So i'm really writing now because i'm increadibly lazy and can't be bothered to open Word and begin either my critical response or descriptive piece for my Writing Porfolio. I really have a lot i should be doing, and later i'll freak out because i didn't, but blogging warms my heart, so i'm taking an undeserved pre-work break.
Because of our Modern History lesson today, i'm rather confused abou Darwin's original theory. So he thought first about adaptation right? With those brids on um the island he visited. But then that developed survival of the fittest, which leads to animals evolving into one another?? And he did include humans in it didn't he? Or was that really, as Miss.T said, added by later scientist. Or was the source's claim that we read today that he did apply it to humans but we twisted it so we could abuse 'lesser humans.' I was gunna say that's technically not abusign the theory but we don't abuse animals because they're less evolved than us? And does the theory imply that al animals shoudl be evovling into the same thing? or you know, the thign that's best for its particular habitat, except that that would mean the ocean should be inhabited by one type of animal.
Besides the whole thing is screwed up because the variety of animals shoudl get less not more - genepool --> shrink. But then if what i said above was true, it would grow then shrink which is scientifically impossible anyway.
God's so much simpler.
In that respect anyway :p
13 hours ago