Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.

On Sep 24, 6:59 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
But I am always reminded of the words of an obscure nineteenth century
naturalist, who wrote in his first notebook:

"It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another. We
consider those, when the intellectual faculties (cerebral structure)
most developed, as highest. A bee doubtless would when the instincts
were ..."

That was talking about species - not ecosystems.

We have already established about a gazillion times by
now that individual species do not necessarily exhibit
progress.

That was talking about entire clades (as we would now say), not
individual species.

"One animal" is pretty vague. Fortunately it matters not the
slightest either way.





The idea of evolutionary progress doesn't demand any
particular one-dimensional ladder of ecosystem quality.

It is conceivable for
ecosystem A to beat out ecosystem B,
ecosystem B to beat out ecosystem C and
ecosystem C to beat out ecosystem A - in some specified
...struggle for resources.

...but there must be some way of /approximately/ ranking
ecosystems according to what technologies they have
mastered so far, and how useful they are - otherwise
we would be unable to state obvious things: such as
that the Borg are more advanced than modern humans.

I don't see why we should be able to rank ecosystems. They are bounded
by the available free energy in their borders, and once you get to a
certain point of energy employment, they remain more or less packed.

I'm talking technological prowess, not density.

You seem to be focusing on humans alone an perhaps human civilzation
over other natural ecosystems.

I personally doubt that land ecosystems have been more sophisticated in
trophic interactions since the Devonian, and sea ecosystems well before
that.

What, you mean you don't consider large brains, science, space flight
and genetic engineering to be relevant technological advancements?

I thought you were talking about ecosystems progressing. Now you are
talking about organs (ie- brains) and technology.

Looking at the recent proliferation of human beings, I would have
to say that evolution differs from you on this issue.

Now you are talking about species (ie- humans). With each
proliferation of humans tags along microbes (such as the ones residing
in your gut right now) That pretty much bursts your bubble.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Language Oriented Programming
    ... Laurent Bossavit wrote: ... >> The next paradigm in programming should be modeled after how humans deal ... they can't and the whole thing unravels (aka fragile ecosystem). ... That's a bit like a car driver hearing someone sneeze... ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Earths Carrying Capacity
    ... > ecosystem that differs significantly from era to era that definitely ... > didn't have humans as a factor. ... North America's natural history is well known ... definitely kileld off by such with the use f hunting and fire. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians
    ... I wonder why you argue so ferociously against the concept that humans ... abilities no other species has. ... We don't belong to the ecosystem - we are Special. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians
    ... I wonder why you argue so ferociously against the concept that humans ... abilities no other species has. ... We don't belong to the ecosystem - we are Special. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.
    ... particular one-dimensional ladder of ecosystem quality. ... ecosystems according to what technologies they have ... You seem to be focusing on humans alone an perhaps human civilzation ... and genetic engineering to be relevant technological advancements? ...
    (talk.origins)