In Indian mythology, the tortoise holds the entire world on its back.

Likewise, Darwin’s theory

of evolution by means of natural selection, combined with other natural laws, hold up the
whole of the scientific worldview.

There is an immanent pervasiveness to Darwin’s theory. The aspect of natural selection is the
key point in his theory. The organisms of a species that have a variation from other organisms
(regardless of whatever similarities there may be), are the most likely to survive long enough to
pass their traits onto the next generation of that species. After enough divergence in traits, a
new species will be brought forth (Darwin). But why should that be the case? Is there any
logical basis for this? Common sense would seem to say, yes, for any number of reasons.
Philosophers have conjectured that “might is right” in ethics. Likewise, there are OTHER IDEAS.

The answer may lay, to what degree, I am currently UNCERTAIN, in the conservation of energy.
In thermodynamics and information theory, theoretically, putting ice in a cup of hot coffee
could increase the temperature rather than decrease it. Statistical probability is at play.
Entropy.

In biology, this concept manifests itself as biological nature selection. Likewise, there is
chemical evolution and now, new physics which utilize this same concept.

Philosophically, this can be interpreted as any object that interacts better with its environment,
will continue in its environment. As time passes, the object may change This means that as a
species branches into better adapted species, those that have a positive interaction with their
environment will survive. The environment dictates which species will survive, not the actual
changes within the species.

This concept scales from matter to organic molecules, from bacteria to multi-celled organisms,
from populations to socially constructed concepts like ethics, etc.