Communications and Media

For a number of years the concept of evolution has always been debated, no single dispensation has ever been accepted or regarded in total as the all inclusive interpretation. Several reasons such as religion, scientific as well as historical factors are commonly cited as the rudimental challenges that make interpretation of evolution to be inconsistent. However, a number of researchers have attempted to provides us with a considerable explanation of evolution, supported by both scientific and behavioral aspects but the resultant effect remains, no definite Interpretations of evolution. It is on such a situation that, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell emerged with a more concentrated interpretation, however, they also disagreed on some grounds.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell 
According to Charles Darwins theory of evolution, some species survives and flourishes in their diverse environment, while others systematically disappear due to lack of sufficient strength to survive. Therefore, the selective procedure determines which species lives and those which become extinct, and this is determined by their resistance.

Darwins conclusions by investigating the selective process were based on the comprehension of his time. He couldnt deduce that there are numeral programs in the wake of the selective process that sets up each species to oppose natural selection. Therefore, Darwins concept asserts that, only the fittest organism overcame the turbulent forces of nature.

Whether through mutation or adaptation to the prevailing conditions, he seems to have reached to a conclusion, where he interpreted evolution to be both physical and biological changes which are effected by circumstances. Despite Darwin understanding of evolution which he so vehemently argued through his qualified analysis of natural selection, Alfred Russell had his distinct opinions which greatly differed with Darwins understanding of evolution.

Russell presented a deeper and broader argument in regard to evolution. This can be linked to the fact that he examined or rather he defined evolution by concentrating on greater human levels beyond physical growth and development. Though both men agreed on the concept of evolution to be a reality, Russell did not accept the Darwins theory in total, more so he opposed the concept of natural selection by asserting that, natural selection as Darwin had attempted to present was not sufficient ground for evolution and in particular in issues regarding human race (Oppenheim 1985).

Most scholars have made unswerving conclusion that, Russell changed his mind about the theory of natural selection which he had originally pioneered-perhaps due to lack of ability to bring together the survival for the fittest theory with his utopian concept of social views and more so his juxtaposition with his personal adoption of spiritualist beliefs. Therefore, unlike Darwin who drew his conclusions from detailed studies and examinations, Russell seems to have anchored his interpretation of evolution on cosmological stand which was in total dissimilar from Darwinian principles (Mitchell 1992 Burkhardt 1974).

Comparing the two scientists, there is a clandestine differences between there understanding and interpretation of evolution, it should be noted that, Darwin believed that natural selection could help to explain the presences of mans growth and development (Poulton 1896). While on the other had it is instrumental to realize that, Russells approach to evolution was defined by his youthful rejection of the doctrines primary causes as well as a refuting the concept of continuity. Regarding the above observation, The Ascent of Man documentary presents a sharp contrast of what Russell interprets as evolution (Wallace 1891). It is instrumental to argue that, Darwin anticipated it might be feasible that all life is descended from a novel species from primeval times. DNA verification supports this idea (Ospovat 1981). Doubtless all organic mortals who have constantly lived on this earth have originated from various types primordial life form.  Therefore, reflecting on the concepts which Darwin based or interpreted his argument, it apparent that, Russell reaction propelled him to build a unique brand of anti-first foundation teleology. Hence, this whole idea developed to become a body of ideas companionable with acquisitive logic on his acknowledgment of principles of natural assortment and his approach and adoption to spiritualism (Osborn 1894).

Contrasts
Russell is interpreted as having discarded the spat of essential utility of adaptation before 1858 these principal which were held in principle in almost all aspects pertaining to evolution, it is apparent that, at that time he associated such recognition with approval of first causes-based dogma (Kauffman 1993). Russell attempted to develop an evolutionary model that defined continuity of causality going beyond the instantaneous sphere of influence within which natural selection is typically credited as operating. Also he never viewed his espousal of spiritualism as recoil from natural selection rather, he reflected on spiritualism the best obtainable accounting of the general course of evolution at the ethicalintellectual level, and sanctioned it accordingly (Gould 2002).  Therefore, it is prudence, to state that, despite the fact that, both Darwin and Russell explored on the same concept of evolution, individually they provided distinct disparities which clarified their interpretation. Hence, Darwin seems to have offered or interred evolution more authoritatively than Russell who diverged to approach the whole issue on the concept of spiritualism (Slotten 1979).

Therefore, reflecting on the various theories presented by both Darwin and Russell, it is paramount to note that their differences form a significant variance even more than their similarity. This is attributed to the fact that, where Russell dwelt on issues pertaining to such issues as art and literature in the development of man. Darwin attempted to understand the natural rudiments that influenced the various scope of natural selection and why the nature favors the fit. More so, examining the argument presented in the video The Ascent of Man, this video presents a solid indication of how nature has a tendency of giving place to the fit. Therefore, it is such observation that Russell tends to vehemently disagree, however, the path he opted to follow, significantly follows the same principles of natural selection that Darwin established. Am of opinion that, both Darwin and Russell in one way or the other developed the almost the same theory which accounted for their interpretations of the diverse wealth of data they collected.

In conclusion, as the documentary indicates, the relationship between the two scientists can be said to fundamentally imprinted the manner they approached and viewed the powers of natural selection individually. Their thinking was not similar, and perhaps thats why they also disagreed on the purpose of sexual selection in evolution. While Darwin presented sexual selection as a procedure that could determine some specific features, Russell thought otherwise. Despite their disagreements, they do agree and accept that species do evolve (Gould 2002).