According to Charles Darwin, natural selection is a process whereby the survival of different living organisms depends on their gradual adaptation to certain environments over many generations.
It is commonly known by the phrase, survival of the fittest , which means that only the species that have well adapted to their environment, is well suited to survive in that habitat. The theory of natural selection by Charles Darwin also states that, variations in size, shape, strength, and color do occur naturally in all living things.
These natural variations, called mutations through evolution, affect which living organisms will survive to live long enough to reproduce. For instance, animals with traits or qualities that are well suited to their environment, such as long legs in wading birds, are more likely to survive long enough to breed than others of their species.
When these animals breed, they may pass on the favorable traits to their offspring through their genes, while those with unfavorable traits are most likely to die without reproducing. As more and more organisms in a particular species inherit a favorable trait, the gene becomes more common in the population, and so the species changes.
Reactions to Charles Darwins Theory
Creation Theory
Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection encountered a sharp reaction especially at Evangelical Protestantism, since it greatly undermined the story of creation by God and current defenses of the faith at two critical points. By implication, it questioned the audacity of accuracy of the Bible, which had been his most important exhibit in demonstrations of evidences for Christianity. Secondly, Darwinism, as the theory came to be known, also totally reversed the perceptions of the relation of science to the Christian faith.
In the mid-nineteenth century, American Christian apologists rested their case heavily on the argument through scientific revolution, by uncovering some of the marvels of Gods intricate and awesome design of the universe. They argued that it was inconsistent to rationally believe that such a complex and orderly system could lack an intelligent designer.
In addition, the Protestant reactions to Darwinism did vary considerably, they argued that if Darwinism had to do simply with biological development, the process it posited could only be subsumed under Gods providence, and they suggested that evolution was a way of God doing things.
Lamarcks theory
During this period, the American scientific arena was dominated by a formidable number of scientists who did not find the natural-selection hypothesis adequate enough. A few naturalists endowed with much flexibility of mind also doubted the immutability of species.
Majority of the scientists held allegiance to Jean Baptiste Lamarcks theory that evolution was evident as organisms adapted to environments to meet their biological needs out of resources in such environments and the instruments that they effectively employed would develop further, while the inefficient ones atrophied.
These features according to Lamarcks theory were inheritable, and the species were directed towards a goal whose progress seemed inevitable. So, with the perception of Lamarckism, progressive religionists quickly adapted and saw evolution as Gods way of doing things.
One example given by Lamarck to support his theory was that, ancestors of modern giraffe were deer like animals with short neck and small forelimbs, and so for it to survive, a giraffe had to stretch their necks so as to feed on the tall trees which had remained from a period of drought.
Due to the continuous stretching, the length of the neck and forelimbs increased, therefore making all acquired characters inherited.
Charles Darwin established in his article Natural Selection that natural selection facilitates those individuals that are fit to dominate and to continue existing. This concept is illustrated as the key factor that makes a man be the most constant and dominant animal on the planet. This success is attributed to a number of diverse and dissimilar variables. Man, for instance, has been swift to adapt and succeed in different places under extreme circumstances. However, in the editorial, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardins foremost dispute is that the poor should not be assisted. This commentary starts by illustrating the dissimilarity involving the spaceship ethic, where we may share available resources for all requirements and shares are equivalent. While in lifeboat ethics, we are not allowed to share resources and by exploiting this aspect we should not assist the poor.
Examining this article through Charles Darwins observations in Natural Selection it is imperative to understand that Hardin seems to suggest only the strong can save the weak. This is illustrated by the manner he describes lifeboat ethics. According to the aspects of Natural selection, lifeboat ethics presents the strong who have adapted the opposite traits of survival. Therefore, Darwin observed that there are those animals that remained dominant due to their adaptability traits. Thus, on the economic aspect, Hardins argument does not fully satisfy the scope of natural selection fully. Rather he suggests that the rich should avoid or ignore supporting the poor. Therefore, looking at his article as a metaphor would be critical in understanding his argument. Perhaps that is why he has argued for the preservation of the rich societies amidst the drowning poor citizens.
Darwin argument in Natural Selection may perhaps in a way though not entirely explain this phenomenon in part. According to the law of Natural Selection only the suitable species that are well suited to their surroundings tend survive. While on the other hand the weak species are either destroyed by nature or get dominated by the fit species. This is either through biological or physical influence. Examining the aspects of physical influences, the dominant species can easily overcome such issues like floods, diseases, droughts, or other natural challenges.
While we look at the article by Hardin we find that those in the lifeboat have overcome the physical challenges presented by nature. This illustrates why they have the resources of survival and they are the few while the majority are the one wallowing in diseases and poverty. He argues for the reason that we have limited resources, misfortune of commons and no true global government to manage reproduction and utilization of obtainable resources; we ought to manage our actions by the morals of lifeboat. And lifeboat ethics do not allow the poor to be assisted.
Therefore, in regard to Darwin argument it would be vital to compare Hardins observation with the aspects of Natural Selection. Looking at the section with sub-head Adrift in a Moral Sea we are presented with a metaphor of lifeboat. Here we are challenged to understand that the boat cans only accommodate 50 individuals. To be somehow generous the boat can accommodate additional 10 individuals. This illustrates the raw reality of natural supremacy in natural selection. However, when we examine the real scope of this article we find that Hardin characterizes the rich nations as the most dominant. Too, he seems to suggest that there are no sufficient resources to support all of us. He equally points out as is with the scope of natural selection the poor needs the rich before they can gradually adapt and swim away in safety.
