tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89491105847764808452024-03-13T13:41:43.962+00:00Nature SucksAnd Everyone Knows It...!SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-67346466743426759182019-12-16T11:20:00.001+00:002019-12-16T11:42:41.973+00:00The myth of DIVERSITY part 2 - Skin Deep, Journey in the Divisive Science of Race, by Gavin Evans<h2 style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0.42em 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: small;">The myth of DIVERSITY part 2</span></em></h2>
<h2 style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0.42em 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Skin Deep, Journey in the Divisive Science of Race</em>, by Gavin Evans</span></h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Skin Deep</em><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">, Journey i</em><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">n the Divisive Science of Race</em>, by Gavin Evans (Oneworld, 2019), is a timely and welcome review of the substantial body of work demonstrating the complete lack of a biological basis for the category of “race,” as well as the historical falsifications and scientific distortions that have been used to promote racism. It is well written and accessible to the non-specialist.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
The book’s biographical sketch of Evans states that he was “born in London and grew up in Cape Town, where he became intensely involved in the anti-apartheid struggle. He studied economic history and law before completing a PhD in political studies, writing extensively on race and racism. He lectures in the Culture and Media department at Birkbeck College, London.” His strong antipathy toward racism is clear throughout.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Evans presents a review of relevant research and examines the results with a scientifically based and critical eye, identifying weaknesses in studies that purport to identify racial differences in physical and intellectual capabilities. These weaknesses are due to such limitations as small sample sizes, unwarranted extrapolations from weak statistical correlations, and the assumption that correlation necessarily denotes causation. He also examines exaggerations or misinterpretations presented in the popular press as well as by individuals or groups who distort the science to support predetermined conclusions.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
It is impossible in this brief review to effectively summarize all of the topics examined in <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Skin Deep</em>. We will highlight a few.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Evans provides a good, up-to-date summary of the evidence and interpretations regarding the genetic, paleontological, and archaeological data on human evolution. There is still much to learn. A number of recent fossil discoveries indicate the existence of a greater variety of early hominins than previously known (e.g., <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Homo flore</em> <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">siensis</em>, aka the “Hobbit,” <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Homo luzonensis</em>, and <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Homo naladi</em>), suggesting local adaptation of populations in relatively isolated environments.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
However, the one central fact is the overwhelming genetic similarity of all modern humans (<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Homo sapiens</em>, as opposed to other members of the genus)—a much greater uniformity (99.9 percent) than is the case for most other mammals. This indicates that modern humans either replaced earlier forms and/or genetically subsumed them, when they moved out of Africa, with the latter making only minimal genetic contributions, except for Neanderthals and, perhaps Denisovans.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
The bottom line is that all living humans are much more alike than they are different. Within population variation is greater than that between populations. Indeed, those differences are, metaphorically speaking, not even “skin deep.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Archaeological evidence indicates that sophisticated tool manufacture and other evidence of abstract, symbolic thought (e.g., various forms of art), almost certainly associated with fully developed language, are nearly as old as the appearance of anatomically modern humans ( <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Homo sapiens</em> ), about 200,000 years ago, before dispersal out of Africa. Consequently, early, anatomically modern humans were already equipped with sophisticated mental capabilities that allowed them to adapt primarily through the use of culture to the new environments into which they migrated—Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas, rather than by physical adaptation.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
This runs counter to claims by “hereditarianists” (those who claim that human behavior is largely determined by genetics) that it was the challenge of adapting to new environments encountered in the move out of Africa that prompted biological selection for increased intelligence. This latter contention bears the stated or implicit conclusion that those who remained in Africa were not so challenged and, therefore, did not develop the more advanced intelligence acquired by the emigrants.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Of particular value is Evans’ debunking of the conception that there can be individual genes that control either intelligence in general or categories of behaviors such as “criminality.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Research has shown that hundreds of genes may have some influence in any particular aspect of intelligence, each one contributing only a tiny amount to the observed variation. Even then, the interactions between them are complex and difficult to isolate. In short, the quest to identify one or a few genes that have a major determinative effect on intelligence has found no scientific validation.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
An example of the extremely dangerous and reactionary implications of pseudo-scientific, genetically based interpretations of human behavior is illustrated by Evans. Steve Bannon, shortly before becoming the chief of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, wrote a piece for the fascist publication Breitbart.com promoting the belief that black males have a disproportionately high frequency of an “extreme warrior gene” that leads them to an increased rate of violence. Thus, according to Bannon, “Here’s a thought: What if the people getting shot by the cops did things to deserve it? There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
The gene allegedly identified as promoting extreme warrior behavior, the MAOA-2R allele, is cited by such hack writers as Richard Lynn and Nicholas Wade, to “explain” the supposed overly aggressive behavior of black males. Evans provides an extensive review of research regarding this gene. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no scientific justification for such a claim. Nevertheless, this and similar pseudo-science is employed by Bannon and others to provide an ideological justification for racism to their fascistic base.</div>
<div class="imageFull" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; float: none; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 15px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; width: 480px;">
<img src="https://www.wsws.org/asset/983440a3-f8dd-4ced-9d18-a512463e736L/image.png?rendition=image480" srcset="/asset/983440a3-f8dd-4ced-9d18-a512463e736L/image.png?rendition=image960 2x" style="border: 0px solid rgb(255, 255, 255); float: left; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;" /><span style="display: block; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2px;">A graph showing the spread of human migration</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Another important aspect of the concept of race examined by Evans is the mistaken idea that, until recently races corresponded to broad geographic units—Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. And that these populations were cohesive wholes, genetically distinct, and historically stable. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Human populations have been on the move for hundreds of thousands of years, mixing and remixing genetically, culturally, and linguistically, with the rate of movement accelerating significantly following the development of agriculture, beginning roughly 10-12 thousand years ago.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
While biological adaptation did occur, these are minor and superficial. Current configurations of physical characteristics simplistically described as races are simply a snapshot in time, reflecting a single moment in an ever-changing landscape. Evans cites dozens of examples of such migrations, including the movement of early agriculturalists from the Middle East into Europe and the southward migration of Bantu-speaking farmers in Africa. Many are only recently being identified through genetic research, such as the discovery of a significant admixture of Eurasian DNA into East Africa dating to about 3,000 years ago.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Evans summarizes the historical data that exposes the promotion of racism by Europeans as an ideological justification for colonialism, that Africans, due to supposed inferior intelligence, were incapable of developing advanced civilizations. Examples cited include ancient Nubia and the Great Zimbabwe.</div>
<div class="imageFull" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; float: none; font-family: arial, sans-serif; margin: 15px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; width: 480px;">
<img src="https://www.wsws.org/asset/e050eb24-0bbe-4e93-965a-e7cb56ac5d5G/image.jpg?rendition=image480" srcset="/asset/e050eb24-0bbe-4e93-965a-e7cb56ac5d5G/image.jpg?rendition=image960 2x" style="border: 0px solid rgb(255, 255, 255); float: left; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;" /><span style="display: block; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2px;">A ruin from Great Zimbabwe</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
