Hello, has anyone read pic related?
Is Darwin arguing the existence of certain body parts might be favorable to the migration of species?
For instance, wings. Is this true? Do we see more varieties and species of birds because of the large domain of territory they cover and inhabit, in addition to the decreased predators due the evolutionary advantage of wings?
>>7792665
Why would you read this outdated crap instead of a modern biology textbook?
i've read a few pages of it. the way it's written is pretty intense from what i remember. his topographical aspect was more akin to how migration was favorable for the species in a given context, although his understanding what was favorable could be questioned.
>>7792669
retard
>>7792669
Yes, you are a retard.
Why wouldn't you read something like The Origin of Species, its influence is spread throughout the 20th century.
>>7792692
That's exactly what I'm saying. There aren't many other books from the 19th century that you could read and say you understand one of the foundational theories of modern evolutionary biology.
This is almost as annoying as when people say you shouldn't read Euclid because 'Euclidean Geometry is dum hurr'
>>7792684
He's right you know.
The origin of species is not like the fucking bible. It's not the definitive and complete word on biology.
You are much better off reading a current bio textbook.
You sound like a dipshit
>>7792714
However a lot of things such as Mendelian genetic theory was influenced by Darwins theories, and many others as well. Very long after the publishing of the book.
So no, he's not right. Not if you're trying to get a full grasp of evolutionary biology.
>>7792714
nobody said it was. you shouldn't argue that newer books in a field like biology should take precedence if you have no foundational knowledge on the matter. they just end up being generalizations of the origin of species, which would be far inferior from someone who's looking for more than a reference.
>>7792708
Seriosly? I was just about to mention how ridiculous it would be for someone to waste time reading Euclid's Elements
Sure it's important to have heard of and know about the great historical works and have a general idea of them but not actually read the outdated material
Sounds like pseudointellectual wankery
>>7792720
>>7792727
If you want "foundational knowledge" and "a full grasp" of evolutionary biology, then read a modern textbook. More concise, more scientific, and leaving out all the philosophical and otherwise outdated nonsense. You gain absolutely nothing from being a pseudo-intellectual manchild insisting in reading the original historical texts.
>>7792728
To build a good foundation takes time. If you're simply after just contemporary theory and modern calculations, sure read a textbook. However, in terms of modern thought, nothing beats the Origin of Species.
So you know economics? The Wealth of Nations is important, but if you read it, you would have no idea of contemporary thought regarding economics because the system is different and a lot of theories Smith had were refuted by later economists.
Not so with The Origin of Species, although some facts may have been used correctly or incorrectly, the theory is what influenced almost all of 20th century thought. The benefit of reading the book is that you get a huge grasp of where evolutionary biology stemmed from.
>>7792731
what "pseudo intellectual bullshit" are you referring to? have you even read the book? if not, how do you have authority to say it's pseudo in any regard? your objections are facetious.
>>7792742
There is not much of a "foundation". The theory of evolution is pretty simple and you will fully understand it after reading a modern biology textbook.
>>7792743
>what "pseudo intellectual bullshit" are you referring to?
I'm referring to YOU. Because you are the one who rejects modern textbooks and prefers to read outdated historical texts for no reason other than feeling pseudo-intellectual.
>>7792745
Actually there are a lot of complex mechanics at hand that you would grasp more fully by reading the book and looking at his findings, many of which are still valid and acceptable, like coeval genetic deviations of seemingly unrelated parts.
>>7792750
Instead of reading some guy from the 19th century philosophically speculating about these "complex mechanics" you could read a modern textbook which explains scientifically which of these mechanisms have been shown to be true and how they work on the level of genetics. Also the modern textbook will cover lots of additional mechanisms discovered later.
>>7792749
i already explained that modern textbooks are only good if you are looking to get a brief introduction to the foundations of evolutionary biology and then jump into applications. this is more about inquiring more knowledge on said foundation. these are two distinct endeavors that you seem to be corroborating in an in-concise way. saying it's out dated would make no sense given it is cited in almost any credible textbook. is Hamiltonian mechanics outdated because Hamilton's original paper, which is still cited to this day, is old?
>>7792754
He's Darwin and the theory in the book is one still currently accepted fully by academics. Reading a textbook could not explain the theory better.
>>7792728
(not the guy you were replying to, BTW)
I could see some worth in reading Euclid. The ancient Greeks used different methods than are commonly taught today, and learning them could help give someone a deeper insight into geometry.
Mathematics can be proven, though. Modern geometry is no more true than Euclid's geometry. Biology, on the other hand, gets refined over time. Darwin would be better compared with Freud - the father of the discipline, but outdated and irrelevant to modern understanding.
