Note: Originally, I had posted my paper exactly
as I had submitted it to my professor back in 1992. I have grown too embarrassed by the tone of
the paper and have decided to
Beyond Natural Selection
"It's okay to eat fish, because they don't have any feelings." There is a general
attitude held among many people from most cultures and most times, that there
is something that separates us, humans, from the rest of the creatures that
exist on Earth. I, myself, remember the amazement I felt when someone
told me in grade school that humans were animals. In studying evolution
it is difficult to keep in mind that the same forces that work on wolves, work
on humans. There is a belief that everything is hardwired into animals
and nothing is hardwired into humans. What I would like to discuss in
this paper are the ways that humans may be hardwired and why such hardwiring
would give humans an advantage. Also, there are a number of ways
evolutionary forces can express themselves, even though a species has developed
to the point where it seemingly is invulnerable to evolution. This is a
parallel study of these factors and human hard-wiring, because, as we will
find, the two are very inter-related. Humans to some extent are the first
species that has developed from a mostly physical nature to a mostly mental
nature, which allows for some very interesting results. I would like to
emphasize that I'm not saying that this is the way it is, I am simply asking
the question, "Is it possible that this may be a factor?"
The Existence of Group Selection
Note:
There is a controversy raging now, between evolutionary biologists as to what
the true unit of selection is. It may not be enough to say that the gene
is the only unit of selection or that an individual is the only unit of
selection. It will probably be found that everything from the gene on up
to possibly even an entire ecosystem could be a target of
natural selection. However, what I am interested in speaking of
specifically is group selection. There are a number of examples in nature
where creatures evolve traits that only become useful while among other members
of their species. As any member of this University can attest to, pigeons
have developed a very effective group selection trait. Pigeons tend to
spend much of their time on the ground pecking for food. This makes them
susceptible to predators. The
|
individual pigeon is fairly well adapted to detecting
incoming predators. The diagram on the right illustrates the fact that
pigeons can see in almost any angle around them. However it is very
easy to notice that if a group of pigeons is on the ground and one detects
danger and takes-off into the air, the mere sound of its flapping wings will
cause all of the birds around it to also launch into the air. If
selection didn't work on a group level this behavior would make no sense at
all. The only time the wiring of a |
|
pigeon to take-off if it hears flapping would be advantageous is when the
pigeon is a member of a group. Sure it is very helpful for a pigeon to be
able to see in every direction around it, but it is even better to have 10 or
so pairs of eyes.
Human Grouping Tendencies
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to
exercise it, different opinions will be formed." The human individual has an enormous
capacity to put itself into groups. Nation, region, state, city, school,
continent, race, religion, political party, ideology, language, family, class
and clique are all ways in which humans separate themselves from each
other. For each of the levels listed above, some conflict involving violence
at sometime in history has occurred between different groups. Later I
will discuss why this is advantageous to a species in an evolutionary sense,
but for now I will simply try to convince the reader that such tendencies
towards groupings exist in the human race. In any arbitrary list of human
conflicts, it is easy to divide the factions into separate categories. To
show this, I am going to simply pick up an arbitrary newspaper and catalog all articles
on the front page regarding conflict:
4 Held in attack at Riots' outset -- The riots in
Fear of Serb Onslaught Increases As Europe's
Monitors Quit
The
examples of conflict arising because of groupings at some scope seem
inexhaustible.
A curiosity of this grouping phenomenon is scope focusing. Most groups
are sub-sets of larger groups (individual, family, school, city, state, region,
country, continent). Humans seem to have the
ability to concentrate on only one level at a time. For example two
brothers can argue and fight, but as soon as someone outside the internal group
attacks one of the brothers, the brothers will unite against the exterior
foe. After the outsider has been nullified, the brothers can continue to
fight among themselves. I once heard that President Ronald Reagan said
that he believed that if aliens were to come down from another planet, that he believes that the
Each of the 15
The nation of
The provinces of
There is a political party in the
In the
Even in the
I
feel that it is not very difficult to see that humans seem to have a natural
tendency towards forming groups.
Advantages of Group Formation
So if it is true that there is a tendency to form groups, why? What
possible advantage could it have? All it seems to accomplish is creating
human misery through the wars and violence and killing that it causes.
