<!-- received="Mon Oct 31 23:35:20 1995 EST" -->
<!-- sent="31 Oct 1995 23:35:20 -0500" -->
<!-- name="H. M. Hubey" -->
<!-- email="hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu" -->
<!-- subject="Re: Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory" -->
<!-- id="g(h<dg0" -->
<!-- inreplyto="Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory" -->
<title>sci.anthropology.paleo: Nov-95: Re: Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory</title>
<h1>Re: Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory</h1>
H. M. Hubey (<i>hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu</i>)<br>
<i>31 Oct 1995 23:35:20 -0500</i>
<p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a href="date.html#91">[ date ]</a><a href="index.html#91">[ thread ]</a><a href="subject.html#91">[ subject ]</a><a href="author.html#91">[ author ]</a>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0092.html">H. M. Hubey: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0090.html">Alex Duncan: "Re: A Specification for a"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
</ul>
<!-- body="start" -->
n8010095@cc.wwu.edu (Phillip Bigelow) writes:<br>
<p>
<i>>hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) writes:</i><br>
<p>
<i>>>Living organisms display increasing order and entropy. The order</i><br>
<i>>>and complexity increases with higher levels of evolution.</i><br>
<p>
<i>> I am not aware of ANY evolutionary biologist that has evidence for your</i><br>
<i>>statement, or even believes it. Where is your science journal source for</i><br>
<i>>this statement? And further, your statement is so general in nature that it</i><br>
<i>>is almost meaningless. Are you referring to temporal changes, or are you</i><br>
<p>
<p>
There's no need for science journals. It's practically common<br>
knowledge. If you must have a biologist make the claim, here<br>
are two:<br>
<p>
Brooks and Wiley, Evolution as Entropy, Chicago university Press.<br>
<p>
Naturally, as I've already indicated I use intelligence as<br>
the indicator of level on the evolutionary scale.<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>You don't seem to be referring to cladistics. Having more than a passing</i><br>
<i>>exposure to the earth sciences and paleo :-), the word "scale" is not used</i><br>
<i>>(except by the general public).</i><br>
<p>
WE measure things all the time. The word scale is used all the time<br>
as in "multiple scale phenomena", sometimes in combination with<br>
things like dimension/unit as in "scale free" or in measures<br>
of efficiency as in "scaling upwards", or in economics as in<br>
"economies of scale". It's used all the time in dimensional<br>
analysis (in fluid dynamics) in making 'scale models' i.e.<br>
prototypes. It's even in the names of books like:<br>
<p>
Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important by Schmidt-Nielson<br>
<p>
or even one that is soon to be published like:<br>
<p>
The Diagonal Infinity: Problems of Multiple Scales.<br>
<p>
<i>> Why do you assume that a "smart" organism is high on the evolutionary</i><br>
<i>>"scale"? </i><br>
<p>
It's a definition. Something that seems to be missing in this<br>
field so full of PC :-).. NExt thing we'll be giving equal<br>
time to viruses :-)..<br>
<p>
<p>
There are plenty of "smart" organisms that display apomorphies, it <br>
<i>>is true, but there are a greater number of small-brained creatures that are</i><br>
<i>>MUCH more complex than a human. </i><br>
<p>
I refer to intelligence.<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>> For example, an ostrich is VASTLY more apomorphic than a human in every</i><br>
<i>>regard except for brain capacity. Morphologically, the Order Primates, and</i><br>
<i>>including the family hominidae, are quite primitive. So, from an overall</i><br>
<i>>morphologic perspective, we are quite low on the evolutionary complexity</i><br>
<i>>tree.</i><br>
<p>
Well, it looks like a Rube Goldberg designed bird :-)..<br>
<p>
Maybe that's something that happens to rejects along the way. They<br>
get so many or so much parasitic viruses along the way that<br>
they are stuck (i.e. fixed) at a certain stage of evolution.<br>
<p>
Naturally now I'll hear that there's no such thing.<br>
<p>
<p>
<pre>
-- <br>
<p>
<p>
Regards, Mark<br>
<a href="http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey">http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey</a><br>
</pre>
<!-- body="end" -->
<p>
<ul>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0092.html">H. M. Hubey: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0090.html">Alex Duncan: "Re: A Specification for a"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
</ul>
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/">Book Reviews</A>
(<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/palaeoanthropology.html">paleoanthropology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/anthropology.html">anthropology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/archaeology.html">archaeology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/ethnography.html">ethnography</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/ethnographic_fiction.html">ethnographic fiction</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/evolution.html">evolution</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/human_biology.html">human biology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/sex.html">sex</A>).