For years I have argued that (1) the more branching on the evolutionary tree from which you are descended, the more evolved you are (on average), and (2) the more evolved you are, the more superior you are (on average). To many educated people, this sounds ignorant because regardless of when your lineage branched off the evolutionary tree, all extant life has been evolving for the same amount of time. However years ago, I noticed that taxa descended from less branching just seem more primitive, so there must be a logical reason why branching matters. For example, plants seem more primitive than animals and plants have done less branching than animals.
Recently commenter Race Realist informed me of more modern taxonomy that might not fit my theory as neatly. Luckily, even the new taxonomy supports my theory. For example, after only one split on the evolutionary tree, bacteria/a-proteobacteria branch off. After two splits, discoba branch off. After three splits sa[r]p and amorphea splits off.
Author links open overlay panelDingHe12OmarFiz-Palacios12Cheng-JieFu1JohannaFehling13Chun-ChiehTsai1Sandra L.Baldauf1
So simple branching predicts the clade that contains humans (amorphea) is on top of the evolutionary hierarchy and bacteria are at the bottom. Now among amorphea, once again the clade that contains humans (Holozoa) is tied for the most splits while Amoebozoa has only one.
Sadly, among Holozoa, the clade that contains humans does not come out on top, but I suspects that’s because they didn’t have enough room in the chart to create a comprehensive tree at that level of specificity.
Pumpkin Person 
Most biodiversity -> most selection pressure -> most advanced organisms?
Pingback: New research inspires fresh look at evolutionary progress – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
[redacted by pp, march 31, 2021]
europeans have larger brains than chinapeople: koreans, japs, chinese.
the only people with larger brains than europeans are siberians and aleuts.
that map is bullshit. the europeans brain sizes were too small and the size of chinese and koreans brains was based entriely on the skulls of siberians and a single skull from china.
You keep repeating the same claims & keep forgetting the rebuttals:
Click to access iq-brain-size-rushton-intelligence-1992.pdf
Assuming that Pumpkin is equating more morphological and genetic change with “more evolved” then this would be a mostly semantic matter. Scientists use terms like “derived” instead of “less evolved” because of the historical context behind.
So Pumpkin could play this off as just a semantic preference but unfortunately he comes from a long line of [redacted by pp, april 1, 2021]……”scholars” who believe the exact thing modern scientists are trying to avoid with this distinction. Subsequently the original assumption is now suspect as well.
We don’t need to use terms like “more evolved” or “superior” if you don’t want to.
In more neutral language my hypothesis is threefold:
1) The degree of branching on the evolutionary tree correlates NEGATIVELY with morphological resemblance to the most recent common ancestor of the taxa being compared.
2) The degree of branching is correlated with a taxon’s rank in the “Great chain of being”
3) This correlation is because higher rank on “Great chain of being” is favoured by natural selection as opposed to simply having nowhere to go but up à la Gould’s drunkard’s walk metaphor.
[redacted by pp, April 2, 2021]
1) On a quite a few trees this would be obvious and I don’t think many scientists would try and argue against this point.
2) If there is a correlation it’s probably weak. Humans are not the least derived.
3) How can NS favor anything? It’s not sentient. You need to reword that.
If this past pandemic has proven anything it’s that microscopic organisms are still the dominant species on this planet.
Crocodiles for example are so adaptable that their phenotype has remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. The most derived traits may in fact be the most adaptable. While us Humans may meet our demise from our own Intelligence. Which in retrospect isn’t very intelligent at all.
But this also proves this isn’t just a mere semantic distinction for you. You literally believe in orthogenesis. That’s like being a creationist.
2) If there is a correlation it’s probably weak. Humans are not the least derived.
We’re not the most derived is what you mean. I don’t know if we are or not and the correlation might be weak, but it is there, in my opinion.
3) How can NS favor anything? It’s not sentient. You need to reword that.
Nature tends to select high chain of being traits.
If this past pandemic has proven anything it’s that microscopic organisms are still the dominant species on this planet.
Man-made species don’t count. Cattle also dominates the planet precisely because they were artificially selected.
Crocodiles for example are so adaptable that their phenotype has remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. The most derived traits may in fact be the most adaptable.