But in evolution a change is advantageous not if it creates happiness,
it is advantageous if it increases the survivability of the species.
There is speculation that the human race did not develop from homo erectus, but beside it. If this is the case then the two species
were direct competitors of one another. Gause's
Axiom states that eventually one of two species that are competitors will be
eliminated. If a certain species is violent towards anything that it sees
as different and as a competitor then it would be much more likely to survive a
direct confrontation with a competitor who does not have such violent
tendencies towards competitors.
What I would like to argue, then, is that humans have an evolutionary tendency
towards war. Using the comparative technique I will show that for a species that has a
tendency towards grouping, for whatever reason, and whose weakest members can
easily survive, the War instinct is essential to continued existence.
Case 1:
A certain species, which has no natural
selective forces working on it, is divided by a geological barrier into two groups A and B.
Through genetic drift the small group of individuals that formed group B
attained War instinct, that is, they grew a propensity to fight among factions
within their group. For one thousand years, this arrangement is
maintained. Group A continues to survive, but occasionally runs into
problems with exhausting its resources because of the lack of any weeding out
of its species, but for the most part after 1000 years it is pretty much the
same as when it started. Group B on the other hand splintered into
competing factions, and whether it was about a small piece of land or some
women, they found ample reason to go to war with one another. The stronger,
more intelligent, more socially organized factions would remain; the weaker,
stupid and chaotic factions would be eliminated. Now after 1000 years
pass, Group A and Group B suddenly come into contact. The competing
factions of the hawkish Group B temporarily unite and plot to destroy the doves
of Group A. Not only are the individuals of Group A
ill prepared for war, but they have been ignored by evolution. They can't
compete with their superior foes. Group A is quickly eliminated and
replaced by Group B. Group B then re-splinters and continues as before.
Is
this a realistic scenario? It seems impossible to get around this
idea. The behavior of Group B is something that has been repeated
constantly throughout history. Maybe Group B is Ancient Greece and its
city-states fighting against the Trojans. Possibly Group B is the Indians
of North America attacking the white settlers. Potentially Group B is the
rebels in
So, if humans do have a tendency to create factions and also a tendency towards
War, what consequences arise? Statistics say that every year there are
about 5% more males born then females. What evolutionary significance can
this have? In many cultures there is the idea of a Warrior Code, death
before dishonor, a code about honor, fairness and courage in battle.
This code is something that crosses culture. The Knight, the Samurai, the
Muhajidin all live by the code the puts honor into
the act of dying in battle. It is an idea the permeates literature and
society from all times, Homer's Iliad, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Kurusawa's RAN, Lucas' Star Wars. My contention is
that the Warrior Code is hardwired into most human cultures to varying degrees.
Case 2:
A species that has escaped
natural selection (as before), is divided into two groups A and B. They are separated geographically and
both progress for 1000 years. Both groups have a tendency towards factionalization and towards War, but Group B through
genetic drift of its founders develops a Warrior Code. Group A progresses for 1000 years, continuing the evolutionary
process, but cowardice arises and becomes a viable route for staying alive long
enough to reproduce. Also, wars are fought using very dirty
methods. Warriors are killed in their sleep; women from devastated
factions are raped. In general there is a certain degree of randomness
introduced into the evolutionary process. The strongest, most intelligent
and most lawful people, while having an advantage, aren't always selected
for. While at the same time Group B is progressing at a more directed
pace. Cowardice is greatly shunned, it is deemed better to die then to
run from battle. In essence you must face the test, you either pass or
fail, but you can not avoid it. There is a common "belief" that wars must be
conducted in a fair manner. There is much less randomness to the
selection processes. Now after 1000 years the two Groups once again meet
each other, but unlike before, Group A is not immediately eliminated by Group
B. While Group B has developed further and has become stronger, it has a
weakness. Group B has a need to fight fair while Group A has no qualms
against ambushing a camp of sleeping Warriors. Group B has an advantage,
but it is less well defined.
What
the exact out come of such a situation would be is much more difficult to
perceive. However, if we look to history it seems that the more dense and
confined a population is the more likely it will develop such strict social
behavior. For example the archipelago of
Intra-Group Evolution
All of human existence does not revolve around war. There maybe great
spans of time in which a faction engages in no wars at all. Given the
previous argument it would seem that very little evolutionary progress would be made in times
of peace. However, if somehow, a faction could develop the ability to
evolve in times of peace, then that faction would have a qualitative edge over
factions that stagnate in times of peace.
