As in science, a paradigm shift is an illusion. In evolution, genetic mutation happens constantly, then every so often this mutation is beneficial to the organism and it begins to multiply. In some cases this organism will eventually come to dominate an enviroment to the detriment of a previous species.
Looked at from one angle it would appear that this organism suddenly appeared, however if you look slightly deeper you see that there were many organisms evolving and dying out, with one eventually taking over (for a while).
The same can be said for technology, in fact O'Reilly states, "And as with scientific revolutions, they are often hard fought, and the ideas underlying them not widely accepted until long after they were first introduced." If a paradigm shift takes a long time to evolve, is it actually a paradigm shift?
Slashdot Mirror
As in science, a paradigm shift is an illusion. In evolution, genetic mutation happens constantly, then every so often this mutation is beneficial to the organism and it begins to multiply. In some cases this organism will eventually come to dominate an enviroment to the detriment of a previous species. Looked at from one angle it would appear that this organism suddenly appeared, however if you look slightly deeper you see that there were many organisms evolving and dying out, with one eventually taking over (for a while). The same can be said for technology, in fact O'Reilly states, "And as with scientific revolutions, they are often hard fought, and the ideas underlying them not widely accepted until long after they were first introduced." If a paradigm shift takes a long time to evolve, is it actually a paradigm shift?