|
The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Bantam Classic) (平装)
by Charles Darwin
| Category:
Evolution, Science, Biology, Philosophy |
| Market price: ¥ 88.00
MSL price:
¥ 78.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
In Stock |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
MSL Pointer Review:
Few moments in science change humanity's perception of itself, and presents science with an impetus to guide generations ahead. Examples? one of the most momentous event in science - the event was the publication of the first edition of the book The Origin of Species.
|
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 Total 1 pages 7 items |
|
|
Moon (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
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.
|
|
|
Philip (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
Because Darwin's "Origin" may be published by anyone, there are various editions available that seemingly differ only in price and introduction. In fact, however, among the various published versions of the "Origin," there is a difference vastly more important than price and intro - that is, which edition is being published. Harvard and Penguin publish the first edition of the "Origin," whereas Bantam, Modern Library, and Prometheus Books publish the sixth edition.
For almost every purpose, the first edition is the only version worth reading. Aside from its overwhelmingly superior historical merit, the argument in the first edition is shorter, livelier, and more persuasive than the one in the sixth edition, where Darwin includes concessions to physicists such as Kelvin, which were ultimately proven unnecessary (as Kelvin's claims were shown to be in serious error). These erroneous concessions forced Darwin to mistakenly add several non-Darwinian arguments to his later editions.
So, if you want to read the book that changed biology forever, then read the "Origin" as it was originally written: buy the Harvard or Penguin copies.
|
|
|
Cardoso (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
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!
|
|
|
Jones (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
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.
|
|
|
A reader (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
I started reading this book expecting to find offensive, disrespectful, and vicious material throughout it. What I came to realize instead, was that people have criticized this book based on offensive, disrespectful and vicious accusations. I can't identify how people have linked this work to God and blasphemy. It has nothing to do with religion, faith, or creation. This is a work of observation, logic, and adaptability. It makes perfect sense, and trust me, it is in no way offensive.
To think that for a century people have been debating, fighting, and cursing Charles Darwin over this work seems comical once you read his book. The book is written in easy to understand common language, allowing the not so biologically or anthropologically astute to understand it as well. Even if you are not convinced by Darwin's observations, you will be convinced that there is no threat to anyone's beliefs from this book.
I found this work to be very convincing and highly compatible with my faith in God. It does not threaten God, and it certainly does not require me to abandon any beliefs even though I fully understand and agree with Mr. Darwin. Read this book, it is worthy of consideration and it is only fair to hold judgment until after you have read it.
|
|
|
Robinson (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
This is not a difficult book to read, and I would encourage readers to read the original work of Darwin.
The Origin of Species is considered to be an important work in both world literature and science. An interesting aspect of the book was the pressure for Darwin to publish the book. Prior to publishing, he had spent almost 30 years developing and testing his ideas. The book is a combination of argument and debate along with descriptions of Darwin's own experiments with birds and plants, including his own cabbage garden. In short, according to Darwin, the evolution of species takes place over a long time period and is a series of random events with survival of the fitest, or what is called "natural selection."
Darwin was born in 1809, trained as a botanist and zoologist at Cambridge University, and made his famous trip on the H.M.S. Beagle from 1831 to 1836. He was first inspired by the writings of the geologist Sir Charles Lyell. This same geologist would play an important role in pushing Darwin to publish his findings in 1856.
Darwin - as he writes in his book - was not working alone. He was not the first to come up with the ideas. Darwin was preceded by many before him with similar ideas. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire wrote as early as 1795 that species are "degenerations of the same type." Lamarck was in fact the first person to suggest that "all species, including man, are descended from other species." He published his ideas in 1801, 1809, and 1815. W.C. Wells presented a paper on human skin colors in 1813 and published his results in 1818. This was followed by The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert published in the Horticultural Transactions in 1822 that "botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class of varieties." In 1826 professor Grant "declares his belief that species are descendent from other species." Also, Von Bush in 1836 "expresses his belief that varieties slowly become changed into permanent species." And, in 1846 M.J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published a paper with his opinion "that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than they have been separately created."
After the Beagle trip, Darwin's main pre-occupation was to prepare his five volume work Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle over the years 1840 - 1843. Also, he undertook a series of experiments on evolution and wrote shorter papers. But in 1856 geologist Sir Charles Lyell persuaded Darwin to take his notes and publish The Origin of Species. As he prepared the book, Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a manuscript with an identical or similar theory. The two men decided to present their works simultaneously to the Linnaean Society. Wallace had visited Malaysia and come up with similar conclusions to Darwin, but he had not yet prepared an impresive large book, as had Darwin.
Darwin had been very cautious, and in the years 1840 to 1856 he had undertaken a number of experiments himself with pigeons and various plants. He had even joined two pigeon clubs and had his own garden in the country. He describes some of the slightly amusing details in the book. For example, he was able to grow over 200 varieties of cabbages by cross breeding. Among the findings, he had come to the conclusion that domestic pigeons were probably all related back to the rock-pigeon (Columba livia). He undertook a number of experiments including one where he mated two mongrel pigeons, and the resulting offspring looked like rock-pigeons.
So, although Wallace had the same ideas at the same time, Darwin had a fifteen years accumulation of notes, observations, and his own experiments that he could put into the book. Once the book came out it was an instant best seller and Wallace was largely forgotten, along with his other predecessors. Darwin was very cautious with his findings, and the many years researching and thinking about his ideas - almost two decades - paid off for him when he finally released the near 700 page book.
Darwin published a second well known book in 1871: "The Descent of Man."
The Origin of Species is a well crafted and interesting book. There are just a few figures in the book. It is an easy read, although some parts have many small details. Darwin lectures us on a variety of subjects such as flower reproduction. The heart of the book is Chapter IV: Natural Selection. He has fifteen chapters covering a range of topics including geology and fossils.
It must be remembered that when the book came out in 1859 it was generally assumed that only God could create life. The book was revolutionary, and too detailed to refute. It was a comprehensive book and came as a major challenge to the accepted norm. At the end in the conclusion Darwin tells the reader that his findings just give a different explanation in the way "the Creator" works, and it does not imply a lack of a God.
|
|
|
A reader (MSL quote), USA
<2007-03-12 00:00>
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.
|
|
|
|
1 Total 1 pages 7 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