Case 3:
A species which has a tendency towards factionalization and war is split into two groups A and
B. They are separated for 1000 years by a geographical barrier, which was
traversed by a small group of founders that created Group B. Through
genetic drift Group B developed an inclination towards selectivity in
mating. During times of war Group A progressed at a brisk rate, but in
times of peace the factions of Group A stagnated and
accumulated very little change. Group B, also progressed well in times of
war, but unlike their counterparts, during peace they continued to progress at
a steady rate. The strongest were found to be most attractive; the
weakest most unattractive. The strong mated with each other and the weak
mated with each other. The strong got stronger; the weak got
weaker. When the groups A and B were re-united after 1000 years, half of
group B was stronger then group A and half of group B was
weaker.
The
question remains then, which group would have the advantage. It seems
that things may be roughly equal, still. If however there were a way in
times of peace for the factions of group B to weed out their weaker members,
then they would have a definitive advantage over the factions from Group
A. If for example the lowest 10%-12% of each generation of Group B were
to render themselves evolutionary insignificant somehow, Group B would have an
enormous advantage. One way this might be done is through suicide.
For people under the age of 65, suicide is one of the leading causes of
death. In a straight evolutionary sense, it makes little sense for an
individual to kill itself. It would seem that
such an individual would be selected against fairly quickly. Unless of
course one looks at the broader picture, then the advantages of suicide to a
group become more obvious.
Conclusion
I have tried to dissect my argument, and I have found that it points towards
the existence of three axioms:
Axiom 1 (Gause's
Axiom):Direct competitors will tend to eliminate
one another.
Axiom 2: All phenotypic
traits that a species has either were or are advantageous.
Axiom 3: Evolutionary
processes are advantageous to a species.
Axiom
1 is a familiar axiom. Axiom 2 simply states that any characteristic that
a species exhibits must have an evolutionary advantage or must of, at one time, had an evolutionary advantage. Axiom
3 says that a species that has the ability to evolve has an advantage over a
species that can not evolve. Thus any species that no longer is effected by classical natural selection will develop new
ways to continue the evolutionary process.
Evolutionary theory, right now is confined to a small region of space in which
evolution really operates. It is held there by a number of forces:
religion, ignorance, denial and the leftist's dogma (PC). Human society
needs to decide why it is pursuing scientific knowledge. If science is
simply a tool of society, then there is no need to investigate evolution,
cosmology, genetics beyond disease, anthropology. We should concentrate
on tangible fields that provide direct aid to society: engineering, medicine,
chemistry. If, however, our goal is to discover everything then
nothing should come in the way of science. Personally, I believe that
scientific inquiry and artistic expression are our greatest endeavors and
nothing should come in their way. I agree that caution is
advisable. Scientific investigation is like learning a foreign language
while in a foreign country. If you know nothing of the language, you
don't make any mistakes. You never accidentally insult someone or give
them the wrong impression. After you begin to learn a little of the
language, you make mistakes, you say things that are construed as being
rude. People think that you are a dote.
But, after a while slowly you begin to gain proficiency in speaking the
language. Your mistakes become fewer and fewer, until finally you have
mastered the language and all of its subtle nuances. In investigating
science, there is ample opportunity for making mistakes, atomic war,
environmental disregard and such. But, either we should go all the way to
fluency or all the way back to ignorance, there is no in between.
It is conceivable that two drastically different ecosystems may
suddenly come into contact with one another. If one system is more
efficient than the other, for example if there are very efficient symbiotic
relationships among its creatures, it will have an advantage in taking over the
area which is currently inhabited by the less efficient ecosystem. While
this is a drastic over simplification of the situation it may have some bearing
especially because creatures tend to have preferred food and shelters and
such. There is a certain amount of ecological loyalty among different
creatures.
Scientific American, April 1992, The
Recent African Genesis of Humans, Allan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann, p. 66
The comparative technique takes two, almost identical groups of
species that differ by one phenotypic trait, and shows why one of these groups
will have an evolutionary advantage over the other.
By no natural selective forces, I mean that the weakest of its
members can survive and reproduce as easily as its strongest members.