Rhetoric 3302 Questions

CHAPTER 16: Charles Darwin was quite a unique individual! According to the book, he seemed to remain in close connection with his family, and I admire that fact that he didn’t allow his scientific exploration get in the way of spending time with his children. (Although – marrying his first cousin was a bit unusual). I would also have to agree with the way he handled his various publications. I, too, would have waited till the right moment to spread those types of ideas across the country. Not only were there strict punishments for HIM if the news was unaccepted, but his FAMILY would suffer as well.

CHAPTER 17: It was interesting to learn that the fossil record does not coincide with the creation timeline in Genesis. Which one is right then?? Do we believe the evidence of bones that we have dug up and found, or do we believe in the story the Bible tells us?? There was another suggestion in this chapter that caught my attention – it was by George Jackson Mivart, who argued that, “while the evolution of the human body might be explained naturally, the soul must be a divine creation.” If we were, in fact, originally apes – would we then still have a soul? Or did that evolve too?

ORIGIN OF SPECIES: I had heard of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ in many science classes – but I had never actually read part of the text……..During the introduction, Darwin seemed to be very unsure of himself – stating that some of his works may need revising, and that they may not be fully perfected yet…………and although I did not read the first three chapters – he seems to be pretty confident in his points during chapter four, while describing the concepts of “survival of the fittest,” etc………..It seemed a little odd.

The introduction of The Origin of Species. Do animals come from God himself or did they just appear one day because God wanted them here? Are animals evoloving over time to have a better chance of survival in the world? More and more people now a days want our world to be perfect they believe that God has given us an imperfect world. But maybe God wanted it to be this way to teach us the ways of life? The 4th chapter of The Origin of Species talks about natural selection. I believe natural selection has it's ups and downs. I think it is a good thing because it is adapting animals to new climates and new awakaings, but it is also bad because if every animal adapts with the climate and awakaings then there wouldn't be enough room on the Earth after a while of doing this. Then the Earth will be more crowded then it already is. Wow that's all I can say about chapter 4!! It gets very confusing towards the end of it with the sF and oA and all of that stuff that they put on the reading. In chapters 16 and 17 in our book that we read I believe in Darwins Theory to a certain extent!! This is because I believe in Natural Selection and I believe that animals can evolve in there communitys and adapt to new environments that they are put in, but only the tuff survive. But I don't believe that the Bible had nothing to do with it I believe that God may have been apart of natural selection and adaptation!! God could have helped the animals out by giving them new environments and having the Ice Age. Well I don't really have any questions because I agree with most of the stuff on natural selection and adaptation. I believe in the evolution where animals adapt to there new environments. Well there you go those are all of my questions and comments on the readings this week.

Chapter 16
In the history of science I don't think a topic raised as much controversey as that of evolution. If it wasn't for Charles Darwin than the evolutionist viewpoint would be stranded by belief, but he actually pinned scientific evidence to it. I didn't know that Darwin had such a religous background and was influenced by it until he later renounced it. The thing I do not understand is what would propel a person to dedicate their life to a theory that suggests we are all the product of complex relationships with our environment. I like to think that people have higher aspirations than to label themselves as evolutionary material. A question I would like to ask Darwin is, "What did we evolve from? And then what did that thing evolve from?"
Chapter 17
There is much speculation that the theory of evolution supports an atheistic belief, but I do not see it that way. I look at it as if evolution is another field of study, like math and geology, that really doesn't take a stance on explaining the whole world and its conception. I cannot deny that certain evolutionistic principles occur and science has done a great job of portraying this evidence, but is God really in the picture when we talk about a subject like this. I could be an athiest mathematician just as well as I could be a religous evolutionist. Just because beings may evolve that does not mean God is absent. God could have very well created evolution. I think that by pursuing research on this topic we can only learn more and we can't really be hurt by scientific knowledge unless it becomes personal.

