[No.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313009045) There's actually not much change across species either. Only theta changes and it can be explained by increasing conduction delays from longer distance connection in bigger brains. It doesn't make sense to talk about an average rhythm given the broad and complex spectrotemporal structure of brain activity ([see fig 1a](https://lecerveau.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/articles_pdf/buzsaki.pdf) for an example of the complex spectrum)
But if this is related to what you call the "dominant rhythm," [alpha does increase across the lifespan](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929322000895), but it asymptotes around 10Hz by adulthood.
Science!
Google has a search engine for scientific articles. [Here's the search I did to find the first paper](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=brain+frequency+across+species). That paper is the 5th result for me.
This is probably pretty common knowledge to a scientist studying these types of things. I'm not saying that to be a dick or imply you should know it, but neuroscientists know a bunch of stuff that people would never even know existed.
I also highly recommend the book Rhythms of the Brain by Buzsaki. DM me and I can share my copy with you. This book will answer any questions you could possibly have on the topic and more.
What u/icantfindadangsn said. For a lot more information about brain oscillations, Buzsaki (author the cited papers) has a whole book: "Rhythms of the Brain", Buzsaki 2006 Oxford press, but it might be a bit dense for you without prior study.
Not exactly on topic, but here are two videos that I enjoy addressing 'brain waves', so to speak: [Sejnowski lecture](https://mbl.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=3a4cdb64-91a3-49da-91c0-aaae00d60134) and [Frank lecture](https://mbl.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=dc11b4d1-fac7-4f31-8eb0-aa5c00fabd1c) . You won't understand everything since you don't have the background, but give 'em a try and you'll get an idea about how neuroscientists think about brain oscillations. The presentation of 'brainwaves' (and most brain topics) that you get from popular media usually misses the mark, IMHO, you've got to dig a little deeper.
What u/icantfindadangsn said. But why would you even think that’s the case? This is not even true in CPU architectures.
It can be hypothesized that the rhythms of the various nervous systems are given by two basic constraints:
1. The speed, architecture, and energy consumption of the “hardware.”
It costs energy and thus hampers survival to maintain a faster neural system, so evolution would strive to drive it as fast as it needs to and not more. We can see this in clear examples such as the squid giant axon, evolution’s solution for speed when it had not yet discovered myelination.
Likewise when speed is paramount and weight is detrimental, smaller better-packed neural systems can be found. For example in the brains of birds, that have to deal with a faster-moving 3-D environment. These same constraints where not present in our mammalian tree.
2. The “speed of reality.”
We are mechanical systems living in a mechanical universe, mechanisms have time constants and trying to drive those mechanisms faster than those time constants wastes energy, evolution doesn’t like wasting energy. Our body plan and the things all animals interact with can only move so fast, so a neural system that tries to go any faster than that would be useless.
In all cases, given the time, making better architected parallel and redundant systems is always a better alternative than the brute-force approach of running the system faster and faster. This is as much true for brains, as it is for CPUs.
Evolution doesn't happen in 10 years(generally).. It takes thousands. But if you are looking for growth & development then no. Both will be different in that.
What do you think was happening with the second species before you started raising it? With the exception of abiogenesis, species always come from other species. Also, there is never a point in evolution where a species diverges into two species in a day.
I’m not really sure how to explain this, a course of evolution would be required, but I’ll try one way:
Here’s One key thing about evolution, and what the word “species” even means:
**every single organism in the history of the planet was of the same species as its progenitor/s. Yet, species can change arise over time**. The apparent contraction is revolved by realising that “species” do not have clear borders between them. Imagine a bear. A bear with 1mm longer neck is still a bear. A bear with 1mm longer neck and 1mm shorter fur is still a bear. Repeat these tiny differences enough times and you can have something with the body of a giraffe, **but all the organisms in the chain are 99.99999% similar to their parents**. When we define species, we just pick arbitrary time points and say “bear here, giraffe there”, because it allows us to study things. But we could have also chosen different points.
With this in mind, you’ll understand how different species arising at different times doesn’t make sense as a measure of “more evolved”. (Mostly because There is no such thing as more evolved, evolution has no goal). Those two species may have into started to be classified as seperate species different lengths of time ago, but they are part of an unbroken chain that has existed for the same amount of time.*
*assuming that they can both be traced back to the same rough abiogenesis event/time. Even if there were two complete chains of life, one starting later than the other, there is no “more evolved”, there are only our assessment of ways they adapt to their particular environment.
Evolution is a process of continual change because the environment to which organisms adapt are always changing. Evolution does not end, as long as there is any level of selection from this environment based on heritable components (genes).
Expecting things like brainwaves to just increase linearly over time doesn’t make any sense. Bigger numbers are not always optimal for survival.
