My reading time was cut short today due to errands and appointments after work. Bummer. However, I did finish the chapter on Natural Selection in The Origin of Species. Once again, I’m disappointed at the lack of evidence and citations and tests/experiments. And twice he used the phrase, “by chance” in his explanation of a theory.
There is one question that came to me tonight about something I’d read last night at the beginning of this chapter. On page 131 he says, “… we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.” I interpret this to mean, if a parent species has something defective in his genes, it, by the “law of natural selection” would not pass on to a sibling.
If this were true, how would he explain things such as certain forms of cancer or heart disease or numerous other diseases that are passed in bloodlines? Those aren’t exactly “favourable” variations.
On page 155, I had to chuckle. If I’d written this in a science report, I would have gotten a big red mark on my paper. He says, “I quote the words of an agricultural writer.” Doesn’t say who. Doesn’t say it was from any type of research done by this anonymous person. He just says he’s quoting a guy. So… if I tell a person that my niece said there are pink horses, then it must be true because I’m quoting someone who likes horses.
It is time for me to crash. No errands and such tomorrow, so hopefully I can get back on track with my reading schedule.
Happy reading!
