How has Charles Darwin Changed Our Lives?
The nested Russian dolls look pretty much the same as each other. So they don't "evolve" in any discernable way other than in size. They just get smaller as you open them (or progressively bigger as you close them). Organisms don't necessary "get bigger" as they evolve.
So its a rather lame and inane metaphor for evolution.
Though the dolls could be taken as a metaphor for the evolution related concept of "cladistics". One tiny, but important, concept within modern evolution thinking. Cladistics is the practice of placing an organism within larger groups of descent.
The smallest doll could be thought of as one species (humankind, say), or mockingbirds. The human species in contained with ever larger taxomic units: the African apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas), and then a larger groups (all apes, including the Asian gibbon and orange) and larger (primates), Placental mammals, vertabrates, chordates, all prokaryote celled organisms, the animal kingdom, and so on.
But even then its a lame metaphor. Because each Russian doll contains ONLY one smaller doll. To be a metaphor for cladistics each doll would have to contain several smaller dolls, and each of those dolls would itself contain several smaller dolls, and so on. So if you worked backward from small to large the human species doll (for example) would be contained in the same large doll that contains the mockingbird doll (under the large doll of 'vertabrates') showing how humans and mockingbirds become cousins on a certain large level.
So I still don't get your Russian nested doll metaphor at all.
I think that you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a better metaphor.
And the short answer to your question is "yes" we do learn about evolution in public school here in the US.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
So its a rather lame and inane metaphor for evolution.
Though the dolls could be taken as a metaphor for the evolution related concept of "cladistics". One tiny, but important, concept within modern evolution thinking. Cladistics is the practice of placing an organism within larger groups of descent.
The smallest doll could be thought of as one species (humankind, say), or mockingbirds. The human species in contained with ever larger taxomic units: the African apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas), and then a larger groups (all apes, including the Asian gibbon and orange) and larger (primates), Placental mammals, vertabrates, chordates, all prokaryote celled organisms, the animal kingdom, and so on.
But even then its a lame metaphor. Because each Russian doll contains ONLY one smaller doll. To be a metaphor for cladistics each doll would have to contain several smaller dolls, and each of those dolls would itself contain several smaller dolls, and so on. So if you worked backward from small to large the human species doll (for example) would be contained in the same large doll that contains the mockingbird doll (under the large doll of 'vertabrates') showing how humans and mockingbirds become cousins on a certain large level.
So I still don't get your Russian nested doll metaphor at all.
I think that you should go back to the drawing board and come up with a better metaphor.
And the short answer to your question is "yes" we do learn about evolution in public school here in the US.
https://sebpearce.com/BS/
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Although i dont collect postage stamps i thank Darmok for the Darwin stamp.
The first week of september this year i did went to Berlin for a pelgrimage to the "Darwinstraße"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_T_bOhMjNo
Earlier this year i went for the same kind of goal to Belgium. In the capitol Brussel is also a street who honor Darwin.
The video below contains a dutch folksong for drinking beer, i filled the video with the alcoholic drink with names frome the genius from Shrewsbury. At the end a qoute from the Master.
Dude. I never said "no" to you, nor disagreed with you.
I simply asked to you explain what the heck you're talking about.
Apparently you cant even explain your own idea to yourself.
You cant explain how those nested Russian dolls are "like evolution".
In the end, everything and everyone is a pure "unity sausage". If you would pull 1 card from the house of cards with retroactive effect, the whole structure would collapse. Things can only be as they are.
"How come things are the way they are?"
The above is a starting point for approaching things, a starting point with which nothing is wrong.
"How come things are not the way they are?"
At this point of departure, I actually turn things around. Somehow my mind becomes sharper with this approach than with approaching the first principle. Why is it that today no buxus-caterpillars-buxus moths live autonomously in Antarctica? When I think about this, I come up with very simple and tough logic.
A vegan boxwood caterpillar eats boxwood leaves. But there are no boxwood plants in Antarctica. And why are there no boxwood plants in Antarctica today? The climate is currently not suitable for this plant. But there's more. Although a vegan homosapien can live autonomously in Antarctica, in my opinion it is unhealthy but it is possible. A homosapien can build ships, can control ships, and therefore a homosapien can go to Antarctica. Now I do not want to belittle a boxwood moth, but I see this little creature 1 2 3 not yet putting together a Calypso or frigate. The possibilities of a boxwood moth are very small compared to a homosapien. All this is no guarantee for the future, who knows that in a few thousand years Antarctica will be the only place on earth where a boxwood moth and homosapien can live autonomously. In my opinion, something can only be if it can be, but thinking why something is not like it does not, create's clarity in my skull.
"How come things are the way they are?"
The above is a starting point for approaching things, a starting point with which nothing is wrong.
"How come things are not the way they are?"
At this point of departure, I actually turn things around. Somehow my mind becomes sharper with this approach than with approaching the first principle. Why is it that today no buxus-caterpillars-buxus moths live autonomously in Antarctica? When I think about this, I come up with very simple and tough logic.
A vegan boxwood caterpillar eats boxwood leaves. But there are no boxwood plants in Antarctica. And why are there no boxwood plants in Antarctica today? The climate is currently not suitable for this plant. But there's more. Although a vegan homosapien can live autonomously in Antarctica, in my opinion it is unhealthy but it is possible. A homosapien can build ships, can control ships, and therefore a homosapien can go to Antarctica. Now I do not want to belittle a boxwood moth, but I see this little creature 1 2 3 not yet putting together a Calypso or frigate. The possibilities of a boxwood moth are very small compared to a homosapien. All this is no guarantee for the future, who knows that in a few thousand years Antarctica will be the only place on earth where a boxwood moth and homosapien can live autonomously. In my opinion, something can only be if it can be, but thinking why something is not like it does not, create's clarity in my skull.
You need Darwin to explain things that are actually mysterious.
You don't need Darwin to explain obvious things (like why there are no caterpillars in Antarctica).
Thanks to share the Joy Darmok.
Congratulations, and a happy birthday Mister Darwin.
Good luck with the 211 candles you have to blow on the pie
The Savior of Mankind was born 211 years ago. But where was the cradle of this savant?
Considering the birthplace, Charles' parents were not exactly poor people. Robert was a renowned doctor, and mother Sussannah was not without means either. She was from the Wegwood family. And in line with evolution, intelligence parents normally also give birth to intelligent children. The Mount, as the birthplace is called, was not exactly a stable, even the little Charles' bed would have been a little more comfortable than a manger with some straw. Not only individuals and species evolve, buildings also do so due to all kinds of influences. In the picture below Darwin his birthhouse from the past and from a more recent date.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Pray for Charles III. |
05 Feb 2024, 7:39 pm |
King Charles diagnosed with cancer |
25 Mar 2024, 12:04 pm |
Kate Middleton & King Charles Surgery |
23 Jan 2024, 5:54 pm |
10 games that changed your life (a little) |
10 Apr 2024, 9:26 pm |