Friday, July 31, 2015

Darwin is Dead: Sexual and Natural Selection on Evolution!

"The best way to conceive the worst reality, is to see it as it is." - The Author
I am myself influenced by the culture of the Natural Selection primacy. For everything I have write I wold like to adjust one thing, and that thing concerns Evolution trough Sexual Selection.
"The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" - Darwin
The reason that made Darwin sick when it comes to Sexual Selection, had to due with its reasoning being much different of the Natural Selection one, where he could easily show a relationship of cause and effect with the help of fossils and also with the typification of different environments and their relation to physical traits in a given Species.

I will show here that all the Natural Selection theory is just a glimpse of what is really going on, I will show how rudimentary is that theory without Sexual Selection, simple because Sexual Selection is the main force of Evolution in Eukaryotes, and that also is the correction of what I have been saying that Evolution is exclusive to Natural Selection.

"Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation." - The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality
As I post in The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature), Natural Selection per see isn't able to maintain a Species (Eukaryote), simple because Species are vulnerable to Entropy and so only trough Sexual Selection are able to avoid extinction due to Genetic Meltdown.

From here we can raise a good question, if Sexual Selection is the only one able to avoid Species to become extinct due to Entropy, isn't Sexual Selection the main Evolutionary force when it comes to Eukaryotes.

In Eukaryotes, Species centers the relationship between Sexual and Natural Selection, it represents the result of this two different and normally opposing evolutionary forces.

PropertyNatural SelectionSexual Selection
InterfaceEnvironment vs. SpeciesSpecies vs. Organism
DiversityIncreases DiversityReduces Diversity
EnvironmentSpecies External / PhysicalSpecies Internal / Cognitive
EvolutionTrait SpecificTrait Exhaustive
ComplexityUnsupportedSupported

The above small table is an update to the one already made in the post Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes and the Greatest Lie - For the Folks.

Returning to our conversation, why is Sexual Selection so problematic, even to Darwin,  the God of Evolution trough Natural Selection. The first thing you must realize as to due with Environment, the Environment that works in Natural Selection is not the same Environment working in Sexual Selection.

The first life on earth was shaped only by Natural Selection, the Environment was the External and Physical Environment, whose actions had a direct impact on Evolution. This way, for instance, high and low temperatures, or low and high oxygen levels, shaped different Prokaryotic strains, which causality is easy to grasp and explain.

The problem that Darwin faced however, has to due with Environment identification. In Natural Selection was clear what kind of Environment was that, the planet itself, the mountains, the underground, the rivers and oceans among many other surroundings. Fossils made it clear the close link between that Environment and Species, in conclusion, the Feedback source is easy to identify.

In Sexual Selection the scenario is quite different, because first of all, there isn't a well identified source of feedback for this Selection, and thus all given explanations start with the killing expression "for some reason".
"In the past when peacocks had ordinary colour and length tails, peahens (for some reason) showed a preference to mate with males with slightly longer and more flamboyant than average tails. Thus, the characteristic of slightly longer, more brightly coloured tails would be passed on to the next generation and over many generations the peacocks' tails would become longer and brighter. Thus, the ornate tail gives such an advantage in terms of mating success that it is selected for despite being a disadvantage in terms of general survival." - Darwin and Sexual Selection
This is the Darwin's struggle, struggle to find the Feedback Source for Evolution based on Sexual Selection, and he knew it that the "some reason" was not a reason at all! Other big problem, and not so evident, is how to be sure that a trait credited to Natural Selection is not in fact due to Sexual Selection. This last problem is so corrosive that Evolutionists go straight to the Natural Selection explanation for any given trait, running away from what scares them most, Sexual Selection!

In Eukaryotes we have two different Selections, so is not far fetched to assume two different Environments. The first Environment, the only one that Darwin recognized, is the Feedback source of Natural Selection. The second Environment, different from the first, is the Feedback source of  Sexual Selection. So, the first step here is identify and define this second Environment.
  1. First Environment (Natural)
    • Natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species. Climate, weather, and natural resources that affect human survival and economic activity.
  2.  Second Environment (Sexual)
    • Sexual interaction between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image defined at the respective Species Level.

This second Environment arrives from the interaction between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image, is this second Environment that might be responsible for the great majority of traits in Eukaryotes, something that will forcefully change the way we think Evolution has been done. If Natural Selection isn't the main force that has been shaping Eukaryotes, then the actual evolutionary rhetoric centered in Natural Selection made so popular need to be refrained and reviewed.

