Did you read the "Origin of Species"?
Yes, all of it.
14.3% (10)
14.3% (10)
No, I plan to someday.
20% (14)
20% (14)
Some of it.
10% (7)
10% (7)
I did read some more recent papers on evolution.
34.3% (24)
34.3% (24)
I don't care.
21.4% (15)
21.4% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENT: Please stop posting about evolution if you didn't read about it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Yes, I'm sorry for making another of these threads about evolution. This is more a plea than anything else. I'm asking you to please read the "Origin of Species" or some kind of follow-up. My copy is around 394 pages long including comments, the glossary and some suggestions for further reading. It's a bit long, but it shouldn't take more than two hours top. I ask this because too many people on this forum have really no idea what Darwin originally wrote or what evolution actually is.

EDIT: You're not required to read it. If you took basic biology that's good enough. I'm suggesting the "Origin of Species", since far too many people seem to misunderstand it.

First things first.

Creationism is not the belief that God exists somewhere. It's the belief that God created the World in Seven days. Creationism is not a valid why or how. If you're religious, evolution doesn't necessarily go against it, so you have no excuse to support creationism apart from ignorance.

EDIT: Well young earth creationism anyway. The rest isn't particularly better, but it's not as outrageous as young earth creationism.

Social Darwinism is stupid and was actually condemned in the intro of the Origin of Species, or somewhere along the book.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some have seem to think that means that all opinions have the same weight. This is the internet and I can't ask everyone to research every single thing in detail, especially considering that I've written some dumb posts, but this thing has gone on way too long and I would like to nip these evolution threads in the bud. (Something tells me it's going to be the next big thing until another controversy starts up.)

So please, buy it on Amazon. Or rent it from your local library.

EDIT: Or download it for free like Jojo said underneath.

Thank you and have a nice day.

P.S
Why do I care so much? Don't ask me. I have no idea. You probably frequent R&P often, so you're the last person who can talk about getting too involved in conversation with some stranger on the internet

EDIT: It's still a good book, it's a pity so many people are scared off by the first chapter ranting on about mushrooms. There was an interesting bit about how species adapted to mankind.

Here are some recent articles. Or videos. If you have any links, please post them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution1.htm

I didn't try that hard so there might be better sources.

Source courtesy of Batou667
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDB23537556D7AADB

Very interesting post from Biscuit Trouser. Read it Read it Read it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.394799-Why-do-people-reject-evolution?page=17#16031692

I don't tend to argue about facts, the book is quite irrelevant on it's own today as a proof for evolution, the theory has evolved quite a bit since his times..
But it's as saying that some one who did not read the bible, and every other religious text cannot argue against(or for) religion, or any one who didn't read what is from the top of my head about 150 critical works about government cannot argue politics.
Or better yet, don't argue about the Roman Empire if you never read "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"(I gave up mid volume 3)...
People can argue about what they want, if they cant support it with evidence or do not have the sufficient knowledge to construct a valid argument just makes your job easier.

You can download the Origin of Species legally for free from a lot of sites since it's copyright expired decades ago, I myself got it out of the library a few years back. It's definitely very well written and a surprising amount is still relevant to biology today, and it's interesting to see the "gaps" in Darwin's days that have since been filled. For example far less fossils had been found in those times and Darwin had to largely skip over how traits were inherited since the genes and DNA had yet to be discovered.

Verbatim:
I don't tend to argue about facts, the book is quite irrelevant on it's own today as a proof for evolution, the theory has evolved quite a bit since his times..
But it's as saying that some one who did not read the bible, and every other religious text cannot argue against(or for) religion, or any one who didn't read what is from the top of my head about 150 critical works about government cannot argue politics.
Or better yet, don't argue about the Roman Empire if you never read "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"(I gave up mid volume 3)...
People can argue about what they want, if they cant support it with evidence or do not have the sufficient knowledge to construct a valid argument just makes your job easier.

