These are really illinformed comments - Darwin made it clear his theories were for natural behavioirs of plants and animals, in order to explain their present day status and behaviours. He did not recommend its usage to explain societal structures or societal behaviours - in short, he did not create "social darwinism", the application of Darwin's theories onto human society. This is unproven grounds, and often misuse of science. It may apply in parts, but societies are not group on unthinking or illiterate animals, and neither are people always working for their own good. Study of a human being as a species is great using darwin's thoeries, but study of individual human behavior is misplaced and unproven, and often has no backing by Darwin.

My apology for misprints; "Origins" was published in 1859 and Bateson's work was published in 1900

It is amazing how often Darwin is misunderstood and quoted out of context.

"Survival of the Fittest." Yes you said it! Pakistan is not fit to survive anymore. And it is not going to survive with its present conditions. I had some hope with Imran Khan's, so called, Tsunami, but it doesn't seem to be coming any more. May God ease the agony of Pakistan's last days!

Nowhere in his masterpiece, 'The Origin of Species' Darwin has used the term- 'Survival of the Fittest'. It was used by Herbert Spencer a few years before The Origin was published.Moreover,the application of the concept of 'Struggle for Existence' mechanically in social theories has given rise to what is known Social Darwinism which has long been discredited.Racial, nationalistic hatred are products of such applications.

Interesting....:)

The way humans behave sometimes I am convinced that Darwin's theory of evolution should be going in the opposite direction.

I am very much fascinated with Darwinism from my childhood, I have gone through with the book Voyage of Beagle which Charles Darwin has written regarding his travel through a ship for 14 years & he examined all his theories through this journey. I feel we should learn from this theory & follow it.

Darwinism and the concept of natural selection (NS) are not properly understood by most Darwinians and Dr Ahmed is no exception. Darwin in his Famous book ?Origins? (1969) hypothesised that evolution took place by (1) minute genetic changes (2) over a very long period of time by NS (I do not discuss NS here). His hypothesis was accepted by most scientists. In the year 2,000 after Mendel?s work had been rediscovered, Bateson at Cambridge invented the concept of ?gene? and ?genetics?. From then on search for genes began. For obvious reasons, the genes that were discovered had major effects. No minute effect genes were discovered. The situation was so bleak that none of books on evolution published in the 1920s even mentioned Darwinism. Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin?s second son suggested, on the authority of his late father, in 1921 that we should forget NS and simply advocate evolution. Fortunately, he had a brilliant prot?g? R A Fisher, the great geneticist and Statistician who disagreed. Fisher in his famous 1918 paper hypothesised that genes with minute effect (now called polygenes) exist and ?showed? that the observed kinship correlations on height are consistent with his hypothesis. The Royal Society (London) declined to publish this paper because the referees could not understand its mathematics. Leonard Darwin paid about ?50 (a vast sum at that time) to have it published in the journal of the Royal society of Edinburgh. Fisher, then in 1930 published his book ?The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection?. This book and the 1918 paper laid the foundations of Neo-Darwinism which spread because after WWII Fisher?s students became Professors of Genetics and/or Professors of Statistics in English speaking universities all over the world. What is now the status of Neo-Darwinism? Human genome has about 25,000 genes, not a lot more than the humble mouse. There is no room for a large number of sets of minute effect genes, each set determining by itself or in conjunction with other set(s) a particular trait. Regrettably, Neo-Darwinism is also dead and for the same reason for which Darwinism died, namely, there is no evidence that genes with minute effect exist. Fisher?s beautiful model will have to wait for the discovery of a species that has minute effect genes. I know that scientists who have spent a life time on Neo-Darwinism have some difficulty in accepting this but we will have to look for another model for evolution.

My question to the readers is: How does this information effect the belief in faith and religion? If this is science than how do you reconcile with all Holy books?

I am having trouble making the connection between Darwin's theory and the present state of affairs. In fact when you dissect the theory - survival of the fittest implies preserving the genetic information of the individual usually at the cost of other living organisms (or society at large). Thus at the most basic biological level, the male unit of reproduction competes among millions of others so that only the most capable is able to fertilize the egg. At a larger level individuals look for their personal interests before they benefit society. An interesting corollary of this theory is that as the chaos in society increases so does the level of altruism reduce. Thus in a jungle, it is every man (or monkey or deer) for itself. At the other extreme, in countries like Norway or Sweden, laws are well established so social altruism increases - which means low corruption,social equality and fairness of resource allocation. In a country like ours, which is one step away from the jungle, you have various self-interest groups and factions who dont care about what the common (poor) man is going through. This is survival of the fittest or this case the fattest. Darwin's theory in all its glory !!

You will find no sincere people in the current government - they are busy looting what is left of the country.

I am not really sure on what grounds does the writer suggest that the developed nations give due priority to Darwinism; some examples would've helped. I, on the other hand, can refer to certain behaviours/attitude of the developed world that is to the contrary; for instance, the way they care about the weak and the elderly, the disabled and animals is anything but giving priority to Darwinism. The theory of evolution by natural selection, in my opinion, is amongst the most powerful and plausible scientific theories of all times and it is becoming ever more authentic as new scientific techniques are appearing (e.g., genom mapping) but I would be very careful insinuating that it should be followed in our daily life. There are many things that we do that go against us as a species in the long run (saving the weak and the elderly and living longer than ever before is by no means beneficial to us as species for it gives us lesser opportunity to adopt) and I am glad that we do so. The way I see is that the rule of the survival of the fittest is more followed by our (and by most under developed world for that matter) society. I see this rule of nature in action everywhere in Pakistan.