Category: Charles Darwin

Darwin’s theory of evolution stands out among many theories. It has been in existence for a long time despite the fact that it has been controversial in many ways. However, that does not negate the fact that Darwin contributed greatly in the filed of science as well as in other related fields, which are inclusive but not limited to biology, geology, paleontology and genetics.

His theory explains that new species are formed through natural selection as illustrated in the studies of Bowler (pp. 8). It is important to note that the popular theory of evolution was not only opposed by religious people but also by scientists. However, some of the scientific controversies reduced, especially after various studies were conducted in search for evidence. Nevertheless, the theory is still controversial even to date. Based on that fact, this essay shall focus on major controversies concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.

Given that Darwin’s theory on evolution is controversial, it is important to try and understand reasons that contribute to the same. It illustrates that human beings and animals originates from a similar ancestor. Darwin illustrated that initially, human beings were ape-like creatures and have been evolving since they came to being. The fact is demeaning as it illustrates that there is no big difference between people and the higher animals. Apart from that, the theory was opposed as it threatened to change the tradition religion, which also explains the origin of life on earth. For instance, it provided a different world view bearing in mind that creation story in Genesis illustrates that everything on earth was created by God.

A critical analysis of the theory reveals that it contradicts itself. For instance, Darwin embraced the fact that human mind could be trusted in scientific interpretations but had a lot of trouble believing that the same mind could come up with sound religious interpretations. Moreover, there are a lot of issues that are not explained comprehensively. For example, it was not possible to explain why some good qualities of human beings managed to survive while there were other harsh and strong qualities.

Understanding some concepts of the evolution theory is also a major problem especially in the current age characterized by various developments in the scientific field. Instead of solving the controversy, new research is complicating the issue even further. For example, it is not logic to believe that the main reason behind human beings’ survival is for the sole purpose of conservation of human genes. Secondly, Darwin estimated that natural selection requires about four fifty billion years to take place. The issue is controversial since it is estimated that the age of the earth is less than four fifty billion years. The fact creates another doubt as it hard to believe the fact that natural selection has already taken place (Bowler pp.9).

Although there are many theories which explain the origin of the earth, Darwin’s theory evokes strong responses due to the fact that it opposes religion and it does not meet all the requirements of a scientific theory. This is the sole reason why it has been criticized by religious people and scientists as well. Instead of solving the questions that human beings have concerning origin, it increases the questions and doubts concerning the same issue. In addition, as technology continues to improve and some disciplines like molecular biology continues to improve, even Darwin confessed that it is absurd to believe that some parts of the body like ears and eyes have come about through natural selection.

It is a fact that all theories are always criticized, but Darwin’s theory has been over criticized. The life of Darwin is also a major contributor to the controversy. For a long time, Darwin kept his religious beliefs concealed and although his family members were Christians, it is not clearly illustrated whether he ascribed to the faith.

On the other hand, although he never responded directly to the religious views, his theory was against the Christian views. His autobiography illustrated that he had attempted to study theology though he was later overtaken by his scientific discoveries. It has been treated differently in relation to other theories due to the fact that it touched on very sensitive issue regarding science and religion. Since time immemorial, science and religion have never been in agreement although both serve the same purpose of explaining the origin of life (Bendz Para 3).

There are many reasons why people are always reluctant to go by the Darwin’s theory of natural selection. His natural selection idea has been considered dangerous by several authors who came after him. According to Bowler, (pp.178) the theory did not only threaten the religious views, but it went far much beyond the scope of a scientific theory. Apart from lowering the status of man, it negates the fact that God is really responsible for all the creation that is present on earth. Up to date, the theory still creates major conflict as a lot of people believe that a supernatural being is responsible for the origin of life on earth.

However, accepting the evolution theory does not mean that someone has rejected religion. This is due to the fact that the Darwin’s theory is not mainly about the existence of God, but its main focus is to explain the origin of life. In addition, the Bible contains some evidence concerning Darwinism. For instance, the creation theory in Genesis explains that the earth has been in existence for along time. Similarly, Darwin’s theory holds the same stand as it explains that the current species have been evolving for a long time. As much as many Christians believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is dangerous to religion, it is God who gives human beings wisdom and knowledge to conduct various scientific studies.

Works Cited

Bowler, Peter, J. Charles Darwin: the man and his influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.

Bowler, Peter, J. Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Print.

Bendz, Fredrik. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. 1998. Web.

Describe what biological anthropology entails. What is the main concept studied and why? Biological anthropology is also called physical anthropology. In your opinion, why did the name change from physical to biological?

Humankind and all its forms constitute the main subject of anthropology studies. However, unlike all the other studies of humankind, such as sociology, psychology, and history, anthropology also entails the “inner workings of a group of people who hold different worldviews, values, and traditions” (Stanford, Allen, & Anton, 2008, p. 3). Several of the main concepts which anthropology operates with are evolution, hominid, biological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, biocultural anthropology, culture, language, etc. All these concepts are essential for anthropology and studying them helps to discover new facts about humankind and understand them better. Biological anthropology is mostly referred to as physical anthropology because the data it operates with (such as fossils, for instance) are physical.

How did Jean Baptiste Lamarck’s view of evolution differ from Charles Darwin’s view of evolution? What are the main parts of each?

Views on evolution are numerous with Charles Darwin’s and Jean Baptiste Lamarck’s being the opposite ones. Lamarck’s views on evolution “emphasized the inheritance of features acquired during an organism’s lifetime” (Beard, 2006, p. 33). Unlike Darwin who claimed that the organisms have survived due to the process of natural selection (when only the strongest and resistant to the environmental changes organisms can survive), Lamarck affirmed that living organisms developed from simple to complex forms, and during this process, they changed from one species into the other, as well as they altered their behaviors under the impact of the environment. Moreover, unlike Darwin who posited that natural selection takes place due to random variations, Lamarck stated that living organisms constantly develop and strive for perfection with their species being formed by the environment.

