In terms of how much I enjoyed reading this book, I give it 4 stars. However, obviously, if I were to rate it based on its importance and profoundness, it would easily be 5 stars. It is a rather dense book, and while interesting, it can take a while to get through.

I think one of the most fascinating things about this book is just how much Darwin was able to deduce in a time before people knew about DNA or even understood genetics. There were many points in the book where he began on a path, and I would think, "Oh, we know the answer to this now thanks to DNA," and then I read on and see that he managed to come to the correct conclusion! Albeit accompanied by some uncertainty since he knew at the time he could not prove a lot of what he was saying. It is quite amazing what people are able to figure out if they are extremely dedicated to understanding something and are very scientifically minded.

Darwin is a scientist through and through, and you can see that not just in his dedication to experimentation, research, and excellent deductions, but in his humility and his openness to potentially being wrong. He does not proclaim himself any sort of "genius," and he does not ignore arguments against his theory; rather, he takes those arguments as a challenge to see if his theory can stand up to them; he makes it clear that if his theory were to fail, he would openly accept this (incidentally, his theory has been going strong for close to 200 years now!) All good scientists should take a page out of Darwin's book (figuratively) and adopt this spirit. Even if you develop one of the most influential and groundbreaking theories ever devised, it is important to always stay humble and always look for ways in which you may be wrong, even if you hope with all of your heart that you are right! ( )

Endless forms most beautiful, indeed.
A pivotal publication hewing to the the basic foundation tying all of biology together. A must read for biology geeks such as me, and I finally read it. ( )

Amazing ( )

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DETAILS:
Below are the versions that Amazon has gathered together as different formats of the same material. I will take their word for it—I listened to the audio version.

Print: COPYRIGHT ©: (1872) 9/8/2021; ISBN: 979-8473178807; PUBLISHER: Independently published; PAGES: 529; (Info from Amazon)

Digital: ©: (1872) March 20, 2024; ASIN: BOCWR1TLB6; PAGES: 693; Unabridged (Info from Amazon.com)

*Audio: COPYRIGHT ©: (1872) 27 Aug 2007; PUBLISHER: CSA Word; DURATION: 6 hrs. (approx..); Abridged; (Info from version available in Libby app)
(Amazon gives an ISBN for this version of 978-1904605775 and a publication date of 11/25/2006)
Feature Film or tv: No

SERIES: No

SUMMARY/ EVALUATION:
SELECTED: I have long wanted to read Darwin’s “Origin of Species”. This is abridged, but I have no idea HOW abridged. I looked up audiobook versions in the Libby app, and this looked like a good choice.
ABOUT: The theory of biological evolution via natural selection, whereby physical characteristics of plants and animals come and go based on their usefulness in the longevity of life and a species.
OVERALL IMPRESSION: Interesting. Though, I did detect a defensiveness against the idea of a “Creator” as though such a thing would ruin the entire evolution theory. Personally, I think this just indicates that while people can be quite open minded about a favorite theory, their imaginations can be surprisingly limited in other directions.

AUTHOR:
Charles Darwin: (From Wikipedia)
“Charles Robert Darwin FRS FRGS FLS FZS JP[6] (/ˈdɑːrwɪn/[7] DAR-win; 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist, geologist and biologist,[8] widely known for his contributions to evolutionary biology. His proposition that all species of life have descended from a common ancestor is now generally accepted and considered a fundamental concept in science.[9] In a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace, he introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.[10] Darwin has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history and was honoured by burial in Westminster Abbey.[11][12]”

NARRATOR & Editor:
Richard Dawkins- Excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL (born 26 March 1941)[3] is a British evolutionary biologist, zoologist, and author.[4] He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was Professor for Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford from 1995 to 2008. His 1976 book The Selfish Gene popularised the gene-centred view of evolution, as well as coining the term meme. Dawkins has won several academic and writing awards.[5]”
ME: Ahh, yes. I remember Mr. Dawkins now. He authored “The God Delusion”. Again, I can only say that while having an applaudable imagination for accepting theories of science, he is another one that has me feeling a bit judgmental with the opinion that there is a deplorable lack of imagination for an understanding of what “God” might be.
Great narrative voice.

