I really learned a lot in this classroom, especially thanks to the professor for your tolerance and patience. The professor is really nice. The following is what I learned from this course.

Rhetorical context, purpose, audience, genre, stance, and media
In this course, I learned about many rhetorical situations, such as Rhetorical Situation, Metaphor, Personalization, Metonymy
Rhetorical Question Parallelism, Hyperbole.

My thesis draft is extremely brief every time, and it is only because of the newly learned things that I can perfect it.

This class has helped me enhance my reading comprehension skills. Through analyzing different texts, I have learned how to identify main ideas, make inferences, and recognize literary devices. These skills have enabled me to better understand and interpret complex written materials.

And this class has not only focused on language skills but has also broadened my science awareness. Through the study of literature and discussions about various topics, I have gained a deeper understanding of different science and perspectives. action for diversity and helped me become a more open-minded individual.

This Science English class has also taught me the value of self-reflection. Through feedback and evaluations, I have learned to identify my strengths and areas for improvement. I have become more proactive in seeking ways to enhance my language skills and continuously strive for self-improvement.

In the end, I wish you the best of luck for the future, professor, and thank you for your help this semester.

Andrew Ni

ENGL21003

      Noella M Nagales

5/16/2023

Evolution and creationism are two distinct viewpoints that have generated ongoing debates regarding the origin and development of life. While evolution emphasizes the processes of natural selection and adaptive evolution, creationism posits that life is created by a supernatural force or God. This paper aims to explore the conflict between evolution and creationism, analyzing their stances from scientific and religious perspectives, and discussing the possibility of potential compromises or integrations.

Evolution and creationism are influential perspectives that offer different explanations for the origin and diversity of life. Evolution is widely accepted as the mainstream scientific viewpoint, while creationism plays a significant role in religious beliefs. However, these two perspectives present evident conflicts, challenging the relationship between science and religion.

Examples of conflicts caused by the theory of evolution and creation are The Creation Museum presents an intriguing case as it promotes evolution, a concept traditionally at odds with creationist beliefs. The museum’s interpretation of geological and biological events centers around the pivotal event of the Great Flood, which is dated to 2348 B.C. This conflicts with the conventional scientific understanding and raises questions about the compatibility of evolution and creationism.

According to the Creation Museum, the Great Flood serves as a catalyst for the rapid diversification of species. Rather than accommodating every individual animal, the museum emphasizes that the Bible refers to pairs of each “kind” of animal, implying a more generalized representation . After the flood, these pairs diversified into various species, including the descendants of the ark dog, such as foxes.

The assertion that foxes diversified from dogs within a timeframe of less than 4,500 years raises significant challenges to evolutionary biology. Dogs and foxes exhibit notable chromosomal differences, with dogs and wolves possessing 78 chromosomes while red foxes have only 34 chromosomes. Such divergence in chromosome number typically suggests distinct species. However, the Creation Museum claims that major changes in appearance and genetic makeup occurred within this remarkably short timeframe.

The Creation Museum’s endorsement of evolution within the framework of creationism presents a complex and thought-provoking scenario. The conflict between evolution and creationism is evident, particularly in the context of the Great Flood and the rapid diversification of species. While the perspectives differ, exploring potential alignments and compromises can facilitate dialogue between science and religion, fostering a deeper understanding of the origins of life.

Proponents of creationism often cite religious scriptures and beliefs as the basis for their views, arguing that scientific theories cannot explain the origin and complexity of life. They believe that the existence and diversity of life reflect the existence and intervention of supernatural forces.

However, the scientific community generally accepts evolution as the main theory to explain the origin and diversity of life, because evolution can provide a wide range of evidence and explanations, and has been verified and supported in many different scientific fields. The theory of evolution can also predict and explain the characteristics and behavior of living organisms, which has practical application value in fields such as medicine, agriculture and ecology.

It’s worth noting that evolution and creation are not necessarily opposing views, as is the case with the Creation Museum, where many see them as separate fields, with evolution explaining the origin and development of living things, and creation more broadly meaning of the universe and life.

Another creationist-evolutionary antithesis is “Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique” is a comprehensive work authored by John F. Haught, J.B. Stump, William Dembski, and Michael L. Murray. This book critically examines the concept of theistic evolution, which seeks to reconcile the principles of evolutionary biology with religious beliefs. It develops into the scientific, philosophical, and theological implications of this perspective, exploring the compatibility between evolution and the existence of a hig her power.