Name and discuss two people who preceded Darwin and helped his ideas of evolution. What did each one do? How does each idea fit in with Darwin’s idea?

Darwin’s theory of evolution was largely influenced by the ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell. These two people are regarded as the founders of uniformitarianism geology (Stanford, Allen, & Anton, 2008). The geological findings of Hutton and Lyell refuted creationist ideas about the Earth’s formation. At this, they have never denied divine intervention into the Earth’s creation. This resulted in advocating the theory known as catastrophism “in which cataclysmic disasters were believed to have wiped out earlier forms of life on Earth” (Stanford, Allen, & Anton, 2008, p. 18). This had a primary influence on Darwin’s ideas about the emergence of living organisms because it shifted the view on the Earth’s creation from the biblical one to a humanistic and evolutionary one.

Discuss the subfield of linguistics. How do you think it fits in with biological anthropology and human evolution?

Within one of its subfields, namely, the linguistic one, anthropology studies functions, forms, and social context of language (Stanford, Allen, & Anton, 2008). The subfield of linguistic anthropology is often considered a subfield within cultural anthropology, though its relation to biological anthropology and human evolution also cannot be denied. Linguistics may fit in with biological anthropology and human evolution because the language has accompanied humans throughout their development over multiple generations, which means that it should be studied together with evolutionary concepts.

Reference List

Beard, C. (2006). The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey: Unearthing the Origins of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Stanford, C., Allen, J.S., & Anton, S.C. (2008). Exploring Biological Anthropology: The Essentials, Second Edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

Introduction

In this essay, I will argue that Charles Darwin’s seminal biological work is of inestimable importance to society. Released more than half a century ago, Darwin’s academic work On the Origin of Species significantly influenced nineteenth-century philosophical worldviews and even overturned the conventional understanding of the world order as previously defined by religious or pseudoscientific concepts. This essay consistently answers questions about the basic content of Darwin’s teachings, their revolutionary nature, and the effect the book had on society.

Main body

Darwin’s scientific work’s foundation was the visible phenomenon of biological diversity observed among populations of living creatures. The naturalist was among the first to make the bold assumption about life’s evolution and the genetic relationship between all organisms (Worrall). Darwin’s key assumptions, influenced by the British economist Malthus, were the connection between population growth and the resources necessary for survival (King 2). In his book, in particular, the scientist noted that a high reproduction rate coupled with a low mortality rate would result in unlimited growth over geological time. At the same time, the population proper increases geometrically, and in some cases, exponentially. It follows from these words that the ideal population model is capable of infinite growth, but this phenomenon is impossible in practice. The brakes on any population’s growth are biological factors, including mutations, the number of resources and competition, and ecological ones.

The question of variation and biological mutations has become another important milestone in the study of evolution. Charles Darwin observed that modern descendants differ from ancestral forms in both external and internal structures. An explanation for this phenomenon could be the accumulation of useful mutations that allowed organisms to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For instance, a textbook illustration of such a bioprocess is the darkening of the London butterfly’s coloration caused by the widespread industrialization of society a century ago. Toxic fumes and smog caused the darkening of tree bark, which forced the butterflies to change their coloration: the white insects could no longer survive on the dark surface because of predatory birds, then only the dark ones remained.

Finally, approaching the hypothesis of natural selection, Darwin also traced the tendency for descendants to retain their ancestors’ traits. It is heredity, according to Darwin, that underlies the similarity between parent and child. The mathematical justification for this hypothesis can be seen in Mendel’s genetic laws, which formally showed exactly how the following generations could receive genes from their parents. When an embryo is formed, in particular, parental and maternal gametes fuse, leading to the formation of common, integrative phenotypic traits (Boundless 2). All of this together led Darwin to conclude that the source of evolution and its driving force is natural selection. This process concentrates on such concepts as mutation, accumulation, the struggle for existence, and survival.

Indeed, such a naturalistic explanation of life could not but cause serious controversy and debate. Darwin’s theory was extremely skillful in answering the question of the origin and development of life, linking the traits of modern humans with those who lived decades and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the academician managed to find an incredibly complete and mechanical interpretation to such a complex philosophical question. Certainly, such an approach could not satisfy Charles Darwin’s contemporaries, who were deeply convinced of the truth of the world’s religious or supernatural nature. The fact that the biological world probably evolved according to Darwin’s way caused dissonance and denial in society, caused by contradictions with their usual picture of the world. It is worth recalling that by then, most people were convinced of alternative biological theories of the origin, such as vitalism, creationism, or stationary existence hypotheses. Nevertheless, the revolutionary work on the origin of species eventually gained incredible popularity and public acceptance to the point of being taught in secondary schools. It was a clear paradigm shift in society in which a worldview based on supernatural, incomprehensible forces and energies was displaced by a rationalist, logically rigorous doctrine of sequential biological processes.

Darwin’s writings influenced not only the academic community but beyond it. The boldness and radicalism that natural selection brought to a traditionalist, conservative society caused a philosophical paradigm shift in the perception of humans in the universe. A religious culture formed and solidified before the publication of revolutionary teachings viewed humans as the link of creation and the pinnacle of power in the universe. Religious teachings defined human individuals’ resemblance to God’s image, which in itself meant their superiority of them over the rest of the natural world. However, Darwin transformed this culture by showing that the world was, in fact, the product of random mutations and biological errors. Indeed, this concept greatly diminished the significance of Homo sapiens for nature and certainly did not show humans as the pinnacle of divine creation.

