eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (10/09/85)
Two of my spare time books have recently included Darwin's Origin of
Species and S. J. Gould's Ontogeny and Phylogeny. What is surprising
about Darwin is that he anticipated most of his critics and include
three chapters about problems with his ideas. He was quite critical of
himself. What makes this surprising is that his critics have not
really changed their arguments over the course of 100 years. Also
less surprising is the lack of Darwin followers to neglient his comments
about what constitutes a species and what is a variation. It appears
Darwin was quite hesisitant (sp) to say humans were a "higher"
life form when compared to other animals, again unlike the Social
Darwinists.
Gould's books are now quite popular, but I think his textbook contains
greater content than his more popular books. He explores many
popularizations of the concept of evolution and how it has affected
Western thinking.
Upon reading Darwin in light of the current CA textbook controversy,
my impression is to forget all the texts between Darwin and Gould
and just use Darwin since he covers both sides of his argument quite
well.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
emiya@ames-vmsbwerner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (10/12/85)
> Two of my spare time books have recently included Darwin's Origin of > Species and S. J. Gould's Ontogeny and Phylogeny. What is surprising > about Darwin is that he anticipated most of his critics and include > three chapters about problems with his ideas. He was quite critical of > himself. What makes this surprising is that his critics have not > really changed their arguments over the course of 100 years. I would like to add to this list: Steven Jay Gould's _Ever_Since_Darwin_. And for some of the things which Darwin didn't anticipate, but which fit very well into his theory (and which Darwin would have included had the evidence been known): R. Dawkins' _The_Selfish_Gene_ (A personal note: I covered the Arkansas Creationist trial for the Harvard Crimson in which Gould testified for the ACLU, and which ended with Judge William Overton striking down the state law requiring equal time for Creationism, and to this day, I can't understand how anyone could have any doubt that evolution occurs. But that's something for net.origins...) -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "When I was your age, I did it for half an hour every day."
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (10/14/85)
<>
I too recently read Darwin's Origin of Species and was also struck by the
thoroughness of Darwin's coverage of opposing arguments. It was clear
that he was not just playing the customary game of setting up straw-man
arguments to knock down. He presented difficulties of the theory fairly
and admitted when they were strong. Also, the sheer volume of evidence
and examples of natural and sexual selection presented by Darwin was
very impressive. He knew what his opposition would be and that he needed
overwhelming factual support to have any hope of prevailing.
One thing I was surprised to see was Darwin's open-mindedness toward
Lamarckism, which was not yet refuted. Darwin said that certain
races of men did not have facial hair, perhaps because, for many
generations, the men plucked out any hair which did appear. NAMEDROP:
I happened to meet Gerard Piel, publisher of Scientific American at
the recent AAAS meeting in L.A., and this came up in conversation. He said
"Oh Yes, and the amount of Lamarckism depends on which edition you read."
Maybe it was edited out by revisionists?
The "Origin of Species" still is one of the best explanations
of Natural selection around. Reading that and something more modern
about "punctuated equilibria" and "molecular clocks" would be
a great education in evolutionary theory and in science in general.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A
{seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al | ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al
------------------------------------------------------------------------phillips@reed.UUCP (Patrick Phillips) (10/29/85)
>"Oh Yes, and the amount of Lamarckism depends on which edition you read." >Maybe it was edited out by revisionists? Actually, I think that the amount of Lamarckism increased with the editions. Darwin was apparently less secure with the importance of natural selection as time went along. (At least that's what Earnst Mayr says). -Patrick Phillips