Darwinism versus Human Evolution

0 Conversations

Darwinism versus Human Evolution

I

It is common knowledge that Charles Darwin theorised about the history of living creatures on Earth, in particular, his own species homo sapiens. He struck upon the idea that instead of being created by the hand of God in our present state, we actually evolved. This was quite a controversial idea at the time, as religion was particularly dominant over science, and those big cheeses in Rome took quite a disliking to having their noses put out of joint by little upstarts from a small island above France which nobody knew all that much about. Nevertheless, Darwin pursued his research, and finally announced, much to everyone's consternation, that the species known as homo sapiens was actually descended from apes. The idea that such a socially adept creature as homo sapiens (house-trained) could have ancestry amongst small furry things with long arms who liked to hang around in trees a lot (house-trained, but only with the use of bribery) was outrageous, and no one would have blamed the authorities much if they had banged Darwin up for life. Except Darwin, of course. But by this time it was too late. Collectives of scientists all over the world began drawing on Darwin's suggestion, and putting it through rigorous tests, such as 'can a monkey do long multiplication using only its fingers and toes?' When they discovered that a monkey cannot in fact do long multiplication using only its fingers and toes, they decided that this could not possibly be important and forgot all about it. The truth was, Darwinism (as it was imaginatively known) was such a radical idea that all the scientists who were fed up with trying to comply to the Bible leapt on the bandwagon as soon as it rolled past their house, unless of course they were in the middle of breakfast, in which case they went and found the bandwagon for themselves later on (never underestimate the importance of breakfast).

II

In all probability, although it is impossible to prove as a fact, Darwin was right. It is easy to see the similarity between homo sapiens and the primates, and easy to see how, under certain circumstances, one might evolve into the other. It is important to understand the basic functions and patterns of evolution. 1) A species appears (this species is known today as bacteria) in a cloud of gas which is being emitted from a rather nasty-looking swamp. 2) There is a lot of rain, and the majority of the Earth is covered in water. 3) In order to survive, the bacteria must develop; they become larger and fleshy, and some may even form a manner of propulsion. 4) Food becomes scarce, so they begin to prey on each other. Those of better stock who are stronger are less likely to get eaten, and subsequently eat the weaker ones. This is known as Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest. 5) The weaker ones die out and become extinct, the stronger ones develop. They grow a shell for protection. This is now the creature so many of us find fossilised in rocks on the beach, and in little gift shops being sold for extortionate amounts of money. 6) As time goes by, this process is repeated until each creature has adapted in a certain way which is beneficial for their survival - some remain tiny, but multitudinous, like plankton, others become massive, like the whale who, ironically, feeds off plankton. Some develop gills, others develop lungs, depending upon how close they live to the land, or how deep they live in the ocean. 7) The waters recede. Land is exposed. The creatures run out of places to go. Seeing no other option, they develop legs and lungs (if they haven't already got them) and leave the oceans. They become reptiles and amphibians. This is evolution - The adaptation of a species to suit its surroundings. However, left in the ocean are thousands of other creatures, who evolve in an entirely different way. But scientists still know very little about the oceans and what life-forms they harbour.

III

It has taken many many millennia for the world to reach the advanced stage at which it is today, and we've all come a long way since the bacteria. Even modern-day bacteria is streets ahead of its prehistoric relatives (see part IV). Things have evolved from fish, reptiles and amphibians into birds and mammals, and each of these categories is split into thousands of sub-species. They have developed food chains, in which prey falls to hunter, but neither is weaker than the other, because there is no extinction, proof that nature has found an equilibrium of some kind. In fact, the only thing threatening this equilibrium is homo sapiens himself. You never hear about looming extinction among wild animals without the words 'human' and 'intervention' being mentioned in a negative manner. Human intervention is threatening the whale population, the seal population, the elephant population, the bird population, the bear population, the wolf population - the list goes on and on. However, human intervention is also the only thing saving these animals. The fact is, there are three different species of homo sapiens.