It is a mistake to think that Charles Darwin’s writings are of local significance only for the nineteenth century. On the contrary, even in today’s world, there is an ongoing philosophical debate between the theological and evolutionist communities, with the latter using the academic’s concepts as arguments to prove their case. Moreover, the fact that natural selection is taught to students at an early age illustrates the general orientation of the modern academic community. Teachers and schools now prefer to talk about the testimony and the paleontological evidence that argues Darwin is right. In reality, the concept leaves many justifiable questions, but it has more scientific evidence and integration with various fields of knowledge than any other.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it must be noted that Charles Darwin’s scientific work was truly revolutionary not only for the academic community. The idea of natural selection compiling mutations, accumulations, and struggles for existence served as a powerful cultural phenomenon, initiating a shift in the public theological paradigm. Darwin’s theory has become so deeply integrated into modern society that it is common in secondary schools and everyday discussions.

References

Boundless. “Mendel’s Laws of Heredity.”LibreTexts, 2020. Web.

King, Samuel Olugbenga. “Malthus, Erasmus, Agnosticism and Darwin: Reasons for the Massive Uptake of the Theory of Evolution as Explanation for the Origin of Life through Natural Selection.”n.d. Web.

Worrall, Simon. “What Darwin Didn’t Know About Evolution.”National Geographic, 2018. Web.

Charles Darwin established in his article Natural Selection that natural selection facilitates those individuals that are fit to dominate and to continue existing. This concept is illustrated as the key factor that makes a man be the most constant and dominant animal on the planet. This success is attributed to a number of diverse and dissimilar variables. Man, for instance, has been swift to adapt and succeed in different places under extreme circumstances. However, in the editorial, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin’s foremost dispute is that the poor should not be assisted. This commentary starts by illustrating the dissimilarity involving the spaceship ethic, where we may share available resources for all requirements and shares are equivalent. While in lifeboat ethics, we are not allowed to share resources and by exploiting this aspect we should not assist the poor.

Examining this article through Charles Darwin’s observations in Natural Selection it is imperative to understand that Hardin seems to suggest only the strong can save the weak. This is illustrated by the manner he describes lifeboat ethics. According to the aspects of Natural selection, lifeboat ethics presents the strong who have adapted the opposite traits of survival. Therefore, Darwin observed that there are those animals that remained dominant due to their adaptability traits. Thus, on the economic aspect, Hardin’s argument does not fully satisfy the scope of natural selection fully. Rather he suggests that the rich should avoid or ignore supporting the poor. Therefore, looking at his article as a metaphor would be critical in understanding his argument. Perhaps that is why he has argued for the preservation of the rich societies amidst the drowning poor citizens.

Darwin argument in Natural Selection may perhaps in a way though not entirely explain this phenomenon in part. According to the law of Natural Selection only the suitable species that are well suited to their surroundings tend survive. While on the other hand the weak species are either destroyed by nature or get dominated by the fit species. This is either through biological or physical influence. Examining the aspects of physical influences, the dominant species can easily overcome such issues like floods, diseases, droughts, or other natural challenges.

While we look at the article by Hardin we find that those in the lifeboat have overcome the physical challenges presented by nature. This illustrates why they have the resources of survival and they are the few while the majority are the one wallowing in diseases and poverty. He argues for the reason that we have limited resources, misfortune of commons and no true global government to manage reproduction and utilization of obtainable resources; we ought to manage our actions by the morals of lifeboat. And lifeboat ethics do not allow the poor to be assisted.

Therefore, in regard to Darwin argument it would be vital to compare Hardin’s observation with the aspects of Natural Selection. Looking at the section with sub-head “Adrift in a Moral Sea” we are presented with a metaphor of lifeboat. Here we are challenged to understand that the boat cans only accommodate 50 individuals. To be somehow generous the boat can accommodate additional 10 individuals. This illustrates the raw reality of natural supremacy in natural selection. However, when we examine the real scope of this article we find that Hardin characterizes the rich nations as the most dominant. Too, he seems to suggest that there are no sufficient resources to support all of us. He equally points out as is with the scope of natural selection the poor needs the rich before they can gradually adapt and swim away in safety.

However, unlike in Darwin argument Hardin fails to illustrate how many people are in reality described within “unlimited number”. Hence he attempts to influence the society by illustrating that it is impossible to help the poor. Using a flawed judgment of natural selection Hardin ignores the fact that helping is better than helping no one at all.

Reading Hardin’s article in the context of Natural selection one cannot fail to note the inconsistencies presented. According to the dynamics of natural selection only the fit survives. More so, those designed fit are not determined by their strength rather their adaptability dictates. For instance, Darwin establishes that diverse variables affect the very survival of a given species (Brown 76). Also he noted that the fit species can dominate and eventually control or eliminate the weaker species for their own survival. However, when exploring Hardin’s article we find a totally different approach to the scope of survival. This can be testified by the manner he creates his argument. By comparing the rich and the poor as well as attempting to justify the dominance of the few rich in the society. Thus, in regard to Hardin’s concept of lifeboat ethics we are presented with not the real natural selection per se but rather with elimination due to the scramble for the depleted resources. This is well illustrated by his depiction that either the boat passengers assists 10 more people and perish, or they ignore to assist anyone and sail safely away with the “safety factor” secure.

Interpretation

Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, is a controversial article by Garrett Hardin. Examining his argument against the real aspects of survival he shared his thought differently from the conventional wisdom. Unlike in the Natural selection by Darwin, Hardin thinks the rich have the mandate and the prerogative of assisting the poor at their own pleasure. This is well illustrated by what we terms as boat life ethics where the available resources are not shared as is with the spaceship ethics. The current society of capitalism has presented the human race with motley of challenges. This has seen the division between the rich few and the poor continue to widen. On the scope of natural resources the rich and mighty are stealing or taking away from the helpless poor. Exploitation has become the core foundation of capitalism.