The bulk of <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Skin Deep</em> presents an extensive review and critique of the claims by some scientists (very few in number) and others that significant differences in intelligence between races can be identified by IQ tests or other means, championed by the likes of Nicholas Wade and Richard Lynn. Such claims, based on simplistic and unfounded characterizations of what constitutes intelligence and how it can be measured, have been refuted time and again. Evans’ critique is interlaced and supported by countless examples of historical distortions, pseudo-scientific fabrications, religious dogma, and outright lies that have been employed over the last few centuries to justify the characterization of one population or another as inherently inferior and others as superior.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Evans takes particular aim at <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Bell Curve</em>, by Herrnstein and Murray. This work of pseudo-science, which purports to document genetically determined differences in intelligence between races, is based on selective, manipulated, and fabricated data and interpretations. It has been repeatedly critiqued by a variety of researchers and demonstrated to have no validity. Nevertheless, its use by those with a racist agenda persists. Evans brings together numerous lines of research that conclusively demonstrate not only the scientific worthlessness of <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Bell Curve</em>, but that of others who have followed in this line of “research.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Time and again, claims of racial differences in intelligence, often based on culturally biased IQ tests, are in fact attributable to historical, social, and economic factors, which have nothing to do with intelligence. An extreme example Evans cites is the conclusion by one researcher that San peoples of the Kalahari Desert have an IQ equivalent to that of an eight-year-old European child. Aside from the fact that the test is based on a cultural context with which the San had little or no experience, Evans observes:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
I presume Lynn [the researcher in question] has never met a San person, but my experience suggests the notion that their average intelligence is that of a European eight-year-old is absurd. And the idea that a European child could survive alone in the Kalahari is laughable; the kind of statement that could only be made by someone who’d never set foot in a desert.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
And further, regarding San whom Evans has met, “They were all fluent in at least two languages, some in four or more.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
In a critique of one of the most recent examples of “scientific racism,” Nicholas Wade’s <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">A Troublesome Inheritance</em>, Evans states, “No one disputes that human populations evolved for skin color, lactose tolerance, altitude tolerance, defenses against malaria and the rest, but no scientist has provided evidence of population-specific evolution for wealth-making, authoritarianism, tribal loyalty or, indeed, intelligence.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
This is the crux of the matter. Pseudo-scientific works such as Wade’s conflate clearly biological phenomena with historical/cultural behaviors, and claim, without evidence, that the latter evolve in the same manner as the former, in the tradition of Social Darwinism, sociobiology, and the like</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
The fundamental question one is left with is: Why in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that, while humans exhibit only a limited range of variation in a few, superficial genetic characteristics, does the concept that races exist as some sort of overriding, bounded phenomena, demarking distinct entities, nevertheless persist?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
For all of the valuable information provided by Evans, the book has one significant weakness. His contention that racism is a “belief” rather than an expression of “power” (since “a powerless person can be a racist”) is fundamentally idealist, in the philosophical sense, and leaves the reader with no satisfying explanation as to why such a mistaken and pernicious belief should persist and at times become a justification for vicious behavior and mass murder, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Evans suggests that race science, apparently as an expression of underlying racism, is a constant phenomenon that occasionally bubbles to the surface under certain conditions. In the section “What Motivates Race Science?,” Evans cites Stephen Jay Gould’s observation that each resurgence of race science coincides with waves of political attacks against the poor, which are promoted by the far right. Evans observes, “The process is influenced by the political climate, as illustrated by the proliferation of race science on social media in the wake of Trump’s election campaign and since.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
He attributes the latest resurgence to “the combination of the economic fallout from the 2008 banking crash, the decline of manufacturing and mining jobs in the West, the recalibration of the world economy as information technology changes the world, and to the wars in Syria and elsewhere in years to come.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
And further, “The current wave [of race science] is particularly strong and persistent for reasons … that relate to the rise of ethnic nationalism, which in turn is partly prompted by the existential insecurity, particularly of young white men, in response to a rapidly changing social and economic milieu.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
“With the rise of the alt-right, fascists taking to the streets all over Europe, populist, nativist right-wingers winning power in several parts of the world; far-right terrorism on the increase; it is clear that racism, and the ideas that feed it, are more resilient than we hoped. The twentieth century showed us where bad ideas about race can lead. If we don’t want the twenty-first to echo those themes, bad ideas need to be countered whenever and wherever they appear.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
In a number of instances throughout the book, Evans points to the use of racism, including purported differences in intelligence, as ideological justification for oppression, such as colonialism. However, he does not go deeper and make a class analysis. Throughout history, racism and other forms of discrimination (e.g., xenophobia, religious bias) have been used by ruling classes as a weapon of domination—to “divide and conquer” the lower classes. This is nakedly obvious in recent centuries under capitalism—the Nazis’ anti-Semitism and anti-black racism in the US, for example.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Therefore, one must conclude that the driving force behind racism and the like is not simply the result of wrong ideas or bad science, whatever any individual’s subjective motivations for adopting such views may be, and regardless of the “scientific” justifications that may be concocted in their support. Rather, such ideas are promoted and sustained as tools of class rule, as the overt promotion of racism currently undertaken by both the right and “left” wings of the American bourgeoisie (e.g., Trump’s drive to build a fascist movement, on the one hand, and the <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">New York Times</em> ’ 1619 Project, on the other) clearly demonstrates.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Now, as world capitalism plunges into extreme crisis, the bourgeoisie feels seriously threatened by the resurgence of the working class. It, therefore, reaches for one of its deadliest weapons—racism and similar forms of ethnic and religious bigotry—to keep it divided. While detailed critiques of pseudo-science and historical falsification, such as <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Skin Deep</em>, are important and indeed vital resources in the struggle against such biases, these will never be overcome until the root cause, namely class society, is eliminated.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The author also recommends:</em></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/09/skin-n09.html" style="color: #445689; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Genetic study demonstrates that racial classification by skin color has no scientific basis</a>[9 November 2017]</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.36em; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/23/geno-o23.html" style="color: #445689; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">New genetic data show “Back to Africa” migration in Neolithic times</a>[23 October 2015]</div>
</div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-67564132422868988352019-04-14T15:19:00.001+01:002019-04-14T15:19:36.038+01:00Missing Y chromosome kept us apart from NeanderthalsThey were exterminated by us, get real and drop the fairy tale... All of them if possible!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 15px;">It seems <b>we were genetically incompatible</b> with our ancient relatives – and male fetuses conceived through sex with Neanderthal males would have miscarried. We knew that </span><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077805-our-first-sex-with-neanderthals-happened-100000-years-ago/" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00b3e5; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">some cross-breeding between us and Neanderthals happened</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 15px;"> more recently – around 100,000 to 60,000 years ago. - in </span><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2083381-missing-y-chromosome-kept-us-apart-from-neanderthals/">https://www.newscientist.com/article/2083381-missing-y-chromosome-kept-us-apart-from-neanderthals/</a></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5F8cUuS_Ea0/XLNBKHQcrOI/AAAAAAAAA70/cdlnDBn2PmAH8HtaucwYz4yJQz_SwpcZwCLcBGAs/s1600/p03lcphh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="351" data-original-width="624" height="223" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5F8cUuS_Ea0/XLNBKHQcrOI/AAAAAAAAA70/cdlnDBn2PmAH8HtaucwYz4yJQz_SwpcZwCLcBGAs/s400/p03lcphh.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-73337483642147219072019-03-23T21:58:00.000+00:002019-03-23T21:58:03.423+00:00Genetic diversity "is about the same,"When Diversity and not Fitness becomes the mantra, deception is the end of the line!<br />
<br />
genetic diversity "is about the same," in <a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html" target="_blank">Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution</a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2018/fortheplanet.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="768" height="250" src="https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2018/fortheplanet.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start;">And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—<b>species have very clear genetic boundaries</b>, and there's nothing much in between. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">Read more at: </span><a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp" style="background-color: white; color: #313d57; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; outline: none 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none;">https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j_qmdncIMpo/XJarq4Q8NtI/AAAAAAAAA7Y/nkIkhhVGSLocP6Au1yIK2evsHBh7Na1RgCLcBGAs/s1600/no-god-please-onyf30%2B%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j_qmdncIMpo/XJarq4Q8NtI/AAAAAAAAA7Y/nkIkhhVGSLocP6Au1yIK2evsHBh7Na1RgCLcBGAs/s400/no-god-please-onyf30%2B%25281%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />When they realize Red Queen is a Lie!</div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-68789232282838025402019-02-27T05:15:00.001+00:002019-02-27T05:22:15.257+00:00How Sex Became a Thing (Kids' Stuff)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qsn4z7bNb14/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qsn4z7bNb14?feature=player_embedded" width="560"></iframe></div>
