The Foundations of the Origin of Species

By Charles Darwin

We know from the contents of Charles Darwin’s Note Book of 1837 that he was at that time a convinced Evolutionist. Nor can there be any doubt that, when he started on board the Beagle, such opinions as he had were on the side of immutability. When therefore did the current of his thoughts begin to set in the direction of Evolution?
We have first to consider the factors that made for such a change. On his departure in 1831, Henslow gave him vol. I. of Lyell's Principles, then just published, with the warning that he was not to believe what he read. But believe he did, and it is certain (as Huxley has forcibly pointed out) that the doctrine of uniformitarianism when applied to Biology leads of necessity to Evolution. If the extermination of a species is no more catastrophic than the natural death of an individual, why should the birth of a species be any more miraculous than the birth of an individual? It is quite clear that this thought was vividly present to Darwin when he was writing out his early thoughts in the 1837 Note Book:—
“Propagation explains why modern animals same type as extinct, which is law almost proved. They die, without they change, like golden pippins; it is a generation of species like generation of individuals.”
“If species generate other species their race is not utterly cut off.”
These quotations show that he was struggling to see in the origin of species a process just as scientifically comprehensible as the birth of individuals.

• Language: English
• Publisher: PubMe
• Release date: Jun 27, 2015
• ISBN: 9786051764979

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin (1809–19 April 1882) is considered the most important English naturalist of all time. He established the theories of natural selection and evolution. His theory of evolution was published as On the Origin of Species in 1859, and by the 1870s is was widely accepted as fact.

Book preview

Footnotes

INTRODUCTION

We know from the contents of Charles Darwin’s Note Book of 1837 that he was at that time a convinced Evolutionist {1} . Nor can there be any doubt that, when he started on board the Beagle , such opinions as he had were on the side of immutability. When therefore did the current of his thoughts begin to set in the direction of Evolution?

We have first to consider the factors that made for such a change. On his departure in 1831, Henslow gave him vol. I. of Lyell's Principles , then just published, with the warning that he was not to believe what he read {2} . But believe he did, and it is certain (as Huxley has forcibly pointed out {3} ) that the doctrine of uniformitarianism when applied to Biology leads of necessity to Evolution. If the extermination of a species is no more catastrophic than the natural death of an individual, why should the birth of a species be any more miraculous than the birth of an individual? It is quite clear that this thought was vividly present to Darwin when he was writing out his early thoughts in the 1837 Note Book {4} :—

" Propagation explains why modern animals same type as extinct, which is law almost proved. They die, without they change, like golden pippins; it is a generation of species like generation of individuals ."

" If species generate other species their race is not utterly cut off."

These quotations show that he was struggling to see in the origin of species a process just as scientifically comprehensible as the birth of individuals. They show, I think, that he recognised the two things not merely as similar but as identical.

It is impossible to know how soon the ferment of uniformitarianism began to work, but it is fair to suspect that in 1832 he had already begun to see that mutability was the logical conclusion of Lyell’s doctrine, though this was not acknowledged by Lyell himself.

There were however other factors of change. In his Autobiography {⁵} he wrote:—"During the voyage of the Beagle I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly, by the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southward over the Continent; and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of the Galapagos archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ slightly on each island of the group; none of the islands appearing to be very ancient in a geological sense. It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted me."

Again we have to ask: how soon did any of these influences produce an effect on Darwin’s mind? Different answers have been attempted. Huxley {6} held that these facts could not have produced their essential effect until the voyage had come to an end, and the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas with one another were determined with some exactness. He does not therefore allow that any appreciable advance towards evolution was made during the actual voyage of the Beagle .

Professor Judd {7} takes a very different view. He holds that November 1832 may be given with some confidence as the "date at which Darwin commenced that long series of observations and reasonings which eventually culminated in the preparation of the Origin of Species ."

Though I think these words suggest a more direct and continuous march than really existed between fossil-collecting in 1832 and writing the Origin of Species in 1859, yet I hold that it was during the voyage that Darwin's mind began to be turned in the direction of Evolution, and I am therefore in essential agreement with Prof. Judd, although I lay more stress than he does on the latter part of the voyage.

Let us for a moment confine our attention to the passage, above quoted, from the Autobiography and to what is said in the Introduction to the Origin , Ed. i., viz. When on board H.M.S. ‘Beagle,’ as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These words, occurring where they do, can only mean one thing,—namely that the facts suggested an evolutionary interpretation. And this being so it must be true that his thoughts began to flow in the direction of Descent at this early date.

I am inclined to think that the new light which was rising in his mind {8} had not yet attained any effective degree of steadiness or brightness. I think so because in his Pocket Book under the date 1837 he wrote, "In July opened first note-book on ‘transmutation of species.’ Had been greatly struck from about month of previous March {9} on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts origin ( especially latter ), of all my views. But he did not visit the Galapagos till 1835 and I therefore find it hard to believe that his evolutionary views attained any strength or permanence until at any rate quite late in the voyage. The Galapagos facts are strongly against Huxley’s view, for Darwin’s attention was thoroughly aroused {10} " by comparing the birds shot by himself and by others on board. The case must have struck him at once,—without waiting for accurate determinations,—as a microcosm of evolution.

It is also to be noted, in regard to the remains of extinct animals, that, in the above quotation from his Pocket Book, he speaks of March 1837 as the time at which he began to be greatly struck on character of South American fossils, which suggests at least that the impression made in 1832 required reinforcement before a really powerful effect was produced.