GENRE:
Nonfiction; Science

SUBJECTS: (Not comprehensive
Evolutionary biology; natural selection; survival of the fittest; evolutionary tree

RATING:.
5 for all of the obvious research and power of intellect that went into this work.

STARTED READING – FINISHED READING
3/19/2024- 6/12/2024 ( )

Meticulously evidenced, carefully argued, and both cautious and revelatory, but consequently a little bit boring as a read. ( )

This book is a published version of Ben Fry's website, On the Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Traces (https://benfry.com/traces/), a creative take on Morse Peckham's Variorum of Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1959 (online version here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html).

From Ben Fry's website: "We often think of scientific ideas, such as Darwin's theory of evolution, as fixed notions that are accepted as finished. In fact, Darwin's On the Origin of Species evolved over the course of several editions he wrote, edited, and updated during his lifetime. The first English edition was approximately 150,000 words and the sixth is a much larger 190,000 words. In the changes are refinements and shifts in ideas — whether increasing the weight of a statement, adding details, or even a change in the idea itself. The second edition, for instance, adds a notable “by the Creator” to the closing paragraph, giving greater attribution to a higher power. In another example, the phrase “survival of the fittest” — usually considered central to the theory and often attributed to Darwin — instead came from British philosopher Herbert Spencer, and didn't appear until the fifth edition of the text. Using the six editions as a guide, we can see the unfolding and clarification of Darwin's ideas as he sought to further develop his theory during his lifetime. This project is made possible by the hard work of Dr. John van Wyhe, et al. who run The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. The text for each edition was sourced from their careful transcription of Darwin's books. This piece is one of multiple sketches that look at the changes between editions. For instance, the earliest version here simply depicts all six books in parallel."

I like to read books that laid the foundation for certain lines of study. I am a chemist by education but found it difficult to penetrate his long sentences and long paragraphs of what seemed to me to be rambling narratives. I’m glad biologists got what they needed from this work to develop the evolutionary sciences. Maybe I’ll try to finish this book someday. ( )

Boring and stupid. ( )

Amazingly readable. Loved his writing, his breadth of knowledge, his generosity, his modesty. ( )

I think I actually bought this book for my son....but I'm not sure. It's a really good version of "On the Origin of Species" and has a lot of supplementary correspondence relating to it....including excepts from Charles Darwin's autobiography. That would be my reasoning if I bought it for myself. But if for my son then the logic would have been that he is engaged in university studies in biology and Darwin's book is THE classic of biological science ...yet most of the undergraduates that I knew had not read the Origen of Species when they graduated. (In fact of all the students that I knew personally, none had read it). And, I suspect that very few, if any, of our lecturers had read it. I did read it myself...many years after graduation and found it rather remarkable. Relatively easy to read (even if the language was slightly archaic) and persuasive, and, actually quite engaging. It also gives one boasting rights or, at least, a quiet feeling of satisfaction that you have at least read the great classic...when most others probably have not. But, apart from that there were bits of the story that have remained with me for probably 50 years: his work with pigeons and his correspondence with dog breeders ...in fact, his remarkable correspondence with all sorts of people around the world....and his travels on the Beagle.
I'll try to get my son to read it now that he is on summer break from University...but suspect it will be consigned to the pile of books recommended to him by me but now gathering dust.
I'm not going to try and review Darwin's book in detail. There are far too many others who have done this. But simply to say that it's a really impressive work and has had an incredible impact ...not only in biology but also in other fields such as history where evolutionary thinking has been applied and with the current Covid 19 virus pandemic where the virus keeps evolving. As Daniel Dennett put it..."Darwin's dangerous idea". Down-side: no pictures...I have other versions with pictures...which I like.
Happy to give this five stars and hope my son will read it. ( )

