Category: Charles Darwin

Introduction

Darwin’s 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). Darwin’s 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 bird’s 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, Darwin’s 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 bird’s 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 Darwin’s Finches.” American Scientist, vol. 90, no. 1, 2002, pp. 130–139.

Podos, Jeffrey and Stephen Nowicki. “Beaks, Adaptation, and Vocal Evolution in Darwin’s Finches.” Bioscience, vol. 54, no. 6, 2004, pp. 501-511.

Using “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” the current paper argues that Darwinism and traditional monotheistic Creationism cannot be held together without contradictions. Darwin’s 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 Darwin’s 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

“Darwin’s 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.

This passage is found in Chapter IV called “Natural Selection,” part 1 called “Natural Selection: Its Power Compared with Man’s Selection” of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species¹. The work was first published in 1859 in the United Kingdom and gained much attention from the scientific world and non-specialist public². The arguments presented by Darwin in this book became the foundation of the evolutionary biology.

The ideas expressed in On the Origin of Species were groundbreaking and shocking for the scientists of XIX century. Natural history of the times when Darwin worked was largely affected by church naturalists. They believed that the main aim of science was to reveal God’s plan and interpreted science from a clerical perspective. However, an intense conflict over religious morality and the development of professionalism in science have led to the possibility of the evolvement of such revolutionary theories as the ones proposed by Darwin in On the Origin of Species.

The book is divided into fourteen chapters. The first chapter explores the origins of different breeds, selective breeding, and kinds of variations related to it. In the second chapter, the author presents the footage to his claim that variation in nature is ubiquitous. The third chapter introduces the basics of natural selection. The first three chapters prepare the reader to accept the ground-breaking information about natural selection presented in the fourth chapter. Darwin’s reflection of the perfection of natural selection compared to the artificial selection conducted by a man leads to the discussed paragraph. The passage is followed by explicit examples illustrating the assumptions made by the author about the ubiquity of natural selection in the life of every creature on the Earth.

The discussed passage is considered one of the most colorful and important claims of the book. It demonstrates the author’s talent for revealing the relation of the phenomenon to all spheres of our life. Darwin masterly uses the personification to convince the reader of the omnipresence of natural selection. This powerful passage plays a vital role in ensuring a strong persuading effect of the book by giving a portrait of the driving force behind the evolution in a succinct and coherent statement.

Both the passage and the book as a whole present an example of Darwin’s genius expressed on paper. The innovative character of literary style, valid arguments, and the topic made the book an example of exquisite scientific reading that caused revolutionary changes in the scientific world and attitudes of common people. The “clear and lively” literary style used by Darwin in On the Origin of Species made it readable for a wide publicity and contributed to its popularity³. The author used an everyday language to make the complex scientific information comprehensible for common people⁴. The work does not contain graphs, maths, and abundance of specialized language. Such approach to writing a scientific work was innovative and did not fit the stereotypes of what the science had to be⁵. The arguments presented in the book comprise another key to its enormous success.

Darwin made his best to make each of the claims convincing and backed up them with explicit examples and scientific evidence. Such approach enabled him to find the way to persuade both non-specialist readers and fastidious scientists in the righteousness of his statements. The innovative character of the topic is another component of the success of the book, as Darwin explored the topic that had been studied throughout the history of the mankind from the totally new perspective. His interpretation of the origins of Earthly creatures presented in the book was significantly different from any scientific work available on that time and revolutionized the course of science. Darwin managed to highlight the gaps in scientific knowledge and explained the importance of filling them⁶. Moreover, the topic explored by Darwin remains actual and nowadays and continue to transform our views.

The passage presents a perfect example of using literary devices to present scientific information to the wide public. Darwin masterly used personification to reflect purely scientific ideas in a lively and comprehensible manner. Such approach makes the passage significantly different from most of the scientific texts, as exploring dry facts through a prism of everyday life is not typical for scientific literature. Darwin also used contrast for opposing the omnipresent and eternal natural laws to the ignorant human mind and its limited capabilities. Darwin’s ability to craft strong argumentation enabled him to express the crucial idea serving as the basis of the whole book in one small passage written in a simple everyday language. The author managed to explain the fundamental idea about the driving force of the evolution in several succinct sentences that serve as a metaphorical explanation for scientific facts explicitly investigated by Darwin in the rest of the text. I think, this passage serves as a perfect proof of the fact that ingenious things are simple, as Darwin has managed to transform the complicated structure of argumentation related to natural selection into one concise paragraph full of profound meaning.

Bibliography

Browne, Jannet. Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography. London: Atlantic Books, 2007.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murrey, 1859. Web.