We may therefore conclude, I think, that the evolutionary current in my father's thoughts had continued to increase in force from 1832 onwards, being especially reinforced at the Galapagos in 1835 and again in 1837 when he was overhauling the results, mental and material, of his travels. And that when the above record in the Pocket Book was made he unconsciously minimised the earlier beginnings of his theorisings, and laid more stress on the recent thoughts which were naturally more vivid to him. In his letter {11} to Otto Zacharias (1877) he wrote, On my return home in the autumn of 1836, I immediately began to prepare my Journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species. This again is evidence in favour of the view that the later growths of his theory were the essentially important parts of its development.

In the same letter to Zacharias he says, "When I was on board the Beagle I believed in the permanence of species, but as far as I can remember vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. Unless Prof. Judd and I are altogether wrong in believing that late or early in the voyage (it matters little which) a definite approach was made to the evolutionary standpoint, we must suppose that in 40 years such advance had shrunk in his recollection to the dimensions of vague doubts. The letter to Zacharias shows I think some forgetting of the past where the author says, But I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. It is impossible to reconcile this with the contents of the evolutionary Note Book of 1837. I have no doubt that in his retrospect he felt that he had not been convinced that species were mutable" until he had gained a clear conception of the mechanism of natural selection, i.e. in 1838-9.

But even on this last date there is some room, not for doubt, but for surprise. The passage in the Autobiography {12} is quite clear, namely that in October 1838 he read Malthus’s Essay on the principle of Population and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence ..., it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work.

It is surprising that Malthus should have been needed to give him the clue, when in the Note Book of 1837 there should occur—however obscurely expressed—the following forecast {13} of the importance of the survival of the fittest. With respect to extinction, we can easily see that a variety of the ostrich (Petise {¹⁴} ), may not be well adapted, and thus perish out; or on the other hand, like Orpheus {15} , being favourable, many might be produced. This requires the principle that the permanent variations produced by confined breeding and changing circumstances are continued and produce«d» according to the adaptation of such circumstances, and therefore that death of species is a consequence (contrary to what would appear in America) of non-adaptation of circumstances.

I can hardly doubt, that with his knowledge of the interdependence of organisms and the tyranny of conditions, his experience would have crystallized out into a theory by which to work even without the aid of Malthus.

In my father's Autobiography {16} he writes, In June 1842 I first allowed myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages {17} , which I had fairly copied out and still possess. These two Essays, of 1842 and 1844, are now printed under the title The Foundations of the Origin of Species .

It will be noted that in the above passage he does not mention the MS. of 1842 as being in existence, and when I was at work on Life and Letters I had not seen it. It only came to light after my mother's death in 1896 when the house at Down was vacated. The MS. was hidden in a cupboard under the stairs which was not used for papers of any value, but rather as an overflow for matter which he did not wish to destroy.

The statement in the Autobiography that the MS. was written in 1842 agrees with an entry in my fathers Diary:—

1842. May 18th went to Maer. June 15th to Shrewsbury, and on 18th to Capel Curig.... During my stay at Maer and Shrewsbury (five years after commencement) wrote pencil sketch of my species theory. Again in a letter to Lyell (June 18, 1858) he speaks of his MS. sketch written out in 1842 {18} . In the Origin of Species , Ed. i. p. 1, he speaks of beginning his speculations in 1837 and of allowing himself to draw up some short notes after five years' work, i.e. in 1842. So far there seems no doubt as to 1842 being the date of the first sketch; but there is evidence in favour of an earlier date {19} . Thus across the Table of Contents of the bound copy of the 1844 MS. is written in my father's hand This was sketched in 1839. Again in a letter to Mr Wallace {20} (Jan. 25, 1859) he speaks of his own contributions to the Linnean paper {21} of July 1, 1858, as written in 1839, now just twenty years ago. This statement as it stands is undoubtedly incorrect, since the extracts are from the MS. of 1844, about the date of which no doubt exists; but even if it could be supposed to refer to the 1842 Essay, it must, I think, be rejected. I can only account for his mistake by the supposition that my father had in mind the date (1839) at which the framework of his theory was laid down. It is worth noting that in his Autobiography (p. 88) he speaks of the time about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived. However this may be there can be no doubt that 1842 is the correct date. Since the publication of Life and Letters I have gained fresh evidence on this head. A small packet containing 13 pp. of MS. came to light in 1896. On the outside is written First Pencil Sketch of Species Theory. Written at Maer and Shrewsbury during May and June 1842. It is not however written in pencil, and it consists of a single chapter on The Principles of Variation in Domestic Organisms . A single unnumbered page is written in pencil, and is headed Maer, May 1842, useless; it also bears the words This page was thought of as introduction. It consists of the briefest sketch of the geological evidence for evolution, together with words intended as headings for discussion,—such as Affinity,—unity of type,—fœtal state,—abortive organs.

The back of this useless page is of some interest, although it does not bear on the question of date,—the matter immediately before us.

It seems to be an outline of the Essay or sketch of 1842, consisting of the titles of the three chapters of which it was to have consisted.

" I. The Principles of Var. in domestic organisms.

" II. The possible and probable application of these same principles to wild animals and consequently the possible and probable production of wild races, analogous to the domestic ones of plants and animals.

III. The reasons for and against believing that such races have really been produced, forming what are called species.

It will be seen that Chapter III as originally designed corresponds to Part II (p. 22) of the Essay of 1842, which is (p. 7) defined by the author as discussing whether the characters and relations of animated things are such as favour the idea of wild species being races descended from a common stock. Again at p. 23 the author asks What then is the evidence in favour of it (the theory of descent) and what the evidence against it. The generalised section of his Essay having been originally Chapter III {22} accounts for the curious error which occurs in pp. 18 and 22 where the second Part of the Essay is called Part III.

The division of the Essay into two parts is maintained in the enlarged Essay of 1844, in which he writes: The Second Part of this work is devoted to the general consideration of how far the general economy of nature justifies or opposes the belief that related species and genera are descended from common stocks. The Origin of Species however is not so divided.

