Darwiniana IV

Darwiniana IV

In Part IV, we begin to answer the second riddle set up by Gould. Here, we examine the origin of the word "evolution," as used by Herbert Spencer, and we examine the reasons why Darwin refused to use the word. Gould then shows us how pop culture perceives evolution - surely a necessary step toward resolving Muller's dilemma (in Part I).

Darwin's Revolution in Thought

This is a lecture made by Stephen Jay Gould at Wittenburg University. I simply took his voice and added pictures and video. I do not own ANY of it!

The lecture was derived from Part I of Gould's book, "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History." Part 1 of the book is called "Darwiniana" and is composed of four chapters: Ch 1 "Darwin's Delay," Ch 2 "Darwin's Sea Charge, or Five Years at the Captain's Table," Ch 3 "Darwin's Dilemma: The Odyssey of Evolution," and Ch 4 "Darwin's Untimely Burial."

I've split the video into a few parts, each a little under ten minutes. After watching them, I hope you see how Gould incorporated each chapter of Darwiniana into the lecture. They revolve around Darwin and the birth of what Gould calls one of the greatest half-dozen scientific ideas of all time. He tackles fundamental questions and asks them in the form of riddles. The lecture was titled "Darwin's Revolution in Thought," because Darwin's ideas were radical and difficult for people to digest.

Some of these pictures require that I cite them so...

For the excellent Lampsilis clam shots:
Barnhart, M. C. 2008. Unio Gallery: http://unionid.missouristate.edu. Accessed 05/21/2008

For the great diagram on the breeding cycle of Lampsilis:
Mulcrone, R. 2006. "Lampsilis siliquoidea" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed February 24, 2009 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lampsilis_sil...

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Ever
• Since
• Darwin
• Stephen
• Jay
• Gould
• Revolution
• Thought
• Evolution
• Natural
• Selection
• History
• Science
• Lampsilis
• Clam
• Ascent
• of
• Man
• Progress
• Progressive
• Darwinian
• Herbert
• Spencer
• Victorian
• England
• Pop
• Culture

[vincentvangro]

why does half the comment i make not show up even tho it says it's posted??

[CosmosFan1]

Ask YouTube :)

[bjam89]

@handsomeman9000 that is the same as to say there should not be any people in england as there is people in Australia

[CosmosFan1]

@handsomeman9000 Modern humans ARE Homo sapiens. And we STILL ARE animals - not animal-like, but animals plain and simple. And no - the only distinction is a gene called HAR1F, which is active in the early development of human brains and is largely responsible for the enormous size of the cerebral cortex, the center of art, science, music, mathematics, and religious dogma.

[CosmosFan1]

@handsomeman9000 But don't you see that the only reason people can't understand that humans didn't evolve from modern monkeys and apes is that they hold on to this misconception of progress? We didn't evolve from modern monkeys and apes. And our evolution is not progressive. Individual people may progress physically and intellectually but remember that individuals don't evolve, but successive populations do. There is no trend of evolving toward "the human standard" in other apes. Period.

[ebbixx]

Funny, but the only person I see claiming belief in God makes you dumb seems to be yourself. In fact, this specific speech by Gould seems to imply that the invention of religion by humans is an incredibly unique and clever bit of invention on the part of those humans who've spent ages creating religion.

[ebbixx]

This video contains Gould's most valuable and fascinating point, that Darwin avoided using the word "evolution" because it implied an assumption that humanity was somehow inevitable or a progressive result of some plan that we humans have spent many millennium imaging and inventing Gods and other myths to "explain." Too bad so many of us remain arrogant enough to miss that realization.

[stumac1984]

If, by definition, a dumb fuck is someone who rejects a theory on the basis of lack of proof when in fact the evidence in favour of that theory is irrefutable and plumps for an alternative theory for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever, then I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you my friend are a dumb fuck!!

[CosmosFan1]

We're on the same ape branch, but not the same species branch. Since we're different species, why would we be able to mate? For speciation to work, separate populations need to be kept separate by barriers against gene flow. Humans mating with monkeys would be a disproof of evolution. And we do see almost every step of the process of the evolution of something like a fin into a leg. It's also important to remember that not every organism is preserved as a fossil.

[vincentvangro]

i see it everyday it's ok to say u believe this mans theory "no proof" but if i say i believe in the bible im a dumb fuck.i see many gaping holes in this theory.1 being if we are all apart of this same branch and evolved from the latter then why can't we fuck monkeys and have offspring?another huge problem is mathamatics does'nt support it either.1 would reproduction as much fucking that goes on we would see every step of the process. you would have a jump from arm to bat wing or fin.debate me?