I have to admit I enjoyed todays reading assignment on a purely aesthetic level, first to read how one work, The Origin of Species affected not only its author, Charles Darwin, and his family and friends, but to then also learn how that work influenced society in general. It helped then to read the actual text to see just what all the fuss is, and was, about. I have two questions though, about Evolutionary Theory, the first being, is what Darwin writes really that controversial? The basic thrust of the theory is that animals are pressured by the environment itself and the other creatures in that environment to produce offspring better suited to the local conditions, either those offspring die out, or they in-turn reproduce better adapted offspring, and so the cycle continues. Is this idea so complex and outrageous that even today people have difficulty understanding it?

My second question is, does Evolutionary Theory threaten humanities place in the world, and how we view ourselves? Opponents of the theory regularly contest that it strips humanity of purpose and morality. At the risk of being flip, the idea that humans evolved doesn't make me, personally, a less moral person. I'm not more apt to go out and commit random acts of violence just because nature doesn't ordain a place for me. “Oh no, I've just read The Origin of Species, it says evolution is a natural, physical process, and that means I can go out and kick puppies!” Now I am being flip, but my question remains, how, exactly, does Evolutionary Theory affect morality?

In Chapter 16, it was interesting to read Charles Darwin's history of his life. Darwin goes from being a very religious man and believing that God created everything, to believing in the natural laws with natural selection and evolution of every species. I think he took on a big duty to try to explain the origin of all plants and animal species inclucing the human mind and body by natural laws. After reading more about Darwin's theory, I would think the same thing his wife did. She thought that Darwin would suffer eternal tormnets because of what he was trying to prove. When you start to mess with something most people believe in, such as God creating all living and nonliving species, you will of coarse have people questioning your beliefs. Don't you agree?

In Chapter 17, it discussed about the evolutionary theory had an effect on our ideas of the origin of the world and the human mind because if affects our beliefs about God's interaction with his creation. In Jacquelyn's posting I have to agree and wonder the same thing she does. The fossil records do not coincide with the creation timeline in Genesis. So which one is right and what should we believe? Do we believe the Bible or the fossils? The Roman Catholic Church even said that the human body might be explained naturally with evolution, but the soul must still be a part of the divine creation. Which this I would say is true because your soul is what goes to heaven; this is where we hold our belief and love. This brought a lot of controversy. Is it very controversial today with religion, on the fact that the soul was a creation and not an indirect mechanism of evolution? Overall this is a hot topic once again with science and religion.

In "The Origin of Species" I found it to be rather long, but yet filled with details on Darwin's theory about evolution, natural selection, and the laws of nature. He mentions in this article that extinction and natural selection will go "hand in hand". How is this so? Darwin tries to cover every aspect to his theory. He talks about how habits generally change first and then the structure or slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits. Next he talks about the eye being an organ of extreme perfection and complication and how it is part of natural selection. I thought that was interesting on how he could take one organ every species has and compare it with each species using natural selection. Also, I noticed when he was talking about organs, that he likes to look at the "big picture" of things. Lastly he says that natural selection will only produce and observe things for the benefit of the species. Is everything that Darwin discovered about natural selection a benefit to each species? Is it a benefit to the human species?