Francis, Keith. Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007.

Reznick, David, and Michael Ruse. The Origin Then and Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Ruse, Michael, and Robert Richards. The Cambridge Companion to the Origin of Species. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Wilberforce, Samuel. “Review of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, 1860.”Creation Ministries International. 2015. Web.

Footnotes

1. Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murrey, 1859), Web.
2. Ruse, Michael, and Robert Richards, The Cambridge Companion to the Origin of Species (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1.
3. Wilberforce, Samuel, “Review of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, 1860,” Creation Ministries International, Web.
4. Francis, Keith, Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007), 52.
5. Browne, Jannet, Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography (London: Atlantic Books, 2007), 2.
6. Reznick, David, and Michael Ruse, The Origin Then and Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010). 9.

One of Darwin’s most famous concepts, the theory of natural selection, is a perfectly logical explanation of why certain species die out, while others manage to develop further on, adapting to the changing environment. According to Darwin, the theory of natural selection presupposes that only the fittest, the strongest and the most adaptable creatures can survive in the changing habitat and, therefore, will give birth to the further generations of healthy and easily adaptable descendants. Although the given theory is often misinterpreted as the idea that only the species that are the most physically strong can survive through the changes in the environment, it is clear that Darwin had the adaptability as the key method of the ability to survive in mind.

Physical strength is obviously not the issue in the given case, or, at least, it is not the biggest issue compared to the rest of the assets that a creature must possess to be fit to survive. The given theory is closely intertwined with the key principles of the theory of evolution, also offered by Darwin. Indeed, according to the latter, evolution presupposes not only the development of new skills and capabilities but also the training and perfection of the already existing ones to become the superior member among the specified species.

It is quite impressive that the process of natural selection does not involve great modifications of the breed – on the contrary, the basic features that distinguish the specified species from a similar group are kept intact, while the strength is increased in the process of natural selection. Biologically, the given phenomenon is quite easy to explain as a result of a combination of two types of genes, the dominant and the recessive one, the dominant shaping the features of a specific species. Thus, the key idea of natural selection is that the further generations are supposed not only to inherit the assets of their ancestors but also to demonstrate improved abilities and skills.

When considering Darwin’s theory a bit further than the famous only-the-strong-survives principle, one will see that the theory of natural selection offers a plethora of opportunities for self-analysis and a better understanding of one’s social role as well as the chances for the possible upgrade in the social status. Although the principle of species survival is no longer topical for the humankind in its crude original idea of killing the rival, competitiveness is still a driving power behind a number of scopes of activity, which means that Darwin’s principle of natural selection theory still proves to work well. Although the implications of Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot be considered the ultimate approach to understanding the specifics of one’s own behavior patterns, they still help understand whether someone is suited to be a leader or supposed to follow someone else’s orders. Helping to define the key features of dominant behavior, Darwin’s theory gives a clear vision of humankind being split into two major parts, i.e., the leaders and their “subordinates.” That being said, Darwin’s theory can be considered a perfect foil for one’s own development and the change of behavioral patterns towards more leadership-oriented ones.

It is noteworthy, though, that Darwin’s theory of natural selection allows enhancing one’s self-understanding from the strictly biopsychological point of view without the consideration of the socio-cultural aspect of people’s lives. Truly, the former predetermines the way in which people behave and communicate to considerable extent, yet there is a great gap between the world of nature and the human civilization; primarily, the difference lies in the existence of the concept of ethics and morals in the human world, as opposed to the animal kingdom, where the ability to survive is the key asset.

It goes without saying that people have much in common with animals, being themselves a part of the animal kingdom. However, it is still necessary to keep in mind that the now-or-never principles, which are considered valid in the animal world, shape greatly when applied to the realm of the human world, mostly due to the moral and cultural restrictions that people impose on themselves for the sake of keeping the fabric of society from tearing apart. As Darwin put it, “In social animals, it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the whole community; if the community profits by the selected change. What natural selection cannot do, is to modify the structure of one species, without giving it any advantage, for the good of another species” (Darwin, 1859, 5).

Therefore, it is clear that among people, the link between an individual and the community is very strong and is based on the policy of mutual support, which is strikingly different from the survival principle in the animal kingdom. That being said, the theory of natural selection seems to have been upgraded by the human race; taking it to a completely new level, people have introduced the sociocultural aspect in it, making it clear that the human nature comprises biological, social and cultural elements, unlike the rest of the species do.

