際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Short Essay Prompt 1.docx

Download as DOCX, PDF
Ngoc Tuyen
Ngoc Tuyen

The document evaluates an argument that all living beings originated from aquatic creatures. It presents the main argument that aquatic animals descended from an original aquatic phylum. However, it raises an objection that not all living beings use water in the same way. For example, fish can survive on land for brief periods but do not have lungs to oxygenate blood, so there is no direct relationship between fish and land mammals. In conclusion, while evolution has not been disproven, arguments against evolution based on "creationism" are not scientifically valid since creationism is not supported by evidence in the same way as scientific hypotheses.

1 of 3
Download to read offline
Short Essay Prompt 1Evaluate an argument Introduction All living beings use water for sustenance and reproduction. All aquatic animals (as well as terrestrial and land animals that live in the water) are descended from an original phylum of aquatic creatures. Therefore, the ultimate origin of these living beings is aquatic. My personal argument is that this is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of animals, such as dolphins, seals, and albatrosses but not all living beings. Explain main argument My argument is based on the principle of specificity: that what goes on in the water is not necessarily the same as what happens on land. An aquatic animal with fur and feathers but no legs and no gills would not be a different species from one with legs and gills and fur and feathers (Ruben and Jones). Just because an animal has several features of land animals does not mean that they are the same species. A wolf with some of the features of a canine and some of the features of a wolf cant be classified as a canine, nor can a dog with a few of the features of a dog and some of the features of a wolf. If we extend the principle of specificity to include time as well as space, we can say that one group of aquatic animals that lived on land cant be a different species from a group that lived on land centuries ago. An animal that was once on land has the same genetic material as an animal that was once on land (Telford). The organism I am arguing about may still exist (if we assume that evolution is not random chance) and be classified as a living organism. But, it is not an organism that exists because it is alive and still has the ability to reproduce. It is not a member of the animal kingdom in the sense that it can carry and give birth to living offspring. Objection to argument All living beings use water for sustenance and reproduction. All aquatic animals are descended from an original phylum of aquatic animals (Gammell and OBrien). Therefore, there is no reasonable way for an aquatic organism to be a different species from a land organism. This is because the type of life that existed more than 200 million years ago, the phylum of aquatic animals, is the same type of life that existed more than 3 million years ago, the phylum of land animals (Holland). Since the evolution of land animals was all for the purposes of survival on
land, there is no way for an aquatic organism to become a different species from a land animal. Therefore, there cant be a new phylum of aquatic animals, because there cant be a new phylum of land animals. Evaluation One problem with this argument is that all living beings use water for sustenance and reproduction in a different way. Fish can live on land for brief periods of time and even hang on to it for extended periods. Their surface reservoirs do not contain oxygen, however. If fish truly descended from an original phylum of aquatic creatures, they would possess one independent adaptation: a heart that pumps pure oxygenated blood to their gills. The lung, although important in oxygenating the blood and controlling respiration, would be irrelevant in this adaptation. This heart adaptation would represent a discontinuity between the lungs and hearts of land animals. It seems reasonable to believe that no such ontogenetic or phylogenetic relationship exists between fishes and mammals. Conclusion An argument against creationism is not valid because the word creationism has been over-used to mean any kind of argument against evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory and an evolutionarily stable strategy has not been disproven, and is not likely to be disproven. Science attempts to disprove scientific theories and in the process redefines and reshapes the world around it. A creationist who claims that evolution has been disproven can only make such an argument to demonstrate an irrational prejudice against scientific hypotheses. There is no real reason to think that evolution is false. Creationism, in contrast, is no more supported by scientific evidence than any other kind of pseudoscience. Works Cited Gammell, Martin P., and Joanne M. OBrien. Acoustic Communication in Aquatic Animals: All Quiet on the Freshwater Front? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, vol. 23, no. 3, Apr. 2013, pp. 36365, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2356. Holland, H. D. Evidence for Life on Earth More than 3850 Million Years Ago. Science, vol. 275, no. 5296, Jan. 1997, pp. 3839, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5296.38.
Ruben, John A., and Terry D. Jones. Selective Factors Associated with the Origin of Fur and Feathers. American Zoologist, vol. 40, no. 4, Aug. 2000, pp. 58596, https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/40.4.585. Telford, Maximilian J. Animal Evolution: Once upon a Time. Current Biology, vol. 19, no. 8, Apr. 2009, pp. R33941, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.025.