However, unlike in Darwin argument Hardin fails to illustrate how many people are in reality described within unlimited number . Hence he attempts to influence the society by illustrating that it is impossible to help the poor. Using a flawed judgment of natural selection Hardin ignores the fact that helping is better than helping no one at all.
Reading Hardins article in the context of Natural selection one cannot fail to note the inconsistencies presented. According to the dynamics of natural selection only the fit survives. More so, those designed fit are not determined by their strength rather their adaptability dictates. For instance, Darwin establishes that diverse variables affect the very survival of a given species (Brown 76). Also he noted that the fit species can dominate and eventually control or eliminate the weaker species for their own survival. However, when exploring Hardins article we find a totally different approach to the scope of survival. This can be testified by the manner he creates his argument. By comparing the rich and the poor as well as attempting to justify the dominance of the few rich in the society. Thus, in regard to Hardins concept of lifeboat ethics we are presented with not the real natural selection per se but rather with elimination due to the scramble for the depleted resources. This is well illustrated by his depiction that either the boat passengers assists 10 more people and perish, or they ignore to assist anyone and sail safely away with the safety factor secure.
Interpretation
Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, is a controversial article by Garrett Hardin. Examining his argument against the real aspects of survival he shared his thought differently from the conventional wisdom. Unlike in the Natural selection by Darwin, Hardin thinks the rich have the mandate and the prerogative of assisting the poor at their own pleasure. This is well illustrated by what we terms as boat life ethics where the available resources are not shared as is with the spaceship ethics. The current society of capitalism has presented the human race with motley of challenges. This has seen the division between the rich few and the poor continue to widen. On the scope of natural resources the rich and mighty are stealing or taking away from the helpless poor. Exploitation has become the core foundation of capitalism.
Therefore, as Hardin notes, the rich are living within their secure comfort zones and they cannot accept to help the poor due to the fear of unsettling their safety. Equally, the rich have opted to remain afloat instead of drowning their boat for the sake of the struggling majority. The reason he fails to satisfy the aspects of Natural Selection as outlined by Darwin can be due to the fact that his argument is one sided. His principle argument illustrates that; for we have scarce resources, we should manage our activities according lifeboat ethics and avoid sharing the available resources. Where we have limited resources we should control the manner we utilize them. Hence, he builds his argument on the premise that survival can only be possible where excess passengers are avoided. As is illustrated in the sub-argument Population Control the Crude Way the poor if unchecked will continue to deplete the scarce resources and this would mean their requirements for assistance would also mount (Hardin 2).
Therefore, increasing the support does not suggest increasing the want for support. Equally, his position on aid and population is also unsound. With the underprivileged receiving more support, they will turn out to be wealthier. And if an individual or a country becomes better-off; it does not imply that the status of reproduction will continue at unchanged rate. So an increased population doesnt necessary mean an increased need for aid.
That is why Darwin illustrates that the best suited species dominates but not necessary the strong. Thus comparing the two articles it is evident that one was drifting towards natural aspects of dominance while the other drifted towards elimination. Therefore, examining Hardins article through the Darwin approach the most outstanding element is that of social and economic elimination. This is testified by Hardins proposals in regard to population control, Immigration, Food Supply, and Learning the Hard Way.
In essence, the argument in some instances holds true to the Darwin aspects of natural selection. However, the author seems to have avoided any strong engagement with the real scope of survival. Hence, he asserts that on the dynamics of private ownership an individual is more responsible, while on communal ownership negligence may arise. I such instances he fails to offer solid direction. Thus, he reflects on the safety of the rich through ignoring the plight of the poor. The boat ethics can be compared to capitalism which has created man-eat-society.
This article, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor viewed from the angle developed in Darwins article Natural Selection presents a lot of crooked logic and ambiguous metaphors; it consists of ironies. Although the author now and then goes back to lifeboat metaphor, adeptly he rejects to mention and ignores the importance of providing the counter-measures necessary to steer the world to a more accommodating level of dealing with poverty.
Works cited
Brown, Bryson. Evolution: A Historical Perspective. NY: Greenwood, 2007.
Hardin, Garrett. Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor . Psychology Today. 1974. Web.
The concept of human violence has interested many scholars in the recent past as they try to understand the interplay of factors biological or environmental that qualifies man as a violent species. In early 1990s, a researcher undertook to study the patterns of violence and sociality exhibited by primitive human societies.
These patterns were then compared and contrasted with already documented work of the great-ape species and other multifaceted pre-state human societies. The variables used by the researcher to access the level of violence in this sample included food and resource sharing, male competition for sexual favours from females, inter-group competition, and sociality characteristics.
The study found out that simple human societies differ with both great-ape and pre-state human societies in displaying a comparative absence of competitive male dominance hierarchies and of systematic violence between closed social groups, while being more egalitarian among adult males politically, sexually and in terms of resource sharing (Knauft, 1991 p. 391).
This particular study also revealed that the cultural norms of sociality in simple human societies are actually strong and fundamentally prone to any lethal contravention within the grouping. Indeed, the violence that was noted to occur within these human societies was triggered by differentiated cases of territorial and property rights, ritual status and male leadership concerns (Knauft, 1991, p. 391).
An important point to note is that the male leadership wrangles were triggered more by consensually accepted status levelling than the male status elevation.
These societies were found to share food and other resources in a more structured manner. Indeed, food and resource sharing in these simple societies is viewed as a manifestation of cooperation and a fundamental symbol of the human nature. An ethic of communalism and equivalent access to resources were highly developed in these societies.
