How Animals DarWin Natural Resources

Although Darwin could not definitively prove his theory of evolution through natural selection, you could described it as an argument to the best explanation. In the final chapter of his book he uses many arguments to try and convince his readers over his ideas. One was the geographical distribution, he notes that “All the individuals of the same species, and all the species of the same genus, or even higher groups, must have descended from common parents” (Darwin, 484). One of the arguments that he uses to explain his theory of evolution was through showing that all species within a certain genus came from a single common ancestor, even animals from isolated regions of the earth. That the evolution of these animals came from competing with one another in the environment and that the “fittest” animal survived and past on the genes.   He notes that “… these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe” (Darwin, 486). He argued that the earth was much older than many people believed, and that many of the scientists didn’t get believe this due to not lack of evidence but from unwillingness to accept the theory. The evidence to support his claims of a evolution of species rather than other theories.

Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection can be described as an argument to the best explanation. Where at the time of the introduction of his theory, he needed to explain it better than competing theories. I believe that his theory was fairly convincing. His look into how geography plays a role on how animals compete for resources and the ones that are best suited for the environment.

1 thought on “How Animals DarWin Natural Resources”

  1. Jacob,

    Your quote from page 486 is fantastic! I’m so glad that it is the one that you pulled out from the text. It is definitely interesting to look at the genealogy of species and the theories that are behind them. Darwin’s is certainly a well-known theorist, but I wonder why we focus on his theory of survival of the fittest compared to creation. (Creation might not be the best word, but I’m sure you understand what I’m saying.) I wonder if religious prominence throughout history is why.

    I agree that his argument was fairly, but not entirely convincing. I also think he needs to be more specific in relation to other theories.

    Thank you for sharing,


Comments are closed.