Does anyone know where there is a summary of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species?
345654
Wikipedia has a good summary:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_species\n\nAn extract from this wikipedia page:\nDarwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them, as summarized by the biologist Ernst Mayr:\n\nSpecies have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. \nPopulations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. \nFood resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals. \nIn sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant. \nMuch of this variation is heritable. \nFrom this Darwin infers: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring; and that these advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection.\n\nDarwin did not suggest that every variation and every character must have a selection value. However, he pointed out that, because of our ignorance of animal physiology and its relationship with the environment, it was extremely rash to set down any characters as valueless to their owners. It is even more important to notice that he did not suggest that every individual with a favorable variation must be selected, or that the selected or favored animals were better or higher, but merely that they were more adapted to their surroundings.\n\nDarwin further infers that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. He puts forward myriad observations as demonstrations of this, and also claims that the fossil record can be interpreted as supporting these observations. Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea.
977079
huh, yeah im not a creationist either, but i dont think that you can fully understand the stuff without an in depth study of scientific material. \n\nthere is a book called darwins black box by michael behe.  he doesnt call himself a creationist, hes a biochemist that after looking at plenty of evidence has alot of questions and decided to write a book. it basically is challenging evolution. \n\nfrom what i understand the missing links (transitional species) are not there in the fossil record.  thats why you have guys that come up with the punct eq theory, etc.  there are some that say they have found a couple missing links here and there, but it doesnt explain the massive amount of life that supposedly changes from one thing to another. \n\nanother guy is sennapathy (sp.), he is a south asia indian guy that has the same questions and different conclusions.  hes a genetic scientist.\n\ngranted there are examples of mutations, like in viruses and the like, that one could point to, but the data for large scale biology is still sketchy
357308
Charles Darwin explored exactly that when he wrote about his Theory of Evolution. Read his works!
1067867
http://www.history-timeline.com/en/screenshots/science_evolution/biology.gif/view?size=large\n\nhttp://www.orionsarm.com/timeline/timeline.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
851956
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
654030
No and it was never claimed to be true by Darwin or evolutionary scientists.  This is part of the misinformation spread about evolutionary theory.\n\nThe theory of evolution supports the idea that monkeys and humans have common ancestors.  And likewise that all life on earth evolved from common ancestors if you go back far enough.
1025199
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.\nYet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This \n"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.\nWe have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.\n\n\n(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)\n\nAlthough this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions. \nDarwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:\n1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth. \n2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all. \n3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.\n\nThe power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.\nIn this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:\n\n\nThe First Insurmountable Step: \n(The Origin of Life)\n\nThe theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" or
283170
A god-fearing fundamentalist named Charles Darwin first theorized on evolution. Here's what he wrote (see ref.):\n....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than....the beliefs of any barbarian....\n  ....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.\n  And this is a damnable doctrine....\n\nSomehow I suspect he was less "ineduacted" than the questioner...
298956
No. Darwin figured out many of the basics, but the theory today is much more sophisticated than Darwin ever imagined. This is why we now have the "modern synthesis". Darwin had a different, and largely incorrect, idea of how inheritance worked, and never imagined the complexities inherent in modern biochemistry. The fundamental idea was Darwin's, but it has changed so much that we could not rightly say that the modern theory of evolution is what Darwin had in mind.\n\nIncidentally, sun_of_samsa claimed "this ultimately is what caused him to change his theory later in life, however he did not "revoke it on his deathbed" as many creationists claim." This is patently false; Charles Darwin died in 1882, 18 years before Mendel's work was to be rediscovered. Further, I know of no evidence that Darwin changed his theory, as he had no access to any of the evidence which would later require modifications to his theory. Perhaps there is some, though, in his personal letters; unlike his books, I have not read all of his personal correspondence.\n\nFurther, leonkallai's post is patently ridiculous, and demonstrates a near-complete ignorance of the last two (or more) centuries of biology, physics, and geology.
383042
Please refer to the following site : \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nYou'll get all you need to fill-up 3 pages !
905630
ever heard of google, askjeeves, dogpile, encarta?\ngo to www.google.com\nLALALALALAL hope i helpes\nPLease answer MY question .. THA ONE abt DARWIN!!!! pleasse
30227
Taxonomy. In his major work Systema Naturae (The System of Nature), first published in 1735, Linnaeus devised a system of classification of organisms that is still in use today. This system places living things within increasingly specific categories based on common attributes—from a general grouping (kingdom) down to the specific individual (species). Using this system, Linnaeus named nearly 10,000 plant and animal species in his lifetime. Not an evolutionist by any means, Linnaeus believed that each species was created by God and was incapable of change. Nevertheless, his orderly groupings of living things provided important insights for later theorists.
1039539
Darwin never claimed that man descended from monkeys.\nIf someone told you that, they were either misinformed, or lying.