More Related Content

Short Essay Prompt 1.docx

  • 1. Short Essay Prompt 1Evaluate an argument Introduction All living beings use water for sustenance and reproduction. All aquatic animals (as well as terrestrial and land animals that live in the water) are descended from an original phylum of aquatic creatures. Therefore, the ultimate origin of these living beings is aquatic. My personal argument is that this is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of animals, such as dolphins, seals, and albatrosses but not all living beings. Explain main argument My argument is based on the principle of specificity: that what goes on in the water is not necessarily the same as what happens on land. An aquatic animal with fur and feathers but no legs and no gills would not be a different species from one with legs and gills and fur and feathers (Ruben and Jones). Just because an animal has several features of land animals does not mean that they are the same species. A wolf with some of the features of a canine and some of the features of a wolf cant be classified as a canine, nor can a dog with a few of the features of a dog and some of the features of a wolf. If we extend the principle of specificity to include time as well as space, we can say that one group of aquatic animals that lived on land cant be a different species from a group that lived on land centuries ago. An animal that was once on land has the same genetic material as an animal that was once on land (Telford). The organism I am arguing about may still exist (if we assume that evolution is not random chance) and be classified as a living organism. But, it is not an organism that exists because it is alive and still has the ability to reproduce. It is not a member of the animal kingdom in the sense that it can carry and give birth to living offspring. Objection to argument All living beings use water for sustenance and reproduction. All aquatic animals are descended from an original phylum of aquatic animals (Gammell and OBrien). Therefore, there is no reasonable way for an aquatic organism to be a different species from a land organism. This is because the type of life that existed more than 200 million years ago, the phylum of aquatic animals, is the same type of life that existed more than 3 million years ago, the phylum of land animals (Holland). Since the evolution of land animals was all for the purposes of survival on
  • 2. land, there is no way for an aquatic organism to become a different species from a land animal. Therefore, there cant be a new phylum of aquatic animals, because there cant be a new phylum of land animals. Evaluation One problem with this argument is that all living beings use water for sustenance and reproduction in a different way. Fish can live on land for brief periods of time and even hang on to it for extended periods. Their surface reservoirs do not contain oxygen, however. If fish truly descended from an original phylum of aquatic creatures, they would possess one independent adaptation: a heart that pumps pure oxygenated blood to their gills. The lung, although important in oxygenating the blood and controlling respiration, would be irrelevant in this adaptation. This heart adaptation would represent a discontinuity between the lungs and hearts of land animals. It seems reasonable to believe that no such ontogenetic or phylogenetic relationship exists between fishes and mammals. Conclusion An argument against creationism is not valid because the word creationism has been over-used to mean any kind of argument against evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory and an evolutionarily stable strategy has not been disproven, and is not likely to be disproven. Science attempts to disprove scientific theories and in the process redefines and reshapes the world around it. A creationist who claims that evolution has been disproven can only make such an argument to demonstrate an irrational prejudice against scientific hypotheses. There is no real reason to think that evolution is false. Creationism, in contrast, is no more supported by scientific evidence than any other kind of pseudoscience. Works Cited Gammell, Martin P., and Joanne M. OBrien. Acoustic Communication in Aquatic Animals: All Quiet on the Freshwater Front? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, vol. 23, no. 3, Apr. 2013, pp. 36365, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2356. Holland, H. D. Evidence for Life on Earth More than 3850 Million Years Ago. Science, vol. 275, no. 5296, Jan. 1997, pp. 3839, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5296.38.
  • 3. Ruben, John A., and Terry D. Jones. Selective Factors Associated with the Origin of Fur and Feathers. American Zoologist, vol. 40, no. 4, Aug. 2000, pp. 58596, https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/40.4.585. Telford, Maximilian J. Animal Evolution: Once upon a Time. Current Biology, vol. 19, no. 8, Apr. 2009, pp. R33941, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.025.