Simple proof of evolution
From a scientific viewpoint, evolution is irrefutable.
Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.99 percent of them, then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you’ll have a whole population of bacteria that can live in the toxin. You have selectively “bred” toxin-loving bacteria. These new bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust).
Look at “purebreds” like dogs and cats. Scientists artificially “selected” to “breed in” or “breed out” certain genetic traits. By doing this we are just exploiting the “natural selection” of the evolutionary process. In the wild, nature (the forces of the surrounding environment) provides the “breeding” of natural selection.
You can see this quite clearly in natural species that get isolated. Isolated groups of animals will almost always develop differently than their non-isolated counterparts. Look at any group of animals that get isolated on islands and you can see the differences from their mainland counterparts quite readily. Charles Darwin observed this process in all its glory on the Galapagos Islands. He saw it first hand and the rest is history.
Lastly, study the armor used by European knights hundreds of years ago. This armor was built for the strongest, toughest men in Europe, the soldiers of the day. One would expect this armor to fit someone who is 6-foot-5-inches tall and 250 pounds. However, the knight wearing this armor would have been just over 5 feet tall. Food was scarcer and less nourishing in those times, so the average human from that time would be considered short today. Due to more available food, the human race has evolved into the taller species it is today, in just a few hundred years.
-Elijah Cole
Public school student
Washington, D.C.
Childish Gambino
offensive to women
Finals Fest opens tomorrow with musician Childish Gambino. We appreciate University of Idaho Vandal Entertainment’s mission to bring well-liked performers to campus, but we find the choice to bring Gambino problematic.
Donald Glover hit the scene as Childish Gambino in 2011 and has created a large fan base. However, despite this popularity, we question whether he is a good choice for a campus fighting to establish equality among its students.
What we find problematic about Gambino’s music is the misogyny, or the animosity toward women, that is glaringly apparent in many of his songs. Although there isn’t enough space to present examples from every song he has produced, we have chosen a couple to highlight our point.
In his song “Heartbeat,” he raps: “I’m going straight for your thighs like the cake you ate,” in which a woman is not only body-shamed but turned into a sexual conquest. In “Do Ya Like,” he raps: “I love fast women, Jackie Joyner-Kersee.” Joyner-Kersee is one of the most gifted female athletes in the world, yet here she is reduced to a sexual pun that denigrates her talent.
There are other examples that are a great deal more offensive. It has been said that Glover fights against the stereotype of black machismo (see his interview with The Guardian), yet he perpetuates misogyny in his music. Yes, Glover might be a comedian, but these lyrics shouldn’t be seen as funny. They should be taken seriously.
We understand that Gambino will perform despite our argument, but we hope those responsible for choosing entertainers will be more careful during their decision process and more importantly, that students feel compelled to question these choices themselves.
-Azumi Smith (journalism) and Hope Woodruff (Spanish)