You mean the most basal traits may be the most adaptable. They seem adaptable because they’ve stood the test of time but that’s largely because they emerged first and at a time when there was less competition. But humans can survive in a wider range of environments than can any specific crocodile species.
But this also proves this isn’t just a mere semantic distinction for you. You literally believe in orthogenesis. That’s like being a creationist.
Orthogenesis is an ambiguous term. I merely believe that in the long run, nature selects the average organism to move up the chain of being. Not because a creator is consciously directing evolution but because moving up generally has more survival benefits than moving down.
I get your point of view but is Highly homocentric
There is no such thing as objective progress or superiority
I’ve seen your other articles about the “more evolved concept” but it doesn’t make sense, evolution has no goal, most mutations are bad for the organism. evolution in reality is just the survival of random mutations that have no goal but just happen
“Progress” suggests that there is a goal or an inferior or superior system but this is decided by whom? Nature? Humans?
Is a rat more advanced than a lizard? What if the rat goes extinct and the reptile doesn’t , how would we know which one is superior? The rat in your view would be superior because it’s “newer”
What about the grass and other plants? How could you rank them?
In my view it is not linear since nature doesn’t work in a linear way given that organisms that are “new” die when exposed to a different environment or gets exterminated by other species that are “older” than it is
Would like your view on this
I get your point of view but is Highly homocentric
Not necessarily. There’s nothing anthropocentric about saying angiosperm are superior to slime molds.
There is no such thing as objective progress or superiority
If people all over the World can largely agree that angiosperm are superior to slime molds, then it’s objective is it not? There’s other criteria you could use like the amount of energy needed to build the organism or the taxon’s adaptability or biomass. None of these criteria are perfect, but might collectively measure a set of traits that it’s reasonable to call “superiority”.
I’ve seen your other articles about the “more evolved concept” but it doesn’t make sense, evolution has no goal,
Nature doesn’t need a goal. As long as it’s selecting for some criteria over others, it can be changing us in one direction or another. Intention is irrelevant.
most mutations are bad for the organism. evolution in reality is just the survival of random mutations that have no goal but just happen
And the few random mutations that survive in the long run tend to be those that make the organism superior in the eyes of humans and probably sentient aliens too.
“Progress” suggests that there is a goal or an inferior or superior system but this is decided by whom? Nature? Humans?
Nature unconsciously selects for it, but humans consciously see it, even long before we understood evolution; hence the chain of being described by ancient philosophers.
Is a rat more advanced than a lizard? What if the rat goes extinct and the reptile doesn’t , how would we know which one is superior? The rat in your view would be superior because it’s “newer”
It’s hard to say, categorically, that rats are superior to lizards. What I can say is rats are mammals and mammals evolved from reptiles. and since more evolved grades tend to be superior, rats are probably superior to lizards.
“We’re not the most derived is what you mean.”
Yes, my bad. I thought of it like the word “derivative”.
“Man-made species don’t count. ”
You don’t know that it’s man made. Stop pretending that you do. I know you all think you’re socially intelligent but in the real world everyone thinks your a bunch of morons and laughs behind your backs about it.
Leave the theorizing to real intellectuals and stop embarrassing yourselves.
You’re not immunologists, you’re not virologists, just stop.
Moreover, My cat has somehow convinced an organism far “more evolved” than it to clean up its shit and take care of it. All while not destroying the planet in the process. Honestly that sounds superior.
“but that’s largely because they emerged first and at a time when there was less competition.”
Wrong again. Crocodiles have the particular morphology that they do because it out-competed all the other forms. Now you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
” humans can survive in a wider range of environments than can any specific crocodile species.”
Which is also wrong. Crocodiles can survive near freezing temperatures and underwater, and they can do this without destroying their surrounding environment.
“Orthogenesis is an ambiguous term.”
No it’s not. Stop equivocating “more evolved” do you mean just genetic/phenotypic change or do you mean particular traits are superior to others?
You don’t know that it’s man made. Stop pretending that you do.
Fair enough, but given the uncertainty, it’s not the best example.
I know you all think you’re socially intelligent but in the real world everyone thinks your a bunch of morons and laughs behind your backs about it.
Don’t feel bad about not not knowing what “derived” meant. Lashing out like a wounded animal will only make it worse.
