Slashdot Mirror
Darwin's Private Papers Get Released To The Internet
bibekpaudel writes "ScienceDaily reports that a wealth of papers belonging to Charles Darwin have been published on the internet, some for the first time. Some 20,000 items and 90,000 images were posted today to http://darwin-online.org.uk/. The new site is the largest collection of Darwin's work in history, according to organizers from Cambridge University Library 'This release makes his private papers, mountains of notes, experiments, and research behind his world-changing publications available to the world for free,' said John van Wyhe, director of the project. The collection includes thousands of notes and drafts of his scientific writings, notes from the voyage of the Beagle when he began to formulate his controversial theory of evolution, and his first recorded doubts about the permanence of species."
...that his works would be the ones to survive.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Should we tag this one "privacy"?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
--Charles Darwin
...when he began to formulate his controversial theory of evolution...
Maybe it was controversial back then, but it sure as heck isn't now (not in civilised parts of the world, anyway). Should have phrased that "his then-controversial theory" - might have been a less controversial turn of phrase!
Daniel
Carpe Diem
News Item: Enforcement of 19th-century copyright precludes evolution of evolutionary sciences.
Considering the 'evolution' (in the loosest possible sense) of his own theory, I'm wondering, first of all, how much it's really changed, and second of all, how many people will either get confused, or deliberately cause confusion, using these documents. It's not unheard of for certain creationists to misrepresent the theory, and the original flawed drafts and theory seem like fuel for this.
-Devin Jeanpierre
If an extremist group claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, would that make math controversial? There is no controversy with the theory of evolution, just a bunch of bizarre propagandists crying about it.
...but it's interesting that this "documentary" opens tomorrow.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
"Some 20,000 items and 90,000 images were posted today"
I'll assume this means that no one read the article before posting, although that isn't anything new.
THIS is what the Internet is about. This is why information wants to be free.
Just 100 years ago, maybe less, you would have had to be someone very special to see this much information from one scientist, and most probably have to be vested in whatever answers or information can be gleaned from it.
Now, however, the Internet allows us ALL to enjoy the privilege of reading his works, notes, and seeing his drawings... for free, at will, at home.
If knowledge is power, this is some really powerful stuff. Forget listening to anyone tell you what he said, just look it up in HIS notes. I wonder how many college papers were written about Darwin and the fallout from this information to date? Wonder what future papers will look like?
The Internet, for all its down sides, is a great thing....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
When is someone going make a movie about the persecution of cartographers who believe in a flat earth? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE MAP MAKERS??
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
That sound you just heard was the collective orgasms of the entire RichardDawkins.net forum membership.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
20,000 items and 90,000 images were posted today... The new site is the largest collection of Darwin's work in history...
Wow, quite a feat. Must have taken some really intelligent design to put all that together and make it work.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
And let me take this opportunity to point out OMG LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
In a related story, Apple announced litigation regarding the use of Darwin as a name...
I know right!!! One time in a physics class I tried to argue that black body radiation was a result of the "heated" exchanges between particles resulting from domestic disturbances amongst ethnically darker sub-atomic units in objects. When he told to be quiet, I told him that he was committing his own brand of a holocaust and was just as guilty as Hitler for the murder of the Jews. The professor called me crazy and kicked me out of class and gave me a poor grade for the day!
Can you believe such barbarism exists in this day and age. It's outrageous. I'm sick and tired of these stiffs pushing "Dead White Male Science" that is little more than soma. ALL THEORIES DESERVE TO BE HEARD!! I will gladly become a martyr for any of my theories. We deserve the truth!
I got a catholic block.
Since Darwin expressed "doubts about the permanence of species" Does this mean we don't need to save EVERY endangered species? Or does this mean that we should get our own affairs in order?
Invenio via vel creo
The theory of evolution through natural selection, while it has been modified to more accuracy through advances in genetics and our understanding of environmental science and ecology, is one of the best supported theories that science has to offer about how ANYTHING works. It's up there with things like "Ohm's Law" (E=IR), Newton's Laws of Gravity and/or Einstein's Theories of Relativity, the kinetic theory of gases, etc.
People don't question the scientific understanding about what makes our computers, mobile phones, PDAs, microwaves, etc. work, yet they still have issues with evolution, despite the fact that it is all based on EXACTLY THE SAME scientific method (in a nutshell, "observe - question - hypothesize - test - analyze - repeat") as the those things. It really boggles the mind.