We may now return to the question of the date of the Essay. I have found additional evidence in favour of 1842 in a sentence written on the back of the Table of Contents of the 1844 MS.—not the copied version but the original in my father's writing: This was written and enlarged from a sketch in 37 pages {23} in Pencil (the latter written in summer of 1842 at Maer and Shrewsbury) in beginning of 1844, and finished it «sic» in July; and finally corrected the copy by Mr Fletcher in the last week in September. On the whole it is impossible to doubt that 1842 is the date of the earlier of the two Essays.

The sketch of 1842 is written on bad paper with a soft pencil, and is in many parts extremely difficult to read, many of the words ending in mere scrawls and being illegible without context. It is evidently written rapidly, and is in his most elliptical style, the articles being frequently omitted, and the sentences being loosely composed and often illogical in structure. There is much erasure and correction, apparently made at the moment of writing, and the MS. does not give the impression of having been re-read with any care. The whole is more like hasty memoranda of what was clear to himself, than material for the convincing of others.

Many of the pages are covered with writing on the back, an instance of his parsimony in the matter of paper {24} . This matter consists partly of passages marked for insertion in the text, and these can generally (though by no means always) be placed where he intended. But he also used the back of one page for a preliminary sketch to be rewritten on a clean sheet. These parts of the work have been printed as footnotes, so as to allow what was written on the front of the pages to form a continuous text. A certain amount of repetition is unavoidable, but much of what is written on the backs of the pages is of too much interest to be omitted. Some of the matter here given in footnotes may, moreover, have been intended as the final text and not as the preliminary sketch.

When a word cannot be deciphered, it is replaced by:—«illegible», the angular brackets being, as already explained, a symbol for an insertion by the editor. More commonly, however, the context makes the interpretation of a word reasonably sure although the word is not strictly legible. Such words are followed by an inserted mark of interrogation «?». Lastly, words inserted by the editor, of which the appropriateness is doubtful, are printed thus «variation?».

Two kinds of erasure occur in the MS. of 1842. One by vertical lines which seem to have been made when the 35 pp. MS. was being expanded into that of 1844, and merely imply that such a page is done with: and secondly the ordinary erasures by horizontal lines. I have not been quite consistent in regard to these: I began with the intention of printing (in square brackets) all such erasures. But I ultimately found that the confusion introduced into the already obscure sentences was greater than any possible gain; and many such erasures are altogether omitted. In the same way I have occasionally omitted hopelessly obscure and incomprehensible fragments, which if printed would only have burthened the text with a string of «illegible»s and queried words. Nor have I printed the whole of what is written on the backs of the pages, where it seemed to me that nothing but unnecessary repetition would have been the result.

In the matter of punctuation I have given myself a free hand. I may no doubt have misinterpreted the author's meaning in so doing, but without such punctuation, the number of repellantly crabbed sentences would have been even greater than at present. In dealing with the Essay of 1844, I have corrected some obvious slips without indicating such alterations, because the MS. being legible, there is no danger of changing the author's meaning.

The sections into which the Essay of 1842 is divided are in the original merely indicated by a gap in the MS. or by a line drawn across the page. No titles are given except in the case of § VIII.; and § II. is the only section which has a number in the original. I might equally well have made sections of what are now subsections, e.g. Natural Selection p. 7, or Extermination p. 28. But since the present sketch is the germ of the Essay of 1844, it seemed best to preserve the identity between the two works, by using such of the author's divisions as correspond to the chapters of the enlarged version of 1844. The geological discussion with which Part II begins corresponds to two chapters (IV and V) of the 1844 Essay. I have therefore described it as §§ IV. and V., although I cannot make sure of its having originally consisted of two sections. With this exception the ten sections of the Essay of 1842 correspond to the ten chapters of that of 1844.

The Origin of Species differs from the sketch of 1842 in not being divided into two parts. But the two volumes resemble each other in general structure. Both begin with a statement of what may be called the mechanism of evolution,—variation and selection: in both the argument proceeds from the study of domestic organisms to that of animals and plants in a state of nature. This is followed in both by a discussion of the Difficulties on Theory and this by a section Instinct which in both cases is treated as a special case of difficulty.

If I had to divide the Origin (first edition) into two parts without any knowledge of earlier MS., I should, I think, make Part II begin with Ch. VI, Difficulties on Theory . A possible reason why this part of the argument is given in Part I of the Essay of 1842 may be found in the Essay of 1844, where it is clear that the chapter on instinct is placed in Part I because the author thought it of importance to show that heredity and variation occur in mental attributes. The whole question is perhaps an instance of the sort of difficulty which made the author give up the division of his argument into two Parts when he wrote the Origin . As matters stand §§ IV. and V. of the 1842 Essay correspond to the geological chapters, IX and X, in the Origin . From this point onwards the material is grouped in the same order in both works: geographical distribution; affinities and classification; unity of type and morphology; abortive or rudimentary organs; recapitulation and conclusion.

In enlarging the Essay of 1842 into that of 1844, the author retained the sections of the sketch as chapters in the completer presentment. It follows that what has been said of the relation of the earlier Essay to the Origin is generally true of the 1844 Essay. In the latter, however, the geological discussion is, clearly instead of obscurely, divided into two chapters, which correspond roughly with Chapters IX and X of the Origin . But part of the contents of Chapter X ( Origin ) occurs in Chapter VI (1844) on Geographical Distribution. The treatment of distribution is particularly full and interesting in the 1844 Essay, but the arrangement of the material, especially the introduction of § III. p. 183, leads to some repetition which is avoided in the Origin . It should be noted that Hybridism, which has a separate chapter (VIII) in the Origin , is treated in Chapter II of the Essay. Finally that Chapter XIII ( Origin ) corresponds to Chapters VII, VIII and IX of the work of 1844.