In the dominance structure, the study revealed that simple human societies do not strive to be assertive, belligerent, or powerful to their counterparts. Indeed, it was revealed that such characteristics and behaviour are abhorred, disparaged and considered extremely improper within these simple human societies.
Although this particular study has many other important insights and findings that cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs, it draws fundamental parallels and similarities with the works of Charles Darwin. The renowned scholar is known for the term survival for the fittest though this term originated from Herbert Spencer ( Charles Darwin, n.d. para. 3).
According to Darwin, species are continually engaged in an aggressive struggle for existence. Darwin presupposes that species are in constant and spirited competition for food to support and maintain their own growth and that of their offspring, a situation called natural selection (Stanford, Allen, & Anton, 2008 p. 130).
This presupposition goes against the findings of the study discussed above. In the study, simple human societies were found to cooperate and share food and other resources in a communal way (Knauft, 1991 p. 395). Indeed, egalitarianism rather than competition in the human species is the buzzword according to the study findings. Using Knaufts research as a basis for decision making, it can therefore be said that Darwins assertions on natural selection cannot be generalized to simple human societies.
However, the study revealed that simple human societies pass various survival techniques to their offspring especially in resource sharing and general way of life. This particular finding give strength to Darwins assertion that any form of species must continually adapt and have the capacity to pass the adapted features to its offspring if it is to survive in the ever changing environments (Stanford, Allen, & Anton, 2008 p. 135).
The Knauft study borrows heavily from Darwins theory of evolution by the mere admittance that simple human societies evolved from the great-ape and pre-state human species (Knauft, 1991, p. 397). According to Darwins theory, life exists in its present state and form mainly as a result of many years of evolution rather than a casual series of incomprehensible miracles
Darwins theory of evolution posits that living things are constantly evolving in response to selection pressure. As the environment changes, the native species adapt to their habitat conditions by evolving new inheritable physical/behavioral traits. This lab report focuses on an experiment that demonstrates an evolution in action in finches. Darwin finches comprise of over 13 passerine bird species native to the Galapagos Islands, South America (Grant and Grant 135). Darwins finches show remarkable evolutionary changes that allow them to occupy different niches in similar habitats. The finches evolved distinct beak types to adapt to different diets in response to selection pressure. The beak type determines each birds access to a particular food source available in its natural habitat i.e., the Galapagos Islands. While some evolved long, slender beaks suitable for eating insects, others developed shorter, thicker beaks for feeding on seeds of different sizes. The evolution of different beak sizes/types ensured that up to 15 different species of finches could coexist in the islands.
The theory of natural selection dictates that organisms must adapt to their habitats to survive (Grant and Grant 135). It produces heritable biological variations that could be favorable, deleterious, or neutral. The accumulation of advantageous traits makes a species fit to compete and survive in changing habitats. The underlying assumptions of this theory include a natural variation that produces desirable, unfavorable, or neutral traits, inheritance, and survival for the fittest (Podos and Nowicki 509). Therefore, Darwins finches evolved different beaks to feed on different food sources as an adaptive strategy.
For this experiment, the aim was to demonstrate how different beak types/sizes, represented by normal pliers, curved pliers, large forceps, and small forceps, determine each birds access to seeds of variable sizes. We hypothesized that the small pliers would pick small-sized seeds (millet) more quickly than tongs, which would be suited for picking larger seeds (thistle). The underlying rationale is that each beak size (tool) is suited for picking a particular seed size, which would explain the variation in total seed collections at the end of the experiment. The experiment helped mimic how selection pressure drives evolutionary changes in organisms.
Methods
In the experiment, we simulated natural selection in finches, where the beak type determined the ability to compete for different forms of food sources, i.e., sunflower, millet, and thistle. The differently shaped beaks would be successful in picking different types of seeds. The experiment involved four types of beaks represented by normal pliers, curved pliers, large forceps/tongs, and small forceps. The simulation involved using the beaks to pick or eat different types of seeds, which included sunflower, millet, and thistle.
Seven groups of four students were assigned different beaks to mimic beak adaptations in the Darwin finches. Each student was required to use the same beak throughout the experiment. The seeds (about 50) of each type were tossed on a desk. Using the assigned beak, each student ate as many seeds of a particular type as possible within one minute. The seeds eaten were placed in a collection cup for each trial. Each experiment was repeated four times (trials) for each seed type. The experiment involved two treatment arms, i.e., normal and drought conditions. An average of the seeds collected in each cup represented the number of seeds eaten by individual beaks within one minute. The results were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet.
Works Cited
Grant, Peter and Rosemary Grant. Adaptive Radiation of Darwins Finches. American Scientist, vol. 90, no. 1, 2002, pp. 130139.
Podos, Jeffrey and Stephen Nowicki. Beaks, Adaptation, and Vocal Evolution in Darwins Finches. Bioscience, vol. 54, no. 6, 2004, pp. 501-511.
Using Darwins Dangerous Idea, the current paper argues that Darwinism and traditional monotheistic Creationism cannot be held together without contradictions. Darwins theory of evolution suggests that the modern variety of species is the result of natural selection. The latter means that randomly appearing features assist living creatures in surviving and reproducing and end up being carried into the new generation. As suggested by the film, the perfect fit of particular beaks to their functions is the result of random changes in the genes of birds, which have been preserved through natural selection as an advantage. From the creationist perspective, the same evidence can be used to prove the words of the Bible. In effect, these words do not require proof in the view of a believer. Still, the fact that bird beaks are so well-fit for their survival can be used to show that they were designed intelligently and with a purpose by our God.
