Mike, if that was the 'truly interesting issue' brought up by the OP, then why even inject a term like 'intelligent design' into the post which does have these multiple meanings and in general is used in a different meaning on this blog?

Yet I just explained to you, "The term "˜intelligent design' does not elicit negative, knee-jerk reactions in me, thus I don't view its use as always being part of a sinister socio-political agenda."

Perhaps you also overlooked that I had previously read the transcripts of Church. He explains it like this:

And I think we're in a similar space with intelligent design. What Freeman suggests is that we are moving into a phase which is different, not only in that it's like Web 2.0 where we're all sharing all of our parts like we used to, but maybe more fundamentally, we're moving into intelligent design big-time, and we need to understand what that means, and what we should be designing.

So maybe the OP should have read like this:

And what has moved us into the post-Darwinan era? According to Church, intelligent design.

I keep warning critics about the pitfalls of relying on their stereotypes.

BrainyLack: That there is more different species living in the same niche. That one species crowding out another *as a rule* is not entirely correct.

Notice the word "tend" in my statement. Rarely will two species competing for the same niche remain in a stable relationship. But what species will often do is diverge in their behavior or microhabitats to avoid direct competition. For instance, in just thousands of years in Africa's Great Lakes, Cichlids have diversified into hundreds of species through adaptive specialization.

A recent paper by the Grants on Darwin's Finches reports direct evidence of character displacement. Amazing work. It takes great patience and persistence to observe evolution in the wild.

Speaking of Darwin's Finches, Darwin made a conjecture that Galápagos finches, a classic case of adaptive radiation, most likely arrived as immigrants from the South American mainland. Genetic studies have proven Darwin's conjecture to be correct.

In the case of humans, their closest relatives live in trees.

It's not just humans: species tend to crowd out other species (including parent species) that compete for the same niche.

Is there hard proof for this? Zachriel I am not saying that you are wrong. II believe I had read that this idea was overstated. That there is more different species living in the same niche. That one species crowding out another *as a rule* is not entirely correct.

MikeGene: You are describing Darwinian evolution; Dyson is telling us something new is on the horizon. So why is it that only one species is ushering in the post-Darwinian era?

Because that one species arose through darwinian evolution.

MikeGene: So why have no other species developed a language and culture that allows them to usher in a post-Darwinian era?

Because Homo sapiens crowded out its competitors. It's not just humans: species tend to crowd out other species (including parent species) that compete for the same niche. This effect is an important mechanism of evolutionary diversification.

Huh? You asked two questions. The first was why the post-Darwinian era is being ushered in by one species. Species tend to crowd out other species that compete for the same niche, especially when populations rapidly advance. For instance, humans crowded out Neanderthal are even now crowding out other closely related ape species.

What does Dyson say?

With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them. Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over.

You are describing Darwinian evolution; Dyson is telling us something new is on the horizon. So why is it that only one species is ushering in the post-Darwinian era?

Your second question concerned the characteristics about the human species that is so radically changing the entire biosphere. And that is primarily due to language and cultural evolution.

So why have no other species developed a language and culture that allows them to usher in a post-Darwinian era?

MikeGene: Huh? So you are trying to sell the notion that Dyson's description of the post-Darwinian era is just another example of one species crowding out another species that competes for the same niche?

Huh? You asked two questions. The first was why the post-Darwinian era is being ushered in by one species. Species tend to crowd out other species that compete for the same niche, especially when populations rapidly advance. For instance, humans crowded out Neanderthal are even now crowding out other closely related ape species.

Your second question concerned the characteristics about the human species that is so radically changing the entire biosphere. And that is primarily due to language and cultural evolution.

Don't forget, though, that bacteria still rule to roost; and even among metazoa, insects far surpass humans in biomass and effect on the biosphere.

BrainyLack: Are there two different types of evolution? Isn't evolution darwinian evolution. How does evolution carry on for the first 100 million of years, then Darwinian evolution carries on for the next 2 to 3 billion years, and then back to this 1st type of evolution.

Dyson is using the word "evolution" broadly to refer to changes across time. The first few millions of years of biological evolution are posited to be due to natural horizontal mechanisms. Then biology entered the darwinian age of natural vertical evolution for the next few billion years. Now, Dyson posits that evolution is entering a new phase of artificial evolution. This is all generally correct.

Keep in mind that Dyson considers the natural evolutionary descent of humans from fish to be rather slow; and it is, when compared to what may be possible with artificial evolution.

The Darwinian interlude has lasted for two or three billion years. It probably slowed down the pace of evolution considerably. The basic biochemical machinery of life had evolved rapidly during the few hundreds of millions of years of the pre-Darwinian era, and changed very little in the next two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established evolve very little. With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them.

Are there two different types of evolution? Isn't evolution darwinian evolution. How does evolution carry on for the first 100 million of years, then Darwinian evolution carries on for the next 2 to 3 billion years, and then back to this 1st type of evolution.

Why one? One species will tend to crowd out another species that competes for the same niche.

I'm struggling to understand these topics. I was making some headway through these posts. But now I'm kind of slipping again. Are you and Mike talking about the same thing? Zachriel would you explain this for me. I'm not correcting you, it is just that I don't see how this flows from what Mike was commenting on Dyson. Regarding this post-darwinian era being ushered in by one species.

MikeGene: Dyson brings up some very interesting food for thought - why is it that the post-Darwinian era is being ushered in by one species?

Why one? One species will tend to crowd out another species that competes for the same niche.

MikeGene: What is it about this species that is so radically changing the entire biosphere?

We can consider it from an information perspective. Genomes can only store so much information. A nervous system can store quite a bit more, and with minimal consciousness can adapt to a local environment more quickly and efficiently than biological evolution. The advent of abstraction and language led to culturally shared knowledge. Finally, writing and more advanced forms of information processing can store more and more knowledge with an enhanced capability of rapid updating and sharing.