Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Have I completely misunderstood Darwin ?
My view is that Darwin was right in correctly showing that all living beings evolve and that Natural Selection has a hand in improving the species ever so incrementally,so that the species survives by the fact of being the fittest to survive.
However Darwin was acutely conscious of the implications of his words l random and automatic, why is the selection not biased towards the destruction of a species.
“...Darwin was right in correctly showing that all living beings evolve and that Natural Selection has a hand in improving the species ever so incrementally, ….”
correct.
“...so that the species survives by the fact of being the fittest to survive. ...”
what does that got to do with evolution?
As KazetNagorra correctly pointed out, “Natural selection works on the level of individuals, not species.”
or, putting that in another way:
When the least adapted individuals (note I don't say “least finest”! Contrary to popular belief Darwin never said “survival of the fittest” and quite rightly too as that is a highly misleading and simplistic statement!) within the SAME species are selected out by the environment, we call that “natural selection” which is part of evolution.
But when the least adapted species are selected out by the environment, although that is strictly speaking a kind of “natural selection”, it isn't “natural selection” in the evolutionary sense of the term. And we don't call that death of a species “evolution”, we call it “extinction”!
“...However Darwin was acutely conscious of the implications of his words like Nature and Selection. He knew these words would cause a misunderstanding that a selecting agency doing this work means bringing in God by backdoor. ...”
what are you talking about? He believed (and knew) the exact opposite! He was a THEIST and in his diary he showed his intense agony and depression at what he perceived to be a clear contradiction between his theory and his religion.
“...So he went on modifying his statement by saying that this selection gets done automatically. ...”
he didn't modify it! Where did you get that from? There is no evidence that he made an earlier version of the theory that was consistent with his religious belief.
Also, logically, saying that the selection is “natural selection” i.e. selection done by nature (more specifically, the environment that living thing lives in) is obviously equivalent to saying selection gets done automatically AND it is also equivalent to saying selection gets done without any need for divine intervention.
“...I do not believe in any"Environment" or " Nature " interested in improving species....”
neither did he believe that and the theory of evolution doesn't imply otherwise. This is another of your misunderstandings.
“...These entities do not have any stake in the evolution of living beings. ...”
he didn't believe that and the theory of evolution doesn't imply this.
“...If selection is random and automatic, ...”
natural selection is not random. This is another of your misunderstandings. It is inevitable that more of the best adapted variants will be selected by the environment than the least adapted variants therefore selection is not random.
“...why is the selection not biased towards the destruction of a species. ...”
firstly, evolution doesn't work at a species level ( yet another of your misunderstandings) .
Secondly, the best adapted variants will be selected by the environment and so the species will generally evolve to be better adapted but that does not necessary mean that characteristics for the species as a whole will be selected for will be good for the species as a whole! This is partly why some species go extinct! For example, dinosaurs evolved to be vary large. But being a large size generally made dinosaur species MORE prone to extinction and NOT LESS! (at least when there was a global change to the climate) hence this is part of the reason why they died out but other smaller species survived.