Rating: 
Summary: The most important book of biological science.
Review: 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin is the most important book of biological science. Even though the book may be dead in detail, it is basically the "big bang" of evolutionary thought. If one is a student of Biology, this is the book they want to read in order to develop true scientific thought.
Rating:
Summary: Darwin Has Been Vindicated
Review: Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". This is simply not true. In fact, ALL fossils are transitional. One of Darwins main points was that evolution is an on-going process. It may speed up and slow down, but on it goes. This book is a must read. Even after 120 years it's still selling and still being read.Darwins point in The Origin of Species has been overwhelmingly proven over and over. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. You cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are. As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology." Darwin has been vindicated by the remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor. Creationist can say whatever they want to and practice all the deceit they want, but the clear evidence in the geological record is not in dispute by any one except fundamentalists. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds). Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes. Even the gaps are easy to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while anyne who has studied the evidence knows they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events. Darwins revolution will continue, even if there are a few setbacks, because the evidence is real and overwhelming.
Rating: 
Summary: Hum
Review: Another reviewer boldly proclaimed "they(creationists) might see that arguing against Darwin's theory is like arguing Netwon's theory of gravity is wrong." Well, the problem is that Newton's theory of gravity is ultimately wrong.
Rating:
Summary: The book that started the revolution of evolution
Review: Believe it or not, this book was intended to be merely an introductory statement to a massive 20-volume treasise on evolution that Darwin had intended to write. However, he died before his Magnum Opus was completed. Although Darwin was not the first man to champion evolution, he was the first to create a convincing argument for it. This classic book thus records the beginning of a huge paradigm shift in biology. However, don't expect a flawless, up-to-date discussion - much has changed about evolutionary theory since Darwin's time. To fill in the holes, you might also want to read something more modern as a supplement. Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" would be an excellent choice. Outdated concepts aside, "On the Origin of Species" puts forward an ingeniously simple argument and backs it up with an enormous and varied set of examples. It is easy to see how this book was destined to shake the foundations of science.
Rating: 
Summary: The very definition of a classic.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Hum
Review: Another reviewer boldly proclaimed "they(creationists) might see that arguing against Darwin's theory is like arguing Netwon's theory of gravity is wrong." Well, the problem is that Newton's theory of gravity is ultimately wrong.
Rating:
Summary: The most important book of biological science.
Review: 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin is the most important book of biological science. Even though the book may be dead in detail, it is basically the "big bang" of evolutionary thought. If one is a student of Biology, this is the book they want to read in order to develop true scientific thought.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully readable
Review: The cover of this edition is misleading as Darwin only refers to man once in this book. It was in "Descent of Man" that he addressed the subject of evolution in man. That aside, this is a great book. Darwin wrote one of the most readable scientific texts in history. It also happens to be one of the most important science books in all of history. If you have never read a seminal science book before, treat yourself and see what a pleasure it can be.
Rating:
Summary: Way more readable than you think ...
Review: People tend to look at me crazy when I tell them that I've read ORIGIN OF SPECIES. And really, I think we can all see where they are coming from. Nevertheless, being curious, I thought it might be interesting read the book that started all the fuss. I was surprised to find how readable it really was. Think about this: what we are taught in high school biology is way more than Darwin knew when he wrote this book. Accordingly, the science described in this book is quite easy to understand for anyone who has previously taken a biology class. Probably the most interesting thing about this book were the few times that Darwin threw in a little philosophical/theological side comment. I'll leave these juicy tidbits for you to find, but look for them as they add a little "kick" to an otherwise fairly "scientific" book. Though a bit lengthy, this accountant enjoyed ORIGIN OF SPECIES. As a sidenote: I find the funniest thing about those "Jesus fish" eating the "Darwin fish" car decals is that the base idea is that the stronger fish wins- a.k.a. surival of the fittest. The ensuing contradiction of unwittingly using one of Darwin's base tenets to attack Darwinian evolution is priceless.
Rating:
Summary: Requirement for the Advanced Biology Student
Review: It is a crying shame that many reviewers have used this forum to try and critique evolutionary theory, making no references to the text at all and drawing on erroneous conclusions about Darwin in general. The Origin of Species is most definitely the most important work in the field of biology, as it is the most succinct and well developed explanations of the unifying principle of the field, evolution via descent with modification. I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining the theory or why a person should study it. I want to explain who should read this book and why. If you are looking for an introductory text on the theory of evolution you need to stay well away. There are other better books. In many cases Darwin's examples and arguments are outmoded or have been changed. The book overlooks many aspects that are included in modern evolutionary theory, such as genetics, simply because Darwin did not know about them. Natural selection as Darwin wrote it is one of the most effective explanatory theories in all of science but by reading this book you miss almost 150 years of the things it has explained. It is also a flat out PAIN to read, they where much "wordier" in the 1800's and Darwin's English is rather stilted and formal, even compared to modern scientific writing. So, who should read this book? Any person who is an advanced student in biology (I read it the summer before my senior year) should be aware of how the modern theory of evolution was born. You can't really achieve this without reading Origins. I am aware of no better way of understanding evolution that to follow its development through time, beginning with Darwin. And, if you don't understand evolution, you don't understand biology. As something to read it is a classic, arguably the most influential work of all time. A note on edition: this copy is the one I have. I would suggest the facsimile of the First Edition found elsewhere on Amazon. I don't know why the publishers felt the need to put the caricatured human evolution (addressed nowhere in the book) on the cover.
| 