The fact that in 1842, seventeen years before the publication of the Origin , my father should have been able to write out so full an outline of his future work, is very remarkable. In his Autobiography {25} he writes of the 1844 Essay, But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance.... This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. The absence of the principle of divergence is of course also a characteristic of the sketch of 1842. But at p. 37, the author is not far from this point of view. The passage referred to is: "If any species, A , in changing gets an advantage and that advantage ... is inherited, A will be the progenitor of several genera or even families in the hard struggle of nature. A will go on beating out other forms, it might come that A would people «the» earth,—we may now not have one descendant on our globe of the one or several original creations {26} ." But if the descendants of A have peopled the earth by beating out other forms, they must have diverged in occupying the innumerable diverse modes of life from which they expelled their predecessors. What I wrote {27} on this subject in 1887 is I think true: Descent with modification implies divergence, and we become so habituated to a belief in descent, and therefore in divergence, that we do not notice the absence of proof that divergence is in itself an advantage.

The fact that there is no set discussion on the principle of divergence in the 1844 Essay, makes it clear why the joint paper read before the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858, included a letter {28} to Asa Gray, as well as an extract {29} from the Essay of 1844. It is clearly because the letter to Gray includes a discussion on divergence, and was thus, probably, the only document, including this subject, which could be appropriately made use of. It shows once more how great was the importance attached by its author to the principle of divergence.

I have spoken of the hurried and condensed manner in which the sketch of 1842 is written; the style of the later Essay (1844) is more finished. It has, however, the air of an uncorrected MS. rather than of a book which has gone through the ordeal of proof sheets. It has not all the force and conciseness of the Origin , but it has a certain freshness which gives it a character of its own. It must be remembered that the Origin was an abstract or condensation of a much bigger book, whereas the Essay of 1844 was an expansion of the sketch of 1842. It is not therefore surprising that in the Origin there is occasionally evident a chafing against the author's self-imposed limitation. Whereas in the 1844 Essay there is an air of freedom, as if the author were letting himself go, rather than applying the curb. This quality of freshness and the fact that some questions were more fully discussed in 1844 than in 1859, makes the earlier work good reading even to those who are familiar with the Origin .

The writing of this Essay during the summer of 1844, as stated in the Autobiography {30} , and from memory, as Darwin says elsewhere {31} , was a remarkable achievement, and possibly renders more conceivable

Reviews for The Foundations of the Origin of Species

[keylawk · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Charles Darwin was born at Shrewsbury, England in 1809, the son of a doctor, and grandson of Erasmus Darwin, the author of "The Botanic Garden". He compiled proof and documentation for explanations about living and nonliving things which exist. He begins with a simple, irrefutable, persuasive observation: "When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have been exposed under nature."While this 1909 work has been challenged, the proof remains. Critics also remain, but they have not "read" even the first sentence of this work. It remains fact, not theory. Not speculation.

[miro_4 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Darwin wrote that , "When the views entertained in this volume on the origin of species, or when analogous views are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history".With the advantages of hindsight we can see that this was an understatement. The book has had an enormous impact , probably appearing in the indexes of more recent academic publications than any other 19th century text.To answer the question of why, the reason is no doubt the same as when it was first published in 1859. His discovery combines simplicity with great explanatory power in an area of critical interest, namely the natural world and our place in it. In contrast to the texts of today there are no formulas and only one diagram. The chapters have quick summaries and the whole thing has an easy flowing discursive style that is very accessible despite being a distillate of a large amount of widely differing knowledge. He starts by looking at selection under domestication (i.e. not in nature) of animals, with special reference to the pigeon, showing how desired characteristics can be chosen by the breeder. In this respect after a discussion about pigeons and pigeon breeding in general, he can quote the skilled breeder Sir John Sebright as saying that, "he would produce any given feather in three years, but it would take him six years to obtain a head or a beak". He goes on to extend the idea of selection to the natural state where nature takes the place of the breeder in selecting which variants breed successfully and which do not. The controller is not now the breeder with the feather or beak that he wants but rather the environment itself. Nature allows certain birds to reproduce that have the optimum colouring to avoid predators or attract mates or a beak type that best fits the most common functions. The idea is developed in the chapters entitled Struggle for Existence and Natural Selection . As he puts it: "In the case of every species, many different checks, acting at different periods of life, and during different seasons or years, probably come into play; some one check or some few being generally the most potent, but all concurring in determining the average number or even the existence of the species". There are many examples with studies of special cases such as isolation, intercrossing, convergence and divergence of characteristics, and the competition between individuals and varieties of the same species. He clearly states that the environment is the guide : "...the structure of every organic being is related, in the most essential yet often hidden manner, to that of all other organic beings, with which it comes into competition for food or residence, or from which it has to escape, or on which it preys".He speculates on the characteristics of variation without knowing of Mendels identification of particles (genes from each parent that could be dominant or recessive). Mendel only published in 1866 with his work not being rediscovered until 1900 so Darwin leaves this as somewhat of a grey area. He observes variation and catalogues it stating that it changes in small increments over time and is subject to selection pressure.He is the first critic of his own work, highlighting for example the patchiness of the geological record :"Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of forms of life?" In the event these problems are being tackled a century later reinforcing his insight of any organ or instinct arriving at it's present state through many graduated steps.The high scientific reputation and social position of Darwin (needed to launch his ideas successfully) is covered in an excellent new biography by Janet Browne entitled Voyaging.

[talifer · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

evolution has gone through many changes since darwin's original writing, but it is always good to go back to the source. darwin may not have been the first person to conceive of evolution, but he was the first to delineate it in such a complete form.

