Darwin Revelation: Natural Selection and Video Games

My study of Darwin, evolution, and more specifically natural selection has lead me to a new understanding of my current field of study, video games. While reading Darwin’s Origin of Species and related works for the explanation of how species come about, an epiphany occurred. Natural selection is an emerging theme in video games that has taken precedence due to its competitive nature.

Natural selection is “differential success” (Appleman 377). A species’ existence will go through many generations, amongst which traits are passed through offspring via genes. Every time members of a species copulate and combine traits, a genetic mutation may occur based on mere probability. If the crossing of traits creates a new trait in the offspring, that creature may become different from other members of the species. Most of the time these differences are negative and spell the doom of the creature’s life, such as a weak immune system or improper organ formation. However, every so often a positive mutation will occur in the offspring that provides a beneficial effect. “Beneficial” is a subjective term, in this case referring to an organism’s increased chance of reproducing. This may take the form of an extra joint that allows the animal to escape predators or catch prey more efficiently, or it could be as simple as a modification to a beak that allows birds to crack a certain type of nut better. Regardless, the increased chance of the mutated organism to reproduce means that over time, more members of the species will share a beneficial trait that distinguishes those who have it. The mutation eventually becomes prevalent to the point where a significant portion of a species is genetically different from the rest and adapted a different lifestyle. New species are formed “when persistent selection over many generations changes a population so much that its members will no longer breed with individuals from a related population” (Appleman 378). Thus, natural selection is the process of probability-based positive traits being passed on from generation to generation in a species until the group experiencing the effect become large enough to be deemed a separate species.

The basis for all video games is conflict; some form of struggle must exist for the player to immerse themselves in a game and derive entertainment from it. Natural selection is Darwin’s explanation for why evolution exists because it drives competition between species by propagating genetic advantages to have some creatures of a species perform better than others. Those who interact with video games derive pleasure from the internal conflict the game presents, such as fighting the villain to save the princess or beating an opponent in a race. Including natural selection in games is an easy way to introduce conflict that stems from the player’s avatar competing with similar characters for glory and supremacy. It also quickly feeds new information to players to keep their interest, a necessity in today’s fast-paced driven world where people tend to lose focus on any single activity. For instance, in Nicholas Carr’s article Is Google Making Us Stupid, he talks about how his mind “expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles”. The advent of technology in games has lead to complex artificial intelligence that allows game designers to incorporate natural selection amongst characters of the same species – humans, monsters, aliens – as a means for driving the game’s conflict and keeping the player’s interest.



This You Tube video beautifully displays a modern game that takes full advantage of evolution and natural selection in its gameplay. Spore was released a few months ago and sparked a national phenomenon amongst players and game designers. Its entire premise is based on evolution and natural selection, a concept that has been tinkered with in video games but never fully explored. The player’s character starts out as a single-cell organism and evolves into more complex organisms via evolution. As the creature becomes more powerful through adaptation to environment, he is forced to interact with members of the same species and combat them for survival. The primary method of becoming the best of your species is adopting a unique trait that allows you to do something better than other members of the species, such as fighting or reproducing. The game is pretty much an ode to all that Darwin stands for because every aspect of its gameplay revolves around evolution and natural selection. Spore is an excellent illustration of the modern trend video games are taking to include themes of natural selection and evolution to promote conflict in gameplay.

Sources:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Grant, Peter. Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Spore. Spore E308 Trailer. July 14, 2008. You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVH9Q8M8eaQ

Darwinism or Creationism, who do you trust?

The battle between Darwinism and Creationism has been for some time now. Creationism is the belief of God. Darwinism is the belief of evolution developed by Charles Darwin to contradict Creationism. Darwinism or evolution theory is based on the survival of the fittest. Meaning the species that’s best suited to its environment will have a higher survival rate. The one’s that not best equipped will die preventing overpopulation of the earth.