Like many others, until today, I hadn’t read any of Darwin's actual work, which is slightly embarrassing as biology is my major. Anyways, I found the historical and personal situations surrounding Darwin to be interesting. As the book mentions, people tend to believe that Darwin was the king of evolution, screwing religion and sparking a revolution in a relatively short time frame. It was interesting to find out that it wasn’t exactly the case. After reading that background and then reading Darwin’s Introduction, I couldn’t help but think that the introduction served the purpose of a giant disclaimer, just in case things got ugly later.
I always find it hard to understand why people would try so hard to tweak Genesis and creationism so it will fit with geological evidence. If it doesn’t work literally and you start making it figurative, you have to wonder at what point do you just throw it all out. I don’t know about anyone else, but given the evidence, natural selection and evolution just makes sense. If an organism has a beneficial mutation, that no other organism in that species has, it’s going to be able to reproduce with more success. As most people will agree, heredity and genetics influence the resulting offspring, so therefore the population will see more offspring with that beneficial mutation. On a different approach, evolution answers the question of why vestigial structures and homologous structures exist. For example, why do some whales have little itty bitty leg bones? Why do naked mole rats have eyes? Why do ostriches and emus have wings? If there were some divine creation for all of these animals, why waste time or resources on structures that aren’t useful? As for homologous structures, why do bats, dolphins, humans and other animals share similar bone structure in their wings/flippers/arms? Each is for an entirely different function and it’s logical to assume that if someone were creating the “ultimate” wing, flipper or arm, you would make an “ultimate” wing, flipper or arm, not just use the same blueprint.

Origins of Species: In the introduction I thought that it was interesting that Darwin was inspired by past works, I didn’t know that this idea was thought up before Darwin. I also like when Darwin pointed out the fact that some species have a variety of different species, and differences and then some species are all basically the same. I thought that is a really important thing to think of when thinking of evolution. In the fourth chapter, I thought that the point that different species change color to blend into their environment very important in explaining natural selection. I think that it is the biggest factor is in those animals that change colors for the different seasons. I thought the section on Sexual selection was very interesting, in the animal world the toughest and most charming (they know how to attract the other sex) males and females will survive so that is logical that they are the ones that will have the most descends. I also thought that Darwin brings of a good point that while people have to develop to different environments and conditions it is only logically that animals and plants have also been doing that as well and probably for longer. (Considering they were on earth before man)
Ch 16&17: I thought hat it was interesting that Darwin dropped out of medical school because he said that he didn't have the stomach for surgery. I also thought that it was weird that someone was "hounded" out of town because he said things that people didn't agree with. I thought that it was interesting that Darwin was a closet evolutionist, until his father and daughter died. What I didn't like was that Darwin and his family wanted a private funeral and what they got was a huge public funeral in London. I think that it is amazing that Darwin's works were not really accepted until the twentieth century. When evolution really started to roll was the first time the idea came that God didn't create the earth, but the Big Bang happened. Another big problem that came from evolution was the finding that human could be monkeys that evolved into humans. Evolution is still a problem today, with the idea of creationism. One of the most know problems was the scopes trial. This was when a teacher taught creationism in school and was sued by the school board.

As strange as it may sound, the thing about Charles Darwin that sticks out the most in my mind is the fact that he married his first cousin!! You would think a man of his scientific knowledge would realize problems can occur from this. Also, one of these chapters talked about the different races that ocupy this world today. Some would ask how this diversity occurred if God created only Adam and Eve. But then I started to think of the evolution theory, and it basically says that we evolved from monkeys. So, did we evolve from many different species of monkey, which would make all humans completely different? I was also surprised that Darwin has such a religious background. It seems crazy to me that he would completely denounce it, but I guess people do it quite a bit.

first of all, perhaps in marrying his first cousin he was trying to affirm traits that were distinctly helpfull in his family. his children all became scholars so he may have used a bit of his knowledge to better his fitness!

the biggest thing i tied in on was his wife's reaction when he confessed in not believing in Christianity. She was afraid, that in death, that they would be apart. isnt it ironic that though he wanted to be buried in his home parish that he was buried at westminster without his wife.

my biggest problem with the big revolution of natural selection and such is that for the existence of man, man has not only domesticated animals, they have used animal husbandry to pick out the desired traits in many species. i am sure it wasnt luck that let these people have the animals that were able to do the needed tasks.

