The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Penguin Classics) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle: Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches". I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.

Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).

If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.

In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

"I can entertain no doubt [...] that the view which most naturalists entertain and which I formerly entertained - namely, that each species has been independantly created - is erronous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification" (69).

Worte, die die Welt veränderten. 1859, mehr als 20 Jahre nach seiner Forschungsreise auf der Beagle rund um die Welt, auf der Charles Darwin langsam aber sicher zu der Einsicht gelangte, dass Arten nicht unabhängig voneinander von einem Gott kreiert wurden, sondern sich in einem seit Millionen von Jahren andauernden Prozess, der maßgeblich auf dem Prinzip der natürlichen Selektion beruht, entwickelt haben, veröffentlichte der Naturforscher aus England seine Theorie in dem Buch "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", welches bis heute die Grundlage der Evolutionstheorie bildet. Warum hat Darwin so lange gezögert? Die einfache Antwort: Er hatte Angst! Er wusste, dass er mit seinem Buch an den Grundfesten des christlichen Abendlandes rüttelte. Obwohl er sich in seiner Darstellung mit polemischen Äußerungen zurückhält, ist die Konsequenz seines Weltbildes mehr als eindeutig: Es gibt keinen Gott, oder wenn es ihn gibt, so hat er doch zumindestens nichts mit der Erschaffung des Lebens auf unserem Planten zu tun. Bis heute kommen viele Menschen nicht über diese biologische Kränkung hinweg und bekämpfen und seine Theorie als ein Werkzeug Satans. In den USA ist es christlichen Fundamentalisten in einigen Bundesstaaten sogar gelungen, die Evolutionstheorie vom Bildungsplan zu streichen. Dabei ist es besonders armselig, dass sich diese Zeitgenossen offensichtlich nie die Mühe gemacht haben, das von ihnen so gehasste Buch einmal selbst zu lesen. Denn auf viele Aspekte, die von Gegnern der Evolutionstheorie hervorgebracht werden, geht Darwin in seinem Werk bereits selbst ein.

Beeindruckend an "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" ist seine wunderbare Sprache und seine klare Verständlichkeit. Die grundlegenden Punkte der Evolutionstheorie werden hier deutlicher herausgestellt als in so mancher Sekundärliteratur. So schreibt Darwin präzise und leicht verständlich über den Kampf ums Dasein: "How do these groups of species [...] arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow inevitibly from the struggle for life" (115). Gelegentlich spürt der Leser das Feuer und die Begeisterung, die der Naturforscher empfunden haben muss, als der das Geheimnis des Lebens auf unserem Planeten entschlüsselt hat. Im Folgenden sinniert er über die bewundernswerte Perfektion einiger Mechanismen der Natur, die sich aus der immens langen Zeitspanne ergibt, in der der Prozess der natürlichen Selektion die Entwicklung auf unserem Planeten vorangetrieben hat: "How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor will his products be, compared with those accumulated by nature during whole geological periods. Can we wonder, then, that nature's productions should be far 'truer' in character than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life and should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship?" (133)

Darwin stellt klipp und klar fest, dass seine ganze Theorie zusammenbrechen würde, könnte man nachweisen "that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out so such case" (219). Genau an diesem Punkt setzten die Vertreter von Intelligent Design an, die mit wissenschaftlichen Mitteln zu beweisen versuchen, dass die Evolutionstheorie nicht zutreffend sein kann und dass sich die Komplexität des Lebens auf der Erde nur durch das Eingreifen eines Designers erklären lässt, bei dem es sich freilich eigentlich nur um des Gott der Christen handeln könnte. Doch die Ansätze der ID-Vertreter, allen voran Michael Behe und William Dembski, sind von der Gemeinschaft der seriösen Wissenschaftler als pseudo-wissenschaftliche Scharlatanerie entlarvt worden. Eine ausführliche Widerlegung des Intelligent Design findet sich in dem sehr lesenswerten Buch God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory.

Ein weiteres Argument der Evolutionsgegner bezieht sich auf die nur sehr lückenhaft vorhandenen Fossilfunde. Wo sind sie denn, die fossilen Überreste der zahlreichen Zwischenformen, mit dem sich die Entwicklung der Arten nachvollziehen lässt, so die Gegner Darwins noch heute. Dieser Frage widmet er in "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" ein gesamtes Kapitel: "On the imperfection of the geological record" (291-316). Darwin sieht die Problematik, gibt aber unter anderem zu bedenken, dass es auch kaum zu erwarten sein kann, dass zu jeder Zwischenform, der eventuell auch nur eine kurze Zeitspanne auf diesem Planeten gegönnt war, aufgrund zahlreicher geologischer Katastrophen fossile Überreste geben könnte. Er verdeutlicht seinen Einwand unter Verwendung einer erhellenden Metapher: "I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there as a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines" (316).