This second Environment is the Cognition of Organisms in a form of a Cognitive Sexual Image, that despite being very normalized is prone to deviations and has it its own Evolution. Brains are greatly allocated to Sexual Matting. Humans are a good example of that, much of a human time is dedicated to discuss sexual issues, and despite all social restrictions, Sexual Attractiveness is king in human interactions and conversations, for the best and for the worst (to Species is always for the best), an overwhelming obstinacy that for sure is not exclusive to Humans. In this strictly Eukaryotic Environment, sexual identification, fetishism, inherited sexual attraction, idealized perfection among others are the logic support for Evolution trough Sexual Selection.

Darwin didn't saw this Cognitive Sexual Image, that encompasses the ideal Physical and Physiologic blueprint before its materialization in a real body. Is the Evolution of this Image that leads trough Sexual Selection to the Evolution of the Real Existent Body and Mind. We may say that the existence of this eccentric Image proves its own Evolutionary advantage. The simple fact of having an ideal Organism before its existence in a form of Cognition is a major Evolutionary force when it comes to Sexual Selection. The big problem with the Evolution of the Cognitive Sexual Image, is that contrary to the physical Evolution trough Natural Selection, there is no way to have fossils or records of this Abstract Image living in Animals' Brains.

At this moment you may ask if this Cognitive Sexual Image is not a way of sweep under the carpet, because the question remains, if not the real Organism but a Cognition, what did cause the evolution of that Cognition in the first place? Here is where "for some reason" makes sense! Because the Cognitive Sexual Image, contrary to the physical Organism, is not bonded to Genes, is not hardwired to the physical restrictions of an existent and real organism. The Cognitive Sexual Image is an abstraction from the Physical world and so is able to reflect an ideal that accordingly with its success might or might not trigger the respective Evolution ot the real Organism trough Sexual Selection. The prove of the existence of this Cognitive Sexual Image comes from the disparity between the Ideal Organism and the Real one... So the Real Organism is not perfect just because its degree of biological inferiority due to entropy, but also, because the utopian characteristic of the Cognitive Sexual Image!

Evolution trough Sexual Selection is a tool that Species uses to obtain the best of its Organisms accordingly to the optimal system of sexual reproduction. So, accordingly to a predefined spectrum of Sexual preferences, more successful organisms in the Species' System may induce different Sexual Traits on that System. In this system, there is a full Cognitive Sexual Image of how a Female and a Male must be, and how it must behave. Also in the Human case, every organism is able to spot what is too fat or too skinny, what is too thin or too thick, the right amount of body hair, the right body proportions and even the right skin color (Why we born Racist!), all this accordingly to an Ubiquitous and Standardized perception (Species' Will).

There is however a trade off with Natural Selection, when a Sexual promoted trait represents a real handicap, Natural Selection will restrain its Evolution (and vice versa), in Humans, a possible example is armpit hair, where the Cognitive Sexual Image isn't the same of the existing human body.

Because it collides with my Cognitive Sexual Image!

When the ideal body image is different of the existing body, a Sexual Selection pressure rises, and Evolution is the result. The reason for this difference between Image and Reality might be caused by Sex Identification, where body air in a woman gives the sexual repulsive and contradictory sign of being a man. Nevertheless, the point is that Cognitive Sexual Image is the Evolutionary feedback source of Sexual Selection, something clearly difficult to encompass in a fossil or reproduce in a simple cause and effect scheme.

Considering that traits resultant of Sexual Selection exist to favor the respective Species, some traits might exist to reinforce a sociobiological hierarchy accordingly to the biological quality of its Organisms. Same to say, make rulers out of superior organisms, and slaves from inferior ones. All this accordingly to what I have told in DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God".

So, Sexual Evolution might be the cause of thick red lips in humans as it might be the cause of laugh, scorn, prejudice, facial blushing, shame and many others... All in the Species best interest!

Evolutionists that search in Natural Selection all the traits that can find, don't realize that some traits are intended to prejudice the Organism in favor of the Species. So scorn and disrespect together with laugh may work in favor of the Species, mainly when its purpose is to diminish the respective inferior organisms in the sociobiological hierarchy. When someone hasn't a body accordingly to the Cognitive Sexual Image, the existing differences will be used to keep that someone in the right place of the hierarchy, while on the other hand, the superior one that is closest to that Cognitive Sexual Image is able to dictate and forge how others must behave and stay, all that with the Species' sponsorship at the top of the sociobiological hierarchy.


This way, if cognition can't be disassociated from Sexual Selection, this is a good clue to how volatile and unphysical this second Environment is.

