The process of natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin and the concept of evolution as defined by Oliver Sacks have something foundational in common; both are admittedly theories, not intended to be scientific fact but to stimulate scientific thought and research. Other than this broad similarity, however, the two articles are not readily comparable, given that Sacks' article discusses the origin of life, which would have been comparable to another of Darwin's works, "Origin of Species," while Darwin's article talks about natural selection. Both authors attempt to connect the dots and fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge, in Sacks' case regarding life on other planets and in Darwin's case in terms of how species adapt to their environment. Sacks' article has more of a cosmic focus, while Darwin's has a particular focus on certain species. Neither author claims to have all the answers of the universe and both readily admit that there is room for speculation, but each has theories that he is testing and some strong opinions that he expects to find further supporting evidence for.
What can be compared, however, are the authors' attempts to identify the implications of their observations. Sacks makes three claims in the course of his article-that "most of the planets in our solar system [are] not possible homes for life" (903), that organisms tend to increase their organization and efficiency over time (904), and that the complex interaction of peptides, nucleotides, and proteins in life forms is not something that could come together in proper order and advance the species just by chance in a warm pond (904). Darwin's three claims are that life forms adapt to the planet (868), that natural selection makes species adapt to one another (868), and that life forms advance in harmony with each other (870).
The implications for the first point pivot on whether organisms only exist where their envir...