<br />
<yt-formatted-string class="style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer" force-default-style=""><a href="https://youtu.be/qsn4z7bNb14" target="_blank">How Sex Became a Thing</a></yt-formatted-string>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-9117028136831206842018-10-13T18:06:00.001+01:002018-10-29T16:50:26.701+00:00Trump, Bolsonaro and the Triumph of the Will!<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>The sexual impulse is an instinct, and like most instincts, it represents <b>the will of the species</b>, which creates the delusion in individuals that they are seeking their own good when in fact they are seeking <b>the good of the species</b> (the continued existences of individuals of its kind)</i>" - Historical Dictionary of Schopenhauer's Philosophy By David E. Cartwright</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Left is living its Emperor's New Clothes moment. In the past years there has been a phenomenon of classifying illness as diversity, doing so, the left give it up its progressive rule, the view of illnesses as the greatest burden gave place to its acceptance as something people could live with. The Left is behaving like a mother romantically saying that the handicap of their son was the best thing that happened to her to the point of celebration.<br />
<br />
Another major illusion is the one of the Bon sauvage, this one results in the absurd believe that people born without prejudices. There is a blindness to ignore that Sexuality is the root of all prejudices and is Sexuality and not Society the origin of Prejudice.<br />
<br />
This Prejudice exists as a tool for Waste Management, for Species Waste Management is cornerstone for their fitness and the main purpose of Sexuality.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Mutations are likely to decrease an organism’s fitness, and an avalanche like this every generation could be deadly to our species. The fact that we haven’t gone extinct suggests that over the long term, <b>we have some way of taking out our genetic garbage</b></i>. in <a href="http://desispeaks.com/alexey-kondrashov/">Alexey Kondrashov – What if Sex Is Just a Garbage Dump for Genetic Mutations?</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Any process produces waste and species are no exception, the sad part is that when it comes to Genetic Waste its disposal means the disposal of Human Beings! The rage that supports the far right has one single origin, Sexuality promoting a species free from garbage where the encouragement of its acceptance only increases the feeling of its repulsion. There is no Social solution but a Technical one for Genetic Waste.<br />
<br />
The idea that peoples' genetic illness are just bad luck is another sad Romanticism, they are a necessity and the product of Meiosis, the result from the solution nature found to keep Species clean from it! By splitting those above and those below the average of acceptable amount of genetic waste, where those above become Sexually accepted and those below become Sexually wasted, this becomes a Methodology, a system, not mere bad luck. So humans must born loaded with prejudice in order to Sexually exclude Waste from the genetic pool, in order to serve the Will of the Species, in order to keep Species clean. Acceptance isn't the solution simple because isn't allowed by Sexuality!<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Societies gave the illusion that we are living the "Future", where soundbites like "Artificial Intelligence" reinforce that illusion. In reality we are living the Second Middle Ages, and to recognize that we need Historical Conscience about Illnesses. In the past there was the "Valley of the Lepers", everyone knew they were victims and no one wished same destiny. During the First Middle Ages the Black Plague happen and everyone was terrified by it as they should. All these diseases are part of the past, and many others have been eradicated, like Smallpox. But if Contagions diseases made it obvious their presence, inherited ones are other story. The sexual prejudice is so strong that when it comes to Inherited Illness they become romanticized. This romanticism is well expressed in the extreme acceptance of Diversity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Haemophilia figured prominently in the history of European royalty in the 19th and 20th centuries. Britain's Queen Victoria, through two of her five daughters, Princess Alice and Princess Beatrice, <b>passed the mutation</b> to various royal houses across the continent, including the royal families of Spain, Germany and Russia. Victoria's son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany also suffered from the disease. For this reason, haemophilia was once popularly called "the royal disease". Tests on the remains of the Romanov imperial family show that the specific form of haemophilia passed down by Queen Victoria was probably the relatively rare Haemophilia B.</i>" - Haemophilia in European royalty, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Other kings were also affected by genetic illness like Charles II of Spain!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r6fIuk_Iyq8/W8ISGgujrBI/AAAAAAAAA60/bH5-3w2iGPQF3raNSMvzwJ8Zq58wdOY_QCLcBGAs/s1600/charles-ii-portrait.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="900" height="238" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r6fIuk_Iyq8/W8ISGgujrBI/AAAAAAAAA60/bH5-3w2iGPQF3raNSMvzwJ8Zq58wdOY_QCLcBGAs/s400/charles-ii-portrait.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>His first wife, Marie Louise of Orleans (Charles II’s second niece), came from an arranged marriage. The French ambassador wrote to the Spanish court in 1679 that Marie wanted absolutely nothing to do with the <b>ugly king</b>.</i></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In our extremely romanticized world, even leftists call sick people ugly people, like the case of the now branded Incles. This happens because everyone is unable to realize the Will of the Species, everyone refuses to accept Sexuality as its ultimate Eugenic instrument.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Will of the Species is the blueprint of the Human psychology, and its purpose is to keep our species clean from Deleterious Mutations disguised under the fog of romanticism, Sexual Romanticism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Leftist forces abandon its progressive rule and adopted a conservative one, the left basically adopt acceptance, and there is nothing progressive about it. It's the Human Nature to improve live conditions and solve problems wherever they exist.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this Second Middle Ages we're living in Illness is the rule and not the exception despite all Romanticism, </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Just one in 20 people worldwide (4·3%) had no health problems in 2013, with a third of the world's population (2·3 billion individuals) experiencing more than five ailments, according to a major new analysis.</i>" - <b>Over 95% of the world’s population has health problems</b>, with over a third having more than five ailments, The Lancet.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While contagious illnesses are fight with drugs, inherited ones are fight with prejudice, and this prejudice is the only instrument there is because civilizations haven't found other solution yet. When the left classifies Homosexuality as Sexual Diversity it fails to see the illness, it fails to understand that is Sexuality the source of Prejudice intended to be frighted.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The left is trying an impossible compromise, the Romanticism of Sexuality with Acceptance of "Diversity".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The left needs to see that individuals are Puppets of the Will, and throughout Sexual prejudice they serve the Species to avoid genetic contagion. <b>Trump and Bolsonaro are only surfing the Sexual wave</b>!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bolsonaro quotes that resonate on Species' Will:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li>I’m not going to rape you, because you’re very ugly </li>
<li>I’d rather have my son die in a car accident than have him show up dating some guy</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br />
As I explain before, Sexism, Racism and others are just different manifestations of the Same Will, and all those are the result of Sexuality. So, promoting Sexuality is in time promoting Prejudice.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To make it clear that Sexuality is the source of Prejudice just think in terms of Selections. Comparing with our middle ages analogy, we have:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>1st Middle Ages | Contagious Diseases | Natural Selection</li>
<li>2nd Middle Ages | Inherit Diseases | Sexual Selection</li>
</ul>
<div>
Humans have been extremely successful in escaping from the Natural Selection grip, but when it comes the the Sexual one, humans are under it like any other animal.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The left needs to see Science and technology as means of solution and not only attitudes. So in order to free people from Sexual Selection this scientific solutions need to become the new utopia:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Artificial reproduction to guarantee the minimum genetic quality to all citizens;</li>
<li>Sexual instinct manipulation to equalize libidos between Men and Women;</li>
<li>Eradication of Natural Selected traits that are prone to Sexual Prejudice like black skin or Aquiline noses.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Only when people free themselves from the tyranny of the Will of the Species will become able to make choices in their own consciousness. Until then, Sexual prejudice remains the main adviser.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
As there aren't issues in recognizing Economic Inequality there shouldn't be in recognizing Genetic Inequality.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Adopting Romanticism as the main Politic Philosophy is laying the foundations for the the Extreme Right. Then this happens:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Anti-vaccination Movements;</li>
<li>Rage against the weak and ill;</li>
<li>Growth of religion;</li>
