Darwin's Theory?

Question

Provide an example of Darwin's theory in action, either during the 1890s-1900 or present-day:

a) Arguing for Darwin's theory: (how might survival of the fittest be accurate?)

b) Arguing against Darwin's theory: (how might survival of the fittest be wrong or misused)

Please helpp!!! Short example and explanations please :D

Answer 1

Darwin's Theory of Evolution isn't about "survival of the fittest". It's about survival of those species best _adapted to their environment_. During the dinosaurs, mamals were certainly not the fittest, but small and agile, they were perfectly adapted to sharing an environment with insects and dinosaurs.

> Provide an example of Darwin's theory in action, either during the 1890s-1900 :

"- 1870-75 The very first registered sudden captive-bred colour mutations [in budgerigars] were Green Suffused (aka Dilute Green), Green Greywings and either one of the two types of Lutino (NSL-Ino &/or SL-Ino) mutations. All three occurred in aviaries in Great Britain or Europe. Of these three mutations, only the Suffused Green (aka Dilute Yellow) has survived. This was easily reproduced in great numbers and is nowadays very well established. The first Lutino mutation quickly vanished but it was re-established in Europe some time between 1931 and 1933.
"- 1878 The first Sky Blue budgerigar appeared in Belgium.
"- 1880-85 The Blue mutation suddenly occurred in continental Europe, most probably in Uccle, Belgium."

"Budgerigar colour genetics : History" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar_colour_genetics#History

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light coloration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-colored trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, due to widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees which peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-colored moths, or typica, to die off due to predation. At the same time, the dark-colored, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees."

"Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-colored peppered moths have again become common."

"Peppered moth evolution" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

For more examples see : "Examples of evolution", Understanding Evolution, Berkeley University : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=52

> a) Arguing for Darwin's theory

It's the scientific consensus.

> b) Arguing against Darwin's theory:

Some fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims claim it's in contradiction to their Holy Books.

Answer 2

In the 1950s an insecticide called DDT was sprayed around a lot. A few years later, it was no longer effective against bugs. Some bugs had a mutation that made them survive DDT- they lived and passed on the resistance to their offspring.

Today, insecticide makers change their recipes every now and then for this reason.

Penicillin use has saved millions of lives, by killing harmful bacteria. But today, we face multi-resistant 'superbugs' that can't be killed with known antibiotics. Every hospital has a problem with this- whether creationists like it or not, this is REALITY- Darwin didn't know about multi resistant bugs, but his theory predicted them. You don't have to 'assume' his theory to be correct- because as a SCIENTIFIC theory, it must repeatedly explain observed results (as opposed to the work 'theory' in general use, which means an assumption or guess).

The more we observe the world, the more Darwin's theory is borne out- even though we do occasionally make mistakes when we build big assumptions on its foundation.

An example of misuse is eugenics- an idea popular 100 years ago when Darwinism was popular but understanding of it was limited (which is why it's important to learn it in school).

Eugenics held that struggle is good and necessary to weed out the weak- a logical conclusion from 'survival of the fittest', but not a scientific one. This held that capitalism was good because it weeds out weak companies and/or individuals. Some applied this to races and nations- German Aryans had to fight with Slavic Russians to 'make the human race strong'. Communists used Darwin- the battle between labour and capital had to be won by the stronger forces: the workers, because this was inevitable and just. These uses of Darwinism fail both logically, and because they are only a metaphor for evolution by natural selection- they should not be confused with actual biology in action.

Another misconception is that species only die out in disasters and catastrophes- in fact they can simply die out over time due to small factors. My cats are about the same size and weight, but one is a little more aggressive than the other. In the wild, by meek cat would be denied food, habitat and access to females- it's genes would not survive.

But Darwin, as your first respondent said- requires only survival of those best-adapted. There is nothing 'fit' about the DDT-resistant bug- it's just lucky. Worms are very successful in Darwinian terms because they can survive almost everywhere. A very, very common misuse of Darwin is to conclude that humans are 'the top', a sort of logical inheritor to evolution's legacy, the idea that has always been the objective. But it seems very likely that through nuclear war, global warming, or diseases or something else, one day we will be gone, leaving worms and cockroaches and whatever else we allow to survive our existence. We are not an end point.

