Talk:On the Origin of Species/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Top

Should these be put in subcategories, as:

The Origin of Species/Chapter 1
The Origin of Species/Chapter 2
etc.?

"although it is very wordy - a good general level of intelligence is a prerequisite for comprehending the arguments and subtle nuances put forth by Darwin"

What's a "good general level of intelligence"? I don't think there is common agreement on this point, and to the degree that there is, it's a rather pretentious statement anyway, sort of like saying "an iq of 120 is probably required to enjoy this book". Unless there are objections, I will remove this parenthesis. Vintermann

Implementing as I type ... jmlynch

Wow, this is fantastic.  :-) I would recommend that we go through later and put some introductory context remark at the front of each chapter. Perhaps some language like this:

"What follows is the full text of Charles Darwin's famous work The Origin of Species. You may want to also start with our main index page for evolution."

That way, when people accidentally surf in from search engines that index this stuff, they will be able to find what they might be looking for.

I'm somewhat iffy on the idea of including the entire raw text of this book in an encyclopedia at all. It's already available in the public domain from many different sources, including project gutenberg; why not just provide an external link there? I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but still, including entire unannotated sources is a bit much. What benefit does it add?

I, for one, find no useful purpose for including this. There are other web sites that are more suited to the publication of electronic texts. If the purpose be to provide ammunition for the opponents of Creationism, there have certainly been many more recent works that have incorporated scientific advances since Darwin's time that would accomplish this goal more effectively. Furthermore Victorian prose style does not make it an easily readable book. Also, it is a very common and easily found book. If electronic storage is going to be used at all for whole books there should be an emphasis on books that are rare and hard to find.

This debate has happened elsewhere on Wikipedia. Some people like primary sources as part of Wikipedia proper, some don't (I don't, for technical reasons). Anyway, please examine the debate there --User:Robert Merkel

It has indeed, and in every case the conclusion of the debate has been that there's no point to dumping the raw text of public-domain source material like this. Not only is it available elsewhere, and not appropriate content for an encyclopedia, but here on Wikipedia the source material can be changed, which is very not good from a scholarly perspective. So, as I have done elsewhere, I'll be bold and delete all this stuff later today if nobody's come up with a compelling argument for me leaving it in here. Bryan Derksen, Saturday, April 13, 2002
  • I for one agree with deleting it. It's found at numerous stable places on the Net, including Project Gutenberg and the talk.origins pages. I've seen it, ah, creatively taken out of context enough time to have a real concern about people editing the original teext if it's placed on a Wiki, and others being mislead thereby. -- April, Saturday, April 13, 2002
Since the articles can always be reverted if anyone comes up with a signficant objection, I think I'l get to work deleting them now. Bryan Derksen
Congratulations for doing this! Eclecticology

Hey, here's an idea. The Origin of Species/Glossary might actually be useful as a source of material for other articles in Wikipedia, though it's admittedly more dictionary than encyclopedia class material. I'm leaving it intact for the moment to take a closer look later on. Bryan Derksen

"Origin of Species" (without an initial "the") was a redundant article, which I've replaced with a redirect here. The other article was very brief, but there are two bits of information that might be worth integrating here:

  • "was first published in November of 1859."
  • "It was the culmination of over two decades of work"

-- Ryguasu

"It is often mocked by modern day specialists as being incredibly pompous in tone despite it's informative nature. As such, it is often lampooned both in literature and in pop culture." -- I don't think this is true, as written.

The text is often looked down upon by modern day scientists as being very condescending and pompous, despite it's usefullness and reader-friendly nature. As such, it is regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film Party Girl.

I dislike the theory of evolution and think Darwin was a dud, but criticism expressed in the Wikipedia must be up to standard. So I moved 1/2 the Party Girl thing to another article. --Ed Poor

I don't doubt that some people find 19th century writing unapproachable, but surely this fact should not take up a third of what an encyclopedia article has to say about The Origin of Species? Accordingly, I've moved this bit back to talk. (also, it's its, usefulness, The, food-oriented, etc.)