In my another post, The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery), I try to give an explanation to something that despite the doubts, is still regarded as the Cambrian Explosion.
"Complex brains evolved much earlier than previously thought, as evidenced by a 520-million-year-old fossilized arthropod with remarkably well-preserved brain structures. Representing the earliest specimen to show a brain, the fossil provides a "missing link" that sheds light on the evolutionary history of arthropods, the taxonomic group that comprises crustaceans, arachnids and insects." - Cambrian fossil pushes back evolution of complex brains
If Complex Brains are the main feedback of Evolution trough Sexual Selection, Cambrian Explosion might be more due to Sexual Selection that Natural Selection, supporting the Complexity Threshold. In this moment you might find a contradiction, how Sexual Selection may be the main source of the Cambrian Explosion and at the same time reduces Diversity. Again, Diversity and Evolution aren't the same thing, you have Speciation, from one Species trough Speciation you are able to have two or more completely different Species, and also, the same Species may simple evolve and despite that become even less diverse! More Species doesn't mean that they are more diverse, it simple means that they are in greater number. To know more about Diversity see my post The myth of Diversity in a error-prone Environment. And as in my post The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature), Natural Selection is balanced with Sexual Selection trough a process of Induction allowing faster and fitter adaptations to the existing first Environment type.

When it comes to Evolution, the Second Environment has a much stronger feedback that the First one, and so, Sexual Selection is much more powerful that Natural Selection in promoting it.
"Sexual selection is responsible for the evolution of male ornaments and armaments, but its role in the evolution of cognition—the ability to process, retain and use information—is largely unexplored. Because successful courtship is likely to involve processing information in complex, competitive sexual environments, we hypothesized that sexual selection contributes to the evolution and maintenance of cognitive abilities in males. To test this, we removed mate choice and mate competition from experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster by enforcing monogamy for over 100 generations. Males evolved under monogamy became less proficient than polygamous control males at relatively complex cognitive tasks. When faced with one receptive and several unreceptive females, polygamous males quickly focused on receptive females, whereas monogamous males continued to direct substantial courtship effort towards unreceptive females. As a result, monogamous males were less successful in this complex setting, despite being as quick to mate as their polygamous counterparts with only one receptive female. This diminished ability to use past information was not limited to the courtship context: monogamous males (but not females) also showed reduced aversive olfactory learning ability. Our results provide direct experimental evidence that the intensity of sexual selection is an important factor in the evolution of male cognitive ability." - Male cognitive performance declines in the absence of sexual selection
Once you understand that Cognition in Eukaryotes is the main source of Evolution trough Sexual Selection in Animals (Eukaryotes), and Humans evolved mainly due to Sexual Selection, it will become clear that Darwin Died when Cambrian Explosion Started! The real world is much more perverse and relentless that the one envisioned by Darwin. In conclusion, blessed are the Prokaryotes that live under the basic laws of Darwin.
"Only one thing oppresses and manipulates the entire humanity, that thing is the Species and its Will" - The Author
Reproduction of the Cognitive Sexual Image

Monday, July 20, 2015

Schopenhauer, Darwin and Me


There are three books that made a century, those books are:
  1. The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer, 1818;
  2. On the Origin of Species, Darwin, 1859;
  3. The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, 1900.
One interesting thing is that both time gaps are of 41 years, but there is something much more important that this curiosity, starting with the oldness of each one.

Philosophy - A Guide to Happiness: Schopenhauer on Love

Schopenhauer was a philosopher, but it could be saw as a naturalist like Darwin. Contrary to Darwin, Schopenhauer focus his attention only on Humans, despite that, his observations are singular. Schopenhauer explains how individuals follow instincts in the best interest of Species wrongly believing as their how interests.

The problem with Schopenhauer is that he put Nature and Species in the same bucket, his Will to Life is a product of Nature, he isn't able to make the distinction between Nature and Species, or at least, he doesn't establish a connection between the two like he was able to establish between Individuals and Species.

On the other hand, Darwin was able to establish the relation between Species and Nature, but he was unable to see the relationship between Species and Organisms, for him, Species and Organisms were the same thing, When he saw fossils, he saw species, he was unable to make the distinction.

Darwin with his work much more robust and scientific, was able to overshadow Schopenhauer, however what really killed his work was Freud. Freud never gave any model of life, contrary to Schopenhauer and Darwin, what he did was spread a bunch of interesting examples, and for each one he tried multiple and distinct explanations, and doing so, the concept of The Will of the Species was grounded until today. Ego, Super Ego and Id, are examples of the complex and obscure theories that Freud produced against a simple and clean view of how things really work. Freud is the paradigm of the vicious Scientific Materialism, always focused on the object without seeing the big picture behind it, as exposed here. In some extent, Nietzsche is another minor figure that contribute to the Schopenhauer lowering, like a Paulo Coelho of his time, writing self help books, something very popular then as today, a proof that hope is the essential ingredient of believe despite if true or not.