This kills religious people who think it's empty- but to me it means we must guard the planet- guard all creation- because if there's one thing god did NOT put us here to do it is to wipe out all the species we are killing- or leaving just a token few left.

The real genius of Darwinism was that it explained both variation in life, and its consistency- it showed why it is an advantage for our children to be basically like us, but not exactly like us. He explained why animals that occupy similar ecological niches often look the same or have the same behaviour- for instance kangaroos and gazelles, or Tasmanian Devils and Wolves. Later discoveries- such as what genes are and how they work, and the filling in of the fossil record- have corroborated his findings.

Answer 3

I can't help getting this feeling that I'm somehow doing your homework for you or something! Know what I mean?

Anyway, I want to point out that Darwin's theory is only one theory of evolution, and it has been whittled down to mean "survival of the fittest". The general idea is that as climate changes and as other animals and plants become more prevalent or decline, flora and fauna must either adapt or die. As these changes occur, certain animals flourish and others don't.

Since this is an evolutionary theory, this explains why changes in the plant and animal kingdoms do occur. Some examples that come to mind are the birds on the Galapagos Islands (which Darwin studied and developed his theory there) and just the nature of genetics and reproduction.

The birds Darwin studied could be cited from year to year as having evolved due to the climate at the time. If certain seeds were available that year, the birds would need larger and sturdier beaks in order to thrive with the food supply at time. If different seeds were available that year, smaller, thinner beaks might be necessary just for the birds to be able to reach the small nooks and crannies where the seeds would grow or fall from the trees. The birds with larger beaks wouldn't be as strong, wouldn't be able to thrive since the food they were more adapted to eating wouldn't be as prevalent . . . So the stronger birds (ie. the birds that suited that specific environment) would be the birds that reproduced in greater numbers that year. The next generation of birds would have features of the stronger birds.

If you think about evolution, it makes a lot of sense, mostly because animals and plants that have created a large amount of genetic diversity would be the ones with the best shot at surviving through any catastrophe that might occur. Just looking at an area where a volcano has erupted, you can see how many animals and plants were NOT adapted to survive something that catastrophic. Plants and animals that grow well in volcanic soils, that need lots of sunlight (less shade from thick forests that might have existed there before), and that can survive on very little food would probably be the plants animals that would acclimate first, and repopulate the area. Then, as more plants grow, more shade occurs, the plants that prefer full sun will be less likely to grow, maybe other animals move into the area that live on the newer plants or use the recent animals as a food source, and the area changes even more.

Many people believe that humans and other life forms were INTENDED to mutate, even in the cases of multiple births (slight mutations to the genes occur even in the short time after the embryo separates and grows) in order to make sure there are a wide variety of traits for the environment to choose from. So many environmental changes are unpredictable and dramatic, the differences in our genes make sure that even plants and animals NOT suited to the environment we live in now will have a shot at an unforeseen future. The subtle mutations might have little to no effect, or even make that new variation stronger and more able to thrive in case of climate changes, etc.

Human beings have been argued to be evolving as well, information that can be gleaned over time. Some evidence is that humans are born with a now-defunct organ called an appendix, which one can easily survive without. Wisdom teeth seldomly fit on the lower jaw of most people, something that was NOT seen in older jaw specimens of earlier humans. We can see that our lower jaws are shrinking over time, brain size is slowly getting larger (higher rate of cesarean births might be evidence of this? Not sure, sorry)

Anyway, this is a topic I understand quite well, but am not good at explaining! Do visit Wikipedia for information on Darwin, evolution, genetics, and possibly survival through catastrophes that you can think of. The environmental recovery and adaptation to volcanic eruption, severe flooding or drought, and more could help you understand and pinpoint examples of evolution or survival of the fittest.

One thing that bothers me about saying "survival of the fittest" is that it seems to imply that other life forms living at the same time just watch passively as others die or that those life forms themselves are out there killing everything they come across in order to survive. That's a misinterpretation to be sure.

Anyway, I hope I've helped in some way, rather than confusing you or just blabbering. Take care.

