Re: Is evolution accelerating?

g wrote:

> "dkomo" <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dr8dtu$2s3s$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>Consider these evolutionary steps:
>>
>>1. From the formation of the earth to to the first multicelluar
>>organisms took perhaps 4 billion years.
>>
>>2. From tiny organisms to the first mammals took 400 million years.
>>
>>3. From the first mammals to the first primitive monkeys took 150
>>million years.
>>
>>4. From monkeys to hominid species such as chimpanzees took something
>>like 30 million years.
>>
>>5. From hominids to walking erect took 16 million years.
>>
>>6. From walking erect to humans painting on cave walls took 4 million
>>years.
>>
>>7. From cave paintings to the first permanent settlements took some
>>10,000 years.
>>
>>8. From settlements to the invention of writing in Sumeria took about
>>4,000 years.
>>
>>At this point biological evolution was surpassed by cultural evolution.
>>Humans could now store, recall and widely share their thoughts and
>>insights. And now it was:
>>
>>9. 4,000 years to the Roman Empire.
>>
>>10. 1,800 years to the Industrial Age.
>>
>>11. 169 years to the moon.
>>
>>12. 20 years to the Information Age where we now find ourselves.
>>
>>And
>>
>>13. ?????????
>>
>> --adapted from _Radical Evolution_, Joel Garreau, p. 58
>>
>>
>>In exponential growth
>>
>> dN/dt = k * N
>>
>>where the change in a quantity N is proportional to the current value of
>>N, and
>>
>> N = N0 * e^(kt)
>>
>>is the solution to this differential equation and is the equation of an
>>exponential curve.
>>
>>If, roughly speaking, N represents the complexity of an organism, then
>>do the above steps show evidence of an exponential growth curve for
>>human evolution? And can evolution be considered "progressive" in this
>>case?
>>
>>
>> --dkomo@xxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
> A similar eclectic of things would be:
>
> 1. From the time I was born until I took my first steps (I am told) was
> about one year;
>
> 2. It took me five years from then until I entered first grade;
>
> 3. It took me six years to complete primary school;
>
> 4. It took me only two years to finish junior high;
>
> 5. It took me four years to complete high school;
>
> 6. It took me six years to get a BA *working at full time jobs throughout*
>
> 7. It only took me one day to begin my first after college job
> (recruitment);
>
> 8. It took me one year to get recruited into a job paying three times what
> the first one paid;
>
> 9. It took me over thirty years to reach a time of owning home, motor
> vehicle, a recreational retreat;
>
> 10. After that it only took me one year to triple my net worth;
>
> 11. Three years later my net worth had plunged by two-thirds.
>
> Q. Why did some of these things happen so quickly, while some happened
> slowly?
>

Perhaps because the human life curve tends to be more random or
oscillatory in nature. The only people who have exponential life curves
are those who start from a base close to zero and eventually produce a
big impact on human society. Like Napolean for example (yes, I know his
life curve crashed at the end). Or Bill Gates.

> A. Because there is not much sense in comparing such things as soup to
> nuts, and trying to base some
> conclusion on it about the horsepower of the engine on one's bass boat.
>

Nonsense. Historians, for example, have been picking out the
significant milestones in human history since the days of Herodotus.
Just because milestones are somewhat subjective doesn't mean that they
are either arbitrary or meaningless in comparisons.


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx


> Or, to put it another way: Just picking some things out which are
> dissimilar does not constitute an
> orderly rational process for concluding much of anything scientifically
> meaningful. This is not to say it cannot be done; but, if it is done, then
> there must be some homogeneity of units analyzed and compared.
>
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... From tiny organisms to the first mammals took 400 million years. ... >>At this point biological evolution was surpassed by cultural evolution. ... >>In exponential growth ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... From tiny organisms to the first mammals took 400 million years. ... From walking erect to humans painting on cave walls took 4 million years. ... >>>At this point biological evolution was surpassed by cultural evolution. ... >>>In exponential growth ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... From tiny organisms to the first mammals took 400 million years. ... From walking erect to humans painting on cave walls took 4 million ... > At this point biological evolution was surpassed by cultural evolution. ... > In exponential growth ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... From tiny organisms to the first mammals took 400 million years. ... From walking erect to humans painting on cave walls took 4 million years. ... >At this point biological evolution was surpassed by cultural evolution. ... >In exponential growth ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Chez Watt: Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... > organisms from one population of a species to another does not result ... >> Is evolution something that has been proved on a case to case basis? ... >> divergent explanation to the ToE: ... > even though they are not useful in the living organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)