Any four-year-old could tell you just by looking at them that a seed is not a tree. And yet, any botanist will respond that everything that tree is was once contained in a seed to such a degree that the tree is far more like the seed than their initial appearance would imply. Still, his commitment to the ideology of genetics may be inclining him to overlook certain other factors that shape a tree.
Although it’s true that the blueprint is in the seed, it’s not at all clear that the blueprint fully controls the end result. Oh, sure, this shape of leaf and that sort of bark or branch pattern. But the end result produced by that seed will vary based on a variety of external factors. How rich is the soil? How much water is in the region? What sort of temperature variation occurs here? Certainly, such natural factors affect the outcome.
Also, there could be pestilence. There could be a forest fire. And it is certainly possible that there could be humans who carve in the tree, prune its branches, or cut it down entirely. In other words, although it’s partially right to say the tree was made by the seed, it’s equally right to say the tree was made by its environment. Both are necessary. The tree, you might say, needs them both.
1 comment:
How might pro-choicers interpret this illustration? I think they would definitely put it in their quiver of arguments.
Also, this illustration would imply that there never really is a complete, fully formed tree as it is ever shaped by its environment and thus being changed and changing itself in response. Of course, most of us would admit that basically it is a tree based on certain characteristics that it exhibits. The question is: at what point do we say that it exhibits these characteristics "enough" to be called a tree? as a seed? a germinated seed? a sapling? or a full-grown? It is very difficult to draw the proverbially line in the sand. Thus, are were forced to conclude that it is a tree when it receives its full genetic compliment?...Hmmm
Post a Comment