Which is why they can also read a more recent paper. I don't know, I always found that reading it by itself is good, if for just the general culture. I'm not saying ban all those who haven't properly read it. This is after all a request more than anything.

Besides, even if you don't really need to read the "Origin of species" to argue about evolution, it would be nice to come to the table with at least some prior knowledge of what you're arguing about. At least just the definitions. If they don't agree with I wrote above, they can research it.

On a more personal level, I think that everyone who discusses religion should take a look at one religious text or another. Atheist and Theist alike. For the atheist it provides ammunition, because a lot of modern day Christians don't know and don't follow their holy book. The theist should know what their book is actually talking about.

You're not the only one who gave up reading "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I just said sod it after I don't know how long. It's still good, and you can maybe blame him for the reason why people ignored byzantine for so long. It's still just going to sit on my backlog of things to read for years to come.

At the risk of sounding stupid, having to read an entire book about a subject just to argue it is too much trouble.

Granted, it's better than the idiots who only say "Read up on this subject" without really providing providing any guidence, but, over 300 pages? No.

If people are confused about the actual theory of evolution, as some are, provide them with links to some articles that detail it. 4 or 5 write-ups on it is far more bearable. And people that just agree with it at all, likely do on a fundamental level where even if you educated them on the ends and outs of the theory, they'd still call it false.

Frission:
snip

The argument about Evolution is not really an argument, they believe that every thing on this planet was created in it's current form(ex. German Shepherds and Bananas) by God. They don't need to understand evolution because it's irrelevant to their argument.

Christianity and Islam have quite big issues with Evolution, Judaism is more complaint with evolution, and every other scientific theory since it does not literally interpret religious text, it's actually a "sacrilege" to view written text literally as it is("Pshat").
But non the less all argument for "creation" vs Evolution cannot be resolved in any way, this is much more true for Judaism and other religions/sects than main stream Christianity or Islam which claim that the Bible or Qur'an are a literal description of (true)events.
At the end of the day you can put in God behind every unknown, back to the creation of the universe, there is no way to prove or disprove god. And i find any anti theistic arguments that are "anti-god" as void and lazy, i view atheism at is core as a philosophical stance against institutionalized religion and against the current(and any prevalent) role of any religion in society, attacking god is pointless since there is no way to disprove his existence, and even if there was(or he, she or it did exist) it is still wont be a valid argument against religion.
I also find it very unlikely that evolution would make any one question their faith in God, it might question their current religious affinity and institutionalized beliefs, but if they truly believe in a God, and not in God as a property of a certain religion then i don't really see how evolution, or any thing else would affect their view.

Back to the main subject, again telling some one they cant talk because they are not qualified to do so kinda counters the whole point of a public forum, this is not a consultation, if they want to write nonsense i don't see any reason why they cant do so, and if you think reading a book ever stopped any one from doing so, you think too highly of people.
You are also way too confident in the book it self, if any thing reading the origin of the species on it's own would not convince any one that evolution is true(especially if you read it in it's original unedited form with out citations), if nothing else it might actually make any educated person(with no access to current information) view the whole concept as flawed.
And this is exactly why creationists like to bring Darwin into the picture so much, if they would still be arguing against gravity they would bring Newton's law of universal gravitation and claim its wrong because it's flawed while ignoring modern explanations like general relativity(which also does not 100% conforms to astronomical observations, mainly in regards to the extent in which gravity bends light which is why were looking for "dark matter" because we really can't explain it otherwise and don't want to throw GR to the trash bin).

I haven't read On The Origin of the Species, but I think I make up for it by the number of paleontological, biological, and geological textbooks I've read (C. Darwin himself started out with geology--Lyell's Principles of Geology).