The void that Darwin leaved, was occupied by Freud not Schopenhauer, and so, that void still exists today, and extraordinary, psychology and not biology stills today as the main source of logic in the Organism vs Species interface. Both are right in seeing Sexuality as the main force of action, but they differ in the explanation of why things are as they are.

For instance, when explaining suicide, there isn't a better explanation than the one that Schopenhauer gives:
"Suicide does not reject life itself, but only the conditions under which life is given. Suicide is a surrender of life, but it is not a surrender of the will-to-live. The individual who commits suicide gives up living, but does not give up willing. In the act of suicide, the will affirms itself, even though it puts an end to its individual manifestation." - Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, translated by Jill Berman (London: Everyman, 1995), pp. 250-1.
Much better and understandable that the clumsy and forced Altruistic Suicide of the Pure Darwinian Natural Selection way of thinking, well saw in the Selfish Gene paradigm (microevolution).

The problem when you only have a single Split and two Layers, is that everything that needs that extra layer is inevitable swept under the carpet.

Because Schopenhauer had not the theory of Natural Selection given by Darwin, for him there was not other reason for Love than reproduction. He was unable to see the interaction between Nature and Species like Darwin was. He was unable to see Evolution. So, happiness for him was not what was driving individuals to Love, neither pleasure was, but the subconscious Will to Live, will to have children. This subconscious is the excuse he gave when missing a real explanation, this is the carpet he needed to explain something he couldn't.

Other limitation of him, come from not embracing the extreme Standardization of Species, so he didn't spoke very much on the repulsive feelings for aberration avoidance, instead he points out the existence of an individual will, like short people choosing tall people intended to produce a balanced offspring. He could at least realize that a dwarf would not profit of this unreal individual choice, because there is only the standard will that is very restrictive on variation, the Will of the Species shaped by Nature.

If Schopenhauer was able to distinguish Species from Nature, he would understand that Entropy, a natural phenomenon, is something that Species have to cope with, and so, offspring quality is more important than offspring quantity, he would be able to understand what Species and their comprised instincts are, the mere result of Evolution, intended to solve difficulties posed by Nature. So, happiness plays an important rule, like sexual pleasure does, something that is very conscious and vivid, together with the contradictory feeling of repulsion for biological inferior organisms that the same species doesn't care or wants in its gene pool. This way is easy to realize what Species really wants and loves, and how Happiness and Pleasure are its main instruments.

The same way, pure Darwinists aren't able to explain Sexual Selection, and also, they swept under the carpet, they embrace the Red Queen Hypothesis just to sleep well in their ignorance. So, they ignore Induction, another natural phenomenon, they ignore Punctuated Equilibrium, a result of Natural Selection working on Species instead of Organisms (macroevolution), and so, they don't see macroevolution as a better adaptation to new environments, a scheme that allows Species to cope in a much faster way than microevolution, and so, they still believe that is not Evolution in bursts, but instead, mere randomness reconfiguring a kind of safe combination. They don't see any equilibrium between Sexual and Natural Selection, they just see a endless and absolute continuity no matter what.


Darwin made his point, no one was able to dismantle it, no one was able to blur his simple and clear model of Natural Selection. However, Schopenhauer was not so lucky, Darwin open a much more robust and sustained theory, despite not being contradictory with the one of Schopenhauer, it was much more convenient at the time, and then, as the final blow, Freud took the place of Schopenhauer, with their much more colorful theories, a Soap Opera which popularity and romanticism, the rationality and incompleteness of Schopenhauer couldn't compete.


This way, only recently was Species once again saw as an entity by itself, which fog helped it to be perceived as God for some and Nature for others! Hopefully one day Science will reveal Species in all its splendor with tremendous consequences that the present religiosity doesn't allow it to be seen!

"Claridge and I agree that the entities we call species are real biological units." - Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities, Brent D. Mishler

Friday, July 3, 2015

Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept

"The sexual impulse is an instinct, and like most instincts, it represents the will of the species, which creates the delusion in individuals that they are seeking their own good when in fact they are seeking the good of the species (the continued existences of individuals of its kind)" - Historical Dictionary of Schopenhauer's Philosophy By David E. Cartwright

If you ask what is a Human Being the answer is simple, a member of the Homo Sapiens Species. An Eukaryotic organism is first of all something belonging to a Species.

