Playing God with Wooly Mammoths
I have watched a video about reviving the wooly mammoths back in 8th grade in my science class. As I watched the video, I was fascinated with he idea that humans could find a way to revive extinct animals, but a question kept popping up in my mind: WHY? Why do we want to revive them? Isn’t nature fine without them? I don’t really see the point to waste so much money on this if nature is doing just fine without them. Sure, it would be cute to see them frolicking somewhere in Russia. But still, a question remains, WHY? There is no practical benefit for mankind or any other animals to have a mammoth back. Why can’t we take the money spent on it and use it to advance research in the medical field or use it to examine animals that are alive TODAY? I just don’t get it. The Wooly Mammoth is history, let it remain history.
Manny will forever be in our hearts. Rest in Peace! L
What Darwin “not really” knew
The documentary “What Darwin Never Knew” is very interesting and brings many points together to prove something we like to call evolution. Evolution is a big controversy to many. It rubs on me a bit the wrong way but not necessarily because it goes against certain religious beliefs of people, but that it can also go against many good, reliable, and observable science!
A big issue with evolution to me is that it looks at natural selection WITHIN a species (a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.), also known as micro evolution, and deduces that for a given species to turn into another, we add the factor of time (millions and billions of years) and the micro will eventually turn into macro evolution: molecules to man.
This to me is incredibly flawed. The factor that would change an organism into another is not TIME. The factor is GENE. However, there is absolutely no known or observable occurrence in an evolutionary process that NEW information can be added to the genome of a given species:
The finches in the video, no matter how you look at it, they are STILL finches. But since there is variability in beak shape, some will find it easier to stay on islands that have hard shells, while others will stay on the islands that have long stemmed flowers. But is fat beak finch “marries” a skinny beak finch, and have finch babies, some babies will have longer beaks, while other will have fatter beaks. Then, naturally, the fat beak finch will eat the nuts since he can crush them, and the skinny beak with eat the flower since it can reach further into it. But…they are still finches. This is NOT evolution, just variation within a species that will naturally get them to separate because of differences in strengths and abilities.
One part of the video that bothered me was the pocket rat in the desert bit. The narrator said something very erroneous: he said that the pocket rat EVOLVED into the black rat in the areas with black sand in order to survive. I’m going to assume that pocket rats probably have the genetic variability to produce black rats and beige rats (and in-betweens). So given that there are a variety of pocket rats, you will naturally see lighter rats on the areas of the desert with lighter sand because they are camouflaged and the black rats are NOT. So the birds will eat the black rats in the area, this will naturally cut the pocket rat’s genetic variability to produce black rats, thus there will be MANY beige rats in beige sand since there are no black rats to reproduce with them. Then, the same thing for the darker sand areas of the desert: There are more black rats in the dark sand than there are beige rats because the beige rats stand out and they are eaten by the birds. This is Natural selection at its best. Pocket rats are pocket rats, no matter the color; it is only the environment that is dictating a certain trait to proliferate. But again, Pocket rats are pocket rats. This is NOT evolution, yet, the narrator insists to say that the beinge pocket rat “evolved” into the black”. Think about it.
We get so caught up in everything about evolution vs creation and many emotions come about it. However, it is very good to know that observational science, the advancements of medicine, and all other kinds of studies DO NOT NEED the theory of evolution to advance. All areas of studies just use observation and research of the tangible to advance. The different scientist may have different opinions as to how it all came to be, but it doesn’t hinder them one way or the other to keep advancing science.
So to conclude on my post “What Darwin ‘not really’ knew” is that variability within a species is something wonderful that Natural Selection makes but it is not the gateway to evolution.