Reddit Reddit reviews The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition

We found 24 Reddit comments about The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Literature & Fiction
Books
Classic Literature & Fiction
The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition
Signet Book
Check price on Amazon

24 Reddit comments about The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition:

u/[deleted] · 23 pointsr/forwardsfromgrandma

No, grandma. He is just one of the few who has read the bible.

Click here to buy a bible to read along with in church instead of just listening to the pastor.

u/PC_Master-Race · 5 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

Holy shit. If you're going to invoke the name of Darwin, maybe pick up an actual book instead of reading (can you even properly read?) nut job websites and watching YouTube videos. Fucking idiot.

u/HGual-B-gone · 3 pointsr/worldpolitics

Sure. Here you go.

From the Smithsonian http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

From BBC http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

https://evolution-institute.org/evolution-is-as-real-as-gravity/

Or perhaps you’d like evidence from the man who started the concept himself

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/ref=nodl_

Look, there’s a wealth of knowledge readily at your fingertips. I don’t know what it takes to convince you but I’ve sure done my job trying to

u/lordLies · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

Well yeah...

u/MajorWeenis · 1 pointr/atheism

For the lazy:

u/IceKnight366 · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

>I'll start with this, offering an explanation with no explanatory power isn't really an explanation.

Since it's been a while, what explanation are you talking about exactly?

>We still don't know what a pre-Big-Bang space looks like. Did time, space, or matter exist in some form before? We don't know and I'm not sure it's possible to know. My point with quantum mechanics wasn't that it negated a premise. It was that the field is new and constantly growing and the statement that the universe "began to exist" isn't settled because of the gaps in our knowledge.

Yes I agree, the field is constantly growing. As it has been since it's beginning, which is no different from any other field of science. I'm glad you agree that quantum mechanics doesn't defeat any of the premises. However, it doesn't even undercut any of them. You can't just say, "Quantum Mechanics" therefore we don't know and should just remain skeptical. The fact remains that we have very strong scientific evidence that the universe began to exist (The cosmic microwave background radiation, the Red shift of light from galaxies moving away from us, Radioactive element abundance predications, Helium/hydrogen abundance predictions, Star formation and stellar lifecycle theories, The Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars, The Board-Guth-Vilenkin (BVG) Theorem.) That is, that time, space, matter and energy came into existence a finite time ago. Quantum mechanics does nothing to undermine that. And this is really where I get truly disappointed with most atheists these days. They are all for following scientific evidence. But when scientific evidence points towards an argument for God's existence they are unjustifiably skeptic. They don't have this type of skepticism about anything else, but all of a sudden it comes out of no where when the science disagrees with their presuppositions. If you don't want to follow the scientific evidence where it leads

>Saying that there must have been a cause and then doing some hand-waving when any questions are asked about it isn't really explaining anything. It's like the humunculus in psychology. If there's something not understood about the brain we could just offer the humunculus as the explanation. What is it? No one really knows, but it must do that unexplained thing. That's not an explanation. In what other fields are such explanations acceptable?

You are conflating two topics - what the cause of the universe is between furthering our explanatory knowledge of that cause. This isn't some God of the Gaps argument where we just say, "This, this, this, therefore God". Rather, this is a deductive argument leading to the conclusion that God exists. If you want to refute the argument you need to refute one of the premises. The other thing you're conflating is our lack of ability to further our explanatory knowledge with not know what the explanation is. Suppose archeologists were to stumble upon some arrow heads and pottery shards in the ground. They would be justified in concluding that these materials were from some older previous society that use to be there. They would be justified in this even if they had NO idea who these artifacts belonged to or WHERE they came from. That is, in order for an explanation to be the best you don't need an explanation of the explanation. God leads deductively from the KCA even if we can't further our explanation any further than this. Be careful not to confuse the two.

>As for your demonstration that disembodied minds aren't incoherent, I disagree. Minds require brains. That seems fundamental. There has not been any mind ever demonstrated to exist without a physical brain of some sort. I don't understand how simply stating it is possible makes sense in any coherent way, especially since I don't have any reason to believe it is possible.

We do have reason to believe it's possible! What's that? It's not logically impossible or incoherent. Therefore it's possible. If you are going to maintain that "Minds necessarily require brains" you'll need an argument for that. Unless you can give that the argument is successful. Moreover, "We don't have any evidence for unembodied minds". Sure we do! That's what the KCA is!

>You exacerbate this problem by then arguing that a disembodied mind is capable of speaking. Speech is a physical process. Sound requires matter. There must be a medium for the propagation of waves. Again incoherent.

I think this would be trivially easy to falsify, but that's unnecessary. Fine, we are unaware of how the cause created everything. But it must be extremely powerful so it must have something to do with that.

> If the carpenter is making a cut it's a cut in SOMETHING. If it's a cut in nothing then there is no cut. You can't cause an effect on nothing because there's nothing to effect.

Nothing Means “Not anything”. The word “nothing” in English isn’t a name of something. It is a term of universal negation. It is the absence of anything. It is to say that to say something exists is false – it expresses a false proposition. Ex: When you say, “I had nothing to eat for lunch” you mean I did not have anything for lunch. You don’t mean that you ate something and it was nothing. It would be inappropriate to say, “I had nothing for lunch” while somebody asks “oh, how did it taste?” and you say “Oh it was real tasty! It was great!” What you are doing is attempting to reify the language of nothing. That's an incorrect understanding.

