3 ms·
Likely more accurate. I'm not sure why anyone thinks any surviving development in an organism is due to this "one weird trick" thing, as opposed to a multitude
by 0xEF 3y ago
Likely more accurate.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks any surviving development in an organism is due to this "one weird trick" thing, as opposed to a multitude of factors that rendered that organism fit for their environment, at least enough to pass said development on, anyway. Meat, fermented foods, fire, and a slew of other variables likely played a role.
Talking about evolution as though there was some single exploding popcorn kernel that caused change is a pretty narrow take on things. Sites like the one in the link only serve to perpetuate such shallow thinking on the matter, and in this case, likely to push a narrative.
- throwup238 3y ago> Talking about evolution as though there was some single exploding popcorn kernel that caused change is a pretty narrow take on things. That’s kind of one of the predominant theories in evolution though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium > Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. The theory deals with the morphology of animals in the fossil record but that’s the gist of it: the actual evolution happens really fast, usually to adapt to a large environmental change, and species enter a stable state where they very slowly change if at all.
- _0ffh 3y ago> the actual evolution happens really fast With the qualification, that they can be "fast" in geological time scales, which are rather big. It might look like rapid change in the fossil record, but that is a very compressed representation.