The authors scrutinize the scientific foundations of theistic evolution, evaluating its compatibility with evolutionary theory and the empirical evidence supporting it. They explore the extent to which theistic evolution adequately accounts for the mechanisms of evolutionary change, such as natural selection and genetic variation, and whether it adequately addresses the broader scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and the origins of life.

The authors delve into the theological implications of theistic evolution, analyzing its compatibility with traditional theological doctrines and beliefs. They scrutinize issues such as theodicy, the nature of divine action, and the interpretation of scriptural accounts of creation. Through theological analysis, the book assesses the theological coherence and implications of theistic evolution.

Those just discussed the compatibility and difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation, now let’s discuss the completely opposite papers.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer

The book emphasizes the complexity and information content of DNA molecules. Meyer argues that the information in DNA must come from an intelligent agent and cannot be solely generated through natural processes. He contends that the existence and complexity of information pose significant challenges to explaining the origin of life within the framework of evolutionary theory.

Meyer highlights that the complex adaptations and functions found in organisms cannot be adequately explained by gradual accumulation of small steps. He introduces the concept of “irreducible complexity,” suggesting that certain biological structures and functions require simultaneous changes to occur in a single step in order to be functional. He argues that evolutionary theory struggles to account for such cases.

Using statistical and information theory approaches, Meyer calculates the time and probability required for the origin of life and the development of complex structures. He argues that these probabilities are exceedingly low, surpassing the capacity of natural processes, thereby supporting the existence of intelligent design.

In summary, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” challenges evolution by emphasizing the information in DNA, irreducible complexity, missing transitional fossils, and statistical probability. It presents intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin and complexity of life. However, it is important to note that this perspective has been widely criticized and disputed within the scientific community, as it is not widely accepted as a scientific theory and is often regarded as belonging to the realm of religion or philosophy.

Evolution and creationism represent two grand and philosophically rich perspectives on the origin and development of life. These viewpoints have sparked profound reflection, controversy, and exploration on a global scale. Here is a grand and profound summary of evolution and creationism:

Evolution seeks to unravel the mysteries of nature, providing a scientific explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. It reveals that our world is a universe of constant change and ongoing development. Evolution posits that through natural selection and genetic mechanisms, species gradually adapt to their environments, resulting in an endless array of biological forms and functions. It demonstrates the continuity and interconnectedness of life, situating our existence within a vast framework of time and space.

On the other hand, creationism aspires to transcend the natural realm by invoking wisdom and purpose. It posits that the origin and development of life are guided by a conscious and capable creator or designer. Creationism emphasizes the uniqueness and complexity of life, viewing each organism as a meticulously designed creation. It prompts us to contemplate the meaning and purpose of existence, providing an explanation for the mysteries of life through faith and religious philosophy.

These two perspectives have engendered rich dialogue and debate on a global scale. Evolution, with its scientific basis and extensive evidence, has gained recognition and acceptance within the mainstream academic community. It propels scientific progress, deepening our understanding of the natural world and human origins. Creationism, on the other hand, lies at the core of faith and religion, nurturing the human spirit and moral beliefs. It offers an understanding and significance of life that transcends the realm of science, encouraging us to explore the mysteries of existence.

In summary, evolution and creationism represent two distinct yet equally grand perspectives in exploring the origin, development, and meaning of life. Evolution employs scientific methods and observational evidence to explain the diversity and complexity of life, while creationism examines the uniqueness and design of life from a standpoint of faith and philosophy. Despite controversies and differing viewpoints, both perspectives provide windows through which we can comprehend life and the universe, stimulating profound contemplation on existence and mystery.

      Citation Page

• Chang, K. (2009, June 30). Creationism = evolution?. The New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/creationism-evolution/?searchResultPosition=10 

• Creationism or evolution. http://www.pcchong.com/hebrews/Creation3.htm 

• Darwin’s dangerous idea evolution and the meaning of life. (2010). Paw Prints. 

• Theistic evolution: A scientific, philosophical, and theological critique. (2022). CROSSWAY BOOKS.

