The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

Chance is defined as  the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. In the Origin of Species, Darwin's view on this topic is that those occurrences that we recognize as chance are in fact a pattern and our ignorance which makes it impossible for us to acknowledge its existence. To think that stories of evolution that exist today (in my years of education and schooling) incorporate the aspects of chance within them makes me think about the way in which science and literature are very much connected. 

 In Professor Grobstein's class, we discussed whether the fact that the fossil record seems to suggest that evolutionary change occurred not slowly over an extremely long period of time but in rapid bursts invalidated Darwin's theory of evolution. In particular, we discussed the Cambrian Explosion, the as yet unexplained appearance of many diverse forms of multicellular life forms in the fossil record. While it is hard to imagine what may have provoked evolutionary cataclysms such as this, I do not personally believe that such singular events contradict Darwin's theory of evolution.

 It's interesting how we have the ability to think of ourselves in the world. No longer do we need to worry about our survival on a primal level. Our food is pretty much provided for, and many people have good shelter from the harsh environment. Because these needs are mostly all met, we have the time to sit and observe, to think about the past and future, to ponder the matters at hand,  to stew over daily decisions, and to plumb ideas of our existence. 

 A friend of mine posted a link to a video on youtube of Bill O'Reilley interviewing Richard Dawkins about atheism and religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ) which made me think immediately of Darwin and our discussions over the past few weeks. How did the universe begin? Can science explain it? Or is G-d the only rational explanation? Is it true? If I see it, I'll believe it. Putting one's opinions about the show aside, I found the interview to be very interesting and would be interested to hear what other people's thoughts were about it, in relation to what we've discussed over the past few weeks.

Last Thursday we discussed whether there was such a thing as progress in evolution. Are we moving forward as a species, or is it just change for the sake of change, as adaptation to our current situation and environment. How can we compare our ability to survive to humans who came before us? It is all situational. If there is no such thing as "forward evolution" then there is no proof that we are more advanced than our predecessor. This idea is representative of the problems that Darwin's ideas created for people associated with the Church, and with colonization during his time.

Being asked whether two (or more) very distinct theories on how life came to be can simultaneously exist side by side caused me to ponder over that which I'd been taught growing up. Seeing as how I was raised Catholic, the story of Adam and Eve is not an unfamiliar one. While I was told this to be the reason for human existence, once I started learning about the theory of evolution in school I didn't find myself struggling with which one to side with. It seemed more a matter of both of them being in existence in my mind, although they were in completely separate realms.

 In class on Thursday, we discussed how thinking and the ability to reason is only a human characteristic, and whether this ability makes us “better” than other organisms or not. We went on to discuss that there is no such thing as “superior”, but really good enough. If something is able to survive on this planet and continue to pass on its genes, it is pretty much golden. Our ability to think has definitely been a key in our ability to survive, and therefore has been important to our evolution. What I was struck by was the amount of people who believed other animals do not think. Our ability to reason is not exclusive. There have been plenty of examples of other primates with social structures, tool manipulation, and the ability to build lifetime rela

Who is it that said we are all just stardust? I like that. To think that all of these thoughts and feelings I have that seem so important to me are just chemicals moving around in my head. Chemicals my DNA told my body to make, DNA that is just an accumulation of millions of years of accidents. I like to try to imagine the story from the beginning. I find the randomness beautiful.  A long time ago nothing exploded into something. Some stars formed, cooked up the elements, exploded. Earth and the sun were born. Life emerged, evolved. And now here I am. Stardust, with feelings.

In class on Tuesday, we discussed whether or not there could be a theory of everything. Some may believe there is the possibility for a grand unifying theory, which would in turn allows for prediction. Based on the evolutionary way of thinking, it would not be possible to have a theory of everything. According to Darwin’s beliefs and evolution, living things are constantly changing and developing. If there were a grand unifying theory, then there would be no way that evolution could progress. Much like the great chain of being story that was also discussed in class, this potential theory of everything would also be static and not allow for any changes.