Charles Darwin, Evolution

I was struck by how moral Darwin appears in this chapter by James Moore. I think there has been a tendency by many groups (mostly religious) to express contempt for Darwin both personally and professionally. Many religious people (even within my family) still cannot accept that Darwin wasn’t out to destroy religion with his morally bankrupt, Godless propaganda. Actually, Darwin seems to have been guided by a very strong set of principles, even struggling with his own religious beliefs over his lifetime. I don’t think he set out specifically to challenge religion, but rather that was just one of the side-effects of his pursuit of scientific truth. And, it seemed that he actually had some admirers within the church itself?

Evolution doesn’t necessarily need to oppose religion. Darwin pointed out that variation itself is purposeless, but it is selection between variations that is important. I liked the stone analogy—“if someone builds a wall by picking out useful pieces of stone fallen from a cliff, the design is in the selection of the stones: no one would suggest that nature was set up in such a way that stones split from the rock with useful shapes”. In a similar manner, it could be argued that God is the selector of useful traits (directly or through natural laws he established) but what is present for him to choose from is created by the trial-and-error process inherent in other natural laws. One might argue that the theory of evolution restricts God’s power, so it is theologically unacceptable. But I think it could also be argued that it doesn’t limit God’s power. Evolution doesn’t have to diminish God’s power if he in fact set out to create such a practical method for the progression of life. What reason is there to assume that ‘prepackaged plant, animal, and human products’ are in God’s wishes at all? All evolution really opposes is certain religious interpretations, but not the fundamental basis for religion itself.

The Origin of Species

I learned from the reading that Darwin was a writer and thinker with great talent and superb style. However, I have to say I agree with Josh’s assessment of Darwin’s theory of natural selection—what’s the big fuss? I know at the time of its publication it was (as can be expected) quite the controversy. However, Darwin’s writing does not brashly confront the reader with highly abstract claims unevidenced by everyday life. Quite the contrary—his examples of selection are so numerous and so visible in everyday life. His examples concerning domestication of animals such as dogs, his observations on co-evolution, the example of selection pressures in predator-prey relationships, his recognition of the importance of provenance in selecting nursery stock, and the divergent characteristics between domesticated pigeons with long or short beaks and horses bred for speed or strength were all persuasive, insightful observations! I think it’s a great tragedy that more people don’t look at the theories of Darwin on their own merits and—at the very least—read his work before dismissing it as morally bankrupt and without merit.

I found some of the counter arguments to evolution to be very interesting. They blended this new extreme idea with preexisting truths which coincided with the Church. One of the theories mentioned was by Russel Wallace. He talked about how the human body can logically steam from an animal spiecies, but that still does not explain the human mind. Humans are distinctly different from all other known life because we have a complex way of thinking. All of our physical traits can be linked to other mamals, but when talking about brain power comparing humans and other animals becomes more difficult. Wallace believed that this mental difference is where God's distinct handywork could be seen. This argument even me a little bit. Human's thoughts have put our speicies in a very unusual place unlike anything else we know of, how can that be explained. Of course one could answer that question with evolution, but that does not change that fact that we are extrodinarily unique, and a very very strange speicies.

I also found the alternate theory for evolution to be interesting, which is the idea taht all living creatures through time become more complex and perfect with humans at the top of that evolutionary pyramid. Sure that theory is logical when thinking of mental ability, but it falls apart when one thinks of the superior qualities of all other plant animal and plant life. We can be beat in a foot race by a house cat, birds can see X times better, etc. All physical and sense attributes that human have are topped greatly in the animal kingdom, exept our big complex brains. So I find the alternate evolutionary theory the be somewhat illogical.

Darwin’s Origin of Species touches on an interesting point related to what we discussed on Tuesday in class--the perfection of the natural world (examples of a snowflake and a flea). Darwin argues that nature’s productions are better adapted to complex conditions versus man’s impermanent productions.As we encountered in Tuesday’s readings, “geology reduced the relative significance of the human world in time just as early modern astronomy had diminished it in space.” Darwin compared the changes in species to the changes in geology--valleys, cliffs, river erosion, and other natural changes occurring over long periods of time. He refers to geological history and its effects on living organisms, how successful traits are passed on to offspring. It really shows how all creatures on Earth are surprisingly similar and interrelated. We all share similar basic instincts and basic needs for survival. When reading about this, it’s hard to make sense of what we are taught through the Bible.