As Darwin states about evolution is that all species including humans came from other species. Evolution is determined by natural selection. Natural selection is the process that enables some organisms to live and reproduce while others do not survive. Darwin says: “Natural selection, on the principle of qualities being inherited at corresponding ages, can modify the egg, seed, or young, as easily as the adult.”(Darwin 134) For example, in my scientific revolution class we talked about how certain individuals within a population might possess a genetic trait that provides resistance to a local disease. As a result, those individuals tend to survive longer and produce more offspring than the other members of the population.

Another good example is birds and their beaks. Some are long and slim beaks that are used for the small seeds; others have short, large and powerful beaks used for crushing the bigger seeds. From this evidence Darwin concluded that all of birds had a common ancestor that evolved into the different species we see today. So, this simple structure proves how species evolve over time.

Even though, today science still can say nothing about the supernatural. This debate will continue forever until somebody can prove that Darwinism is true with scientific evidence or even prove that Creationism is true with scientific evidence. But until that time comes, people should be given a choose which they want to accept.

Works Cited

"Creation Vs. Evolution-A Feasibility Study." All About Philosophy. 2008

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/creation-vs-evolution.htm

Darwin, Charles. Darwin. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: Norton Paperbacks, 2000. 134-34

Darwin Revelation- Stephen Richards

            Through out my life, ever since I can remember, I have always been a naturally competitive person. I am competitive with my friends in games and sports.  But, the person I am most competitive with which I always push to exceed my expectations is myself.  This characteristic about myself I see as a positive one in the way that I am constantly pushing myself to be the best.  As a negative characteristic it would be in the way that I am not always accepting who I am as a person.

            While entering college I knew that I wanted to study in the field of business. Knowing that I am a natural competitive person I felt that business not only fit my personality but also was what I wanted to do.  After learning about Darwin’s theory of natural selection I found it easier to make connections in and out of the classroom, such as in the field of business.

 People in business are always competing for one thing, which is to make as much money as possible, in an ethical manner, as well as to be successful in the strategic management of the business goals.  In order to do so some people in business but adapt to the market and the consumer.  Businesses adapt to the situation using what ever means necessary for strategic survival.  One example of strategic survival in the 21^st century is many businesses have relied on technology.  Technology can give a large advantage over other business for efficiency and profitability.  A business can’t be a follower but must be ahead of the curve in its adaptation.  For example as stated in “Darwin” “Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.  Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final.  Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect (289).  A business can’t wait for a given strategy to be proven for success but must strategize correctly and implement for an adjustment to the consumer satisfaction.  It can be risky, but if done correctly before the competition, the reward is great.

In today’s market many people are struggling to find jobs.  Employees are going back to school to become better skilled and more qualified for competitive jobs.  People are adapting to their means and competing with other job seekers in order to pay bills, and buy food, which is a matter of survival.

The video I chose that best demonstrates the relation between Darwin’s natural selection and business is a clip from the movie “Fun with Dick and Jane.” This clip shows people physically racing for a job interview due to the competition.  In this situation the fastest and best skilled interviewee will receive the job. 

Resources:

Appleman, Philip.  Darwin. Darwin and the Shaping of  Modern Science. p289

Popularity, or High School Never Ends

Twilight.

You can’t get away from it. The book, and the three others completing the saga, are all over the book store – Box sets make great Christmas gifts! It’s in commercials, the movie theater, the news. The screaming fan girls are deafening.

Naturally, I resisted. I’m a grown woman, first and foremost, and second the sorts of novels I read are the written equivalent of independent art films. But it got hard to ignore; everyone I knew was reading it. There were copies of it in my dorm room, my house back home; people were calling me and asking what page I was on. It got to be like MySpace – it was easier for me to just get it over with than to constantly defend my choice not to read it. So I read it. I swallowed twelve dollars and thirty-five cents for the first book, borrowed the rest. I finished the (at the time) trilogy in about three weeks.

I was mildly horrified.

These, these were the books people couldn’t stop talking about? This was the book that had won the New York Times Editor’s Choice Award, Publishers Weekly’s Best Book of the Year? This was the trio that had spent a combined 143 weeks on the New York Times best seller’s list?