A few small corrections:

Yong Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was created in 7 days. Day-Age Creationism is another flavor, which I believe believes that the word "day" in the Bible refers to much longer periods. There's also theistic evolution, which is kind of on the border line. There's also the Trashbin Theory, though that's more a mockery than anything else. My point is, Creationism isn't really one thing--it's actually a number of different ideas. That's why I usually use the abreviation YEC, for Young Earth Creationism, when I criticize that theory.

Also, I'd like to point out that I did not mis-speak in my previous sentence. Creatoinism WAS a real and legitimate theory. It's not that Creationism isn't science, it's merely that it was disproven, quite thoroughly. Numerous times. At any rate, people--myself included--often get over-zealous and forget that fact, but the simple truth is that up until fairly recently it was perfectly legitimate to think that the divine had some role in creating the world. Catastraphism, for example, was a Creationist theory for why we see what appeared to be multiple cycles of life on Earth.

As for the issue of who can talk about evolution, I've got no problems with people who aren't educated in the topic talking about it. The issue is, they need to acknowledge that they are not educated in the topic. It's the ones who swear up and down that they know it all that annoy me. When I can throw twenty pounds of references at them and they can't put together four pages of text, it's rather obvious which of us knows what we're talking about. I don't expect people to make it easy, and don't mind needing to put a bit of work into things. I once spent a pleasant afternoon reading about lakeshore sedimentary processes and structures to answer a question someone asked on another forum. But if I'm going to put the time in to the discussion to provide the references and arguments and data, I think it's reasonable to expect a similar level of commitment form the others in the discussion. I don't mean that to sound as condescending as it probably does....I'm currently doing the research for both sides of an argument about human evolution as it relates to magic mushrooms on another forum, so this is something of a raw subject for me. :)

Also, Darwin's book is available on Librivox.org for free download. I listen to it on plain rides.

Dinwatr:
/snip

Thanks. I still find creationism ridiculous, but I'll keep this in mind. You learn something everyday.

I don't really want people to be excluded from the discussion, in so much that it would be better if they had at least some basics down. Discussions are one thing and can be fascinating, but there's not going to be any valid communication between them if one party doesn't even have a single idea what they're talking about. Yes, it may sound tyrannical, but in some of these threads there are people with zero absolutely zero knowledge on evolution. You might as well be speaking a different language.

Then again as other people said, it might be something that only really bothers me.

P.S: Can you elaborate on the research or send me a PM?

On the Origin of the Species is largely a hypothesis, our understanding of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin's time. It's interesting if you're into scientific history, but for a comprehensive source for understanding evolution it's actually not the best. You would be much better off citing more recent writings.

I was really hoping this was going to deal with some real misconceptions about evolution rather than those born solely of rather extreme ignorance or religious fundamentalism (please avoid the easy joke here guys. Please). It is kinda odd that we're actually arguing about these basic concepts here on this subforum. I thought we'd have at least agreed to disagree about the basics at this point.

Revnak:
I was really hoping this was going to deal with some real misconceptions about evolution rather than those born solely of rather extreme ignorance or religious fundamentalism (please avoid the easy joke here guys. Please). It is kinda odd that we're actually arguing about these basic concepts here on this subforum. I thought we'd have at least agreed to disagree about the basics at this point.

What counts as the basics though? Agree to disagree on what?

I know that we could talk about why creationists have latched onto the eye. We can into the fact that evolution is not necessarily beneficial. Some species exist thanks to mutual relationships, which may seem strange. It's not necessarily the survival of the fittest What do you want to get into? Although you would be much better off making a thread.

I made this thread after seeing some guy talking about eugenics and our "evolution stopping". I'm just gunning for the lowest denominator.

Frission:

Revnak:
I was really hoping this was going to deal with some real misconceptions about evolution rather than those born solely of rather extreme ignorance or religious fundamentalism (please avoid the easy joke here guys. Please). It is kinda odd that we're actually arguing about these basic concepts here on this subforum. I thought we'd have at least agreed to disagree about the basics at this point.

What counts as the basics though? Agree to disagree on what?