Moreover, My cat has somehow convinced an organism far “more evolved” than it to clean up its shit and take care of it. All while not destroying the planet in the process. Honestly that sounds superior.
But you did that voluntarily. You weren’t tricked or coerced, so it’s not an example of a superior dominating an inferior.
“but that’s largely because they emerged first and at a time when there was less competition.”
Wrong again. Crocodiles have the particular morphology that they do because it out-competed all the other forms.
I understand but if humans had emerged 200 million years ago, we might have lasted just as long, either because we’d still be here, or because we would have destroyed the planet, killing ourselves and them.
” humans can survive in a wider range of environments than can any specific crocodile species.”
Which is also wrong. Crocodiles can survive near freezing temperatures and underwater, and they can do this without destroying their surrounding environment.
But by standard criteria for comparing different life forms (geographic range, population size, biomass), we run circles around them.
“Orthogenesis is an ambiguous term.”
No it’s not. Stop equivocating “more evolved” do you mean just genetic/phenotypic change or do you mean particular traits are superior to others?
By more evolved I mean more morphological change. I also believe most morphological change is improvement.
As far as I’m concerned it’s meLo:10 and PP:1
I agree your mistakes have outnumbered mine ten to one.
I mean she coerced me with her huge green eyes and soft black fur. You’re a fool if you think pets don’t take advantage of you. We all know half the relationship is food.
Oh give it up.
We wouldn’t have access to fossil fuels, fire would be far too dangerous because of the increased oxygen in the atmosphere, the megafauna would be larger and deadlier, and not to mention the possible diseases that existed. You vastly overestimate human’s ability to adapt.
And you vastly overestimate how well adapted modern crocodiles would be to the Jurassic period by underestimating how much they’ve changed since then. It’s a myth that they’re living fossils:
And while your imagining time travelling humans in the Jurassic, you might want to consult the huge genre of sci-fi that shows us coping quite nicely.
“But by standard criteria for comparing different life forms (geographic range, population size, biomass), we run circles around them.”
No pumpkin. We don’t have set breeding periods, we’re relatively homogeneous, we don’t produce a lot of offspring, and when we do they’re extremely expensive. I guarantee you that if there was a sudden enough shift in climate we’d all die off in a heartbeat.
So we humans who have conquered everywhere from the tropics to the deserts to the arctic can’t adapt to different climates, but crocodiles, who are confined to the tropics can? tHat mAKesS seNth.
The only thing that is a true measure of evolutionary success is how many offspring you produced that also produced their own offspring and just about every other animal has us beat.
Evolution has no goal remember? So how can it have success in achieving one? What can have success are intentional life forms and no animal has conquered the planet like humans have.
Name a trait that is better than another in every possible environment.
You can’t.
When did I claim I could? You don’t need to be better in every environment. A trait that is better in most environments will be a long-term evolutionary trend.
“If people all over the World can largely agree that angiosperm are superior to slime molds, then it’s objective is it not?”
If people all over the World can largely agree that X then Y, then it’s objective is it not?
Billions of people all over the world can largely agree that a Supreme deity exists, so is that objective too?
If the vast majority of people independently believed in God it would indeed be objective. Indeed God might be so objective that some scientists claim it has a genetic basis and certain forms of brain damage can enhance religiosity iirc. Of course objectivity is not enough to prove truth, which is why I mentioned other criteria too. There are objective delusions just like there are subjective ones.
“Moving down” can have survival benefits. It seems that you seem to think that “moving up” always means the traits have survival benefits. Yet another adaptationist assumption you have.
“Orthogenesis is an ambiguous term.”
No it’s not. It’s literally a form of progressionism. All “orthogenesis” is is “directed evolution.” And “natural selection” doesn’t “favor” anything—stop with the intentional language. Fodor out this to be 14 years ago.
“Moving down” can have survival benefits. It seems that you seem to think that “moving up” always means the traits have survival benefits. Yet another adaptationist assumption you have.
No moving down can have survival benefits too. Homo floresiensis is a good example. But that’s the exception that proves the rule right? Most descendants of Homo Erectus went up in brain size. And it’s not because of Gould’s drunkard wall “no where to go but up” argument. Erectus had a huge brain so there was plenty of room to go down.