It's amazing to me how much Darwin got right in this book, and also all that he got wrong. ( )

7/8/22

Como algo tan corto puede ser tan disruptivo y genial. ( )

I had not realised that the theory was presented with such a breadth of evidence and in such an accessible way. Very surprised that such a central work of science was so readable. ( )

لا يمكن وصفه بأقل من العبقري والثوري، ونقطة تحول جذرية في علم الأحياء.
ملأت الاكتشفات الأحفورية الحديثة وعلم الجينات الحلقات المفقودة في النظرية الداروينية، وأكدت انحدار الأنواع الحية من أصل مشترك ودور الانتقاء الطبيعي في تطور الكائنات. ( )

seminal work, refutes arguments still being made

Hard to read, but as a biology student, it was a pleasure to read Darwin's theory of evolution. ( )

Possibly the most important book ever written. ( )

If you had an idea, perhaps one of the most important ideas of all time, but one that contradicted the established doctrine of a millennia old institution, how would you convince people your idea was right? And let's make no bones about the importance of Darwin's theory of evolution. As (the Russian Orthodox Christian) Theodosius Dobzhansky would famously put it over a century after Darwin's masterpiece was published: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Looking at the modern online "debate" (and by using that word I stretch its definition well beyond its elastic limit) between the pro- and anti-evolution camps, it's a rather depressing scene. The anti- camp tends to get hung up on the meaning of the word "theory". I'm currently striving to make a career out of studying number theory. Given that the theory of numbers requires an abstraction of thought far more chimerical than any theory in the physical sciences, perhaps these masters of debate would suggest that numbers don't exist either and thus the Thomas More Legal Centre will start giving out millions of dollars to the needy — after all what is a million? No, seriously, what is a million? (Or in a more earthy example courtesy of Tim Minchin, maybe those who dismiss evolution as being "just a theory" feel the same away about the theory of gravity, and maybe they'll just float the fuck away.)

The pro-evolution camp fares little better to be honest; and by the pro- camp I'm not talking about the scientific community. Scientists know evolution is the basis of how life works, most of them are about as willing to have serious debates on it as I would be to debate the true value of pi. No, by the pro- camp I mean the youtube commenters and the such like whose responses to Creationists tend to invoke the promiscuity of the latter's mother.

Based on modern sentiments, then, to convince Victorian England that his theory of evolution was correct Darwin presumably launched a scathing attack on the Church and highlighted the fact that we must descend from smelly, hairy apes because he'd seen yo' momma. Zing.

So is that how he kicks off his treatise, with a rousing assault on the enemy? Not exactly. He talks about dogs. And chickens and goats. And Mr Blyth, who knows more about domesticated fowl than you or I ever will. Oh, and pigeons. There's a great deal about pigeons. The first chapter is in fact distinctly unrousing. "We know all this, Charles!" you feel like yelling, "Shut up about the God-forsaken pigeons already." Chapter two rolls around and the talk of pigeons ends. Praise be. What begins is Darwin's definition of "species". Given the work's title it seems fair enough that we should know what a species is, so Darwin defines one as being a collection of animals that can interbreed. He notes some empirical facts about the geographical distribution of genera and varieties and again the whole chapter is entirely unobjectionable.

Chapter three follows up by pointing out that exactly how one wishes to divide up living beings into groups is immaterial and will always be slightly artificial. What we can agree on is that within each grouping of alike animals or plants there is individual variation, as discussed in Chapter 2, and we know from domesticated animals and plants that living things tend to pass on certain characteristics to their offspring; and if we didn't know that when we started the book we do after the extensive discussion in Chapter 1. Finally, again from domesticated stock, we know that offspring inherit much from their parents, but will sometimes have quirks of their own. Spend enough time gardening or with an isolated group of animals and you won't be able to refute this. Thus, Darwin points out in Chapter 3, what happens if one of these distinct quirks the offspring develops is actually advantageous? Slightly better camouflage, say, or the ability to survive with less water, or seeds that are slightly more palatable to birds, or flowers that are more attractive to bees? By the definition of the word advantage this offspring would have a slightly better chance of surviving and producing offspring of its own. Only slightly better, yes, and still open to the whimsy of the environment, but better nonetheless. And if humans can turn wolves into Basset Hounds in a few hundred years, presumably over a few hundred thousand years these small statistical gains can add up to result in a living thing that is so far removed from its descendant that breeding would be impossible between the two of them. Thus we have: the origin of species.