"The text is often looked down upon by modern day scientists as being very condescending and pompous, despite it's usefullness and reader-friendly nature. As such, it is regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film "Party Girl" in which a library clerk is approached by a woman who simply says, with a lisp, "Orrngses n' spches." Ther puzzled clerk replies, "Oranges and Peaches? Well, you can try the food=oriented periodicals, but sometimes they're a little holier-than-thou.""

Someone else 21:44 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Moved EasterBradford's comments, and my reply, here from my user page:

I do not appreciate your removal of my totally relevant commentary in "The Origin of Species" entry. What I added was a direct quote from an actual movie along with factual information regarding how many esteemed scientists look upon the text; you removed it with a comment that it was a "crap joke." I am re-adding it, and if you remove it again I will have to take it up with the admins. -Easter Bradford-

I have added pop culture reference as to the current scientific viewing of this text as very pompous and holier-than-thou, and quoted a very popular film as reference. It has been deleted once, and I am adding it again. I request it not be deleted again without proper justification. - Easter Bradford-

Go on, then, give me a cite of these esteemed scientists' views. I'm interested to hear from you.
The film quote does not appear to be relevant, as it does not appear to mock the Origin of Species: it makes a joke about mis-hearing things. The Anome 21:41 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

From the article:

The text is often put down upon as condescending and pompous, despite its usefulness and reader-friendly nature; it is often the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film Party Girl.
  1. The Party Girl quote, as written, does not appear to support this
  2. This is contrary to my understanding
  3. No evidence is offered to support this assertion.
  4. Cites, please, to support this?
  5. Otherwise, in my opinion, this comment should be deleted.
  6. Still, at least we've started a Party Girl article...

I'm an admin, what's the trouble? Some want the Party Girl thing here, some say keep it all in the Party Girl article. C'mon, let's hear some proposals. --Ed Poor

Hey, I don't care if the joke is in or out -- although I like jokes. Let's just find the right place for it.

And if Origin of Species needs criticism, for stodgy writing style or faulty scientific reasoning, let's go ahead and start filling out the article.

How important is one mumbled reference of a book title, anyway? --Ed Poor

I've never heard of the film in question, nor can I think of any other instances of popular culture mocking Darwin's writing style, much less "esteemed scientists". If it seems relevant to the Party Girl article, say for an example of the tone of the work, fine leave it there. But it seems rather vague and pointless here. --Brion 22:24 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone put the text down for being condescending and pompous (although I have heard some mock Darwin's apparent fondness for pigeons) -- indeed, I think few have read it, although I would not blame that on its style. The Party Girl example does not in any way suggest that the text is condescending or pompous. The comment is irrelevant and unsupported and I am taking it out. Slrubenstein
Agreed. The joke's fine. Let's keep the joke in the film article, and put modern-day criticisms of the book in the Origin of Species article. However, I'm unconvinced by some of the claims made -- and using the film's joke to support them appeared to be a non sequitur. The Anome 22:28 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
I agree with you Brion, Slrubenstein and the Anome. The reason I did put the comment back, is that Brion's edit note when he removed the comment did not support the comment's removal in my eyes. The above arguments are better. FvdP 22:37 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
Wasn't me, though I would have happily removed it had I seen it there. --Brion 22:45 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Someone else. For some reason that nickname fails to produce a lasting imprint in my brain ;-) FvdP 22:49 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed passage is going to stay out, unless:

  • We find an example of modern day scientists "looking down upon" Origin of Species as condescending or pompous, or
  • We find evidence that it's "regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture"

Apparently the oranges & peaches thing wasn't convincing enough by itself. How about a text reference? --Ed Poor

A slight error of Darwin in the book (at least the first edition)

(Sorry I forgot to register; my ID is François-Dominique on the French Wikipedia. I am not that sure of the quality of my English, so I would be grateful to any native english speaker to correct it if needed, and copy that part in the main topic, if she of he feels it wothwhile; this point is already described ad such in the French wikipedia, if anybody wants to take a look)

Though a common thought is that Lamarck believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics while Darwin did not, the careful reading of the book's first edition shows that the reality is not exactly that simple. Darwin writes :

"It may be doubted whether any one would have thought of training a dog to point, bad not some one dog naturally shown a tendency in this line; and this is known occasionally to happen, as I once saw in a pure terrier. When the first tendency was once displayed, methodical selection and the inherited effects of compulsory training in each successive generation would soon complete the work" (the emphasis is ours, not Darwin's).

