Book · 1859
On the Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
A naturalist explains how species arise without a designer, backed by decades of finch beaks, barnacles, and pigeon breeders.
What does Reddit think of On the Origin of Species?
This isn't a book Reddit argues about, it's a footnote Reddit reaches for. Every one of the 14 recognized mentions sits inside r/AskScience, cited to settle a factual question rather than to recommend a weekend read. One commenter uses "Roughly the way Darwin wrote The Origin of Species without discovering genes" to explain how a theory can outrun its own mechanism (↑14). Another points a skeptic straight at the book's own examples of speciation, citing Hawaiian anchialine shrimp as a modern case of exactly what Darwin described (↑17). A third traces a history-of-science question back to Darwin's original introduction, by title (↑22). The single most-upvoted line in the whole sample, though, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory: it's Darwin being funny about cats and their "nocturnal rambling habits" (↑4513). Nobody here is reviewing the prose.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Cited as scientific authority, not reviewed as a reading experience
- · Theory outrunning mechanism: selection before genetics
- · Confined entirely to r/AskScience question-and-answer threads
- · Its most-upvoted moment is a Darwin joke about cats, not the theory
Common praise
- + One commenter uses "Roughly the way Darwin wrote The Origin of Species without discovering genes" as a clean explanation for how theories can precede mechanisms (↑14).
- + Another answers a "why hasn't anyone found a counterexample" question by pointing straight at the book's own speciation examples (↑17).
- + The Darwin-on-cats aside became the single most upvoted line in the entire sample, at 4,513 upvotes (↑4513).
Common criticism
- − Nobody in the sample discusses it as a reading experience; every citation is a footnote to a different question, not an argument for the book itself.
- − Several mentions credit "Darwin" or his theory generally without engaging the book's actual text (↑20, ↑16).
- − At 14 mentions across five years in a single subreddit, there isn't enough disagreement on display to call this divisive or beloved, just cited.
Who it's for
This is a book Reddit cites, not one it argues about. r/AskScience reaches for it the way a textbook cites a primary source, to settle a factual question about evolution's history, not to recommend a weekend read. If you're asking how anyone theorized natural selection before genes were understood, that's the actual use case on display (↑14). If you just want the internet's favorite Darwin trivia, it's the one about cats and their "nocturnal rambling habits," upvoted more than everything else in the sample combined (↑4513). Nobody here is telling you whether the prose itself holds up.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for On the Origin of Species?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“Darwin says it’s because of their nocturnal rambling habits. > On the other hand, cats, from their nocturnal rambling habits, cannot be matched, and, although so much valued by women and children, we hardly ever see a distinct breed kept up; such breeds as we do sometimes see are almost always imp…
“Incidentally, I think *Three Body Problem* has the most plausible answer to OP's question. And the answer isn't exactly aliens looking for a new planet either. Instead, It poses a nuanced and very believable answer to why aliens would ever invade and at the same time a solution to the fermi paradox.…
“It is not a stupid question, but one that has been asked by many scientists,; one of the earliest and most notable being Charles Darwin In his introduction to [On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life](
“> has anyone published or hypothesized scientific theories that **conflict** with Darwin and his theories? I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to have conflicting theories, at least in the scientific use of the word theory. If you have a theory it's like saying "We had a hypothesis, and tested i…
“Yes. See the origin of species. We can see actual cases of this occurring in nature. A specific example that comes to mind is of Hawaiian anchialine shrimp (H. rubra) which occupy subterranean pools. They are “frequently” separated by volcanic activity and also can spread between islands. Their mito…
“(1/3) >The rise of the mammals may be feel like a familiar tale, but there’s a twist you likely don’t know about: If it wasn’t for a virus, it might not have happened at all. >One of the few survivors of the asteroid impact 65 million years ago was a small, furry, shrew-like creature that lived in…
“Roughly the way Darwin wrote _The Origin of Species_ without discovering genes. Both he and Jenner saw what was happening and figured out that This gives rise to That quite predictably, even if the details weren't clear yet. Certainly it was known that there are diseases you can get many times (di…
“"Good information?" Nowhere. Evolution via natural selection as the origin of species has so much observation and verification behind it that it has no serious competition. About as close as you might find to something interesting on this topic is Lamarck and his theory of evolution via acquired c…
“Darwin on natural selection, and even inclusive fitness, is still pretty good, though the math for each has dramatically advanced allowing us to make much better predictions and understand more deeply. Knowing about genetics was hugely important (and Darwin and his contemporaries could have read Men…
“Yes but the current theory of evolution is not just the origin of species, it includes all of that work done afterwards. New evidence that changes our perception of evolution would not be a contradiction that proves the theory wrong. It would just be new information that further refines our understa…
“It would be a lot cooler if you knew what you were talking about. Sadly though… Definition of survival of the fittest: the natural process by which organisms best adjusted to their environment are most successful in surviving…
“Most definitions of "species" used today are based on reproduction being possible or not. By some definitions of "species", the existence of a *fertile* mule (something that has been recorded many dozens of times, contrary to the belief that they are always infertile) would technically define horses…
“Lord Kelvin made his calculation of the age of the earth in 1862. The Origin of Species was only published in 1859, and so the "whole time" was only three years. Even though Darwin's work gained popularity more quickly that perhaps is appreciated today, it was still a new theory with much less suppo…
“The Origin of Species and the Ascent of Pigeons could have been an alternative title
Convinced? Pick up On the Origin of Species
What else does r/AskScience read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
On the Origin of Species — frequently asked
Is On the Origin of Species still relevant to read in 2026?+
The sample doesn't answer that directly; nobody discusses reading it cover to cover. What it does show is the book still functioning as a citable authority: r/AskScience points to it by name when someone asks about the history of evolutionary theory (↑22), and another commenter uses it to illustrate that Darwin worked out selection "without discovering genes" (↑14).
Does Reddit recommend reading On the Origin of Species itself, or just learning about Darwin generally?+
The excerpts lean toward the latter. Every mention in the sample sits inside an r/AskScience answer to a different question; none of them frame it as "go read this book." It gets cited, not reviewed, across all 14 recognized mentions.
What's the most upvoted thing said about On the Origin of Species on Reddit?+
A tangent, not an argument for the book. The top comment, at 4,513 upvotes, quotes Darwin's aside about cats and their "nocturnal rambling habits," amusing but unrelated to evaluating the theory or the text itself.
Did Darwin's theory in On the Origin of Species hold up without knowing about genes?+
Yes, according to how the sample frames it. One commenter compares it directly to Jenner's smallpox work, both figured out "this gives rise to that quite predictably" before the underlying mechanism was known (↑14). Nothing in the excerpts disputes that point.