[laphenix · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I enjoyed reading the book that is the foundation of evolutionary biology, and it's fascinating to see what we used to believe and how far we've come.

[bfertig_2 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I'm super glad to read this book - it was really enjoyable!One of the things I was struck by Darwin's writing was that it was eminently readable and was basically constructed as an essay with a prodigious amount of evidence lined up to back up the arguments made. I am impressed by his clarity in articulation that make his communication and message conveyable despite requisite nuance.The heart of this particular book is that animals and plants vary - that they are mutable over time via human control (i.e. breeding) but also do so naturally, and that selection pressures are the mechanism, and that over time variability, heredity, and selection are the underlying principles of evolution.It was quite clear that he was conscious of possible detractors - on both scientific and creationist grounds. And he readily admits that readers who simply are not already convinced of things like the vast age of the earth etc. are just not going to agree because of things like the imperfection of the geological record (which is still true, though some gaps have since been filled). This is still true today even with the accumulated knowledge of paleontology and geology due to (willful?) ignorance and/or disbelief regarding how fossils and rocks are aged.Aside from the assembly, synthesis, and description of a vast array of fascinating facts and evidence, was the ability to put forth a complicated argument fairly succinctly and then address potential detractions head on. What surprised me was that some of the things that he addressed were *still* being used as arguments against evolution of species via natural selection! For example I heard arguments by some espousing Intelligent Design talking about how the eye was something too complicated to have arisen or be selected for -- but Darwin addressed this fairly well (I thought!), noting several species that either had intermediate forms or uses for eyes and light sensitivity. The point being that for all the recent hubabaloo, we appear to be going around the same merry-go-round back and forth regarding whether or not we buy into this explanation of the natural world, without making much progress over the course of a century and a half.If you feel at all invested in the argument over evolution one way or the other, my feeling is that it's at least worth reading Darwin's original works rather than getting into a lather about bullet points that are only a poor shadow of their context.

[gopfolk · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

What can one really say about this book?I found that this book, like most scientific books, well documented and referenced. The discussion related to domestication set the tone for much of the rest of the book by laying the ground work that most people know and believe but why do people doubt the rest of the book?I read this book due to the fact that many have made amazing claims about it and it has been clear that they had not read the book....Now that I have I can say that they did not.This should be required reading.

[audacity88_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I'm an enthusiast of evolutionary biology and I appreciate Darwin's enormous contribution to our understanding of the natural world. But somehow the Origin of Species wasn't very interesting to read. Maybe it's because most of what Darwin says has so thoroughly diffused itself into modern science that there's little new to find here.

[britt84 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of the most important scientific works ever written and a very impressive achievement.Darwin discusses his theory of the origin of species in a groundbreaking work that changed biology forever. I was very impressed with the way he expounds his theory. The novel takes you by the hand and explains different reasons why he believes this theory to be correct step by step. His work abounds in examples and evidence gathered by himself and other scientists, making it a very comprehensive and exhaustive work.Aside from discussing evidence in favour of his theory, Darwin also discusses many counterarguments. Some he refutes immediately, often with copious evidence, but others remain standing, even at the end of the book. Somehow, I actually rather liked this about him: he has a theory, he believes it to be true, but he is still aware that there are things that are problematic and isn't afraid to discuss them. It shows Darwin in a way that is simultaneously strong and convincing, as well as modest and almost fragile.Darwin was fully aware that there were problematic aspects to his theory - most notably the lack of genetic knowledge in his day - but still makes a convincing case based on the evidence he had available. He was also very much aware that people would disagree with his theory, which has made his discussion of facts very rigorous. He knew people would try to counter it, and spends a lot of time debunking any possible arguments they might give.I think for a person in our time it is somewhat difficult to truly comprehend the importance of Darwin's achievement. By now, evolutionary theory is so accepted that it is hard to imagine people ever believed otherwise. Reading Darwin's book you wonder that nobody saw this before - and some of the scientists in his own days felt the same way! Sure, there had been other theories and Wallace was proposing the same theory, so there definitely had been prior developments making this the logical next step, but it still remains an amazing thing that this book was written.A great work that anybody with an interest in biology and evolution should read.

[06nwingert · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

On the Origin of Species is one of the most influential and fact-proven books of all-time. Unfortunately, some people don't think so and want to discredit Charles Darwin's work. However, facts and reason will prevail.