Therefore, as Hardin notes, the rich are living within their secure comfort zones and they cannot accept to help the poor due to the fear of unsettling their safety. Equally, the rich have opted to remain afloat instead of drowning their boat for the sake of the struggling majority. The reason he fails to satisfy the aspects of Natural Selection as outlined by Darwin can be due to the fact that his argument is one sided. His principle argument illustrates that; for we have scarce resources, we should manage our activities according lifeboat ethics and avoid sharing the available resources. Where we have limited resources we should control the manner we utilize them. Hence, he builds his argument on the premise that survival can only be possible where excess passengers are avoided. As is illustrated in the sub-argument “Population Control the Crude Way” the poor if unchecked will continue to deplete the scarce resources and this would mean their requirements for assistance would also mount (Hardin 2).

Therefore, increasing the support does not suggest increasing the want for support. Equally, his position on aid and population is also unsound. With the underprivileged receiving more support, they will turn out to be wealthier. And if an individual or a country becomes better-off; it does not imply that the status of reproduction will continue at unchanged rate. So an increased population doesn’t necessary mean an increased need for aid.

That is why Darwin illustrates that the best suited species dominates but not necessary the strong. Thus comparing the two articles it is evident that one was drifting towards natural aspects of dominance while the other drifted towards elimination. Therefore, examining Hardin’s article through the Darwin approach the most outstanding element is that of social and economic elimination. This is testified by Hardin’s proposals in regard to population control, Immigration, Food Supply, and Learning the Hard Way.

In essence, the argument in some instances holds true to the Darwin aspects of natural selection. However, the author seems to have avoided any strong engagement with the real scope of survival. Hence, he asserts that on the dynamics of private ownership an individual is more responsible, while on communal ownership negligence may arise. I such instances he fails to offer solid direction. Thus, he reflects on the safety of the rich through ignoring the plight of the poor. The boat ethics can be compared to capitalism which has created man-eat-society.

This article, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” viewed from the angle developed in Darwin’s article Natural Selection presents a lot of crooked logic and ambiguous metaphors; it consists of ironies. Although the author now and then goes back to lifeboat metaphor, adeptly he rejects to mention and ignores the importance of providing the counter-measures necessary to steer the world to a more accommodating level of dealing with poverty.

Works cited

Brown, Bryson. Evolution: A Historical Perspective. NY: Greenwood, 2007.

Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”. Psychology Today. 1974. Web.

Evolution of mating essay

Charles Darwin formalized the evolution of mating many years ago. According to Darwin, mating involves numerous selection processes to reproduce viable offspring. Animals assess their mates as they look for ‘good genes’ to transfer to the next generation. Different scholars have supported Darwin’s notion of sexual selection. For instance, Adam Jones a Texas biologist beliefs female selection of potential mating partners depends on the genetic fitness of a male to increase chances of offspring survival. This explains why peahen submits to specific colored peacocks than others (Castagnone-Sereno,& Danchin, 2014, p. 1325).

The podcast has provided me with an impressive opportunity to learn about the evolution of mating. I was particularly amused when I realized that the sharks invented copulation. I can now appreciate how natural selection has played a significant role in influencing specific traits in the animal. I was also surprised to see how a male shark bites the female pectoral fin (the fin located behind the gill) and arches in a way that allows the male claspers to come into contact with the female genital. Basically, after communicating its intention to a receptive female, the male shark flexes one of the claspers and inserts it into the female cloaca allowing him to deposit sperms (Harrison et al., 2014).

Sexual reproduction has proven to be the best strategy that permits the combination of varied genes that allows the offspring to be more flexible and adaptable to changes in the environment. Before the evolution of sex, reproduction was asexual. Asexual offspring are genetically identical to the parent. Becks & Agrawal (2012) highlighted that asexual reproduction is efficient in transferring identical genes to the offspring without the need for a male. I was particularly amused by the fact that a single female has the potential to establish a new population that has identical genes in a very short duration. Although asexual reproduction is effective in transferring identical genes, species in this category cannot be flexible to changes in the environment (Park, Jokela, & Michalakis, 2010, p.1016). Asexual offsprings have similar genetic makeup which means they share the same genetic weak point. A population sharing the same genetic weak point can be eliminated by the same disease. For instance, if a virus attacks a population sharing similar genetic weak points, the entire population can be eliminated in a very short period ( Miller, 2001).

We have learned different concepts in class which was reflected in the podcast. For instance, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection was reflected in the selection of mating partners in sharks. According to Mostowy & Engelstädter (2012), Darwin maintains that they are specific ‘good traits’ individuals have over others(p. 2037). Males exhibit certain ornate features that attract female mates. These features were reflected by the brightly colored peacock.

In summary, this podcast has provided me with an impressive learning opportunity about the origin of copulation. Sexual reproduction allows offspring to bear varied genetic makeup thus increasing chances of adaptability to changes in the environment.

Discussion board post

The large size of the liger is due to the unequal genetic expression of the cross-breed genes. Typically, the genetic makeup of a liger affects the growth size and longevity of this animal. Since the genetic makeup is unequally shared, genes meant to control growth rate fail to determine when growth should stop. As a result, the liger experiences vigorous growth than normal cats. The big size of the liger is not adaptive but only makes the animal demand more food. The size could be adaptive if the species is facing significant predators since it would scare away any potential enemy. Nature allows this genetic to occur to transfer genetic traits to the next generation. The wholphin is the most interesting animal since it bears both characteristics of a whale shark and a dolphin.

First response

The liger is a cross-breed between a lion and a tiger. The cat has an unequal genetic expression that cannot control the growth rate. This explains why the liger experiences rapid growth within the first few months after birth. I agree the size of the cat is not adaptive since it requires more food to feed. The size can only be adaptive in the wild when the animal is facing predators. Naturally, hybrid animals are sterile. Nature allows such genetic make to exist to pass over ‘good gene’ to the next generation. Since the animal cannot reproduce, the genes come to a dead-end. I think the coywolf is the most interesting animal since it depicts the beautiful characteristic of a Coyote and a Wolf.

