Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit
![Anne Dalke's picture Anne Dalke's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-39.jpg)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Welcome to The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories, offered in Spring 2011 @ Bryn Mawr College. This is an interestingly different kind of place for writing, and may take some getting used to. The first thing to keep in mind is that this is not a place for "formal writing" or "finished thoughts." It's a place for thoughts-in-progress, for what you're thinking (whether you know it or not) on your way to what you think next. Imagine that you're not worrying about "writing" but instead that you're just talking to some people you've met. This is a "conversation" place, a place to find out what you're thinking yourself, and what other people are thinking, so you can help them think and they can help you think. The idea is that your "thoughts in progress" can help others with their thinking, and theirs can help you with yours.
We're glad you're here, and hope you'll come both to enjoy and value our shared imagining of the future evolution of ourselves as individuals and of our gendered, scientific, technological world. Feel free to comment on any post below, or to POST YOUR THOUGHTS HERE....
![dfishervan's picture dfishervan's picture](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9f82bae3dc441fa680a3e4bde59f5113.jpg?d=https%3A%2F%2Fserendipstudio.org%2Fexchange%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSerendipStudioAvatar.png&s=85&r=G)
Evolution and the Classroom: How and I have no idea what
Throughout class on Tuesday, pieces of the thesis on undergraduate science education that I wrote last semester kept creeping into my head. While my thesis steered clear of the sticky topic of evolution in the college classroom, I still found that people were asking similar questions that I asked myself last semester. One student even made a suggestion that I had offered in my thesis concerning how science should be taught. I am a strong advocate for utilizing the history of science as a tool for teaching science as it allows students to discover the creativity associated with the scientific process.
![OrganizedKhaos's picture OrganizedKhaos's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-299.jpg)
Ignorance is Bliss?
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.
![kgrass's picture kgrass's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-847.png)
The Pale Blue Dot
While looking for an avatar, I came across a picture of our world taken from the Voyager 1 in 1990. This picture mainly struck me because of the story that came with it. Carl Sagan, an astronomer and astrophysicist, saw this picture and said "Look at the pale blue dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.
![cr88's picture cr88's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-852.jpg)
Cataclysm and Evolution
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.
![Lethologica's picture Lethologica's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-846.jpg)
What is Impossible?
While considering the implications of using the word 'selection' to describe the process of evolution, a rather peculiar thought struck me. As I listened to everyone trying to reason out the problems inherent in using such an active verb to describe what 'should' have been a passive, random process (and dare I say it, thought just the same myself!) I began to wonder, in some small and secret part of me, why we were all so adamant that evolution is, in fact, passive, with no drive and no set purpose. This led me back to an old question that has haunted me for years: why does it seem so difficult to reconcile science and religion? Is it impossible for creationism and evolution to coexist?
![Cremisi's picture Cremisi's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-842.jpg)
Is natural selection evolving as fast as we are?
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.
![hannahgisele's picture hannahgisele's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-853.jpg)
The Evolution of Words
Our conversation in Thursday’s class made me think not only about the evolution of stories and science, but also about the evolution of words. Professor Dalke asked our class whether or not the Great Chain of Being was foundational or not, and then asked the same about Darwin’s (or as we eventually called it, Grobstein’s tree). Because I misunderstood the way we were defining ‘foundational,’ I tried to build a claim about how Grobstein’s tree was in fact ‘foundational,’ because it was founded on scientific stories, just as the Great Chain of Being was founded on people’s faith in God.
![themword's picture themword's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-829.jpg)
Give Me a Good Explanation
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.
![ib4walrus's picture ib4walrus's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Oh you chance-y huh?
In the first half of our Thursday discussion, we discussed Darwin's conception of chance. It was decided that Darwin believes that chance is simply due to our "ignorance of the cause of each particular event". This coincides with Aristotle's description of chance. To Aristotle, every action causes a reaction that is due to 4 causes: material, efficient, final and formal (I won't get into descriptions of what they are but you can read about it in his book on Physics). However, there are cases which will at first seem to not be a result of any of the 4 causes. In these cases, Aristotle explains the event as being caused by chance.