I was befuddled.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re not terrible books. The plot is fairly intriguing, the characters aren’t entirely flat, the action moves well enough. But I wouldn’t say they were great, I would never have used half the words people threw at me – fantastic, amazing, addictive! I’d expected to, if not enjoy them, at least understand the fanatical following the series had gained once I’d read the books. Instead, I was decidedly more confused.

Sadly, this is an experience I’m having more and more often. Books that are camping out on the NYT best seller’s list are increasingly less well-written, less developed, less complex. The quality of titles making it to the top is steadily declining. It’s a numbers game; these lists have nothing to do with critically evaluating literature, with analyzing the style of writing or the character development or the rise and climax of a storyline. The bestseller list is exactly that, what’s selling the most copies; it’s what people are reading most. To sell well and be famous, to be acclaimed no longer requires an exceptional grasp of the English language, or talent, or study; the landscape of literature has, disturbingly enough, become high school. It’s a popularity contest.

It got me thinking about evolution. Darwin believed that evolution “brings about change and adaptation, but it does not necessarily lead to progress, and it never leads to perfection” (Appleman 23). Mating, especially in humans, is a popularity contest; the smartest and the strongest can easily be outstripped by the most charismatic, the most attractive. For example, the most intelligent members of the human species, a trait that should be exceptionally desirable, considering the state of civilization, are often ridiculed, accosted, and deemed some of the least desirable mates available.

If evolution was truly selecting for the best, the brightest, the most capable, wouldn’t nerds be pretty high up there?

Civilization has only recently, in terms of evolution, advanced to a point that no longer requires strong specimens with quick reflexes, ready to kill. Without open warfare and exposure to environmental dangers, the weakest and least intelligent of the species are no longer being picked off by natural selection; instead, they’re mating and procreating just as often as the strongest, and in many cases more often than the least intelligent. And despite the relatively short period, the fall of intelligence is already becoming apparent.

I wonder what Darwin would have to say about evolution in an environment that does not physically challenge and eliminate the weak elements. The theory of Natural Selection, as proposed by Darwin in The Origin of Species, is a process that leads to “preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations,” but with what I perceive, at least, to assume that nature is given power enough to decided upon and reject certain variations (Appleman 112). In terms of evolution, we’ve entered a new era, one in which nature is no longer given room to select, to remove weak elements.

Clip from the film “Idiocracy”. Released 1 Sept 2006. Twentieth Century Fox.

The above clip, from the film Idiocracy, is a rather humorous representation of how the Theory of Natural Selection may apply in the future, and with what results. Despite the comedy, the idea that Natural Selection will now benefit those who reproduce most often, instead of the strongest, fastest, etc. is not without logic. If unfit breeders and their offspring are not eliminated by the elements, then those who procreate most often will have the most impact on the continued evolution of the species.

--

Works Cited.

Mayr, Ernst. “Who Is Darwin?” Darwin. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. 23.

Darwin, Charles. “The Origin of Species.” Darwin. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. 112.

We Started as One, Will We End as One?

This year in Scientific Revolutions we have learned about a lot of influential people. Darwin, with his theory of evolution, perhaps had the most influence on the people of his time and the generations to come. His theory of evolution essentially explains the origin of species through very simplistic organisms changing to adapt to their environment. As Darwin states in his book "On the Origin of Species", "it is the most flourishing and dominant species of the larger genera which on average vary most; and varieties, as we shall hereafter see, tend to become converted into new and distinct species."(Appleman 107). Over millions of years, these changes to adapt their environments have allowed them to evolve into the multitude of species that we have on earth now. To explain the species that adapt to survive, Darwin developed a theory that he called Natural Selection. Darwin states "individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind."(Appleman 111-112). This is sometimes referred to as "survival of the fittest".

One of the discoveries that is related to Darwin's research is the theory that all of the human race originated in Africa. Through DNA back tracking, scientist were able to come to the conclusion that we all did originate in Africa. They also found that we all started as the same "race", or we all had the same color skin. We all had dark skin because it was useful for blocking out the strong rays from the sun. The skin needs to absorb vitamin D from the UV rays that the sun provides. Being near the equator however, it is unnecessary to absorb that much UV light. This is why humans had dark skin. When humans began to migrate out of Africa to colder climates, the sun's UV rays were not as strong and people began to evolve with lighter skin in order to take in more vitamin D.

