This weekend I came across an article in the New York Times that introduces another interesting story of evolution.  The article, titled, "Nonfiction: Nabokov Theory on Butterfly Evolution is Vindicated" talks about Vladamir Nabokov's (the author of Lolita and much more) work with butterflies and his theory of how the Polymmatus blues evolved.  He published his theory in a paper using "a few literary flourishes", proposing that millions of years ago the butterflies migrated to the New World from Asia in five different waves, and claiming that species that were thought to be closely related were in fact distantly related species.

 This weekend I found myself thinking more about the group discussion we had in Anne's section on Thursday. While we were trying to reconcile our own opinions on reading Darwin and on the topic of evolution we veered off into a discussion on incest, connecting the two through an emphasis on how our own past and experiences influence our gut reactions to controversial subjects, and how we then find as much data and ideas to back up our initial stance. What I found funny was how often I found this topic following me this weekend.

     In class we discussed how people believe something to be true when it is generally agreed on by society. “Truth” and understanding can only be possible when it is put into a common context. Darwin’s story of evolution is convincing because he describes evolution in the context of domestication. He makes the abstract idea of natural selection concrete by demonstrating how selection and change is something the general public can observe. People have made these observations themselves, and they therefore can believe it, or at least begin the process to believing it. 

 So in class Tuesday our discussion led to a moot point in regards to where humans are in this natural world.  Some people held the idea that we are currently the most superior species in the Darwinian sense because of our technology and other advancements while others believed that our own technology has caused us to "devolve".  As our technology advances, we no longer need to exert the same amount of effort or even use some of our body parts anymore.  However, I view our "evolution" in another light.  My definition of evolution is the change in a species through the populations (generations) in order to better adapt to the environment.

On Thursday, we talked about what we though Darwin's intentions might be in writing the origin of species. Was he trying to change our beliefs about how species have come to be? Or was he telling us to be open to different ideas? We don't know what his intentions were, or if he had any at all. But if he did, most of us agree with the latter. We discussed how it is almost impossible to change a person's beliefs because we all have different life experiences, and have been raised in different environments. We may be open to different views and arguments, but we often take those views and try to use them to support are arguments. Basically "I'm right and you're wrong," even if we know that we in fact are wrong. We go with our gut instincts.

In our discussion on Thursday, we explored the role of individual views and societal views in relation to meaning. While I’m a bit attracted to the idea that we can all tell our own stories and make our own interpretations, I have concerns about going too far in that direction. I think there’s some room for interpretation of literature and scientific arguments, but I think that it needs to be within certain limits. I see the "true meaning" as being like concentric circles: there is a small circle that could be agreed upon by all cultures and people (a universal truth), a wider circle that encompasses societal context and then a greater circle for individual experience to affect our interpretations.

On Thursday we argued about which was more important: a shared societal context, a personal self context, or a static/invariable context. There seemed to be points for and against every different view, which made it difficult for us to come to an agreed conclusion as a group. However I think all of these ideas are really the same thing just in different stages of its development.

In our group discussion on Thursday, we discussed what our initial reactions to Darwin were and whether or not it was beneficial to read with our own personal bias.  I find that in order to understand a text, it is essential to bring some part of yourself into the text.  We are all very different individuals that may or may not comprehend one another, especially through the written word.  In the case that we do not comprehend one another, in this case through text, it is extremely beneficial to bring yourself into the text in order to understand it.  Not only may we understand what the writer meant to say more clearly, we would also begin to create new observations.  This would lead to a further, more personal understanding of the text and it brings you, as a re

After last class's discussion, as I read Origin of Species, I looked for how he chose to communicate with the audience.  I found that he made an effort to reach out to everyone, not just to others of his profession and area of research.  He makes an effort to facilitate discussion.  As an author, he cannot directly interact with his audience, so he often responds to perceived comments or questions they might have as best as he could.  However, he does not write to entertain but to inform.  His writing is of course meant to be though provoking, but ultimately he believes in his conclusions based on his findings and desires for his audience to agree with him.  His writing may seem "wordy" or "dense," but ultimately most everything he includes is necessary.