“Orthogenesis is an ambiguous term.”
No it’s not.
It kind of is, or at least was:
The term varied in meaning from the overtly vitalistic and theological to the mechanical. It ranged from theories of mystical forces to mere descriptions of a general trend in development due to natural limitations of either the germinal material or the environment …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
[personal attack redacted by pp, april 4, 2021]
“Oh give it up.”
My cat has nothing to worry about for the rest of it’s life. It’ll have the best medical care, it’s fed and watered, it’s shit is even cleaned up for it. She even reproduced. What do I get in return? Affection? I have a girlfriend, any affection the cat gives me is weak compared to that.
Who really is taking advantage of who?
“underestimating how much they’ve changed since then. It’s a myth that they’re living fossils:”
First, you made the erroneous statement that the modern crocodile phenotype is only successful from a lack of competition 200 million years ago. Then, after I corrected this, you’re trying to make the argument that all the morphological variation of early crocodylia is proof that it is not “a living fossil’ (even though no one claimed it was)?
Evolution isn’t linear like that. Modern crocodyliforms are at least 100 million years old. Hilariously enough, your source even shows that modern crocodiles “devolved” to be cold blooded.
“And while your imagining time travelling humans in the Jurassic, you might want to consult the huge genre of sci-fi that shows us coping quite nicely”
Hahaha! You’re joking right?
“but crocodiles, who are confined to the tropics can?”
How do you think they survived the KT extinction? Humans wouldn’t have been able to.
[delusion of grandeur redacted by pp, april 4, 2021]
“Evolution has no goal remember? So how can it have success in achieving one?’
[personal attack redacted by pp, april 4, 2021] NS is simply a name for when an organism successfully passes on its genes by utilizing Y phenotype correctly in X environment.
So the only possible condition for successfully passing on your genes is whether the organism reproduced or not.
reproductive success is evolutionary success.
My cat has nothing to worry about for the rest of it’s life. It’ll have the best medical care, it’s fed and watered, it’s shit is even cleaned up for it. She even reproduced. What do I get in return? Affection? I have a girlfriend, any affection the cat gives me is weak compared to that.
Who really is taking advantage of who?
You obviously benefit in some way or you wouldn’t do it.
First, you made the erroneous statement that the modern crocodile phenotype is only successful from a lack of competition 200 million years ago.
That is largely why they’re so successful. Being a semi-aquatic ambush hunter is an excellent strategy & if crocodiles hadn’t evolved so long ago, something else would have filled that niche first leaving them vulnerable if they had emerged today.
The other way they got luck was by emerging long before modern humans did. If they had emerged in today’s human dominated world, they would not have lasted as long as our species has, because, sadly, we would have killed them:
Of the 24 species of crocodilian, 7 are currently listed as Critically Endangered, 4 as Vulnerable, 12 as Least Risk
Then, after I corrected this,
But you’re not correct.
you’re trying to make the argument that all the morphological variation of early crocodylia is proof that it is not “a living fossil’ (even though no one claimed it was)?
If you agree they’ve changed, then you can no longer cite the longevity of their phenotype as evidence of evolutionary success.
“but crocodiles, who are confined to the tropics can?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZiERu3UFoM&ab_channel=NatGeoWILD
They can survive near freezing periods only briefly, otherwise they would have migrated up to Canada:
Alligators can survive in water as cold as 40 degrees Fahrenheit, but it is not ideal.
“Obviously, that is not optimal, being frozen like that,” North Carolina’s Shallotte River Swamp Park general manager George Howard told HuffPost in 2018, when alligators were videoed icing in his swamp. “I can’t imagine it being very good for them if it was much over a week in cold water. That’s why you don’t see indigenous alligators north of North Carolina. Their bodies like the warmth.”
How do you think they survived the KT extinction?
Who’s they? No extant crocodile species has been around more than several million years. If you want to include the entire Crocodilia order when talking about crocodiles, then you have to also include the entire primate order when talking about humans, in which case we survived the KT extinction too by some estimates.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/news-primates-dinosaurs-study-coexist#:~:text=Scientists%20have%20acquired%20new%20data,the%20course%20of%20animal%20evolution.
