1There are many people who have influenced Charles Darwin in his quest to find the answer to evolution and how natural selection plays a big role within this theory. The most influential in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would have to be Thomas Malthus.
2. Thomas Malthus was an English economist who believed that the increasing population of the human race would outpace our food supplies which in turn would lead to a struggle for survival and those best suited for this change will survive. Malthus provided the scientific community with An Essay on the Principle of Population, which provided the platform for Darwin to expand on the idea of the struggle for existence to all organisms. Darwin incorporated this idea into his theory of Natural Selection. Darwin was able to relate how the environment was a set stage in order to enable competition for survival.
3.The points that have influenced Darwin are that resources are limited and organisms with better access to resources will be more successful in their reproductive efforts. I picked these two because the limited resources allow for competition within a given area so that the best suited can survive as well as pass on their adaptions to their offspring. Darwin recognized that many species produced more offspring than can survive which he thought of as a "biological gamble." The offspring that haven’t been passed down with the advantage are then unsuitable for reproducing and surviving.
4.I think if Darwin wasn’t influenced by Thomas Malthus then he wouldn’t have been able to create the theory of Natural Selection. An Essay on the Principle of Population provided Darwin with the platform of survival of the fittest. Darwin thought that favored variations of a gene that proved to be an advantage in their environment would be passed on to the next generation to provide a better likelihood of survival. The species that are able to survive would pass on these genes onto their offspring and create new species along the way.
5.The church was basing their ideas of evolution strictly through the Bible and going against this would create a threat against the church. Darwin was afraid that he would be going against the status quo and challenging the notion that God created every species which was widely accepted back then.
Links
1.http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/bic1/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=Reference&currPage=&scanId=&query=&source=&prodId=BIC1&search_within_results=&p=BIC1&mode=view&catId=&u=vale41196&limiter=&display-query=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2643450539&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=
2.http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/bic1/BiographiesDetailsPage/BiographiesDetailsWindow?disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=Biographies&currPage=&scanId=&query=&source=&prodId=BIC1&search_within_results=&p=BIC1&mode=view&catId=&u=vale41196&limiter=&display-query=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7CK2431100237&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=
The links to your sources were odd, so I checked them out. All that came up was a password protected wall to Valencia High School. When you provide sources, your readers have to be able to access them. I can't tell what the original sources were, but if it is a book then it can be sources like a bibliography. Online sites should have an accessible url. For example, a great source for Malthus is the following: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
ReplyDelete"...who believed that the increasing population of the human race would outpace our food supplies which in turn would lead to a struggle for survival and those best suited for this change will survive."
No. You are conflating Malthus' and Darwin's theories and in the process awarding Malthus with too much credit. Malthus work had nothing to do with the "struggle for existence of all organisms".
Malthus was an economist who was also very concerned about the problems related to overpopulation. He understood that populations had the potential of growing exponentially, which resources tended to grow at a slower, arithmetic rate. He noticed that natural populations of animals never seemed to overpopulate their available resources. It was as if some natural force was limiting their population size. He then compared natural populations to human populations and recognized that humans seemed to be lacking this natural force (whatever it was) and as a result, humans seemed to outgrow their available resources. Malthus argued that unless humans self-regulated their reproduction (he was a huge proponent of birth control), other processes, such as famine, disease and war, would be the natural result, forcing us to cut our populations via mass death.
Now out of all that, what caught Darwin's attention was the reference to that natural force that limited natural populations, and it made Darwin ask what was limiting the reproduction of those organisms. Malthus' emphasis on resources gave him the key... it was competition for those resources that limited population numbers. The next question was whether the limited force was random or directed. The answer was that it was directed by the environment, with those organisms with the best "fit" in that environment competing best for those resources and having more reproductive success, passing on more of those successful genes. Conversely, those who were less fit would have few (or no) offspring, and the next generation would have more of the "good" genes and less of the "bad". That describes the process of natural selection.
I agree with your point on "resources are limited". The point on exponential growth should also be included here. The point on improved reproductive success arising from improved access to resources is Darwin's concept that he developed from reading Malthus' work. Make sure you know where to draw the line between Malthus and Darwin.
(Continued as Blogger limits comment lengths)
DeleteI agree with your conclusion in the fourth section but I don't follow your argument to support that conclusion. I usually don't like to grant any one scientist so much credit as to be indispensable to the work of another, but in the case of Malthus (and Lyell) I'm willing to do so. As you explain in the second section, Malthus' work was the logical foundation for Darwin's theory. At the time Darwin read Malthus' essay, Darwin had collected a mountain of specimens and data, but couldn't figure out how to put it all together into a cohesive theory. Malthus concept of resource competition was key. Even Darwin himself seems to indicate just how important Malthus was to his work in his writings:
"... it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
You are correct in the last section but you need to finish the thought. Darwin delayed publishing for more than 20 years so it is worthwhile to try to understand the reason for this extensive delay. What were Darwin's concerns? And was he only worried about himself or was he also worried about how his family might be impacted by publishing? Remember that his wife was very devout. How might she have been impacted if the church responded negatively to Darwin? Remember that scientists don't work in a vacuum. They can be influenced not just by academics but also by social, cultural and personal issues.