Darwin, it should be pointed out, has nothing to say about your or anyone else's mother in The Origin of Species.

It's hard not to smile during the first few chapters of the book. Darwin lays out truths so self-evident that no one could refute them without losing all credibility. It's slow paced, sure, but only because Darwin is making sure that there can only be one inevitable conclusion. Even if you think your faith is irreconcilable with the conclusions he draws I think you'd be hard pressed to fault his logic. Indeed, most doubters of evolution seem to be Young Earth Creationists, those who believe that the Universe was created on Saturday 22nd October, 4004 BC, a remarkably specific date determined by the Irish Primate James Usher (not to be confused with rhythm and blues singer Usher Raymond IV who, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't made any attempt to calculate the exact age of the Earth). It's no coincidence that the Venn diagram of Christians and non-believers in evolution tends to intersect on this particular group: Darwin's theory requires hundreds of thousands of years for undirected evolution to work. A cat with laser eyes might have a massive advantage over its brethren but that advantage comes to naught if it gets ran over before it can make laser-kittens. Over many years, though, the chances of every laser cat that randomly appears being ran over tend to zero. Fortunately for Darwin, Victorian geologists aged the Earth at many millions of years old, ample time for laser-kittens.

As important as what is in the book is what isn't in the book. I smiled as I saw where Darwin was going with his argument. But oh how I cringed every time he tried to explain the mechanics of inheritance but couldn't because Mendel's theory of genetics wouldn't be widely publicised for another forty years. He also, wisely, doesn't apply his theory to humans, merely suggesting near the end of the final chapter that via evolution, "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." By the 1870s and his publication of [b:The Descent of Man|185407|The Descent of Man|Charles Darwin|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1311644193s/185407.jpg|728232] England had almost unanimously accepted evolution and was thus more willing to accept that man too had evolved from "lesser" lifeforms. Indeed, one of the more controversial aspects of Darwin's later work wasn't that we might have evolved from the same creature as did chimpanzees and orang-utans, but that the civilized English gentleman sipping his tea in the club was of the same species as the dark skinned, spear-carrying savages one heard of in fantastical books. That even this revelation was accepted by the majority of readers hopefully conveys the power of Darwin's arguments. And one more thing that doesn't appear in The Origin of Species is the woeful line that "we evolved from chimps". Few statements show a more feeble understanding of evolutionary theory than the notion that most extant species have been the same for hundreds of thousands of years while new species branch off. After all:

(Image by Matthew Bonnan as part of the Second annual Stick Science Cartoon Contest.)

Whatever your personal beliefs, it's hard to claim that The Origin of Species is anything short of a masterful argument. If, as Young Earth Creationists claim, God made the Earth look four and a half billion years old, hid fossils in the ground, and constantly tweaks species to better suit their environment but makes it all look like it's occurring naturally, then Darwin simply brought us all one step closer to understanding God. If on the other hand God either isn't there or doesn't care, then Darwin brought us one step closer to understanding the Universe itself, and I can think of no goal more sacred than that. ( )

