Lisa+A.+Darwin+B

Charles Darwin = = ==

Hello, I am Charles Darwin. I have a long white beard. I am a philosopher and a scientist, who concentrated mainly on evolutions. In my opinion, only the strongest and the best-fitted organisms should be able to survive. This can be recalled as the “survival of the fittest.” For instance, in the case of birds, their beaks must be adjusted with the type of food they obtain. To give an idea, finches with strong beaks are suitable for eating nuts because they can easily break open the nut and eat it. The same finches would not be very suitable for eating fruits because strong beaks are not usually necessary for tearing nor eating the soft flesh of fruits. The survival of the fittest will allow the species to gradually become stronger through the crucial process of evolution, natural selection. The same also applies for human beings. The stronger and the better fitted humans, such as kings and nobles, will continue and remain while the poorly fitted human beings, such as beggars and homeless people, will slowly begin to die out. Such processes overall will be able to strengthen mankind in general because at the end, only the best fitted people will be able to survive and adapt to the conditions accordingly. Thus, people should try to make themselves be better suited, adapted, to their conditions so that they will be able to survive and continue on their customary style of living. If they are not well suited, they will surely not be able to maintain their customary style of living because they will basically be wiped out by the general rule of evolution: survival of the fittest. From what I hear, during the late eighteenth through nineteenth century, my prediction on how the human society should work, just like the nature does, was well-demonstrated during the Industrial Revolution. It was the time when the capitalists (or stronger humans) took advantages of the working class men (or weaker humans). Fruits and nuts for finches are translated to wealth in human society. The capitalists were better fit at obtaining money but the workers were not. Based on the rule of the nature, the capitalists made more and more money while the working class had less and less and suffered miserably. Yes, I am well aware of the injustices during the Industrial revolution such as child labors. The poor children who lost their limbs in terrible machinery accidents definitely reflect injustice and greed of humans. I’m not happy for such things. My theory on evolution does not endorse such tragedies. I simply made predictions on how human society operate when humans are left to free competition. It was quite unfortunate, and I feel terrible for those kids. I wish none of you would ever be placed in such situations. So, if you want to live to be old like me and have a great long beard like this, hopefully, you are well fitted for your society.

=media type="youtube" key="X9a2McqqmwI" height="284" width="458"=


1. As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps.  Hence, the canon of "Natura non facit saltum," which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to confirm, is on this theory intelligible. We can see why throughout nature the same general end is gained by an almost infinite diversity of means, for every peculiarity when once acquired is long inherited, and structures already modified in many different ways have to be adapted for the same general purpose. We can, in short, see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in  innovation. But why this should be a law of nature if each species has been independently created no man can explain.   2. Man does not actually produce variability; he only unintentionally exposes organic beings to new conditions of life, and then nature acts on the organisation, and causes variability. But man can and does select the variations given to him by nature, and thus accumulate them in any desired manner. He thus adapts animals and plants for his own benefit or pleasure. He may do this methodically, or he may do it unconsciously by preserving the individuals most useful to him at the time, without any thought of altering the breed. It is certain that he can largely influence the character of a breed by selecting, in each successive generation, individual differences so slight as to be quite inappreciable by an uneducated eye. This process of selection has been the great agency in the production of the most distinct and useful domestic breeds. That many of the breeds produced by man have to a large extent the character of natural species, is shown by the inextricable doubts whether very many of them are varieties or aboriginal species.  [3] There is no obvious reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the preservation of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see the most powerful and ever-acting means of selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved by calculation, by the effects of a succession of peculiar seasons, and by the results of naturalisation, as explained in the third chapter. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance will determine which individual shall live and which shall die, -- which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. But the struggle will often be very severe between beings most remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in one being, at any age or during any season, over those with which it comes into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will turn the balance.  [4] With animals having separated sexes there will in most cases be a struggle between the males for possession of the females. The most vigorous individuals, or those which have most successfully struggled with their conditions of life, will generally leave most progeny. But success will often depend on having special weapons or means of defence, or on the charms of the males; and the slightest advantage will lead to victory.  [5] As geology plainly proclaims that each land has undergone great physical changes, we might have expected that organic beings would have varied under nature, in the same way as they generally have varied under the changed conditions of domestication. And if there be any variability under nature, it would be an unaccountable fact if natural selection had not come into play. It has often been asserted, but the assertion is quite incapable of proof, that the amount of variation under nature is a strictly limited quantity. Man, though acting on external characters alone and often capriciously, can produce within a short period a great result by adding up mere individual differences in his domestic productions; and every one admits that there are at least individual differences in species under nature. But, besides such differences, all naturalists have admitted the existence of varieties, which they think sufficiently distinct to be worthy of record in systematic works. No one can draw any clear distinction between individual differences and slight varieties; or between more plainly marked varieties and subspecies, and species. Let it be observed how naturalists differ in the rank which they assign to the many representative forms in Europe and North America. 

**3. **<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> We have seen that man incessantly presents individual differences in all parts of his body and in his mental faculties. These differences or variations seem to be induced by the same general causes, and to obey the same laws as with the lower animals. In both cases similar laws of inheritance prevail. Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence; consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence, and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within its scope. A succession of strongly-marked variations of a similar nature is by no means requisite; slight fluctuating differences in the individual suffice for the work of natural selection; not that we have any reason to suppose that in the same species, all parts of the organisation tend to vary to the same degree.

<Primary source questions>
1. Prior to reading these sources, define the term "selection and variation." Upon completion of reading, please re-define "selection and variation."

2. It has been stated: "But why this should be a law of nature if each species has been independently created no man can explain." In your opinion, how would you answer, solve, this statement?

3. What are some of the ways that variation occurs within species according to Darwin?

<Bibliography>
"Charles Darwin on the Origin of Species (1859)." __Hanover College Department of History__. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111dar.html>.

"Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species." __Washington State University - Pullman, Washington__. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://www.wsu.edu:8080/%7Ewldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/darwin.html>.

"Modern History Sourcebook: Charles Darwin: Descent of Man, 1871." __FORDHAM.EDU__. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1871darwin.html>.