[lisamaria_c · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Decry or applaud it, there's no question this work has had a profound effect not just on science, but the culture at large. What I wouldn't read this book for is the science, or in an effort to either defend or refute the argument for evolution. The core of Darwin's argument certainly is still what was taught in my Catholic high school biology class (taught by a nun). In a nutshell, the theory is that given there are wide-ranging subtle Variations among organisms, the Malthusian Struggle for Existence causes by means of Natural Selection of the inheritable traits that are the best Adaptations to the environment the Origin of Species or as Darwin calls it, the "theory of descent with modification."But, after all, this book is now over 150 years old. Science is about explaining natural phenomenon and correcting mistakes through observation, experimentation and falsification--not dogma--and so is always a moving target. I know that. But I still raised an eyebrow when in the first chapter of the book Darwin said he believed the "most frequent cause of variability" was caused by the experiences of the parents before conception--such as cows' udders being larger in countries where they're milked because the habit of milking by itself alters in the reproductive organs what is inherited by the next generation. WTF Darwin? When Darwin first propounded his theory of evolution (a word never used in the book by the way) through natural selection, Mendel had yet to discover the basic principles of genetics in his experiments with peas and Watson and Crick had yet to unravel the structure of DNA. Nor was continental drift known and understood, so there were notable gaps in Darwin's reasoning that has since been filled. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the staunchest defenders and popularizers of evolution is famous within science particularly for where he differs from Darwin. Darwin thought changes in species were very gradual. Gould favors "punctuated equilibrium" where there are rapid changes followed by long periods of stability. That's why scientists today talk of the "theory of evolution," not of "Darwinism" as if a scientific principle is an unchanging creed and Origin of Species scripture.So, the book is dated and filled with lots of details I'm sure are just plain wrong and might be onerous to unlearn. That does make me reluctant to give this book top marks despite its profound impact. Someone interested in modern evolutionary science would be better off picking up a copy of a book by Jared Diamond, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan (although by now I suppose his very readable Dragons of Eden is dated) or Stephen Jay Gould. So, was there no value in reading On the Origin of Species? I wouldn't say that. It's surprisingly readable--or at least understandable. There are definitely dry passages that were a slog to get through, my eyes glazing over as Darwin gave example after exhaustive example to make his points. However, I couldn't help but be impressed by the knowledge of nature shown by his wide-ranging examples from every continent from ants and bees and algae to pigeons to zebras. Given the way he cited various authorities and spoke about his own experiments, I definitely felt that here was a master generalist and enthusiast on nature. Moreover Darwin does have a gift for metaphor and illustrative examples. I was particularly taken by his explanation of "inter-crossing" and the function of sex in creating biological diversity. I also was struck by how cautious and civil in tone Darwin is in his arguments, devoting an entire chapter on what he saw could be the flaws and holes in his theory--particularly the issues of transitions between species and intermediate forms. Bottom line? Arguably this specific book had as much influence on the literature and politics of the next century as Freud or Marx, so I think there is historical value in reading this, preferably in the first edition (which is what I read) that exploded upon the world in 1859.

[empress8411 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It is only fair that I divide my review into two parts: Writing and Content:Writing: Darwin is obviously writing from a different century. With complex syntax and extensive vocabulary, both scientific and non, his writing is dense, convoluted and so very boring. Even if one makes allowances for the difference in writing styles, I still find his writing to drag on and on. Darwin stated he wrote this work for the masses, and I grant that he gave it a valiant effort, however much he failed.Content: Brilliant. From someone who was raised (and remains) a believer in Creationism, I have to say his work is logical, scientific, and well-thought out. He answered well many of the main arguments against his ideas. He mentioned many experiments conducted to further study his findings, and mentioned many works by contemporary naturalist that he drew on to reach his conclusion. As someone trained in the sciences, this does much to improve my thoughts about his ideas. Despite what many people say - Evolutionist and Creationist alike - Darwin's work is factual and logical, and demands serious consideration from anyone claiming to want to know the truth. While I have not reconciled my belief in a creator-God and the evidence of evolution, reading Darwin is a start for me and I recommend it as a start for anyone wishing to find the truth.

[devil_llama · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

OK, so maybe the book is a difficult read, as many Victorian books are. The language may strike a modern reader as a bit arcane, and the sheer length and breadth of the work may be staggering to those used to getting their information in short, pithy bits. Still, let's be honest. This is THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, and it completely revolutionized biology, so I think the least one can do is give it 5 stars (since that is all that's allowable). To anyone who really reads this book, it should be impossible to continue to parrot the popular canard that there is no evidence for evolution. In the days before DNA, and when hominid fossils were still fairly sparse, and we knew very little about the microscopic world, Darwin was able to compile an impressive array of evidence, most of it while sitting in his own library at Down House in England. This book is rightly considered a classic, not just for its style, but for its substance.

[untraveller · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Easily the most difficult part of the book is Victorian logorrhea. The concepts are familiar enough to the interested not to be difficult any longer although I can imagine at the time that the average Joe would have had a tough time deciding, at best, what to believe and what not and, at worst, just railing against the book for its unpardonable blasphemy. Interestingly, Darwin seems to have had some trouble with math and elephants, and confirmed this issue on the internet. Also, on page 363 of this edition, Darwin, as best I can gather, seems to think that during an ice age the ocean will rise. Where did he think the water would come from for the ice? Advanced and certainly more developed thinking than Wallace had put together though both rather simultaneously developed the theory. A theory that saw its time a-coming. Very important book that is worth the wade through.

[lammers_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Facsimile of first edition, with "An Historical Sketch" and "Glossary" from sixth edition.

[psiloiordinary_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Not what I was expecting at all.Here we have a very readable if thorough going explanation of his theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection. I have seen comments such as dry and stodgy but did not find this to be the case to any great extent.I must confess to skimming a total of about three pages out of nearly five hundred. I did this because I had already got the point and he was listing in minute detail the implications of this or that on his famous "tree of life diagram" a to a' etc. etc.Apart from the exposition of such a simple theory the two main things I enjoyed most about the book were as follows;Firstly, just how much evidence in favour of evolution he did not have an inkling about. He bases his theory on how it explains the geographical distribution of life on the earth, variation, fertility, vestigial organs, eyes on cave dwellers, webbed feet on mountain ducks etc. It is therefore surprising just how much he got right and how little has since been shown to be wrong. Remember he had no idea of DNA or the molecular side of reproduction at all and yet he predicts a good deal of it.Secondly, his forays into experiment. Ranging from the counting of plant species in cleared ground, measuring and comparison of greyhound and bulldog puppies and adult dogs, to the immersal of seeds in sea-water and so on.The book is written for the lay audience and should be accessible, with a little patience, to most.Despite what many Creationists have told me there is nothing I could find about the origin of life, support for the Nazi's, reasons in favour of the Holocaust or the futility of existence at all.

