Evolution
There is a terrible misconception about evolution that is
universal. It comes from a semantic quirk, started with Darwin himself, and is
(oddly) supported by the ideologies of both the religious and the secular
humanist. One must remember that the writings of Darwin, along with all of the
philosophy written prior to 1954, were formulated based on observations of
organisms. The molecular study of the basic mechanisms in the process of
evolution did not begin until the helix construction was discovered in 1954,
and in fact the bulk of the knowledge is only now (1999) developing, primarily
as the result of the genome project .
Evolution, it is said, is a matter of survival of the
fittest.
This belief, although it has a very small element of truth in
it, is greatly misleading. It gives the idea that evolution is, somehow, a
positive process, one that develops superior organisms such as the strong,
virile, intelligent human (that kind of thinking makes it easy to believe). The
human, in its ego, believes itself to be a superior creature, and since it is a
product of evolution, then evolution must be wonderful.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The religious, faced with mounting evidence about evolution,
seek to find God's hand in it and so, grasping at straws, it is easier for them
to accept evolution if it should be a process which seeks to build a higher
(more Godlike?) creature. The secular humanist, lacking real knowledge and
rejecting religious dogma, turns to the philosophers for answers, none of whom,
frankly, have a clue. Even the most atheistic philosopher will expound greatly,
even while claiming independence from the spiritual, on the intrinsic
(spiritual?) values of the human and the glories of the life force (God?)
called evolution and how true intelligence (like his?) is somehow a magical
(spiritual?) parameter of the human neural system and is the central aspect of
human life.
Neither approach to evolution has a shred of real supporting
evidence. But the mechanism of evolution, in its general form, is becoming well
known.
The basic elements of evolution:
- A DNA string, one which describes a surviving organism,
suffers accidents in its replication. These accidents are not planned, there
are no goals, and there is no compassion for the organism. These mutations are,
pure and simple, mechanical mistakes in replication of the DNA string. Since
the string is the description of an organism, one which is complex in
construction, the DNA string is also highly complex. The mutation acts as a
random tuning of a string in a piano. Rarely will a random tuning result in a
better sound. Usually a random tuning ruins that key for playing music. Enough
of them on the piano ruins the piano. Mutations, being almost chaotic, are
hardly Godlike, or spiritual in any way. Neither are they reasonable in any
manner.
- The now-deformed organism is born. The world it enters has
certain requirements for survival. Different organisms have developed in
different environmental niches. If the modified organism is able to survive its
deformity in its particular environmental (which in most organisms includes a
social environment as well) then the mutation is perpetuated, if not, the
deformity is removed through suffering and death. Borderline deformities
diminish the comfort of the strain, sometimes to the point of requiring many
generations of suffering before finally succumbing to environmental pressures.
This is a ghastly, cruel and inhuman process.
- If the organism is in balance with its environment, it will
suffer a high mortality rate. This high mortality rate is necessary in order to
keep the accumulation of deformities at a low enough level for the species to
survive. The human, for example has about three critical area mutations per
birth. About half of these will survive in the gene pool. If the environment is
too severe for the organism to survive (the mortality rate is too high) then
the organism will become extinct. If the mortality rate is too low, the
deformities will accumulate in the species gene pool, diminishing the species
ability to survive, until it reaches balance again. The human, as a result of
its intellect, has solved many of its survival problems through compassionate
cultures, housing, clothing, agriculture, animal husbandry, medicine and other
technology. As a result it has tampered with its environment, allowing longer
lives, more individual comfort and a too-high population growth. Any mutation
that survives birth is now propagated throughout the human gene pool, since we
have effectively removed the cleansing effect of the environment. Deleterious
mutations are accumulating in the human gene pool. Since the human is now
dependent on the technology of its society, if it should degenerate to the
point of societal collapse, the entire species would likely become
extinct.
In summary:
Although there is an element of truth in the idea that evolution
provides a survival of the fittest, that factor is only an extremely small part
of the process. It is true that the occasional mutation that provides benefit
to a species is readily accepted into the species gene pool, but those
mutations that harm human survival far far outnumber those that help. The
major effect of evolution toward species survival is the removal of deleterious
mutations. Unfortunately, the method evolution uses for this cleansing,
death and suffering, is terrible. In seeking relief from this aspect of
evolution, the human, by removing a large part of the environment, now lives
under a one-sided evolution in which the same rate of mutations (deformities)
still occur but the cleansing effect of the environment has been largely
nullified.
A final note:
Since the elements of the human neural
system are also subject to evolution, evolutionary forces (mutation,
environment) apply to the neural system in precisely the same manner that they
do to the physical body. They affect both the intellect and the instincts.
Since the evolution of human culture is tightly interwoven with human
evolution, it, also, suffers the same malady.
 TOP
RETURN TO HUMAN PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS
INDEX |