Charles Darwin wrote that a pattern of evolution is similar to a tree, as it branches out in various directions with the elements nearby each other in the tree being those more alike than those far apart. According to the text “one species giving rise first to two or three varieties, these being slowly converted into species, which in their turn produce by equally slow steps other species, and so on, like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group becomes large” (Freeman and Herron 47). Meanwhile, this pattern of development is evident in successful species resulting in speciation and variables or an entire new species. The branch of the tree is evident in the evolution of the real world as species diversify in this manner while exploiting various ecological opportunities. Divergent species diverge and continue their unique pattern of development; they do not remerge to generate what would effectively be a network. This is another reason why the analogy of a tree works best to describe the patterns of evolution.

The new material in the text, compared to the existing material described in earlier discussions, is more complex and detailed. The hierarchical classifications can also be applied to the tree, while phylum, classes, orders, and the other elements of the taxonomy are represented by various locations in the branches (with the smaller classes being further down the branches and the original patterns being closer to the trunk.) In addition to the described elements, the consideration of the branching tree in the patterns of evolution is further useful in explaining comparative anatomy; this also served to help explain evolution in its early years of development.

Presently, many patterns of evolution are considered by modern science, based on Darwin’s theories. Natural selection can lead to the development of new species as described, while patterns of evolution can be classified in terms of divergent and convergent evolution as well as co-evolution. For example, similarities in species have led scientists to assume that the numerous subspecies have resulted from a sole original species; this is an evolutionary pattern, while a common process in an evolution pattern (for example) is adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation is common when species successful invade an isolated area with little competition from other species; when new environmental elements in this new area exist while little to no threats are present, the species will evolve.

Patterns of evolution can vary substantially, and as mentioned, there are multiple classifications. Adaptive radiation is an example of divergent evolution, which is the process of two related species becoming increasingly variant. This naturally results from each being exposed to different conditions which demand different traits for optimal living. Meanwhile, co-evolution is the joint variance of two or more species which interact in the environment. Predator animals and the prey which they seek commonly co-evolve, as well hosts and parasites, as the result of being exposed to similar conditions. Naturally, all of these areas contribute to the pattern of evolution, represented in the tree model. All of these areas, divergent, convergent, and co-evolution are examples of different ways which organisms change according to the demands and opportunities of the environment.

Overall the elements of previous and recent discussions unite to better facilitate a more complete perspective. The diversity of life is great, while patterns of evolution suggest they are becoming greater still. The ability for species to improve and become more complex has taken the biodiversity spectrum from the simple and less capable organisms to those which are capable to feats unknown of in earlier times while revealing the biological potential to make the most of a changing environment. So long as the Earth and the environment does not change too quickly and too chaotically, the pattern of evolution suggests that a new branch can be extended to meet the changing needs of the environment. Darwin realized this while he was finalizing his theory in the Origin of Species and organizing it in a way which could be better explained, and he chose the tree model so that people could understand the shifting directions yet common processes of evolution (Darwin). This pattern shows that all organisms possess the same potential to change in such a manner, however they are bound by their biological and evolutionary past in terms of their optimal environment and conditions. The continuing trends will give rise to additional subspecies, and eventually new species (as it is common knowledge that new species are continually discovered even in modern times,) and Darwin predicted this pattern will continue throughout life on Earth without any foreseeable stopping point.

Darwin’s thoughts were logical and have not been proven incorrect over the many years his theories have remained the focus of biological science and evolution. Critics have been able to make strong claims, however these claims have not been substantiated. Until they are, they remain little more than speculation while the pattern of evolution and tree model remains accepted.

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. Literature.org. 2005. Web.

Freeman, Scott and Jon Herron. Evolutionary Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2006.

Introduction

The lack of knowledge about the laws of heredity, the genetic and ecological structure of species, and the lack of experimental evidence of natural selection served as the basis for the growth of critical attitudes towards Darwinism. Few scientific theories spread as quickly as the theory of natural selection, immediately called Darwinism. Its success was mainly due to a broad synthesis of facts and concepts from various branches of biology, carried out by Darwin based on the hypothesis of natural selection. Evidence of the existence of the evolutionary process was obtained from reliable data from embryology, morphology, paleontology, and biogeography.

Embryological Evidence

The striking similarity of vertebrate embryos drew many researchers’ attention long before Charles Darwin. Domestic and foreign scientists have deeply studied the similarities of the initial stages of embryonic development of animals. In the process of ontogenesis, many features of the structure of ancestral forms are repeated: in the early stages – more distant ancestors, in the later stages – close ancestors (Quammen, 2004). All vertebrates have a chord at a particular development set, and many insects have a larval stage. Such similarity of embryonic stages is explained by the unity of origin of all living organisms. Some scientists independently formulated a biogenetic law that describes ontogenesis, that is, individual development, as a brief and concise repetition of phylogeny, the historical development of a species.

