Natural Selection - its power compared with man's selection - its power on characters of trifling importance [1]
That sounds good, Charles! Tell us more. All of my religious friends will love you. And they won't be offended by the manner in which you insult them in with your 'newly' found ideas. Again, tell us more about how we feel please. I do beg, tell us how things are, Mr. Darwin, since 'we' don't know. "We have reason to believe, as stated inthe first chapter, that a change in the condition of life, by specially acting ont he reproductive system, causes or increases variability;"2 Thinking about how animals and plants evolved in a specific manner, over linear time, makes me think about poetry. For some reason, I can't get enough poetry in Victorian literature. It makes me feel like rapping poetry about creationism v. science.
[3]
[4]
[9]
1 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York: Random House Value Publishing, Inc.), 130
[3]
My recent influence of poetry has made a positive impact on my life. I love poetry--thanks to the influence of a very special professor.
As Darwin says, "I think we shall see that it can act most effectually. " As much I consider poetry to be more of a hobby than anything serious. I do find it serious the argument of Darwin is taken so seriously these days. I argue that no one has the right answer, nor will they ever. By the time we get to the point of "figuring it out", we'll have blown ourselves up over something petty like oil.
[4]The atom bomb serves as a reminder that we're not too far away from "the end". When people talk about science and say this will be here for ever, I often wonder if they know what they're talking about1) I assume they must have a lot of faith in the Human. 2) The atom bomb and world conflicts keep us a push of a button from the end at any given moment. Darwin knows about this, and how it applies to us. But he happens to have a different point of view than I, We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological, that we can see the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were. 5 Darwin talks about how he can who 'us' this or he can show 'us' that. It is interesting as his novel moves forward through time (unless he wrote it backwards) how he begins to find out that he doesn't know as much as he knows, "I could not even understand how some naturalised species have spread throughout the same country." 6He is so bent on proving his theory that he uses a very small sample to further his scientific 'proof', I, "I have twice seen these little plants adhering to its back". My goodness, Charles! You've proven it; beyond all doubt--while using such great logic! Twice? Finally, doesn't science put us one step closer to total destruction.
Ask yourself, how many years would you'd have thought the earth would have survived--knowing what we know now--but without technology or science? .... My guess is pretty long.
Now what about with science--a couple, few hundred years at best. I'd say.
Pardon my sarcasm regarding Charles Darwin. I know his "importance" in our history. I just don't give a damn about him in particular. I've seen too many people get offended over someone who really didn't understand all of what Darwin wrote. He also wrote about not killing individual animals to break the chain... and he, personally, did take the religious thing too far for his own egotistical agenda. And you don't have to be a creationist (I am not) to see his bias slant throughout the text. For once, I'd like to see someone keep Darwin in a scientific context. Somehow, I do think he has a place there. Such as "we" might see in the below youtube about plants. Heading into the summer with "Native Plants" on my list of classes, I am excited about science, but my excitement doesn't entail Darwin. I'm excited because I love plants. Below is a video of a very beautiful mountain full of flowers and life:
In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, is that Darwin is over-emphasized as the father of evolution. I doubt he was the first to make the observation. And I never got how Darwin's theory being correct disproved anything about creationism. I don't think Darwin's role is all that unique. In my opinion, He's merely a reference point to an idea that many people before him had, but did not have the fortune of published before anyone else who was able to have the opportunity. In my opinion, he's sort of the monkey who tried to claim the theory of evolution.
In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, is that Darwin is over-emphasized as the father of evolution. I doubt he was the first to make the observation. And I never got how Darwin's theory being correct disproved anything about creationism. I don't think Darwin's role is all that unique. In my opinion, He's merely a reference point to an idea that many people before him had, but did not have the fortune of published before anyone else who was able to have the opportunity. In my opinion, he's sort of the monkey who tried to claim the theory of evolution.
[9]1 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York: Random House Value Publishing, Inc.), 130
2 Charles Darwin, 131
3 Charles Darwin, 131
4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=7CasKVA2q4E
5 Charles Darwin, 141
6 Charles Darwin, 375
7 Charles Darwin, 375
8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=V3S4LQrvoFs
9 http://www.fortunespawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/darwin_ape.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment