary: An esential read for any scientist.
Review: Darwin's "Origin of Species" is in fact an abstract of a 20 volume thesis containing the evidence gathered over many years which support the concept of evolution by natural selection. This way of describing the evolution of organisms on earth has by now become the standard and, in fact, one hardly ever thinks of evolution without automatically connecting it with Darwin's ideas. At first, upon commencing reading this small book, I continued to ask `where is the evidence for that' but on realising that he had gathered a large volume of data to support this theory I simply continued to read on. Its not either an easy read or that complicated. Darwin looks at evolution in a very comprehensive way: first, linking the main idea with the variation of animals under domestication, something he himself had extensively studied in the case of pidgeons; second, associating this with variation under nature and the struggle for existence; he then goes on to describe in detail natural selection and the laws of variation. He follows this like any good scientist by an analysis of what may be the theory's weaknesses, such as the scarcity in the geological record and the lack of organisms in a state of gradation. He then applies the ideas to instinct, hybridism and then discusses in great depth the imperfections of the geological record. He also considers how geographical distribution can alter the results of evolution and how the embryos of various animals have a resemblance to that of other animals and how they also appear to repeat previous evolutionary steps as they mature. Its too bad the 20 volume set was never published, even the incomplete version would have been better than only the abstract. Nonetheless it is well discussed and written as a comprehensive summary of the main thesis. At times the style can be repetitive and even dull but this is compensated for by fascinating little excerpts which are present throughout. This was, remarkably enough, my first reading of "The Origin of Species" and I do believe that every practicing scientist should read it as part of their education rather than accepting its tenets without question as is the wont. However rather than being a description of the true origin of species, it actually takes a change which occurs (by whatever means) and then describes the process the species undergoes from then on. Darwin never actually said anything about how new variations are formed, this was left for others to consider and eventually led to the modern Darwinian thesis including the idea of mutation caused by radiation, viruses or chemical agents. Much has also come to light over the last century such as the symbiosis of organisms producing the merger of cell and mitochondria seen in every cell today and similarly the recent evidence of gene swapping going on between bacteria and now also larger organisms, see "Lamarck's Signature" by Ted Steele. Since Darwin did also not explain form but rather the possibility of how form came about Brian Goodwin's Form and Transformation is a good place to start. It must also be remembered that in his time the thesis was new even if many others were working on similar ideas Darwin was the first, in conjunction with Wallace, to expand on natural selection and obtain strong evidence for it. An essential read for any scientist.
Rating:
Summary: The most important Biology book of all times!!!
Review: Every biologist (professional or amateur), every lover of the nature, every scientist have to read this book. "Origin of the species" opened the doors for a new era of scientific thought and dramatically shaped the development of all life sciences. It correctly describes, for the very first time, a most fundamental truth of the natural world, one which had eluded philosophers and scientists for millenia.
Beautiful, just beautiful. An intellectual triumph for mankind. Thank you, Charles!
Rating:
Summary: Become enlightened or your money back!
Review: How do you rate what has become the bible for all enlightened persons? We who grasp the singular genius of Darwin can excuse the outdated information in these hallowed scriptures while still praising his inerrant conclusion. That's because one can't argue with his thought process. To a scientific naturalist the revelation is manifest: nature created everything itself! Only those species that were created by nature with the capacity to survive actually survived and the others went extinct! If you are not convinced by such pure logic then you don't understand science. Now that Darwin has established that natural causes is the only possible explanation for all existance within a materialistic framework, science can successfully interpret the overwhelming evidence.
Unlike other societies before us, we are enlightened and incapable of believing in just another creation myth. They believed dogmatically without observation. We on the other hand are the first people in history to notice the variations and similarities in animals and plants within different habitats. We monopolize words like "empirical" and "scientific" to avoid confusing our objective understanding of the universe with mind-controlling dogma.
Indeed, Origins of the Species established the first and most fundamental scientific principle used by all real scientists to help lay people recognize dogma from true science. Any and all ideas that permit even the faintest thiestic causality are absolutely dogmatic and can never ever be true.
Sure Darwin politically hedged his bet with the possibility of a "creator" starting it all, but that was only because the poor man lived in an age of victorian religous repression. Sure, he argued for racial inequality, but that was in another book, and only because he lived in an age of British imperialism. Other then these controversies, his view of natural history was entirely based on scientific observation, and was in no way influenced by the philosophical climate of 19th century Europe.
I picked this edition to review because it includes new modern evidence, not found in the original publication, that macroevolution is a fact: the cover art. Just as Darwin predicted, visual confirmation of descent with modification has been discovered in the paper strata of younger textbooks.
Although Origin of the Species was written over 150 years ago, Darwin's magnus opus of materialism has redefined not only biology, but economics, politics, race and gender relations, and even religion. Of course we should never make the common mistake that this is a philosophy book. As Darwin himself would say " ...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Rating:
Summary: A must read the original book has some of the best arguments
Review: In this wonderfully readable text Darwin introduces the ideas that have changed biology.
The two strongest points of the book are: its readability, which it really is, it's arguments against repeated creationism, which are among the best and clearest I have read.