If you had an idea, perhaps one of the most important ideas of all time, but one that contradicted the established doctrine of a millennia old institution, how would you convince people your idea was right? And let's make no bones about the importance of Darwin's theory of evolution. As (the Russian Orthodox Christian) Theodosius Dobzhansky would famously put it over a century after Darwin's masterpiece was published: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Looking at the modern online "debate" (and by using that word I stretch its definition well beyond its elastic limit) between the pro- and anti-evolution camps, it's a rather depressing scene. The anti- camp tends to get hung up on the meaning of the word "theory". I'm currently striving to make a career out of studying number theory. Given that the theory of numbers requires an abstraction of thought far more chimerical than any theory in the physical sciences, perhaps these masters of debate would suggest that numbers don't exist either and thus the Thomas More Legal Centre will start giving out millions of dollars to the needy — after all what is a million? No, seriously, what is a million? (Or in a more earthy example courtesy of Tim Minchin, maybe those who dismiss evolution as being "just a theory" feel the same away about the theory of gravity, and maybe they'll just float the fuck away.)

The pro-evolution camp fares little better to be honest; and by the pro- camp I'm not talking about the scientific community. Scientists know evolution is the basis of how life works, most of them are about as willing to have serious debates on it as I would be to debate the true value of pi. No, by the pro- camp I mean the youtube commenters and the such like whose responses to Creationists tend to invoke the promiscuity of the latter's mother.

Based on modern sentiments, then, to convince Victorian England that his theory of evolution was correct Darwin presumably launched a scathing attack on the Church and highlighted the fact that we must descend from smelly, hairy apes because he'd seen yo' momma. Zing.

So is that how he kicks off his treatise, with a rousing assault on the enemy? Not exactly. He talks about dogs. And chickens and goats. And Mr Blyth, who knows more about domesticated fowl than you or I ever will. Oh, and pigeons. There's a great deal about pigeons. The first chapter is in fact distinctly unrousing. "We know all this, Charles!" you feel like yelling, "Shut up about the God-forsaken pigeons already." Chapter two rolls around and the talk of pigeons ends. Praise be. What begins is Darwin's definition of "species". Given the work's title it seems fair enough that we should know what a species is, so Darwin defines one as being a collection of animals that can interbreed. He notes some empirical facts about the geographical distribution of genera and varieties and again the whole chapter is entirely unobjectionable.

Chapter three follows up by pointing out that exactly how one wishes to divide up living beings into groups is immaterial and will always be slightly artificial. What we can agree on is that within each grouping of alike animals or plants there is individual variation, as discussed in Chapter 2, and we know from domesticated animals and plants that living things tend to pass on certain characteristics to their offspring; and if we didn't know that when we started the book we do after the extensive discussion in Chapter 1. Finally, again from domesticated stock, we know that offspring inherit much from their parents, but will sometimes have quirks of their own. Spend enough time gardening or with an isolated group of animals and you won't be able to refute this. Thus, Darwin points out in Chapter 3, what happens if one of these distinct quirks the offspring develops is actually advantageous? Slightly better camouflage, say, or the ability to survive with less water, or seeds that are slightly more palatable to birds, or flowers that are more attractive to bees? By the definition of the word advantage this offspring would have a slightly better chance of surviving and producing offspring of its own. Only slightly better, yes, and still open to the whimsy of the environment, but better nonetheless. And if humans can turn wolves into Basset Hounds in a few hundred years, presumably over a few hundred thousand years these small statistical gains can add up to result in a living thing that is so far removed from its descendant that breeding would be impossible between the two of them. Thus we have: the origin of species.

Darwin, it should be pointed out, has nothing to say about your or anyone else's mother in The Origin of Species.

