HELP????????Darwin's Social biological theory?????????

Question

can any1 explain the social biological (evolutionary)theory to me pleeeeez, im tryna do my psychology course work and i cant find it anywhere

Answer 1

Darwin believed in "Natural Selection" meaning that the reason creatures including humans survived is through adapting to environmental and social changes that have occured over millions of years. The species who could not adapt to sudden climate change eg:the ice age were killed off but a small percentage survived through for example growing thicker hair, and surviving on less food etc.They then mated with this stronger species to create a stronger breed and so on. He basically believed in "survival of the fittest." i know its short but i hope ive helped!

Answer 2

In a nutshell, social Darwinists extend the principles of natural selection in the natural world to the world of human societies. They see social hirearchies as the natural order of things as a result of thousands of years of competition between human beings for resources. Genetic traits which assist with resource hording like assertiveness are then called "fit" traits and sociobiologists say that the people in power in a society controlling most of the resources are more genetically fit than those lower down in the social order.

Answer 3

Darwin's evolutionary theory 'survival of the fittest' those who held the strongest of genes survived. He gave this theory not just for humans but for the animal world too

Answer 4

Keypoint has given you enough to work on.You may wish to ponder that resource accumulation does not necessarily support fitness to rule/dominate. Being born into huge wealth, ( a Bush), or stealing another countries oil reserves, imparts power regardless of any evolutionary process I can imagine. Winning the Lottery, or being born as a Royal does not suggest fitness of any description.

Answer 5

Dead easy.

If you evolve 5hit traits that affect how well you can live you will die. those that evolve better traits do better that the others and they thrive. therefore their genes are passed on and they become the dominant species. eventually all the genes are the same (because all the inferior ones are dead) and there is only one set of genes to pass on.

PS What has Darwin's T of E got to do with psychology?

Answer 6

Apparently (I heard on the radio today) all of Darwin's works are now available on a Cambridge University website. I'm sorry i don't know the address but i hope it helps!

Answer 7

many of the comments above are a bit off the mark in my opinion. Darwin NEVER promoted social darwinism - the idea that society reflects the "selfish gene" and that genetics dictate our position in society. The connections that people made between technological advances and our genes changing is just wrong. If that's what you're asking about (its a little unclear) then its a complete different argument!

First, the background - Darwin came to much of his opinions when on the Galapagos islands and looked at the way some animals seemed to be perfectly suited to their environment - birds had longer beaks to feed from deep holes in some of the rocks. He came to the conclusion that creatures evolved over time - small mutations occured in animal genes over millions of years. Now, some of these mutations were useless (to use a glib example a third nipple on a shark)- and those genes didn't succeed. Others gave creatures advantages and those animals succeeded - gradually becoming the dominant type of the animal. This process was (and is) ongoing but it's dragged over millions of years and so when we look at it at any one point (as in now) it seems that we've arrived at the end point. Hence some of the difficulties people have with this evolution. Creationists see what seems like a perfectly evolved creature and conclude that god created the animal like that.

The idea that "mums would have eyes in the back of their heads" - serves to confuse the issue. I'd argue that Darwin's theory of evolution. It concerns itself with evolution of species,,, the craeture or gene that best adapts to its environment OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS becomes the dominant one- breeds more etc. There is a similar problem with the arguments of "social darwinism". the proponents of this ideology take capitalism and feudalism as their basic model. These societies reflect, they argue, the basic selfishness within our genes. If we are more assertive (no gene has been found for this and even if they had found one that would be ignoring environmental factors such as parenting, schooling etc)... sorry little rant over, but if we are more assertive social darwinists say we suceed more in the world we live in, but again, genes develop over millions of years - while the above societies have been around for the blink of an eye.

Social darwinism also has pretty nasty implications, with the eugenics movement in the 20's - 40's and in the far right today.


found this explanation of the theory of evolution & i like it- maybe its because i like rabbits....

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes.


but ---- and this is a final thing- the scientific evidence to say that genes dictate our behaviour is untenable (i''d argue). So is social darwinism

Answer 8

darwin observed and then he reported...to the royal society and the times... and no one questioned him... the therory of evolution is a fabricated myth of half truths and misdirection.

darwin presumed that was his mistake. victorian science didnt know about DNA, Amino acids, proteins, and the like. it made guesses...

each individual DNA is billions of amino acids sequenced, like a combination lock. the dna can only be reassembled in the zygote. each new child has combinant DNA (from mum, and dad) which is why we have familial likeness...

if darwin were correct, then by now, mum would have grown eyes in the back of her head, and have much bigger hands to load the washing machine..and men would have developed beer belly legs... and teh ability to watch TV thru closed eyelids... hasnt happened has it, not in half a million years... evolution occurs in machinery...not human beings.

Answer 9

its survival of the fittest!