IV

Mankind versus Nature: This is an ongoing battle. As mankind shoots another elephant for its tusks, bacteria gets one up by becoming immune to a very expensive and painful vaccine. However, in this respect nature wins, because its forces are united. Mankind is not only battling nature, he is battling himself.
The Three Faces of Man: 1) Commercial Man. Commercial Man is out for himself. He doesn't care who he treads on to get what he ultimately desires, which is always something more than he's got. Everyone is Commercial Man in one way or another, in the respect that the most important person in your life is you, no matter how much you try to deny it. This is human nature. But only Commercial Man has no boundaries. Only Commercial Man will kill for his own personal benefit. 2) Naturalistic Man (not to be confused with Naturist Man, this is entirely different). Naturalistic Man does not mean someone who hugs trees. Naturalistic Man is someone who is in contact with the world sympathetically rather than commercially. This means he will try to improve his own life, but draws the line at killing for the good of himself. Naturalistic Man will not necessarily be a vegetarian, although fair play to him if he is. The killing of animals for meat is not commercial, no matter how much money is produced. The killing of animals for meat ultimately serves the needs of the entire human race, as we, like all other animals, must take our place in the food chain. We are no more wrong to kill a pig as a tiger is wrong to kill a deer. But killing for profit, fashion, greed, jealousy, anger or malice is the way of Commercial Man, not Naturalistic Man. 3) Woman. This is not to say you cannot have Commercial women or Naturalistic women, but Just Woman is a species on its own. Woman was originally defined by sex, although today you tend to find some male Women. It must be made clear that the word Woman in this context does not mean everyone who is female, and it does not mean that these male Women are essentially female, or homosexual. Woman does not include all females, or exclude all males.
Woman is the most advanced species of the human race. Woman is the only species who is no longer at war with nature. And generally speaking, Woman is better at cooking a good breakfast.

V

Homo sapiens' battle with nature began when he became the most successful and intelligent of all the animals on Earth. This was the point at which he stopped evolving to adapt to his surroundings, but started to adapt his surroundings to suit himself. This was quite enterprising of him, and it is because of this that he has become even more successful and intelligent. Take, for instance, the wheel. Here, instead of evolving into swift creatures that could easily cover vast areas of land in a short space of time, like the horse, mankind made something that could do all the work for him, and therefore didn't need to evolve and stayed pretty much as he was before. It was when he started doing this that the rest of nature became a little more hostile towards him, although on the surface it looked like he was having an easy time of it all. The simple truth is that the more you discover about the world, the greater the chance you have of finding something you don't particularly like, as with the example of the evolving bacteria. What is the most worrying thing of all, however, is that now we have stopped evolving, and the rest of nature hasn't, how long is it going to be before they catch us up?

