Darwinistic Approach

Darwin goes over a couple different arguments in the last paragraph of the theory of evolution, the biggest and more prominent points he does go over twice is that there is a lack of evidence. He does go over this by explaining that the lack of evidence is partially from epochs, which would produce unknown climate change over time that we couldn’t guess to leaving different species extinct while allowing dissimilar species to thrive. The second reason for lack of evidence he states is because of changes in climate over time and even species that there’s a lack of fossil records to prove his theories even further which is because some species simply do not fossilize as well as others. There have always been gaps in our knowledge of the past and the amount we can learn through these incomplete pictures so it is apt that he chooses to debase people against him that might make those arguments.
In the final chapter of Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” as he’s recapping his arguments Darwin discusses holes in his argument to make it more compelling and one of them was that fossil records aren’t as complete as geologists wish us to believe. The idea that the incompleteness of our fossil record produces quite a lot of obscurity for any scientific field that depends entirely upon the record for making conclusions about the past. It makes it difficult to either prove or disprove Darwin’s theory especially in the case of when it was made as in the 19th-century humanity had less sophisticated data on the past.

2 thoughts on “Darwinistic Approach”

  1. I liked the examples you picked for how Darwin supported his argument, but I think it would be more clear if you also included how those related directly into his theory, as well as the more intricate “whys” he went into about people not believing him. His argument about the fossils strikes me more as a “why we can’t be proven right to some people” than a convincing piece of evidence for why his argument is right. It’s certainly an interesting piece of information and addresses certain types of skepticism, but in itself does not prove positive his theory.

    I suppose you made the argument you find most convincing clear by it being what you centered both paragraphs around, “it” being Darwin’s argument and how fossil records relate to that, but I would be curious as to which you find least convincing, as well as the ins and outs and whys for both.

  2. I really like your post and all the ideas of Darwin’s that you covered. I also have the same outlook on proving or disproving his theories. Great post!

Comments are closed.