![](\"https:\/\/media.pri.org\/s3fs-public\/styles\/original_image\/public\/images\/2018\/10\/tangled_haeckel_tree.jpg?itok=9EZviBJD\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Many know Darwin for his creation of \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d however this idea of his, I argue, was not the most transformative in evolutionary biology theory. Rather it was his reorganization and production of the \u201cTree of Life.\u201d Darwin\u2019s \u201cTree of life\u201d analogy was first published within his book, <\/span>On the Origin of Species. <\/span><\/i>The reinterpretation<\/span> transformed the ancient \u201cTree of Knowledge\u201d into a history of species, knowledge and life. Instead of depicting humanity and nature as an entity created by the divinity, it was an interwoven timeline of the development of species (Browne, 75).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Darwin’s Tree analogy acknowledged the intricacies of extinction and the ongoing biological processes. <\/span>His layout evolved through the \u201cTree of Life,\u201d which places humans as just another species under the broad-scope process of evolution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Darwin’s idea of evolution, depicted in his reinterpretation as the \u201cTree of Life\u201d relates the human species as equals to living mammals of our time. He established this in the diagram by connecting humans through branches to gorillas, gibbons and orangutans. <\/span>On the Origin of Species<\/span><\/i> is an impactful moment in the scientific world not only for its introduction to evolution but also through its equation of humans being leveled with other mammals. Darwin introduced the idea of humans being another species evolving not the species which evolves.<\/span><\/p>\n In 1976, Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist, promoted the idea of gene initiated evolution rather than evolution within an entire species. Dawkins\u2019 coined his theory the \u201cSelfish Gene\u201d which depicted genes and their inherent evolution as <\/span>the \u201cstrive for immortality, and individuals, families, and species are merely vehicles in that quest.\u201d <\/span>(Rutherford, ‘As long as we study life, it will be read’: the Selfish Gene turns 40) <\/span>At the core, he believed that the behavior of all living things were in service of their genes hence, genes and the subsequent evolution is naturally selfish and self-preserving.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dawkins’ idea directs genes to be responsible for evolution. Darwin\u2019s theory doesn\u2019t necessarily grant responsibility towards anyone; however, his ideas do imply that a God is not responsible for Humans, as we are a product of continuous evolution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The publication of Darwin\u2019s <\/span>\u00a0<\/span>On the Origin of Species <\/span><\/i>has opened the door for <\/span>scientific thinking and theorizing over the past two centuries. At the time, religious justification and biblical interpretations guided scientific research. Darwin broke the Victorian mold and branched out with his interpretation of the \u201cTree of Life.\u201d Darwin credited adaptation to the need for survival, made survival the motivator for development and nothing else. If species could evolve on their own, then no God was necessary. Because both Darwin and Dawkins eliminated religion as a source of biological evolution, their ideas are integral to the progression of science and generating a standard for subjective, concrete explanations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Science has developed over the centuries to become more comprehensive, evidence based, and critical. Darwin, both a part and catalyst for that change is now a pioneer in expressing his thoughts and has opened doors for many discussions beyond simple science but into ethics, morality and biological hierarchy.<\/span><\/p>\n –\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2016\/may\/29\/selfish-gene-40-years-richard-dawkins-do-ideas-stand-up-adam-rutherford<\/a><\/p>\n –\u00a0https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/biography\/Richard-Dawkins<\/a><\/p>\n