My revelation this from learning about Darwin is that Darwin's theory of evolution helps to explain our origins but it can also help us predict what is going to happen in the future. Humans began as one skin tone and then evolved into different tones based on their environment. Due to integration, and less need for vitamin D from the sun, it is entirely possible that over the course of thousands of years that we will evolve back into one skin tone. In today's world there is much less segregation of people of different "races". There are many more interracial couples reproducing making children with less defined skin tones. Another major reason for the differentiation in skin tone, evolutionary wise, is the absorption of vitamin D. Today many of the foods we eat and drink are fortified with vitamin D. This gives our bodies another source of vitamin D, making the sun's supply of vitamin D much less crucial. Over the thousands of years, or perhaps much longer, it is very possible that because of these changes we will develop back in to one skin color.

This South Park clip shows people from the future where variation in race is not existent. There are some other parts in this video that are a parody of illegal immigration but it does get the point across that I am trying to make.



“Goobacks Tookerjerbs”. Youtube.com. September 01, 2008. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_gjI67QiqQ).

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001. 107.

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001. 111-112.

For more information on Appleman or other course readings click here.

Nick Beck Darwin Revelation

Nickolaus Beck
Sunday, December 14, 2008
COR – 210 –
Blog Post

Darwin Revelation

Sometimes people will refer to the good old days, as if to try and remember how things were in the past. They are referring to a time when technology was not as advanced as today. Not too long ago, gas, groceries, and taxes were less expensive than they are now. The process of evolution has caused us to live in a technological world. The minimum wage standard is going up, however, so is the cost of living. People must be able to find ways of transitioning into the new day and age. My revelation is that the human race may be evolving with the new technological age. The article by Nicholas Carr talks about how humans have evolved to the point of not being able to read more than a few pages at a time without being bored. Everything in today’s society is becoming quicker and easier. The general public has forgotten about how things were in the old days, because they have become used to life’s comforts.
Darwin named his discoveries about the process of evolution, natural selection. These discoveries allowed him to conclude that in certain areas of the world, only the animals with the most adapted characteristics would survive. Animals of the same species may have different adaptations because of their natural evolution. “Natural selection almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life” (Darwin, Origin Of Species 97). Darwin’s theories state that only the strong can survive, which seems absolutely true in nature.
Scientists believe that humans may start to evolve, just as animals have all across the world. Some scientists believe that humans may evolve to a race that has Synesthesia. This is a neurologically based disorder that alters a persons perception of life. There are many different cases which patients can percieve letters or numbers as colors, or even hearing sounds in response to visual motion.

This video relates to revelation of evolution and what humans may be able to percieve in the future. This digital world is constantly becoming more advanced, so it’s possible that the human genetics need improving as well.





Works Cited

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjIbpiDlo1k

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001. P97 Origin of Species
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Darwin Revelation

Brennan Cayia
Cyndi Brandenburg
COR 210-05

Darwin Revelation


I have learned a lot throughout the course and we have touched on many interesting subjects. The most interesting was Charles Darwin and his theories of evolution. As we recently studied the color of your skin makes no difference for we all come from the same ancestor (Appleman). My revelation is that no one should be judged based on skin color for it is simply an adaptation of humans.
Darwin’s study of natural selection shows that humans like any species adapted to their environment. Darker skin is a better protection from the sun. The theory that we all originated from central Africa would make sense for it is near the equator where there is much more sun. As our early ancestors spread to different parts of the world we adapted to our surroundings. In some cases this meant no need for dark skin cause the lack of intense sunlight in certain regions of the world. It’s not that someone is different as a person just humans natural change to our environment over time.
Physical characteristics of a person is a story of there ancestors. One of the most obvious and apparent is skin color. We have seen much racism in early years and it much so still exists today. The fact that you could be more related to someone with a different skin color than someone with the same is an interesting concept. We are all more alike and related than we realize. I think if we all step back and look at the concepts that Darwin has shown us we will all have a better appreciation and more respect for each other.




