The 150th Anniversary of On The Origin of Species

[Split Rock]

This year marks the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Because of this, several science-based magazines have issues out centered on Evolution. The articles are pretty good and these magazines are all intended for public consumption. Here are a few of the cover stories:

Scientific American, Jan 2009: "The Evolution of evolution. How Darwin's theory survives, thrives and reshapes the world."

Smithsonian, Feb 2009: "Darwin and Lincoln. Their genius, Their legacies, their humanity."

National Geographic, Feb 2009: "What Darwin didn't know."

All three show current progress in evolutionary biology, how the theory has changed (and not changed) over time, and how there is more evidence then ever before supporting the theory.

I recommend giving some a read.

 

[AV1611VET]

This year marks the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Did you mean On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

 

[Tammisto]

Did you mean On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

Race in that context means species. Aparently you havent noticed that language changes in its usage over time. But yes, that is the full title of the book, if I recall correctly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Race in that context means species.

Oh, of course it does!

How foolish of me ---

Was Hitler building a better species?

 

[Split Rock]

Did you mean On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

Yes, that is the extended title. What is your point? Are we going to play more semantic games? Is that all you have?

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, of course it does!

How foolish of me ---

Was Hitler building a better species?

Here we go!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that is the extended title. What is your point? Are we going to play more semantic games? Is that all you have?

I'm just wondering if that includes us as a species as well?

 

[Split Rock]

I'm just wondering if that includes us as a species as well?

In terms of us as a species in conflict with other species, yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we go!

Hey, I'm just asking --- no need to get inna snit about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

In terms of us as a species in conflict with other species, yes.

How would one go about engineering a master species that would be invulnerable against "other species"?

And what should be done if some "other species" gets in the way?

(I'm sorry for these questions --- I didn't read the book.)

 

[Split Rock]

How would one go about engineering a master species that would be invulnerable against "other species"?

That is probably impossible... in particular in terms of microorganisms.

And what should be done if some "other species" gets in the way?

We have been killing off other species that "got in our way," for centuries now. At this point, we are wiping out species at a record pace. The question is, what effect will this have on us and our environment? Should we be killing off these species (remember, science doesn't answer such questiuons)?

 

[Tammisto]

Oh, of course it does!

How foolish of me ---

Was Hitler building a better species?

At least you admit your foolishness, thats nice. Most of the time you come across as too arrogantto ever do so, must say, this is a pleasant surprise.

As for Hitler, in his own mind he might have been, but this is completely irrelevant. You see, AV, there is a thing (maybe concept is be a better word) called context and it is context which is used to determine what exactly is meant by a word when a word has multiple possible meanings. If you actualy read the book, you might see the true foolishness of your post, though I'm not holding my hopes too high for you to do either. In the Origin of Species there is no mention made to different races of humans with indication that one is inherently inferior to any other. Nyway, Hitler's racism has a lot more to do with his deranged religious belief of an aryan Jesus who fought the jews. This has been documented by himself in several publications.

Now, I know you will ignore all of this, but please, just do a little research into a subject you mention before posting anything as ignorant, or dishones, as this again.

 

[Washington]

Oh, of course it does!

How foolish of me ---

Was Hitler building a better species?

As I explained two weeks ago.

"On 20 July 1858 Darwin started work on an "abstract" trimmed from his Natural Selection, writing much of it from memory. Lyell made arrangements with the publisher John Murray, who agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen, and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. Darwin had initially decided to call his book An abstract of an Essay/on the/Origin/of/Species and Varieties/Through natural selection/, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: On the Origin of Species with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, a long book title as was common during the Victorian era. Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".
source
​

 

[sbvera13]

Equal rights for cabbages! End cabbage discrimination! Give cabbage the right to vote!

rofl

 

[AV1611VET]

Guys, I agree with you that he means "species" --- okay?

In Darwin's eyes, race = species --- no argument.

But please don't overlook my point though that whatever word he used, it also pertains to us, does it not?

I'll ask again: in Darwin's eyes, are we, or are we not, a "species"?

 

[Split Rock]

Guys, I agree with you that he means "species" --- okay?

In Darwin's eyes, race = species --- no argument.

But please don't overlook my point though that whatever word he used, it also pertains to us, does it not?

I'll ask again: in Darwin's eyes, are we, or are we not, a "species"?

Yes. Next question?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Next question?

Did Darwin own slaves?

 

[Tammisto]

Guys, I agree with you that he means "species" --- okay?

In Darwin's eyes, race = species --- no argument.

But please don't overlook my point though that whatever word he used, it also pertains to us, does it not?

I'll ask again: in Darwin's eyes, are we, or are we not, a "species"?

Yes, humans are a species.

Did Darwin own slaves?

Not as far as I am aware of, he strongly oposed slavery. In his own words agains "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species"

 

[AV1611VET]

I have one more question after this one --- then I'm done with this thread:

Here's the title of his book again:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Did Darwin see the preservation of life as a "struggle"?

I have one more question after this --- then I'm done.

 

[Tammisto]

Well, yes, I suppose. That's the entire basis for natural selection, that there is competition between life forms and thsoe better adapted to the environment will survive while those less well suited will perish, to put it as simmply as I can.