I'm not saying the theory of evolution should not be questioned. ALL SCIENCE should be questioned, periodically even, but it should be questioned scientifically (i.e. does my hypothesis fit the data better, and can I devise a test to show this?) But, is it really so hard to accept the idea that we may not be "God's gift to the universe" and are only as important as we make ourselves to be, rather than relying on some higher power, some creator to make us the most important thing around? Honestly, and I grew up with religion, it is a concept that I can no longer understand (and I doubt I ever understood it in the first place)...
What is it? Fear that there may be nothing but what we leave behind after we die? Fear that if we are the product of an unimaginable amount of interactions over a difficult to imagine number of years and nothing more than that? Is it hubris? Fear that we may share the same ancestors as gorillas and orangutans?
Why is the theory of evolution still a controversy? As far as science goes, there is no other hypothesis that even comes close to explaining biology as well. How can so many people (and, honestly, mainly in the United States) still reject at most and at least question based on unscientific ideas -- i.e. not based on the scientific method -- the theory of evolution?
I have no problems with the idea of questioning the theory of evolution, if you can do it on scientific grounds. But doing otherwise is the same (to me) as questioning gravity, electronics, chemistry, etc. If one can accept those things, then why is evolution so hard to accept?
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
How come us computer geeks, who are most adaptable to change of all, aren't getting laid?????
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'd therefore rewrite the last piece to say something like "those with an ability to adapt most closely aligned with the pressure to adapt at that time, including those pressures exerted by changes within the pressure to adapt". Well, except that it's longer, less succinct, and less obvious in meaning to those not already familiar with the idea of evolution.
It's not really a tautology. It's recursive and reversible (and therefore provable by induction from first principles) but the statement isn't necessarily true simply because of itself, mostly because "adapt" does not have a constant definition.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
These papers should be watched carefully for any alterations occurring as a result of propagation in the form of file transmission and storage. One of these alterations per billion should result in a more viable paper than the original. These altered papers will tend to reproduce more efficiently than either the originals or the detrimentally altered copies.
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
And how do we measure "the one most adaptable to change"? Why it is whichever one survives, of course. Because of this definition it is not possible to falsify the claim that "the best-adapted ones survive". Imagine that we set out to corrupt an expirment which tries to prove, over a thousand years, that the best-adapted animals survive. The experimenters create a biodome out of an area of New Zealand and proceed to raise the temperature to 120 degrees. Then they wait a thousand years.--Charles Darwin
If the thousand years proceeds normally, then let's assume by the end certain species will have flourished. They're the ones that have survived. Others, not so much. Maybe some species can't stand the heat, they die out. They're the ones that haven't survived.
So far we haven't entered the realm of tautology. But look, the scientists don't just call the surviving ones "the survivors" they look at survivors and say "Whoa, they're not just survivors. They're adapters. The survivors are the ones who are the best adapted. THEREFORE, there is a process, natural selection, by which the most fit, the best adapted survive".
Okay. They conclude that "natural selection" is "true". Now for the falsifiability test. Let's be God, and let's falsify they're experiment by corrupting their data. How can we lead them to conclude "whoops; there's no natural selection. the fittest, the best adapted didn't survive, a less fit, a less well-adapted group did."
We can't. If the day before they open the biosphere we 'disappear' EVERY thriving species and, of the species that are now poorly representated, we choose the one that has the FEWEST members, is on the brink of extinction, because it is so poorly adapted, so unfit (indeed, we could choose a species, if there is one, that died within hours of the temperature being raised to 120 degrees - but we don't want to arouse their suspicions), and of that species, we "smuggle in" enough to make it the MOST thriving speices, will the scientists conclude "holy shit, these species are completely unfit to be here, they're totally maladapted. It seems survival ISN'T necessarily of the fittest, of the best-adapted. In at least this one case, survival has been of species that are totally maladapted and unfit to survive. Natural selection, at least in this experiment, HASN'T been shown to favor the fittest".
No. They won't say that. They'll look at the species that seems (because of our corruption) to be thriving and label it the FITTEST and label it the BEST ADAPTED. We could fill their biosphere with polar bears sweating their asses off and they would say, "it seems that, for unknown reasons, the polar bears are the fittest ones in this sweltering environment. they're the best adapted. natural selection has favored them, and this proves 'survival of the fittest'. indeed, perhaps if we wait a thousand more years the rest of the speices will have 'evolved' into polar bears too." (just kidding on the last point).
It's because they're laboring under the tautology that NO MATTER WHAT survives, it proves natural selection favors the fittest, because THE FITTEST (ie THE SURVIORS) are whatever survived and flourished. If there are any survivors, it proves 'survival of the fittest', since they have been selected for their traits to survive.