Seit nunmehr 150 Jahren liefert uns die Evolutionstheorie ein stimmiges Erklärungsmodell nicht nur für die biologische, sondern auch für die kulturelle Entwicklung aus unserem Planeten. Seit 150 Jahren versuchen Gegner Darwins, ihn zu widerlegen, bisher ohne jeden Erfolg. Allen Interessierten an dieser Thematik sei das Original Darwins dringend empfohlen. Hier schreibt ein Weltreisender, ein Mann der Praxis über die Ergebnisse seiner Forschung und das mit Feuer und einer Begeisterung, die auch heute noch in den Zeilen des Buches zu spüren sind. In heutiger Zeit versucht vor allem der in Oxford lebende Evolutionsbiologe Richard Dawkins, die Grundlagen der Evolutionstheorie anschaulich zu vermitteln. Dies ist ihm in seinen Büchern Selfish Gene und The Blind Watchmaker hervorragend gelungen, die sich mittlerweile zu wahren Klassikern entwickelt haben. Doch die Tragweite und Bedeutung der Evolutionstheorie hat bis zum heutigen Tage niemand präziser und gleichzeitig poetischer zum Ausdruck gebracht als Darwin himself in den abschließenden Worten von "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection": "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms, or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved" (459f.).

It feels odd reviewing such a historic work as The Origin of Species, yet some warnings must be espoused regarding this volume as Darwin's work is often cited as the central document (along with the bible) in an argument over creation versus evolution. It is bad enough that people who so often are the most vociferous in this debate (on both sides) are relatively unread, but worse is that The Evolution of Species as a scientific manifesto is really of very little value today. Although Darwin was a brilliant naturalist, it would be as improper to call a scientist who studies evolution a Darwinist as it would be to call all computers Apple II's. Darwin has no working model of genetics, and while he proposed many excellent hypothesis about various forms of selection--he even wrote a book on behavior and facial expressions in animals!--we would be hard pressed to find Darwin as a citation in any of the modern literature. My rating of four stars is not entirely fair. I feel that people who wish to learn about evolution should seek out modern authors (I strongly recommend John Maynard-Smith's 'Theory of Evolution' as it is robust in its degree of current biological theory and will leave the reader not only understanding the biological theory of evolution, but also a lot of general biology.) On the other hand, if you are a person who is interested in history and in people, do read Origin or perhaps The Voyage of the Beagle (which I imagine must be an interesting read). Darwin sets a fantastic example of the dedicated naturalist, unbiased and thorough. His theories, which came later, were elegant--to such an extent that many of the detractors (even modern day) do not understand them. Darwin's biogeographical arguments for instance (I am thinking here about 'Darwin's Finches) stand unmolested by the diatribe of those who would make poor of a man just because they disagree with him. Neither do his opposers note Darwin's unwillingness to bring forth his theory. Truth be told, I care little whether or not people believe in evolutionary theory, only so much as they might at least understand how his ideas, humbly presented, changed the entire landscape of science. But most importantly I think people miss that Darwin was a good scientist--and there are a lot of bad ones. Science has recently taken the turn toward being all experiment and theory driven, with many of the funds in biology going more to 'gene splitters' or whatever you might want to call them than toward what little remains of descriptive science. Indeed it seems there is little room left for naturalists anymore--even to an extent that naturalists are sometimes not considered scientists. There are no more scientific works that are purely descriptive, or they are very rare, or worse done mostly for placement on coffee tables and not for the furthering of our understanding of the natural world. Darwin then is almost a sort of fatalist to his own kind; ushering in the modern age of a unified biology, he inadvertantly relegating the Conrad Lorenz's, the Jane Goodall's and (fill in the blank of your favorite naturalist) to antiquity or at least near-poverty. It might also be nice to remember that Darwin was above all interested in understanding the natural world, something he shared with a long history of zoologists before him who were of course creationists--and I see more in common between these people then I do between Darwin and the modern day evolutionist. Given all of this it seems very unfortunate the connotations and burden that Darwin's name has take on. Instead, it would be very kind if the name Darwin were flung about with the sort of respect I think it is due instead of attached to ugly terms like 'social' or as though the man had little red horns and a tail.