It seems apparent that the two philosophies oppose each other in their description of the reasons for the variety of existing species (random changes or intelligent design), which means that they cannot be held together without contradictions. The film has a more nuanced perspective on the relationships between the philosophies, and it suggests that they can be compatible if they are modified. Daniel Dennett offers to reinterpret Darwins ideas to incorporate the design of the Creator, and Kenneth Miller, while insisting that his view is conventional, discusses the modification of the image of God into a Creator who has developed the natural selection mechanism. However, there is a direct contradiction in this position, which shows that Darwinist and Creationist views need to be reinterpreted to fit each other. Therefore, this idea can be used to prove the point that in their traditional form, the two philosophies oppose each other.
Work Cited
Darwins Dangerous Idea. Evolution, written by Allan Cubitt, Adrian Desmond, David Espar, Susan K. Lewis, and James Moore, directed by David Espar, Susan K. Lewis, and Alastair Reid, Public Broadcasting Service, 2001.
In this essay, I will argue that Charles Darwins seminal biological work is of inestimable importance to society. Released more than half a century ago, Darwins academic work On the Origin of Species significantly influenced nineteenth-century philosophical worldviews and even overturned the conventional understanding of the world order as previously defined by religious or pseudoscientific concepts. This essay consistently answers questions about the basic content of Darwins teachings, their revolutionary nature, and the effect the book had on society.
Main body
Darwins scientific works foundation was the visible phenomenon of biological diversity observed among populations of living creatures. The naturalist was among the first to make the bold assumption about lifes evolution and the genetic relationship between all organisms (Worrall). Darwins key assumptions, influenced by the British economist Malthus, were the connection between population growth and the resources necessary for survival (King 2). In his book, in particular, the scientist noted that a high reproduction rate coupled with a low mortality rate would result in unlimited growth over geological time. At the same time, the population proper increases geometrically, and in some cases, exponentially. It follows from these words that the ideal population model is capable of infinite growth, but this phenomenon is impossible in practice. The brakes on any populations growth are biological factors, including mutations, the number of resources and competition, and ecological ones.
The question of variation and biological mutations has become another important milestone in the study of evolution. Charles Darwin observed that modern descendants differ from ancestral forms in both external and internal structures. An explanation for this phenomenon could be the accumulation of useful mutations that allowed organisms to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For instance, a textbook illustration of such a bioprocess is the darkening of the London butterflys coloration caused by the widespread industrialization of society a century ago. Toxic fumes and smog caused the darkening of tree bark, which forced the butterflies to change their coloration: the white insects could no longer survive on the dark surface because of predatory birds, then only the dark ones remained.
Finally, approaching the hypothesis of natural selection, Darwin also traced the tendency for descendants to retain their ancestors traits. It is heredity, according to Darwin, that underlies the similarity between parent and child. The mathematical justification for this hypothesis can be seen in Mendels genetic laws, which formally showed exactly how the following generations could receive genes from their parents. When an embryo is formed, in particular, parental and maternal gametes fuse, leading to the formation of common, integrative phenotypic traits (Boundless 2). All of this together led Darwin to conclude that the source of evolution and its driving force is natural selection. This process concentrates on such concepts as mutation, accumulation, the struggle for existence, and survival.
Indeed, such a naturalistic explanation of life could not but cause serious controversy and debate. Darwins theory was extremely skillful in answering the question of the origin and development of life, linking the traits of modern humans with those who lived decades and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the academician managed to find an incredibly complete and mechanical interpretation to such a complex philosophical question. Certainly, such an approach could not satisfy Charles Darwins contemporaries, who were deeply convinced of the truth of the worlds religious or supernatural nature. The fact that the biological world probably evolved according to Darwins way caused dissonance and denial in society, caused by contradictions with their usual picture of the world. It is worth recalling that by then, most people were convinced of alternative biological theories of the origin, such as vitalism, creationism, or stationary existence hypotheses. Nevertheless, the revolutionary work on the origin of species eventually gained incredible popularity and public acceptance to the point of being taught in secondary schools. It was a clear paradigm shift in society in which a worldview based on supernatural, incomprehensible forces and energies was displaced by a rationalist, logically rigorous doctrine of sequential biological processes.
Darwins writings influenced not only the academic community but beyond it. The boldness and radicalism that natural selection brought to a traditionalist, conservative society caused a philosophical paradigm shift in the perception of humans in the universe. A religious culture formed and solidified before the publication of revolutionary teachings viewed humans as the link of creation and the pinnacle of power in the universe. Religious teachings defined human individuals resemblance to Gods image, which in itself meant their superiority of them over the rest of the natural world. However, Darwin transformed this culture by showing that the world was, in fact, the product of random mutations and biological errors. Indeed, this concept greatly diminished the significance of Homo sapiens for nature and certainly did not show humans as the pinnacle of divine creation.
It is a mistake to think that Charles Darwins writings are of local significance only for the nineteenth century. On the contrary, even in todays world, there is an ongoing philosophical debate between the theological and evolutionist communities, with the latter using the academics concepts as arguments to prove their case. Moreover, the fact that natural selection is taught to students at an early age illustrates the general orientation of the modern academic community. Teachers and schools now prefer to talk about the testimony and the paleontological evidence that argues Darwin is right. In reality, the concept leaves many justifiable questions, but it has more scientific evidence and integration with various fields of knowledge than any other.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it must be noted that Charles Darwins scientific work was truly revolutionary not only for the academic community. The idea of natural selection compiling mutations, accumulations, and struggles for existence served as a powerful cultural phenomenon, initiating a shift in the public theological paradigm. Darwins theory has become so deeply integrated into modern society that it is common in secondary schools and everyday discussions.
