Category: Charles Darwin

We are a part of a great life on our planet. For many years, we tried to understand the world, where we live. We also tried to find out the roots and the source of our appearance. Therefore, there were suggested many theories concerning the way of our appearance in the world.

Some of these theories are well-known for us, and some of them are still hidden or, at least, hard to comprehend. Paying attention to the well-known theories of our origin, we can observe a great number of variants, each of which presents to us something new about our history and the way, how we entered this great and interesting world.

There should be also admitted that in different times, there were different theories that were considered to be the only true variants of our origin and some of them were still regarded to be false. In spite of the fact that some religious conservatives reject Darwins theories (Gelernter et al. 52), Darwin with his ideas is well-known all around the world. His theories enjoy wide popularity among representatives of different cultures and nations. His book The Origin of Species presented a new way of understanding our origin and our life.

However, there are still many issues in Darwins work, which have to be analyzed and be better understood by us. Therefore, there can be observed many attempts to understand Darwin: Darwins theory touches upon very difficult and important things and observe different ways of using the word nature. To comprehend Darwins ideas and intentions, it is very important to understand his world and his attitude to this life and to realize that by Darwin, nature is a great part of us.

The first thing that is very important for understanding Darwin is the analysis of his life, the way he worked and understood this great world. We know that Darwin lived in the industrial world, and we can observe the facts, which reflect this in his works, when he uses metaphors reflected the world of business, factories and the empire (Crook 160).

Therefore, that is necessary to mention that such a situation influenced Darwin very much, as that is not possible to live and to work without feeling the influence of time. That is also possible to suppose that Darwin tried to compare the system that exits in nature and in business.

Because in his works we can observe the situation that all the species live in great competition, and that is why some species can change some other species (Darwin 67-90). The same situation we can observe in the sphere of business. So, we can say that Darwin tried to see and to understand the world through the glasses of the time, when he lived and worked. Such a statement is very important for understanding Darwin.

The other thing that is quiet necessary for understanding Darwin is the meaning of the word nature in his work. For all of us, the word nature means something very important and necessary. However, each person understands the meaning of this world in different ways.

And such a situation can be explained with the fact that that is almost impossible to give one general explanation to this word. Many people use this word as the second possible name of the world. Some people think that nature is just a small part of our great world. As for Darwin, here we can say that he uses the word nature in different ways.

For example, he uses this word in order to show our word: & in the hands of man, apply in nature& (Darwin 67). In this situation, we can understand the word nature in the meaning of the whole world. This meaning is quiet understandable and clear for us. That is also possible to say that Darwin understands and really thinks that nature is the world, where we live and where we create something new.

That means that we can influence this world. We can change something in many different ways. There is also an idea that the time of Darwin was reflected in his works. As in the industrial world people tried to change the world very much in order to make it more convenient for their life. Darwin tried to show that people always tried to change the world, as that was possible to do that.

Therefore, we understand nature as just the world where we live and which we try to change according to our own desires. We can also observe such meaning of the word nature in the next Darwins words from his work The Origin of Species: &we should then have places in the economy of nature & (Darwin 67-90). Here we can also observe the situation when Darwin understands nature as our world, with its important components and systems.

We just take this world and live in it, of course, changing it according to our way of life. For example, when talking about different species, Darwin states that they all already exist in nature, in our world, by some of them disappear and some new species appear (Darwin 67-90). Therefore, we can say that we can change this world and even create some other one.

At the same time Darwin uses the word nature in some other meaning. For example, in the Darwins words: & so could Nature but far more easily& (Darwin 67-90).

Here, nature stands as a great power that is much stronger than man is. Therefore, Darwin writes this word with the capital letter in order to show its importance and value. The great power of Nature can change nature as our world, according to its own plans. In addition, that is necessary to mention that in the text Darwin uses the pronoun she instead of the word Nature (Darwin 67-90).

In this way he shows that Nature is something alive and that it exists and lives together with man and all other species. We can also observe the word Nature in the next part of the text of The Origin of Species: &Nature cares nothing for appearances& (Darwin 67-90). Here that can be understood that Nature cannot be seen but it can be felt, and that man can be seen but he cannot influence his life from the inside Darwin 67-90). From these words we can understand that Nature and man act in different spheres and planes.

Nature is something very important and very necessary for our life, and we cannot do something without it, as it created us. Therefore, that is quiet wrong to think that man is the lord of the world. Everything in the world is just under control of Nature. That is necessary to say that Darwin tried to show the role of Nature and the role of man in our world. In The Decent of Man, Darwin evaluated a change as something of a quite unexpected nature (Darwin et al., 100).

Comparing Nature and nature, we can say that Darwin showed nature as the world where we live, and Nature as the power that exists in all spheres and areas of this world. He also wanted to show that man lives between nature and Nature, as he lives in this world, changes it, but , of course, in accordance with the rules of Nature.

