In my essay I will try to analyse two texts, The Origin of Species and Wealth of Nations and discuss the theories of evolution. In order to evaluate theories of evolution I should define some concepts. Here evolution and theory should be defined well. Evolution means the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development. Theory means a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation.

In both of texts there are evolutions. In Wealth of Nations there is a social evolution, and in The Origin of Species there is a biological evolution. I want to start from Wealth of Nations, which is written by Adam Smith who is a Scottish politician, economist, and philosopher. He has got the popularity of phrase “the invisible hand”. His book Wealth of Nations was written in 1776 and placed the foundations of classical free market economy theory generally named as the “bible” of the capitalism. Wealth of Nations was extremely popular and has 4 English editions. This book was translated into many foreign languages during Smith’s life. Wealth of Nations gives some suggestions from Smith’s views about the exact level of political power that business people should have in a government. However to make any kind of sense I should give some historical background. In 1776 England was very far from democracy. The goodness ruled England; however small farmers, merchants and manufacturers had gained some political power. Wealth of Nations was written in such conditions.

In this book there is a basic concept that I want to define. The concept is survival of the fittest, which means the principle that animals and plants suited to the conditions they live in are more likely to stay alive and produce other animals and plants than those that are not suited. Survival of the fittest is very important to understand Adam Smith’s thoughts about evolution in economy. Since he anticipates an increase at the quantity of work by making division of labour. And these occur by changing, which means after making division of labour at works outcomes of this process change. So, this is an evolution, namely a change. He predicts agricultural and industrial evolutions because of some reasons that I will mention it later. There is a natural desire to exchange according to Smith. After this there would be social division of labour, then division of labour would be detailed and finally there is an improvement in productive powers of labour.

He starts with giving a manufacture, which produces pins. In this manufacture there are 10 workers. “From a very trifling manufacture; but one in which the division of labour has been very often taken notice of, the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business, nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty” (Smith 109). It is impossible a person is able to produce more than 20 pins in a day, because he makes all parts of production on his own and there are lots of parts in a pin production. Even this person is educated about production; he can’t produce more than 20 pins. “Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day” (Smith 110). In this situation people are able to produce more than 240 times of former one. The reason of this increase in the production is division of labour. In this manufacture work is divided into 18 parts and 10 people do distinct operations. So this means some of this people have to do more than one operations. I will mention about the reasons of increase in the production by making division of labour.

Adam Smith also mentions about division of labour in agriculture. “It is impossible to separate so entirely the business of the grazier from that of the corn-farmer as the trade of the carpenter is commonly separated from that of the smith. The spinner is almost always a distinct person from the weaver; but the ploughman, the harrower, the sower of the seed, and the reaper of the corn, are often the same” (Smith 111) He mentions about the difficulties when we try to make a division of labour in agriculture. Because different parts of works in agriculture are not completely distinct as they are in manufacture. The parts of work are related each other and it is not so possible to separate them. “This impossibility of making so complete and entire a separation of all the different branches of labour employed in agriculture is perhaps the reason why the improvement of the productive powers of labour in this art does not always keep pace with their improvement in manufactures. The most opulent nations, indeed, generally excel all their neighbours in agriculture as well as in manufactures; but they are commonly more distinguished by their superiority in the latter than in the former” (Smith 111). So, an improvement of the productive powers of labour is slower than manufacture as a normal result of impossibility of separation of the parts of a work in agriculture.

Adam Smith says there are three reasons of increase of the quantity of work in consequence of division of labour. “First, the improvement of the dexterity of the workman necessarily increases the quantity of the work he can perform; and the division of labour” (Smith 112). Dexterity, viz ability to perform a difficult action, develops by the time period passes which people work for only this distinct part of a work because of division of labour. And as dexterity develops, the quantity of work would absolutely increase.

“Secondly, the advantage which is gained by saving the time commonly lost in passing from one sort of work to another is much greater than we should at first view be apt to imagine it” (Smith 113). If a person does more than one different work, it is not possible to pass quickly one from another. Since he can’t be concentrated on immediately, there would be wasted time by passing among these works. He cannot be very keen on and ambitious after he changes his work for another. So, by the division of labour people are provided to be concentrated only for one kind of work and it is prevented to wasted time.

