[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Evolution And Complexity
That's a really good point, but it raises a new question for me: what about
probability? For example, is the claim that theropod dinosaurs had a higher
probability of evolving flight, while tortoises have a very low probability of
evolving flight, justified? If so, it might have some use in understanding
certain evolutionary pathways...
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:12:18 -0300
> Subject: Re: Evolution And Complexity
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Anyway, if one is to argue about classifying because of complexity,
> one should not use the term of "potential to make some complex thing".
> Who does not have potential? As our capabilities of predicting future
> are low, regarding human future (which may well be being hidden by
> those which invent what we will consume in the future), I think that
> we cannot say that because some taxon has a larger or more complex
> brain it will generate smarter life forms. We should treat complexity
> (if we could measure it at all) in actual, nor potential terms of
> things that can be gained, because most living beings may conceivably
> have such a potential.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but we currently think that terrestrial
> carnivores have relatively larger brains than land artiodactyls. Yet,
> the marine branch of the former seems to have a relatively smaller
> brain compared with the marine derivatives of the latter (notably
> also, although not related to the point, as the Carnivora largely
> predate on the Artiodactyla, in the sea the relationship would be
> reversed, at least for the orca, which can predate almost any pinniped
> it can meet).