Then, I will discuss the innovation of the current hypothesis.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever invoked a climate change hypothesis for the mass extinction of South American mammals when the land bridge formed that , even though the formation of that land bridge probably triggered the current ice age and the North American invasions of South America. Most South American mammal species quickly went extinct when that had survived many millions of years of intercontinental invasions. It was a purely Darwinian event in which animals with greater carrying capacities prevailed. There was no big picture awareness of events by the invaders or invaded, just as there had never been during life’s history on Earth. They all just tried to survive, and previously isolated South American mammals quickly lost the game. The survivors were able to live in niches that no North American animals did, such as .

And we’re not even talking about similar use of big fancy words.

How did Byrne demonstrate the power of similarity, using a paper and pencil test?

A further example of this is the hours I work.

All species live within their niches, which are always primarily energy niches, in which an organism can obtain enough energy and preserve it for long enough to produce viable offspring. There are usually energy tradeoffs; efficiency could be sacrificed for rate of ingestion, so that efficiency was reduced but input was increased enough so that the increased cost of obtaining it was worthwhile, such as with . The primary measure of an organism’s success is its energy surplus, which is related to resilience. As an example, today a trout can live in a fast-moving current where food quickly arrives, which is efficient from an input perspective, but the energy spent swimming to maintain a presence in the current reduces the net energy surplus. A slower stream will provide less food per unit of time, but it also takes less energy to live there. In trout studies, the dominant trout will live where the optimal energy tradeoff exists, which leads to the greatest energy surplus. Less dominant trout will be pushed into the faster water, and the least competitive trout will be pushed into calm water and slowly starve. No species will last for long if it does not have a high enough energy surplus so that it can survive the vagaries of existence. The energy surplus issue has not been emphasized in biology during the past century, as the “” of a species has been emphasized, but it is the variable for understanding species fitness.

Here is a good example of how the facts got distorted over time.

Also, just as no fundamentally new body plans appeared after the Cambrian Explosion, modern ecosystems seem constrained by body size. Body sizes have similar “slots,” and body sizes outside of those slots are relatively rare. However, successful innovation usually happens at the fringes. The fringes are where survival is marginal and innovations carry a high risk/reward ratio. Most innovations fail, but a successful one can become universally dominant, such as those biological innovations that are considered to have happened only . There have been countless failed biological innovations during life’s history on Earth, many of which might have seemed brilliant but did not survive the rigors of living.

Then they join larger and larger groups to see if they can identify even more similarities.
- another good example -- a spoof from  -- hat tip to Jeff Ricker for this one

CiteSeerX — The Gestalt Principles of Similarity and Proximity …

The was the preview and it devastated marine environments, and a brief review of the casualties will make it clear. Tabulate and rugose corals were brought to the brink of extinction, and ammonoids, echinoderms, articulated brachiopods, gastropods, and complex foraminiferans suffered similarly, while fish, bivalves, and small foraminiferans did relatively well.

The Color of Similarity Brooke O

In a striking similarity to the of evolutionary innovations, many human traits are vestiges of our history but have yet to disappear, but various social managers have used them to exploit the masses. For instance, the has a and developed because those were the most energy-rich foods that existed. But the incredibly high sugar and fat content of processed food vended by Western agribusiness companies plays to those biological proclivities in the name of profit. Diets based on such foods are disastrous for human health, and industrialized peoples, led by the USA, are the . Similarly, in-group "loyalty" (to fight the out-group) is a that arose to ensure survival. Ever since the , a goal of social managers has been forming that in-group cohesion to battle the out-group. There is not much sentient about it. As the and have made clear, people can be arbitrarily split along almost any lines and form an in-group and out-group, and the out-group will then be treated terribly. Darwin's "from the war of nature" comes "higher animals" conclusion in his is mirrored in the work of Marx and Hitler, in that they believed that human "progress" was produced by one social group violently prevailing over another. Hitler avidly read Marx, and may be how he received his "revolutionary" ideas.

The Law of Similarity states that similar ..

The racist ideology that Hitler’s regime promoted was only a of what other imperial aspirants already had, and and he modeled his genocidal plans for Eastern Europe after what the . Hitler’s ideological crime was using racist ideology to make chosen people inferior. All such ideologies appealed to people’s egos as they elevated their and, with their superiority then self-evident, they could commit their awesome crimes with clear consciences, free of .