Second response

The hybrid liger is a cross-breed between a male lion and a female tiger. These crossbreeds result in the unequal distribution of genetic expression. Genetic confusion of DNA fails to control the growth rate resulting in the rapid development of the cat. I agree that big size is not an adaptive characteristic in the wild. The big size requires more food twice that of a normal lion or a tiger. The size of the animal can be considered adaptive in the wild if the animal is facing predation. Liger is sterile; however, nature allows such genetic traits to exist to transfer good traits to the next generation. I think the Cama is the most interesting animal since it is fertile, unlike other hybrid animals.

References

Becks, L., & Agrawal, A. F. (2012). The Evolution of Sex Is Favoured During Adaptation to New Environments. Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, 10(5), 1-11.

Castagnone-Sereno, P., & Danchin, E. J. (2014). Parasitic success without sex – the nematode experience. Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, 27(7), 1323-1333.

Harrison, E., MacLean, R. C., Koufopanou, V., & Burt, A. (2014). Sex drives intracellular conflict in yeast. Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, 27(8), 1757-1763.

Miller, G. (2001). The mating mind : how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York: Anchor Books.

Mostowy, R., & Engelstädter, J. (2012). Host-parasite coevolution induces selection for condition-dependent sex. Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, 25(10), 2033-2046.

Park, A. W., Jokela, J., & Michalakis, Y. (2010). Parasites and deleterious mutations: interactions influencing the evolutionary maintenance of sex. Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, 23(5), 1013-1023.

The essay Sexual Selection written by Charles Darwin is aimed at explaining the process sexual selection in various species and its relation to evolutionary forces. The author argues that certain physiological traits and behavior patterns of animals can be attributed to their “sexual struggle” and attempts to attract a partner (Darwin, 94).

Darwin uses description mode in order to substantiate his arguments. Overall, this essay can be regarded as an example of interpretive writing because Darwin strives to show there is a certain trend that can explain various sex differences in species.

This essay strives to attain a referential aim which is to explain a certain phenomenon. Charles Darwin advances a thesis according to which the development of species is significantly shaped by their willingness to achieve reproductive success.

The author believes that to a certain extent, the development of animals is shaped in two ways: through their struggles against same-sex rivals, mostly males, and through their attempts to “charm or excite” the member of the opposite sex (Darwin, 94). Darwin’s thesis represents a generalization of evidence that he managed to collect.

The writer admits that there are certain exceptions that he cannot account for, for example, lack of sexual differences in lower organisms (Darwin, 94). Furthermore, one should say that Darwin chooses formal and more academic language in order to maintain the accuracy and clarity of discussion. This strategy is consistent with referential aim of this essay. Overall, his evidence and line of reasoning are quite interesting, but they still require further examination.

The author presents his example mostly in the form of a description. For example, Darwin mentions pheasants that have long ornamental plumage of exquisite shading. Yet, their wings are entirely unsuitable for flight (Darwin, 95).

Darwin conjectures that this physical trait can be explained by the attempts of these birds attract the attention of the opposite side to their plumage (Darwin, 95). In his opinion, in the course of evolution pheasants’ wings and plumage were used primarily for courtship, rather than flight. Similar, male’s attempts to overpower the rivals of the same sex resulted in their development of certain body parts.

Overall, Darwin argues that such traits as strength of body, courage, various ornamental appendages, musical organs of birds can be the result of choices that both male and female animals made while selecting their partners (Darwin, 96). As it has been said before, his discussion of evidence is very thought-provoking, but there are several limitations.

For example, Darwin refers to pheasants in order to demonstrate that struggle for reproduction success shaped their physical traits. However, he does explain why a similar trait is not always observed in other birds. Besides, Darwin does not discuss the way in which other factors such as climate could have affected birds or animals. Hence, it is impossible to make a generalization only on the basis of evidence that Darwin provides.

On the whole, Darwin’s discussion of sexual selection may throw light on many of those physical and behavioral traits that are displayed by various animals, including humans. Nonetheless, one has to take into account that these traits might have been shaped by not only by sex struggles. The examples that Darwin gives are very convincing, but they are not sufficient for inductive generalization.

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. “Sexual Selection.” In The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed.

Michael Meyer. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. 94-96. Print.

Evolution theory as hypothesized by Darwin was a breathtaking relapse to the Christian community. However, the book “Christian and Science” gives an in-depth analysis of Darwin’s, and other theorists’ thesis’s about the evolution of man and survival tactics from a theological approach. One of the key questions that Haught is trying to ask is whether the nature of natural selection is self-sustaining as Darwin claims. Why the suffering of the survivors can be able to measure up to the demands of their surroundings. The revolutionary understanding of species is undoubtedly dated billions of years ago. How do these estimations fit in the plan of God and mean to a Christian? The author tries to relate how He comes to the man in the form of Jesus. He calls it the ‘descent of God’¹. Here God comes to the human race in a way that explains how He wants us to empty ourselves and be selfless. Not the survival tactics the species are to be subjected in their environment.

The descent of God reiterates the theology of evolution in which Jesus postulates himself as a slave and not as God. Therefore, God is of divine emptying. To empty oneself is the way God shows how humans need to be self-effacing and have a self-empowering concept of unconditional love. This is how God intends to identify himself with divine creation. Amazingly, one aspect we learn about God and evolution from the above argument is that he manifests His existence by having a self-revelation in Christ’s life here on earth. That’s why he chooses to live like a creature or a human being he created; to give a first-hand experience of suffering and how humans can deal with it. He comes under the realm of His made creatures and remains God. Hence this makes the theology of nature and the essence of the entirety of God’s Design in creation. This explains the far-reaching changes that God wants to show how cosmic existence and creation are. He can be able to show humility in the fundamental nature of His creation is a far-reaching reality that suggests the unending cosmic relation. The evolution of human beings cannot be dated; it is diverse in many billions of years. Hence, it is unfathomable endless unification of human life; a Trinitarian reality story of how God indents to redeem His creation. This means that God suffers along with His creation in a decent fashion.