“Thirdly and lastly, I shall only observe, that the invention of all those machines by which labour is so much facilitated and abridged seems to have been originally owing to the division of labour” (Smith 114). As I mentioned above if a person does only one kind of work they are able to be concentrated on his work and he is very keen on. So, for such a person discovering something that is related his work is not difficult. Since he does same work for a time period, and he becomes an expert of his part -of course he becomes more expert as time passes- and can discover something, which brings easiness to his work. As a result of division of labour, workers can invent some machinery, which are useful to bring easiness and less time wasting.

Let me give an example from text. “In the first fire-engines, a boy was constantly employed to open and shut alternately the communication between the boiler and the cylinder, according as the piston either ascended or descended. One of those boys, who loved to play with his companions, observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve, which opened this communication to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance, and leave him at liberty to divert himself with his playfellows” (Smith 114). This is an exact example that supports my idea.

The workers have great quantity of work that is more than they need. So they are able to exchange their surplus with other workers’ surpluses. “He is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods for a great quantity, or, what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great quantity of theirs. He supplies them abundantly with what they have occasion for, and they accommodate him as amply with what he has occasion for, and a general plenty diffuses itself through all the different ranks of the society” (Smith 115). A worker may need another’s quantity of work and if that person has more than he needs, he would exchange his surplus quantity of work and of course if he needs other side’s surplus quantity of work. It can be though that division of labour may be necessary for a complex life. I mean for a simple life it is not required. “If we examine, I say, all these things, and consider what a variety of labour is employed about each of them, we shall be sensible that, without the assistance and co-operation many thousands, the very meanest person in a civilized country couldn’t be provided, even according to what we very falsely imagine the easy and simple manner in which he is commonly accommodated” (Smith 117). As Adam Smith straightened us out, division of labour is very important for human life. Even for a simple life goes on well existence of division of labour is inevitable.

In fact division of labour is a consequence of process of human nature more than a reason for human life. “It is (division of labour) necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature, which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another” (Smith 117). The main idea of exchange is simple: surplus of quantity of production of each person is exchanged among people. “Give me that which I want and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices, which we stand in need of.” (Smith 118). We work out our wishes by this way: exchanging the surpluses. Smith told us this way and it became like that through eras.

We can say again division of labour is a consequence of human life in fact. “So it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour” (Smith 119).

In division of labour there is evolution as I said before. The changes, which are existed during the process of division of labour. “The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we aware of” (Smith 120). In this process of change also humans are important. As you remembered in division of labour people are divided into distinct operations. As Smith mentioned the differences that are occurred after division of labour among people is not caused by people’s own features. It doesn’t come from human nature. “The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature as from habit, custom, and education” (Smith 120) Adam Smith verifies me with his sentences. During division of labour people change, since they do different operation. As a result of this they become different. If a person works on only one area, s/he becomes expert in his/her area. This person changes because of division of labour. “About that age, or soon after, they come to be employed in very different occupations. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scare any resemblance” (Smith 120).

Adam Smith also mentions about problems that existed at the latter parts of this process. There are problems during exchange commodities. All kinds of commodities are not exchanged easily and as wanted amounts. Because of these problems, people tend to work at various works. Then, he mentions about how money is shaped. But in my opinion these are not so important. In general Smith tells us the process of division of labour and the consequence and reasons and the process is an evolution, social evolution.

Second text is written by Charles Darwin and his book’s name is The Origin of Species. In this book biological revolution is told. By the time passes changes occur in organisms and evolution is done. Anyway, as I said before The Origin of Species was modified by Charles Darwin no less than 5 times in his own life. Beginning the second revision of the 8th December 1859, 12 days after 1st edition was sold out. All told, The Origin of Species, experience 6 editions the last of which published on February 19, 1872. Until the time of his death in 1882 25,500 English copies had been published in Britain only. In Darwin’s time there were important events: In 1848 the industry revolution and the industrialization of the Europe and world. Darwin was absolutely impressed of these improvements and changes. However he made his study well and wrote important works during his lifetime.