The structure of the arguments for his theory which slowly unfolds for the eyes of the reader makes for a convincing and readable story. Of course the book being 150 years old there are some shortcomings, especially focussed around Darwin's lack of knowledge of the mechanisms invoklved in inheritance (genes). Quoting and treating of scientific references might also appear oldfashioned.
In spite of thse shortcomings the impact of this book has been so immense that I would advice everyone to read it, that is why it got the 5 stars as well. Without reading it neither supporters nor opponents of his theories can fairly debate about its implicaitons
Rating: 
Summary: The very definition of a classic.
Review: It feels odd reviewing such a historic work as The Origin of Species, yet some warnings must be espoused regarding this volume as Darwin's work is often cited as the central document (along with the bible) in an argument over creation versus evolution. It is bad enough that people who so often are the most vociferous in this debate (on both sides) are relatively unread, but worse is that The Evolution of Species as a scientific manifesto is really of very little value today. Although Darwin was a brilliant naturalist, it would be as improper to call a scientist who studies evolution a Darwinist as it would be to call all computers Apple II's. Darwin has no working model of genetics, and while he proposed many excellent hypothesis about various forms of selection--he even wrote a book on behavior and facial expressions in animals!--we would be hard pressed to find Darwin as a citation in any of the modern literature. My rating of four stars is not entirely fair. I feel that people who wish to learn about evolution should seek out modern authors (I strongly recommend John Maynard-Smith's 'Theory of Evolution' as it is robust in its degree of current biological theory and will leave the reader not only understanding the biological theory of evolution, but also a lot of general biology.) On the other hand, if you are a person who is interested in history and in people, do read Origin or perhaps The Voyage of the Beagle (which I imagine must be an interesting read). Darwin sets a fantastic example of the dedicated naturalist, unbiased and thorough. His theories, which came later, were elegant--to such an extent that many of the detractors (even modern day) do not understand them. Darwin's biogeographical arguments for instance (I am thinking here about 'Darwin's Finches) stand unmolested by the diatribe of those who would make poor of a man just because they disagree with him. Neither do his opposers note Darwin's unwillingness to bring forth his theory. Truth be told, I care little whether or not people believe in evolutionary theory, only so much as they might at least understand how his ideas, humbly presented, changed the entire landscape of science. But most importantly I think people miss that Darwin was a good scientist--and there are a lot of bad ones. Science has recently taken the turn toward being all experiment and theory driven, with many of the funds in biology going more to 'gene splitters' or whatever you might want to call them than toward what little remains of descriptive science. Indeed it seems there is little room left for naturalists anymore--even to an extent that naturalists are sometimes not considered scientists. There are no more scientific works that are purely descriptive, or they are very rare, or worse done mostly for placement on coffee tables and not for the furthering of our understanding of the natural world. Darwin then is almost a sort of fatalist to his own kind; ushering in the modern age of a unified biology, he inadvertantly relegating the Conrad Lorenz's, the Jane Goodall's and (fill in the blank of your favorite naturalist) to antiquity or at least near-poverty. It might also be nice to remember that Darwin was above all interested in understanding the natural world, something he shared with a long history of zoologists before him who were of course creationists--and I see more in common between these people then I do between Darwin and the modern day evolutionist. Given all of this it seems very unfortunate the connotations and burden that Darwin's name has take on. Instead, it would be very kind if the name Darwin were flung about with the sort of respect I think it is due instead of attached to ugly terms like 'social' or as though the man had little red horns and a tail.
Rating:
Summary: Requirement for the Advanced Biology Student
Review: It is a crying shame that many reviewers have used this forum to try and critique evolutionary theory, making no references to the text at all and drawing on erroneous conclusions about Darwin in general. The Origin of Species is most definitely the most important work in the field of biology, as it is the most succinct and well developed explanations of the unifying principle of the field, evolution via descent with modification. I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining the theory or why a person should study it. I want to explain who should read this book and why. If you are looking for an introductory text on the theory of evolution you need to stay well away. There are other better books. In many cases Darwin's examples and arguments are outmoded or have been changed. The book overlooks many aspects that are included in modern evolutionary theory, such as genetics, simply because Darwin did not know about them. Natural selection as Darwin wrote it is one of the most effective explanatory theories in all of science but by reading this book you miss almost 150 years of the things it has explained. It is also a flat out PAIN to read, they where much "wordier" in the 1800's and Darwin's English is rather stilted and formal, even compared to modern scientific writing. So, who should read this book? Any person who is an advanced student in biology (I read it the summer before my senior year) should be aware of how the modern theory of evolution was born. You can't really achieve this without reading Origins. I am aware of no better way of understanding evolution that to follow its development through time, beginning with Darwin. And, if you don't understand evolution, you don't understand biology. As something to read it is a classic, arguably the most influential work of all time. A note on edition: this copy is the one I have. I would suggest the facsimile of the First Edition found elsewhere on Amazon. I don't know why the publishers felt the need to put the caricatured human evolution (addressed nowhere in the book) on the cover.
|