I know that we could talk about why creationists have latched onto the eye. We can into the fact that evolution is not necessarily beneficial. Some species exist thanks to mutual relationships, which may seem strange. It's not necessarily the survival of the fittest What do you want to get into? Although you would be much better off making a thread.

I made this thread after seeing some guy talking about eugenics and our "evolution stopping". I'm just gunning for the lowest denominator.

I'm just sad is all. I like to learn things here (a terrible risk, I know, but it works out sometimes) and instead all I got out of this thread is stuff I already knew. Then again, I took every science class my school had, so it may be a bit odd to expect a web forum to surprise me on this issue.

One of my favorite things people misunderstand is that genetics don't really differ that much between species, traits do. Monkeys (here I use the word in the broadest possible sense) are truly extremely different from us despite the rather extreme genetic similarity. Then again, having very different traits isn't actually what seperates one species from another, so that is a bit of a generalization.

I also like to argue evolution mostly occurs through different combinations of traits and genetics that already exist rather than random mutations, but I am not absolutely certain of the validity of that.

People really don't like Creationists on here do they?

While Darwin's book is certainly important, I don't really like people tying his understanding too much to modern evolutionary synthesis. He didn't know about modern genetics yet, he lacked massive amounts of fossil evidence, modern radiometric dating methods we have today and so on.
Even if Darwin had been the biggest Social Darwinist imaginable, it wouldn't matter because the theory has moved past him. That is, after all, the beauty of scientific progress. The same goes for some Creationists' argument of a "deathbed conversion": It didn't happen as far as we know, but if it did, it'd be irrelevant because his theory held up on its own and only grew more detailed and better supported since his death.
To answer the question of the OP, I read part of it. But I got my understanding of the issue from biology textbooks. And those include things like the genetical relations between species, nowadays they probably include Tiktaalik and whatnot. I'd recommend people read about what we know today.

I also like to argue evolution mostly occurs through different combinations of traits and genetics that already exist rather than random mutations, but I am not absolutely certain of the validity of that.

Half-right. Random mutations affect traits and systems that already exist. Non-random natural selection works upon the developing variety. But random mutations absolutely are a core-element of evolution. You cannot create, say, Nylonase, an enzyme that works on a material that didn't exist before humans invented it, simply by recombining new traits. An enzyme needs to mutate. But the fact that existing traits are mutating and selected upon is, for instance, nicely illustrated by the giraffe's neck and its laryngeal recurrent nerve: The nerve's path was already there from previous animals with less long necks. A designer would change that nerve's path, a natural process instead works along the patchwork solution of gradually making it longer through mutational changes and selection. So, yes, existing traits are massively important, but it's mutations happening to existing traits that creates the variety.

I haven't read it because it's a boring book that has much better modern alternatives that explain evolution with modern knowledge, such as The Selfish Gene. For historical relevance it's a great book and has loads of evidence to back up evolution, but The Origin Of Species only explains how evolution works, not why, which is why you shouldn't be reading it if you want to understand the concept.

Revnak:

I'm just sad is all. I like to learn things here (a terrible risk, I know, but it works out sometimes) and instead all I got out of this thread is stuff I already knew. Then again, I took every science class my school had, so it may be a bit odd to expect a web forum to surprise me on this issue.

I encourage you and everyone else who is curious to come and read my posts in the other thread. Ive gone over some VERY interesting biology and i think if youre curious about evolution with a more in depth biological explanation of the evidence what ive written will interest you. I love writing about biology :3 Do you have any questions you want to ask me now? I like people who like to learn things from others and i love sharing my knowledge with everyone who takes interest.

Fisher321:
People really don't like Creationists on here do they?

I love creationists. The sooner we can get all of the reactionaries back into medieval thinking and living the better.

Fisher321:
People really don't like Creationists on here do they?

The short answer is "no", but...

