Evolution is an ideological question

And it has been one ever since. The forefathers of the theory of natural selection Darwin and Wallace had been so impressed by rapid social progress during the English Industrial Revolution that was attributed to free market competition, so they declared competition as a universal principle to assure progress in nature. Their opponents dreamed of consolidating feudalistic structures and envied all social progress as it threatens their traditional positions. Those opponents neglected scientific discoveries and social progress and propagated creationism or intelligent design instead. The balance of power between these two camps has held stable for years, but now a third camp significantly gains importance.

The ever growing crew of scholars in university’s ivory towers, who adapt an intermediate position.

Ostensibly, they oppose the unscientific views of creationism but ideologically they are close to it. This scholastic camp comprises well tenured professors in biology who are not at all interested to change the system that feeds them so well. They would not allow for free competition that eventually threatens their position. Instead besides the mandatory fusillades against creationists (they have to convince the taxpayers of their usefulness in the above mentioned balance of power), the main goal is to keep everything unchanged. Some grant application competition here, some cronyism there, but never as challenging questions. For instance the question how all this is related to progress.

Progress for them is a precarious issue, so it is best to sweepingly deny it. They even deny it in evolution which is in stark contrast to the forefathers of evolutionary theory. Wallace and Darwin rather naively believed that natural selection brings about not only genetic adaptation but also progress. That it doesn’t work as easy was welcome news to those scholastics who simply declare evolution is nothing about progress but adaption, but how evolution creates complex organisms, such as mammals, from simple ones, such as bacteria, remains obscure. The same as with creationism.

For those who like graphical representation, the position of the scholastic evolutionary theory, the real scientific evolutionary theory, and creationism is depicted here.

Please also see my blog entry here.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.


Equality vs. Inequality

As a rule evolution creates inequality, not only among biological beings but also in societies. The division of labor was the prerequisite of the evolution of modern societies that is inequality per se as compared to stone age tribal life with hunters and gatherers sharing all their goods. Agriculture and livestock farming nol only require different workload but also produce different returns that further varies by changing weather conditions and pests creating a permanent fluctuation in inequality and tensions a society has to cope with to maintain stability.

Regardless the obvious tendency of societies to become more heterogeneous and unequal, there are also tendencies to propagate equality as in this post to which a gave the following comment:

  • installment
  • approachable
  • haunt
  • posits
  • entreaty
  • parochial
  • deliberations
  • principle of declining marginal utility
  • credence
  • aspirations

These are the terms I had to consult a dictionary for in order to understand this post. I admit, I’m not a native English speaker, still it is a relatively long list compared to other even philosopher’s blogs.

I hope you don’t take offense in it, but I only want to illustrate how difficult it is to avoid jargon you are particular familiar with.

The other assertion laid out over several paragraphs is that you oppose racial and sexual discrimination and even favor affirmative action. Guessing from your name, you probably suffered such discrimination and would benefit from affirmative action, so this point of view is probably also tainted with personal experiences.

There is nothing wrong with that. As a rule that can be deduced from Fauceir Theory there is no such thing as an independent or impartial observer. Every perception is an information transfer between fauceirs and both fauceirs will change after that information transfer due to imprecision and resource consumption. In more colloquial words, a man after seeing a picture, hearing a voice, experiencing a situation, and so on will never be the same again.

Finally, the main flaw in Singer’s book [1] (as far as I understand from your post) is that INequality is the goal of evolution. Examples that evolution created inequality are countless and commonplace. That human societies propagate equality is an other sub-process of evolution which is driven by ideology and therefore not perceivable as such by those engrained.

Replace ideology by the more general term, a fauceir’s drive for inner stability, and you will find the same tendency to create uniformity in other social compounds, an ant colony for instance and a group of soldiers. As laid out in some earlier post humans as biological beings are no more at the top of the evolutionary pyramid on this planet. This place is occupied by social fauceirs now for which human individuals play the role as slaves only, and as such they have to suffer their society’s, master fauceir’s, pressure for uniformity, consequently.

  1. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 3. Aufl. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Neutral vs. Natural Evolution

This is a comment to a post in the Skeptic Wonder Blog that in turn refers to a Nature article. The article tackles the evolution of protein interaction and the post tries to define a broader scope to it, even including bureaucracy which is fine with me.

All resides with evolutionary progress, so fiercely denied by evolutionary watchdogs in their capacity of editors of prestigious evolutionary journals and scientific meetings. True evolutionary scientists since Darwin and before appreciate progress as an essential part of evolution, and they claim that progress occurs naturally without interference of a divine hand.

Next the term neutral as the term fitness are fauceir dependent. These terms depend on your vantage point. As almost all evolutionary biologists are DNA heredity fixed, many evolutionary changes, even progress is neutral to that system of heredity. For instance, while we discuss evolution this means progress to evolutionary theory (hopefully) but has absolutely no effect on my and your reproductive success :-))

Fauceirology abstracts the world into a system of nested fauceirs, evolutionary units, that have their own agendas. Hence progress in one of these nested fauceirs can be neutral or even disadvantageous to an other. That depends on the fauceir hierarchy. Let’s give an example from the Bible. (Those rather militant atheist may wonder why the Bible can be quoted to substantiate evolution, but evolution embraces everything even religion.)

I used the same example in an earlier post already. It is the story about Joseph and his brothers, so elaborately illustrated by Thomas Mann in his novel. This story may serve as an allegory for what happened to these complex protein molecules described in the Nature paper. The two brothers of Joseph’s were not as bright as him. In fact, they were rather jerks. (Remember the resemblance to misfolded proteins.) Still these two brother were successful in outdoing Joseph as they combined their forces. As they throw him for starvation into a dried out well, they won the competition for their father’s heritage. It would have had a bearing on reproductive fitness if they had wiped him out. They didn’t. Not in that example. Though their interaction was a success in respect their own well-being it was neutral.

Same ‘neutral’ evolutionary examples can be found throughout the realm of biology even among different species. These interactions can be temporary forming mating couples or packs or persistent forming symbioses.

Emoticon is an language example. The world is full of them.

What is the general rule the take home message concerning neutrality of evolution.

Neutrality and Progress is a question of fauceir perspective.

I’m amazed how much evidence in support of fauceir theory has accumulated over the last couple of years. This Nature acticle is only one and many wait to be covered here.

Concluding this post, I’d like to relate the message from Nature 2004 when Mato tried to publish his Fauceir Theory

Nature, 27.10.2004

Thank you for offering us your paper entitled “An evolved concept of evolution: A generalized theory of evolution extending from physics to societies provides more insight into specifics.”, which we must decline on editorial grounds. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that the proposed article will be of sufficiently immediate interest to our readership to justify publication in any section of the journal.

I am sorry that on this occasion we cannot be more encouraging.

… the developments are encouraging though.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.