Morphological Evidence

Morphological evidence of evolution is based on the presence of homologous, rudimentary, and atavistic organs in many living organisms. Homologous organs have a similar structure plan, performing similar and different functions and developing from similar rudiments (Quammen, 2004). The study of the anatomy of mammalian limbs allowed people to establish a similar plan of structure and formation. Rudimentary organs have lost their meaning and function in phylogeny and remain in organisms in the form of underdeveloped appearances. Rudimentary bones at the site of the pelvic girdle in cetaceans and rudimentary hind limbs of a python indicate an origin from typical quadrupeds. The rudiments of a person are coccygeal vertebrae, the nictitating membrane, the remains of the hair covering the body, the appendix – the process of the cecum, and strongly developed ear muscles that allow them to move.

Paleontological Evidence

Paleontology points to the causes of evolutionary transformations. The richest paleontological material is one of the most convincing proofs of the evolutionary process that has been going on the planet for more than 3 billion years (Quammen, 2004). Finding and studying fossils of transitional forms makes it possible to compile paleontological evolutionary series of organisms. Fossil transitional forms are forms of organisms that combine features of older and younger groups. The findings and descriptions of such forms allow us to reconstruct the phylogeny of individual groups of animals. For example, ichthyostega is a fossil form linking fish with terrestrial vertebrates; an archaeopteryx is a transitional form from reptiles to Jurassic birds. The paleontological series is the sequel of fossil forms related to each other in evolution and reflect the phylogeny course.

Biogeographical Evidence

The peculiarities of the distribution of living beings on the planet are closely related to the transformation of the Earth’s crust and the evolutionary changes of species. This is indicated by the distribution of animals and plants on the surface of our planet, the comparison of flora and fauna of various continents, and islands, and the identification of relict plants and animals of different natural zones (Quammen, 2004). An example is Australia, where the formation of marsupials and cloacal mammals took place after separation from the rest of the continents. To understand the evolutionary process, flora and fauna of the islands, which turned out to be utterly dependent on the history of the origin of these islands, are of interest.

Anagenesis and Speciation

Anagenesis is a process of gradual changes that leads to the complication of the organization and improvement of existing forms of organisms. Anagenesis originates and is based on mutational variability and selection. In contrast to the population, at the species level of evolution, so-called systemic mutations come to the fore, i.e., changes affecting entire blocks of genes and causing severe changes in the body. Conversions of gene complexes that control the process of the formation of organs of an adult organism can be attributed to this category. One of these mutations in drosophila leads to the development of an additional pair of wings. Speciation is the process of species formation carried out due to the interaction of elementary evolutionary factors: mutations, gene drift, natural selection, waves of life, and isolation. The existence of anagenesis and speciation has not been fully proven, although it is possible to find scientific articles that hypothetically confirm their presence.

Natural Selection, Adaptation and Phylogeny

Natural selection is an evolutionary process in which individuals with traits conducive to survival reproduce faster. These favorable traits become more common among the population or species. Naturally selected features initially arise as a result of random genetic mutations. For selection to occur, there must be variability in the population, the trait controlling the variability must be heritable, and the trait’s variation must have an evolutionary advantage. Adaption is the development of any trait that contributes to the survival of a species and its reproduction. Phylogeny is the process of the historical development of wildlife and individual groups of its constituent organisms.

Genetic Drift

Genetic drift is the way in which evolution takes parts of genes and populations (Ward, 2018). The doctor demonstrates an example of genetic drift on a bowl of M&M’s candies, which are known to have different colors. That is, a person takes a handful of sweets by accident and sees that they are all the same color instead of being different. The same thing happens with genes, which is called genetic drift.

Opinion

I think Darwin did a lot of work and got a specific database and evidence that natural selection and evolution of species exist. Nevertheless, I am more inclined to believe that his theory is wrong, and I agree with some scientists in this opinion. The main achievement of Darwin, which has retained its significance to the present time, is the description of natural selection as a mechanism that ensures the fitness of organisms to the environment and their morphological diversity. Darwin believed that for differences to arise between two related forms, it is enough that forms with evasive signs are better adapted than forms with average values of signals.

