On the Origin of Species: The Illustrated Edition

Are "nice" versions of anything worth it?

>>8769917
Guess it depends on the person really.

>>8769910
you're going to buy a darwin book without even having looked into ancient megalithic sites or history for that matter

>>8769910
The tacky versions are never worth it. Just buy the damned hardcover or read the ebook like a normal person.

>>8770077
Knowledge of megaliths and history is irrelevant to the study of biology. Obviously it's interesting to read through the early development of human culture and faith in the past 100,000 years, but it isn't necessary to get the overarching picture on how it all works.

>>8770081
sure stranger. enjoy the darwin book, i'd get the gold deluxe version

File: quotes-charles-darwinevolution-chart-collage.jpg (380KB, 800x1076px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 800x1076px

>>8770081
>tacky
In what way? To me, it seems as though the first edition being mixed with his account from the Beagle, and given high quality photos/illustrations from various other works gives one a unique perspective on what Darwin wrote and saw with his own eyes. I feel as though that is the exact opposite of "tacky."

>>8769910
heisenberg: god
von braun: god
einstein: god
hawking: god
darwin: right before he died, god

File: ackchyually.png (35KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x700px

>>8769910
edgelord behind a computer

Scientific texts benefit heavily from illustrations.

>>8770927
He's asking about a historically and scientifically relevant book, how is that edgy?

>>8770963
because edgelords and athiests and darwinists are one in the same

>>8770983
>implying the vast majority of religious people have any problem with Darwin
Stop trying to start shit.

>>8771051
bro alright fine. change the subject. are you playing battlefield one or are you a squid.

>>8770983
Evolution is scientific fact whether you like it or not. The Catholic and Orthodox churches both recognize that. The only people who try to plug their ears and deny reality are the obese midwestern American protestants. Don't make an idiot of yourself by cozying up with them.

>>8771423
even the esoteric believe in evolution, but darwin's linear, stair step evolution is virtually rejected in toto by any serious researcher. darwin's literally postulated that biological forms are guided by a mechanistic process of chance turd burglar

File: neoteny.jpg (26KB, 238x354px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 238x354px

The scientific establishment is so ideologically blinded by the cult of Darwin they refuse to embrace the fact that neo-Lamarckism is the only real logical paradigm.

Environmental influences via selective processes change sexual hormone levels which revise the rates and timing of maturation. In humans there are at least 8 environmental cues which trigger somatic change through their hormonal intermediaries:
1. light
2. diet
3. stress
4. percentage of body fat
5. alcohol/drugs
6. tobacco
7. physical activity
8. touch

There are four impact points that humans use to transcend random variation barrier:
1. sexual selection
2. zygote selection
3. uterine selection
4. cultural selection

Environmental cues influence selection at all four levels in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterochrony

See Ryuichi Matsuda's Animal Evolution in Changing Environments, with Special Reference to Abnormal Metamorphosis

>>8769910
If you're interested in the history of science, and you think illustrations would help supplement your understanding of that text, then sure, though a modern biology textbook would give you a more current understanding of evolutionary science if that's what you're interested in; Darwin's ideas have since been modified since the publication of that text.

File: dinsdale.gif (35KB, 283x231px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 283x231px

Bump for more opinions.

Get an annotated one that explains all the outdated shit.

File: 9780226641935.jpg (91KB, 419x621px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 419x621px

Bump

>>8771492
What do you mean by neo-lamarckism? Because if you're talking about the sorts of environmental effects you just listed, those have been acknowledged and taught about in every class I've had in the subjects