![elly's picture elly's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-878.jpg)
Are we moving forward?
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.
![Lynn's picture Lynn's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-826.png)
Problems in Our Vocabulary
On Thursday we talked about the identity of the selector in "natural selection". People used phrases like "survival of the fittest", "superior", "progress", etc., when explaining that no one actively, knowingly controls the evolution of a species, but what struck me about the discussion was the nature of the words I just listed. They all rely on a concept of improvement - of forward progress.
![ashley's picture ashley's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-849.jpg)
Code-Switching: Creationism --> Evolutionism
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.
![jhercher's picture jhercher's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-859.jpg)
Narrative and Superstition
although I've been sick and wasn't able to go to discussion, following this comment board and talking with others in class has kept me fairly up to date. Now that I have a class that uses it actively, it seems silly to me not have a fairly active, continuous thread going where students and the professors could voice thoughts. It keeps people up to date on class discussion and inspires future discussion.
![kgrass's picture kgrass's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-847.png)
Thinking is not just for humans
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
![Poppyflower's picture Poppyflower's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-832.jpg)
A Whole New World
Thursday, we talked about how the term "survival of the fittest" is misleading because it is difficult to say what exactly determines who or what the "fittest" is? A worm is not as strong or "fit" as a bird, but yet there are still worms alive today. This does not mean that the bird that eats the worm is necessarily better or fitter than the worm, but that both have somehow maintained the ability to survive, which is what it all comes down to in the first place. We also discussed how the idea of progress is actually a human idea, spawned from our tendency to rank ourselves at the top of the chain. It had never occurred to me that a human built skyscraper is superior to a beaver built dam just because of the difference in species that created them.
![hope's picture hope's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-479.jpg)
Stardust
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.
![hlehman's picture hlehman's picture](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/89a7277c7d2d8c9c3566241fdf501d47.jpg?d=https%3A%2F%2Fserendipstudio.org%2Fexchange%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSerendipStudioAvatar.png&s=85&r=G)
Labradoodles
In Paul’s class last Thursday one topic we focused on was random change and variety and the idea of who is doing the “picking”? I was very intrigued by this discussion about what nature intends for us and if there is “someone” making decisions vs.
![ems8140's picture ems8140's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-840.jpg)
Theory of Everything?
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.
![bhealy's picture bhealy's picture](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a29b6d46d527a4e75e991f63c8a70876.jpg?d=https%3A%2F%2Fserendipstudio.org%2Fexchange%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSerendipStudioAvatar.png&s=85&r=G)
Teaching Evolution: Letting Go of The "Truth"
In class on Tuesday Professor Grobstein touched briefly upon one specific aspect of evolution that I hadn't really thought of before. For whatever reason, this lingered with me throughout the week. The idea was in relation to teaching evolution in schools, most notably elementary schools. Professor Grobstein stated that although we cannot say with certainty that evolution is 100% true, there is a great deal of value in teaching children about it, despite its controversy. Over the years I have tried to pay attention to news stories that often involve religious schools or parts of the country that ban the teaching of evolution because it conflicts with religious ideas/ideals, but I hadn't thought about the value of teaching it regardless.
![the.believer's picture the.believer's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-824.jpg)
To question what "is"
I was taught the concepts of "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" and have incorporated these terms into my own vocabulary. In Paul's discussion, I realize how these terms are very misleading. Darwin's usage of natural selection leads one to believe that someone/something is doing the selecting even though change is supposedly random. Furthermore, survival of the fittest is redundant because to be fit is to survive. There is no measure of fitness. This discussion has made me reevaluate what have always been believed to be. I'd been inclined to accept whats given and hesitate to question what is known. From this discussion, I value skepticism even more.