The Darwinian Theory does not account for a real beginning or future of life. The existence of life or future is when God descents in person to us; to end the recurring suffering that He endured. When God comes at a certain time in history, it is an answer to the rhetorical questions about existence. Therefore, the edifice of evolution is time-bound and has a schedule. This shows that redemption is essential for the completion of this world which is evolving in sin. This completeness will be achieved when “Adamic Myth” concerning evil will be faced out². Haught brings an amazing revelation of how God relates to creation, how he correlates with his creation in the challenges that they face. Darwin postulates the suffering of creatures in an insensitive way that is mysterious and self-sustaining. Haught rather gives a clear cut between suffering and the essence of God’s involvement in His creation. God is proposed to be loving, full of humility; a God who suffered from the Israelites as they moved through the wilderness; a God who accepted to come down from heaven, live amongst people in the image of Christ, and in fact, taste the gleeful wrath of death. Not a cruel and inconsiderate God depicted by Darwin. The early Christians were able to discern the purpose of suffering, the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross. This means that the suffering of human beings has not been a solo experience but a corporate entity with the creator himself. An experiential form of shaping his creation to adjust positively to the shortcomings that come on the way, that is, the challenge of sin. Hence, the fact that we are still living in an unfinished universe; gives a graceful hope of redemption. The real grace of humility from a loving creator who experiences the challenges hand in hand with his creation. This was meant for the basic reason of bettering the lives of the creatures in a clear and self-satisfactory way. This means that creatures or human beings should be able to discern the true nature of their creator; the values He upholds and the sole purpose of creation. God does not want to be discreet, rather; he wants to clearly show how ‘self-humbling’ He is to his creation and hence establish a good rapport with an all-knowing creation.³

Hence, the main response that Haught gives about God is: God is involved directly with His creation in an infinite period that is full of suffering and challenges. God’s virtue of humility is manifested in His up-close and candid relation with his creation.

Bibliography

John, Haught. Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature. New York, NY: Orbis Books, 2007.

John, Haught. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1997.

Footnotes

1. Haught, John. Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature. (New York, NY: Orbis Books, 2007), 98.
2. Haught, John. Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature. (New York, NY: Orbis Books, 2007), 100.
3. Haught, John. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1997), 8.

Introduction

Among the works of john Dewey, The reflex arc concept has attracted much attention among people who have been studying psychology. The argument in his reflex arc concept was meant to bring more understanding on how people learn from the interaction with environment and how the process of the learning takes place. His argument described the relationship between what captures the attention of a human being before he acts (stimulus) and the act that follows (response). Understanding of the reflex act concept brought about what is today commonly referred to as functionalism, a term that will be described later in this paper. (Buckley, 2005)

The reflex arc concept in psychology

The reflex arc concept when properly understood simplifies the studies in the field of psychology. The reflex arc concept deals with the sensory stimulus involving observable things in terms of seeing and hearing, the sensory nervous system which involves the mechanism through which message is passed through the body system and motor discharge which enable the person to act in the proper way. The concept therefore explains a set of teamwork involving coordination of various parts like mind, eyes, hands and legs or any other body part that enables the person to respond in a particular way after receiving any information.

These parts; the sensory stimulus, the system connecting the central nervous system and motor discharge are not complete systems in themselves but function as a team sharing the labor in a single whole that is now referred to as a reflex arc. There exists coordination of these parts to bring about sensation of the stimulus which is followed by reasoning and the end result is the right movement. (Strauss, 2003)

Reflex arc concept is well illustrated using the child and candle experiment where ordinarily one would assume that, when a child approaches a candle and gets burnt, it is the light that starts the whole process by first capturing the attention of the child. Although this is basically the practical method of looking at it, the reflex arc concept represents the process in a different way because it argues that the start of the process is not the candle but the mind process in the child that makes him/her first have the interest in looking at the flame.

The interpretation of this argument is that the primary process is the movement of the head and the eyes before the candle is noticed while sensation of the candle is the secondary stimulus. The body movement especially around the head as well as the eye muscle largely determines the extent of the quality of what the person has experienced. This implies that the beginning of the whole experience is act of looking and seeing but not the sensation of the light by the child. (Parry, 2002)

From the above perspective, sensing and the resulting movement form the action that the child undertake after first making the effort of looking towards the direction of the flame. The primary looking thereafter stimulates another act of the child reaching the candle which is a confirmation that there is coordination between the two actions which aimed at forming more complex results. To be specific, the success in the work of the hand largely depends on its control and also its stimulation by the act of looking. When the child gets burnt, it becomes another sensory motor coordination not just a mere sensation but a completion of the coordination of the eye to hand that had already taken place. From the whole experience the child learns and also gains the ability in avoiding a similar experience in future. (Taylor, 2000)

In this case the flame takes the role of the sensor while the mind of the child undergoes the process that leads to the child reaching the flame which in this case is the response. The burning of the child becomes another sensor followed by a process in the mind and finally withdrawal of the hand which is the last response. This path followed by the impulse from the start of the process to the end is referred to as reflex arc.

According to Dewey, the general reflex arc in the nervous system of a human being comprises of 5 main parts. The receptor organ has the role of receiving the stimulus which is relayed to the central nervous system which comprises the spinal cord by some chemicals in the nerves. The stimulus is further passed on through the CNS by similar chemicals throughout the spinal cord which is later followed by relay of the stimulus out of the central nervous system through efferent neuron. The message is finally delivered to effectors’ organ such as hand through motor neuron. (Shibutani, 2004)

How reflex act concept guide people to adapt to environment

Reflex arc concept indicated that in all stages of learning, there is strengthening which occurs as a gradual process and this is attributed by the experience that the human being is going through out of the association between the stimulus and response. Complex behaviors including language are built from a series of basic connections brought about by a chain of actions in the surrounding environment over time. Sequences in a certain behavior therefore need to be planned and well organized in a way that a person can easily follow starting with the most simple behaviors to the more complex behavior depending on which behavior in intended to be leant.