• Meyer, S. C. (2010). Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. HarperOne. 

The scientific report titled “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” by Cook, J., et al. (2013) aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the level of consensus on human-induced global warming in the scientific community. In this essay, I will delve into the author’s rhetorical situation, including the research methodology, structure, target audience, and impact of the report.

The report was authored by Cook, J., et al., although detailed personal information about the authors is not provided. It is likely that the authors are researchers from various backgrounds and fields, such as climate science, environmental science, and statistics. While specific details about their professional background, nationality, gender, and age are unknown, it is evident that they possess significant domain knowledge and a strong interest in environmental issues. The purpose of the report is clear: to quantify the consensus on anthropogenic global warming through a comprehensive evaluation of scientific literature. Their goal is to contribute to the ongoing discourse on climate change and provide a scientific basis for understanding the consensus on this topic.

The report begins with a comprehensive introduction that provides an overview of existing research and scientific literature, setting the stage for the importance of global warming and its environmental impacts. This helps establish the background of the issue and engages the readers right from the start.Throughout the report, a clear and structured approach is followed, with sections such as introduction, methodology, results, and discussion. This logical organization allows readers to easily navigate through the report and understand the author’s argumentation process.Quantitative data and statistical results are utilized in the results section, effectively illustrating the level of consensus among scientists regarding global warming. By presenting concrete numbers and findings, the author strengthens the objectivity and persuasiveness of the report, providing readers with a clear understanding of the scientific evidence and consensus basis.In the discussion section, the author engages in comparison and contrast, analyzing their research findings in relation to existing studies and perspectives. This technique helps deepen readers’ understanding of the consensus on global warming and places the report within the broader context of research and discussions on the topic.Throughout the report, evidence-based support is consistently provided. The author cites scientific literature and research to support their viewpoints and conclusions. This use of credible and reliable evidence enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the report, allowing readers to have confidence in the content presented.By employing these writing techniques, the author effectively conveys their perspectives on the consensus of global warming and provides strong scientific evidence. These techniques enhance the readability and persuasiveness of the report, enabling readers to gain a deeper understanding of the consensus on global warming and the scientific evidence supporting it.

The target audience of the report includes experts in the field of climate science, policymakers, and the general public interested in climate change issues. Climate science experts are particularly interested in the level of consensus and the scientific evidence supporting global warming. Policymakers can use this research to inform policy decisions and develop effective strategies to address the issue.

The report holds significant importance in the field of climate science as it quantifies the consensus on global warming and provides scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. It enhances our understanding of this issue and has the potential to influence policymakers in developing strategies to mitigate its effects. Additionally, the report serves as a valuable resource for the general public, helping them comprehend and appreciate the consensus and scientific evidence regarding global warming.

In conclusion, Climate change is an important topic that deals with changes and long-term trends in the Earth’s climate system. This change is mainly caused by human activities, including large-scale greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and industrialization processes. Climate change has wide-ranging impacts on the environment and society.

On the environmental front, climate change has caused many problems. These include increases in global average temperatures, rising sea levels, increases in extreme weather events and threats to biodiversity. These changes have profound impacts on ecosystems, including affecting the survival and migration patterns of plants and animals, disrupting ecological balance, and triggering ecosystem collapse.

Climate change also poses major challenges for society. It has a direct impact on agriculture, water resources, energy supply and urban planning. Climate change also leads to food security problems, frequent natural disasters, increased health risks, and social instability. Especially for low-income countries and disadvantaged communities, the impact of climate change is more far-reaching, exacerbating poverty, inequality and social conflict.The scientific report “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” makes a crucial contribution to the discourse surrounding climate change. Through their research methodology, clear structure, and evidence-based argumentation, the authors effectively communicate the level of consensus on anthropogenic global warming within the scientific community. The report’s impact extends to climate science experts, policymakers, and the general public, fostering a deeper understanding of the consensus and scientific evidence related to global warming.

I analyzed and summarized the articles “It’s Not a Stretch: This Dinosaur Had a 50-Foot Neck” and “Dunk Was Chunky, but Still Deadly”.