It's hard not to smile during the first few chapters of the book. Darwin lays out truths so self-evident that no one could refute them without losing all credibility. It's slow paced, sure, but only because Darwin is making sure that there can only be one inevitable conclusion. Even if you think your faith is irreconcilable with the conclusions he draws I think you'd be hard pressed to fault his logic. Indeed, most doubters of evolution seem to be Young Earth Creationists, those who believe that the Universe was created on Saturday 22nd October, 4004 BC, a remarkably specific date determined by the Irish Primate James Usher (not to be confused with rhythm and blues singer Usher Raymond IV who, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't made any attempt to calculate the exact age of the Earth). It's no coincidence that the Venn diagram of Christians and non-believers in evolution tends to intersect on this particular group: Darwin's theory requires hundreds of thousands of years for undirected evolution to work. A cat with laser eyes might have a massive advantage over its brethren but that advantage comes to naught if it gets ran over before it can make laser-kittens. Over many years, though, the chances of every laser cat that randomly appears being ran over tend to zero. Fortunately for Darwin, Victorian geologists aged the Earth at many millions of years old, ample time for laser-kittens.

As important as what is in the book is what isn't in the book. I smiled as I saw where Darwin was going with his argument. But oh how I cringed every time he tried to explain the mechanics of inheritance but couldn't because Mendel's theory of genetics wouldn't be widely publicised for another forty years. He also, wisely, doesn't apply his theory to humans, merely suggesting near the end of the final chapter that via evolution, "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." By the 1870s and his publication of [b:The Descent of Man|185407|The Descent of Man|Charles Darwin|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1311644193s/185407.jpg|728232] England had almost unanimously accepted evolution and was thus more willing to accept that man too had evolved from "lesser" lifeforms. Indeed, one of the more controversial aspects of Darwin's later work wasn't that we might have evolved from the same creature as did chimpanzees and orang-utans, but that the civilized English gentleman sipping his tea in the club was of the same species as the dark skinned, spear-carrying savages one heard of in fantastical books. That even this revelation was accepted by the majority of readers hopefully conveys the power of Darwin's arguments. And one more thing that doesn't appear in The Origin of Species is the woeful line that "we evolved from chimps". Few statements show a more feeble understanding of evolutionary theory than the notion that most extant species have been the same for hundreds of thousands of years while new species branch off. After all:

(Image by Matthew Bonnan as part of the Second annual Stick Science Cartoon Contest.)

Whatever your personal beliefs, it's hard to claim that The Origin of Species is anything short of a masterful argument. If, as Young Earth Creationists claim, God made the Earth look four and a half billion years old, hid fossils in the ground, and constantly tweaks species to better suit their environment but makes it all look like it's occurring naturally, then Darwin simply brought us all one step closer to understanding God. If on the other hand God either isn't there or doesn't care, then Darwin brought us one step closer to understanding the Universe itself, and I can think of no goal more sacred than that. ( )

1. This book was writing a long time ago. His style is to logically present his arguments.
A. There has been a great deal of genetic understanding since then.
B. There is a lot of speculation about what might cause variation as he puts together his logical arguments.
2. Many authorities are cited that are meaningless to me 160 years after the book was written. But, then, I am not a biologist
3. Early on he lists objections which people might (and do) raise against his proposal of evolution though intermediate species. Then later on elaborates on them. I was impressed that he responded up front to the objections that I heard listed against him a century later.
4. The book is full of comparisons, analysis of what they mean, and how such differences may have formed. It could easily fill a semester at college. These get rather tedious to a person who isn’t a specialist in the field.
A. Thus, for someone who wants to learn what Darwin actually said without wading through all the examples and discussion, I recommend the last chapter: Chapter 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION.
B. Although labeled Recapitulation and Conclusion, his thesis came through here clearer than it did earlier: He asserts that there were not multiple creative acts (as believed by most experts of his time), but that there was one creation of life with variation thereafter.


( )

Rating this was not easy. I think this book is a 5 star for importance however this was a tough book to trudge through. I listened to it on audio and I don't think I could have finished it otherwise. ( )

5 stars, naturally! ( )

Huge work, sadly most people that either parrot or mock Darwin, have never read or understood Darwin. That is somewhat understandable as it is a tediously boring read. ( )

I know it is the all important biology book but... As far as a good read... I could barely get through it - and I am a science teacher! But I think that is why it was hard to get through it. I know most of it and was not surprised by anything.... ( )