Therefore, man can change nature, and Nature can change man. However, this power of Nature is difficult for understanding. We can change nature, and in this way we can make other species appear or disappear (Darwin 67-90). However, Nature can change us.

For example, the power of Nature can change a climate of countries, and in this way Nature can change our conditions of life, and we are powerless not to let Nature do that (Darwin 67-90). We can also take weather. We cannot make it rain or snow, and at the same time we cannot make it stop raining or snowing. In such a situation we can really see that we are powerless, and that we are just creatures of Nature. Therefore, Nature is a really great power that can do everything with this world.

Therefore, some people are really afraid of this power, as it can destroy us. That is important to say that such fears are right, as nowadays we can observe many catastrophes that cannot be prevented by man. Darwin understood the existence of the great power of Nature. And using the word nature in different ways, Darwin wanted to show that there is the world where we live, and that there is the great power of Nature that influences our lives.

Comparison of these two meanings of the word nature is very important for understanding Darwins theory, as he wanted to show not just the way of our origin and the world where we live, but also he wanted to show as the great power of Nature. In this way Darwin wanted to show us that we are not the masters of this world, and that we are just a great part of it.

In conclusion, that is possible to say that we all live in nature, and sometimes we do really think that we are the lords of this world, and that we can do everything with it, but we are mistaken. Very often, these mistakes bring us to catastrophes. Nevertheless, there are many people, who try to understand the real course of nature. Among these people we can observe Darwin, who tried to show to the whole world the real nature and the real situation in the world.

We should try to understand him, and in order to do that we should investigate the questions of Darwins work very attentively. For example, we should try to understand how Darwin sees the nature, how he understands it. Taking into consideration our observations, we can say that there were different variants of nature in Darwins works. Understanding of these variants is very important for understanding Darwin.

That is clear that Darwins theories can help us to make more right actions and to understand that not everything in this world is under our control. We should try to live in agreement with the great power of Nature, by means of not destroying its other creature  our great world.

Darwin was a very great scientist, who made a very great contribution into the development of our world. We should study his works, in order to understand this world better. Our life is in our hands. However, we should take into account the rest parts of this world. Nature is our home, and that is also a home for many other species. Therefore we should not be the only masters of this world.

Works Cited

Crook, Paul. Darwins Origin of Species: A Biography. The Australian Journal of Politics and History 53.1 (2007): 160+.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. Ed. Gillian Beer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Dawrin, Charles, Zimmer, Carl, and Waal, Frans. The Decent of Man. New York: Plume, 2007.

Gelernter, David, Thomas Fleming, Michael Behe, and John O. Mcginnis. The Descent of Man: Can Conservative Concepts Be Derived from Evolution? Critics Respond to John O. McGinnis. National Review 9 Mar. 1998: 52+.

Plato to Darwin to DNA highlights the different understandings of our natural world throughout history. Not only is the reader able to get a detailed view of each periods method of research and development of theories, but also is able to compare them with one another. The “scientific process” as we know today was incredibly different in the past, and explanations of our natural phenomenon were determined by direct observations and deep philosophical thought. The reader is also able to understand the significant role tools and perceptual senses came to play in scientific exploration.

During the ancient world, scientific knowledge was acquired through simple interactions and discourse about philosophy. Amongst the cultures during this time, individualism was not demonstrated. People were not encouraged to venture scientific exploration by themselves and scientific thinkers weren’t honored in society. The study of the natural world was done communally; where information and conversations were shared in a collective community. As a reader, you’re able to understand how societal norms related to the study of science.

Philosophers dominated the conversation of the natural order during the Ancient World. Chapter 1 of the book delves into Greek and Persian cultures where philosophy was legitimized into a valid form of study. Thales was a prominent philosopher during this time and his research relied mostly on systematic observations. His investigation on geometric study led to the use of formulations where he calculated specific shapes. For example, he was able to determine the height of a pyramid by examining the pyramid’s shadow in relation a boat. His goal was to produce uniformity within a world of diversity; finding specific formulas to explain events in our natural world. Other prominent philosophers during this time were Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus and Protagoras.

Besides philosophers, there were other cultures that provided insightful knowledge on our natural phenomena. In China, Taoist alchemists were passionate about finding specific medicine and potions that can help relieve pain and produce great physical health. It was common to use herbal remedies to treat physical wounds. However, a philosopher named Zhuangzi believed that species were not “fixed entities” but they gained characteristics due to the changing environment. He developed the idea of The Way (Dao) which was conservation based; nature shouldn’t be held of certain expectations and people should study the ways of nature.

Ancient Indian traditions also played a role in mathematics and geometry. However, the reader learns that religion preceded science. A lot of scientific exploration was inspired by religious interpretations even though it got separated from the study of science later on. This is evident in the Indian culture where the god Brahma was worshipped for producing “Ayurveda” which means The Science of Life. Organized medicine was heavily dependent on Ayurveda where it was believed that the human body included 3 crucial parts; wind, blood and phlegm. As a reader, it was fascinating to learn how this concept came into play when treating people during that time.