We could 'disappear' every animal with the B trait of a completely irrelevant A/B possibility, and the New Zealanders would conclude that "survival of the fittest" is proved by the fact that the survivors have the A trait, therefore they are the fittest, and it is just this that has caused them to survive.
I'd like to hear if anyone here has a way to falsify the New Zealand experiment so that they conclude "well I guess THIS ONE experiment doesn't bear out 'survival of the fittest'. it doesn't show that natural selection favors the best-adapted species. species don't become better and better adapted over time".
Really, how would you do it?
My blog
You live for maybe 70 years, yet you have a hard time with the idea that several MILLION years ago, humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor?
Hell, we are close to speciation of dogs. Though still genetically compatible, it shouldn't be hard to argue that St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are reproductively isolated. If we could both be around to see the outcome, I would bet on complete reproductive genetic isolation within a few thousand years, i.e. speciation, or what you want to call "macro-evolution".
Scientifically show me that there is indeed a distinction between your so-called "micro-" and "macro-evolution", and I will be willing to accept the evidence. Otherwise, SCIENCE has shown, repeatedly, that there is no real distinction.
Separating evolution into "micro-" and "macro-" is just another red herring from those unwilling to question their own beliefs about their own importance to the universe, as I mentioned above.
Organisms change over time, due to a number of genetic and environmental factors. This is a FACT. The mechanisms of it are a theory (which is as close to truth as science can get). Why is it difficult for you to believe that, over enough time, things will change so much as to be incompatible (reproductively speaking)?
You may proceed with your laughter AFTER you refute what I have said with EVIDENCE.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Can anyone on this post or anywhere else for that matter prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a new species has been formed in this lifetime? Using Darwin's theory of constantly adapting species, surely at least one species would have adapted in this lifetime to external pressures of the changing environment which would have resulted in the creation of another species. If Darwin is correct in his theory, species should be changing constantly, not simply "growing" within the same species. While Darwin's theory certainly sounds reasonable, and even sounds like a logical explanation about the changing environment and even about how multiple species have formed, it lacks evidentiary proof.
I'm a fan of Stein's work (movies, speechwriter for Nixon, his late great show Win Ben Stein's Money and his books), but I've never believed he is MENSA material.
Despite the fact Stein is involved with this joke of a movie, I will continue to enjoy his body of work.
And Visine. Oh, man, I love Visine.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
The central insight of evolution is not that "the strong survive," that "the weak die off," or that "the best adapted have more offspring." These are fairly basic truisms that people have known, at an intuitive level, for thousands of years. Where do you think cows, sheep, wheat, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and pigs come from? Domestic plants and animals are the result of thousands of generations of artificial selection. Farmers wanted larger kernels, so they bred corn plants with larger kernels to other corn plants with larger kernels, resulting in offspring with even larger kernels. Herders wanted more passive animals, so the animals with the best personalities were bred more often. That certain traits could be bred for has been known for a very long time.
The great insight that Darwin had was that nature could provide as much of a selective force upon a population as human selection. Thus, your argument is nonsensical. Evolution is not about the "survival of the fittest." It is about changes in populations over time, as driven by process that include variation and natural selection.
Rhapsody in Numbers
You must be new here. images.google.com is your friend.
A-Bomb
This is how I see it:
In the experiment you set up you assume the environment is the New Zealand dome. But as soon as you invoke a corrupter that is able to change the dome you environment increases to include the corrupter. Therefor if you would kill all animals in the dome and put polar bears that sweat their ass off than you would then the evolution still applies, but not from the environment but from you. When you decide that the fluffy/cuddly/ass sweating/whatever trait is required for the animals to be left in the dome you will be doing the same thing as the environment, with the only exception that you are conscious of your choice. The corruption of the experiment is evolutive pressure.
Since you are doing the same thing as the environment the premise that the experiment is flawed (and should present a way to be falsified) doesn't stand to scrutiny.
However, you problem still stands, is evolution falsifiable ?
Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
Yes these papers and Evolutionary theory in general could use some more study on your part.
...
The only thing (for the recent past and foreseeable future) derived from monkeys is more monkeys.
If you intended to say that we and monkeys are derived from a common ancestor which, most likely, more closely resembled a monkey than us, I'm with you.
Or were you just making a joke about Homo sapiens slashdotiens?
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
I'm pretty disgusted with Ben Stein. I used to see him as an example of an intelligent conservative, and yet now, he blows all his credibility.
The problem with evolution is that it requires an amount of critical thinking to understand, and while subtle, the nuances are easily exploited by the cynical against the theory itself.