Youtube Video





Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Faith or Fact? A Darwin Revelation

When learning about Darwin and his theory of the Origin of Species and its relationship to what is taught in public schools, I started to wonder how my religion fit in context to his theory. Should I believe what he hypothesized? Darwin's theory has a strong basis and makes sense in the course of history. Or should I look to my faith to answer the questions of how I came to be what I am?

Faced with a personal moral dilemma, I decided to find out what I truly believe in. I asked questions such as Science or Religion? Faith or Fact? But I soon realized what I was doing wrong. My revelation was that I didn't have to mark a line where science stopped and religion began. I do not have to take every word of the Bible literally. I can interpret it how I want and live according to my own beliefs after that.

I asked my pastor if I committed a sin if I did not know that I was sinning at the time. He promptly answered "of course not". So if I can interpret my religious book how I feel it is supposed to be seen and I live by its teachings, even if I commit a sin, I am not at fault. I believed what I had done was right.

So when exactly did this revelation hit me? When I was reading Inherit the Wind. Drummond makes a case that God didn't make the sun until the forth day. This means the first three days could have been longer than three actual twenty-four hour days. He says that the fossil that he has in his hand could be over six thousand years old because those first three days could have been ten million years.



This is where I put it all together. If I interpreted Genesis the way Drummond had, I could say that evolution did happen. That both Charles Darwin, and my faith can coexist. God could have made the first organisms and intended them to evolve just as science said they did over the three possibly non twenty-four hour days that Drummond suggests. Darwin's theory is safe, and so is my faith. I can believe both.

What happens when something else comes along and contradicts my faith again? Well, after this revelation, I think I am prepared to go back and interpret my faith in a different light so I can feel that I am not denying the truth while still adhering to my beliefs.

Feel free to post in the comments section!

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Lawrence, Jerome, and Robert E. Lee. Inherit the Wind. Danbury: Dramatists Play Service, Incorporated, 1963.

Resistant to Change

During my time in Scientific Revolutions I have come to realize that society, as a whole is significantly resistant to, if not downright afraid of new scientific ideas. As Philip Appleman states “A 19th century adage proposed that it is the fate of all great scientific discoveries to pass through three stages. In the first stage, people say, ‘It’s absurd’; in the second, ‘It’s contrary to the Bible’; and in the third, ‘Oh, we’ve known that all along.’” (Appleman 13) This is shown countless times in our past as with every proposed theory we know as truths today there has been direct opposition with gradual acceptance.
To us the struggle of acceptance with a new theory is most dramatically seen in recent years with the evolutionary theories proposed by Charles Darwin. In 1859, Darwin first published his Origin of Species; this caused mass hysteria amongst society as it directly refuted what was previously understood as truth. Less then a hundred years ago creationism was still being taught in schools, as in 1925 John Thomas Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolutionary theory to his students. (Appleman 16) And merely two decades ago, in 1987, did the Supreme Court finally rule that public schools couldn’t teach creationism.
It has taken a considerable amount of time for the populace to recover from Darwin’s initial evolutionary proposition. As we travel through the aforementioned stages of acceptance we seem to have gotten stuck in the second phase, ‘It’s contrary to the Bible’. Last year on CNN featured a debate on creationism vs. evolutionism.




Through the video one can see that the resistance to switch over to Darwinian thinking is still in full swing. The rise of new scientific developments sparks a fear in people as it fundamentally means a previous belief and understanding was incorrect. Therefore part of the resistance lies in admitting you were wrong or what you believe in is false.
I believe this resistance to new theories only lies within the scientific community. I have seen in the Graphic Design and Digital Media major that developmental ideas are seen mostly as advancements in the field and received with open arms. I think the stereotype of the mad scientist is still greatly affecting us, the general public, as science is still considered a dangerous art.

Works Cited and Course Readings:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Creationism debate on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" Perf. Rob Boston and Sharmane Yoest. You Tube. 16 Aug. 2007. 13 Dec. 2008 .

