I recently read an interesting essay by Paul Graham titled The Hundred Year Language. I liked the essay a lot but one thing bugged me, its depiction of evolution. (Actually a couple of things bugged me but aren't worth addressing)

The mantra that was beat into my brain in zoology class was that evolution was not a tree so much as a bush that radiated in all directions. The main difference in this analogy is that there is no 'trunk' and that there is no apex of evolution 'the tree top'. In the bush analogy, there is not a single most successful design, each living tip is a success. What works and can compete in its environment should be considered as successful in an evolutionary sense - regardless if it walks on two feet and programs in Lisp for a living or has one foot, lives in the mud, and filters sea water to survive.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shark Crackers

Running roughshod or ripshod

Axis, Axes, Axii?