How many biological researchers here have ever read THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

[csjonline]

The origin of species, the classic book that creates the true modern biology, was nerver introduced to us when we had been studying biology in college (well, in China, at least). Is it too outdated? Or, the so-called modern biologists don't need the old idea any longer? I feel so confused. Could someone here talk about the topic? I think I need more opinions.

[fafalone]

It was never actual assigned reading, but my biology teacher talked non-stop about the theory presented in it and some details of how that theory was created...

[Sayonara]

It wasn't compulsory for me (although it should have been considering the number of evolution-type modules I did), but it was recommended reading.

[BioMan]

It's essential reading for the 'history of science', but it's far easier and more useful to read more current texts to get an understanding of evolution.

[csjonline]

It's essential reading for the 'history of science', but it's far easier and more useful to read more current texts to get an understanding of evolution.

 

I don't think so. By reading the "old" scientific works, we can learn some basic methods to resovle the problems we met today. Suppose if you were in the era of Darwin's, can you discover the similar rules about living things' evolution (even give you the same data collected by Darwin)? That is, our brains today did not surpass those scientists living hundreds of years ago. Could you just say we don't need to learn from them?

 

In my opinion, we need not learn results from Darwin's book, but his methods that resolved his questions.

[Radical Edward]

One has to be aware of the data and coments that he makes that have since been corrected in order to avoid conclusion. It's definitely a good read, but one should take care with it (as one should with any scientific text)

[BioMan]

In my opinion, we need not learn results from Darwin's book, but his methods that resolved his questions.

 

What - study theology, and travel half way round the world by boat? Haha, only kidding- I'm not denying he was a great scientist, and you can learn a lot from reading his work - maybe I should have said it is more efficient to read current stuff...

[csjonline]

more efficient than what? if it's to learn more knowledge, you're right, but could we say today's scientists are much cleverer than Darwin and needn't learn from him? Darwin's ideation, that's the point

[Guest magister]

Reading good, relatively modern texts is more efficient for learning evolutionary biology because they have the significant advantage of having access to almost 150 years of accumulated knowledge. There's also the slight matter of Darwin's prose style which is graceful in its own Victorian way, however some students might find it a little tiresome to wade through its sometimes convoluted structure. The Origin of Species is a undoubtedly a pillar of scientific thought, but it probably shouldn't be mandatory reading for biology students (at least casual ones). Rather, it should be encouraged to people who want to supplement their knowledge of evolutionary biology with its historical aspect, a not-so trivial thing at all, especially for students going on to study at a higher level.

[Sayonara]

It ought to be mandatory reading for creationists; then they might realise they have no idea what they've been arguing over.

[Guest magister]

Yes indeed, but I would be happy if creationists would read any respected book on evolutionary biology and not just the dross they claim as legitimate scolarship refuting the ToE.

[admiral_ju00]

i had to read it due to an 'implied' suggestion, but then again, i'm studying anthropology in which i'll probably specialize in paleontology, but then again, grad school is not for another year or so

[Radical Edward]

fiven that evolution today is based more on the modern synthesis that darwin's original work, I am inclined to agree with those who say that modern texts are more practical to read.

[admiral_ju00]

fiven that evolution today is based more on the modern synthesis that darwin's original work, I am inclined to agree with those who say that modern texts are more practical to read.

 

it's still a good read, plus darwinism is the prevalent theory that many scientists embrace, so why not start with the original theory and then move on to the current developments of it?

[spuriousmonkey]

I have read it about 5 times.

 

I found it easy to read. And it probably gives a better insight in the nature of evolution than a modern textbook, since these are poluted with compromises.

[csjonline]

5 times!! why need you read it so many times? are you a teacher?

[admiral_ju00]

5 times!! why need you read it so many times? are you a teacher?

 

i suppose that the more one reads the exact same materiel, the more he/she will remember the finer and easily forgettable points in the texts. also considering that much of scientific text can be very hard to read, let alone grasp on the 1st time, reading it a few more times if possible make it easier. plus some points won't make any sence immediatly after reading the materiel. therefore after some time it'll sinc in - more or less to the effect of a light-bulb suddenly lightning over one's head and he goes - 'oh now why didn't i think of that before' that and when reading yet another time helps as it would only reinforce the matter

[spuriousmonkey]

It was probably more than 5 times. I haven't read it lately because someone borrowed my copy and never returned it.

 

Why do you read a book more than once? The above statement is very correct and it is quite an enjoyable book. At least that is my opinion.