Eukaryote Scheme of Natural and Sexual Selection

In the Eukaryotic universe, Species are nuclear, they aggregate all the information given by Natural Selection, working as a Proxy, they define what an Organism must be.

There are two conditions to the Existence of the Species' Will, and those two conditions are:
  1. Species are real in the same sense as Organisms are;
  2. Species are able to aggregate and control the traits of its Organisms.
For the first condition we have the following scientific support:
"Claridge and I agree that the entities we call species are real biological units." - Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities, Brent D. Mishler
The second one is about Macroevolution, where Species instead of Genes are the aggregated unit of Selection, and so:
"This extension of selection theory to the species level will concentrate, instead, on the relation between fitness and the species character, whether aggregate or emergent. Examination of the role of genetic variability in the long-term evolution of clades illustrates the cogency of broadening the definition of species selection to include aggregate characters." - Species selection on variability, E A Lloyd and S J Gould
There is a systematically confusion between Sampling and Diversity. In many situations where there is a great level of Sampling we see it called as Diversity. A good example is Football, where the richness of different races in Dream Teams is saw as an example of applied Diversity. This is wrong, because the rules of football are the same for all of them, and in this case those rules work like a Species not an Environment, where the firsts are rigid and the second in continuous changing. So, the football players are being Sexually Selected instead of Natural Selected. In this way you have the "best player" to be chosen, and this superior player needs to be obtained from the biggest population possible, because for extreme perfection you need extreme sampling. The so perceived diversity is no more than the consequence of greater population number needed to get the perfect player, already defined by the rules of football, already Specified.

Species aggregate not only the physical characteristics of an organism, as a woman or a man looks like, but also how they must behave. However, because the right organism requires great levels of Sampling, many waste is produced, many deviations of that Standard are obtained. This is wrongly misunderstood as diversity, an error that Species don't make. For species, deviations are exactly that, deviations, and the Species' Will is there to point out exactly that, in a way that many call prejudice, prejudice to the Hypocritical and Delusional Diversity.

Two heads Turtle, let's call it Diversity!

The Species' Will may be defined in the following way:
"The Species' Will is the Indirect Control of Organisms' Actions accordingly to an Equilibrium of Contradictory Emotions"
This Equilibrium produces Organisms meant to be Slaves and others meant to be Devoted. The emotion to be accepted is a very strong one, so the "superman" that everyone appreciates is accepted by a priori and so is free to discard the respective contradictory emotion to serve (others), in this way he is free to impose its own rules. In contrast, the Slave, has extreme difficulties to be accepted and so he is captive of the contradictory emotion to serve others as the price to obtain its castrated acceptance and respective allowance to survive, endless hoping and believing that better days will come! This equilibrium is many times the result of the conflict between Sexual and Natural Selection, where the equilibrium between the Will to Conform and the Will to Survive is well pictured in the suicidal tendencies of frustrated acceptance, because while Nature crafted Species to Survive at all cost, Species crafted Organisms to Conform at all cost avoiding this way any biological contamination mainly due to systematic deleterious mutations. The reality of this conflict results in the very common outcome of Suicide, making triumphant the Sexual Selection over the Natural one.

Other example of contradictory emotions, discussed in the post Why Shame on Sex, are Passion and Shame. The equilibrium for this two contradictory feelings is different for the biological superior and inferior organisms. So, while one succumbs to Passion, the other to Shame. While one is destined to sin, the other is doomed to chastity.


Other Emotions in the Species' Will are the Goodness of its nature opposed to the Corruption of Societies. This first emotion is such that is misunderstood as the God's Will, despite the respective contradiction that serves the Species. This God's Will is the pretty face of the Species' Will, a way to make it benevolent and good while in reality is pervert and crude. Religions' Priests or Species' Supermen, are well embody in Rasputin, a Saint at Sight and a Devil out of It, always taking advantage of the inferiority of others!



If the God's Will was really benevolent and good, there wouldn't be so many asking why they were abandoned, if Emotions were not contradictory, hardly someone become socially inept, and if  conformity was not the ultimate purpose of the Species' Will, Outcast would be a word without meaning.

The gene centered micro evolutionists well might insistently say that God doesn't exists, they may say all the time that Religion is nonsense, what they can't do is grasp the real source of what they despise, because that would hurts the Nature of Life that they so much appreciate. To see the full picture you need macroevolution, you need to realize the Species' Will.


Species' Will sees no Blue Blood