Within the Darwin’s discussion of
transitional varieties and habits, I found his points quite fascinating on the
ways natural selection has modified the different variations of species towards
a natural “perfection.” Throughout time on this earth, supposedly nature has continually
somehow changed the rules of the “game,” and everyone playing this game must
conform and essentially alter one’s self to keep on playing in order to survive.
As one thing in nature changes like the climate, food source, or competition,
the inhabitants have to give in to the changes and modify themselves to
survive. Such as the example of the squirrels, Darwin states that when “climate
and vegetation change, let other competing rodents or new beasts of prey
immigrate, or old ones become modified, and all analogy would lead us to
believe that some at least of the squirrels would decrease in numbers or become
exterminated, unless they also became modified and improved in structure in a
corresponding manner” (180-181).
Darwin explains that this is what
nature does for its living beings and thus alters them so that natural
selection can play its course. I was almost caught “off-guard” by this
analysis. Why would nature, which makes its creatures strive to some sort of
perfection, play this “peer pressure” game on its players, when they should
already have been evolved to perfection? It is like the players were almost to
the end of this game, but then the rules and possibly the players changed
dramatically. It becomes a different
playing field. Nature’s species has to once again go through the slow process
of adaptation and conform themselves to these new “rules” and strive to the
perfection nature seeks.
“When we
see any structure highly perfected for any particular habit, as the wings of a
bird for flight, we should bear in mind that animals displaying early
transitional grades of the structure will seldom continue to exist to the
present day, for they will have been supplanted by the very process of
perfection through natural selection” (Darwin, 182). Darwin points out that
characteristics of these creatures may be perfect now, but when several factors
change in due time, some other species will dominate unless the species by
force of natural selection alters itself. This can also include human
interference or immigration of other species, which will affect the surrounding
ecosystems and cause the modifications of the several species found there. Possibly, this becomes the never-ending game,
which has several factors over time that inhibits nature’s processes on its
living creatures towards “perfection.”
Liezel, I also though it was interesting that Darwin talks about every species heading towards perfection. One thing that struck me though was how Darwin also talked about how animals have appendages and parts that are completely useless. Darwin states, "May structures now have no direct relation to the habits of life of each species" (199). He sites tails on land animals as one thing that is sometimes useless. So though creatures are headed towards this perfection, many still have these structures that are not of use to a species.
ReplyDeleteIn both Liezel and Marlee's statements I see a folly of personification. This giving of human qualities to a fabricated entity called "nature" leads people to construct an image in their mind of nature as a rational consciousness which will logically proceed toward some set goal. As I talked about in my comment on Emily's most recent post we in west are more often than not colored in our perceptions of nature by the romanticized Victorian ideal of an "unspoiled wilderness in harmony". Darwin gets beyond that and sees nature not as an entity but as a complex web of forces in constant flux. he recognizes that by it's very nature such a system will never be truly stable but always in proceeding in some direction under the pressure of some shift. To us on our ever so short timescale the system may seem stable but in the long run it never is.
ReplyDeleteLiezel, I found it interesting that you used a game as a metaphor for the processes involved in natural selection, and while I can understand your point, I believe it is more accurate to describe changes in climate and vegetation as changes to the playing field rather than the rules. Darwin argues that the only rule to this game is to stay alive. Perfection, in this case, refers to an individuals reproductive fitness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon's assertion that nature is too often personified, and I think it is easier to understand things, such as the now useless structures that Marlee mentioned, if you think of nature as a set of forces rather than a rational being.
I think Liezel’s post would be improved by opening up the mystery box of “good” and “evil,” on which “perfection” is based. From my reading of the text, I believe Darwin uses moralistic language to describe certain feature’s usefulness to the species which possesses it. After describing the different ways birds use wings, Darin states “the structure of each of these birds is good for it, under the conditions of life to which it is exposed, for each has to live by a struggle” (182). Though each bird uses its wings in a very different way, Darwin acknowledges each use as “good” because it is used in a way that helps the bird survive. Later, when discussing how natural selection will only bring about useful traits, Darwin writes “If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous” (201). In this case Darwin is clearly using the words “good” and “evil” to describe the utilitarian use of organs which evolve, not the organ’s moral character. Moral judgements play no role in determining how advantageous an adaption will be. This concept is reinforced when, after discussing infanticide practiced by bees, Darwin states that matricide is “for the good of the community; and maternal love or maternal hatred, though the latter fortunately is most rare, is all the same to the inexorable principles of natural selection” (203). Infanticide is ethically repugnant in most moral system, but Darwin does not judge the bees’ actions as moral or immoral, but rather as useful or harmful to the species’ survival as a whole. Understanding Darwin’s use of “good” and “evil” in the text helps one understand that natural selection is a utilitarian process, guided not by subjective values but rather by utilitarian usefulness of different traits.
ReplyDelete