I guess I have always been taught about Darwin and natural selection, but never knew his history. I found it fascinating that he grew up Christian, and grew to be such a well-known scientist, especially at that time in history. Most people grew up with their religion, and had nothing else to believe otherwise. Unlike the common population, Darwin was a man of discoveries, of great discoveries.
It was interesting to read about pollination. Just this past weekend I was talking with my cousin who is a chem major. After bringing up the topic of me taking this class, we got into discussing how perfect everything in this world is made. Her example was pollin and bees and reproduction. And how it all fits so perfectly together. With only taking science classes in grade school and high school, these are concepts I had never put much thought into.

"Charles Darwin"
i had learned much of this information already in previous classes, but what i didn't know and found to be interesting is how darwin never really alienated anyone on either side of the science/religion debate, at least it didn't seem that way. i thought it seemed pretty rare that the scientific and religious community rallied for him at his funeral and that he was so well respected on both sides. i understand that by this time in history, people weren't condemned to the degree that they once were for having strictly scientific beliefs, but nonetheless.

I thought the "Origin of Species" was really interesting. I got a little bored with some of the details of his life, but I enjoyed reading about how he started as a religious person wanting to become an ordained priest, and then slowly moving away from religion after studying how organisms have changed over time. I liked reading his what he thought and hypothesized about natural selection. One thing I didn't realize before I read this article was the level of technology available or their understanding of geology. For example, I did not know they were actually able to look at different sediment levels or understand the complexity of fossils. One really good point made in the article was how if creatures were just "put" here by God, then why was their evidence of "intermediate" species.

I thougth "Charles Darwin" by James Moore showed the strugles Darwin had to experience while developing his theories of evolution and natural selection. For fear of persecution, he had to keep most of his thought to himself and act like he still believed in God. The article talked about how when he told some of his friends about this theories, it was "like confessing a murder."
I think it is horrible that there was that kind of fear for expressing your ideas just because they didn't go along with traditional theories.

"Evolution" by Peter Bowler again talked about the slow process involved with getting the theory of evolution accepted by scientists and evetually the church. I think it is amazing how religion has affected so much around us like ideas about solar arrangement and evolution/creation. It basically has been shown to be wrong in one case and not exactly correct in the later. Once proven wrong or questioned, people come up with excuses for the Bible like, oh that part is not supose to be taken literaly (Earth is center of the universe)or now they are trying to work in evolution saying it was created by God in order to explain to humans how things came about.

I always appreciate reading Darwin's stuff. I have read some before, but he is a very interesting author. One thing to note, is that while he created the framework, science has expanded upon and altered a few points of his grand theory of natural selection and evolution a bit. The point with Darwin is first, how his revolutionarily new and unique way of understanding how the natural world functions, and second how this provides the important building blocks necessary to solidify and test the hypothesis. All of science up to the current point in time is essentially a compliation of tests and evidence that legitimate essentially what Darwin observed on an extremely detailed scale.
If anyone is interested, there is a class here called "Human Evolution" offered in the Anthro department which lays down the basics, and it is a great class! I agree with some of the previous comments on how the interrelatedness of species really does illustrate some of what Darwin discussed. The problem of wisdom teeth is a great specific example (we discussed it in the class). Why do some people have 4, some have none, and others a full range between? It is interesting to see how our ancestors had all of them, and gene mutations are being spread thru each successive generation, reducing the number of wisdom teeth (categorically speaking). In societies with food that is highly processed (ie cooked), heavily and efficiently concentrated with nutrient value, you simply don't need to have those wisdom teeth for masicatory purposes anymore. And what is not necessary for maintaining a special environmental niche is shucked, to move the resources from that position to another place where you body can more efficiently utilize them.

