Up@dawn 2.0

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Plato's Beard (16, 2)

Hey guys!
Sorry for posting so late.
Wednesday we discussed the Hegel's Thesis+ Antithesis= Synthesis idea.
I think we all decided that the such continual reforming of ideas and society could go in the wrong direction as well as the right. In general Hegel does not inspire confidence, although collaboration is not a bad thing.
We also had a lengthy discussion on Darwin and his theory of natural selection/ evolution.
I cannot say we came to an agreement on the validity of it. Some withheld there opinion based on a lack of knowledge, some agreed with Darwin and others rejected it (myself in that mix).

Dr. Oliver recommended I clarify a point I brought up that seemed to cause some confusion.

I said I believed in Microevolution, not Macroevolution. In the most simplistic terms, I believe that all creatures can adapt to better survive, such as the Finches with a better beak shape for a particular food surviving and passing the characteristic to its offspring, but reject the idea that finches could change to any other animal but a finch.

An objection was brought up as to my usage of "bird" or "dog", in that it was not clear whether I was referring to a particular species or to an entire family of "birds" or "dogs". My answer is yes, meaning that while I believe species can change, the overall family does not change. Put in another way, long ago (thousands of years ago) a bulldog could, through some change in the environment, have produced a Labrador, if the characteristics of a lab were demanded from a bulldog to survive. However, bulldog or lab, they would have not sprouted wings to become a bird of any species. 

Essentially, you could call Microevolution a type of natural selection which outlines the adaptability of creatures. Macroevolution calls for a change beyond the boundaries of an animal's fundamental makeup which is only supported by shaky evidence ( you can disagree with me, but I have yet to read a book or hear a talk on Macroevolution that has convinced me otherwise.).

Okay, now that I am getting off my soapbox,  I welcome any objections, either in posts or in person.

See you all Monday!
Brandon

13 comments:

  1. Your explanation of micro vs. macroevolution was helpful (even though I'm not in your class). However, because I generally agree with Darwin, I would say that his theory that humans evolved from apes isn't totally implausible. The way I understand it, he didn't claim that it happened overnight. I'm not trying to change your view or anything. That's just the way I understand his theory. (H3)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Austin Duke4:49 PM CST

    (16-1) I agree with the idea of microevolution. That makes sense to me. The idea that all life came from single celled organisms (maybe not a Darwinian idea) doesn't really make sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (16-1) Darwin was obviously correct about evolution, but how much does that affect Christianity believing that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I'm not sure if it says that verbatim in the bible, but it could be one of those things that got mistranslated throughout the years. Anyhow, outside of that tidbit, I don't see evolution and religion conflicting as much as some people seem to think it does.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So Brandon, you don't think dogs came from wolves? And you talk about convincing evidence of macro evolution, but there is completely no evidence or every will be of religion being right or wrong.
    On the other point I agree with Marx ideas. Soviet Union's communism didn't work because those who ran it were corrupt. However, it is unclear if there could be a government that could be communistic that isn't corrupt.

    FQ: Which social class did Karl Marx fight for? (the working class, or proletariat)
    DQ: What do you think the best kind of government is overall and why?

    Here is a funny 2 minute philosophy on Karl Marx
    http://goanimate.com/videos/0XKeDpktHwi4

    ReplyDelete
  5. unique-section16/group311:16 PM CST

    i agree. i totally think we change to adapt to survive!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Taylore (16-2)11:40 PM CST

    Thanks Brandon for the further explanation of your point of view, and totally agree with survival adaptions. If I'm mistaken dogs and wolves come from the same genus however, their species is different thus justifying how dogs are associated with wolves and their familiarity.
    FQ; Which book, written by Kierkegaard, gives the reader a choice between aesthetic and the ethical? [Either/ Or] LHp 153
    DQ: If put in the same predicament as Abraham, do you think you would be as "faithful" as he was?
    Link:Kierkegaard Cartoon Strip
    http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/k/kierkegaard.asp

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:44 AM CST

    I had never looked into Microevolution or Macroevolution, with that being said I found your post rather insightful

    ReplyDelete
  8. (16-2) I'm not sure if I believe in differentiating between micro and macro evolution, but the subject just generates uncertainty in general for me.
    FQ: Who was the philosopher who wrote under the name Johannes de Silentio - John of Silence? (Soren Kierkegaard)
    DQ: Kiekegaard valued strict ethical values; he even declined to marry the love of his life because of his sense of duty. Do you think Keikegaard was right in stressing the idea that making the right decision trumps all other conventional moral rules?
    Link: Monty Python Communist Quiz - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s

    ReplyDelete
  9. Courtney 16-312:06 PM CST

    Brandon, I like the way you think! I agree with you species do evolve overtime to become better and preserve future life. I love your example between a dog and a bird, it really is a smart and unique analogy!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the elaboration, Brandon. I came across an essay, addressing the issue. Its conclusion: "there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution." I'll post it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chelsea 16-112:39 PM CST

    It is crazy to me how it is this choice that either you "believe" in evolution or you believe in god. To me you can accept evolution and believe in god if you want. You don't have to choose one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:53 AM CST

    Michael Anderson H3

    Good explanation of Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution, very well thought out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love the idea of natural selection and microevolution. Very good explanation of micro vs. macro, as everybody has pointed out already.

    ReplyDelete