This book also details Roman influences; around 2nd century BC Romans advanced in various scientific fields including medicine and biology. They used a “practical approach” since they focused on sanitation and agriculture. Plato to Darwin to Dna includes Cicero stating “of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming of a free man” (23). Agriculture was a way of life for the Roman people and they were able to accumulate advance civilizations from such a philosophy.

De Rerum Natura which means “On the Nature of Things” was a significant piece of literature, more specifically, a six volume poem that illustrated various concepts about the mind and soul in relation to human nature. This was authored by a philosopher named Lucretius who made sure that evidence relied on physical principles. Lucretius writings are incredibly valued since many interpreted his concept of “ladder of nature” as an evolutionary form of thought. Ladder of Nature included ideas such as the transitioning of life forms. Various species changed throughout time into more complex forms. His writings compared to the scientific literature now is fascinating because the concept of species evolving is something that we study now.

As we look into the 19th century, the Renaissance was a vital period of rich scientific inquiry. The Scientific Revolution came into play where research became more traditional; scientific experimentation had more of a concrete structure to it and scientific research was legitimized. The reason this period was called “Scientific Revolution” was because older scientific concepts were disproven and changed. For example, the original concept of Earth’s relation to the universe was geocentric; meaning that Earth was always at the center. However, this transitioned into a heliocentric model where philosophers like Copernicus promoted the idea that the Sun was placed in the center.

In conclusion, this book includes various chapters that demonstrate how natural history started with an unclear beginning but is still continuously being studied. The scientific research that we study today were developed by various philosophers and researchers from different parts of the world. Throughout history, humans were able to use whatever access of research they had to accumulate such theories; their senses, microscopes or direct observations.

Natural selection and the direct inheritance of learned connections were the approaches used by Darwin and Spencer to explain human mental and moral progress. On the other hand, each stressed the causal link about which they were most enamored. Natural selection is no longer an analytical judgment under Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” rubric: survival is the criteria of suitability, while suitability is the causative condition for survival (Ritzer, 2011). However, Darwin’s original view, which supplied natural selection with a function, namely its creative effect, became more acceptable than Spencer’s negative function of elimination.

Unlike Darwin, Spencer thought that learned traits like economy and morality could be passed down through the generations. Spencer was a staunch opponent of any legislation that aided workers, the poor, or people he considered genetically vulnerable (Ritzer, 2011). Nature is considered a force for good in Spencer’s concept of evolution, directing the development of individuals and society, and competition lets the strong flourish by removing the weak. Spencer advocated for the premise that those who survive a fight are not just the fittest but also the morally best.

The survival of the fittest was a simply descriptive observation of the evolutionary processes of Darwin. The organisms with the best fitness or adaptability have the best chances of surviving and so reproducing. In essence, this is a selection process, but it happens spontaneously without the intervention of a selection agent, thus the term natural selection (Ritzer, 2011). After all, unlike Spencer, who might be termed a philosopher, Darwin was essentially a scientist who valued factual information. Darwin coined the phrase “natural selection” to describe the mechanism of evolution, and Spencer went on to derive a whole moral prescription for the future from it.

Reference

Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical Sociological Theory, (6th Ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Introduction

The theory of evolution by natural selection or survival for the fittest suggests that living things have undergone some gradual changes since time in memorial. That all things have a common origin, from nonliving to living and that complex creatures have evolved from simple ones through processes of mutation that enable them have some adaptive characteristics.

These acquired mutations are passed on to the next generations eventually leading to a very different creature compared to the first one. The changes undergone is to enable them acquire adaptive features that enable them survive in the environment in which they live.

Usually, those that are not favored by the environmental conditions are naturally eliminated by either immigration or death while those who modify their features survive well in the ecological setting they find themselves in. Examples of such features are wings and beaks for birds, hooves for animals and others that accord a creature a functional advantage to compete with the environment.

Most sources have it that Charles Darwin is the father of this theory; even in schools students are thought the same. Due to lack of time and interest on this issue, this misconception has been widely belief but on looking at the primary sources, it is clear that Darwin’s theory was build on ideas that had earlier been suggested or discovered through observation by other philosophers thus nullifying this belief.

Today, the term universal Darwinism has been used to imply the various applications of the Darwin theory, such as evolutionary, epistemology, psychology, ecology and many more. Current sources also describe the development of an organism as a result of Darwinian competition which occurs between the embryos parts at all levels, that is from a molecule to an organ, from simple to complex. This creates a notion that Darwin is the father founder of evolution theory. This can be disapproved by various sources as described below.

Evolutionary theory is of the ancient times while Darwinism is of the recent past. Some Greek philosophers such as Anaximander had already proposed that life comes from non life and that human beings have evolved from animals.