“It’s Not a Stretch: This Dinosaur Had a 50-Foot Neck. “The article discusses a recent study published in the Journal of Systematic Paleontology that estimates the neck length of the sauropod dinosaur Mamenchisaurus to be nearly 50 feet, making it the longest neck of any sauropod species and potentially the longest neck of any animal observed. was led by Andrew Moore, a paleontologist at Stony Brook University, who used the fossils of close relatives of Mamenchisaurus, especially Xinjiangtitan, to estimate its neck length. The researchers found that the interior of the sauropod’s vertebrae was filled with large air pockets, which accounted for up to 77 percent of each bone’s volume and vastly decreased the weight of Mamenchisaurus’ spine.

Overall, the article appears to be a brief overview of the study and its findings. Using CT scans to analyze the interior of dinosaur vertebrae is a valuable technique for studying the anatomy of extinct animals, and the researchers’ use of close relatives to estimate the neck length of Mamenchisaurus is quite reasonable and plausible, given the available fossil evidence limitation. However, like any scientific research, there may be limitations or uncertainties in methods or data, which require further research and discussion. Science is always in the process of seeking evidence, and we need to be skeptical of everything.

And another article “Dunk Was Chunky, but Still Deadly” is just the opposite of this one, “It’s Not a Stretch: This Dinosaur Had a 50-Foot Neck” is to prove that the neck of Mamenchisaurus is bigger than the existing prediction Longer, while the ancient race of Dunkleus is suspected to have become smaller.

The article focuses on a fossilized fish called Dunkleosteus, a larger but still fearsome predator that ruled subtropical oceans during the Devonian period. A recent study suggests that the ancient fish may have been only about 13 feet long, and they resembled more squat tunas than slender sharks.

The researchers determined the size of ‘Dunkleosteus’ by comparing its armored head to the size of the skulls of hundreds of living and fossil fish species, estimating its head to be about 24 inches long and its body to be just over 11 feet long. Although the size of “Dunkleosteus” does not seem to be as large as previously predicted, it still has a firm bite and lethality.

In addition, the study also found that “Dunkleosteus” is generally considered to have a slender shark-like body, but more complete fossils show that this fish has a squat, cylindrical body, more like a squat tuna.

Although the research results have been praised by some people, some people have questioned this discovery, because there are few fossils in the rest of the body except the head, making it difficult to accurately infer its true body shape. Therefore, some believe that this study did not fully reveal the true form of “Dunkleosteus”.

“ “People think this is a downgrade, but this is actually an upgrade,” he said.”(Tamisiea 1) Although some paleontologists are not convinced of Engelman’s findings, he believes that this study is an upgrade and not a downgrade, as it sheds light on the predator’s fast movements in open water and does not take away from its prowess.

Andrew Ni

211-14 69ave 11364

February 11, 2023

Dear Ms.Nagales,

I have always been keen on science and like to explore and get closer to the truth. When I was ten years old, I read my first science fiction novel, and I became fascinated by science. I began to read related books constantly, trying to find exciting and new ideas. I have always been passionate about things like the laws of the universe, the laws of physics, the principles of chemistry, etc., whether at school or at home. Among all the scientific categories, I am most interested in astronomy. The vast universe is where I can resonate with myself. This is also an important factor for me to persist in studying science.

I hope that my enthusiasm can infect the friends around me. I don’t expect to have any amazing or great achievements in the field of the world. I only hope that through my enthusiasm, more people around me will be interested in science, so that Let more people get in touch with science, understand the world, and understand the explanation of everything, this can be regarded as having a slight impact on the global community.

Different from other students, my English attainments are really too weak. I grew up in China, so my grammar and vocabulary usage is extremely poor, so I really hope that I can master some writing methods as much as possible, and learn more There are many nouns in writing. If possible, I hope that my grammar can be improved. In order to achieve this goal, I will try my best to focus on English, and I will not miss any English classes. I will be a competent student.

Sincerely,

Andrew Ni.

I am very strange; sometimes I am very diligent, and sometimes very lazy. 

 

Sometimes I will work hard for a small thing, and sometimes I just want to feel peaceful. 

 

I like to plant flowers and trees, but I don’t like raising small animals. 

 

My English is very poor but I am an American.

 

I hope I can learn a lot of English in this class and improve myself, but I am afraid that I will not learn it well.

 

People around me say I am a good person, but sometimes I am a bit bad. All in all, I am probably a very contradictory person.