NS is simply a name for when an organism successfully passes on its genes by utilizing Y phenotype correctly in X environment.
So the only possible condition for successfully passing on your genes is whether the organism reproduced or not.
And yet when I said natural selection favours, you complained I was using goal directed language. The term “success” is similar language.
Put simply, the phenotypes that have thrived in nature are those that dominate the earth and monopolize its resources. Humans are at or near the top when it comes to both biomass & geographic range.
“You obviously benefit in some way or you wouldn’t do it.”
Autism^ Organisms don’t need rational reasons to do things.
Any benefit I receive is outweighed by the cost.
“That is largely why they’re so successful. Being a semi-aquatic ambush hunter is an excellent strategy & if crocodiles hadn’t evolved so long ago, something else would have filled that niche”
Nothing else could fill that niche because they’re such excellent hunters. Their success is due to their phenotype. Otherwise something would have filled that role.
“had emerged in today’s human dominated world, they would not have lasted as long as our species has”
If Humans had emerged in the past’s Archosaur-dominated world, they would not have lasted as long as Crocodylians.
“But you’re not correct.”
Yes, I am. Provide actual evidence for your claims and then maybe I’ll think about entertaining your delusions.
“If you agree they’ve changed, then you can no longer cite the longevity of their phenotype as evidence of evolutionary success.”
The phenotype in question has existed for at least 100 million years.
Pristichampsus:
Thoracosaurus:
Machimosaurus (this one is a little more aquatic though):
I could actually go far as back as Deinosuchus and Sarcosuchus if I wanted.
“Obviously, that is not optimal”
It doesn’t have to be optimal. It just has to work.
“Who’s they? No extant crocodile species has been around more than several million years. ”
I’m not talking about any particular species or order, I’m just referring to a phenotype. So no, Humans did not survive and would not survive the KT extinction.
“you complained I was using goal directed language.”
No. I complained that you were using anthropomorphic language in reference to NS. And it wasn’t the anthropomorphism itself that bothered me but more that it was anthropomorphized so much to the point of incoherence.
“the phenotypes that have thrived in nature are those that dominate the earth and monopolize its resources. ”
Nope. The only objective measure of evolutionary success is reproductive success.
What good is utilizing resources if you don’t pass on children? Nothing.
“redacted by pp”
LOL. Seethe.
“You obviously benefit in some way or you wouldn’t do it.”
Autism^ Organisms don’t need rational reasons to do things.
Assuming objective rationality is autistic.
Assuming subjective rationality is pure genius.
Any benefit I receive is outweighed by the cost.
You may not be consciously aware of all the benefits but if the cat were a net liability, the experience would simply be so unpleasant you’d feel compelled to get rid of it.
If the cat got rabies would you still keep it? No. So your behavior is driven by logic, you just can’t see it until the cost/benefit ratio exceeds a certain threshold.
“That is largely why they’re so successful. Being a semi-aquatic ambush hunter is an excellent strategy & if crocodiles hadn’t evolved so long ago, something else would have filled that niche”
Nothing else could fill that niche because they’re such excellent hunters.
To assume no other phenotype could have filled that niche and that crocodiles were somehow inevitable is adaptionism taken to an absurd extreme.
Their success is due to their phenotype. Otherwise something would have filled that role.
The role was already filled. They had a head start adapting to that niche.
A lot of operating systems were better than Microsoft but Microsoft had already cornered the market & thus outlasted many superior products.
It doesn’t have to be optimal. It just has to work.
The point is it doesn’t work below the freezing level, hence they’re confined to the tropics.
“Who’s they? No extant crocodile species has been around more than several million years. ”
I’m not talking about any particular species or order, I’m just referring to a phenotype.
But if the phenotype is so similar why aren’t they considered the same species?
One expert says, “If you squint, these various lineages all sort of look the same, but the details are all different.”
https://nautil.us/issue/68/context/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-living-fossil-rp
So no, Humans did not survive and would not survive the KT extinction.
It depends how human they’d have to be to be considered human. I can imagine a creature that is as different from today’s humans as Jurassic crocs were to any of today’s crocs surviving the KT extinction.
Nope. The only objective measure of evolutionary success is reproductive success.