This is a clear indication that Darwin just introduced the idea of natural selection on this already existing philosophy. The idea of irreducible complexity was also suggested by Michel Denton a biologist who set the idea that such systems such as the heart, eye and ear are made up of several parts which function as one integrated and removal of one part could lead to the failure of all.

Darwin suggested that the functioning of such features in different environment for example the eye’s adjustment to various amounts of light and different distances is as a result of gradual change by natural selection which is a bit absurd. Such system existed long before and an evolvement in them is impossible to occur, making it clear that his idea was built on an already existing one.

Early before Darwin’s invention, his grandfather, Dr. Darwin Erasmus had postulated the passage of traits from parents to their children in his work in 1974. According to him, these survival traits were passed on from generation to generation.

Between 1774 and 1829 Lamarck presented the evolution mechanism whereby characteristics are acquired through inheritance. In his theory, he states that an animal’s organ has to continue growing until it reaches a certain limit whereby the organ continuous to strengthen and enlarge in proportional manner in which the organ is put in use. This growth is dependent on time.

According to him, those organs that are not used weaken with time and finally disappear. He demonstrated this by use of a giraffe’s neck, he says that the necks gets longer in each and every sequential generation as the giraffes stretch to reach the tree’s leaves a conditions that contributes to change in their body shape.

Though with no scientific backing, Lamarck’s idea was greatly embraced. Lamarck also proposed that life did not have a common origin, but each generation came up with new features through a process known as transmutation. He used fluids movement in canals to demonstrate his idea whereby these fluids will eat into the canals edges due to variation in their motion at some point leading to development of new organs. The two ideas he proposed were named Lamarckinism and they greatly contributed to Darwin’s theory.

In 1858, Alfred Russel Wallace came up a theory that expressly showed that nature was responsible for various divergence and emergence of new organs with time. Many new organs are frequently produced at each and every generation according to how nature favors their development.

This was introduced at the very same time Darwin was preparing his easy on the origin of species where he could include his idea on theory of evolution by natural selection. This was a great challenge because he feared not to be recognized as the founder of this theory and all his ideas are undermined. This is clear that the idea on how animals get adapted to an environment for their survival and continuity was an idea not only for him.

Long before the two, in 1946, Aristotle had the same idea of gradual change from simple form to complex. To him, characteristics are passed on from one generation to another, however, these concepts had not been incorporated into the evolution theory (Zirkle 34). This further suggests that Darwin’s idea of trait inheritance was not his own original invention.

Al-Jahiz also had the idea that environment changes with time plays a role in the he development of some traits in creatures that enable them to survive. Abu Rayhan Biruni also had the notion that just like artificial selection works, so does the natural selection. In artificial selection, the required traits in some breeds are perpetuated through breeding thus eliminating the undesired ones.

In the same manner, under natural selection, the undesired qualities are eliminated enabling the species to survive well under the present conditions. This continues with time resulting into a variety of species with different traits from the original one (Lamarck’s bibliographical excerpts n.d).

Lyell who was a geologist believed in the theory of uniformitarialism by James Hutton which states that the earth is shaped Natural occurrences have also undergone by forces that are in motion up to date.

These forces have been in work for a long time, to him, catastrophism such as volcanic eruption and earthquake are not responsible for shaping the earth. Lyell through his study of stratigraphy that is, the layering of rocks observed that the earth is much older than people may think. This was demonstrated at how roots of trees were buried at different heights in the rock strata at the bank of Mississippi.

Lyell also observed how fossils are deposited in the rock strata with the simpler ones on the lower strata and the complex ones in the upper strata, a clear indication that there was some evolvement in the fossils. He believed that environmental changes are also a contributing factor towards evolution though these changes in fossils may be gradual making it possible for them to take place unnoticed. Darwin explained this biologically but the founder of this theory was Lyell (Lyell and Deshayes 513).

Conclusion

From the above discussion it is in order to conclude that, many earlier philosophers came up with the idea of evolution where gradual changes occurred from simple form to a more complex one. They proposed the idea that only those species which could acquire functional advantage and successfully pass it to the next generation could survive.

Darwin latter built his theory on these already suggested ideas which have not been recognized after Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. From the available sources, it is with no doubt that Darwin was not the founder of this evolution theory as generally believed by many people.

Works Cited

Lamarck’s bibliographical excerpts. Web.

Lyell, Charles And Deshayes, Gérard. Principles Of Geology: Being An Attempt To Explain The Former Changes Of The Earth’s Surface, By Reference To Causes Now In Operation, Volume 1. New York: ABE Books, 1998. Print.

Zirkle Conway. Natural Selection before the “Origin of Species”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. California: Science History Publications, 1941. Print.

Evolution by natural selection is considered the backbone of biology. It is proposed that modern students should have time to read the literature of naturalists regarding their perception of evolution. This is endorsed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Lussel Wallice.

Darwin commenced his superb creativity in evolution by natural selection with the initiative of divergence. Darwin’s idea was expanded by botanical arithmetic.