[romonko · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I recommend reading of this book because of the importance of it. When Charles Darwin published this in 1859 it rocked the English speaking world. Up to that point the religious idea of creation was unquestionably accepted. Religion held a lot of power over people and their lives. Then this book came out, and it put into question all that the English world held dear about God and creation. I don't know if any piece of literature has had such a profound affect on society and its beliefs. When I read it, I thought that it might be boring because of the scope of the work, but it's actually not boring because it's simply and plainly written. Remember the whole theory of evolution originated from this one work.

[erickibler · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This isn't a book you'd read for fun, but for understanding and enrichment. Personally, I found it edifying to understand Darwin's thinking. In his younger days, he had traveled much of the world, and was primarily employed in collecting specimens from each region he visited. Over the years, he connected with farmers to discuss how different plants and animals were bred for certain traits. He catalogued the variations in species he would find in different areas having different "conditions of life". He studied and experimented as to how seeds, eggs, larvae, and adult creatures could travel from one place to another. He looked into the geological record and the fossil remains of creatures now extinct. He studies the embryos of plants and animals, and found that embryos of creatures of the same class had the same appearance and features, regardless of how different these creatures came to appear as adults. From a lifetime's study of all these factors, he came up with a unified theory of natural selection. In brief, that a creature's offspring will vary minutely in each generation, and that these miniscule variations give advantages to some and disadvantages to others. The most successful of these variations are passed on.

[jpsnow · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's been criticized as unscientific, evil, and dry. I found it quite impressive. Though there are places where the detail might be too much for the casual reader, it is a very solid scientific work. He presents a hypothesis, shows significant supporting evidence, and defends it against the most common criticisms. It is not possible to prove that everything started from something simpler but it is now hard to refute that the natural process of natural selection is working on today's species. He leads his argument by showing the effectiveness that domestic breeders have achieved in altering species and guiding that process. Other highlights either new to me or especially interesting: the uniformity gained by consistent inter-crossing, the underlying ability of genetics to allow breakthrough changes and yet also to maintain uniformity, the complexity of larger areas in producing stronger more adaptable species, the effect of geographic changes (elevation, land forms, glaciers) on migration of living species and archival of fossil record, that fossils tend only to be saved during subsidence so only that direction of change is recorded, the species do not reappear once extinct (this seems to be in refutation of Lamarck), the phrase "grain in balance" to show the impact of small differences in the competition for survival, that it is the other species more than anything that determines a given organisms ability to survive in an area. Imagine his chart demonstrating how branching might work if he had had a PC at the time.

[burnit99 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A handsome boxed cover edition by the Heritage Press of one of the landmark works of science. I read the book in college and while now I remember only the broad outlines of Darwin's ideas, I was impressed with the clarity of his presentation of the evidence and the theory that arose from it. I have this book already in an earlier 1906 edition. I just couldn't resist this edition I found at an estate sale, because of the lovely wood engravings throughout the book by Paul Landacre. He is a favorite artist of mine; his "Sultry Day" print hangs in my living room.

[deldevries · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Important foundation for knowledge. An interesting read for me the summer after 8th grade.

[vibrantminds · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Example after example for the explanation of life and how it has evolved. From plants to animals and everything in between. How climate and geography plays a role in the evolutionary process. He goes into many details that can be lengthy but overall a good representation of different species and their origin.

[benuathanasia · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

There were significantly less pigeons than I expected. And a lot more pigeons. A LOT more. Thoroughly readable given its age and audience. Not too bad.

[garypatella · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This remains one of my favourite books (not science books, but books in general) of all time. It is definitely worth while to get this edition. Others are sometimes abridged, or maybe taken from one of Darwin's earlier editions. The great thing about the final edition is that Darwin was able to explain things more clearly, by responding to the criticisms of the prior editions.Everyone should read this book. The thought process, and the simplicity of it all, makes the theory of natural selection one of the greatest scientific theories to date.

[garrison0550 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I marked this as 'Read' which isn't wholly true. If there was a 'Kinda, Sorta, Read' button I would have clicked that. Wow, I'm in awe of anyone who did read this cover to cover. Kudos to you, kudos to you.

[tavisharts · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Fantastic book.

chapter 13 was probably my favorite chapter. Thats where everything comes to a head and he brings up the similarities between different species as well as vestigial organs and how it could have served previous generations but be rendered useless or redundant now.

It was impressive that he noticed and brought up several things that would later be fully explained by science.

One such thing was linked genes. When talking about pigeons he mentioned that beak size and foot size would always be correlated. He admits hes not sure why but in all cases with pigeon breeding if you have a small beak you have tiny feet.

As an interesting note: he never brings up the finches. Ever. He hardly ever mentions the Galapagos. Mostly that he visited it and it had a small highly specialized group of species.

For the most part he talks about fancy pigeons. So if you want an easier time reading the book go look up fancy pigeons, look at all the different breeds of domestic pigeons, memorize them, then read the book. Trust me he brings them up a lot.