A creationist who can back up their views with facts not scripture and opinion, that'd be fine. There actually are some well-respected creationist scientists who have read up on Evolution, understand it, but for whatever reason have then rejected it in favour of something else. But in general, most Creationists argue against evolution but don't have the most basic understanding of what it is, or isn't, which just wastes everybody's time.

For example, some creationists throw out lines like: "According to Darwin, conflict and the rule of might makes right rules the world. That's the kind of thing Hitler believed in" - which is baloney.

Some creationists make silly arguments like "If humans are descended from monkeys, how come monkeys still exist". If they had spent 5 minutes researching the subject, they wouldn't have to embarrass themselves like this.

And some creationists still invoke silly and easily-debunked logical fallacies like these which show confirmation bias and reversed cause/effect:

"See how well a banana fits in a human hand? That's no accident, God designed it that way!"

"Imagine we breathed methane. We'd find the Earth's atmosphere poisonous! But we JUST SO happen to breathe oxygen, and guess what our atmosphere is full of. Tell me that's a coincidence!"

Some creationists just don't understand how science works:

"The chances of the human genome spontaneously arranging itself is less than the probability of a hurricane tearing through a scrapyard and creating a working Boeing 747!"

"You can't go from simple to complex, that goes against the laws of thermodynamics!"

"Evolution has never been observed in a laboratory, so it's not a proven scientific concept!"

and my favourite:

"Evolution is just a theory, a theory is just a guess!"

Anyway, I agree with the spirit of the OP but I disagree that we should read the Origin of Species. It's an old and not up-to-date book, and some details have been superceded. (If I was feeling facaetious I could point out that using this logic, every skeptic would have to read the Bible in its entirety, and in Greek/Latin/Aramaic, before we could criticise it...)

And, actually, there's a superb and very accessible set of Youtube videos which explains the main concepts of evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDB23537556D7AADB

Frission:
Snipped

I don't feel that reading "On the Origin of Species" is necessary to understanding evolution, as long as you have taken a legitimate, well done course in Biology which includes natural selection, genetics, and evolution. I know how natural selection works, I'm aware that Abiogenesis and Evolution are two separate, not yet consolidated theories, and that monkeys were not actually mentioned until chapter 6 of the book. I understand the ideas of micro and macroevolution, and probably know more than most people who actively argue this on the internet, barring a professional or someone who is going to classes for that field.

I might read the book someday. I don't see why I wouldn't, when bored; but I don't see it as necessary to discussion on evolution and natural selection. I do, however, see a basic discussion of evolution requiring knowledge on the mechanics, the limits, and the depth of the theories involved under the umbrella of Evolutionary Theory, such as the exclusion of abiogenesis.

Fisher321:
People really don't like Creationists on here do they?

I think they get banned when more open-minded people make them shout and swear.

I have been hearing this argument stating that evolutionists can't explain DNA and the whole second law of thermodynamics.

Fisher321:
People really don't like Creationists on here do they?

We don't like people who misunderstand what the hell Natural Selection actually is, what it actually teaches, and what it actually attempts to explain.

We don't like people who attempt to teach religious belief as equally valid to scientific theories in a science classroom.

We REALLY don't like people who think that a scientific theory is just a guess.

So yes, if that's what you mean, we don't.

God'sFist:
I have been hearing this argument stating that evolutionists can't explain DNA and the whole second law of thermodynamics.

I dunno what is meant by "can't explain DNA" considering the DNA-evidence is one of if not the largest additional argument in favour of evolution that came about much later than Darwin's original theory, but the second law of thermodynamics I can quickly adress:

It doesn't apply to life on Earth. The thing is that, in a system without external energy coming in, things will tend towards entropy. Eventually, all energy is spread out evenly and that is basically incompatible with metabolisms and, frankly, life. But what the people using this argument forget or willfully ignore is the fact that external energy is constantly coming in: Most obviously, the rays of the sun that warm and fuel the ecosphere. Not for nothing are most lifeforms, in the end, dependent on the ability of plants to turn sunlight into chemical energy, i.e. food. Similarly, lifeforms that exist near hot vents where the earth crust is thin (deep ocean wells for instance) have found ways to not only survive but thrive and make use of the heat and chemicals in that environment. Eventually - and we're talking extremely long-term here - the assumption is that, yes, life will not be sustainable in this universe. But we're talking about heat death timescales there, assuming a heat death is what will occur. That's when the second law of thermodynamics applies, because (we think) there's no additional energy going to come into the universe.

