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.

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.

 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.

If these "alternative" genders and sexualities in the animal world are so common, then why is it that I've never heard of them before?

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.

Devanshi brought up an interesting point in discussion on Thursday: the idea of thought and how evolution applies to it. Are we evolutionarily better than other organisms because we can think? Is thought a way to prove that evolution is progressive? I think that thought is not a feature that can be described as "better" nor do I think it is proof of progressiveness. I still think that organisms are different and it is unfair to compare them on an evolutionary scale.

On Thursday, we struggled over the question of who (or what force) is determining the course of our evolution. Is it the environmental conditions or the particular features of an organism?