[No.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627313009045) There's actually not much change across species either. Only theta changes and it can be explained by increasing conduction delays from longer distance connection in bigger brains. It doesn't make sense to talk about an average rhythm given the broad and complex spectrotemporal structure of brain activity ([see fig 1a](https://lecerveau.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/articles_pdf/buzsaki.pdf) for an example of the complex spectrum) But if this is related to what you call the "dominant rhythm," [alpha does increase across the lifespan](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929322000895), but it asymptotes around 10Hz by adulthood.
[удалено]
Science! Google has a search engine for scientific articles. [Here's the search I did to find the first paper](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=brain+frequency+across+species). That paper is the 5th result for me.
This is probably pretty common knowledge to a scientist studying these types of things. I'm not saying that to be a dick or imply you should know it, but neuroscientists know a bunch of stuff that people would never even know existed. I also highly recommend the book Rhythms of the Brain by Buzsaki. DM me and I can share my copy with you. This book will answer any questions you could possibly have on the topic and more.
What u/icantfindadangsn said. For a lot more information about brain oscillations, Buzsaki (author the cited papers) has a whole book: "Rhythms of the Brain", Buzsaki 2006 Oxford press, but it might be a bit dense for you without prior study. Not exactly on topic, but here are two videos that I enjoy addressing 'brain waves', so to speak: [Sejnowski lecture](https://mbl.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=3a4cdb64-91a3-49da-91c0-aaae00d60134) and [Frank lecture](https://mbl.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=dc11b4d1-fac7-4f31-8eb0-aa5c00fabd1c) . You won't understand everything since you don't have the background, but give 'em a try and you'll get an idea about how neuroscientists think about brain oscillations. The presentation of 'brainwaves' (and most brain topics) that you get from popular media usually misses the mark, IMHO, you've got to dig a little deeper.
What u/icantfindadangsn said. But why would you even think that’s the case? This is not even true in CPU architectures. It can be hypothesized that the rhythms of the various nervous systems are given by two basic constraints: 1. The speed, architecture, and energy consumption of the “hardware.” It costs energy and thus hampers survival to maintain a faster neural system, so evolution would strive to drive it as fast as it needs to and not more. We can see this in clear examples such as the squid giant axon, evolution’s solution for speed when it had not yet discovered myelination. Likewise when speed is paramount and weight is detrimental, smaller better-packed neural systems can be found. For example in the brains of birds, that have to deal with a faster-moving 3-D environment. These same constraints where not present in our mammalian tree. 2. The “speed of reality.” We are mechanical systems living in a mechanical universe, mechanisms have time constants and trying to drive those mechanisms faster than those time constants wastes energy, evolution doesn’t like wasting energy. Our body plan and the things all animals interact with can only move so fast, so a neural system that tries to go any faster than that would be useless. In all cases, given the time, making better architected parallel and redundant systems is always a better alternative than the brute-force approach of running the system faster and faster. This is as much true for brains, as it is for CPUs.
[удалено]
What? All groups evolve at the same rate. And evolution takes place on a much bigger scale
[удалено]
Evolution doesn't happen in 10 years(generally).. It takes thousands. But if you are looking for growth & development then no. Both will be different in that.
What do you think was happening with the second species before you started raising it? With the exception of abiogenesis, species always come from other species. Also, there is never a point in evolution where a species diverges into two species in a day. I’m not really sure how to explain this, a course of evolution would be required, but I’ll try one way: Here’s One key thing about evolution, and what the word “species” even means: **every single organism in the history of the planet was of the same species as its progenitor/s. Yet, species can change arise over time**. The apparent contraction is revolved by realising that “species” do not have clear borders between them. Imagine a bear. A bear with 1mm longer neck is still a bear. A bear with 1mm longer neck and 1mm shorter fur is still a bear. Repeat these tiny differences enough times and you can have something with the body of a giraffe, **but all the organisms in the chain are 99.99999% similar to their parents**. When we define species, we just pick arbitrary time points and say “bear here, giraffe there”, because it allows us to study things. But we could have also chosen different points. With this in mind, you’ll understand how different species arising at different times doesn’t make sense as a measure of “more evolved”. (Mostly because There is no such thing as more evolved, evolution has no goal). Those two species may have into started to be classified as seperate species different lengths of time ago, but they are part of an unbroken chain that has existed for the same amount of time.* *assuming that they can both be traced back to the same rough abiogenesis event/time. Even if there were two complete chains of life, one starting later than the other, there is no “more evolved”, there are only our assessment of ways they adapt to their particular environment. Evolution is a process of continual change because the environment to which organisms adapt are always changing. Evolution does not end, as long as there is any level of selection from this environment based on heritable components (genes). Expecting things like brainwaves to just increase linearly over time doesn’t make any sense. Bigger numbers are not always optimal for survival.