<li>Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An this become the Triumph of the Will... The Species' Will!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Read More:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html">Why Shame on Sex!</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-if-sex-is-just-garbage-dump-for.html">What if Sex Is Just a Garbage Dump for Genetic Mutations?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/species-will-definition-and-concept.html">Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/01/why-we-born-racist.html">Why we born Racist!</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-54125843709315007212018-08-18T21:55:00.002+01:002018-08-25T19:03:09.199+01:00Species are Real, Species do Exist!The point of Sexual Selection is Speciation and the preservation of Species Integrity, fortunately despite many deniers Science has its own Eureka moments...<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14.49px;">"<i>Claridge and I agree that the entities we call </i></span><i><b 14.49px="" alatino="" color:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" linotype="" palatino="" quot="" serif="" utopia="">species are real biological units</b><span 14.49px="" alatino="" color:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" linotype="" palatino="" quot="" serif="" utopia="">.</span></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(...)</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.49px;"><i>Let’s consider the two-part question introduced above: (1) <b>Are species real?</b> (2) Are species uniquely real? <b>All working biologists today think that the answer to the first question is yes</b>: species are real entities in some sense (although the grouping criterion considered to be the basis for their reality varies as described above). The current debate concentrates on the second question: whether or not species are a special level either in biological organization or in the taxonomic hierarchy. In other words, is there a unique ranking criterion for species? The two possible answers to this question can be contrasted as the Darwinian view vs. the Mayrian view.</i></span></span><span 14.49px="" alatino="" color:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" linotype="" palatino="" quot="" serif="" utopia="">" - </span><a 14.49px="" alatino="" color:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444314922.ch6/summary" linotype="" none="" palatino="" quot="" serif="" target="_blank" text-decoration-line:="" utopia="">Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities</a><span 14.49px="" alatino="" color:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" linotype="" palatino="" quot="" serif="" utopia="">, Brent D. Mishler</span></blockquote>
<br />
And yet, the nonsense continues...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aNcuIqpq11c/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aNcuIqpq11c?feature=player_embedded" width="472"></iframe></div>
<br />
And BTW if you believe that Neanderthals inbred with Homo Sapiens it only means that you are Alice in the Wonderland!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Cambridge scientists claim DNA overlap between Neanderthals and modern humans is a remnant of a <b>common ancestor</b>" - in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-human-neanderthal-interbreeding">Study casts doubt on human-Neanderthal interbreeding theory</a></blockquote>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-26121773206698231202018-07-18T19:16:00.004+01:002018-07-18T19:26:55.064+01:00What if Sex Is Just a Garbage Dump for Genetic Mutations?A fresh view in a Delusional World of Diversity!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="border: 0px; color: #777777; font-family: Titillium, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Alexey Kondrashov</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #777777; font-family: Titillium, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14pt; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">When researchers looked at the DNA of a human population, the mutation rate taught them something about the evolutionary value of sex</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Shocking news for the Natural Selection fundamentalists:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="lede" data-reactid="244" style="border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: "titillium" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">FOR A SPECIES </span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "titillium" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">whose numbers show no signs of collapsing, humans have a shockingly high mutation rate. Each of us is born with about 70 new genetic errors that our parents did not have. That’s much more than a slime mould, say, or a bacterium. Mutations are likely to decrease an organism’s fitness, and an avalanche like this every generation could be deadly to our species. The fact that we haven’t gone extinct suggests that over the long term, we have some way of taking out our genetic garbage. And </span><a data-reactid="247" href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6337/539" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8dbd; font-family: Titillium, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.2s ease; vertical-align: baseline;">a new paper</a><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "titillium" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">, recently published in </span><em data-reactid="250" style="border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: Titillium, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Science</em><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "titillium" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">, provides evidence that the answer may be linked to another fascinating procedure: sex. - in </span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "titillium" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><a href="http://desispeaks.com/alexey-kondrashov/">Alexey Kondrashov – What if Sex Is Just a Garbage Dump for Genetic Mutations?</a></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
For those who need pictures to grasp it...!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sfDsI--3Um0/W0-D1bvFEGI/AAAAAAAAA6U/EIagykVN_a0-g-FeoajT8MDs2TWMxFxewCLcBGAs/s1600/SexGarbage_A_560Inline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="532" height="326" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sfDsI--3Um0/W0-D1bvFEGI/AAAAAAAAA6U/EIagykVN_a0-g-FeoajT8MDs2TWMxFxewCLcBGAs/s400/SexGarbage_A_560Inline.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qJ2r7Ybyl2U/W0-D1PTth_I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/49LmDe-8gNsZFUKr63FP9Dll3c5YtvurQCLcBGAs/s1600/SexGarbage_B_500REV.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="730" data-original-width="532" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qJ2r7Ybyl2U/W0-D1PTth_I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/49LmDe-8gNsZFUKr63FP9Dll3c5YtvurQCLcBGAs/s640/SexGarbage_B_500REV.jpg" width="465" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Read More:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="https://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-2-mendel-whys-guy.html">EVOLUTION #2 - MENDEL, THE WHYS GUY</a></li>
</ul>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-75220479942229258022018-05-27T11:00:00.000+01:002018-05-27T11:02:08.904+01:00The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary ComplexitySeems that Natural Selection isn't all there is when it comes to Evolutionary Complexity. Not a surprise for those who realize other Selections... It's a big step to place at the same level Sexual Selection an Natural Selection as engines of Evolutionary Complexity!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li>Conventional wisdom holds that complex structures evolve from simpler ones, step-by-step, through a gradual evolutionary process, with Darwinian selection favoring intermediate forms along the way.</li>
<li>But recently some scholars have proposed that <b>complexity can arise by other means</b>—as a side effect, for instance—even without natural selection to promote it.</li>
<li>Studies suggest that random mutations that individually have no effect on an organism can fuel the emergence of complexity in a process known as constructive neutral evolution. </li>
</ul>
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/ </a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Benton, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 30px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</ul>
</blockquote>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-8168390497273568012018-05-27T09:07:00.002+01:002018-05-27T11:03:06.125+01:00The Mutational Meltdown in Asexual PopulationsWhen Sexual Selection doesn't apply and Natural Selection is all there is!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Loss of fitness due to <b>the accumulation of deleterious mutations appears to be inevitable in small, obligately asexual populations</b>, as these are incapable of reconstituting highly fit genotypes by recombination or back mutation. The cumulative buildup of such mutations is expected to lead to an eventual reduction in population size, and this facilitates the chance accumulation of future mutations. This synergistic interaction between population size reduction and <b>mutation accumulation leads to an extinction process known as the mutational meltdown, and provides a powerful explanation for the rarity of obligate asexuality</b>. We give an overview of the theory of the mutational meltdown, showing how the process depends on the demographic properties of a population, the properties of mutations, and the relationship between fitness and number of mutations incurred. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/84/5/339/2186429?redirectedFrom=fulltext">The Mutational Meltdown in Asexual Populations</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
M. Lynch R. Bürger D. Butcher W. Gabriel</blockquote>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-6812146825076602082018-05-23T09:32:00.002+01:002018-05-23T12:18:18.305+01:00The Guardians of the Species | Jazmina SaavedraIgnorance is a bless, mainly in the domain of Species. Clearly, differences between species determine if one Organism ends up in a School or a Slaughterhouse, but what isn't so clear is that differences in the same Species have similar consequences.<br />
<br />
To understand this reality we need to realize that Natural and Sexual Selection are Interfaces in a three layers evolutionary scheme. Natural Selection is the interface Environment/Species while Sexual Selection is the interface Species/Organism.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PFsBUFliqFo/VIoVDgXlb3I/AAAAAAAAAoE/v6IySpdJ2mU9nHpAgHEcYMVbqpOoWvEbwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/LayersInterfaces.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1559" height="142" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PFsBUFliqFo/VIoVDgXlb3I/AAAAAAAAAoE/v6IySpdJ2mU9nHpAgHEcYMVbqpOoWvEbwCPcBGAYYCw/s400/LayersInterfaces.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Natural Selection is the interface Environment/Species while Sexual Selection is the interface Species/Organism.</span></span></div>
<br />