King, Samuel Olugbenga. Malthus, Erasmus, Agnosticism and Darwin: Reasons for the Massive Uptake of the Theory of Evolution as Explanation for the Origin of Life through Natural Selection. n.d. Web.
Mental development of a child is an interesting account, as noted in an article titled A Biographical Sketch of an Infant by Charles Darwin in 1877. The article presents the stages of development of a child from childhood to about two years old. The article focuses mainly on observable expressions such as anger, fear, and happiness. However, the observations made can considerably differ from those made by other children. This paper gives an overview of the article.
Reflex reactions
As on the seventh day, the infant was responding to reflexes like reactions e.g., sneezing and yawning. The child also showed feelings of sensitivity when touched at the sole, by curling the toes and jerking away (Darwin 286). Further, a warm hand put on the face incited the urge of sucking. Regarding vision, the child stared at every object on sight. Further, the child winked the eyes when funny sounds were made. Winking of eyes is interpreted as a protection mechanism. However, vision and intuition were somehow connected. The child could sense the presence of the mothers bosom more than four inches away, without necessarily seeing it.
Body Movements
Regarding the body movements, limbs and other body parts moved vaguely and purposelessly for a long time. However, the child developed a tendency to put fingers into the mouth before reaching 40 days. The child also tried to do the opposite of what was expected. For instance, when a sucking bottle was put in the right arm, he would change it to the left arm (Darwin 287). An interesting observation was made when objects were placed near the child at 132 days old. The child attempted numerous times to hold the object but failed. However, the child developed strength at two years and 4months to hold objects such as pencils.
Anger
Regarding anger emotions, clear observations were not made when the child first showed anger feelings. However, the child frowned immediately before crying. This was interpreted as a sign of distress or pain rather than anger. On the other hand, the child expressed emotions of discontent and unhappiness at ten weeks, so vividly by frowning his forehead whenever taking cold milk. At four months old, anger emotions were observed with ease (Darwin 288). The child screamed at a high pitch when unhappy and aggressively reacted when given a wrong playing tool. At 27 months, a childs aggressiveness intensifies, and its seen when it pelts objects at the offender. However, aggressiveness was only noted in the boy child.
Fear
Regarding fear emotions, significant observations were made during the first weeks. The child looked startled by sudden sounds before crying. Abnormal sounds, such as loud noise, were horrifying and made the baby cry. In addition, unfamiliar figures also caused fear, as evident on its face. When taken to the zoo at two years and three months, the child was amused by the sight of birds and relatively small animals. However, big sized animals caused intense fear.
Pleasure and Happiness
Smiles and laughter indicate pleasure in children. The child first smiled at 45 days. Most of the smiles observed were when with his mother. The child often smiled when playful objects were thrown at him at 110 days old. Further, the child enjoyed jokes such as pinching the nose. In addition, the child showed signs of affection (Darwin, 289). Although unknown, how the child had the ability to distinguish his caretakers at four months old. Further, the child had a strong will to be close to his nurse at five months old. Sympathy feelings were evidenced when his nurse was sad or pretended to cry. Interestingly, the child showed jealousy feelings when attention was withdrawn from him and given to his sister.
Reason and Decision-making
Unexpectedly, the child showed practical reasoning and decision-making as early as 114 days old. The phenomenon was evidenced when the child slipped his hand to another persons finger in order to put its tip to the mouth. However, the child was amused by his image and that of his guardian in the mirror. Also, the child developed a habit of watching his image in the mirror. At the age of seven months, the child was amazed at seeing his guardian through the glass window. The guardian further noticed that the child had the ability to associate words with actions as early as five months old. This was evidenced by the mention of his nurses name. Every time the name was mentioned, the child would look around searching for her. Further, the guardian observed that at nine months old, the child had realized that any object causing a shadow was always behind.
Curiosity and Brain Development
As noted by M. Taine, curiosity leads to the development of brains in children. In this case, the guardian made no remarkable observation regarding the curiosity of the child. However, the child imitated sounds at four months old, and at eleven and a half months, the child could imitate almost all actions performed in front of him. In addition, the child had a good memory at three years and 23 days old, as evidenced when shown the picture of his grandfather. Although they had not met for six months, the child explained their last encounter vividly.
Moral Sense
The moral sense was first noted at the age of 13 months. At 13 months old, the child could protrude his lips, ready to get a kiss, and remained unmoved until it was given. Further, the child showed trickster characteristics by pretending to be angry in order to be given or give a kiss. However, the child was no different from other children. The form of drama common in other children was noted in this child. Ongoing to his room, the Guardian noted that the child had been eating sugar contrary to what he was told. Although the child had never been punished, the guardian noted that the odd look on the childs face was due to fear of punishment.
Unconsciousness, Shyness, and Communication
Many children are known to be unconscious and shameless. This is noted by gazing at visitors for a long time without blinking. As the child grows, they become shy. The first sign of shyness was evidenced when the child was two years and three months old. In addition, different means of communication were noted when the child was eleven weeks old. Crying and squalling were the typical signs to show hunger, distress, and pain. Laughter was first observed on the 113th day, although it is recorded much earlier in other children (Darwin 293). At one-year-old, the child used gestures as a means of communication, such as pointing at objects. Interestingly, the child devised tonal variation when demanding for different things. For instance, when requesting for food, the words were interrogative.
Finally, a child expresses their needs through crying, screaming, or even gestures. A child also has a basic understanding of their guardians feelings through how they express them. When the child was six months, he showed sympathy when his nurse pretended to cry (Darwin 286). A child also develops the ability to relate the feelings of those around with what is happening.