The modern evolutionary theory considers selection a necessary but insufficient condition for the emergence of new species. For the evasive forms to give rise to new species, the exchange of genes between them must stop; that is, in one way or another, isolation conditions must develop that prevent crossing. Isolation can be any – evasive forms can reproduce in different places, at other times, on different forage plants — any restriction on the exchange of genes between states is suitable. If there is no such restriction, then a polymorphism is formed, or several different morphs within the same species. Darwin did not pay much attention to the problem of distinguishing species. He focused on the presence of transitional forms and varieties between species (Ward, 2018). Geographical races, or subspecies, represent local forms, quite definite and isolated. Still, since they do not differ significantly in noticeable or essential features, there is no other criterion than personal opinion to decide which of them to recognize as species and which as varieties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Charles Darwin undoubtedly did an extensive study of various species and their origin. Nevertheless, the findings that the scientist made are still controversial and give other theories to substantiate evidence against the idea put forward by Darwin. Darwin’s genius was manifested in the fact that he explained speciation by the action of natural selection, still knowing very little about the mechanisms of heredity. The modern theory of natural selection, which allows us to find those parts of the genome on which natural selection acted and use this knowledge to create new plant varieties and animal breeds, preserves the Darwinian approach to explaining the fitness of organisms in the environment. Nevertheless, the knowledge and concepts that were developed after Darwin are more often used. In recent years, Darwin’s theory of evolution has been substantially corrected or supplemented. But its cornerstone – the concept of natural selection – has not gone away and still serves as the foundation for the entire edifice of modern biology.

References

Quammen, D. (2004). Was Darwin wrong? No. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. National Geographic, 2(34), 1-13.

Ward, A. (2018-present). Evolutionary biology (DARWINISM) with John McCormack. [Audio podcast]. Web.

Evolution theory explains about the history and origin of life. Scientists of the early age tried to explain the origin of life but they did not have any theories that could support their thoughts. The reigning paradigm at that time was the, “Natural theology”. The naturalist of the time believed that everything in the world had a key role in the economic of nature and the credit was given to an intelligent creator. In 1809 a French scientist Jean Larmarck came up with the first mechanism of evolution which he called “The inheritance of acquired characteristics.” Using the salamanders to explain his theory, he argued that salamanders lived in grassland making it very hard to make use of their short legs. With time the leg muscles became wasted due to lack of usage. They eventually passed this trait to their offspring and thus the emergence of legless salamanders by the virtue of inheriting the characteristic of having no legs. This theory did not stand the test of time as he did not present any experimental evidence and as result his theory collapsed (Freeman 24).

Charles Darwin born on February 12, 1809 in England became the most famous scientist for his theories of evolution. His first profession was medicine which he found hard to cope with. One major reason that made Darwin become more interested in life is his health condition where he suffered from sea sickness. As he grew up, he was a good reader of nature books and he spent most of his time exploring the environment around him collecting samples of plants and insects. Like all scientist he believed that life originated from a common ancestor gradually over millions of years (Darwin 3).

Darwin served as a naturalist on a British science expedition from 1831 to 1836. In 1831, he embarked on a journey to South America to carry out surveying work. In his trip, he read “Principles of geology,” by Charles Lyell which made him become interested in land forms (Darwin 10). He observed the aftermath of earth quakes and also the fossil shells of marine organisms. He supported the idea of Lyell that over time, earth quakes and Geologic processes would change land forms. He also realized that the species on the land had to adapt to this changes. He explored remote regions where he collected and recorded notes on plants, animals and fossils of extinct animals that were similar to modern species. As the expedition extended to different places, Darwin kept on collecting samples for further studies. It was in the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean that he noticed variations among plants and animals of the same type as those he had observed in South America.

In 1836, he returned to England where he spent considerable time conducting research and analysis on the samples that he had collected. Charles had collected finches from the Galapagos Island for his experiment. This helped him to form the ideas on natural selection. He sent this specimen to a bird’s specialist who reported that he had collected 13 similar but separate species of finches. (Darwin 20).

He observed that birds of this island were different from birds of another island in respect to the beak shape, the source of food and how it was captured. He discovered that this was as a result of the different environments the birds lived in. Birds in the different environments had variances in the shape and the size of their beak.

These variances were based on the kind of foods that the birds were feeding on. The birds had to adapt to their new environments and gradually they changed automatically in such a way that they were able to feed and reproduce. (Darwin 26).

Birds that had beaks suited for eating cactus survived in the arid areas while the ones that had beaks suited for nectar survived in different environment. Studies on the fossils that he had collected led to the classification of the remains of extinct mammals. He spent several years looking for evidence on his fossil record. His experiment involved fossils of different ages and he observed that fossils of relative ages were closely related than fossils of other relative ages. He compared the homologous structures, vestical organs and embryological developments of living species. He observed the changes in the domestic animal and plant breeds besides his personal breeds and experiments on seed dispersal.