Sexual Selection means that when it comes to Species, not all Organisms are equal, something that at the eyes of Human Species means that not all Humans are equally Human, and so, they may be treated as livestock for slaughter. The means that Species has at its dispose are Human Guardians that trough their conformity to the Species Blueprint are granted the right to attack those otherwise nonconforming to that same Blueprint. As I previously write in <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/overdominance-good-bad-and-untermensch.html">Overdominance: The Good, the Bad and the Untermensch</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Unfortunately <b>Species are very picky and ruthless against non conformity, it has successfully been managing its "guardians" against it</b>. So, in the so called civilized world, and despite being very civilized, the species guardians do their work as they do in Africa. And is not difficult to have news of some of them, now named Bullies.</i></blockquote>
Besides avoiding the Species genetic contagion by nonconforming organisms, these Guardians exist also to censor the otherwise evident failures of the Species itself. It's imperative that those failures or nonconformities become hidden from the social environment, so that their perception doesn't collide with the benign view of Humanity granted that failures are placed on Organisms instead the Species. This way the discomfort remains limited to levels compatible with religious views of Humanity, useful not only to the Ubermench, but mainly, to the Species' genetic fitness.<br />
<br />
The religious view of Humanity is the main purpose of these Guardians, they do the dirty work of all alike in order to preserve a romanticized perception much needed to the legitimization of the Ubermench and its devotion (<a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html">DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"</a>).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v1tJlp-sHyo/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v1tJlp-sHyo?feature=player_embedded" width="472"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
A Guardian of the Species doing its work</div>
<br />
However, this task of being a Guardian of the Species is not enforced on a particular organism, is the result of a Will, the Will of the Species, that guaranties a minimum needed percentage of Guardians "eruptions" in the conformist population. To avoid wasting good quality organisms, not only the task of being a Guardian has to switch hands, but also, it shouldn't stick to a single conformist organism, so, it's imperative that the previously Guardian of the Species shows regret after their successful work not only to avoid being wasted but also to avoid any perception of the Species' invisible hand.<br />
<br />
In the end is up to the Untermench to exit the scene and accept all apologies in the name of an harmonious conformist club!<br />
<br />
Read More:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html">DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/species-will-definition-and-concept.html">Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/the-trinity-of-suicide-and-self.html">The Trinity of Suicide and Self Preservation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/overdominance-good-bad-and-untermensch.html">Overdominance: The Good, the Bad and the Untermensch</a></li>
</ul>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-44094804779577562632018-04-27T15:26:00.001+01:002018-04-28T08:28:06.213+01:00Alek Minassian, the result of Sex as a Commodity!The absolutist view of Societies above all rest resulted in the perception of Sex as a commodity like any other subject to the same rules of sale and sharing. This mistake is ultimately the legitimization of the Alek Minassian attack because when Sex becomes a Commodity it becomes a right that anyone could claim as entitled to.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iipDhUDF220/WuMsTQL0Z4I/AAAAAAAAA58/T7HTm1RHMVk8zodxLa491Tb8dZmEJa6cQCLcBGAs/s1600/alek-minassian-first-photo-of-man-who_s-been-arrested-as-suspect-in-killing-10-with-va-ftr-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="620" height="180" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iipDhUDF220/WuMsTQL0Z4I/AAAAAAAAA58/T7HTm1RHMVk8zodxLa491Tb8dZmEJa6cQCLcBGAs/s320/alek-minassian-first-photo-of-man-who_s-been-arrested-as-suspect-in-killing-10-with-va-ftr-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
No Sex due to Asymmetric Chin and Unibrow</div>
<br />
However the truth is that Sex IS NOT a commodity, Sex is a <i>modus operandi</i> like a language or even a religion, you can make money from it but that doesn't make it a commodity. This mistake is intentional, it supports the perception of Societies that ultimately will provide all goods as long as you pay for it. Meaning that it's up to Societies to DECIDE who has and who hasn't. Here starts the big problem, because Sex in reality is not regulated by societies and IS NOT a commodity the idea of the contrary puts the cause of its unavailability on the society supposedly in control of it. The oversight of Sex as a commodity promotes the idea of easy access and high availability like potatoes in a supermarket, mainly when living in a so called land of plenty.<br />
<br />
The result of this big lie is a strong confusion and repression, confusion because despite Sex being seen as easy and plentiful it isn't and repression because assuming so makes the individual a failure subject to the worst shaming.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately Societies are by nature extremely arrogant, and the truth will hardly emerges. The truth that the purpose of Sex is exactly not to be a Commodity, that the purpose of Sex is exactly not be easy available, that the purpose of Sex is exactly to exclude, that the purpose of Sex is exactly to be intolerant is what it makes it so heavy to emerge. Sex precedes societies by thousand of millions of years (1 000 000 000) but this is unnoticed in societies with their tiny hundred years (100)! So:<br />
<ul>
<li>Societies ignore that all complex life depends on Sex to avoid genetic meltdown.</li>
<li>Societies ignore that Sex keeps the human genome clean of major genetic diseases.</li>
<li>Societies ignore that the adulteration of Sex contaminates the species genome as clearly seen with inbreeding.</li>
<li>Societies ignore that Sex is by concept for the few not the many;</li>
<li>Societies ignore that their populations are heavily contaminated by <i>de novo</i> genetic mutations;</li>
<li>Societies ignore that Sexual discrimination is cornerstone for limiting otherwise pandemic <i>de novo</i> genetic mutations (Ex. Microcephaly in Pakistani populations).</li>
</ul>
<div>
This way societies should be serious and educate people to be adults and understand that Sex is not a Commodity that Societies can provide as such.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is a solution that needs to be considered and that societies can indeed provide. The solution for Sex as a <i>modus operandi</i> previously explained is the following:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Artificial reproduction with heavy genetic scanning to limit genetic diseases and consequent lack of sexual attractiveness;</li>
<li>Prescription of Anaphrodisiac drugs that reducing the libido would reduce the need for Sex and respective violence while increasing social compliance;</li>
<li>The right to Euthanasia for those which the lack of Sex is shameful to the individual beyond the reasonable.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Ultimately there is the need for a revolt against Sex as the result of the conscience that Sex is the cause and not the solution for problems like <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/01/why-we-born-racist.html">Racism</a>, Sexism, Domestic violence, Homophobia, and many others that will prevail as long as we still see Sex as a benign Commodity.</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YF7RMzyG_go/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YF7RMzyG_go?feature=player_embedded" width="472"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Commodities aren't Pranks</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
Read More:<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html">Why Shame on Sex!</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/overdominance-good-bad-and-untermensch.html">Overdominance: The Good, the Bad and the Untermensch</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/01/why-we-born-racist.html">Why we born Racist!</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-12694685365691749762018-03-08T04:32:00.001+00:002018-03-08T04:38:00.487+00:00The corruption of the #metoo movement!<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, is important to notice that humans are instinctively puritans with no exception and that is the source of conflict between individuals and their species.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, people ignore that libidos are not equal between men and women, that means that there are no possible convergence but an equilibrium many times in the form of coercion and violence.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, is sad that Natural Selection is still used as the ultimate model for social reality and Sexual Selection is still ignored despite being the real cause of what is wrongly attributed to Natural Selection.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, is important to notice that evolutionary biology calls it the queen of problems for some reason.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, is important to notice that Sexual Selection as a promoter of DIVERSITY instead of UNIFORMITY is a romantic perspective with scientific proofs otherwise.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, racism attributed simple to colonialism is much more likely the result of a conflict between Natural and Sexual Selection when a trait is promoted by one Selection against the other, in this scenario everyone is racist (sexist) just because blackness was promoted by Natural Selection against Sexual Selection and Sex is the main peoples' actions driver.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, men is as victim of it as often as women are, men having a greater libido means that they are subject to sexual frustration much more times than women, and thus it might well be the main reason for men committing suicide more frequently than women and because of that these victims are not considered by any #metoo movement.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, the strong romanticism about it might well be just part of its spectrum of instincts to conceal their real function, to serve the cleanliness of the species genome, and thus to oppress individuals considered inferior by it.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Because is SEX we are talking about, is important to note that the ambiguity of Social opinion about Sex might well be the proof that we are naturally corrupted by it to the point of not seeing how it really works.</span><br />