Works Cited
Darwin, Charles. A Biographical Sketch of an Infant. Mind 2.2 (2015): 250-300. Web.
Darwin presents several arguments to support his proposition that man originated from some form of lowly species. To begin with, he asserts that the embryonic development between man and other animals is similar. In other words, the growth cycle of man and other lowly animals or organism demonstrates a lot of distinct similarities that have never been disputed.
For example, conception is the first process of bringing forth life in both man and other animals. Second, the stages of embryonic development are similar in both cases because the embryo takes a particular period before it can transform into a new form of life or creation. Darwin notes that the conception period might be the only difference between man and other living organisms.
There is also a close similarity between man and other animals in terms of geographic distribution. Both of them have been spatially distributed in such a way that they can depend and co-exist with each other. The spatial distribution of man and other animals is also largely dependent on the availability of resources required for sustainable growth.
The evolutionist also stresses the point that even though man has been classified in form other races, it is similar to the case of other animals. Perhaps, the only difference is the wording pattern because animals are grouped into species while human beings are categorized in various races. Also, man retains the same rudiments as other lower animals because he descended from a lowly organized form. Darwin has used these pieces of evidence to support his theory of evolution.
Question of the Relationship Between Religion and Science
Although Darwin seems to refute the religious claim on the origin of man, it is apparent that both religion and science share a common hypothesis that man has a distinct origin. Nonetheless, the evidence provided above by Charles Darwin contrast the religious belief that man was created by the Supreme Being called God. Science does not recognize the presence of God as referred by Christians and other religions.
Also, it is prudent to underscore the fact that science relies on evidence that can be proven while religion revolves around various abstract belief systems with no evidence at all. This explains why the evidence provided by science on the evolution of man cannot be accommodated by religion. Therefore, religion and science will continue to offer opposite thoughts and perspectives due to the parallels that have been drawn between evidence and belief systems (Lualdi 182).
Darwin Voice the Concern for Realism and Concrete Facts
Darwin readily mentions that several critics will judge his theory of evolution on the origin of the species without giving key attention to the concrete facts and realism presented by the same theory. He appears to be quite aware that the theory may elicit a long debate afterward. Indeed, the evolution theory was not received warmly from all quarters because Darwin was sharply criticized by religious adherents and other scientists.
The evolution theorist emphasizes that he has offered adequate scientific knowledge on the origin of man because he is aware that the theory is bound to be the core subject of discussion for a long time. Darwin is also concerned that hopes and fears can hardly reveal the pertinent facts on the origin of man. He adds that truth based on scientific evidence should be the main guideline on all arguments presented from different viewpoints.
Works Cited
Lualdi, K. Sources of the Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Volume II: Since 1500. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2012. Print.
Current essay deals with issue of relation between science, culture and philosophy in the doctrine of Anaximander who is known as the pre-Socratic philosopher. Besides this, we would try to find parallels and succession between Anaximander and Darwin as we believe that they do exist.
Anaximander philosophy of universe (cosmogony) can be described as essential departure from then dominant mythological approaches to understanding the creation of the world. He was one of the first proponents of science as the positive and pragmatic knowledge needed for understanding the world and manipulating different things and processes. He claimed that the nature is ruled by the same laws as scientific spheres. Everything that breaks the balance of natural laws does not existing for a long time since it is abnormal (Park, 2005).
As in the case of other Ancient Greek philosophers his scientific interests can be described as syncretism since they combined different spheres of knowledge and unified it in philosophical tradition. This can be understood also as one of the most crucial factors of his desire to make philosophy dependent on scientific truths rather than mythological revelations and traditions. One of the major contributions to astronomy was Anaximanders research of mechanics of the celestial bodies in their relation to Earth. What concerns physics, he thought that apeiron is indefinite and eternal sources of material existence of things. Besides this, his good knowledge of theoretical and practical geometry helped him to create world maps which was a great progress in the development of ancient geography.
As these examples show, Anaximanders own positive scientific interests were among the crucial driving forces of his advocacy of science and departure from Myth and tradition. This is not to say that mythological motives do not play any role in his philosophy. They do but unlike other philosophers of that time Anaximanders shows that they should be used as cultural categories but not as map for the scientific development.
As the abovementioned facts show, Anaximander asserted the importance of real physical forces and implemented mythological explanation only in the case when he didnt possess necessary knowledge for understanding material substances. Therefore, there is no denying the importance of the fact that Anaximander can be considered as the first positive scientist. Moreover, as Sagan (1985) shows Anaximander is famous for being the first person to conduct real scientific experiment based on theory, hypothesis and organization.
Anaximander predicted some major findings of the future since. This mainly concerns his philosophy of life origin where he rightly claims that animals had sprang out of sea long ago. He thought that the first creatures were trapped in the spiny bark which then would break (Russell, 1946). As the 3rd century Roman scientist Censorinus states: Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves (Russell, 1946, p. 76).
Another important idea concerns human beings as Anaximander claims that given human inability to protect themselves in the infant conditions they would have survived in the primordial times and hence they had changed from then on. Here we come close to the alleged sequence or succession between Anaximander and Darwin. It should be claimed that though Anaximander didnt create a theory of natural selection he may be considered as the proponent of evolution theory.
For instance, as it was noted above, the theory of the aquatic origin of man and life was reconfigured many centuries later in a aquatic-ape hypothesis. These pre-Darwinian theories are ungrounded since they use broad generalization without necessary factual and experimental data. But these ideas show the example of Anaximander phenomenon as he tried to explain the reasons of life not with the help of some speculative claims but with the help of material life itself.