In Darwin’s perception he discovered that a direct comparison between the old and new species from different parts of the world will lead to several indifferences between the features.

Geographical botany enabled Darwin to spot differences not only amongst categorized species from different places, but also amongst similar species.

Domestic diversity results from artificial selection. The continuous emergence of domestic diversity, results in the divergence of the natural species.

This made Darwin to attest on the availability of transmutation by means on natural selection. Charles emphasizes on the principled availability and essentiality of selection. This is due to the fact that this is a consequence of the diversity among species as well as the struggles.

Darwin expands on selection. He states that selection is brought about by the heritability and natural variation which further comprises of the endurance plus reproduction. He emphasizes on the continued existence and sufficiency of the species.

Darwin supports his argument concerning the theory of evolution by natural selection with different features, for instance fossil records, embryology as well as morphological characteristics.

The divergence in the features of species can only be spotted after a long period of time. In this theory, living organisms tend to compete for the available resources; organisms with sophisticated features tend to survive while those organisms that don’t fit simply perish. The living organisms reproduce, thus passing their unique features to the next generation.

The Darwinian revelation as a source concerning the origin of species is valid. The source fully emphasizes on Darwin’s perception concerning evolution of species specifically natural selection. Perceptions from various authors and naturalists are also outlined as evidence of Darwin’s perception regarding the origin of life.

This is an academic source. This is evident since the article is a product of the University of California. The source also entails views from researchers as well as academicians.

The source has biases. This is derived from the author’s recommendation as well as the contents of the article. The source majorly focuses on the positive views concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

The author also urges educators today to principally focus on Darwin’s ideas regarding evolution. He prefers Darwin’s perception to arguments from other researchers concerning the theory.

The source would be good for a research paper as it encompasses perceptions from various researchers and naturalists.

The author, James T Costa, is a biology professor at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina. He has written several journal articles, two books, abstracts, correspondences and various articles as well as scientific papers that he has presented.

He has also held several seminars and given special lectures, exhibits and panel discussions over his career. His arguments basically have a bias toward Darwin’s theory.

Darwin was more able to influence avid readers about the authenticity of metamorphosis rather than of his own proposals that drove the process. As stated by Costa “he pointed out that he never argued that it was the sole agent of transmutation, despite claims to the contrary” (Costa 2003, 1030).

Despite converse claims, Darwin pointed out that he did not dispute that the primacy of natural selection as being the single source of transformation and he stuck by his views.

Regardless of several deliberations on the process of evolution, biology has relied on evolution as a main pillar.

Reference

Costa, James. Teaching Darwin with Darwin. Massachusetts: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2003.

The problems of evolution and its main aspects are discussed not only by biologists and geneticists but also by medical students and the public which is interested in the evolutionary issues. That is why the results of significant researches which were conducted by prominent scientists in the field of genetics and the problems of evolution require their further discussion and analysis in the form of critical articles and commentaries.

Thus, Joel Hagen, the professor of biology and the researcher of the questions connected with the history of biology, has presented his own vision of the issues which were described by the British ecological geneticist H. B. D. Kettlewell in his “Darwin’s Missing Evidence”. This research was published in Scientific American in 1959 as the result of the series of experiments and the continuation of the previous works.

In his article Joel Hagen has concentrated on a range of questions connected with the results of Kettlewell’s experiments which he determined as rather controversial. The conclusions of the article written by Kettlewell are considered as the “a convincing demonstration of natural selection at work” (Hagen 143). Nevertheless, the peculiarities of the research provided by Kettlewell were analyzed by Hagen from different sides.

Hagen states that “the ways in which the experiments are retold deviate significantly from Kettlewell’s original descriptions of his research” (Hagen 143). This aspect affected Hagen’s determining the main objectives of the article. The main aim of the article is to present the complete argument for the original claim “that many retrospective accounts present Kettlewell’s research as a controlled experiment” (Hagen 144).

There are also two sub-goals which can help to develop the detailed analysis of the work. Thus, Hagen also pays attention to the peculiarities of the discussion of Kettlewell’s experiments presented in the literature of evolutionary biology and in the field of science education. Moreover, Hagen focuses on the analysis of “Kettlewell’s role in retelling his early experiments on the peppered moths” (Hagen 144).

Hagen’s work is divided into several parts. The first part of the research presents the examination of the background to Kettlewell’s experiments. The author describes the features of the phenomenon known as the industrial melanism.

He discusses different approaches to the study and interpretation of this process and pays attention to the experiments with the peppered moth. Moreover, Hagen accentuates the peculiarities of the process’s explanation by Darwinian and non-Darwinian scientists. The peculiarities of the phenomenon’s study provided by such scientists as Haldane and Ford form the conceptual framework for Kettlewell’s researches.

The next parts of the article describe the peculiar features of the experiments and observations conducted by Kettlewell which became the base for the justification of his hypotheses. Hagen concentrates on mark-release-recapture experiments and the 1953 Birmingham study. According to these experiments, definite criteria for the study of the phenomenon were determined. Hagen offers the complete description of the principles of the experiments and their results.