R

Answer 4

A) You can assume Darwin's theory is true based on the evidence and evolution of certain creatures. Example: Finches. At some point on the Galapagos islands were all the same. Over time certain offspring started to develope smaller beaks. This mutation didnt happen over night but over time the species adapted to the envoronment and were able to better suit it with it's physical charateristics. These finches who were better adapted to the envoronment were able to benefit from it's resources (food etc..) and the others would eventually die off as a result of their lack of adaptive traits. So the species better fitted for the island survived lived and were able to create more offspring; the others would die off and few offspring would be born. So the finches who fit into the islands succeded; survival of the fittest.

B) We can over emphasize "survival of the fittest" by assuming one who is better fit for the envoronment will survive. The "weak link" could have inheirted traits that would allow it to adapt to the environment in another way. Assuming the fittest creature is always the successor can mislead one to think "only the strongest survive" there are many exceptions to this rule. Many fit creatures have died off (extinction) because their stregnths inheirited weren't suitable for the environments or they were unable to adequetly adjust to the changing environment, maybe the weaker one was.

Answer 5

In a town in England (I'm not sure which) there were moths that were entirely white. In the 1890s mining for coal began in that area. By 1920 the poulation of those same moths were almost entirely black. This was documented in photos in an encyclopedia I saw once. I wish I could be more specific for you, but perhaps the web might help.

Answer 6

Wow ... such a lot of solutions, I doubt someone will learn mine ... however right here is going. >"Darwins idea of evolution turns out beautiful water tight to me, ..." It additionally turns out beautiful water tight to the overpowering consensus of scientists ... each inside organic sciences, and out. ... So you're within the corporation of the brightest PhD's on the planet. >" ... so how come its nonetheless only a idea ?" Because in technology, a proof does not graduate to anything bigger than "idea". A 'idea' in technology way an *clarification with proof*. Everything that qualifies as a proof in technology is known as a idea. The germ idea of ailment, the heliocentric idea of the sun approach, the enormous bang idea of the universe, the plate tectonics idea of geology, the atomic idea of subject, the molecular idea of chemistry, the electron idea of molecules, the idea of gravity, the idea of relativity, quantum idea, and on and on ... all known as 'theories' although so much scientists bear in mind all of them beautiful "water tight." >"I used to be underneath the influence we had discovered the entire bones within the chain from prehistoric apes to latest day guy" First, that woud be unattainable. And moment, there is not any "chain" ... lifestyles is a branching *tree*, no longer a "chain." Creationists might such as you to feel that each and every unmarried intermediate kind have to be discovered, century-by way of-century, species-by way of-species to set up "evidence" of development from apes to individuals. We have recognized dozens of intermediate species spanning three-five million years considering the cut up. But that is like discovering a shoebox with a pictures of a constructing little one. We see a couple of pix of the little one at three-years-ancient, a couple of extra at a long time four, five, 7, eight, nine, eleven, thirteen, 14 and sixteen. But a creationist might factor to that and say "there is not any snapshot at age 6, or at age 10, so in which is the 'lacking hyperlink' that 'proves' that that is the equal little one?" Hope that is helping. {P.S.} When any one repeats the demonstrably *FALSE* "Darwin recanted" tale ... this says extra approximately the individual repeating the tale than approximately Darwin. I.e. it suggests that they're both gullible, or deceitful to the factor of baldfaced lies. The undeniable fact that craigd honestly believes that any of Darwin's speeches or his "final phrases" help that ridiculous tale that he "rejected his idea", tells me that craigd is likely one of the gullible class ... i.e. a sufferer of the lies he is been informed by way of different creationists.

Answer 7

I can't argue for Darwin's theory, I think it to be so wrong. However, b) the survival of the Jewish people, the chosen of the God of the Bible, and of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is a true story. There are many accounts from two thousand years ago plus, of kings, and warriors killing them off. Of God's punishing 40 year journey into the dessert, of impaling them, of the Nazi exterminations, and now of course the world trying to annihilate them. And still they survive. They are NOT the strongest people, with the strongest will to live. Always hated, killed, starved.....yet they survive. Because they were chosen by God...they survive because He has protected them. You might understand if they were mighty like the Alexandrian, Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Russian, and Chinese civilizations. But no, they weren't mighty, their God is. Darwinian theory can't explain this.