Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Student's picture


After thinking about evolution, trying to define it and realizing it's hard to agree one on definition, I started to wonder.. if evolution brings about thoughts of some kind of change.. if evolution is a term being used to explain the change that has taken place from nothing, to dinosaurs, to the little mammals left, to where we are now.. I started to wonder if evolution has to go in a more advancing direction for it to be evolution. If, as we grow up, we develop bad habits- habits that are harmful (granted that it is said evolution happens on larger level), would this still be evolution? I think it would have to be.. assuming that these habits are considered negative and bad now, who's to say in the future, with time, the effects will still be negative?.. the thought that we'll never know at the time just how useful something is, is an interesting concept.. we live as we think would be best- we, consciously and unconsciously, evolve with more conditions experienced, more choices made, more development.. yet we don't really know how these choices will effect us, let alone our population, in the future.

As for Mayr.. while reading his book, his authoritative tone bothered me, but it was interesting to read. Rightly or wrongly, I think the tone bothered me because.. it seems like his book was about collected evidence, and restating Darwin's stories..just putting it all together in one place. I think, the majority of what he said was backed up with what he would call evidence- in the form of fossils, or in some other form (with the exception of a lot from the latter portion of the book with unfounded claims..).. I think this bothers me so much, because, he chose to collect all of this together and write about it, probably, because he believes it so strongly.. but he's not the one who created it, nor is he the one to credit for discovering all of the "evidence", without which, the whole concept of evolution would never have gained so much support.. but, I guess this goes along with the idea of us all starting off as babies.. then we go to school, because more interested in something, study it, go to school for it.. and then we're "experts"- if such a thing really exists (or if the word is useful at all), in the field. Nearly anyone could have chosen the field to go into- likely would have had different reactions, different responses to the material they have learned, but would have been "taught" (with the exception of classes not targeted towards teaching facts, like this one), the same material.. it's similar to Mayr's saying 2 and 2 is 4, backing it up, preaching it.. when possibly, it would have been more advantageous, to the public, for him to have come up with his own idea, his own method, his own theory.. and brought something new to everyone.


To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
4 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.