Author Question: What is the main claim of the Darwinist theory of natural selection? (Read 2301 times)

federox · **on:** Jul 16, 2013

This is for my philosophy homework, I can feel my brain melting, and this is like the easiest one, it is sad.
How does this view differ and/or challenge the traditional views of human nature.

Jesse_J · **Reply #1 on:** Jul 16, 2013

Survival of the fittest

Jesse_J · **Reply #2 on:** Jul 16, 2013

Survival of the fittest I believe, or something that translates close to that. May not be the primary, haven't read it all.

Jones · **Reply #3 on:** Jul 16, 2013

we select traits that either make us stronger and thrive, or choose weaker, and thus, perish

Sandstorm · **Reply #4 on:** Jul 16, 2013

Basically survival of the fittest, or most evolved. Darwin Theory of natural selection is if you don't evolve and adapt to your environment you will lose to a species that is evolved enough to gather food etc.

TI · **Reply #5 on:** Jul 16, 2013

Survival of the fittest is correct - but that doesn't mean the strongest. It means the creatures best fitted to their environment and evolutionary niche will survive longer, and reproduce more, thus continuing their species. When the environmental conditions change, so does the definition of "fittest" - which causes a different variation to survive and reproduce better. That can sometimes lead to a species evolving into one or more new species.

An elephant is obviously far stronger than, say, a rat. But if an elephant was placed in a sewer, it would die - the rat would survive nicely. The rat is, therefore, more fit for that situation.

The "selection" part comes automatically - the fitter creatures live, the less-fit die off in the course of natural events. There is nobody making any choices in the process.

Sandstorm · **Reply #6 on:** Jul 16, 2013

Darwinist? Must be a Christianist course.
Darwin stated the precept that in times of stress, those most fit to handle the stress survived in greater numbers or were healthier and produced more offspring. We know now that species stockpile modifications built up over time so that if a high stress situation - drought, crop diseases, predator invasion - develops, the species can change quickly over a few generations as reserve strengths come forward.
This is converted in extreme short hand to "Survival of the Fittest" which some people distort into "The fit wipe out the less fit" or "If man is descended from apes, why are apes still around?"

camila · **Reply #7 on:** Jul 16, 2013

The claim of Darwin is that we all hail from a common ancestor which led to his research and discoveries.Natural selection grew out of tracing the patterns of species over time.

TI · **Reply #8 on:** Jul 16, 2013

THIS is an EXCELLENT topic for philosophy and psychology... it's my favourite subject!

Well what are the traditional views of human nature?

1. One very strong and prevailing view is that when humans are born they are like a "blank slate", ready for culture and society to program them with rules and knowledge? (nature vs nurture)

Modern Darwinian (Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis) theory challenges this because it would argue that humans and other creatures have evolved innate knowledge (Nativism) on many aspects of life... Like innate knowledge of physics, biology, psychology, language and morality.

For example consider "moral nativism". We already know that it is wrong to kill other people or cheat other people. Kids develop this moral sense at a very young age and experiments have proved this. For example when kindergarten kids are told that they are allowed to steal the lunches or the toys from other kids by their teacher, most of those kids will still refuse because they can sense that it is wrong. They didnt really need to be told this, because it is already programmed in them by evolution. They will automatically develop this moral sense if given time and proper development of their brain.

Consider biological nativism - Kids at that age can already tell the difference between fish and mammals just by looking at pictures.

Consider linguistic nativism - kids at that age, no matter what culture and what society they come from will already know some basic rules of grammar, regardless of what language they speak.

These are the most profound results of Darwinian theory that scientists and philosophers are dealing with today.

2. I dont think the challenge to creationism is very profound for the same reason that taking candy from a baby is not a profound challenge. Creationism is just stupid!

Another sense of profundity that relates to this is that within the whole discipline of biology, Darwinian theory provides a solid grounding for it. Without Darwinian theory, biology would have no legs to stand on, because the origins of plants, animals, ecosystems, cells, genes, DNA, proteins would be completely mysterious (and only explained by appalling religious murkiness!).

THIS is not an easy subject, but hopefully I have given you hints as to the profound way that Darwinian theory has challenged our old school primitive beliefs about human nature. This is the sort of thing that you study at advanced university level. So don't despair... It's a big and complex topic

ricki · **Reply #9 on:** Jul 16, 2013

I believe Darwin first observed in his travels that animals reproduce at such a great rate that the amount of resources for these animals to survive is constantly being threatened. Darwin posited that animals develop, through the evolutionary process, variations that help them survive. For instance, some wolves may receive genes that make them faster than others. Being faster they're able to catch prey before other wolves thus making it more difficult for those slower to survive. Animals who develop these "random variations" are more able to survive than other animals in their environment. It's also important to note that there is no reason for this, but it just happens that way. It is a product of chance that such variations occur in some animals rather than others. Human beings have developed such variations that have placed them at the pinnacle of the animal kingdom. However, make no mistake, for the evolutionists this is simply by chance and over the course of time human beings may become the prey of other animals who develop variations that make them more fit to survive than humans in the environment. Traditional theories were usually "teleological", meaning that they posited human nature had some kind of purpose or design. Human beings were supposed to be a specific way. Evolutionists claim that humans are the way they are because of an evolutionary process, and it may very well be the case that how they are now will eventually change over time. Traditional theories held that human beings were distinct from other "lower animals". Modern Evolution claims that human beings are simply more evolved than other animals, but still animals nonetheless. Traditional theories held that there was a distinct purpose for humans, and evolution claims there isn't.