Elizabeth Ver Hoeve
February 16, 2007
To Be Significant

"To be fit," Ernst Mayr proclaims in his book, What Evolution Is, "means to possess certain properties that increase the probability of survival" (118). Those individuals with the most desired characteristics for their specific environment have the best chance at surviving. So if survivability is measured by, "the existence of certain survival-favoring attributes," how does an organism demonstrate its potential (Mayr 118)? The most prominent indication of an organism's survival capability is its ability to reproduce. Reproduction - the transfer of genetic material from parent to offspring - is crucial in the process of evolution. In order for a population to survive, each generation must produce a subsequent number of offspring. This basic survival requirement is unmistakably essential in the case of say, a population of penguins. Their purpose for selecting a mate and making the treacherous journey across miles and miles of ice and snow is to reproduce and create a future generation of penguins. What makes a penguin evolutionarily significant is its ability to reproduce. But can this clear-cut rationale be applicable to all species of organisms? Humans are substantially different from penguins. We have evolved into higher functioning organisms, developed complex societies, and invented medicine and technology that has potentially allowed us to side-step the force of natural selection altogether. Yet, when asked in class whether or not individuals who choose not to reproduce are evolutionarily significant, the majority response indicated that, evolutionarily speaking, such individuals had no purpose. No purpose? How could that be? Could someone actually imply that if a person doesn't pass on his or her genes, that he/she is simply insignificant? After close attention to human lifestyle, observations associated with this issue seem to point us in the opposite direction. In fact, through the examination of overpopulation, policymaking, and the spread of ideas to future generations, it seems clear that "non-reproducers" are not only significant, they are necessary contributors to the process of evolution.

Evolution is Too Personal

To think that everything and everyone present are simply part of a prodigious universal experiment is both fascinating and formidable. It is fascinating for obvious reasons, but formidable for more obscure ones. Evolution is a scientific theory that, when studied and examined thoroughly, deeply affects the questioner on such a frighteningly personal level that few other scientific ideas can ever touch. It forces humans to approach the question of the meaning of their existence in a most depressing manner--unadorned with flowery, poetic language and devoid of spiritual glow.

Danielle Joseph
February 16, 2007
Evo-Lit : Dalke Section

Humans have a desire to create order both in their physical settings and in their intellectual ones. If something is disordered we create boxes and shelve everything nicely away, cleaning up the mess of nature. This is a difficult task as our environment is constantly changing, so we have to constantly change in order to keep up with it. When we look at the natural world we are confronted with a huge amount of diversity and struggle with a way to categorize and qualify objects. This man-made order is how we make sense of our world; it is a coping mechanism in an environment of chaos. It is also a means of survival. The evenly spaced apple trees in the orchard, or the rows of field corn used to feed our domesticated animals, not only ensure our food supply but also impose order on an unruly landscape. In addition to creating order, as humans, we have always questioned our origins, and the purpose of our existence. The stories that we tell are a way of sharing our observations about our place in the world.

              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.