VI

I speak generally. The majority of mankind has stopped evolving. Some of us are still at the stage at which we invented the wheel. But many of us have progressed, and are still progressing. Naturalistic Man has made a pretty good job of it, Commercial Man is still a savage, although now he is even more dangerous because he can get his hands on guns and nuclear devices and such like. Woman has evolved the most successfully. Woman is the only species whose natural instincts are relevant to the ever-changing world.
Commercial Man is still unaware of anything but himself. He does not even need to be counted into the equation, as he is, fortunately, in the minority. Naturalistic Man is conscious of the world around him, although has failed to mould to it sufficiently. Woman has not got it absolutely spot on, but is the closest anyone's ever going to get. Although I said earlier that these categories are not necessarily divided by sex, in a wide panorama, and generally speaking, they are, although I don't want anyone to take offence to this statement, as it is not the fault of the individual, but of their biological mechanisms.
Naturalistic Man is monocromatic, Woman is biocromatic. This does not mean that all women have two heads. It means that Woman is generally more psychologically adept than Naturalistic Man. Not necessarily more intelligent; indeed, some of the most intelligent people are actually Commercial. Woman is capable of thinking about two things at once, for a start. This has been proven several times in the laboratory, and, more importantly, in the kitchen. But there is a deeper understanding of the world inside a biocromatic mind than a monocromatic one. Hence Woman's ability to evolve better than Naturalistic Man.
Psychologists have tried for years to explain the behaviour of human beings, and have, on the most part, been successful. But I have never before encountered a theory quite like my own. Admittedly, it lacks evidence and validity, but all the same, it seems to make sense. My theory is as follows: The main reason why there is such friction between men and women is because men have failed to evolve to the same high level that the women have reached.
In the Neanderthalic era, the male's main roles were to protect the tribe, impregnate the women, and catch the dinner. The female's main role was to take care of the children; Hence a hierarchy being established, based upon one's importance to the tribe. Men were more important, but without women the tribe was doomed, and this fact was appreciated. The majority of fights that broke out between two tribes were over women. Women were scarce - within a tribe there were usually about five males and only one or two women. It was each male's duty to impregnate both females in order to ensure the continuation of the tribe, and overall, the species. The men also had to be violent and strong, to keep away predators such as the sabre-toothed tiger, and to dissuade other tribes from stealing their women.
This sort of behaviour was all well and just a millennia ago, but now the world has changed. The human race is thriving to say the least. We have over-populated the majority of the world. The only place we have not colonised is the bottom of the sea. If anything, we need to stop reproducing, never mind increase. But because of their monocromatic brains, Naturalistic Man is still programmed as he was before, and no matter how much he might want to, he cannot change his instincts. These are as follows: to use violence wherever possible, particularly when protecting something that belongs to him; and to impregnate as many women as he can. Although this is no longer seen as impregnation, as the urge is subconscious, so it is therefore put down to sexual appetite, because on the surface of their brains the last thing they want is a load of babies. Their instincts are still based upon a lack of responsibility when it comes to children, however, so for their subconscious this is not an issue.
Meanwhile, Woman has noticed that there are far too many people around, and although still has the urge to have and take care of children, only aim to do so with one man. Also, they have realised the importance of security, which is why they endeavour to marry into strong foundations (not necessarily financially, but supportively), so that their children may have as trouble-free a life as possible [and Woman also tends to flock towards rich men because they know that if they marry a rich man their children will be better provided for]. On the whole, Woman restrains from unnecessary violence, as they have realised that in today's world the democratic way of talking things through usually works out better for everybody.
And therefore, men and women are essentially incompatible. It is only the innate desire for offspring (sex) that keeps them together at all.

VII

This is a cynical view that does not take into account things like love, and makes general sweeping statements about the whole of mankind by putting them into three large groups with undefined borders. And yet, it still seems to smack of a certain kind of sense, scientifically speaking. Since emotions such as love and hate cannot yet be satisfactorily explained, they can only be put down to biological responses - the desire for children, the desire to protect territory, and so on. Because of our advanced cognitive levels that are far higher than any other living creature on Earth, we are somehow able to take these primitive instincts and transform them into emotions, things that are both easier to understand and to control, making us feel more comfortable with their existence. Similarly, we have created a God to make us feel more comfortable with our own existence. But that is another theory.
The very notion that homo sapiens has stopped evolving and yet still remains the most dominant species on Earth somewhat upsets Darwinism, but the history of mankind upsets it still further. Nothing on Earth is as simple as it first seems; the theories of evolution cannot be explained by something as straightforward as Darwinism. His theories were early and primitive in comparison with the knowledge we know have gained, and therefore his ideas are not necessarily wrong, but must be expanded upon.
Homo sapiens have essentially stopped evolving, and yet because of their intervention, the Earth is constantly changing in an 'artificial' way, and therefore life on Earth must adapt to suit it. This is not evolution as it was before; this is evolution that has been tweaked by man, and therefore the results of the adaptation must differ considerably from those which came about previously. Life-forms adapting to changes made by man will somehow affect man, just as life-forms adapting to changes in the environment will in turn affect the environment - in that when bacteria evolves to become immune to a certain vaccine, then people will once again be more likely to fall victim to the disease for which the vaccine was produced. Humans then have to re-adapt the vaccine, but over time the bacteria will evolve again. Although on the surface we seem to be one step ahead, every day brings the rest of the world that little bit closer.
There is nothing to say that history will not repeat itself. At one time man came down from the trees, and then learned to walk on two legs. There is no reason why this should not happen again, except that the world simply must be different from what it was then - but different in what way? And will this difference affect the evolution? Will the monkeys evolve in a completely different way from us? Will some kind of mutation be brought into their genes because of the state of the world today? These are questions that can only be answered if and when it happens, but it is almost certain that if monkeys were to once again evolve into cognitive beings, they would be nothing like us, and because of the advancement the world has seen and the spreading of intelligence and technology, they are likely to be even more superior than homo sapiens. They are likely to be a race of superhumans.

