Kevin:
>From an anatomical, physiological and biochemical point of view mammals have
>not become more complex over time; the "complexity" that represents the
>mammals has simply been rearranged to create a very diverse group.
Certainly >many mammals have genes that are unique to themselves, but they
also lost other >genes even as they acquired the new one. The result is no
significant net change >in complexity, just a reshuffling that involves both
loss and gain simultaneously.
>I should also point out that science is not obligated to follow the lead of
the >public in defining terms. The public sees an increase in complexity as
progress >simply because it has grown use to the idea that increasing social
and >technological complexity goes hand in hand with "progress". Science,
however, >recognizes that progress is a subjective term and so largely avoids
it. Instead it >concentrates on whether complexity increases or decreases,
measured by an >increase or decrease in structural organization. No value
judgement is made >concerning what constitutes good and what constitutes bad
except in terms of >functional efficiency and versitility.
Bertvan:
At first I thought I understood what you were saying. Since mammals are a
tiny part of the biosphere, the complexity of the biosphere hasn't increased
since the advent of multi-celled organisms. But you seem to be saying a
human brain is no more complex than that of a cow--only differently
organized. (I'd sure like to hear the views of a neuro-biologist.) In any
case, how about a reptile. Is a human brain (or central nervous system) more
complex? Or a fish--the varieties present billions of year ago, not octopus.
Or a worm? If there was any increase in complexity since the appearance of
worms, when would you consider it occurred?
Bertvan:>
>> Furthermore, I'll really go out on a limb and suggest that humans are
> >smarter than cows.
>
Kevin:
>Maybe, maybe not; are you smart enough to give milk ;-).
Bertvan:
Yep. Gave birth three times :-)
Bertvan