Re: Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory

H. M. Hubey (
31 Oct 1995 23:35:20 -0500 (Phillip Bigelow) writes:

> (H. M. Hubey) writes:

>>Living organisms display increasing order and entropy. The order
>>and complexity increases with higher levels of evolution.

> I am not aware of ANY evolutionary biologist that has evidence for your
>statement, or even believes it. Where is your science journal source for
>this statement? And further, your statement is so general in nature that it
>is almost meaningless. Are you referring to temporal changes, or are you

There's no need for science journals. It's practically common
knowledge. If you must have a biologist make the claim, here
are two:

Brooks and Wiley, Evolution as Entropy, Chicago university Press.

Naturally, as I've already indicated I use intelligence as
the indicator of level on the evolutionary scale.

>You don't seem to be referring to cladistics. Having more than a passing
>exposure to the earth sciences and paleo :-), the word "scale" is not used
>(except by the general public).

WE measure things all the time. The word scale is used all the time
as in "multiple scale phenomena", sometimes in combination with
things like dimension/unit as in "scale free" or in measures
of efficiency as in "scaling upwards", or in economics as in
"economies of scale". It's used all the time in dimensional
analysis (in fluid dynamics) in making 'scale models' i.e.
prototypes. It's even in the names of books like:

Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important by Schmidt-Nielson

or even one that is soon to be published like:

The Diagonal Infinity: Problems of Multiple Scales.

> Why do you assume that a "smart" organism is high on the evolutionary

It's a definition. Something that seems to be missing in this
field so full of PC :-).. NExt thing we'll be giving equal
time to viruses :-)..

There are plenty of "smart" organisms that display apomorphies, it
>is true, but there are a greater number of small-brained creatures that are
>MUCH more complex than a human.

I refer to intelligence.

> For example, an ostrich is VASTLY more apomorphic than a human in every
>regard except for brain capacity. Morphologically, the Order Primates, and
>including the family hominidae, are quite primitive. So, from an overall
>morphologic perspective, we are quite low on the evolutionary complexity

Well, it looks like a Rube Goldberg designed bird :-)..

Maybe that's something that happens to rejects along the way. They
get so many or so much parasitic viruses along the way that
they are stuck (i.e. fixed) at a certain stage of evolution.

Naturally now I'll hear that there's no such thing.


Regards, Mark