Reply to comment

Last week, I really enjoyed class which entirely opened tap of my thinking. I kept writing and drawing on my draft paper to record the discussion between us and the ideas and wonders appearing in my mind. They might be random and unconnected. I tried to conclude them.

Normally, we have been taught about Gradualism since we were in elementary school—from simple to complex, from aquatic to terrestrial, from lower to higher. But the truth is that scientists now are still unremittingly finding the missing links which are used to prove their theories from paleontological fossils. Then we have archaeopteryx and eohippus. However, if human beings really gradually evolved from a same species of ancestors as chimpanzees, how could the two species have such “a profound gap” in intellect? The fact I see, opposing Darwin’s opinion, is that the gap between human and nonhuman mind is one of kind and not of degree. Based on this argument, the Puntualism which is brought up recently and emphasizes the sudden change in species is more persuasive.

Back to an old topic, does science serve some other purpose, in addition to improving human’s cognition? Yes, it does. Tracing back to the 17^th century, when Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution, he was attacked by lots of pundits, because his opinion denied the absolute authority of pontiff and church. Ditto for scientists in earlier age, when the heliocentric theory of Copernicus was already proved, some educated aristocrats still advocated the geocentric theory in order to anchor the unshakable status of church. There are always transitional stages existing between superstition and science, especially in earlier ages in which the education was not available for everyone in society.

The mechanism of selection and adaptation in nature has its very clear aim—survival and reproduction. Does human’s conscience complicate the process? Biologically, any living being’s meaning in the natural world is to reproduce, pass its genes and traits. Human beings seem to put too much emphasis on subjectively interpreting the world and change the activities in the world. Thus, are human beings breaking the rules of nature? For example, because humans have a sense of love, they can fall in love with their siblings or the people without advantageous and favored traits, contradicting the rule of nature. But the thing is quite simple among animals. The only factor they follow when they mate is the rule of natural selection rather than sense of love. Thus, the offspring of human beings may not have the nature-favored traits which are more likely to adapt to the environment while those of animals are selected by natural mechanism.