https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/ Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:42:53 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/#comment-4084 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:42:53 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/#comment-4084 What do you mean by “What if human consciousness isn’t the end-all and be-all of Darwinism? ” Evolutionary theory has no end-all or be-all, although that is a popular misconception. Is that what you are addressing – the misconception (or as I have not yet viewed this talk, is that what the speaker is getting at) ?

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/#comment-4083 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:35:02 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/#comment-4083 I am not sure that any single prokaryote should be considered more “sophisticated” than the complex amalgamations of complex cells that pass for most people’s common perception of “animals”. But in terms of numbers they have definitely done better than us. After all, in simple numbers, then the modern factory-fed chicken is probably the most successful bird in history. It’s just a more sophisticated argument than Douglas Adams’ suggestion that it’s the lab mice who really control human development.

]]> https://gregladen.com/blog/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/#comment-4082 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:33:22 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/15/michael-pollan-the-omnivores-n/#comment-4082 I would argue there are a plethora of bacterial species that are more sophisticated than a lot of relatively inconsequential multi-cellular mammals.

]]>