Darwin Revelation

Throughout the course of this year in our Scientific Revolutions class I’ve come across some very interesting ideas. Some of these ideas I’ve already known and was simply made more aware of, while others were completely alien to me. However, one concept stuck out. Charles Darwin postulated that all of mankind is descendant of a lower, baser form. I’ve known this since it was taught to me at a young age in school, but what I’ve recently came across is the concept of evolution leaping from purely natural settings to evolution of society and civilization.

This notion was not directly stated by Darwin, but rather a man following down the same path, a man named Herbert Spencer. Within Appelman’s book this particular section on Spencer is interpreted by another man named Richard Hofstadter, but in either case his contributions are in giving a living voice and context to Spencer’s ideals.

What Spencer puts forth in his philosophy on mankind is that the human race will adapt entirely to civilization, but to do so we must allow for Darwin’s concept of “survival of the fittest” to take hold within society. What Spencer is saying is that we must allow for the unfortunate to die off. No aid or humanitarian efforts of any kind can be allowed for to help would be to bolster up traits and ideals which are flawed or lead to subpar qualities. To quote Hofstadter, “Nature is as insistent upon fitness of mental character as she is upon physical character, (pg. 392)” so stating that being physically or mentally unfit ends with death in the natural world. And to emphasize Hofstadter’s point, Spencer says, “If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, as it is best they do die. (pg. 392)”

However, how could we ever do this? The general masses of people are far too kind hearted to allow someone to perish on their very doorstep for the sake of the overall effect of evolution. Even if you were to take away this humanitarian aspect of helping those in need, we would still be left with the very basic survival instinct of safety in numbers. In some instances we save others to save ourselves. Yet even if you take away this base instinct you would find that this theory still doesn’t work. Just consider a world where we allowed the weak to die with impunity. We would stand to lose many great people along the way. Poets and authors who were too poor to get by without help, painters who had no money but that they acquired through begging. If we snuffed out or ignored those in need we would find ourselves in a much less wondrous environment, devoid of things which we take for granted.

I realized through reading about Spencer’s plan that our need to be humane trumps our evolutionary needs. Our society is far better off with those who need help than without them. While I reject Spencer’s notions in society I accept his consideration of evolution within it. Darwin’s belief was that evolution was a multi-pronged assault against extinction, that the myriad of species which inhabit this earth are a result of this assault. Both Spencer and Darwin rely on this notion of steps, that we start from a single point and grow out from it, changing along the way to better suit the needs for that time. However, Spencer’s notion fails to take into account that the civilized world cannot follow the same rules as a flesh and blood animal. Social aspects can be found in other species, but empires and civilizations cannot be, Spencer’s theory is placing biological concepts on abstract principles.

Works Cited

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Though. Ch. 2. Boston, 1955

Darwin (appleman)



This video describes some of the basic feelings towards the notion of social darwinsim, though it is put into the scheme of the failing market.

Evolution of Race

Amanda Osborne

COR 210-05

Cyndi Brandenburg

11 December 2008

Darwin Revelation

            Over the course of Scientific Revolutions, I have studied the works of Charles Darwin and his theories of evolution.  Through these studies, I have come to the revelation that one should feel foolish to even begin to discriminate against another race.  To claim one race as being “better” than another is ludicrous based upon Darwin’s theory of evolution and how we came to be different from each other.

            Ernst Mayr writes that Darwin disapproved the theory of individual creationism and strongly believed that all humans descended from a common ancestor (Appleman, 23).  The National Academy of Sciences states that Darwin explained that when a species, such as humans, becomes geographically separated, they become genetically different through processes such as natural selection (Appleman, 292).  The findings of Darwin can be applied to the human race to explain why variations such as skin color are found amongst us. 

            It is thought to be that the first humans originated in Africa, an area of intense sun exposure.  Because of the brutality of the sun in this region, these humans had very dark skin, which acted as a means of protection from the sun’s rays.  As humans began to migrate to various regions in the world, such as Europe or Asia, their skin color began to change with each new generation.  As humans traveled further away from Africa, and the equator, it was unnecessary for them to pertain the dark skin complexion that was once needed.  The reason why skin color changed can be proven through Darwin’s studies of natural selection.         