VIII

Homo erectus was a superhuman once. He originated from Europe, not necessarily proof that the Europeans are in any way a super race. He pioneered the cognitive thought, and in turn sparked off generations of species that have been able to think for themselves, and have ideas to improve their environment. Homo erectus succeeded the Neanderthals by out-smarting them. This was a concept otherwise unknown in the history of the world at that time. It completely contradicts Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest. Or does it?
Darwin's Survival of the Fittest states that a species that is more suited to a certain environment will invariably supersede a species that is less suited. Proof for this theory can easily be seen throughout time. Take, for example, two sub-species of moth, one which is white, and another which is black in colour. Put the two sub-species in a city and the black will become more abundant. Put the two sub-species in a meadow and the white will become more abundant. This is because in the city the black moth is better camouflaged and is therefore less likely to get eaten, and vice versa for the white moth in the meadow. Because such-and-such a species is better suited to life in such-and-such an environment, they will be able to survive and go on to breed and multiply. The species that is less suited will become very rare, and eventually extinct. This is the way of nature. But then someone came along and broke all the rules.
Neanderthal was essentially a highly successful race. He inhabited the moorlands and mountains around Northern Europe and South-East Asia. He was perfectly well adapted to life in these climes, and even had some sense of cognitive thought. He had grasped the use of simple tools to enable him to hunt and skin animals, and was able to use the skins for clothes to keep him warm during the dawn of the last Ice Age. He was also biologically suited to his terrain. His legs were short and thick for running swiftly over the rough land and through forests without losing his balance. His forehead was heavy and protruding to help prevent things getting in his eyes such as sweat or rain. He was thickset, and covered in dense hair to keep him warm in the chilly climate. Even his teeth were the right shape for clutching the skin of a rabbit whilst he scraped off the fat with a sharp stone. He was, literally, custom-made. But something went horribly wrong, and to this day no one is quite sure why or how it happened.
One minute Neanderthal was enjoying a happy life being a really smart and agile guy, and the next some bloke had come along with a spear for catching fish and it all began to slip away. This bloke came from Southern Europe, where it was considerably warmer than Neanderthal's territory. He had no dense hair or fat to keep him warm on the cold days and freezing nights. He had no specialised bone structure to allow him to handle the tricky terrain. Hell, he even had the wrong-shaped teeth. And yet he drove Neanderthal out of his home to the mountains, where, unable to find sufficient food and shelter, he perished.
Homo erectus was not the superior species. He was not at all adapted for the environment, and yet he superseded Neanderthal. According to Darwin, this should not have happened. Survival of the Fittest is supposed to work the other way around. But was homo erectus in fact the fittest? He may not have been physically suited to the environment in which he somehow found himself, but his cognitive ability was far higher than Neanderthal's (even though Neanderthal's brain was actually larger than homo sapiens'). Could this make all the difference though, taking into account Neanderthal's many advantages? Well, clearly it could. Because of his superior intelligence, homo erectus did not need to adapt to his surroundings, because, like us, he was able to make his surroundings adapt to him. So in a sense, he was the better-suited species. It still seems like forcing a square peg into a round hole though.
Not all Neanderthals perished. Many, it is thought, bred with homo erectus to create a whole new species. It is believed, although there is much speculation, that this species then became the foundations for our own, homo sapiens.

