Question Batch

Main question: How does “Darwinism not Neodarwinism” operate rhetorically? 

 

Author

“Darwin’s basic concept, as modified, extended, and verified in the twentieth century, has been summarized by Ernest Mayer in his book What Evolution Is. This accessible introduction to the grand sweep of evolutionary science by an active participant expands on our brief resume here” (10).  

 

Often, throughout the text, the authors write “we…” but who exactly are they referring to and how they establish credibility? Another way of asking this is to ask how they establish ethos? 

 

How do the authors dissect scientific claims and break them down in a way that the audience can understand? 

 

What risks are the authors taking when they write about evolution by challenging the popular misconceptions about evolutionary theory?  

 

Audience

Introduction(3). Do Margulis and Sagan anticipate their audience to have some knowledge or background info of Darwin and his theory? 

 

Do the authors expect a certain age range for their audience? 

 

Do the authors expect the readers to already have a position regarding neodarwinism or darwinism? 

Purpose

“Darwin’s basic concept, as modified, extended, and verified in the twentieth century, has been summarized by Ernest Mayer in his book What Evolution Is. This accessible introduction to the grand sweep of evolutionary science by an active participant expands on our brief resume here” (10).  

 

Topic

“Darwin saw clearly that offspring organism differ from each other, and some of those differences–those he claimed are important to us–are inherited. So he put together these two ideas: variations occur and only some offspring survive to reproduce their own offspring” (9-10).

 

“In summary, any population displays measurable variation, much of which is irrelevant to evolution. But the same population also shows variation that is inherited and therefore relevant to evolutionary change” (10-11).

 

In this pasage, why do Margulis and Sagan avoid the question of whether evolutionary change can be predicted by a change in the environment? Do they write about it elsewhere in the text? If not, why is it inessential to their argument(s)? 

 

To what extent is “natural selection” cohesive with adaptation? 

 

How did the word evolution change throughout time, and how do Margulis and Sagan want it to me understood now? 

 

Context

 

“What is symbiogenesis and how is it related to symbiosis?” (12). 

 

How do the authors use specific context to help the reader understand symbiogenesis? What is at stake for them in defining this here?

 

“The word species comes from the Latin word speculare to mean ‘to see’ like spectacles or special” (4). 

 

What is the significance of including the Latin definition of species? 

 

What definition of species is most central to Margulis and Sagan’s claims? 

 

“For example, cows” (14). What is the purpose of giving the cow analogy? 

 

Author: Alexis

@Kindly_Write

Leave a Reply