So you can see that, with a supply of external energy, complexity can indeed develop. Metabolisms can exist. Life can reproduce, mutate and be selected for advantageous traits. It's a wasteful process that takes a lot of energy, but the sun provides massive amounts of it. For now.

Can you still post about evolution if you have never read On the Origin of Species, but have been to school and therefore still understand it? Because, you know, we should really not just be relying on one book for all our information on something, especially when that book is quite old.

DJjaffacake:
Can you still post about evolution if you have never read On the Origin of Species, but have been to school and therefore still understand it? Because, you know, we should really not just be relying on one book for all our information on something, especially when that book is quite old.

Refer to the option of "I haven't read the book but I still took basic biology". I'll just change the OP.

DJjaffacake:
Can you still post about evolution if you have never read On the Origin of Species, but have been to school and therefore still understand it? Because, you know, we should really not just be relying on one book for all our information on something, especially when that book is quite old.

The book is a good beginning resource and guideline, but no I would not consider it strictly necessary, nor would I consider it to necessarily be the best source from the standpoint of simply understanding the primary concepts.

On the other hand, simply having been to school, even as an ace student, is not necessarily sufficient either. There are people with PHDs out there (in unrelated majors) who make stupid mistakes in terms of understanding this subject

I'd stick with the general guideline of at least checking to make sure your base knowledge matches information from a decent source prior to posting.

P.S. Guideline #2, if what you think is true requires the millions of involved scientists to universally be blind morons in order to be accurate, check again.

I'd love to read it if I ever found the time.

I gained my understanding about evolution and natural selection from other sources such as The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Darwin's Dangerous Idea etc. @Verbatim is correct, the theory has been expanded upon greatly after Origin was published, eg. the Modern Synthesis in the mid C20th and more recently by the hoped-for addition of developmental evolution to the synthesis championed by biologists such as Sean Carroll.

Reading it might potentially give you the wrong idea of what evolution by natural selection is (ie. Darwin famously surmised but couldn't figure out the gene units that Mendel had concurrently worked out).

So no, I don't think it's required reading. It is necessary to understand the basics of evolution by natural selection if you wish to talk about it sensibly though.

I think for cultural, literary or for purposes of personal enlightenment and enrichment, it would be nice to read the Origin of Species.

If you're looking to understand the science, I'd recommend any college level textbook for general biology classes. If you find an older edition, they're dirt cheap.

Here, this was my Bio "101" text book:
http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Seventh-Hardcover-Textbook/dp/B0031Z0RNG

$6.29 USD used.

I actually still have mine on my shelf somewhere. The buyback rates at my University when I was there were criminal, and I kept most of the books that I thought I might like to thumb through again every once and a while.

And, I would say high school text book, but at least in America, our text book standards are shit and there are places like Louisiana where they talk about "evolutionist" claims regarding geology. Eye roll.

Using Darwin in reference to what we currently understand about evolution is like using Newton in reference to General Relativity.

I think a big issue is the basic biology of living things makes your average person say it's too complicated to have arisen like that and that any change in species was done by God. You can say that a need for food made a bird's beak to change over 100's of years but you can also say god made the complexity needed for the change. In reality it isn't that complex, our bodies are nothing more than a bunch of principles that people learn in basic physics and chemistry classes magnified in complexity because of thousands of years of change.

