The “origins” debate is 157 years ongoing today

in #origins3 years ago (edited)

Well, the debate is actually older than that, but 157 years ago today a huge log was thrown into the “origins” bonfire by none other than Charles Darwin with his first publication of “On the Origin of Species” on the 24 November 1859.

By Unknown, The Hornet is no longer in publication and it is very likely for a 20-year-old artist in 1871 to have died before 1939 - Originally published in The Hornet magazine; this image is available on University College London Digital Collections (18886), Public Domain, Link

Even today it’s still a great read. Some of its content is dated and has been superseded by later discoveries and developments in our scientific understanding but many of the principles are still valid.

I find it also a great read from the perspective of the beautiful writing. I prefer reading the King James Version of the Bible and so am quite used to older forms of English.

Charles Darwin writes in prose and “On the Origin of Species” is a fine example of some well written prose.

So for someone not interested in the origins debate it is worth reading “On the Origin of Species” simply for the enjoyment of beautifully written English.

Public Domain, Link

“On the Origin of Species” is not as anti God and religion as some make it out to be.

Darwin simply puts forth an alternative method of "creation" that is natural selection driven and requires far less frequent meddling from a creator.

A scenario in which once the ball is rolling it has the capacity to maintain momentum with very limited interventions and course corrections. When these corrections are necessary they are in the form of environmental changes which drive selection in a specific direction.

Sort:  

I expect Darwin was conflicted between the religious culture he grew up in and the evidence he saw in nature. We still have people denying such evidence

Yup, It takes a broad and open mind... Something that was lacking then and in many instances is still lacking now.

Darwin is considered outdated and incomplete by current science, so I wonder any real biologist is still debating into Darwin. Currently the DNA is mapped, and the same for mDNA , pRNA and more. Antibiotics are being produced using selections, and we have GMOs in the supermarket.

The simple idea there is a debate on Darwin in 2017 is pretty hilarious, being honest. At the point science is, like CRISPR , there is a little doubt about the evolution of species: not exactly how Darwin said, but still it is a well known issue, with commercial applications too.

The debate is, most likely, only in some bible belt, which likes to think there is still room for a debate.

''..........so I wonder any real biologist is actually into Darwin.''

Such an ignorant, idiotic statement. So because science advances and new discoveries are made, no one should ''be into'' the pioneers of physics, astronomy, mathematics, biology etc?

Straw man argument. Never said people should ignore it. Muted.

lol. That's the right attitude. Welcome to Steemit.

Btw, nice job editing your posts ;)

''Darwin simply puts forth an alternative method of "creation"''

Alternative to what? None of the other ''methods'' proposed by religious people fulfill any evidence-based standards so they can be taken seriously as ''alternatives''.

An alternative to what was the "reigning paradigm" at the time... That is the context of the statement.

Got it! Your use of the present tense confused me.

I've that book sitting on my shelf for about 6 years now, been holding it because I thought it would be dry and boring. Gonna go have a read this weekend for its good writing then :) Thanks!

Let us know what you think of it...

Consider the Voyage of the Beagle, not so dry.

I personally believe evolution is thoroughly anti-god and anti-religion, but as long as it is the religion that changes for the facts, and not the other way around, I don't really care.

I do agree English was once a more poetic and beautifully written language than it is today though.

Darwin was one of the pioneering naturalists of the 19th century, mentioning invasive species in his writings. In The Origin of Species he described natives ‘conquered’ by introduced species (p. 69) and ‘yielding before advancing legions of plants and animals introduced from Europe’ (p. 164) and referred to ‘intruders’ (pp. 259, 314) having ‘invaded’ (p. 263) territories of other species.

Fifty years of invasion ecology : the legacy of Charles Elton / edited by David M. Richardson (2011)

Yup, he was well ahead of his time, he saw clearly what others could barely grasp...

Exactly!! When I knew this about him, I got even more fascinated with his work, because in the 21st century they're still people who cannot see the problem of introducing species elsewhere. Of course, not all the introduces species become a serious problem (fortunately!)

This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Nov 24. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $10.23 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 24 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.

Even more shocking is the fact that we are a hybrid species. We interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Like, what govern-cement has done with Keynes (they took the part about govern-cement spending, and then left out the other parts)
so to, have they done with Darwin.

What currently is taught as Dawrinism is not really what Darwin wrote. It looks like the anti-god (or the science-religion) people took what Darwin wrote and ran with it.

Now, we have most students parrot "Survival of the Fittest". Usually referring to forms of thought like "rule by strength". When, it was shown in his works, that often it is the "Survival of the luckiest".

Perversion of all the origin stories abound. In two generations, none of this will be even talked about, except by origin-story-history buffs.


Don't forget about Darwin's other book, were he states that Irish are a genetic dead end.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.

Built by @ontofractal