This belief in "the inherited effects (...) of compulsory training" appears like a slight error today (probably due to the youth of the theory) compared to the insight of the rest of the book. However, this shows that the popular characterization of Lamarck's and Darwin's positions at that time is not that exact, a fact that was honestly signalled by Stephen Jay Gould.

I think what you wrote was too long, and pardon me, but I am suspicious of your motivation. I believe that there is a statue somewhere to Lamarck crediting him with the "theory of evolution"; and the French were notoriously slow in taking up Darwinism and rejecting Lamarckism, even up to the 1960s, and I don't want this to be a bit of patriotism that has gone awry and made it POV. (I'll try that in French for a bit of practice):

Je crois que votre contribution est trop long, et (pardon, mais) je suis soupçonneux de votre motivation est patriotisme pour Lamarck. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can understand that, but there is probably no need to, for the three following reasons : 1) As A.S.Neill once said "As long as my work is useful, my motivations do not matter" (or, as Deng Xiaping stated it : "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." 2) Nobody believes in Lamarck's theory today, not only in France, but in the whole Europe as fas as I know, so nobody would defend Lamarck. But defending historical precision as far as epistemology is concerned is quite another story ;o) 3) As incredible as it might perhaps seem in some American states, there is no such thing as contestation of Darwin's theory here in Europe (except by some marginal muslim immigrants), so in fact we do not have any raison d'Etat taboo about him and can criticize him freely without any fear to be identified as a Bible belt fan. In fact, as fact as catholics are concerned, the Vatican itself has admitted quite a time ago that natural evolution was "more than an hypothesis", hence the quotes. But of course, I understand the fact that Darwin was European may be seen as a case of European chauvinism ;o) Cheers ! François-Dominique 20:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) (By the way, while Victor Hugo, who was not a scientist, never accepted Darwin's theory, Ernest Renan, who was one (and in the College de France) and lived at the same time accepted it and promoted it without any delay. Just my two cents.  :o)

immediately?

"immediately sold out its initial print run" -- that would imply that it sold out the day it was published. is that so? Kingturtle 17:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The entire first edition of The Origin of Species was sold out on its publication day, 24 November 1859. A second edition was ready by January 1860, and the book went through a total of six editions during Darwin's lifetime." - intro to Leakey's abridged and illustrated Origin of Species. The article needs more about the editions, esp. changes between 1 and 6, which I'm a bit tied up to do just yet...dave souza 07:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According to the biography by Clark, "Legend maintains that all 1,250 copies were sold on the day of publication; in fact, they were all taken up by booksellers, an indication of the controversy the book was to arouse, but not quite the same thing."--Johnstone 02:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Supported by Desmond & Moore, who note the !st edition was "oversubscribed". Impressive re-editing of the whole article, many thanks..dave souza 19:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for independently confirming the statement, and for the compliment.--Johnstone 01:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A small addition

In the last line of the second box after the article, there is a list of Darwin's eponyms; there are a couple missing, minor but very significant: 1. the farthest west, one of the smallest and the most isolated island on the Galapagos Archipelago is Darwin. 2. the biological research station at the Galapagos National Park is Darwin Research Station. The box cannot be edited from the page, how is it done? Lcgarcia 07:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed statements about Wallace and "first organism"

I have removed the following:

"It is important to remember that Darwin's version of natural selection was different from that presented by Wallace, in that Darwin held that natural selection was continuously operating whereas Wallace argued that selection only occurred when the environment changed."

This statement appears to be wrong. In Wallace's 1858 essay[1], he states that evolution is "...produced by the action of principles constantly at work in nature."

Also removed:

"As an interesting aside, Darwin could be regarded as the first organism in four billion years of life on earth to realise how he had come to exist."