An example of such an organization is when an individual is making a speech. The person starts by having the overall intention that prompts him to make the utterance which is followed by the syntax as well as the vocabulary and finally he or she produces the sounds which are a process learnt through experience. This is only achieved after an observation of such an action made by others in ones life and by interacting with others responding to any observation that one has made. (Green, 2001)

How reflex arc relates to Darwin’s evolutionary theory

According to John (2005) “Darwin’s theory of natural selection influenced john Dewey in his reflex arc concept through his work about the origin of species that a change about the way people used to think concerning human mind and whether it has been evolving to cope with changing environment over time.” In his argument Darwin considered environmental forces to be influential on natural selection of species favoring those species that are adapted to live in that environment. Darwin argued that if a species has adaptive characteristics in a given environment, it is able to pass them to its offspring but if it lacks these survival components then it undergoes extinction.

In relation to the work of Darwin, john Dewey’s view in his carrier focused on survival of species in a given environment. Dewey was in agreement with Darwin’s theory because he believed that the response of an organism in a given environment develops through an understanding on how to cope with the situation. John Dewey claimed that human beings must experience a series of circumstances and the works of the reflex arc at the same time. He argued that a person decides to take action only after making an observation and thereafter deciding on which action to take. (Taylor, 2000)

How reflex arc concept inspires functionalism

Functionalism is a school of psychological as well as philosophical thinking which had its origin in the Dewey’s reflex arc concept. It considers the study of mind as part of an organism that functions depending on what is exposed to it in the environment. A complex behavior is a prompted process going on in the mind of an individual dictating on how certain behaviors are carried out. The environment does the work of reinforcing the complex behaviors. (Parry, 2002)

Functionalism deals with studies involving intelligence test and experiments being used in testing the ability to solve problems in animals and later likened with human beings. It offered a major shift of perception of American psychology with its approach focusing on the functions of mind as well as behavior and not just its structure. The main focus in functionalism was on mental processes and how they relate to ones behavior. (Green, 2001)

Conclusion

Darwin’s work in his evolutionary theory brought about the much needed paradigm shift in American psychology and reduced the much influence of religious/dogmatic assumptions regarding the mind of the human being. It also influenced to a great extent john Dewey in his reflex arc in psychology which latter became very important in influencing functionalism; a movement that came to be very important between the year 1890-1910. Reflex arc concept brought the understanding that functioning of the human mind as well as behavior is largely determined by the experience he/she has passed through in the immediate environment repeatedly.

References

Buckley W. (2005): Sociology and modern system theory: Prentice hall.

Classics in the History of Psychology — Dewey (1896). Web.

Strauss A. (2003): Dewey’s reflex arc concept: Transaction publishers John Dewey. The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology

Shibutani T. (2004): An interaction Approach to social psychology: Transaction publishers Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species. Web.

Parry W. (2002): The reflex arc concept: University of Buffalo John Dewey 1896.

John M. (2005): Artificial reflex Arc: University of Chicago Soviet Psychology: Consciousness as a problem of behavior. Web.

Green L. (2001): Charles Darwin and modern science: Cambridge University press Man and his environment. Web.

Taylor G. (2000): The great evolutionary mystery: HarperCollins publishers. Web.

Field A. (2004): evolution and functionalism: University of Michigan press Chicago Functionalists.

Introduction

Mental development of a child is an interesting account, as noted in an article titled ‘A Biographical Sketch of an Infant’ by Charles Darwin in 1877. The article presents the stages of development of a child from childhood to about two years old. The article focuses mainly on observable expressions such as anger, fear, and happiness. However, the observations made can considerably differ from those made by other children. This paper gives an overview of the article.

Reflex reactions

As on the seventh day, the infant was responding to reflexes like reactions e.g., sneezing and yawning. The child also “showed feelings of sensitivity when touched at the sole, by curling the toes and jerking away” (Darwin 286). Further, a warm hand put on the face incited the urge of sucking. Regarding vision, the child stared at every object on sight. Further, the child winked the eyes when funny sounds were made. Winking of eyes is interpreted as a protection mechanism. However, vision and intuition were somehow connected. The child could sense the presence of the mother’s bosom more than four inches away, without necessarily seeing it.

Body Movements

Regarding the body movements, limbs and other body parts moved vaguely and purposelessly for a long time. However, the child developed a tendency to put fingers into the mouth before reaching 40 days. The child also tried to do the opposite of what was expected. For instance, “when a sucking bottle was put in the right arm, he would change it to the left arm” (Darwin 287). An interesting observation was made when objects were placed near the child at 132 days old. The child attempted numerous times to hold the object but failed. However, the child developed strength at two years and 4months to hold objects such as pencils.

Anger

Regarding anger emotions, clear observations were not made when the child first showed anger feelings. However, the child frowned immediately before crying. This was interpreted as a sign of distress or pain rather than anger. On the other hand, the child expressed emotions of discontent and unhappiness at ten weeks, so vividly by frowning his forehead whenever taking cold milk. At four months old, anger emotions were observed with ease (Darwin 288). The child screamed at a high pitch when unhappy and aggressively reacted when given a wrong playing tool. At 27 months, a child’s aggressiveness intensifies, and it’s seen when it pelts objects at the offender. However, aggressiveness was only noted in the boy child.

Fear

Regarding fear emotions, significant observations were made during the first weeks. The child looked startled by sudden sounds before crying. Abnormal sounds, such as loud noise, were horrifying and made the baby cry. In addition, unfamiliar figures also caused fear, as evident on its face. When taken to the zoo at two years and three months, the child was amused by the sight of birds and relatively small animals. However, big sized animals caused intense fear.