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdNthhjYeF0/WqC-F56OxJI/AAAAAAAAA5s/GdR2OW1NzbESSpL_wc3AaXdSWl-zAYiWgCLcBGAs/s1600/download.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="250" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdNthhjYeF0/WqC-F56OxJI/AAAAAAAAA5s/GdR2OW1NzbESSpL_wc3AaXdSWl-zAYiWgCLcBGAs/s1600/download.gif" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"><br /></span>SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-7883491529073889662017-09-30T17:27:00.000+01:002017-10-01T00:12:48.912+01:00Evolution or Evolutions? The "Natural" mist!In a well written article called "The Rise and Fall of Sociobiology" by Peter Augustine Lawler, there is stated the conflict between two extreme views, Social Constructionism and Sociobiology, as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><b>Social constructionism is the belief that human nature does not matter or exist</b>, and that most of what we believe about human nature is actually the product of human institutions and cultures, and therefore open to be changed. Sociobiology is the belief that human beings have real natures and natural purposes, but natures and purposes that are fully intelligible through evolution and not really different from those of the other animals.</i>" in <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-rise-and-fall-of-sociobiology" target="_blank">The Rise and Fall of Sociobiology</a> by Peter Augustine Lawler</blockquote>
Nowadays we live the victory of Social Constructionism with the concept of Diversity as its cornerstone. While Sociobiology saw that Diversity as Biological Inequality, Social Constructionism due to social discomfort and lack of any technical solution made the idea of Biological Diversity mainstream, proof that reality is just too much to Humanity deal with it as it is. Amazingly no one argues about Economical Inequality, if someone had the idea of labeling it Economical Diversity it would be immediately called cynical.<br />
<br />
Sadly the delusion is much more deep than "Biological Diversity". There is the big "Natural" mist! If the first delusion has a deadline called Biotechnology the second has not. Natural is that big carpet that you can sweep everything under it. This mist started with the ubiquitous and inflated name "Natural" Selection. If Natural nothing else can escape it. That's why Evolution is seen as something singular, simple because under "Nature" there must be only one evolution. And so, Sexual Selection is lost under this "Natural" umbrella, and naturally, Natural Evolution is all there is.<br />
<br />
The puzzling respected book The Selfish Gene is a prime example of this "Natural" mist:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><b>This is an extremely difficult question (Sexual Selection)</b> for the evolutionist to answer. Most serious attempts to answer in evolve sophisticated mathematical reasoning. I am frankly going to evade it except to say one thing. Whether or not it benefits all the rest of an individual's genes is comparatively irrelevant. <b>Seen from the selfish gene's point of view (Natural Selection)</b>, sex is not so bizarre after all.</i>" in The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins</blockquote>
The previous quote shows clearly this sweeping under the "Natural" carpet! Same happens with the so called Human "Nature". Again, is everything and nothing at the same time, the Mist that feeds the "Natural" and ancestral mysticism...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jLSMshy_DGs/Wc_G-GEIKVI/AAAAAAAAA5c/lb-XuLD8gLAibeOnBsLwDSU83XnQR6kegCLcBGAs/s1600/Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Wanderer_above_the_sea_of_fog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1250" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jLSMshy_DGs/Wc_G-GEIKVI/AAAAAAAAA5c/lb-XuLD8gLAibeOnBsLwDSU83XnQR6kegCLcBGAs/s400/Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Wanderer_above_the_sea_of_fog.jpg" width="311" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Reality as People like and are able to see it!</div>
<br />
Natural Selection is clearly an overstatement for what really is. What it really is is Environmental Selection. But:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>But <b>like all popularized science, these big pictures gain clarity by distorting reality</b>.</i>" in The Rise and Fall of Sociobiology by Peter Augustine Lawler</blockquote>
Yes, Natural Selection is that big picture that distorts what in reality is, Environmental Selection. The advantage of naming things by what they really are is simple, they give space for other things that go behind. Evolution is another "big picture" derived from naming Environmental Evolution as Natural. because Nature is everything and naturally Evolution is just one. No space for other Evolution like the one promoted by Sexual Selection. Reality is more complex than this "Natural" absolutism, Reality is like this:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Environmental Selection:</li>
<ul>
<li>Individuals best adapted to their <b>environments </b>are more likely to survive and reproduce.</li>
</ul>
<li>Sexual Selection:</li>
<ul>
<li>Selection of individuals most similar to the uniform <b>Sexual </b>characteristics of their Species.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
Calling Environmental Selection "Natural" has the perverse effect of distorting and neglecting Sexual Selection as a simple branch from the big "Natural" one, like this:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection.</li>
<li>Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection where members of (...)</li>
<li>Sexual selection is natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Clearing the mist means that Sexual Selection isn't "Natural" Selection, quite the oppose it, where "Natural" Selection is a delusion in the sense that "Natural" is everything there is (absolutism), what it really exists is Environmental Selection and Sexual Selection an they are two different things. Clearing the mist is also recognize that there isn't THE ubiquitous Evolution, <b><a href="https://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/darwin-is-dead-sexual-and-natural.html" target="_blank">there are two Evolutions, the Sexual and Environmental ones!</a></b> Avoiding these concepts just because they are too clumsy or too baffling is no different from a church avoiding the idea of Sun in the center just because. Only reality should determine how thing are described. Languages are contaminated with ideology where "Natural" is one of their mists...</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Naturally voting Left is voting Right!</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/krqwRXuW2CU/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/krqwRXuW2CU?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Sexual Mysticism 101</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-80386433115168706792017-06-12T02:39:00.002+01:002017-06-14T20:24:33.823+01:00Humans in Morocco 300,000 years ago are the proof that Toba catastrophe theory is wrong!So, the fairytale goes that before the Great Human expansion, when Humans where in a very tiny concentrated space in south Africa, the <b>Toba supereruption at 70Kya </b>was able to kill many humans almost to the point of extinction... Accordingly to that theory, <b>those newly found bones must belong to an extraterrestrial alien</b>! Why not...?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17758/F1.large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17758/F1.large.jpg" height="183" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
In The great human expansion</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
Brenna M. Henna, L. L. Cavalli-Sforzaa,1, and Marcus W. Feldmanb,2</div>
<br />
Another nail in the coffin of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory" target="_blank">Toba nonsense </a>and its Bottleneck Theory! Unfortunately, there is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see, there is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear, and there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The bones, about 300,000 years old, were unearthed thousands of miles from the previous record-holder, found in fossil-rich eastern Africa. The new discovery reveals people from an early stage of our species’ evolution, with a mix of modern and more primitive traits. - </i>in <a href="https://apnews.com/890d8860375241b3a4a201898420f8fe/This-is-us:-Earliest-fossils-of-our-species-found-in-Morocco" target="_blank">This is us: Earliest fossils of our species found in Morocco</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:60dd8516b20f489db9cc3579a6a6a052/800.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:60dd8516b20f489db9cc3579a6a6a052/800.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
One more fact to add to the list of my previous post: <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2016/01/no-diversity-in-humans-it-was-toba-or.html" target="_blank">No Diversity in Humans, it was Toba or just Sex?</a>SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-57445538737086420182016-08-11T21:06:00.001+01:002017-06-12T02:49:39.662+01:00Inbred Songbirds Croon out of Tune - Scientific American<span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: large; line-height: 30px;">So, there is a Blueprint after all...!</span><br />
<span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; line-height: 30px;">Read the post </span><span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2012/01/evolution-2-mendel-whys-guy.html" style="line-height: 30px;" target="_blank">EVOLUTION #2 - MENDEL, THE WHYS GUY</a><span style="line-height: 30px;"> to understand better the effect of sexual inbreeding in Genetic Noise (drift from the Blueprint)!</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 30px;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Az9-t3_9ut8/VbtjbLYyuLI/AAAAAAAAA0o/BxxxuBGnPQU0GyQlTf7V2ThJSr0E5SqowCPcB/s1600/SchemeSpecies.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Az9-t3_9ut8/VbtjbLYyuLI/AAAAAAAAA0o/BxxxuBGnPQU0GyQlTf7V2ThJSr0E5SqowCPcB/s400/SchemeSpecies.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Species as the Organism Blueprint</div>
<br />
<b style="color: #323232; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 30px;">Inbred canaries </b><span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 30px;">sang songs with less pure tones, and at slightly different pitches, than their outbred cousins—and female canaries seemed to be able to tell the difference.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/AECD37DD-20A8-418F-B4D86FD22F8292AF.jpg?w=590&h=393&3D4CBBB9-B59A-4722-A4028B214EF77AB1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/AECD37DD-20A8-418F-B4D86FD22F8292AF.jpg?w=590&h=393&3D4CBBB9-B59A-4722-A4028B214EF77AB1" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 30px;"><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/inbred-songbirds-croon-out-of-tune/#" target="_blank">Inbred Songbirds Croon out of Tune</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625;">Just like humans have to learn to talk, songbirds aren't just born singing—they have </span><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-genetic-effort-confirms-bird-songs-related-to-human-speech/" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(105, 105, 105); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; outline: none; text-decoration: none;">to <em style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">learn</em> to carry a tune</a><span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625;">. "So in the beginning they just babble." Raissa de Boer, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. "And they learn from a tutor, so they need an </span><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-birds-tweets-grammatical/" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(105, 105, 105); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; outline: none; text-decoration: none;">example song</a><span style="color: #323232; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625;"> in order to learn it."</span><br />