Hence, the history of philosophy shows that evolution theory and natural selection concepts were first develop in crude form by Anaximander who claimed that long period of human infancy can be explained by the fact that no existing animal was our ancestor.
This material approach to life is very strange if we remember that even today in our scientific era people often explain things from some mythical and supranational standpoint avoiding natural scientific explanation. Anaximander as a first scientist to break with still prevailing tradition shows us that our contemporary world is even more mythical than in the era of Anaximander.
References
Park, David. The Grand Contraption, Princeton University Press, 2005.
Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1946.
John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin can be regarded as the thinkers that shaped the intellectual history of the nineteenth century. To a great extent, they profoundly influenced peoples views on the origins of life, the transformation of society and the behavior of an individual within the community. This paper is aimed at discussing Mills work On Liberty and Darwins book On the Origins of Species. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the degree to which the ideas of these scholars are consistent with cultural and intellectual trends that emerged in the nineteenth century, for instance, positivism, Marxism, and existentialism.
Furthermore, it is vital to show whether one of these thinkers proved to be more farsighted. These are the main questions that should be examined. On the whole, it is possible to say that these works reflect the principles of positivism; moreover, they profoundly changed many areas of study, for example, biology, political science, or even psychology. Mill and Darwin are equally important for the development of modern science and philosophy; however, they have often been misapplied and misinterpreted by other people. These are the main arguments that can be put forward.
The relation of Darwins and Mills works to cultural and intellectual trends
It is possible to say there is a common theme that these thinkers explore. In this case, one should focus on the process of transformation. Charles Darwin (2003) examines the changes that living organisms undergone in order to adjust to natural environment. In particular, this scientist attempts to show that species acquired certain physical or behavioral characteristics during many hereditary modifications that were necessary for adapting to the environment (Darwin, 2003, p. 97). In his turn, Mill focuses on the transformation or evolution of human societies in the course of history. In particular, he argues that some of the societies became sufficiently advanced in order to limit the authority of rulers (Mill, 2010, p. 5).
Moreover, such people believe that they are competent enough to control of their own lives. Such individuals do not have to be protected against their own will (Mill, 2010, p. 6). Furthermore, despite their differences various societies tend to gravitate toward the democratic form of government. However, there are several important distinctions that should be considered. In particular, Darwin describes the evolution of species as a form of adaption to various external forces. However, he does not say that this process is inherently good or bad. In contrast, Mill believes that the transformation of societies can be compared to progress or improvement. These are the main details that should be taken into consideration. So, it is important to demonstrate the relation of their works to other intellectual and cultural trends.
The nineteenth century was marked by the efforts to develop the theory of knowledge which can help philosophers and scientists to evaluate the validity of information. For example, it is possible to speak about positivism according to which empirical observation could be the only sources of knowledge (Comte, 1998, p. 28). These idea has been advocated by such thinkers as August Comte who believed that speculative claims had to be verified (Comte, 1998, p. 39).
Provided that this task is not done properly, such assumptions cannot be viewed as valid. This intellectual trend downplays the role of religion because it lies outside the realm of empirical observation and reason. To a great extent, Darwins book exemplifies the use of positivist principle. This author supports his arguments with various examples which demonstrate how different species evolve in the course of natural selection process. For instance, he examines physical and behavioral traits of various birds or animals (Darwin, 2003, p. 9). This is one of the main details that can be identified.
Furthermore, this author does not refer to religion as a method of explaining the hereditary transformation of species. Certainly, one should keep in mind that Darwin does make speculative claims that cannot be falsified. The author admits that in some cases, he lacks evidence that can fully demonstrate the validity of evolutionary. This is why he acknowledges that his ideas may not be true (Darwin, 2003, p. 373). So, On the Origins of Species is quite consistent with the principles of positivism which forms the basis of intellectual thought in the nineteenth century.
In contrast, John Stuart Mill does not try to substantiate his claims with the help of empirical observations. In the first two chapters of his book, he describes the confrontation between the state and an individual (Mill, 2010). He describes this process as the struggle between authority and liberty (Mill, 2010, p. 5). Moreover, he constructs a speculative model which can minimize the risk of totalitarian oppression against individual citizens. Yet, he does not say that his arguments lack empirical evidence. This is one of the differences between these thinkers. Yet, it is critical to remember that like Darwin, Mill does not believe that religion should affect the work of government (Mill, 2010, p. 133).
In his opinion, separate individuals do not require religion in order to design a government that can efficiently protect their interests. There is another principle of positivism affects Mills work. For instance, this thinker is firmly convinced that separate individuals are able to take rational and impartial decisions. To some degree, these examples indicate that in the nineteenth century, various philosophers adopted the legacy of the Enlightenment, especially the belief in reason or rationality. This is one of the main details that can be distinguished.
Additionally, it is critical to examine the works from the perspective of communism which also became very influential in the nineteenth century. In particular, one should pay attention to such a book as Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (2012). These philosophers believe the history of humankind can be described as the struggle between social classes that have conflicting and irreconcilable interests (Marx & Engels 2012, p. 46). In particular, one can speak about workers and people, who owned the means of production, or bourgeoisie (Marx & Engels 2012, p. 40). It should be noted that Marx and Engels use the concept of natural selection as a scientific basis for their class theory (Harris, 2001, p. 223).
They concentrate on the notion of competition between and within species. In Communist Manifesto, this notion of competition is transformed into class struggle which shapes the course of history (Harris, 2001, p. 223). Additionally, social evolution must result in the eventual victory of proletariat. This case shows how Darwinian legacy can be misused by intellectuals. The main problem is that Darwin did not want the principles of evolutionary science to be applied to social development and politics because the actions of human beings are much more complex than the behavior of other species. Moreover, it is not permissible to use biological concepts to the questions related to social justice and ethics. This is one of the aspects that can be singled out.
