On the Origin of Species

Simon.d

5uspect wrote: »

I did however skip the chapters on hybridisation etc that Darwin got wrong.

Why do you say that? Haven't read the book myself, but don't see how he got hybrids wrong... He simply used hybrids as a tool to explain that species were closer than people at the time thought, and that not all hybrids were sterile...

More recent findings are suggesting that hybridisation is quite a major evolutionary mechanism, and potentially occurred on a much grander scale than thought before.. So much so that it's even bringing into question Darwins description of a "tree of life", and that our evolutionary history may be better described as a "web of life".. So called horizontal gene transfer is common place in the bacterial world, but it's suspected of playing a major role in our multicellular world too..

A couple of interesting evolutionary relics that are a testament to this..

• The Eukaryotic Cell
  • Thought to have arisen following the merging and symbiosis of different prokryotic cell types.
• Metamorphosis
  • I.e. from Caterpillar to Butterfly
  • Rather than having evoled slowy it is now suggested that these were once separate species who merged following a hybridisation event, with eaches genome being expressed sequentially over the life of the chimera
  • The starfish is posssibly the most notable example of this, where in certain species the larvae actually goes on to live an independent life for up to six months following separation from the adult after metamorphosis.
• An much more besides...

Have a read of this more comprehensive article from New Scientist

5uspect

I remember reading somewhere before I read it (it may even have been in the foreword to my edition) that certain sections of the book were simply incorrect. I'm pretty sure it was hybridisation that Darwin didn't get right. I'll have to check!

lostexpectation

so is there a prehuman web?

philologos

Malari wrote: »

I've been kind of wanting to read the bible actually, straight through, for a laugh, but can't bring myself to buy one. :eek: I should have picked it up along with the God Delusion that time...

How can people criticise a text that they aren't themselves acquainted with? Also as for Dawkins and the God Delusion, it's an interesting read in sections, but in others poorly written in terms of Christian theology also innaccurate. Hear the Christian explanations of the Bible out too as well as the atheist one if you want to really learn the truth about it.

Malari

Jakkass wrote: »

How can people criticise a text that they aren't themselves acquainted with? Also as for Dawkins and the God Delusion, it's an interesting read in sections, but in others poorly written in terms of Christian theology also innaccurate. Hear the Christian explanations of the Bible out too as well as the atheist one if you want to really learn the truth about it.

What?? I said I wanted to read it the whole way through, from start to finish, not that I wasn't aquainted with it! I don't usually criticise the bible, I criticise the belief in a god.

Anyway, I don't need to read the book to reject the idea that there is a god

Flamed Diving

Never read his books.

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

How can people criticise a text that they aren't themselves acquainted with? Also as for Dawkins and the God Delusion, it's an interesting read in sections, but in others poorly written in terms of Christian theology also innaccurate. Hear the Christian explanations of the Bible out too as well as the atheist one if you want to really learn the truth about it.

Ah, but you see Jackass, those explanations all exhibit confirmation bias. Atheists like Dawkins have no axe to grind, or any kind of bias on the Jesus question, so only their explanations of the Bible can be trusted. :pac:

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Ah, but you see Jackass, those explanations all exhibit confirmation bias. Atheists like Dawkins have no axe to grind, or any kind of bias on the Jesus question, so only their explanations of the Bible can be trusted. :pac:

Reminds me (again) of PZ Myer's Courtier's Reply:

PZ Myers wrote:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Schuhart

I read it a while back. I found it reasonably readable, but I'd agree that Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" is actually better and clearer at getting across the significance of evolution. I think that just reflects the fact that Dawkins has the benefit of all the research and debate since.

Two things struck me about "The Origin of Species". One was the extent to which Darwin related his statements to experiment and observation. The other was that (as I recall it) he never explicitly said that humans were a product of evolution. I think there's a reference to the human hand at one point that has this significance. But I felt you'd nearly pass it without noticing.

IIRC, Darwin never planned to publish the work within his lifetime, and only did so because another researcher (Wallace?) had independently arrived at the same conclusion. In the final event, he seemed coy to mention that the differentiation of species he was accounting for includes us.

5uspect

Schuhart wrote: »

I read it a while back. I found it reasonably readable, but I'd agree that Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" is actually better and clearer at getting across the significance of evolution. I think that just reflects the fact that Dawkins has the benefit of all the research and debate since.

Two things struck me about "The Origin of Species". One was the extent to which Darwin related his statements to experiment and observation. The other was that (as I recall it) he never explicitly said that humans were a product of evolution. I think there's a reference to the human hand at one point that has this significance. But I felt you'd nearly pass it without noticing.

IIRC, Darwin never planned to publish the work within his lifetime, and only did so because another researcher (Wallace?) had independently arrived at the same conclusion. In the final event, he seemed coy to mention that the differentiation of species he was accounting for includes us.

Darwin deals with the tricky issue of human evolution in "The Descent of Man".

Did you see David Attenborough's documentary on 200 years of Darwin recently?
I found it very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWaQ3wXylOM

5uspect

5uspect wrote: »

Darwin deals with the tricky issue of human evolution in "The Descent of Man".

Did you see David Attenborough's documentary on 200 years of Darwin recently?
I found it very good.

Ya it's very good. Quite a bit of backlash over it, though.

Schuhart

5uspect wrote: »

Darwin deals with the tricky issue of human evolution in "The Descent of Man".

Did you see David Attenborough's documentary on 200 years of Darwin recently?
I found it very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWaQ3wXylOM

I didn't see it - thanks for the heads-up.

I'm interested in the clarification about the Descent of Man, because I was left a little puzzled wondering how anyone reading the Origin of Species would have noticed its potential significance.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Reminds me (again) of PZ Myer's Courtier's Reply:

Assuming I'm not getting the analogy wrong, you are glorifying Dawkins' wilful ignorance of the arguments of his opponents. Really?

Schuhart

Húrin wrote: »

Assuming I'm not getting the analogy wrong, you are glorifying Dawkins' wilful ignorance of the arguments of his opponents. Really?

Apologies on interjecting.

Like many atheists, I actually don’t think that Dawkins is the best at setting out the case for atheism. I’ve read a couple of his books on evolution, and I find his thinking and writing are clear as day. But I think his approach to theism, unfortunately, is clouded by bias. He starts from an unconscious assumption that theism must be a waste of time. I think a balanced approach would have to allow for the possibility that religion has survived this long because it does something good for many people, regardless of whether it’s true or not.

However, at the same time, I don’t think it’s necessary for Dawkins to wade through a lot of theology to make the case he makes. That’s the real point. I mean, I don’t doubt we’ve rehearsed the usual arguments many times over. If we just focus on the creator argument, what Dawkins calls ‘the ultimate 747’ IIRC, I don’t see what theology can add or subtract from the argument.

You’ll know the score. It’s where theists argue that the universe is too complex to have appeared by chance, and atheists respond that this amounts to saying that a god who is even more complex than the universe evolved by chance. Theology neither adds nor detracts from that impasse. Atheists cannot say that this means there is no god; we can only say that asserting a god adds nothing to our knowledge of how the universe got here. Similarly, theologians rehearsing arguments about the uncaused cause cannot create a god out of pure logic, no matter how much wishful thinking they put into it.

I think that’s all it means. Dawkins, despite his faults, can say ‘right back at you mate’ to the theologians and invite them to point out what exactly it is that he’s missing. I’m afraid, in that situation, they don’t have much to say.

Apologies not only on going on a bit, but on absolutely destroying the very welcome humour in that piece.