Reply to comment

               A lot of people talked about food/diet/fat people etc. in this series of posts. Many people said that fat people do not “evolve” because the process of evolution is going towards something which is better, and if you’re becoming obese then you’re not progressing with evolution. I think the mistake here is that all people do evolve, whether they become heavier or lighter (their bodies evolve and change), but some of the changes aren’t the most suitable for surviving.  This is clear with the example of obesity, for science has shown obese people are at higher risks for hypertension, heart disease, diabetes…etc, so we know that the “normal” body has many set-points and standards for maintaining in a healthy and tolerable state for living. 

            A little more on Mayr….I, like many others, am guilty of mostly believing any scientists words as being the truth.  As others mentioned, it is inevitable for people less-knowledgeable about a topic to trust other with the knowledge as experts and take their word as truth.  To continue, I do believe that there is less ambiguity in science because in order to understand science, you must understand the underlying mechanisms of cellular processes, the actual methods and procedures involved, different cycles, and specific terms that are used to explain them.  While specific vocabularies to pertain to literature as well, the interpretation of the subject material is still ambiguous as it varies from person to person.  The self, or individual, plays a significant role in the analysis of literature and texts. Whereas, explaining DNA replication is pretty much a cut and dry process.  One thing leads to the next, there are specific elements involved, and it happens in a specific sequence and series of events with a goal in mind.  Thus, the individual does not play as significant a role in understanding science, for the processes and mechanisms are mostly laid out for them and need to merely be learned and memorized.