Pleasure and Happiness

Smiles and laughter indicate pleasure in children. The child first smiled at 45 days. Most of the smiles observed were when with his mother. The child often smiled when playful objects were thrown at him at 110 days old. Further, the child enjoyed jokes such as pinching the nose. In addition, the child showed signs of affection (Darwin, 289). Although unknown, how the child had the ability to distinguish his caretakers at four months old. Further, the child had a strong will to be close to his nurse at five months old. Sympathy feelings were evidenced when his nurse was sad or pretended to cry. Interestingly, the child showed jealousy feelings when attention was withdrawn from him and given to his sister.

Reason and Decision-making

Unexpectedly, the child showed practical reasoning and decision-making as early as 114 days old. The phenomenon was evidenced when the child slipped his hand to another persons’ finger in order to put its tip to the mouth. However, the child was amused by his image and that of his guardian in the mirror. Also, the child developed a habit of watching his image in the mirror. At the age of seven months, the child was amazed at seeing his guardian through the glass window. The guardian further noticed that the child had the ability to associate words with actions as early as five months old. This was evidenced by the mention of his nurse’s name. Every time the name was mentioned, the child would look around searching for her. Further, the guardian observed that at nine months old, the child had realized that any object causing a shadow was always behind.

Curiosity and Brain Development

As noted by M. Taine, curiosity leads to the development of brains in children. In this case, the guardian made no remarkable observation regarding the curiosity of the child. However, the child imitated sounds at four months old, and at eleven and a half months, the child could imitate almost all actions performed in front of him. In addition, the child had a good memory at three years and 23 days old, as evidenced when shown the picture of his grandfather. Although they had not met for six months, the child explained their last encounter vividly.

Moral Sense

The moral sense was first noted at the age of 13 months. At 13 months old, the child could protrude his lips, ready to get a kiss, and remained unmoved until it was given. Further, the child showed trickster characteristics by pretending to be angry in order to be given or give a kiss. However, the child was no different from other children. The form of drama common in other children was noted in this child. Ongoing to his room, the Guardian noted that the child had been eating sugar contrary to what he was told. Although the child had never been punished, the guardian noted that the odd look on the child’s face was due to fear of punishment.

Unconsciousness, Shyness, and Communication

Many children are known to be unconscious and shameless. This is noted by gazing at visitors for a long time without blinking. As the child grows, they become shy. The first sign of shyness was evidenced when the child was two years and three months old. In addition, different means of communication were noted when the child was eleven weeks old. Crying and squalling were the typical signs to show hunger, distress, and pain. Laughter was “first observed on the 113th day, although it is recorded much earlier in other children” (Darwin 293). At one-year-old, the child used gestures as a means of communication, such as pointing at objects. Interestingly, the child devised tonal variation when demanding for different things. For instance, when requesting for food, the words were interrogative.

Finally, a child expresses their needs through crying, screaming, or even gestures. A child also has a basic understanding of their guardians’ feelings through how they express them. When the “child was six months, he showed sympathy when his nurse pretended to cry” (Darwin 286). A child also develops the ability to relate the feelings of those around with what is happening.

Works Cited

Darwin, Charles. “A Biographical Sketch of an Infant.” Mind 2.2 (2015): 250-300. Web.

Adam Smith and Charles Darwin will be praised by generations and generations due to their intelligence in formulating various economic theories and ideas. However, the question of who between the two is the real intellectual founder of economics still lies in the minds of many people. This paper will address the main issues regarding the theory on the invisible hand by Adam Smith as well as assess the applicability of issues of the theory in real-life experience.

The message of the article regarding the invisible hand is to some extent a true picture of reality. Most of the arguments concerning the theory are correct and applicable in the social-economic arena. The concept of people practicing in a free market to produce the best is practical and thus a selling point of the theory. However, the theory has faced immense critics and skepticism concerning the behavior of businessmen to lure customers. Smith’s arguments on the rival businessmen having stronger incentives are more realistic than, Darwin’s idea of greed. In this case, it is evident that; competition between businessmen doesn’t go to their benefit rather the consumer due to reduced prices and immense incentives.

From another perspective, the results of the theory are however devastating and require control and regulation. Additionally, the idea by Adam smith that the free practice of businessmen will be for a common good is unrealistic. In order, to ensure fairness; regulations must be enforced in the market to avoid exploitation or unfair completion. Further, the theory on the invisible hand is perceived to be controversial in the argument that competition favors qualities and conduct and thus led to individual success, not group success or other species. According to Smith, qualities that enhance individual suitability sometimes support group welfare. On the contrary, relative performance is a key determinant to the success of individual or group interests. On this basis, the theory on the invisible hand is greatly challenged. In his case, the magnitude of success is proportional to the risk taken.

The issue of the invisible hand is applicable in real-life experience in; culture, politics, society, or international relations. The behaviors of human beings are guided by personal interests which is similar to the concept of the invisible hand. In this case, issues in politics, international relations are directly induced by an individual or group interest; whereby the success is a product of the traits and the behaviors of the various parties. However, the issue of regulations is very vital since it will ensure fairness and avoid exploitation of the less fortunate.

The issue of the applicability and viability of smith’s theory on the invisible hand is still a matter of discussion. Based on this, the class should further debate on the relevance of the theory; whereby the following questions will be debated. First, what are the main strong points on the viability of the theory of the invisible hand? Secondly, what are the major critics or shortcomings of the theory on the invisible hand by Adam Smith? It should be noted that the class discussion will help in clearing any controversy about the theory.

From the above analysis, it is noted that the theory of the invisible hand by Adam Smith has raised many questions about its viability. Some scholars have acknowledged the theory while many others have disagreed with smith’s ideas. Importantly, it should be considered that regulations are inevitable for the existence of fair play in the market or any human venture.