[ashryan_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

To begin with, a note on the edition. This Barnes & Noble Classics series version is based on the first edition of The Origin of Species, which is actually nice for a couple of reasons. First, it allows the reader to experience the book as it originally appeared. This is not only interesting historically, but a nearly unmitigated virtue because of the second reason: The core content of the book remained essentially the same throughout the later revisions Darwin made in his lifetime, but such changes as he did make were for the most part unnecessary or even (in retrospect) unfortunate---mainly minor concessions to skeptics (religious and otherwise) and to the Lamarckian theory of evolution (as opposed to natural selection as the basic mechanism driving evolutionary change).That said, there are several things to say about the book itself. First, it is extremely readable. Modern audiences (especially those educated in the American government schools, which almost certainly failed to introduce them to this material) might be intimidated by the prospect of tackling a somewhat technical scientific volume of this size written a century and a half ago. Those who attempt it, however, will be pleasantly surprised to find that Darwin's presentation is extremely clear and intelligible, at times even beautiful. This admirable writing style is in large part due to his scientific method, which leads me to the book's next great virtue.Darwin's approach is primarily inductive---that is, he was not some armchair philosopher abstractly theorizing off in an ivory tower somewhere, as one might suspect from the photograph of him as a bearded old man with which we are usually presented. In other words, evolution is not "just a theory," precisely because Darwin was not just a theorist. Rather, Darwin gathered massive amounts of evidence on his Beagle voyage, and continued to accumulate ever more (with the help of his scientific colleagues in various related disciplines) for decades before he felt ready to publish his theory (and he still felt rushed into it). (Indeed, for anyone interested in the philosophy of science, or in epistemology in general, On the Origin of Species should be the textbook case of scientific induction.) Darwin then presents all of this evidence to us piece by piece, building up his case from the ground, as it were, and in effect recreating his own line of thinking for his reader making it incredibly easy to follow his case.Which brings us to the third point: What kinds of evidence does Darwin draw on? Intriguingly, Darwin did not begin his career as a biologist aiming to solve the species question. He boarded the Beagle as a brilliant amateur natural scientist generally with an inclination toward geology. Perhaps this is why he was able to draw so widely on various fields in making his case for evolution when that question did become his main interest. From Lyell's theories and his own geological observations, Darwin concluded that the period of time available actually allowed for a very (previously unthinkably) slow process of evolution. From this geological perspective, he naturally was able to look at various pieces of evidence more directly bearing on the species question, such as the fossil record and (more importantly) the geographical distribution of species. After the Beagle voyage, he was able to conduct experiments in many other areas (and correspond with colleagues about the results of their experiments), including artificial selection (Darwin's pigeons being the most famous example of this) which became important as an analogy for the process of natural selection; the means of the geographical distribution and isolation of species (including seeing whether seeds can germinate after extended periods of submersion in salt water or passing through the digestive tracts of birds); and even the sex lives of barnacles. All of these experiments are described at some length in The Origin of Species.But Darwin, ever the scientist, was in fact cautious not to overstep the limits of what he could prove. The Origin of Species contains an excellent chapter anticipating and answering possible objections to his theory, and acknowledging its shortcomings. For instance, Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record at the time did not tend to show gradual progression from one species to another, and offers an explanation as to why the fossil record might be so incomplete. He also acknowledges that while he found the evidence for evolution by means of natural selection to be overwhelming, he did not know the actual physical, biological mechanism by which this takes place (as genes had not been discovered and the discipline of genetics created at that time), but he does briefly mention a hypothesis that was actually sort of on the right track. In fact, in all of these weak areas, subsequent history has borne Darwin and his theory out remarkably well.And finally, in addition to being a masterpiece of scientific thought, The Origin of Species is also a work of, at times, almost poetic beauty, and deserves praise for its literary merit. After presenting or indicating all the evidence in a specific area throughout each section, Darwin ends each chapter by summing it up in an eloquent statement naming the general principle to be derived from this vast array of specific evidence, often employing an apt and evocative metaphor. The most famous of these passages is of course the one with which he concludes the book: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."You cannot legitimately consider yourself an educated person if you haven't read this wonderful book, and yet a shockingly small percentage of Americans (including even those who claim to believe in evolution) have read it. But you will find that to do so is not a chore, but one of life's great pleasures.

[edrandrew · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Quite stunning in its way - but surely in need of an update in the light of genetics, DNA and plate techtonics. Not that the conclusions need to be changed, just that te argument becomes easier. That said, in the absence of knowledge on those points: that's what makes for the stunning.

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a wonderful and very readable book that truly changed the way we look at the world. It sold out on the day it was published in 1859 and created both friends and enemies of the theories discussed still to this day. There have been modifications of Darwin's theory of the origin of species (notably the Mendellian synthesis that incorporated genetics into the theory), but it stands to this day as the foundation of our understanding of the evolution. Surprisingly the only time evolution is mentioned is in the last paragraph of the book.This is a good book for anyone who once to read a classic text of science.

[brose72 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The journey of Charles Darwin on the H.M.S. Beagle and his reports, discoveries and observations relating to natural science and evolution. Fairly interesting for a book on science even though it is rather dated. The stir it caused in the mid 1800s no longer carries the same groundbreaking impact.

[redfiona_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's very discursive. You can almost hear Darwin pulling up a chair to the fireplace to discuss this idea he's had. And he's thought about it a lot.It's also very cleverly written, starting with something the reader knows about (the human breeding of pigeons) then expanding slowly from that to the new stuff, but returning to that base whenever Darwin needs a clear, easy-to-understand example.It's a complete refutation of the 'one great man makes a giant leap for human understanding' way of looking at scientific progress, with Darwin being very careful to say where and who he has got information from and whose ideas he's building on (even if he's retested as much of the info as he can and tested his theories as best as he can). He's also a lot nicer about his fellow scientists than a look of books today are.I like that Darwin states the parts where his theory might not explain everything, and that he uses observation to try to plug those gaps.He might have been able to cover more detail in the book if he stopped apologising for the amount of stuff he couldn't put in.Looking backwards from what we know now, it's amazing how close Darwin gets to being right about most of it, and a lot of his uncertainties could only have been cleared up once genes and sequencing were discovered.There's a couple of points where he wanders down paths that turned out to be dead ends (recapitulation theory is bunk) and we've still not got a 'how' of instincts, but given the information Darwin had to work with, he's right more than he's wrong.It's pretty much a must read for scientists, and it's reasonably accessible to non-scientists, and a fairly straight-forward read once you've got used to certain Victorian writing quirks.Definitely worth reading.