In reference to the similarities observed in the finches, Darwin concluded that they had a common ancestor. The similarities between the fossils of the mammals and the modern mammals led him to believe that species changed overtime. (Freeman 34).

He observed that evolution actually occurred and that it was gradual over a long period of time. He also observed that evolution mechanism occurred through a process of natural section and that the different species today originated from one ancestor through a branching process called speciation. He noticed that in the process of natural selection, the animals or plants with characteristics best suited to their environment were more likely to survive and reproduce while the weak ones became extinct. He called this survival for the fittest. The desirable characteristics were passed on to the offspring and with time, they became common and this brought change to the species. If these changes were strong and dominant then they could produce a new species.

In 1938, Charles read, “The Essay on the principle of population” by Thomas Malthus (Darwin 16). The ideas of Malthus influenced Darwin in how the populations competed for resources in order to survive. Resources are scarce and the population therefore had to compete for them. Competition meant that the weak species would die making the individuals with advantageous variations to survive and reproduce.

In 1959, Charles Darwin published his theory to explain the origin of life in the entire human, animal and the plant species in a book he called, “The origin of species”( Freeman 28). His paradigm of natural selection depicts that life came from one common ancestor and it is also related.

This theory argues that life developed from non-life through a process of natural selection. The process of natural selection explains that complex creatures evolve from simple creatures over time, by the preservation of advantageous mutations that guarantee survival. (Darwin 30).

Complex organs are formed following numerous successful slight modifications. As the process of natural selection progresses, the inferior species are faced out.

Charles believed that variations were not as result of the environment but that they were already inexistence. Nature selected unconsciously individuals and plants suited for its conditions. In the natural process, the favorable traits in the species are passed on to the other generations through reproduction.

In summary, the process of evolution according to Darwin is characterized by variations in every population; species have to compete for the scarce resources, the species reproduce offspring with traits suitable for survival, the offspring bear genetic traits and that survival and reproduction is based on the natural selection (Darwin 46).

Darwin’s theory was faced with challenges. His paradigm was followed by opposing paradigms such as the interpretation by the religious bodies. It was met with mixed reactions especially by the religious bodies who believed that life was as a result of God’s creation as explained in Bible in the book of genesis. The theory therefore suggested that God had not created perfect creatures in the beginning. The idea of changes in the species collided with the Christian faith where humans had a special place in the world and superior to all other living things (Darwin 40). This brought the paradigm of, “Intelligent design”. This paradigm tries to link science and theology. The intellectual movement tries to challenge the naturalistic evolutionary theories by trying to bring understanding of the divine action. This paradigm brings to surface why the significance of miracles should be considered in evolution and also points out he questions that were not addresses in the natural theology.

Darwin unlike his predecessors brought forth a contribution that had gathered indisputable evidence. This theory overshadowed believes that life came from ancestral Gods. Darwin was able to accompany his theory with tested experiments which supported his studies a great deal. Many scientists became convinced that life was as a result of natural selection. This theory is still relied upon by the modern scientist (Freeman 48).

Work Cited

Charles Darwin. The Origin of the Species By Means Of Natural Selection.Uk John Murray: 1959, (03-48).

Darwin’s theory of evolution. Web.

Derek Freeman. The evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. London: Taylor $Francis, Vol 15, 1974 (24-55).

Darwin’s theory of evolution, while providing a new perspective on topics like natural selection, genealogy and genetics, used to be a subject of various controversies. As a matter of fact, Charles himself was aware of the outrage his beliefs would spark. His work would trigger a number of questions regarding the theological theory of evolution and lead to severe unrest in society and scientific communities.

There are two main reasons why Darwin’s ideas could be perceived as dangerous by his contemporaries: the religious and societal aspects. The two reasons merge, as the society Charles lived in relied on the belief that God created life. He acknowledged that by publishing his research, he would face ridicule and outrage, as the views presented in the book challenged the theological theory.¹. The scientist knew that the concept of the existence of one common ancestor and the idea of natural selection was a striking contradiction to the aforementioned perspective, as it risked invalidating the role of God and religion in contemporary society. Nevertheless, Origins was published, thus, triggering a revolution in society.

Piers J. Hale’s essay, “Rejecting the Myth of the Non-Darwinian Evolution”, expands on the discussion by explaining the complications surrounding the depiction of that period and Darwinism in general. Referencing Robert J. Richards’ book, The Meaning of Evolution, he supports the belief that the concept of the “non-Darwinist revolution” is misled by ideological bias. In Hale’s opinion, said bias invalidates the many supporters of Darwin’s theory.². The essay is concluded by emphasizing the need to define Darwinist and Darwinism. It may be misguided by a false category that provides a more vivid depiction of historiographic context than that of the Victorian era or the present.