Success in evolution like anywhere else in life has a lot to do with luck. The real measure is not evolutionary success but evolutionary superiority & that means adaptability.
Humans are one of the most adaptable species on Earth.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-may-be-most-adaptive-species/#:~:text=In%20the%205%20million%20years,climate%20has%20grown%20increasingly%20erratic.
“Assuming objective rationality is autistic.”
That is autistic. But what I’m specifically referring to is you thinking relationships can be quantified.
You can add up the yearly costs of having a pet, but you can’t add up emotions.
I’m not really interested in this kind of debate with you, so we can leave it at that
“To assume no other phenotype could have filled that niche and that crocodiles were somehow inevitable is adaptionism taken to an absurd extreme.”
There were other phenotypes that filled that niche earlier or later, yet they all lost to Crocodylia. Giant Amphibians being an example.
“hence they’re confined to the tropics.”
No they’re not. “Tropical climate” isn’t defined as “anything above freezing”
“But if the phenotype is so similar why aren’t they considered the same species?”
Is this a serious question? And if so, whats the point of it? I thought I picked a pretty good cut off with aforementioned examples.
“I can imagine a creature that is as different from today’s humans as Jurassic crocs were to any of today’s crocs surviving the KT extinction.”
I don’t think any large creature would be able to survive the KT extinction.
I’m sure they may be some exceptions but I just don’t see humans being able to sustain their large size or brains with what limited resources were available.
“The real measure is not evolutionary success but evolutionary superiority ”
Evolutionary “superiority” is evolutionary success. Reproduction is the only measure of it.
“Humans are one of the most adaptable species on Earth.”
Of course. But if you can get the same job done with a simpler phenotype then clearly that’s superior.
Humans are rube goldberg machines.
I’m not really interested in this kind of debate with you, so we can leave it at that
Fair enough. We disagree on enough stuff without getting sidetracked by this.
There were other phenotypes that filled that niche earlier or later, yet they all lost to Crocodylia. Giant Amphibians being an example.
Giant salamanders are still around though that’s not quite the same niche. But contra my earlier comment, maybe crocodiles were kind of inevitable. Maybe so inevitable that their phenotype would be found on many other planets.
But in a way that makes my point about evolutionary progress. They evolved until they were perfectly adapted to their environment & then essentially stopped evolving. But they were lucky in the sense that their environment never changed. Yes the atmosphere changed & they probably internally evolved to that, but their body shape never changed because there have always been shallow waters that their prey comes to drink from.
By contrast our ancestors didn’t have the luxury of a static environment, so we eventually evolved the ability to adapt to virtually every environment.
“Tropical climate” isn’t defined as “anything above freezing”
But the point still stands. Their geographic range is far less than our species.
“But if the phenotype is so similar why aren’t they considered the same species?”
Is this a serious question? And if so, whats the point of it? I thought I picked a pretty good cut off with aforementioned examples.
As you once noted, under traditional Linnaean taxonomy, the phenotypic similarity between populations determines the taxonomic similarity. So perhaps populations that look 90% alike might be the same species, populations that look 80% alike might be the same genus, populations that look 70% alike might be the same order etc. Crocodiles are an order implying they all share one phenotype in the same way all primates share one phenotypes. On the other hand Cretaceous crocodiles look much more like every extant crocodile than Cretaceous primates look like modern humans so it’s not an exact science.
I don’t think any large creature would be able to survive the KT extinction.
I’m sure they may be some exceptions but I just don’t see humans being able to sustain their large size or brains with what limited resources were available.
But we probably could survive a similar environment today with all our technology, & if not today, in 100 years from now. If we can potentially survive on Mars, we could probably handle almost any Earth biome.
Evolutionary “superiority” is evolutionary success. Reproduction is the only measure of it.
All species are well adapted to their own environments or they wouldn’t exists. So the only way to rank their evolutionary superiority is by who can adapt to the most environments.
“Humans are one of the most adaptable species on Earth.”
Of course. But if you can get the same job done with a simpler phenotype then clearly that’s superior.
Simple species need to reproduce far more frequently to survive as long as complex species, which is not necessarily superior.
Pingback: Evolutionary Progress « NotPoliticallyCorrect