I think it isn't a weak or invalid concept.
Variation?!?! That was an obvious observation of naturalists that opposed Darwin's concepts totally. Unless you mean the heritability that leads to variation? Explaining that variation was the problem. Creationists of the time explained this by positing god's whimsy in designing his species, but this was shown to be nonsense as natural processes are at work in variation and this can be shown experimentally. The concept of natural selection explained how that natural variation was selected on beneficial traits. What Darwin did not understand is how that variation was passed on to progeny. His explanation was wrong.
The idea that evolution is a directed process with a predetermined goal or purpose is not part of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Instead, Darwin proposed that evolution occurs through random variation and selection based on the fitness of individuals in a given environment.
Edwin Darwin did not propose a separate theory on evolution. The theory of evolution is commonly attributed to Charles Darwin, who put forth the concept of natural selection as the mechanism driving evolution. Edwin Darwin does not have a notable theory associated with evolution.
Mendel's conclusion on the segregation and independent assortment of traits laid the groundwork for Darwin's theory of natural selection by providing a mechanism for how variation is passed down from one generation to the next. This understanding of how traits are inherited allowed Darwin to propose that natural selection acts on this variation to drive the evolution of populations.
By giving the theory a mechanism of inheritance. Particulate inheritance, where each parent contributes chromosomes ( Mendel dod not know what a chromosome was and called genes " factors " ) that contain separate alleles that contribute to the progeny's traits. Darwin's idea of " blending " inheritance was completely wrong.
Variation?!?! That was an obvious observation of naturalists that opposed Darwin's concepts totally. Unless you mean the heritability that leads to variation? Explaining that variation was the problem. Creationists of the time explained this by positing god's whimsy in designing his species, but this was shown to be nonsense as natural processes are at work in variation and this can be shown experimentally. The concept of natural selection explained how that natural variation was selected on beneficial traits. What Darwin did not understand is how that variation was passed on to progeny. His explanation was wrong.
Charles Darwins theory is wrong to religon as it is very clear god created the world. and theories like Darwins are wrong.
Genetic variations are produced by mutations and sexual recombination
" Translated " is not the correct word. The concept is called social Darwinism and has little to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection because it is not about the natural struggle for existence of individual organisms, but about how societies compete. This is not an evolutionary concept. Herbert Spenser devised this concept and Darwin did not have anything to do with it and really did not approve of the concept's tenets.
which is not part of darwins theory of natural selction
A guy who had a debate about Darwins theory
Darwins theory of evolution
Darwins theory of evolution :)
The idea that evolution is a directed process with a predetermined goal or purpose is not part of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Instead, Darwin proposed that evolution occurs through random variation and selection based on the fitness of individuals in a given environment.
Edwin Darwin did not propose a separate theory on evolution. The theory of evolution is commonly attributed to Charles Darwin, who put forth the concept of natural selection as the mechanism driving evolution. Edwin Darwin does not have a notable theory associated with evolution.
Survival of the fittest
Charles Darwin studied birds, medicine, and theory of evolution.