Similarly, the ideas of John Stuart Mill are also not consistent with communist ideology because this philosopher does not believe that social transformation is driven only by conflicts (Mill, 2010). In his view, struggle is primarily related to the confrontation between an individual and the state. In addition to that, he believes that different groups can reach a compromise and find a solution that can benefit both sides. Thus, one can argue the works of Mills and Darwin are not fully compatible with Marxism. Nevertheless, Marxists often use the idea of these thinkers in order to justify their arguments.
Apart from that, in the nineteenth century, many thinkers, scientists, and writers focused on the experiences of an individual and his attempts to adjust to the community. For example, such advocates of existentialist philosophy as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, or Dostoevsky believed that the unhappiness of an individual could be explained primarily by his/her inability to fit into society (Tannenbaum 2011). From this perspective, a person is bound to feel frustration, if he/she does not experience the sense of belonging to a larger group. From Mills viewpoint, this phenomenon can be attributed to the failure of the community to secure the liberty of individual citizens.
In turn, in his work, Darwins work does not account for the differences in individual behavior. On the Origins of Species is only suitable to describing the qualities of the entire species, but not separate representatives of this species. Overall, it is possible to say that in some cases, Darwins and Mills works reflect some of intellectual and cultural trends that emerged in the nineteenth century, especially positivism. However, they cannot be used to elaborate communist or existentialist rhetoric because such use can significantly distort the ideas that Mills and Darwin express in their books. This is one of the key points that can be made.
Evaluation
It is rather difficult to argue that one of these thinkers proved to be more or less farsighted. Such a comparison can lead to the misinterpretation of the works discussed in this paper. Overall, each of these thinkers made a significant contribution to contemporary science and philosophy. The most important issue is that their ideas can sometimes be misused or misinterpreted. For example, Charles Darwins views play an important role in biology, physiology and psychology. For example, his ideas can be used for explaining the behavior of males and females. Moreover, many aspects of his theory were verified only with the help of DNA tests. To a great extent, they transformed the way in which scientists explain the origins of life.
Moreover, he was far ahead of his time. When On the Origins of Species was published, this book was perceived with outrage and skepticism. Yet, nowadays, modern natural scientists regard it as a classical work. Certainly, this book is evaluated more critically by modern researchers, but Darwinian concept of evolution still retains its validity. However, it is vital to remember that Darwins ideas could often be misused. In particular, one can mention such an ideology as Social Darwinism according to which the principles of natural selection are applicable to the interaction human beings and nations (Radick, 2009, p. 219).
For example, this ideology implies that people must compete with one another as biological species (Radick, 2009, p. 2190). Later, this theory was used to justify the belief that some races could be superior to others. This case shows how Darwins work could be misinterpreted because Darwin did not apply such notions as superiority and inferiority. This is one of the details that should be considered by the readers of Darwins books.
Similarly, one can say that John Stuart Mill shaped such areas of philosophy as ethics and political science. There are several examples that can be used to elaborate this argument. First, this philosopher was able to predict such a risk as the tyranny of the majority (Mill, 2010, p. 7). This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about the discrimination against people on the basis of their religion, sexuality, or ethnic origin. In many cases, this discrimination takes its origins in populist ideology according to which the will of the majority should be the main priority for policy-makers.
It should be noted that in the course of history, many people were persecuted or marginalized only because they were not a part of the majority. This is one of the main pitfalls that should be avoided. Therefore, Mill could foresee the risks that fully manifested themselves only in the twentieth century. Moreover, in his treatise, this author identifies the necessity to protect the rights of minorities. In particular, he speaks about the main freedoms which must be guaranteed to every individual. For example, one can mention the freedom to unite or the right to express ones opinion (Mill, 2010, p. 11).
To a great extent, these ideas shaped the legislation of many countries, especially after World War II, when it became apparent that the authority of the state had to be limited; otherwise it could turn into a dangerous machine of oppression. So, Mills legacies should not be disregarded. On the whole, one can argue that the contributions of these thinkers are related to different areas, but they are equally significant. These thinkers changed peoples conceptions of society, individual, and living organisms, in general. These are the major contributions of Darwin and Mill.
Conclusion
This discussion shows that the works of John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin have profound implications for many areas of study. To a great extent, they reflect the principles of positivism, according to which scientists and philosophers should search for empirical confirmation of their claims. Overall, these books can be helpful for explaining the behavior of various biological species, including human beings. For example, Darwins ideas can be applied to biology or evolutionary psychology. On the Origins of Species significantly contributed to the development of natural science. In turn, Mills views shape the work of legislators and policy-makers. The treatise On Liberty is useful for creating a system of checks and balances that limit the authority of the state. These works can be viewed as important landmarks in the history of ideas. More importantly, they continue to affect the work of contemporary intellectuals who may represent different areas of study.
Reference List
Comte, A. (1998). Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. Boston, MA: Transaction Publishers.
Darwin, C. (2003). On the Origin of Species. New York, NY: Broadview Press.
Harris, M. (2001). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Bostom, MA: Rowman Altamira.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. New York, NY: Verso Books.
Mill, J. (2010). On Liberty and Other Essays. New York, NY: Digireads.com Publishing.
Radick, G. (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannenbaum, D. (2011). Inventors of Ideas: Introduction to Western Political Philosophy, 3rd ed.: An Introduction to Western Political Philosophy. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.