If we step outside of our chauvinistic inclination to look at evolution as a process with humans as the teleological result of its process, the unfolding story of life's continual divergence makes even more sense. As Klink illustrates, we are but a small twig on a minor branch of the Tree of Life and not necessarily its crown.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over at The New York Times, Gary Gutting has an interview with philosopher Michael Ruse. It is part of a series on philosophy and religion. There are several interesting nuggets in the interview, but I just want to discuss this one:
G.G.: Do you think that evolution lends support to the…
Upchucky award runner-up and Disco. 'Tute staffer Casey Luskin is upset. Last fall, we were on a panel together, and I mocked his defense of the neo-creationist "orchard model" described in Explore Evolution as claiming that life "poofed" into existence. In the course of one of Casey's regularly…
When Charles Darwin was thrashing out his theory of evolution, he would doodle sometimes in his notebooks. To explain how new species came into existence, he wrote down letters on a page and then connected them with branches. In the process, he created a simple tree. Across the top of the page, he…
A discussion of misconceptions in evolution ... about missing links, or great chains of being, or teleology (the idea that evolution is goal-directed) has got to be the most fun you can have with your pants on. Pursuant to this, let's sharpen and clarify our evolutionary theory mojo by considering…
Many people, including Charles Darwin, have fallen for the fallacy that man is the 'progress' of evolution. Any branch of the tree of life changes when under pressure. This includes almost all branches. Very few, if any, remain static.
Speaking of remaining static, I had a creationist ask me one time if there were any forms of life that had stopped evolving. "Yes," I told him, "The extinct ones."
Is the human species the one who has developed the possibility to have a more complex view or representation of its environment?
If it is so, you only have to rephrase: if we "choose" to measure the evolutionary process on earth through the lenses of the complexity and variety of responses to the environment, the human species could be "probably" the "crown" of evolution.
The fact that this way of looking at the evolutionary process is self-serving doesn't preclude its reality.
But, maybe I am wrong?