The "Ben Steins" of the world mystify me. I can't believe someone is so evil to purposefully make an argument they know to be false against science. I can't also believe that he is so stupid as to believe ID.
And yes, ID supporters, ID is stupid. It isn't science. It is religion, and "god did it" is not a valid scientific theory. ID is to biological science what "circle squaring" is to mathematics.
Evolution is a proven fact. Organisms change with their environment. This is irrefutable. The "Theory" of evolution is the hows, whys, and over all path that organism A has taken to become what it is.
In science, we seek to understand the hows, whys, and path better.
Excellent, they released them just in time, that Expelled movie comes out tomorrow. Hopefully someone can convince Ben Stein that evolution isn't lightning striking a mud puddle.
Your thought experiment is interesting, but it treads close to something like solipsism; how can we know that the outcome of *any* given scientific experiment hasn't been meddled with by Descartes' demon?
You'd be just as well off stating that scientists are laboring under some misapprehension of causality.
Besides, you think that the scientists haven't been watching through the windows for that thousand years?
For a fascinating look at how evolution actually works, read The Making of the Fittest, by Sean B. Carroll, to be found here: http://seanbcarroll.com/books/The_Making_of_the_Fittest/. Through an approach emphasizing study of DNA (which most Americans approve of for use in murder trials, but don't approve of for supporting the fact of evolution), he describes in detail how evolutionary changes arise. Several interesting points:
- a number of key genes involved in the very basics of life are identical in organisms as diverse as humans, tomatoes, and bacteria. These genes can be said to be immortal. He shows how the proteins created by these genes are resistant to mutation.
- the genes responsible for certain characteristics, like colour vision, appear to have arisen several times during the millenia, and in several unrelated species. Good design is everywhere, and bad design is ruthlessly suppressed.
- the element of chance, often a key argument by evolution-doubters, is addressed. "Surely this couldn't have all arisen through chance", they say. In fact, we are all biased to discount the effect of processes that we can't see happening in our own lifetimes. Two responses to this in the book: one, there have in fact been significant evolutionary changes in species in very rapid intervals in some cases, and two, even a very slight change in a species will take hold world-wide in only a few millenia if it confers some minor advantage. (The author cites a fascinating study of white tail feathers in pigeons and how even affixing fake white tail feathers to pigeons gave them an advantage. )
- and lastly, the point raised in an earlier post: evolution encourages the response of species to events occurring NOW. Evolution cannot predict the foretell the future, and it cares less about the past. Many evolutionary changes are in fact likely to be dead-ends. For example, the icefish of the Antarctic have evolved over a few million years to eliminate their red blood cells, which gives them an advantage in cold water. With global warming raising the temp of the sea rapidly, they're likely all doomed.
- the study of DNA allows to us to understand evolution in a way that was impossible even 20 years ago. Previously we could only look at the gross exterior shapes and colours of creatures. Now we can look at their molecular structure and see fossil DNA that links them through millions (or even billions) of years to all other species.
There's still room for god (small 'g') after all of this is said and done. But she will perhaps be found to reside inside each and every one of us, rather than residing in some fantasy-land heaven.
- midtoad
Umwelt schützen, Fahrrad benützen
I might be falling for a troll here, but you don't seem to understand what a "theory" means in the realm of science.
A scientific theory is not just a hypothesis you come up with at 3am after having had a couple of beers. Scientific theories are constantly tested and examined.
Any theory that is able to survive testing and questioning as long as Darwin's, is truly fit for survival.
I never apologize. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.
Your biodome experiment is poorly designed. You are attacking a straw man. How am I to defend an experiment that has nothing to do with science?
Rhapsody in Numbers
I do have to say that my favorite contribution of his was his "open letter" to Paul Krugman about his remarks about James Tobin, accusing Krugman of having a "limited background in economics." The response was classic, including such gems as, "Thanks to TNR for its put-down - alas, not available online - which points out that I received the Clark Medal, and that Mr. Stein is a game-show host"
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"I am in possession of a proof that humans evolved from apes, but alas, there is insufficient space in this margin to elucidate."
One of the chief benefits of scientific culture is its willingness to "persecute" bullshit.
Also, the God theory of the origin of species had a wide open shot on an empty field for two or three thousand years and never scored any explanatory points, so claims of not getting a fair shot are disingenuous.
Play Command HQ online
There are theories, they just aren't as settled as evolution.
Play Command HQ online
that just about sums it up.
The fact that there are people refusing to accept scientific evidence does not create any credible doubt in respect of the validity of the theory.
