"On The Origin of Species" was a highly controversial book written by Charles Darwin in 1859. The basis for Darwin's argument was on his theory of natural selection; that throughout time, humans were equipped with an innate tendency to develop certain traits that would lead to the progression of their lives, and these distinct traits would in turn be passed down to their offspring and be just as beneficial in the advancement of their offspring's lives, as well. However, the idea of humans being equipped with such a supernatural ability seemed very unnerving to the public and its leaders, especially since God's hand was deemed to be the creator and doer of all. But how did Darwin ever come up with such a radical idea in the first place? Some time after giving up his dad's suggestion to become a lawyer, Darwin was given the opportunity to serve as a naturalist of ship that would be on voyage for 5 years. Despite his dad's fear for his life, Darwin was allowed to set sail. Along his travels, Darwin kept a journal of his observations on the animals and plants he came across. It was in South America that Darwin began to notice some fascinating similarities between animals and plants to those of the animals and plants he encountered back home, or from one continent to the next. He knew that plants shared some distinct characteristics with each other; fossils of plants from long ago could be compared to plants today. Although these plants were drastically different from each other on the macroscopic level, the microscopic level proved otherwise. He found that this same likeness could also be related to animals, and from solid identification in plants and animals, Darwin wanted to extend this concept to human beings. He wanted to say that with time, human beings followed some kind of descent with modification, an evolution. And this descent/evolution would continue on for generations in their offspring in order to prolong their survival.
This idea of descent with modification reminded me of the book I am reading for my final paper, The Organic Machine by Richard White. In White's novel, he writes of the Columbia River and how the river in itself is "organic," but is changed into a "machine," or an object of civilization. The Columbia is transformed in the sense that what was once a clean and fast paced river ends up becoming foul/polluted and stagnant one. No longer can salmon spawn and make it back to their birthplace to lay they eggs without the help of hatcheries and artificial fertilization. And yet, somehow this river still portrays a commanding presence in the West, it still continues to flow. Although the river has adapted and adopted some negative effects of society, it still lives on. It still cools nuclear reactors, produces some output of salmon, is used to create electricity, and it still plays a major role in the lives of the people, directly and indirectly. So my question is, can Darwinian theory be extended to "nonliving" objects such as a river? Although, the river has become something new in its purpose, it has been modified and has become even more useful and continues to live, even at the expense of itself. Then can Darwinian theory, or evolutionary theory in general, be extended to any object, place, thing, concept, and/or idea? I believe it can. Just take a look at the concept of science. Science in the 16th century is in many ways is drastically different to what we know science as today; however, both sciences are still science; the science we have today is just a modification of what we once had in the 16th century. And both negative and positive aspects (traits) have contributed to its survival.
Let me know what you think :)
-Rad
Sources:
1. Dr. Digrius's (she's a professor of humanities here at Stevens) presentation in my CAL-105 class is where my info about Darwin, his life and theory, came from.
2. The Organic Machine by Richard White
Take a look at this website if you're interested in looking at Darwin's journals:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_JournalofResearches.html
Well, that's... Rad! Badum-tish. Excuse my lame pun, but that's an excellent question. I absolutely agree with you. Anything on Earth, natural or artificial, has some purpose, initially. With the human factor always a presence, those entities are subject to our influence, and much like the swallows are (supposedly) evolving due to our own vehicles, in the end, humans are the deciding factor on what is to be used as what, if at all. Good article!
ReplyDeleteI read that article! I was debating if I should include it, but hey, you seem to have read it anyway! I'm glad you enjoyed it and thank you for commenting!
Delete