Bibliography

“Evolution”: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Directed by David Espar, Susan K. Lewis, and Alastair Reed, 2002.

Hale, Piers J. “Rejecting the Myth of the Non-Darwinian Revolution.” Victorian Review 41, no. 2 (2015): 13-18.

Footnotes

1. “Evolution”: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Directed by David Espar, Susan K. Lewis, and Alastair Reed, 2002.
2. Hale, Piers J. “Rejecting the Myth of the Non-Darwinian Revolution.” Victorian Review 41, no. 2 (2015): 13-18.

In general, a variorum may be regarded as a specific work that unites all variants of the same text. Used for textual criticism, a variorum allows to track changes and textual decisions made by an author. On the one hand, a variorum may be regarded as a valuable historical method – as texts traditionally reflect the cultural, social, and scientific realities, their changes indicate the shifts in these processes as well. Moreover, a variorum is also a beneficial approach to scientific texts as it demonstrates how a scientist’s views and perceptions have been changing throughout a particular period of time. As the purpose and advantage of a variorum were addressed during a lecture, the purpose of this paper is to apply received knowledge on practice using the Online Variorum of Darwin’s work.

In relation to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, a variorum shows how the author changed his work from one edition to another, indicating additional factors that determined these changes. For instance, in the edition of 1859, Darwin wrote: “From these several considerations and from the many special facts which I have collected, but which I am not here able to give, I am strongly inclined to suspect that, both in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, an occasional intercross with a distinct individual is a law of nature.”¹ At the same time, in the edition of 1872, he provided the following text: “From these several considerations and from the many special facts which I have collected, but which I am unable here.. to give, it appears that with animals and plants an occasional intercross between distinct individuals is a very general, if not universal, law of nature.”² On the one hand, both texts have a close meaning – on the other hand, these variants indicate the change in the author’s perceptions on the basis of external factors.

In general, later editions may be characterized by the minimization of categorization. In other words, Darwin replaced all statements related to his certainty with more neutral variants. This shift indicates the development of scientific theories that presuppose the discovery of new data. First of all, the author admitted that nature is not simple – thus, it is impossible to make peremptory statements.³ In addition, the introduction of new scientific research initiated multiple studies dedicated to the same topic. In this case, when other authors updated or confronted Darwin’s theses, he had to make corrections. This notion is supported by the fact that the author’s later editions include the results of other researchers.

In addition, a variorum allows to evaluate the author’s view of the world and science using a particular concept. In this case, the concept of monstrosities was chosen due to its significance for natural selection. According to Darwin, monstrosities are generally injurious and non-useful deviations of structure. Reflection on the reasons for their occurrence in both wild nature and domestic production, the author underlines the impact of unfavorable conditions that affect a species’ individual characteristics and lead to monstrosities in a state of nature. It supports Darwin’s statement that nature may be characterized by the highest complexity.

Bibliography

Bordalejo, Barbara. Online Variorum of Darwin’s Origin of Species: First British Edition (1859).

Levine, George. “The Prose of On the Origin of Species.” In Darwin the Writer (Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, 2012), 1-30.

Footnotes

1. Barbara Bordalejo, Online Variorum of Darwin’s Origin of Species: first British edition (1859), 101.
2. Ibid.
3. George Levine, “The Prose of On the Origin of Species,” in Darwin the Writer (Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, 2012), 2.

From the reading, it is clear that the author talks about two personalities, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, who have contributed immensely in shaping the modern world. Both men were born on February 12 1809, one to a rich British family and the other to a poor American family (Gopnik 2), but they went ahead to develop great ideas that continue to shape the modern world especially in the sciences and political domains. The present paper is a reaction to the reading.

There are several important themes that can be found in this particular reading. From the onset, it is evident that author is interested in showing how the two men – Lincoln and Darwin – contributed in shaping the modern thought and processes using the evolutionary lens. To demonstrate the evolutionary perspective, the author first introduces the concept of vertical organization of life to show how life was prior to the contributions of these men. In this structure, there is “a hierarchy of species on earth, descending from man on down toward animals, and a judge appraising us up in heaven” (Gopnik 2).This form of hierarchical structure, in my view, was central in reinforcing the social ills affecting mankind during this era, including slavery, as some individuals viewed themselves superior to others. While Lincoln fought hard to change the status quo and introduce democratic institutions in the United States, it remains unclear how the vertical organizational structure is any different from Darwin’s theory of evolution particularly in reference to humans and primates as the theory seems to acknowledge that modern-day people evolved vertically from the primates.