I mean in origin of species nor most basic biology classes do they go into how cell relate to bodily function? No. People don't get that a chemical change causes an electrical change that causes stuff to happen in the body. Basic principles that as flow of ions increases a potential(voltage) is created causing other changes away from the cells first affected. So if people are taught the genetic approach they also need to know the physiologic approach that an expression of a protein over another can have a serious affect on the body and could mean life or death depending on the climate or the ability to pass those genes on. So my main point, part of the problem is how little we go into detail on the subject, but even with that information there are physiologists that would probably say god brought on or guided evolution.

Verbatim:
I don't tend to argue about facts, the book is quite irrelevant on it's own today as a proof for evolution, the theory has evolved quite a bit since his times..
But it's as saying that some one who did not read the bible, and every other religious text cannot argue against(or for) religion, or any one who didn't read what is from the top of my head about 150 critical works about government cannot argue politics.

and yet that logic is right. after reading the bible i can understand the falacies of christians much easier. after learning about politics i can argue much more efficiently towards my point.
most people cant and should not argue politics, for they dont know anything about it. they may have an opinion, but without any basis it cannot become a fact.

Capcha give me: nul points
thank you

The buyback rates at my University when I was there were criminal, and I kept most of the books that I thought I might like to thumb through again every once and a while.

wait a minute. your university actually bought the books back? here it was more like you got it, tought, do whatever you want with it. some peopel found people that were a year bellow us and sold the books to them for cheap, but most like me kept it all.

Most of the people on this forum you are directing this at, wont care. Just saying... Creationists don't need facts.

they need medical treatment

Olrod:
Using Darwin in reference to what we currently understand about evolution is like using Newton in reference to General Relativity.

I disagree. Using Darwin to explain evolution is like using Newton to explain gravity or the Bohr model to explain atoms. Yes, we have evidence for either of those theories that far surpass anything the original creators had in mind because we had completely new discoveries and fields of research hitherto unknown to science like genetics or quantum mechanics but the original theories are still good for teaching the concepts since they are more based on observational evidence than complex lab experiments and are generally simpler to understand.
Nothing wrong for a secondary school to teach about an atom's electron spheres, you can save the probability clouds for actually going into the matter at university.

Hey Frission, can we do the same the other way around and tell atheists to stop posting about Religion if they didn't read about it?

Frission:

DJjaffacake:
Can you still post about evolution if you have never read On the Origin of Species, but have been to school and therefore still understand it? Because, you know, we should really not just be relying on one book for all our information on something, especially when that book is quite old.

Refer to the option of "I haven't read the book but I still took basic biology". I'll just change the OP.

.
Y'Know, Evolution isn't just this one piece of information, it spawned a field of study in biology that go a little further than what Darwin originally said.

TheIronRuler:
Hey Frission, can we do the same the other way around and tell atheists to stop posting about Religion if they didn't read about it?

Frission:

DJjaffacake:
Can you still post about evolution if you have never read On the Origin of Species, but have been to school and therefore still understand it? Because, you know, we should really not just be relying on one book for all our information on something, especially when that book is quite old.

Refer to the option of "I haven't read the book but I still took basic biology". I'll just change the OP.

.
Y'Know, Evolution isn't just this one piece of information, it spawned a field of study in biology that go a little further than what Darwin originally said.

I think religion is something slightly different because it deals with the metaphysical, but be my guest. I actually find that reading several religious books and mythologies to be quite an eye opener. The "Epic Of Gilgamesh" for example talked about a great flood and a survivor and wife (Upanashim) far before Noe. From an anthropological viewpoint, it's pretty interesting.

Yes, I know evolution isn't just some small piece of information. Yes, it's more than Darwin's original book. Yes, yes and yes. I just thought that it's a good start. There's other links above, or the recommendations of other posters.

Uszi:

Here, this was my Bio "101" text book:
http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Seventh-Hardcover-Textbook/dp/B0031Z0RNG

This is a good other source.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked