Tree Of Life: The History of the World, Visualized


See on Scoop.itGabriel Catalano 

This Great Tree of Life diagram is based primarily on the evolutionary relationships so wonderfully related in Dr. Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale. Some secondary branching relationships and ages of common ancestors were gleaned from university and other scholarly websites as well as scientific journals. The smallest branches are purely illustrative; they are intended to suggest the effect of mass extinctions on diversity, and, on a few of the branches, changes in diversity through time. This tree of life diagram is NOT intended to be used as a scholarly reference tool or as a complete picture of life history (only a very few extinct main branches are shown, for example). Instead, it tries mainly to illustrate a great lesson of evolution; that we are related not only to every living thing, but also to every thing that ever lived. Click to view an enlargement of this Great Tree of Life.

‘To make the Great Tree of Life easier to understand, it is drawn from the human, mammalian point of view.’
Distortions and Limitations: In order to make the Great Tree of Life uncluttered and easier to understand, a number of distortions have been purposively built in. First, and most important, this Great Tree of Life is drawn from the human, mammalian point of view. That is why humankind, instead of some other organism, occupies a branch tip at the end of the tree, and why our vertebrate cousins (animals with a backbone) occupy a large part of the tree. This falsely suggests that humans are the ultimate goal of evolution. In fact, if that asteroid or comet that hit the earth 65 million years ago and helped wipe out the dinosaurs, had instead missed the earth, there might not be a dominant, tool-using, space-faring species on earth. Or if one evolved, it might be a dinosaur, not a mammal. Also, the world of bacteria holds far more genetic diversity, and accounts for a vastly larger proportion of biomass than animals do, yet Bacteria occupy only a relatively small portion of the tree. Trees of Life drawn from the bacterial point of view look very different: on these diagrams, the whole world of animals and plants occupy only a tiny part of the tree.

‘If the asteroid which contributed greatly to the mass extinction 65 million years ago had missed the Earth, perhaps the space-faring species on Earth today would be a dinosaur, not a mammal.’
Another limitation of this tree of life diagram is that it suggests life steadily increased in diversity through time, such that the greatest diversity appears to exist at the present time. This is not at all the case in life history, and only appears that way in this diagram because, for space reasons, only a few of the main branches of life that have gone extinct are shown. The evidence suggests that many more branches have gone extinct than exist today. One estimate concludes that 99% of species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. If the diagram could be drawn to really reflect life history, the greatest diversity in major body plans would probably appear early in the Cambrian Period, around 530 million years ago. Only a few major body plans survived the Cambrian, but these few have evolved into the diversity we have today.
Leer más “Tree Of Life: The History of the World, Visualized”

Las primeras páginas del nuevo libro de Carlos Herreros (I)

Tal como lo conocemos hoy, el Management apenas está haciendo el trabajo que se suponía que tenía que hacer. Pero también vemos un desencanto creciente con el Management como disciplina. He aquí algunos ejemplos:

No se respeta al management como profesión (en HBR hay un artículo que dice que no es una profesión). En 2009, una encuesta de “Management Today” indica que el 31% de los encuestados desconfían totalmente o se fían muy poco del Management.

Los empleados no son felices con sus directivos. Como dice Richard Layard [2] en su libro sobre la felicidad (¿lo son los directivos con sus empleados?: ¿qué interacciones personales proporcionan la mayor felicidad?. Familia y amigos sobre todo; el jefe es el último. De hecho prefieren estar solos que con su jefe. Es ésta una acusación terrible a la profesión del management.

No existen modelos de rol positivos. Excepto en series televisivas, los directivos no se levantan por la mañana diciéndose: “hoy voy a ser un gilipollas, voy a hacer imposible la vida de mis empleados”; sin embargo, se comportan como si lo fueran porque son criaturas de su entorno, un entorno de trabajo que se ha conformado aproximadamente en los últimos 150 años. Sin embargo, los entornos organizativos son muchos más antiguos. La cruda realidad es que las grandes organizaciones empresariales, con notable excepciones, son lugares miserables en las que pasamos nuestra vida de trabajo. No creo que para los directivos sea mucho menos miserable. Aunque no sea más que porque es difícil pensar en grupos sociales en los que la mayoría tiene una vida insoportable y una minoría, muy minoritaria, consigue ser feliz. Nuestros cerebros y nosotros mismos somos muy sociales.


http://managersmagazine.com/index.php/2010/12/libro-de-carlos-herreros/#more-6145

Reinventing-management“Reinventing Management” [1]

Tal como lo conocemos hoy, el Management apenas está haciendo el trabajo que se suponía que tenía que hacer. Pero también vemos un desencanto creciente con el Management como disciplina. He aquí algunos ejemplos:

No se respeta al management como profesión (en HBR hay un artículo que dice que no es una profesión). En 2009, una encuesta de “Management Today” indica que el 31% de los encuestados desconfían totalmente o se fían muy poco del Management.

Los empleados no son felices con sus directivos. Como dice Richard Layard [2] en su libro sobre la felicidad (¿lo son los directivos con sus empleados?: ¿qué interacciones personales proporcionan la mayor felicidad?. Familia y amigos sobre todo; el jefe es el último. De hecho prefieren estar solos que con su jefe. Es ésta una acusación terrible a la profesión del management.

No existen modelos de rol positivos.  Excepto en series televisivas, los directivos no se levantan por la mañana diciéndose: “hoy voy a ser un gilipollas, voy a hacer imposible la vida de mis empleados”; sin embargo, se comportan como si lo fueran porque son criaturas de su entorno, un entorno de trabajo que se ha conformado aproximadamente en los últimos 150 años. Sin embargo, los entornos organizativos son muchos más antiguos. La cruda realidad es que las grandes organizaciones empresariales, con notable excepciones, son lugares miserables en las que pasamos nuestra vida de trabajo. No creo que para los directivos sea mucho menos miserable.  Aunque no sea más que porque es difícil pensar en grupos sociales en los que la mayoría tiene una vida insoportable y una minoría, muy minoritaria, consigue ser feliz. Nuestros cerebros y nosotros mismos somos muy sociales. Leer más “Las primeras páginas del nuevo libro de Carlos Herreros (I)”

Evolutionary Innovation

One of the big mistakes that smart people commonly make is to think that a great idea sells itself. If this were true, innovation would be fairly simple – just come up with great ideas. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy. Innovation is actually a process – you need to generate great ideas, you need to select the best ones and figure out how to execute them, and you have to get these executed ideas to spread.

These three steps are variety, selection and replication – that’s an evolutionary process. In fact, the history of the idea of evolution through natural selection provides a good lesson in how innovation is more than just coming up with great ideas.

We think of evolution by natural selection as Charles Darwin’s idea. However, the first public disclosure of Darwin’s big idea happened at a meeting of the Linnean Society in 1858 – and at that meeting two papers on evolution by natural selection were read. One was written by Darwin, and the other was written by Alfred Russell Wallace. One of the most powerful ideas of the past 200 years was developed nearly simultaneously by two people. And the initial impact of this great idea was, well, nothing.


Posted by TimothyKastelle

One of the big mistakes that smart people commonly make is to think that a great idea sells itself. If this were true, innovation would be fairly simple – just come up with great ideas. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy. Innovation is actually a process – you need to generate great ideas…

One of the big mistakes that smart people commonly make is to think that a great idea sells itself. If this were true, innovation would be fairly simple – just come up with great ideas. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy. Innovation is actually a process – you need to generate great ideas, you need to select the best ones and figure out how to execute them, and you have to get these executed ideas to spread.

These three steps are variety, selection and replication – that’s an evolutionary process. In fact, the history of the idea of evolution through natural selection provides a good lesson in how innovation is more than just coming up with great ideas.

We think of evolution by natural selection as Charles Darwin’s idea. However, the first public disclosure of Darwin’s big idea happened at a meeting of the Linnean Society in 1858 – and at that meeting two papers on evolution by natural selection were read. One was written by Darwin, and the other was written by Alfred Russell Wallace. One of the most powerful ideas of the past 200 years was developed nearly simultaneously by two people. And the initial impact of this great idea was, well, nothing. Leer más “Evolutionary Innovation”