IX

The research and knowledge is sketchy, and the Earth hides more secrets than we could ever hope to uncover about our history, and the history of those around us. There are many theories and ideas, and even many parts of the Earth that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of. Who knows what has happened before us, when we do not fully understand what's going on now? The one thing that is certain is that human beings are an exceptional race. They have, if not broken, bent the rules of evolution according to Darwin, the same rules that the rest of the world has adhered to. No one knows why they were are able to do this; certainly it is to do with our cognitive minds and our conscious thought, but it is impossible to tell if all other animals have much lesser amounts of these things, and ours in fact have developed from excessive doses, perhaps even a mutation in our genes, or if we alone have these abilities and they were somehow flung upon us.
Bacteria and amoeba are the most simple forms of life known, and yet they can evolve as well as any other creature. However, a dog or a horse has the ability not only to evolve, but also to learn. This suggests that all creatures have some level of intelligence and consciousness, but some are more advanced than others. This can depend on a number of things; 1) The size of the creature's brain, 2) the quality of their thought-processes, 3) the ability to communicate, and how complex the skills are, and 4) the amount of human contact the creature has. Dogs may simply be better adapted to learn because they spend so much time in human company. Those creatures who are more difficult to teach tend to have had less human contact throughout the history of their species. In a way, the domesticated dog may well have evolved to suit us rather than its environment.
So is the ability to learn a clue to the intelligence of an animal, or a clue to how the animal has evolved? Or are the two inextricably linked together (i.e., a dog has evolved to suit us and has therefore become more intelligent)? And is this really the way of discovering the origins of our own intelligence? Tune in to the next exciting instalment of Evolution and the Beast!

X

It is a simple and disappointing fact that no one knows where our amazing intelligence derived from. Everyone has their theories, but, like mine, they are almost impossible to substantiate. This is proof that we are not in fact as intelligent as we think we are.
It is my theory that we once had the intelligence of the lowly chimp. For some reason, and I quite like the idea of a genetic mutation occurring, we advanced, and in a relatively short amount of time. And the smarter we got, the greater became our ability to learn more. The only back-up I have for this theory is that I don't see why we should have intelligence when no one else has. Why us? and who bestowed it on us in the first place? It is clear that I do not believe in God (as we know it), so that rules out that one (in terms of this theory). Without our intelligence, we would be nothing special, in fact we would be one of the most unsuccessful creatures on the planet. So why should we become intelligent when an animal like a donkey would make such a better job of it? It is my theory that it was all an accident, a slip of the genes. I don't know enough about genetics to explain why this might have happened, but it makes sense to me.
Essentially, however, my argument goes as thus: Mankind broke the laws of evolution, which seem to be pretty genuine seeing as everyone else goes by them. This suggests that mankind is different from all other animals in some way, and I believe the distinction lies in his superior intelligence, which has come about as a result of some freak accident in his genetic coding. This intelligence allows him to once again defy the laws of evolution by making his environment adapt to him, rather than the other way around. This, however, leads to the problem of his cessation of evolution, and the continuation of everyone else's, meaning that someday it is possible another creature will evolve to challenge him to a grudge match, the prize being the title of the most superior and intelligent species on the planet Earth. But because mankind's intelligence originally came about because of a bizarre mutation, the probability of this happening again is not all that huge, but as there are no reasons why it shouldn't, we cannot rule out the possibility. The upshot of all of this is that man's greatest advantage over the rest of the world is his ability to, on the whole, cook a very good breakfast, and as everyone knows, one should never, ever underestimate the importance of breakfast.

Bookmark on your Personal Space


Conversations About This Entry

There are no Conversations for this Entry

Entry

A641422

Infinite Improbability Drive

Infinite Improbability Drive

Read a random Edited Entry


Disclaimer

h2g2 is created by h2g2's users, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the Not Panicking Ltd. Unlike Edited Entries, Entries have not been checked by an Editor. If you consider any Entry to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please register a complaint. For any other comments, please visit the Feedback page.

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more