Besides being unencyclopedic and POV, this is also wrong on its own terms: Patrick Matthew has a better claim to the title.--Johnstone 02:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"populations, and not organisms, gradually evolve"

Organisms do not evolve according to Darwin. It is populations that evolve.

  • Well... that's true (and distinguishes a bit the vague notion that "organisms evolve," which could be interpretted in a Lamarckian way), but that sounds to me like a formulation which would be used later (i.e. in the work of Ernst Mayr) than something Darwin would say (Darwin was clearly not a "populations thinker", no matter how much Mayr wanted to interpret him in that light). Hmm. But I can't think of a better way to say it which would be more in accordance with Darwin's own beliefs. He did sometimes talk of "groups" of organisms, but never populations. --Fastfission 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
  • I've done countless essays regarding this book and his work, and never does he even use the word "evolve" or "evolution", I recommend a better word be found User:Leethal

Pseudoscientific Evidence

The first section of this article asserts that modern scientific evidence supports Darwinism. This is plainly not the case. Monkeys have totally incompatible DNA to humans - you cannot copulate with a monkey and expect to create fertile offspring. This article is plagued with anti-creationist POV. It must be changed to highlight both sides of the argument.

I am not a religious zealot, and I do agree with certain aspects of Darwinism. But the point is that scientific evidence does NOT prove it, so this article shouldn't be written as such. Darwinism is a just a theory (albeit a very sketchy one), not proven fact. When I tried to edit this page to make it have a more balanced view, my modification was unjustly denied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rennie84 (talk • contribs) .

I'll try to make this as straightforward as I can:
  1. Mainstream biologists have yet to come across serious evidence which they think has gone against the general concept of Darwinism in its modern form (modern evolutionary synthesis), though there is of course debate over exact mechanisms.
  2. The fact that apes (not monkeys) and humans are not the same species is not evidence against Darwinism, which does not claim that they do.
  3. The article is about a particular book, and links very prominently to pages about the Creationist-Evolution controversy.
  4. Nobody claims scientific evidence "proves" any scientific theory. Scientific theories are supported by the lack of dis-proving evidence. There is of yet no scientific evidence supported by the scientific community which disproves the modern form of Darwinism.
  5. "Just a theory" reflects a lack of understanding over the meaning of a scientific theory. You might want to look at our page on theory if you plan on being taken seriously.
  6. Your edits were reverted because they do not reflect attention to our NPOV policy. Modern biological evidence does not disprove Darwinism according to all mainstream biologists, and only someone with a complete lack of knowledge about the theory would think that the fact that DNA between species is incompatible for reproduction disproves Darwinism. In fact it is the definition of speciation, and was known even to Darwin in his day as such (albeit without reference to DNA, of course).
In short, your edits and comments here reflect either an accidental or purposeful lack of knowledge of modern biology, rudimentary philosophy of science, and a lack of understanding over what Darwin's theory actually was, much less its modern formulations. Hence your edits were reverted. If you'd like recommendations on how to correct these lacunae, I'm happy to recommend a few articles on Wikipedia which would put you in a position to make informed edits on this topic. --Fastfission 17:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The original is bias as well:
As one of the opening paragraphs, the debated paragraph has a particularly strong obligation to be non-bias. The original is equally as bias as Rennie's proposed edit. It starts "Although" in support of a Point of view, and proceeds to make an argument that is equally unsupported. For example, what is "in come parts of the world" about? Any why repeat "scientist" as if trying to drive home a point (using negation when a positive statement suffices)?
In specific, Gallop-polls sited in National Geographic (Nov 2004, "Was Darwin Wrong?") note that over the last 20 years opinions have remind consistently divided on the subject. They note 45 percent reject the idea outright. This can not be ignored, even if you are among the 12 percent like me.
I have replaced the sentence with one I feel is less loaded, and hope further edits can improve in the same direction (mine still makes claims I can't support about the scientific community, and assumes the primary motivation for dissent, ignoring others in pursuit of brevity).
-- Cris 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)