He analyzes the data and approaches presented in different researches. He also compares them with the report of 1959. The comparison helps to define the main controversies in the researches which can influence the result of the work which is presented as a controlled experiment.

The controversies are also noticed in the early works. “Kettlewell’s early (1955) report presented the 1953 Birmingham study as a completed project rather than work-in-progress” (Hagen 147). Thus, while describing the peculiarities of the experiments, Hagen focuses on all the possible inaccuracies in the works.

Furthermore, Hagen analyzes the level of the impact of Kettlewell’s results on the other biologists’ opinions. The discussion of these problems is also based on the references to David Rudge’s vision of the issue. Hagen provides his analysis with many references to the works of this scientist.

However, the next parts of Hagen’s article describe the peculiarities of Ford’s discussion of the results of Kettlewell’s experiments. The main aspect of the discussion is the idea that “the natural selection is the cause of industrial melanism” and the features of its interpretation according to the consequences of Kettlewell’s experiments (Hagen 151). The commentary on Kettlewell’s researches provided by E. B. Ford is considered as the most influential for the biologists because E. B. Ford was the mentor of Kettlewell.

Hagen also pays attention to the significance of Kettlewell’s experiments and researches for the science and analyzes their main impacts. The last two parts of Hagen’s work are connected and discuss the peculiarities of popularizing Darwin’s missing evidence in the scientists’ world and its effects for the consideration of the problems of evolution in science education. “Darwin’s Missing Evidence” appeared at a critical time of reform in science education” (Hagen 152).

That is why the results of Kettlewell’s research and his idea that Darwin’s theory lacked the demonstration of natural selection in action attracted the public attention and arouse the reactions in the fields of biology and genetics.

In his article Hagen has accentuated the weak points and inaccuracies connected with Kettlewell’s experiments and the results of the research presented in his “Darwin’s Missing Evidence” and discussed these aspects from different viewpoints.

Works Cited

Hagen, Joel. “Retelling Experiments: H. B. D. Kettlewell’s Studies of Industrial Melanism in Peppered Moths”. Academic Reading: Reading and Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Janet Giltrow. USA: Broadview Press, 2002. 143-158. Print.

Barbara Kingsolver in the article titled “A Fist in the Eye of God” has tried to explain how the process of evolution gives rise to genetic diversity, and why the genetic engineering tools should not be used to manipulate genes. She has used a humming bird as the media to explain how genetic traits have passed since antiquity from one generation to the next. The aim of this essay is to understand the contribution of Darwin and Vavilov, along with the underpinnings of genetic diversity to bring about the organisms’ survival over time.

The “trigger.” The “trigger” that tells the humming bird how to build the nest is the genetic map or trait that has been transferred from one to the next generation of the humming bird over evolutionary time scale. This ‘trigger’ is switched on at the right time, when the situations become favorable for budding, courtship, and incubation (Kingsolver).

Darwin’s observations. The four things that Charles Darwin noticed were:

1. Every living organism will have to produce more offsprings or seeds that can actually survive the harsh and testing environments to reach the growth phase of adulthood
2. There is differences or variations among these offsprings
3. The traits are inheritable and are transferred from one generation to another over time
4. The advantageous traits are helpful in the organisms’ survival, and in the perpetuity of the race. Also the ratio of incidence of useful traits to harmful traits tends to increase in the population with time.

Implications of ‘separate destiny.’ The phrase “…every grain of wheat holds inside its germ a slightly separate destiny” means that there would be genetic variations among the individual progenies. They are endowed with slightly different genetic content, which would be helpful in survival in one or more unfavorable environmental conditions, thus assisting in continuation of the plant race (Kingsolver).

Mechanics of genetic diversity. Diversity is maintained in natural systems by means of natural selection, and dependent on genetic variations among the individuals. Sex, genetic combinations during meiosis and the environmentally attuned fitness allows for diversity and survival. Every individual has a slight difference with another with respect to gene content, and this allows certain traits to have an advantage over deleterious ones.

Over time, the individuals with advantageous alleles survive, and diversify. Similarly, in a garden, the seeds with harmful alleles are wiped out in a specific environmental condition, and the plant with advantageous allele survives to reach adulthood. Thus, the variations allow for natural selection to operate in an evolutionary process, and leads to diversity and survival of the races (Kingsolver).

Importance of survival. “Survival carries things forward and death doesn’t” denotes how important survival is. The survival ensures the continuity of the race through the means of sex and reproduction, and allows the traits to be inherited. While the death means that the contribution of the individual is over as far as the racial perpetuity is concerned.

Vavilov’s contribution and the ‘magic’ wheat problem. Vavilov during his worldwide search looked for primitive crop varieties, and regions where variations were found, and thus identified centers of origins of cultivated plants. He could indicate where agriculture had originated on the basis of primitive crop races, and their spread.