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; margin-top: 40px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
She says the example song might come from the chick's father. And over time, the baby bird tweaks that tweet, to make it its own. "And then it takes almost a year until they're fully adult, until the next spring, for the final song to come out."</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; margin-top: 40px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
De Boer and her colleagues investigated that song-learning process in canaries, using two groups of baby birds: the first consisted of inbred birds, whose parents were siblings; the second had parents that were. And the researchers found that the songs of inbred birds [sound of inbred birds singing] and those of the other, outbred birds [sound of outbred birds singing] sound… pretty similar to the human ear. "I cannot tell the difference."</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; margin-top: 40px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
But computer analysis revealed that the inbred birds sang notes at slightly different pitches—and with tones that were not quite as pure. "<b>So basically they sang out of tune, in comparison to outbred birds.</b>" The results appear in the <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Proceedings of the Royal Society B.</em> [Raissa A. de Boer, Marcel Eens and Wendt Muller, <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.1142" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(105, 105, 105); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: dimgrey; outline: none !important; text-decoration: none;" title="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.1142">‘Out of tune’: consequences of inbreeding on bird song</a>]</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; margin-top: 40px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>And even though our untrained ears have a hard time telling the tones apart, female canaries seemed to notice</b>. They tended to lay smaller eggs, and fewer of them, when they mated with inbred birds as opposed to the better songsters. Suggesting that the quality of a songbird's genes may be revealed in its tunes.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.5625; margin-top: 40px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
—Christopher Intagliata</div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-29030116365002365402016-01-07T11:45:00.001+00:002016-01-09T06:52:09.222+00:00No Diversity in Humans, it was Toba or just Sex?<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><b>Modern humans display less genetic diversity than great apes, a puzzling finding given our much larger census population size</b> (1, 2). Interestingly, recent studies have shown that modern humans are not the only hominins characterized by comparatively low levels of genetic diversity. The variability of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is on par with that found in modern humans (3–5). More importantly, the effective population size of the common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals was recently estimated at 9,999 (95% CI: 9,603–10,335)*, concurring with Noonan et al.'s (6) assumption that the effective population size of the common ancestor was similar to that of modern humans, ≈104. Why are all 3 of these Pleistocene hominin populations characterized by levels of genetic diversity that are lower than those found in extant great apes?</i>" - <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/33.full" target="_blank">Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominins</a></blockquote>
The lack of diversity in Humans is that kind of thing that makes any evolutionist anxious for a "Natural" explanation, something in the environment that made it happen!<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory" target="_blank">Toba catastrophe theory</a> is exactly that, the environmental cause that the holly Natural Selection must explain. Species, Sexual Selection, who cares? In the end, all it matters is Natural Selection! This is the way it must be...<br />
<br />
I will give my own explanation for what caused the lack of Diversity in humans to the point of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm" target="_blank">being almost clones</a> (virtually identical DNA). This means that you will end up with two causes, that I named like this:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>The Toba cause;</li>
<li>The Sex cause.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Toba cause:</b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LSu3HHgsmXs/Vo4sSiRKVoI/AAAAAAAAA3s/3VO_Lzse7H0/s1600/800px-Tobaeruption.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LSu3HHgsmXs/Vo4sSiRKVoI/AAAAAAAAA3s/3VO_Lzse7H0/s320/800px-Tobaeruption.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
Simple putted, 75.000 years ago, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano" target="_blank">Supervolcano</a> in Indonesia called Toba, erupted, causing an extreme change in the environment that led to the death of many modern humans almost to the point of extinction, and doing so, made a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck" target="_blank">genetic bottleneck</a> that eliminated the human diversity that existed before. Simple, practical, all questions answered... or so it looks like.<br />
<br />
But not all questions were answered:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>Why modern humans, and only modern humans, lost their diversity the way they did?</li>
<li>How it proves that modern humans had more diversity before the eruption in the first place?</li>
<li>Why modern humans never had recuperate a bit of that diversity considering that the event happen half way the existing time of modern humans?</li>
<li>Why modern human with an astronomical population size had never catch up a bit of diversity?</li>
<li>Why <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/news070702-15.html" target="_blank">ancient stone tools in southern India were found above and below</a> a thick layer of ash from the Toba eruption and were very similar across these layers?</li>
</ul>
<div>
Many studies dismiss this cause, like the following:</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>The Youngest Toba Tuff (YTT) eruption, which occurred in Indonesia 74,000 years ago, is one of Earth's largest known volcanic events. The effect of the YTT eruption on existing populations of humans, and accordingly on the course of human evolution, is debated. Here we associate the YTT with archaeological assemblages at Jwalapuram, in the Jurreru River valley of southern India. <b>Broad continuity of Middle Paleolithic technology across the YTT event suggests that hominins persisted regionally across this major eruptive event.</b></i>" - <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/114" target="_blank">Middle Paleolithic Assemblages from the Indian Subcontinent Before and After the Toba Super-Eruption</a></blockquote>
The reason for this hypothesis is the same as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis" target="_blank">Red Queen</a> one. The fanaticism of Natural Selection over everything else, including Sexual Selection.<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Sex cause:</b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qKCSj_L61Rw/Vo53ccNWzhI/AAAAAAAAA4M/UBamnCesrIs/s1600/willendorf2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qKCSj_L61Rw/Vo53ccNWzhI/AAAAAAAAA4M/UBamnCesrIs/s320/willendorf2.jpg" width="259" /></a></div>
<br />
As I have been arguing in <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/08/index-all-posts-before-this-one.html" target="_blank">my Posts</a>, with references to many scientific studies and publications, Sex reduces genetic diversity. So, to explain why humans lack all that wonderful diversity that pure Naturalists love so much, the Sex cause is a good place to start.<br />
<br />
First of all considerate the following hypothesis:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>Sex is the mechanism of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation" target="_blank">speciation</a> that defines and standardizes the respective Species;</li>
<li>Sexual Selection opposes Natural Selection as the first decreases diversity while the second increases it.</li>
</ul>
</div>
Supported by:<br />
<blockquote>
"<span style="font-style: italic;">We reviewed arguments from a diverse assemblage of biologists—ecologists, cancer biologists, population geneticists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, genome theorists, epigeneticists—<span style="font-weight: bold;">who implore</span> that sex reduces genetic variation.</span>" - <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01173.x/full">Root Gorelick Henry H. Q. Heng, 2010.Sex Reduces Genetic Variation: A Multidisciplinary Review</a></blockquote>
In this moment I answered all the previous questions but one:<br />
<ul>
<li>Why modern humans, and only modern humans, lost their diversity the way they did?</li>
</ul>
To start with, you should see what distinguish humans (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo" target="_blank">homo</a>) from other animals:<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>Upright walking and consequent liberation of the hands;</li>
<li>Ability to make tools that overcame physical limitations;</li>
<li>Capacity to change the Environment.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
Slowly but steadily, and contrary to other animal, Natural Selection lost its initial grip on humans, leaving it to Sexual Selection alone that without opposition was able to destroy the preexisting diversity.<br />
<br />
So simple, isn't it? Ok, I will explain slowly, step by step...<br />
<div>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBhcW8u5fKAhVBcRQKHT_gALgQFgglMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHomo_habilis&usg=AFQjCNGO3ckrElObSfM3n94_yuIkT9oDSg&sig2=tsZPuKvkvzQWh52A5DvT7A" target="_blank">Homo habilis</a>;</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus" target="_blank">Homo erectus</a>;</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal" target="_blank">Homo neanderthalensis</a>;</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens" target="_blank">Homo sapiens</a> (modern humans).</li>
</ol>
<div>
Homo habilis is the human species that <a href="http://thehistoryofthehairsworld.com/hair_prehistory.html" target="_blank">started to lose body hair</a>, and a good cause for it was clothing. I know that there <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030818/full/news030818-7.html" target="_blank">are studies that point out the beginning of clothing 70.000 years before</a>, but there are also <a href="http://www.evoanth.net/2012/11/13/what-did-neanderthals-wear/" target="_blank">other studies that say that Neanderthals used clothes</a>, many thousand years before, so the clothing I talk here are simple furs from other animals. This means that the use of clothing was not out of reach to the Homo habilis and certainly is hand to hand with its lose of body hair.</div>
