This is a very thoughtful piece. Its sentences are well-structured and it flows very nicely which makes for easy reading. There are some very good points and I like that you compare and contrast non-human animals with humans. I like that you seem to conclude that humans really are no different than animals because we are all governed by the same laws of nature.
Giving nature a personality does work here but it doesn’t always: “Mother Nature herself had to move to help with this battle of balance, and she did.” It makes the thesis easier to connect with and thus has a much more powerful effect on its readers.
But what I like most is your tackling of the very (!) contentious issue, the human [over]-population and over-consumption. You are right indeed when you say that we can either choose to act responsibly or nature will makes us. This is a very poignant point that is all-too-true.
What I don’t like so much is you oversimplify things to the point where I am wanting more, much more. For example, you say: “Winter approached, bringing with it a virulent disease of rabbits, and the rabbits died, most of them anyway.” What virulent disease killed the rabbits? Perhaps you deliberately left facts out to make it more readable but I do not think that naming the actual disease would have complicated things to point where it is incomprehensible.
I said earlier that the personality you assign nature make the piece much more evocative and makes your argument more compelling. But sometimes it feels just a bit too religious, at least for me anyway (perhaps not so for the rest of your readers). I think being religious and philosophical is good but it can detract from what nature actually is – which is raw, unconscious and immoral.
The last two paragraphs may seem too critical but I do really like it. It tackles a very contentious issue head-on and is very thought-provoking.
There are, however, a few (small) issues. Why did you capitalize homosexuality? Were you trying to draw unwavering attention to it or was it a genuine typological error? Otherwise, there is no need to capitalize it.
You appear to emphasize the nurturing part the debate as being almost entirely in the realm of education which is, if you ask me, a wicked oversimplification. Isn't nurturing everything that is not nature, i.e. the year in which a person was born, how many siblings they have, if his/her parents are together, what he/she ate as a child, and so on ad infinitum. To make things easier and to save having to list everything (!) we usually just say environment.
You do touch on the fact that nurturing is so much more than education when you say: “we can include the culture of our time, as a determinant in the development of an individual,” but I do not think you stressed it enough.
When you say that certain people have “… inclinations towards bad temper, bloodshed, or destruction,” and later on in the sentence list three things (“murderer, butcher, or surgeon”) a person may become in their life, it looks as if those three things relate to each of the personality traits. I was a bit confused here because I can see a bad-tempered person becoming a murderer and a person who enjoys bloodshed becoming a butcher, but the last link threw me completely ….
I’m not sure quite what you’re saying here: “Thus, the whole idea of intelligence assumes that individuals are not given the same education; that people are given a better opportunity in learning than others.” The fact is, whether it’s an assumption or not, it quite obviously true. There’s no argument there.
Lastly, you say that, although psychologists think character development can only start at age two, you think it starts earlier. Without my meaning to sound rude, this statement is a bit pointless. After this statement the reader is left wondering what makes him say this. It’s nice to speculate, but at least throw in an anecdote or something to give your argument some credibility.
Your grammar and sentence structure are good. But the actual thesis is atrocious. Of course evolution is true. One thing to clear-up: no one "believes" in evolution; it just is.
Every single line has at least one bit of misinformation (propaganda). I'll just point out a few – I don't have all day!
Indeed there are "transition species" – what about Acanthostega.
That you think because humans haven't created a living cell therefore the cell must have been created by God is laughable. Has it not crossed your mind to think it's probably very difficult?
The statement: "Man is more likely to have developed quadripedality" is completely and utterly false. A fundamental characteristic of nature is that there are many ways of making a living, hence the diversity. In other words, there are many ways to skin a cat. If the world was not like this it would be a very boring place. If the world was how you’re suggesting then there would just be lots of cheetahs. Quadripedality may a faster way of locomoting but I can assure you it is not more economical.
Also, being a scientist by training, the first thing I do is look at the reference list and make sure everything this writer is citing is current. Wow, do you fail big-time on that front - yes, you may have a paper from Science, but it's from 1982 for God's sake. Please, if you are going to argue for a cause at least cite recent material. And certainly do not use old scientific literature to "prove" that science doesn't yet know the answer to something. Who knows, if you were looking at the current stuff you well find that, indeed science does have the answer.
All the quotes from scientists that you cite do nothing but increase my trust in science ... and scientists. Have you noticed that in all of them the scientist is admitting to NOT knowing something or other? This is something scientists are proud of. We can look at a problem and say honestly: "Yeah, we have no clue." This is a virtue only creationists could wish for or perhaps asks for from God.
The first few sentences of the last paragraph are quite offensive if I must say. You are suggesting that those people that do not want to believe in God formulated evolution in order to give their life meaning. This is not true. The direction of causality goes the other way. That is, people see truth in the theory of evolution, become atheists, and then reject the theory of God; not, people want to reject God, become atheist, and then propose evolution. I hope you understand this. I do not wake up thinking: “I don’t want to believe in God – I must propose a theory that gives my life importance.”
After this rant, I want you to know I'm not an angry atheist and someone who admirers Richard Dawkins. I am an atheist but I DO NOT admirer Dawkins. I am being sincere.
Overall, I thought it was fairly good. Your punctuation was impeccable and the sentences were structured very nicely. And I learnt something new - that some cheeky goslings sneak into neighbouring families. This is precisely why I love nature - it's just so complicated which makes it incredibly fascinating.
However, the way you introduce quotes got a bit tedious towards the end: everyone said something, apparently. Even just coming up with one or two more quote introductions would make it sound that much more interesting and exciting.
Also, I get that it's supposed to be a journalistic piece but I still think you overdid the quotes. Perhaps a few less would give a little more importance to each one.
One last thing: forgive me if I'm wrong, but the article was about a short-necked race of Canada goose, right (?), but I can't seem to find even one reference to such a goose. I would have liked to at least read something about it's short neck: for example, why it has evolved a short neck.
Overall, a fairly nice piece!
p.s. review some of my writings, please. I'm new to writing and could really do with some guidance.
I liked it overall. It flows really nicely and is therefore easy to read. I also like that your sentences are short; always helpful to a reader like me who tends to forget what the start of the sentence said. And I learnt some new things such as the reason behind the placement of bass in the sunfish family.
However, I have a few questions with some of your reasoning. For example, you say that bass that are more nocturnal tend to grow big because they are not caught. Is this statement supported by scientific research? I'm not a fisheries biologist so I genuinely do no not know. Could it not just be that big bass are nocturnal (in other words, they become nocturnal with age), and from fear of cannibalism, the little guys are diurnal. This explanation would fit in with your earlier statements about bass shying away from bright sunlight. Basically, this would invoke some kind of niche separation of big and small bass whereby big bass choose the best conditions for activity (that being night-time) and small bass are left with the only available option, daytime.
By the way, my saying the above doesn't mean that I do not think "some bass are simply more nocturnal by nature." Of course they are. In nature there's always variety. Nature is characterised by variation.
Overall, very nice piece - review some of my writings, please
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/ryanmiller
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.22 seconds at 6:00pm on Jun 29, 2024 via server web1.
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
