Reply to comment

Today in our group discussion, Professor Grobstein said something that caught my attention. Now, unfortunately, my memory leaves much to be desired, and I can't quite remember what it was that he said. However, I remember that it had to do with evolution and literature being trial and error.

I agree that in both literature and evolution, there is trial and error. The difference in these trials and error is that it's easier to "fix" in literature--if it's not printed out yet, you can delete the error and fix it. If it has been printed out, distributed and what not, the mistake is there, but if it is even noticed, it will soon be forgotten (or live on only in the deepest recesses of the mind). Errors in literature are human-made errors and can be fixed by humans.

In evolution, however, the "error" is the "weaker" or less desirable trait. It doesn't immediately die out--rather, it is slowly weeded out either until it is obsolete or, in time, becomes the favorable and thus, "stronger" trait. While the theory may be human made, evolution itself is not. Evolution, at least what we covered of it in class, is random. Humans have no control over it--we cannot go and fix the errors--indeed, we, or at least some of us, may be errors. Unlike literature, which, at some point is printed out and (hopefully) found to be at least satisfactory, there is no point of satisfaction in evolution--there is no one or thing to please. Whereas in literature, one may go back and fix the errors (or bring attention to it), even years later, in evolution, there is no going back, no real "fixing" because evolution depends on the environment and what the "error" is in evolution is fluid, changing with the times.