The "People Evolving from Monkeys" Issue. Read some Jane Goodall. Seriously. Homo Sapien sapien is a species which seems very unique, but really is not. People have posed our massive brains as the main contending point in this. Human brains are nice, but they are not that unique and they certainly have a price. They require HUGE amounts of energy and resources. Why are our infants born so helpless? Brain size and bipedalism are trade offs for premature offspring. That's a big price. On the the issue of our "special" brains. What makes anyone think that our brains are so fundamentally different from other creatures? Sure, we have language, mathematics, machines and philosophy. We have millions of years of evolution on our hands, in which this species took over a specific niche in the environment. But other species have at least some language too. And complex group social strategies. And create and use tools. Chimps and bonobos are very intelligent creatures. They TEACH (it is not inborn knowledge... learning occurs people!)their young how to fish for ants with a pole, crack open hard nuts with a hammer, hunt in highly coordinated groups--then share the food product in a socially meaningful way. They (and gorillas) have learned to utilize basic language codes and understand symbols. So how is the human brain all that "special" again?

"Evolution"
History continues in this chapter with a more in depth description of the reactions to the theory of evolution. it was presented in this chapter that many people, both scientists and religious, accepted darwin's idea of evolution, but still rejected some of it's implications. for instance, the idea that human ability to develop morals and laws was inherited from previous ancestors. i think that so many people, even in light of convincing discovery, still had to cling on to the idea that the human race is superior, beyond just intelligence, of the rest of nature. it's interesting to read this, because there are still people today that i talk to who use this argument. arguments such as, "apes are dirty animals", and "how do you explain our superior intelligence other than with God?" why is it so difficult to for some to toy with the idea that we are by chance, or by natural selection, the most intelligent beings on the planet. or why, after being presented with loads of biological evidence, can someone still deny our "coincidental" genetic and physical relation to apes. i think that people are so desperate for an answer that will fulfill their uncertainties, or make them feel supreme, that they will deny such strong evidence. also presented in the article is how human beings generate a society akin to that of apes, and many other animals. is this another coincidence? if human beings were so supreme, couldn't they think of some sort of supreme form of living, a little less similar than that of "those dirty apes"? i just don't understand what the point of denying proveable facts is. it's not as if i have some predisposition to be anti-religion. i wasn't raised to believe either extreme. i just hope that people are coming to their own conclusions on these issues.

it said page not available for the "origin of species" reading.

Darwin accepted that animals and other species are not completely seperated from the human species. We all know, many believe that animals are just absent minded creatures that are "lower" than us.

We depend on animals, we depend on their existence for our life - their contributions to our mutual environment that gives life to us all. Therefore, it's a little absurd to think we are not all connected and animals are "lower" than us.

However, that argument doesn't remove religion from our world. Obviously, many have tried to use evolution to reinforce the idea of a higher god(s). While others use it to criticize religion. Just like any other scientific idea!

What I found a bit surprising was how so much of the opposition to evolution via natural selection was not necessarily because it contradicted a literal interpretation of the bible, but because it was “materialist” and implied no higher plan or purpose in the world. Many efforts were made (and are continuing to be made) to take evolutionary concepts and modify them to put them in a more purposeful context. What is it about the prospect of human life not being part of an ultimate plan that disturbs so many people so greatly? How would that impact our ability to appreciate and enjoy life and live morally? If life is ephemeral, shouldn’t we treasure it even more?

I also think it should be pointed out that natural selection is NOT random; it doesn‘t claim that everything just happened to come about by totally random, completely nonsensical chance. Evolution may be initiated by tiny, random mutations, but taken overall it has a definite trend towards life and complexity. That’s the beauty of the system, and it doesn’t have to be intelligently guided or “intended” to be awe inspiring and allow us to appreciate the wonder and diversity of life.

Some cool stuff...

[url=][/url]

Some cool stuff...

[url=][/url]

Deep info!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]