The problem with ‘magic’ wheat is that it is neither pest nor drought resistant, though it is nutritive in content. The farmers have to invest a lot of money in ensuring its survival in tougher settings as it lacks advantageous genes for those specific conditions (Kingsolver).

Works Cited

Kingsolver, Barbara. “A Fist In The Eye of God.” Motherearthnews.com. Mother Earth News, August/September 2002. Web.

Introduction

When it comes to discussing the discursive significance of the Darwinian theory of evolution in general, and the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle in particular, it is always crucially important to understand that they are essentially concerned with the functioning of biological species, as the part of the affiliated environmental system.

One of the main qualitative features of how this system operates is that it is functionally self-sustainable. Moreover, the overall quality of such a system is not merely the sum of the qualities of its integral parts, but something that creates the discursive realm of its own. This presupposes that the alteration of even a single element of just about any environmental system, will result in effecting its innate subtleties as a whole.

Therefore, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that Barry Commoner’s article The Four Laws of Ecology is indeed consistent with the main provisions of Darwin’s theory, in the sense of implying that the very systemness of randomness makes it possible for the latter to grow increasingly less-chaotic, which creates the illusion of ‘intelligent design’.

The same cannot be said about William Paley’s Natural Theology – in light of recent breakthroughs in the fields of biology, cybernetics and physics, the author’s line of argumentation (in defense of creationism /‘intelligent design’), does not appear to hold any water, whatsoever. This, of course, sets Natural Theology apart from both: Darwin’s Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest and Commoner’s The Four Laws of Ecology. In my paper, I will aim to substantiate the validity of this thesis at length.

Comparison

The main theoretical premise behind The Four Laws of Ecology is that it is specifically the systemic interconnectedness of living organisms within a particular environmental niche that defines this niche’s overall quality. As Commoner notes: “Each living species is also linked to many others.

These links are bewildering in their variety and marvelous in their intricate detail” (346). What it means is that within such a niche, causes exert an exponential influence of the would-be induced effects – something that relates to the so-called ‘butterfly effect’ in the theory of systems.

The mentioned effect has to do with the fact that, within an open system (such as human society), the seemingly insignificant (externally induced) alteration of one of its structural elements can result in changing the manner, in which this system functions. In plain words – micro-causes are capable of triggering macro-effects (Dong 464).

Moreover, it is most likely for the alteration’s effects to prove detrimental: “When such an effect originates outside the cycle, it is not controlled by the self-governing cyclical relations and is a threat to the stability of the whole system” (349). Commoner’s four laws, in this respect, can be outlined as follows:

“Everything is connected to everything else” (347). This law implies that there is the quintessential interdependence between the elements that make the global eco-sphere, as we know it.

“Everything must go somewhere” (350). This specific law stresses out that, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of energy in the universe is finite.

“Nature knows best” (351). This law points out to the fact that what we see around us is most adequately defined in terms of a ‘best possible scenario’, in the evolutionary sense of the word.

“There is no such thing as a free lunch” (353). Because the qualitative dynamics within the global ecosystem consume energy, and because the amount of the latter in the universe is fixed, the improvement of this system’s functional efficiency can be accomplished only at the expense of reducing the measure of its spatial longevity.

Even a brief glance at these Commoner’s laws will reveal that they do correlate with the main provisions of the Darwinian theory of evolution, based upon the assumption that “Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad; preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers” (Darwin 318).

The reason for this is quite apparent – just as it was mentioned earlier, Commoner’s laws imply the functional self-sustainability of the natural environment, which in turn has to do with the ecosystem’s innate ability to react to the externally induced stimuli. As Commoner notes, while trying to illustrate his point: “When there are many rabbits the lynx prosper; the rising population of lynx increasingly ravages the rabbit population, reducing it; as the latter become scarce, there is insufficient food to support the now numerous lynx; as the lynx begin to die off, the rabbits are less fiercely hunted and increase and numbers. And so on” (348).

The principle of Natural Selection plays a crucial role in this respect, because it causes plants and animals (including the representatives of the Homo Sapience species – ‘hairless apes’) to become increasingly adapted to the environment – the main precondition for them to remain competitive. This results in reducing the amount of entropy in the associated environmental niche, and in increasing the measure of the niche’s structural resilience.

Thus, the mentioned four laws indeed relate to the Darwinian theory of evolution. There is, however, even more to it – Commoner’s laws (especially, the third one) appear to be fully consistent with Darwin’s suggestion that humanity is far from being considered the final product of evolution, and that when assessed from the biotechnological point of view, the works of nature are much more efficient than those of men: “Nature’s productions should he far ‘truer’ in character than man’s productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions” (318).

After all, there is indeed much similarity between the above-quoted Darwin’s suggestion, and Commoner’s belief that: “The artificial introduction of an organic compound that does not occur in nature, but is man-made and is nevertheless active in a living system, is very likely to be harmful” (352).