            Natural selection is a term used to describe the genetic differences of a species from generation to generation.  These genetic differences from one generation to another are beneficial, and often times necessary, for the species and helps improve survival rates.  For humans, it can be applied to the explanation of why there are different races in existence today.  We all have different skin colors because it is what was most beneficial to our previous ancestors based upon their geographical inhabitance.

            Based on this knowledge of the evolution of human race, I have come to the revelation that it is indeed foolish for one to judge someone based upon his/her race.  Darwin has proved that we are all indeed from the same ancestor and therefore any qualities such as intelligence, beauty, and worth cannot directly correlate to race.

            Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection show that we are all different for a reason and therefore we shouldn’t judge one another for our differences in physical appearances such as skin color.  One race should not be claimed “smarter” than another.  One is not smarter than another based upon their skin color; one is smarter than another based upon their educational opportunities.  Therefore, it can be said that one race may have lesser opportunities for education in a specific region and therefore are not as of the same intellectual level as another race, but it is foolish to say that that group of individuals isn’t of the same intellectual level merely because of their skin color. 

            People in history, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., have tried to explain to those with discriminatory views that we are all indeed the same.  Darwin, however, has scientific reasons for people to consider.  If we all have originated from the same human ancestors then we should all be treated as equals, regardless of skin color.  Race evolved as a means to benefit individuals of different geographic regions and therefore should not be looked at negatively.  Darwin’s works show that it is truly beneficial for humans to be of different skin colors. 

  

Evolution of Skin Color.  Youtube Video.  11 December 2008.  .

            This video explains the evolution of race and why we are all different from one another.  It confirms my revelation that it is ridiculous for one to be judged on the color of their skin because we are all indeed very similar to one another due to the fact that all races have descended form a single ancestor.   

                       

 

Work Cited

 

National Academy of Sciences.  “Evolution and the Nature of Science.”  Darwin.  Ed. Philip Appleman.  New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 2001.  292.

Mayr, Ernst.  “Who Is Darwin?” Darwin.  Ed. Philip Appleman.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. 23.       

Welcome to the 2008 Class Blog for Core 210-05

Throughout this semester, our class studying Scientific Revolutions will create posts that elaborate upon course content and connect to other materials through links to outside sources such as articles and videos.

Your contribution will consist of a minimum of 5 posts, as outlined below, plus comments on other student postings as appropriate. (Of course, you are welcome and encouraged to blog more frequently if you wish!) Although it is a required course component, I hope you will approach this blog as an opportunity to show your unique perspective on the material we read and discuss, to be creative, and to personalize what we are doing in class in a way that interests and excites you.

REQUIRED POSTINGS:

1. Reading Connections #1: This posting must be made during course weeks 2-5. Create a blog post with links to articles, video, or other content of your choosing that extend concepts we are covering in class during these weeks. You must provide a clear explanation of how your link(s) connect to and expand upon class content, and you must specifically refer to and cite class texts when developing your explanations.
2. Reading Connections #2: This posting is just like the first, only it must be made during course weeks 6-8 and it must deal connect to course content covered during that same period.
3. Abstract: This posting must be done during course week 9. Together with your project partner, post your project abstract and provide a minimum of two links to follow for readers interested in learning more.
4. Darwin Revelation: This posting must be made during course weeks 13-15 (prior to final exam period). Identify a revelation you had after reading about and studying Darwin, and embed a YouTube video that represents the revelation. Your revelation must be clearly explained and supported through specific references to in-class readings, and the connection between your revelation and your chosen video must be thoroughly articulated. (You will also present and explain your revelation to the class during our Final Exam period.)
5. What’s New(s) in Science?: This posting must be completed within 1 week of your in-class What's New(s) Presentation. Create a blog posting that mirrors your in-class presentation, including links to outside content and explanations of their relevance.
   

Have fun, and remember, you are literally writing for the whole world to read!