If the site had evolved into being, it would have been barely useful enough to work, and actually spend as much of itself as it could trying to pass its information down, no matter how kludgy and out-of-date its code.
Just like every other site.
Most "life" is micro-organisms, followed at a great distance by insects. It's also much easier to massively change one-cell organisms, usually into something that dies very quickly.
The question of "species" is also less relevant with one-celled guys/gals/whatevers, since questions of viable interbreeding don't come up, and they seem often to be willing to conjugate with anything else willing to do.
The net effect is anti-bacterial resistance: is the change (in, say, gonorrhea) from something nearly 100% curable with penicillin to one that often laughs at it enough of a change? If they had both been classified at the same time, they might have been called two separate species....
I think I have less faith in Linneas than do some....
But these Fuegians in the canoe were quite naked, and even one full-grown woman was absolutely so. It was raining heavily, and the fresh water, together with the spray, trickled down her body.
His powers of observation really knew no bounds. I admire this man.
What is disingenuous kind sir is your complete lack of understanding that generations pass away and that I am talking about the court of public and scientific opinion in THIS generation.
No, your experiment is poorly designed. It relies on scientists treating the biodome like a black box. A bunch of critters are put into the black box at the beginning of the experiment, then, after x number of years have passed, a bunch of critters are taken out of the black box. There is no way to know what went on in the intervening time. A better experiment would be to take a census every year, or day, or hour, or whatever. Keeping the entire thing monitored with video cameras would be a good start. Then, if a species went extinct, then magically appeared on the last day, you would have some pretty convincing evidence of a process other than evolution occurring. Your experiment, though, is flawed. It cannot produce good results because it is so very flawed.
As I said above, you are attacking a straw man.
Rhapsody in Numbers
It's a profound tautology.
Don't get too hung up on the definition (maybe i'm too late:-). Its the implications that flow from it that are important. Darwin was able to see direct evidence of adaptation in species to their surroundings. It leads to a pretty compelling theory of how species got to how they are today, without the need for a creator.
In your scenario, there would be confusion as to how an obviously maladapted animal survived, and hopefully that would lead to the discovery that unanticipated intervention was part of the equation.
Since that hasnt happened in the real world I guess thats more evidence that there are no supernatural outside influences.
You can paint a horse and call it a zebra, but that doesn't make it true.
I already gave you an example. It is in the last post that I made. If you would stop treating me like an uneducated four year old for a moment, and actually read what I wrote, you might have picked up on that.
Rhapsody in Numbers
The fact that the modern scientific community realizes this does not constitute a conspiracy.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Scientists try to be historians all the time. The job doesn't suit them well.
They wouldn't be IT professionals if they'd jump another wagon every single minute.
Working for over 10 years with the same tools/software makes it a profession on itself.
Still, after 10 years I'm learning new stuff about Sendmail, diverse FTP servers, CVS, Linux kernel hacking, etc..
Does that mean I need to switch to Solaris because I'm afraid of change? Or get my mind sharpened up with the stuff I already know much about?
The learning curve is often too steep to allow changes between software/hardware.
If it works, keep it working, optimize it, but don't overhaul it.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
You clearly have an agenda, and are so convinced that your straw man is a real depiction of how science works that it is clear that I can say nothing that will dissuade you. Evolution is one of the most well supported and best working theories that scientists have to work with. It is nearly as useful for making predictions as Newton's theory of gravity, or Ohm's Law. Because of this, the claim that evolution is false is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In order to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, you would need something like extinct species popping back up into existence. That is what I suggested in the biodome experiment above. Clearly, this is not good enough for you, however I am sure it would be good enough for any real scientist working in the field.
Other things that would almost certainly disprove evolution would be true chimeras (i.e. species with traits from several different genera), human fossils found in pre-Cambrian sediments, or the voice of G-d telling every person on Earth that evolution is false. These things are incredibly unlikely, and would almost certainly never happen. But if they did, that would be about it for evolution. The fact is that the only opposition that evolution has is not from other scientists, but from people who are ill-educated and ignorant about the evidence that supports evolution.
I have tried to engage in honest conversation with you, but you have continued to treat me like a child, attack straw men, and behave childishly yourself (hint: ALL CAPS does not make an argument stronger). I thank you for providing yet another, if unoriginal, example of muddied thinking regarding evolution, and wish you well. I will have nothing further to do with you.
Rhapsody in Numbers
Another great benefit of the scientific culture is it's tendency to record and remember results from past generations so that we don't always have to start over afresh.
Play Command HQ online