tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post4484818949976275632..comments2024-01-20T16:39:42.179+11:00Comments on PhyloBotanist: Inevitability versus contingency in evolutionAlex SLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-60040916273978306482014-01-23T22:54:59.511+11:002014-01-23T22:54:59.511+11:00Jim Thomerson,
Another way of looking at the issu...Jim Thomerson,<br /><br />Another way of looking at the issue is that it is a question of how far one would have to 'zoom out' from biological diversity to become convinced that what one sees would re-evolve.<br /><br />Gould would certainly be right if we are talking about something as specific as the mammals; such a random extinction event happened to the non-avian dinosaurs after all. But if the groups become sufficiently large and general and we give evolution enough time I just cannot believe that those adaptations or niches would not be filled again (or in parallel on other planets, for that matter): 'large animals with internal skeleton' or 'small animals with external skeleton and articulated legs', for example, can easily evolve from a worm-like ancestor given a few hundred million years. My claim now is that they <i>will</i> do so because of the obvious advantages that those morphologies confer.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-88246121899469871302014-01-23T13:06:55.468+11:002014-01-23T13:06:55.468+11:00http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Simpso...http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Simpson.html This site gives you the reference to Simpson's paper on non prevalance of hominoids. John W. Campbell, the influential editor of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, insisted on either an all human universe, or a universe in which humans were dominant. This may well have influenced popular thinking. I think Stephen J. Gould's point that if you based future predictions of the biota of earth on the dominant groups at any point in geological time, it is unlikely you would make a correct prediction of a far future biota. This because of unpredictable events in the future altering the course of evolution and domination.Jim Thomersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-49235422082587946742014-01-23T08:39:16.576+11:002014-01-23T08:39:16.576+11:00It would be nice to believe that we can evolve to ...It would be nice to believe that we can evolve to be even more intelligent and hopefully more rational but I wonder if that can happen. We evolve towards what is helpful for reproductive success, and being too cerebral has a tendency to make us pessimistic, have families with few children late in life, etc.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-69735274645775759552014-01-23T05:25:17.933+11:002014-01-23T05:25:17.933+11:00If we're assuming an Earth-like planet then I ...If we're assuming an Earth-like planet then I guess I'd go for the broadly-the-same answer.<br /><br />If sentient beings ever hung around long enough to develop a lot beyond us, I'd guess there might be more extensive meta-cognition, greater working memory, shared cognition, etc, to the point where we could look a bit inconsequential. But otherwise, as we know.<br /><br />However, as I've no idea how life started, to be honest, I can't assume that sufficiently different life-cycles might not result in less recognisable forms, although the more similar the environment was to start with, the smaller the choice of workable solutions there'd be.<br /><br />I'd guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com