Blogs

              For every piece of knowledge that we come across, there exists a multilayered way of understanding and interpreting it. Very often, it is by close analysis of these diverse and differing perspectives of information that each individual is able to add to their perpetually growing store of knowledge. Consequently, if the numerous ways of understanding a particular topic are not taken into account by learners, they often develop a very singular way of framing their perception of different subject matter, and the world at large. As educational Paulo Freire puts it, “[Students’] capacity to intervene, to compare, to judge, to decide, to choose, to desist makes them capable of acts of greatness…”1    It is the job of educators, therefore, to present their students with as many ways of approaching and understanding particular subject matter. This has the effect of giving each student numerous perspectives of knowledge, on which they can exercise their innate, democratic right to choose what they want to learn.  It is for this precise reason that the topic of evolution should be taught in schools; not to impose on the value of those that prefer to believe in creationism, but to allow individuals to choose which of the two they would rather learn.      

Isabelle Winer

The Story of Evolution

Paper #1

The Perpetual Motion of Evolution

Today many of the problems people have with evolution stem from their understanding of evolution as being a completely random process.  It is human nature to desire order and direction, which explains why religion with its rules and higher being is such a more comfortable story.  On the other hand, evolution, viewed as “completely random”, portrays life as lacking purpose and direction.  Christopher Schöborn displayed this view when he said, “evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not [true]. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”[1] This understanding of evolution is incorrect; evolution is instead a process directed by the ever-changing environment. The variation made possible by the random mutation of genes is simply the opening that makes evolution possible.

The scientific study of what evolution is does not seem to have produced a unified response as to what this developmental course of life actually means. Charles Darwin claimed that his theory of natural and sexual selection was central to the understanding of evolution as a science. Darwin stated that variation was central to the idea of evolution, claiming that diversification in nature was what caused it to flow.

Kristin Jenkins

Biology 223

Dalke & Grobstein

January 16, 2006

Human Evolution – What Does the Future Hold?  

Hayley Reed

Biology/English 223

February 16th, 2007

Evolving Without A Plan: A Critical Analysis of What Evolution Is 

Becky Farber

February 16, 2007

Paper #1

            Throughout the course of class discussion and Ernst Mayr’s What Evolution Is, we have explored the notion of evolution occurring by a series of random events and interactions. “Different genotypes within a single population may respond differently to the same change of the environment. The changes of the environment, likewise, are unpredictable” (Mayr, 277). Humans by chance evolved to this latest stage with somewhat of an ability to recognize the very process by which we came to exist. On the one hand, advancements in technology, matched with the dominant attitude and position of the human race, allow for intentional and increasing changes to be made to the evolutionary path. Yet intrinsic in human nature is the faculty to adjust the direction of evolution, and this can be done without knowledge of either evolution or technology. I argue that humans alter the process of evolution both deliberately and unintentionally. Our role as the most developed organism allots us the supposed authority and innate ability to modify the course of evolution and the future of development, not just for our own species, but for others as well.

Humans are taking an active role in evolution both biologically and socially, having the effect of altering natural selection, perhaps even halting it.  Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is a combination of heritability, random variation of genes and natural selection; the later two which Darwin formulated.  Evolution involves the appearance of a trait due to a random genetic mutation which can be selected for and thrive in the environment, or which can be chosen against and accordingly eliminated.  However, in Western society we are effectively taking control of our evolution through new biological and medical discoveries that can, among other things, extend one’s life and prevent possible extinction from undesirable traits or illness.  In addition, survival and reproduction in our society no longer depend entirely on genes and biological traits.  Social traits are often able to override seemingly negative biological traits and allow for the reproduction of that individual and their genes.  When these biological and social selection traits are combined, individuals and genes often survive that would not have, had these safeguards been eliminated.  This has the effect of increasing these genes and traits in the population and allowing for a larger population.  There are many positive and negative side effects that will be associated with this control of traits, one of them being that the effects of natural selection are being overridden. 

The theory of evolution is based on the concept of genetic variation and random mutation. Without the combination of different traits and genes it would be impossible for the world to exist as it does today with so many different populations, species, and environments.

In his book, What Evolution Is, Mayr writes, “evolution is inevitable” (5). However, humans have risen to a level of intelligence higher than that of any other organism, and have been able to manipulate nature into science. One of the most famous and recent debates in the science community is on the topic of cloning, and what people can achieve using it. Cloning was first viewed as something probable in 1997 when Scottish scientists produced the clone of a sheep, “Dolly,” the first clone of a mammal. Since then, the concept of cloning animals and humans has been debated in the media, the scientific community, receiving both applause and criticism.

Lisa Lim
Story of Evolution/Evolution of Stories
02/16/07

Trial and Error: Or, Why Humans Are Evolutionary Mistakes

The theory of evolution is much like the process of evolution itself-in trying to reach a perfect state, it must first undergo numerous errors and changes. Biologically, evolution is the change of a population's traits from one generation to the next, a random system of trial and error in which the error, or less desirable trait, is slowly weeded out. Overtime, evolution leads to the birth of new species, each supposedly more advanced, more perfect, than the last and each capable of passing on their traits and thus, ensuring the survival of the genus. As of present day, it could be argued that evolution has found its goal in humans, who have risen as perhaps the most developed life form and who certainly have the most effect on nature, as well as on the survival of not only other species, but their own as well. However, if the goal of evolution is only to create a perfect alpha species capable of reproduction, then humans, in their current state, are certainly errors.

Men possess an innate need to understand things.  For this to happen, the process of categorizing and explaining relationships are use.  The “loopy scientific method” is the core procedure in which men apply to categorize things.  Using this loopy scientific method assumes that the summary of observations receive after the experiment is done, is not a final answer.  Since new observations can appear that might refute the old observations thus one can call it “getting it less wrong.” This idea of “getting it less wrong” can be applicable to the field of Chemistry, in this case the Periodic Table.  Although Chemistry can be considered as a science branch that is relatively more concrete than Biology, due to the possibility that experiments can be perform under controlled environments in a laboratory to confirm summaries of observations, it is never-the-less theories and not facts.  In this paper, I will make an argument stating that the Periodic Table is a man-made product that follows the loopy scientific method, thus can be considered as something that is “getting it less wrong” compared to earlier tables.  One can also consider it as a specific view, out of many possible views, on the relationships of elements though it is the most useful.  With this in mind, the Periodic Table is not a scientific truth but a good and useful chart of observations.