In The Origin of Species Darwin mentions about increasing the populations of alive. According to him there is geometrical ratio of increase. As a result of this increase the world population goes up too much. Then because of the limited resources and living areas, there would be struggle for existence. As the same time at struggle for existence natural selection also exists. And finally biological evolution comes true.

From very beginning there is an important concept that is called survival of the fittest and Darwin’s explaining about evolution is based on this concept. Survival of the fittest is a principle that animals and plants suited to the conditions they live in are more likely to stay alive and produce other animals and plants than those which are not suited. In fact this definition tells us biggest part of the evolution. The species or creatures that are suited to the conditions more than to the others are able to survive. On the other hand, the species, which can’t be suited to conditions, are eliminated.

We will start our analysis of the text by giving quotations from the very beginning: struggle for existence. “Two canine animals in a time of dearth may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to be dependent on the moisture” (Darwin 116). Here it is told us that the struggle for existence is various that’s why this struggle and competition is not against only enemies, also other factors. “As the missletoe is disseminated by birds, its existence depends on birds; and it may metaphorically be said to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in order to tempt birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants” (Darwin 116). This is also an interesting kind of struggle, since it is not a direct struggle. The other plants are not be eaten by birds, because only missletoe’s fruits are eaten and its seeds are able to moved to different areas and develop and grow up at different parts of the world.

I mentioned it above that there is too many creatures are produced and the surplus of this production should be reduced. “Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life” (Darwin 117). He mentions the main reason of this struggle, the living areas and the resources that are necessary for alive are limited. So, in order to make a balance some of species and their members must be eliminated from the world. And in this struggle is against both its own specie’s members and other specie’s members. “As species of the same genus have usually, though by no means invariably, some similarity in habits and constitution, and always in structure, the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus, when they come into competition with each other, than between species of distinct genera” (Darwin 127). Moreover he says the struggle between members of the same species is more difficult. Since there are so many similarities about both their physical features and mentality among these members. So, this kind of struggle is more difficult than others, which are against members from distinct species.

The geometrical increase is even calculated many times before theoretically. “Linnaeus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds – and there is no plant so unproductive as this – and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be a million plants” (Darwin 117). Despite of the fact that, here geometrical increase is told superficially and they are not exact observations; we can understand or foresee that the increase would be so big and unstoppable. “But we have better evidence on this subject than mere theoretical calculations, namely, the numerous recorded cases of the astonishingly rapid increase of various animals in a state of nature, when circumstances have been favourable to them during two or three following seasons” (Darwin 117). In these sentences we come across with different ideas and thoughts. It is mentioned favourable circumstances. This favourable circumstances or conditions are the key for struggle for existence. Since species do a competition in each other to able to survive. The main problem is this in fact. And in order to survive they must have favourable conditions. These favourable circumstances allow to species survive. These favourable conditions may be climate, surroundings, enemies’ situation or same species’ members’ situation. So these conditions are various and change according to time and land.

I want to give some examples about how species develop such favourable conditions. “Several plants now most numerous over the wide plains of La Plata, clothing square leagues of surface almost to the exclusion of all other plants, have been introduced from Europe; and there are plants which now range in India, as I hear from Dr Falconer, from Cape Comorin to the Himalaya, which have been imported from America since its discovery” (Darwin 118). As we see in this example the circumstances are so favourable that this plant is able to grow up in distinct countries. The most important thing is also having favourable conditions. Only in the case of having favourable conditions or circumstances species can be survive. All of the species already can’t have these favourable conditions that’s why all of them can’t survive as the natural result of limited resources and other obstacles.

Charles Darwin also mentions about these unwanted conditions and obstacles in his book. “In the case of every species, many different checks, acting at different periods of life, and during different seasons or years, probably come into play; some one check or some few being generally the most potent, but all concurring in determining the average number or even the existence of the species” (Darwin 125). These are checks, namely obstacles are inevitable for some species, since it has to be like that. If every species are able to survive and there is no competition among them, this world would not be a place in order to live for all species.

At the end I want to give one more quotation from The Origin of Species that indicates Charles Darwin thoughts finally. “When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply” (Darwin 129).