>As for your tangent on some new theory of evolution, firstly evolution is not a theory on the origin of life. It's a theory on how organisms change and it accounts for the diversity of life.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Of-Species-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

u/arman0 · 1 pointr/news

Oh right, just like the bullshit theory in The Origin Of Species. Dismissing a book out of hand is the height of ignorance.

u/grrrrreat · 1 pointr/4chan4trump

143380833| > Netherlands Anonymous (ID: AGXNJyMO)

>>143377527 (OP)
www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065
Here you go

u/French__Canadian · 1 pointr/nottheonion

What? You should read that book. This is what started the theory of evolution and has nothing to do with fake fetus drawings.

edit: I should specify, in science, everything is a "theory" or rather a model. Nothing in science should be taken as literal. The goal of science is to imagine a way how things could work such as to explain what we see and what will be. But it's ever only a model.

u/bigtcm · 1 pointr/biology

Off the top of my head? The most obvious gift: On the Origin of Species

u/CreationExposedBot · 1 pointr/CreationExposed

> Where is the SCIENCE that shows beneficial mutations outweigh negative ones?

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

And if you want more:

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

https://www.amazon.com/Extended-Phenotype-Oxford-Landmark-Science-ebook/dp/B01K2BLPN2/

> Who discovered it?

I already told you: Charles Darwin. And then Richard Dawkins filled in the most important details. (That's actually the reason Dawkins is famous, BTW, not because he's an atheist.)

Have you actually read "Origin of Species"? Or "The Selfish Gene"? Or "The Extended Phenotype"?

> He had virtually nothing original to offer

Then why do you think he gets all the credit?

It's possible that the credit should go to Blyth. I don't know, I'm not a historian. But either way, it doesn't matter. Someone discovered evolution, and if it wasn't Darwin then it was Blyth, and if it wasn't Blyth it was someone else. What difference does it make who it was? It's like arguing over whether Samuel Pierpont Langley was really the first to demonstrate powered flight and not the Wright brothers. Airplanes are going to fly either way.

> Darwin knew nothing of genetics

That's like saying that Einstein knew nothing of relativity.

The fact that parents pass traits on to their offspring has been known since ancient times. Not only did Darwin know of genetics, he actually uses the word "genetics" in Origin of Species!


---

Posted by: l****r

u/lisper · 1 pointr/Creation

> Where is the SCIENCE that shows beneficial mutations outweigh negative ones?

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

And if you want more:

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

https://www.amazon.com/Extended-Phenotype-Oxford-Landmark-Science-ebook/dp/B01K2BLPN2/

> Who discovered it?

I already told you: Charles Darwin. And then Richard Dawkins filled in the most important details. (That's actually the reason Dawkins is famous, BTW, not because he's an atheist.)

Have you actually read "Origin of Species"? Or "The Selfish Gene"? Or "The Extended Phenotype"?

> He had virtually nothing original to offer

Then why do you think he gets all the credit?

It's possible that the credit should go to Blyth. I don't know, I'm not a historian. But either way, it doesn't matter. Someone discovered evolution, and if it wasn't Darwin then it was Blyth, and if it wasn't Blyth it was someone else. What difference does it make who it was? It's like arguing over whether Samuel Pierpont Langley was really the first to demonstrate powered flight and not the Wright brothers. Airplanes are going to fly either way.

> Darwin knew nothing of genetics

That's like saying that Einstein knew nothing of relativity.

The fact that parents pass traits on to their offspring has been known since ancient times. Not only did Darwin know of genetics, he actually uses the word "genetics" in Origin of Species!

u/ThePurplePieGuy · 1 pointr/politics

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

That's just one of many sources that i base my theory on. You act like unless there is a source that specifically states something it isnt true. It's just a theory...

A theory that explains a broader point... GMOs are just the latest in a series of human influenced selection processes that have given us everything from the Golden Retriever to a modern banana.

u/4gigiplease · 1 pointr/Quote4

Click the link to purchase on Amazon: The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. There are many editions though.

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065

You are welcome to visit your local/regional library. Or stroll through the shelves at your local vintage bookstore.

READ

Partake in the Fruits of Human Knowledge

u/PM_UR_SUICIDE_NOTE · -1 pointsr/PanicHistory

It's like saying evolution is the key to the human species, and someone else saying, "It's not the only reason, people who want to really know what else went into it should read this"

It's so absurd, I think I'm taking crazy pills sometimes. But, I guess because you had the gif, you're taken as the expert. So, again, good for you, man. I'm glad you could show me that no matter where I go on reddit, the facts don't matter, it's how snarky you are.

u/mattthegreat · -3 pointsr/DotA2

You mean like this book?

u/nobody25864 · -5 pointsr/funny

The hebrew and greek text. The original. Those ones. It's not that hard. This is like saying "which origin of species is our modern one, this one or the 150th anniversary edition? I assumed you could understand that when I say our bible, I mean the best we can put together the original version of what they said, which is said to be at least 99.5% accurate, with most inaccuracies in non-crucial sections.

If the dead sea scrolls weren't enough to convince you of accuracy, and I think what the word "light" was dropped from some verse in Isaiah without changing the real meaning of the verse, then nothing will. Seriously. You're not showing skepticism, you're refusing to believe what's in front of your eyes. I'm not even arguing that you should believe the Bible. But if that doesn't convince you that its closed minded, and the best defense you can think of is "what about king james", then you're just being closed-minded. I'm done here.

u/speywatch · -6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Would it be easier if athiests told you their beliefs came from a book written long ago?

Darwin Origin of the Species

u/CynicalLibrary · -6 pointsr/gifs

> the status quo of "they are more simple = they don't understand = their pain is less."

Citation needed.

Seriously though, there's a really good book that I recommend for this kind of elementary evolutionary theory. Hold on, let me try to remember what it was called... Ah, here it is.