To the Future

What do you think will happen to the human race in the future? How do you think Homo sapiens might evolve years and years and millions of years from now? Do you believe that there could be some sort of superspecie in the future that is adapted to life anywhere (land, air, sea) because it is selectively advantageous to have so many getaway options?
Give your own theory on how today's modern man might evolve. Also, research to see if you can find any other theories on evolution in the future and summarize it.

A World Without

In many parts of the book, Coyne repeatedly states that humans are responsible for the extinction of many species either directly or indirectly through our actions. Indeed, nowadays, you can’t find a newspaper without an article about going green, or saving the environment and stopping the destruction of rain forests, etc. However, if humans are so destructive, than what would the world be like without humans?

Pretend that the human race met with a biological dead end early in their evolution from our most common ancestor and became extinct. How would the world look like today? What species, if any, has the presence of humans suppressed that would be more numerous in a world without humans? Has the presence of humans actually helped other organisms in some ways and if so, what would the lack of humans do to this species? You may focus on and describe a general view of the world (but don’t be too vague, include examples) or focus on the development of a specific species that has been greatly impacted by humans and how that development would be changed without the presence of humans. Be sure to relate to biological themes.

It's good to be sensitive

In this day and age many people are concerned with the loss of habitat of other organisms or extinction of the organisms themselves. Do you believe that this concern for other life on earth is a selective advantage to humans, or do you believe that helping save other organisms is just a good thing to do, not necessarily a selective advantage? Be sure to relate your response to previously discussed topics and to the biological themes. Try to focus on the themes of Interdependence in Nature, Regulation, or maybe even Energy Transfer.

Refuting "Bad Design"

What are some examples many scientists believe are evident of bad design that you disagree with, or that other scientists find to actually be beneficial to the organism? For example, the structure of the Giant Panda's thumb, once thought to be a bad design, has been studied further and now a new study shows that the thumb is “one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems” among mammals. Experiments show that the thumb and the accessory carpal bone “form a double pincer-like apparatus enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity” (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html). Many scientists argue that the thumb of the giant panda is bad because it doesn't function like a primates thumb. However, others argue that this doesn't necessarily mean that the structure is bad design, since the structure allows the Panda to take hold of bamboo shoots just fine. Make sure to relate this theme to structure and function.

Natural vs. Artificial Selection

Since the first organisms, natural selection has sculpted the organisms to become more idealized in there environment. In chapter 5, "The Engine of Evolution," Jerry Coyne wrote that "Natural selection, as we find, is everywhere, scrutinizing individuals, culling the unfit and promoting the genes of the fitter. It can create intricate adaptations, sometimes in surprisingly little time." At the same time, we are learning to understand our world. We have previously experimented in influencing bacteria to generate that totally awesome green glow. We can artificially alter strands of DNA to generate more prosperous products such as increasing crop yields and producing synthetic medicine. Which means do you believe is more viable in the production of future more evolved species? Natural Selection or Artificial Selection and whether you deem that either humans or nature should have the final say in evolution. Please provide evidence and support your claims.

The Nonbelievers

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Look through these two sites (or find your own site) that challenge the theory of evolution. Find a point that the site mentions that you believe is wrong, and explain against/refute their claim with evidence from either outside sources or from "Why Evolution Is True."

Bad Design

Starting on page 81, Coyne challenges the idea of a 'designer' creating the organisms we see today by pointing out a whole bunch of imperfections in the design of animals.
One imperfection or flaw that Coyne goes into much detail with is the movement of the eyes of the flounder, and how the flounder came to be the ground-skimming fish it is today. An intelligent designer, Coyne says, would have designed the flounder with both eyes on the top side of the fish in the first place, instead of having the eyes on opposite sides and having to move around the skull , which also deforms the body of the fish.
Using the book or an outside resource, describe an example of bad design, how it came to be, and what could have been a better option or design.