I just finished chapter five of The Origin of Species and I have to say it gets rather boring reading the same stuff over and over: this is what I believe and why, but I can’t give you any facts.
There was one sentence on page 177 that I had to read three or four times (in context) and I’m still not sure what he means. He says, “As with mariners shipwrecked near a coast, it would have been better for the good swimmers if they had been able to swim still further, whereas it would have been better for the bad swimmers if they had not been able to swim at all and had stuck to the wreck.”
Does he mean that the bad swimmers should stay with the wreck in hopes of rescue, or does he mean they should have just given up and gone down with the ship? I would think that he means the latter, after all, a shipwreck usually ends up with the ship on the ocean floor (I would assume that would be even more true 150 years ago). If Darwin did mean the latter, he’s basically saying, “If you’re not as good as other members of your species, you may as well just die.”
I have to admit, he is getting more cunning with not presenting facts. On page 188 he says, “It is hopeless to attempt to convince any one of the truth of this proposition without giving the long array of facts which I have collected, and which cannot possibly be here introduced.” Talk about a spin doctor. There was another good one on 197, “This view is hypothetical, but could be supported by some facts…”
“Could be supported.” I like that one.
Anyway, for the most part he goes on and on about variations in species and how they derive from natural selection… and if not by natural selection then by something else which has to truly come from natural selection but as he says, “I have collected a long list of such cases; but here, as before, I lie under a great disadvantage in not being able to give them” (p 198).
Anyone else here see a trend?
I read the first page of chapter six on “Difficulties on Theory,” and this one ought to be good. From his intro to this chapter it looks as if he’s going to try and answer questions that people may have with his theory. He’s divided the questions into four categories. The fourth one is stated by him as, “… how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?” (p. 206).
Isn’t that question flawed? If you try to crossbreed a species and the crossing causes the offspring to be sterile… how can they produce more offspring? Read the quote again. That is exactly what he says: “…for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring…” I’m no biologist, but I do know that if you’re sterile, you can’t reproduce. There would be no resulting sterile offspring.
Well, yeah, my brain hurts now. I’m going back to my reading and will post again tomorrow. I can’t wait to see results of his experiments and the facts he’s collected on the topic. Oh, wait… never mind.
Happy reading.
