Next
Dinesh

Dinesh club

Posted: 30 Jul 2020

Taken: 30 Jul 2020

2 favorites     9 comments    234 visits

See also...

Charles Darwin Charles Darwin

50+ visits 50+ visits

Black&White Black&White

Keywords

Image and Excerpt •
From the Book •
The Human Instinct •
Author •
Kenneth Miller •
Third Excerpt •
Chance and Necessity •
JAQUES MONOD •
3rd Excerpt •

Authorizations, license

Visible by: Everyone
Attribution + non Commercial
Photo replaced on 30 Jul 2020
234 visits

Evolutionary relationship among organisms

Evolutionary relationship among organisms
Figure 3-2 : A highly simplified modern version of the tree of life, emphasizing the diversification of species from a common ancestor. In this radial version no species occupies a privileged position. Courtesy of Dr. David Hillis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hillis
Translate into English

Berny, have particularly liked this photo

9 comments - The latest ones
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
. . . In evolutionary terms, we are the sole surviving representatives of the dramatically unsuccessful lineage. We are, you might say, the last hangers-on in a long line of losers. Tough stuff to take. Science writer Brian Switek put it this way:

There was never an “ascent of man,” no matter how desperately we might wish for there to be, just as there has not been a “descent of man” into degeneracy from a noble ancestor. We are merely a shivering twig that is the last vestige of richer family tree. Foolishly, we have taken our isolation to mean that we are the true victors in life’s relentless race.

This is incidentally, what it is a mistake to speak of any particular fossil as being a critical “missing link” between us and our pre-human ancestors. The striking diversity that once characterized the hominid line surely confirms our evolutionary origins. However, it also complicates the task of sorting out the exact great-great-great-grandfathers and great-great-great-grand mothers whose progeny survived the pruning of that evolutionary tree to give rise to us, the last surviving humans. ~ page 66
4 years ago. Edited 4 years ago.
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
While many people would still be content to imagine the tree of life in terms defined by Haeckel, the drawings we would make today are quite different. To a biologist, considering certain species as “higher” and certain others as “lower” is thought to be mistake, since all living species are truly part of the same evolutionary process. That bacterium on the tip of your pencil is just as “evolved” as you are. It’s found a quite different way to make a living, of course, but that’s no reason to place it at the bottom of the tree of life or to place ourselves as its pinnacle. In that respect, a more accurate tree, emphasizing the evolutionary relationship among organisms, would look something like this - Page 68
4 years ago.
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
HUMAN INSTINCT
4 years ago.
 raingirl
raingirl club
equals. unfortunately humans seem to love hierarchy. i've never been a fan.
4 years ago.
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
This is another version, wonder what they are trying to control o))

4 years ago.
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
We can also see that, historically, certain ideas have tended to go together: a Lamarckian view of evolution, with species arranged on a ladder and a linear, progressive concept of change, perhaps inevitably engendered prejudice as some evolved forms must he regarded as more advanced, or ‘higher’, than others. Many of the inequitable views on human races indirectly resulted from this Lamarckian view point. . . . . Modern Darwinism places considerable emphasis on chance events such as mutation and genetic drift. There is nothing about natural selection that supports a progression of populations towards an end goal or ‘higher’ state. In fact, the misrepresentation of evolution as progressive was to apparent to Darwin that is his note-books he reminded himself to ‘never say higher or lower, and evolutionary biologists now recognize that it is impossible to define any non-arbitrary criteria by which progress in evolution can be measured. As no variant can be regarded as more advanced than others, Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with racism and Social Darwinism. ~ Page 66 (Excerpt “Sense and Nonsense” ~ Kevin N. Laland & Gillian R Brown ~ University of Oxford)
4 years ago.
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
Sense and Nonsense
4 years ago.
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
The principle of uncertainty was never entirely accepted by some of the greatest modern physicists, Einstein foremost among them, who was unwilling to admit that “God plays at dice.” Certain schools have retained it for its operational usefulness but denied it the standing of an essential concept.. . . Page 115

Bergson, it will be recalled, beheld in evolution the expression of an absolutely creative force, in the sense that he imagined it as bent on no goal other than creation in itself and for its own sake. In this he stands at the opposite pole from the animist (whether Engels, Teilhard de Chardin, or optimistic positivists like Spencer,) who all regard evolution as the majestic unfolding of a program woven into the very fabric of the universe. For them, consequently, evolution is not really a creation but uniquely the “revelation” of nature’s hither unexpressed designs. . . . page 116

CHANCE AND NECESSITY
2 years ago. Edited 2 years ago.

Sign-in to write a comment.