I agree as well because natural selection is different from deciding which trait will be passed on. A certain type of species can die and remove a certain trait and increase the number of the traits from the surviving species.while we can choose is different because you can decide when which trait lives unlike having a natural event happen and eliminate a certain species.

I also disagree with this statement. As it was already said eugenics is the "improving of the gene" while Darwin's concept is based on change through time and generations by natural selection. Darwin's concept states how species survive and reproduce to make another generation that will later on strive to survive as well. While Eugenics "corrects" the gene by eliminating those whose traits are not needed or wanted.

Darwin was influenced by many scientists. One for instance, was Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus wrote The Principle Of Population, which theorized that "population growth would always overpower food supply growth, creating perpetual states of hunger, disease, and struggle. The natural, ever-present struggle for survival caught the attention of Darwin, and he extended Malthus' principle to the evolutionary scheme. " During this time majority of people were poor and strive to survive. Because of this, Darwin began to get the idea of survival of the fittest, where those who are struggling will die out leaving the ones with the good traits to survive.

Another scientist was Lamark. Lamark believed that in order to do something they gain a trait. For example, if a giraffe needed to reach the tall branch then generation after generation would stretch their neck until they reach the branch. Darwin took this into consideration ,but instead of "the giraffe has a long neck to enable it to eat, but it can eat because of its long neck."

Social Darwinism is the idea of survival of the fittest. While Darwinism is the idea that species change over time. Social Darwinism is the way that people act. Darwinism is how everything changes over time and alter. However, they are slo both similar. Both Darwinism and Social Darwinism share the idea of transmutation, which is the " theory that described the altering of one species into another." They both explain how things come to be. For instance, people who agree with Social Darwinism believe in the higher class and being able to sustain ones self. Darwinism also agrees with survival of the fittest. If people believed in "the bigger the better" then there would be more of the "bigger" and the bigger would be producing more and more, thus, bringing us to where we are.

I highly agree with this. First off, slavery was the big thing going on during the 1800's. Darwin was wondering why they, the slaves, looked so different. So to him he was trying to find the connection between him and the slaves. Maybe after he thought of this, he started looking around and saw how animals were also different from each other.