This apparent similarity can be explained by the fact that both: Commoner and Darwin were aware that the existence of the objective laws of nature makes it possible for orderliness to emerge out of chaos, without the involvement of any ‘third party’, such as God, for example.

As Alan Turing (one of the founding fathers of cybernetics) pointed out: “(Chaos) although it may originally be quite homogeneous, may later develop a pattern or structure due to an instability of the homogeneous equilibrium, which is triggered off by random disturbances” (37).

Therefore, the views of Commoner and Darwin are indeed fully compatible – at least in the systemic sense of this word. After all, while exposed to either The Four Laws of Ecology or Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest, one will be naturally prompted to consider the probability for the observable complexity of the natural environment to be caused by the cybernetic principle of ‘self-organization’.

What differentiates Commoner’s line of argumentation from that of Darwin is that there is the clearly defined ethical dimension to the former’s point of view, in regards to what makes possible the continual self-sustainability of the surrounding natural environment.

Whereas, Darwin used to assume that the principle ‘nature knows best’ (natural selection) is being somehow suggestive of the sheer irrelevance of humanity’s influence on the overall state of nature, Commoner could not possibly not agree with this assumption.

Quite to the contrary – he never ceased stressing out the importance for the representatives of the Homo Sapiens species to be willing to collaborate with nature, within the context of how the latter goes about ensuing the normal flow of self-supporting processes within the surrounding biosphere. In particular, Commoner believed that it represents the foremost duty of humanity to grow ever more environmentally aware.

William Paley’s Natural Theology, on the other hand, does not correlate with the main provisions of the Darwinian theory of evolution even slightly. The reason for this is that, as opposed to what it happened to be the case with Commoner and Darwin, Paley considered the systemic complexity of the global ecosystem to be the indication that the latter has been ‘intelligently designed’. The author’s logic in this respect may indeed appear somewhat reasonable.

The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to Paley’s ‘allegory of the watch’: “When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive – what we could not discover in the stone – that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose” (312). After all, this kind of suggestion does appear thoroughly sensible.

The impression, however, is misleading. The reason for this is that, while arguing in favor of ‘intelligent design’, Paley failed to take into account the so-called principle of ‘Occam’s Razor’ – there is no need to resort to the complex (phenomenological) explanations of a particular phenomenon, for as long as a plenty of the simplistic (naturalistic) ones are available (Riesch 76).

For example, if perceived as a ‘thing in itself’, a human eye may initially appear ‘designed’ – all due to its utter complexity and apparent ‘purposefulness’. However, if we take into consideration the billions of years of biological evolution (driven by random mutations), which resulted in the eventual emergence of Homo Sapiens as the dominant species, it will appear that the mentioned complexity is essentially instrumental.

What it means is that it has been brought about by the process of natural selection – something that does not have any ‘higher’ purpose, by definition. Thus, Natural Theology does contradict the ideas contained in The Four Laws of Ecology and in Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. This simply could not be otherwise – whereas, Darwin and Commoner viewed nature as a self-organizing entity, Paley assumed that the existence of nature has been predetermined by the existence of God.

Conclusion

I believe that what has been mentioned earlier, in regards to the discussed subject matter, fully correlates with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, there is indeed a good rationale in referring to the mentioned works by Darwin and Commoner as being mutually complimentary. William Paley’s Natural Theology, on the hand, stands in striking opposition to both of them – all due to the author’s ill-concealed religious agenda.

Works Cited

Commoner, Barry. “The Four Laws of Ecology.” Reading the World: Ideas that Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2015. 344-355. Print.

Darwin, Charles. “Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.” Reading the World: Ideas that Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2015. 314-325. Print.

Dong, Chunyu. “Intelligent Design from the Viewpoint of Complex Systems.” Theory Frontiers of Philosophy in China 5.3 (2010): 461-470. Print.

Paley, William. “Natural Theology.” Reading the World: Ideas that Matter. Ed.

Michael Austin. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2015. 311-312. Print.

Riesch, Hauske. “Simple or Simplistic? Scientists’ Views on Occam’s Razor.” Theoria 25.1(2010): 75-90. Print.

Turing, Alan. “The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 237.641 (1952): 37-72. Print.

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 Darwin’s Theory

Creation Theory

Darwin’s 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 God’s 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 God’s providence, and they suggested that evolution was a way of God doing things.

Lamarck’s 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 Lamarck’s 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 Lamarck’s 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 God’s 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.

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 1990’s, 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 Knauft’s research as a basis for decision making, it can therefore be said that Darwin’s 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 Darwin’s 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 Darwin’s 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 Darwin’s 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

Reference List

Charles Darwin: Survival for the fittest. Web.

Knauft, B.M. (1991). “Violence and sociality in human evolution.” Current Anthropology, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 391-. Web.

Stanford, C., Allen, J.S., & Anton, S.C. (2008). Exploring Biological anthropology: The Essentials. Prentice Hall. ISBN: 9780132288576