153183
This article considers the history of zoology before the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.\n\nZoology since 1859: Darwin and theory of evolution\nThen, in 1859, Charles Darwin placed the whole theory of organic evolution on a new footing, by his discovery of a process by which organic evolution can occur, and provided observational evidence that it had done so. This changed the attitudes of most exponents of the scientific method. Darwin's discoveries revolutionised the zoological and botanical sciences, by introducing the theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the diversity of all animal and plant life. The subject-matter of this new science, or branch of biological science, had been neglected: it did not form part of the studies of the collector and systematist, nor was it a branch of anatomy, nor of the physiology pursued by medical men, nor again was it included in the field of microscopy and the cell theory.
249723
A good place to start is by clarifying the difference between the _fact_ of evolution (= change in biological beings) and the _theory_ of evolution (= a body of scientific hypotheses). \nI recommend you this short but informative essay:\nLaurence Moran. Evolution is a fact and a theory\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html\n\nAnd in fact, the entire site\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org is very informative. \nAnother good site is Evolution 101 from Berkeley:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml\n\nGood luck with your paper :-)
30306
Evolution is the most explanatory theory we have for the origin of the species.  I wrote up a little essay a while ago on it.  I've listed the original page below - I suggest you check it out if you are interested, as it has the original pictures in tact.\n\n-----------------\n\nEvolution is actually a combination of theories, much to the surprise of the creationists I often encounter. Typically when I encounter a creationist their idea of the multiple theories of evolution involve a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.\n\nThis is, of course, nonsense; macro-evolution is just a description of evolution above the species level. It does not actually act on separate principles from microevolution.\n\nI will explain as best I can, using cites from actual experts in the field.\n\nNow then, I made the allegation that the theory of evolution was actually comprised of several theories...so without further ado:\n\nAccording to Ernst Mayr (who died recently) the five principle theories that comprise the theory of evolution are:\n\n\n\n1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution).\n2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).\n3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities).\n4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity).\n5. Natural selection. [1]\n\n\nSo those are the five theories...what do they mean?\n\n1. The nonconstancy of species: What this basically means is that every individual within a species is genetically different. Every individual's DNA has unique variations (not to the point that every individual constitutes a new species though). These variations usually express themselves in the phenotype.\n\nTo put this in a simpler fashion; no two individuals in a species are alike. \n\n2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors: All this means is that we came from our parents, who came from their parents. To put it in more general terms, it also means that we all came from one ancestor. Although if I recall correctly Darwin was open to the idea that there could have been a few original ancestors. In any event, one way to test hypothesis is to look at our genetics and to see if we share a genetic history with other organisms. After all, DNA is made up of four nucleotide bases-Tyamine, Cytocine, Adenine, and Guanine- and there is absolutely no reason that the DNA of one species should be related to that of another species unless at some point both species descended from a common ancestor.\n\n3. The gradualness of evolution: Evolution is a gradual process, in that it happens slowly and over a considerable period of time. It's often at this point in the theory that creationists have the most difficulty. This is because they often confuse the 'saltation' with the process of evolutionary change involved in macroevolution.\n\nBefore we go any further I will define a few terms relevant to this part:\n\nSaltation: This was a belief prior to the modern synthesis in the 1940's that scientists attributed to speciation. It was the belief that fully formed organs was responsible for speciation, and it's often also called 'macromutation'-which probably helps the confusion. In the words of Tim Berra, in his book "Evolution and the Myths of Creationism", clarifies the distinction:\n\n\nNo knowledgeable biologists today, and that includes the punctuated equilibrium enthusiasts, advocate single-generation macromutational jumps (mutations with large effects). Amphibians, for example, did not arise from the lobe-finned fishes in a single-generation leap (saltation), but by seeing the muscular fins and lung of the aquatic ancestor gradually refined for terrestrial life. Macromutations do occur, but they are usually harmful (the recipients seldom produce offspring) and therefore relatively unimportant in evolution.[2]\n\n\nMacro-evolution: This is the change of a species above the species level. It d
938383
Actually, there's a good article in this month's National Geographic that touches on these sorts of questions.  It's called "From Fins to Wings.'"  The relevant text starts on page 121, and starts with Charles Darwin's own acknowledgment of the enormity of explaining a system as complex as the human eye as a result of random mutation and natural selection.\n\nThe discussion goes on to indicate (page 126) that over time, a greater certainty has evolved that photoreceptors in all species are "the handiwork of the same genes that build our own eyes".\n\nIt goes on to say, "Evolution then used these basic genes to fashion more sophisticated eyes, which eventually acquired a lens for turning light into an image."\n\nThere's also a neat series of drawings at the bottom of pages 126-127 that gives an intuitive feel for the discussion.\n\nThere's much more at the link.