Exemplifying further on the vertical organizational structure which was predominant prior to the major contributions of Lincoln and Darwin, this author argues that people had a perception that the types “of organisms they saw on earth had always been here and always would be, that life had been fixed in place since the beginning of a terrestrial time that was thought to go back a few thousand years at most” (Gopnik 2). Although this statement is intended to demonstrate how life has generally evolved owing to the immense contributions of Darwin in the sciences and Lincoln in politics and democracy, it lacks merit as there were other sources of knowledge, including the Bible, that could be used to effectively demonstrate that life was not “fixed in place” as argued by the author. It is undeniable that Darwin and Lincoln contributed significantly to the establishment of modern thought, but other rulers and philosophers before them had also contributed immensely to this debate, hence it is incorrect for the author of this reading to use shallow perspectives to superimpose his own concept of how modern thought has been affected by the two men.

The next point of interest is that it is unconvincing, in my view, to use the evolutionary perspective as deployed by the author of this reading to show how governments across the world have evolved over the years, from autocracies to democracies. The author suggests that prior to the immense contributions made by Lincoln and Darwin to modernize the world, “societies without inherited order were intrinsically weak, unstable and inclined to dissolve into anarchy or tyranny” (Gopnik 2). While this statement may be valid based on evidence and experience, we still have perceived democratic governments that engage in tyrannical rule, and modern-day slavery is rife in some countries especially in the Middle East. Just as was the case in the early days when some people thought that it was acceptable or tolerable to take blacks toward Christianity (Gopnik 3), Western-based Christian organizations today continue to spread the doctrine to people of other faiths in spite of the fact that such a practice is not only wrong but also undemocratic. Consequently, the modern changes this particular author attributes to the contributions of Lincoln, in my view, are not evolutionary in scope and practice.

As suggested by the author, it is correct to hold the view that both Darwin and Lincoln were instrumental in facilitating people’s understanding that “the world was very, very old, and that the animals and plants in it had changed dramatically over the eons – and though just how they had changed was still debated, the best guesses, then as now, involved slow alteration through a competition for resources over a very long time” (Gopnik 3). Darwin’s theory of evolution has a concept of ‘survival for the fittest’, whereby species which are well endowed to compete for the scarce resources from the environment will survive at the expense of those with less capacity to compete. It is also true there is competition of resources between and among democratic countries for survival and stability as envisaged by Lincoln. However, as opposed to the evolution concept envisaged by Darwin, the rise and competition of democratic countries and institutions as envisaged by Lincoln is largely associated with the concept of emancipation.

The author is partially correct to argue that though Lincoln and Darwin did not constitute the modern world, they nevertheless assisted greatly in establishing our moral authority “by becoming icons of free human government and slow natural change” (Gopnik 3). It is also correct for the author to suggest that while Lincoln represents liberal democracy and a faith in armed republicanism and a government of the people as envisaged in modern societies, Darwin is instrumental in demonstrating how humans have evolved over time and how they continue to compete over scarce resources, hence developing various adaptation methods to remain competitive (Gopnik 4). However, in my view, other pressures and factors have been involved in shaping the modern world; hence it would be imprudent to argue that all of our moral authority is wholly predicated upon the contributions of these men.

Overall, therefore, it can be argued that the reading has effectively illuminated the immense contributions of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, but it is weak in associating their contributions to the evolutionary changes that the world continues to experience in the sciences as well as in the political and/or democratic front. The author does well to underline the fact that these men were mere mortals (Gopnik 5); however, he attempts to establish a linkage between their contributions and the direction that the modern world has taken without providing valid evidence to show that the world would have been different if Darwin and Lincoln never came to the scene. In my view, such a linkage should be established using evidentiary data and information rather than mere prose, and should also involve other important personalities that have contributed immensely in shaping the modern world.

Of course it is clear in our minds that Darwin helped to change how individuals perceived the natural history of the earth and that the end of slavery, initialization of free human-oriented democratic government, and the internalization of democratic institutions was occasioned by Lincoln. Indeed, their major breakthroughs can be termed as evolutionary in nature and scope. However, people need to debunk the idea that the two were singularly involved in the development of the moral authority that governs the modern world as espoused by the author of this reading.

Works Cited

Gopnik, Adam. “Twin Peaks.” Smithsonian. 39.11 (2009): 1-5. Academic Search Premier. Web.