Can this be true..the ones who survive (and thrive) are "those most responsive to change" ?
Mr. Darwin, Charles to his friends, thought this to be so...He said it was not the strongest nor the most intelligent but the ones who were 'most responsvie to change' who would survive and and I would add, thrive.. He died in 1882 so these words were said some time before that. Do they still hold true today? Do you think they were ever true??
I believe that phrase is and will always be true. Nothing is constant other than change. Those who fail the cope with the change and somehow improve themselves will be in a very big disadvantage.
I do agree with that. If you are not flexible to the world around you, you will snap.
Yes, in other words, the species that don't adapt to changing environments will die out. It's the definition of natural selection.
Surely, you cannot fully take intelligence and strength from the equation. It takes a culmination of these traits, and others, to determine who will survive and thrive. That being said, if I had to choose between the three, the ability to change would be most advantageous.
Not only does it allow for one to adapt to his environment, but it also allows for said person to develop as a person. As soon as we lose that trait, how do we improve? In other words, if a person is not strong or intelligent now, at least the ability to change would allow the person to work towards that goal if the environment demanded it.
Good point. You could say that foxes are stronger and more intelligent than rabbits, but rabbits adapted by increasing their rate of reproduction. All strength and intelligence comes from adaptive change too. It's all secondary.
I also want to point out the pure metaphysical use of those words: strength, intelligence and adaptability. In many cases, it is difficult to even make a distinction between them. Can one not adapt using intelligence and strength?
Thomas Swan hits 'the nail on the head.' Darwin would have been referring to ALL species. Today that would include bacteria and viruses and all manner of organisms not known in his day. I like the rabbits and foxes observation.
I just cannot fully separate these things, though. There is too much overlap. For instance, if the rabbits had not been strong and intelligent enough to withhold the foxes during the original rabbit purges, they would not have been able to change.
Yes; people who thrive in this world are good planners and people who make their own luck by preparing for tough times.
by WeddingConsultant9 years ago
case in point
by Amethystraven5 years ago
Are people savage or primitive if they survive and thrive without electronics, cars, grocery stores?People have been considered and called less than if they survive and thrive without electronics, stores, cars, clothes,...
by Princess Silva2 years ago
Is it true that intelligent people become annoyed faster than average people?
by Cecilia4 days ago
I think not. See you're not talking to me. (must be something I ate!)
by IAmForbidden2 weeks ago
Which is more important: Being beautiful or being smart?Are you more attracted to a smart person or to a beautiful one?
by kirstenblog5 years ago
I have often wondered about this. I personally have no education beyond that of High School. I do not hold any special qualifications and think of myself as being average in intelligence. I do read a lot and pay...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.