>>7792801
Freud is very irrelevant, but fundamental.
I'd like you to tell me why Darwin is in any way shape or form irrelevant
>>7792815
It really depends on what your goal is.
If you want to learn how evolution works, its mechanisms, the scientific aspect of it - then don't read Darwin. His ideas were great, but we've had a lot of observation and experimentation since then. The theory has been refined since his time.
If you want to gain a historical perspective on evolution - learn /about/ evolution instead of learning evolution itself - then reading Darwin is fine. Just remember that Origins does not represent the current state of the theory.
>>7792826
How exactly has the theory deviated from Darwin's theory? Just curious.
>>7792832
I'm probably not the right person to answer that question. I'm not a biologist; I just like science and history.
Darwin never specified exactly how the theory worked. He laid down the framework, but there was a lot to fill in. We've had a century and a half to refine the theory. We've reconciled Darwin and Mendel, and we're still learning the different ways that genetic information can be passed around.
When I said he was irrelevant, I didn't mean historically. It's just that you won't learn anything from Origins that you wouldn't learn from a textbook.
Yes, he does argue that. However, he mentions that it may be also burdensome for some species to develop wings.
I recall him mentioning certain bug in Madeira Island, which he then mentions that gets often blown away to the sea, presumably to certain death. If I recall correctly, he mentions that such insects may have these organs severely affected due to lack of use.
As for birds, he argues that it could be unlikely that birds could have arrived to certain places without wings. He mentions that it may be the reason why other wingless wildlife is absent in such places. This translates in a lack of predators and, in fact, evolutionary advantage to these birds.
Darwin argues that whatever may give some help to any species will favour them in natural selection, so that these are more likely to leave offspring. So, indeed, taken that certain body part represents and advantage, it is likely that it may be useful to its survival, given that their survival depends on how they adapt to the environment, if one species is ill adapted, it wont survive, while those that are well adapted will likely do so.
If I may, regarding to this troublesome notion that Darwin's book may be not worth reading, and so a modern textbook is better. While this is partially true, I afraid most authors fail to engage the reader in the way Darwin did. Although I am not saying that his way is the best way to explain it, it may captivate you the way he explains things, very simple, and often sharing the wonder of nature with the reader. It is true, the book may be a little outdated by now, yet, some propositions still hold true; namely, that species are competing with one another for scarce resources, that species adapt through small changes that accumulate through generations, that species that parent species will likely lose in the race for survival with better fitted offspring species.
If you want to learn about what is up to date, go read a modern textbook, there are some good out there.
>>7792742
You know what, I shouldn't have gotten hostile. It definitely is a solid book, If somebody's taken some bio classes at least and wants to learn more about how the theory began there's nothing wrong with reading On the Origin of Species.
I admit I have taken a look at a copy of Hooke's Micrographia but only at the drawings, I didn't read the ye olde englishe text. So I know that's it's cool to look at historical works.
So yeah I guess I'd say it's fine if you want to read it. But you should know about the modern theory and molecular mechanisms of evolution as well. I was thinking more if somebody had never read any other bio book but decided to read Darwin to seem cool.
>>7792856
True, but you have to admit, out of all the old books to read, On the Origin of Species is by far the most rewarding.
>>7792856
>I recall him mentioning certain bug in Madeira Island
You have an incredible memory. That is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>7792759
>Reading a textbook could not explain the theory better.
Indeed, a 19th century theologian can surely better explain biology than a genetics researcher from today. How could I ever have been that foolish to believe all that research done over the last 200 years was more than merely a footnote to your meme guy's epic work.
>>7793149
What you have is the application of material facts and statistical models to a theory developed by Darwin. Prove me wrong.
>>7793158
Show me where Darwin hypothesized pseudogenes and transposons. Oh wait, he didn't even know what DNA is.
>>7793330
Exactly. But how has that information deviated from the original theory propounded in his book?
I assert it simply built upon it further.
>>7793335
>an incomplete speculative outline of the theory in antiquated language is better than a complete up-to-date presentation of the theory with details, evidence and newer insights
>it's better only because it was written by le epic meme man
>>7793364
There's nothing you can do. Evolutionary thought is based on the findings and interpretations of Darwin and his contemporaries.
>>7793460
Sorry for being more scientific minded than you. While you are pseudo-intellectually jerking off over the mere trivial concept of "populations change over time", I prefer to study the scientific details of the theory and the exact mechanisms. To each their own. I hope you enjoy your useless philosophy degree.
