I am currently reading The Origin of Species, and I noticed Darwin did not provide a single reference of a bibiography. Why is this? He said something about not having space, but is that really a good reason? Does he give references anywhere else for this book? Or for his other books for that matter...
2006-07-24 12:11:46 · 8 answers · asked by Kiko 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
A theory needs to be based on fact, and facts should have references. Until he gives references, or does research (which I know he did but where are the references) it's just philosophy, not science. So that is not the point.
2006-07-24 12:16:25 · update #1
And Darwin was not a crazy man. I disagree with evolution, but I think he was a genious. Based on what he knew, his theory is amazing. (in light of new science, that is not true). But that still doesn't answer the question.
2006-07-24 12:17:54 · update #2
*genius,* sorry.
2006-07-24 12:18:40 · update #3
How can I say I disagree with something if I don't know what it says? Are you saying I shouldn't read it?
2006-07-24 12:19:20 · update #4
I have and am reading modern things, and have read most of the stuff on talkorigins, but there are replies to all of it from scientific points of view. I plan to study evolution much more, and am going to college to study it.
Do not assume that I think that evolution and God are at odds. I never said anything about God.
2006-07-24 13:10:43 · update #5
As far as I know, it was not typical to have what we now call a bibliography in books published in the 1850's. It is not really fair to expect a book published in 1859 to follow today's publishing practices. Where he would cite another scientist, he would give the name in the text, but it was not as common (or necessary) in his time to give the precise title and page number as a convenience.
Another point to remember ... evolution does not rise or fall on the work of Charles Darwin. His work was based on his own extensive research, but many others have solidified things much more solidly than he could. E.g., he did not have access to evidence such as genetics, or DNA, or radiometric dating, stratigraphy, etc. Darwin laid the groundwork for a new idea (natural selection). But scientific ideas stand not on the persuasiveness of the person who comes up with an idea ... but on *evidence*. That is the only reason scientists overwhelmingly accept the idea.
2006-07-24 17:24:26 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Darwin published his book in the mid 1800's when there was almost no scientific literature. His ideas were truly original, based on his own studies in the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere. He did state that his biggest inspiration was the essay by Thomas Malthus, discussing how human population grows far faster than the growth of the food supply, causing a certain percentage of the human population to die of famine and disease. This led Darwin to ask himself: who EXACTLY does die of famine and disease? Would it be totally at random, or would the more fit among us be more likely to survive? Darwin convinced himself that the more fit would be more likely to survive. Furthermore, this principle would apply to all species, not just humans. In my own mind, I have thought to myself: How many acorns does an Oak tree make in its lifetime? Millions, I am sure. And how many acorns grow to be new mature oak trees? maybe 1 or two. Only the fittest become new oak trees. Therein lies the genius of Darwin
2006-07-24 12:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by Sciencenut 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude, Dog On, OBVIOUSLY you've never read creationist works, since ALL of us who know anything about it believe in Natural Selection. Kiko, why don't people get that??????? Anyway, I'm going to have to agree.... if the ideas are from his own head, how is he going to reference them??? Also, God and Evolution may not be at odds, but the Gospel and Evolution are. Still should read Refuting Compromise, madame!
2006-07-25 20:40:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't believe in biological selection, you shouldn't believe in domesticated dogs, cows, chicken, race horses or any other breeding.
If you do believe in all of the above, it is not a large step to natural selection, that is selection that takes place in nature under natural conditions. If you believe in that, you believe in much of what Darwin was arguing. Do not assume that evolution and god are at odds. There is no reason that someone cannot believe in both. Many scientists believe in both.
2006-07-24 12:50:39 · answer #4 · answered by Dog_on 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His book is more of a theory than reference of bibiography. There is a good chance that he is right about it though.
2006-07-24 12:14:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Darwin was a crazy man and more and more of his findings are turning out to be false. Disregard any information from him.
2006-07-24 12:15:43 · answer #6 · answered by Eric R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does it really matter? How can you give references of your own theory?
2006-07-24 12:15:11 · answer #7 · answered by Snow surfer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like you've already made your mind up about the book. So why waste your time reading it.
2006-07-24 12:16:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