</div>
<br />
It must be said that Natural Selection is a more <b>critical </b>kind of thing (life and death) than Sexual Selection, and body hair needed to protect us from cold, found its <b>critical </b>purpose in night and winter. So, clothing was only needed to eliminate this <b>critical </b>purpose of body hair, the one that really matters to Natural Selection.<br />
<br />
This doesn't meant the end of the Natural Selection grip on humanity, no. With the decreasing of body hair close to nothing, Homo erectus changed its skin color from white to black. Yes, Natural Selection gave up body hair to Sexual Selection but took black skin color in exchange (promoted by the African Savannah). Nevertheless, the bargain was positive to Sexual Selection, better black than hairy.<br />
<br />
With humans able to tool making, use of caves as shelter and fire making, soon Environment started to be a very different thing, acting less directly on the human animal. The relationship between humans and Nature changed from a direct to an indirect one, convergent to an <b>environmental alienation</b> as we have today.<br />
<br />
With an human environment more and more alienated of the real one, new challenges emerged. In this new alienated environment, intelligence become decisive to a new and complex courtship that gave birth the Homo sapiens, well capable of the most mystified and sophisticated relationships decisive in the breeding race dictated by an ubiquitous ruler, Sex.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
There is no better example of this lose of grip from Natural to Sexual Selection than the reverse of the skin color bargain as soon as <a href="https://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_1924607329"></span>Homo</a> emigrated to north, first as Neanderthals and later as modern humans (see <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/01/why-we-born-racist.html" target="_blank">Why we born Racist!</a>). This and many other traits were lost in favor of Sexual Selection, until very little remained of the original human diversity, in an alienation process that lasted more than 2 million years.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, <b>the greatest triumph of humanity as a Species</b> was not hairless or even intelligence, but <b>the lost of its diversity through environmental alienation</b>, the triumph of our species over the rule of Natural Selection greedy to disrupt the loved dominant standard called homo sapiens.<br />
<br />
This could end here, but a ruler is a ruler, and Sexual Selection makes its own victims from all those who don't comply with its standard...SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-74882509383801821282015-08-21T21:30:00.001+01:002015-08-28T06:13:22.809+01:00Index #1 - All Posts before this One<h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;">Here are all posts before the current one:</span></h3>
<ol>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/08/the-real-image-of-sociobiology.html">The real Image of Sociobiology</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/08/why-evolution-made-souls.html">Why Evolution made Souls!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/darwin-is-dead-sexual-and-natural.html">Darwin is Dead: Sexual and Natural Selection on Evolution!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/the-truth-of-god-species-and-sexual.html">The truth of God, Species and Sexual Selection</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/not-so-simple-lets-romanticize.html">Sociobiology: Not So Simple, let's Romanticize!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/schopenhauer-darwin-and-me.html">Schopenhauer, Darwin and Me</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/species-will-definition-and-concept.html">Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html">DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/06/species-will-real-root-of-sexism.html">Species Will: The real root of Sexism</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/06/species-will-on-as-natural-as-death-of.html">SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother"</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/05/common-good-species-will-on-individual.html">Common Good: The Species Will on Individual Emancipation</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/05/eugenics-from-obligation-to-voluntarism.html">Eugenics - From Obligation to Voluntarism</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html">The myth of Diversity in a error-prone Environment</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/02/the-ilusion-of-organisms-sexual.html">The Ilusion of Organisms' Sexual Preferences</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/01/why-we-born-racist.html">Why we born Racist!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/from-flatness-to-trinity-depart-from.html">From Flatness to Trinity a depart from the Materialistic view</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/the-trinity-of-suicide-and-self.html">The Trinity of Suicide and Self Preservation</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/12/overdominance-good-bad-and-untermensch.html">Overdominance: The Good, the Bad and the Untermensch</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/08/junk-dna-or-junk-denial.html">Junk DNA or Junk DENIAL...?</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/08/there-is-no-nurture-but-nature.html">There is no Nurture but Nature!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/08/entropy-law-shit-happens.html">Entropy Law: Shit Happens!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html">Why Shame on Sex!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2012/05/evolution-4-confucius-one-picture-is.html">EVOLUTION #4 - CONFUCIUS, ONE PICTURE IS WORTH TEN THOUSAND WORDS</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2012/05/evolution-3-galilei-and-yet-it-moves.html">EVOLUTION #3 - GALILEI, AND YET IT MOVES</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2012/01/evolution-2-mendel-whys-guy.html">EVOLUTION #2 - MENDEL, THE WHYS GUY</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2012/01/evolution-1-darwin-priest-of-priests.html">EVOLUTION #1 - DARWIN, THE PRIEST OF THE PRIESTS</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2011/07/selfish-gene-not-so-much.html">The Selfish Gene - Not so much!</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2011/06/species-definition-materialist-one.html">Species' Definition - A materialistic one</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2011/05/new-species-evolve-in-bursts-one-more.html">New species evolve in bursts - One more to the score</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2011/05/important-faqs-about-evolution.html">Important FAQs about Evolution - Fighting the Status Quo</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2011/05/eukaryotes-from-prokaryotes-and.html">Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes and the Greatest Lie - For the Folks</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2011/01/sex-its-mechanism-of-speciation-for.html">Sex is the mechanism of speciation! - For the Septicks</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature)</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/10/truth-about-species-part-2.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/10/truth-about-species.html">The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/10/ring-species-another-illusionist-trick.html">Ring Species another Illusionist Trick</a></span></h3>
</li>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/10/nature-sucks.html">Nature Sucks</a></span></h3>
</li>
</ol>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> For more check my yahoo answer page here:</span></span></h3>
<ul><b><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></b>
<li><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/questions?show=BSWIP6KBAWFW7XEN6F6RRTWM74&t=g" target="_blank">https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/questions?show=BSWIP6KBAWFW7XEN6F6RRTWM74&t=g</a></span></h3>
</li>
</ul>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-12698517652651137572015-08-15T04:44:00.001+01:002016-11-19T00:42:38.467+00:00The real Image of SociobiologySome events, like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings" target="_blank">2014 Isla Vista killings</a> or the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-history-of-flippant-misogyny/2015/08/08/891f1bec-3de4-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html" target="_blank">2015 Donald Trump Campaign</a>, remind us that before we belong to many Societies <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html" target="_blank">we belong to one single Species</a>! Unfortunately we are blind to the point of don't see it, despite all evidences that go <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="">beyond </span></span>the most extreme cases.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology" target="_blank">Sociobiology</a> studies the behavior that underlines and in some extent undermines all Societies. Societies by nature try to restrict and despise the Species and their animals as something that exists only in the jungle, where humans don't make part of it. <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">Even worst,</span></span> when Societies go to the point of paint this wild side as naive Nature without evils, trying to show that Civilization is unable to correct all evils because they only exist in it. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage" target="_blank">Noble Savage</a> opposed to the Civilized Man is a good example...<br />
<br />
The roots of all this drama are in the illusion of "Free Will". Societies to be accepted need to be popular, and the best way to sell a product is to say it suits all people. Nowadays, to make it more realistic, and due to globalization, dream numbers are used, <a href="http://www.slashgear.com/apple-claims-99-satisfaction-in-latest-iphone-ads-10392478/" target="_blank">99% are satisfied</a> or Nine in Ten. In this scenario of extreme optimism is difficult not being convinced of its success. There is no place to Pessimism when it comes to Sell...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PDrk_FK4qxc/Vc7Kz4yN33I/AAAAAAAAA2k/1BZXQp8fOjM/s1600/slider-99-customer-satisfaction-RATE-slider-980x445.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PDrk_FK4qxc/Vc7Kz4yN33I/AAAAAAAAA2k/1BZXQp8fOjM/s320/slider-99-customer-satisfaction-RATE-slider-980x445.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In reality your Free Will is restricted by the <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-evolution-made-souls.html" target="_blank">Image's Will</a> (<a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/species-will-definition-and-concept.html" target="_blank">the Will of the Species</a>), and accordingly to your conformity your Free Will is more or less Free.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SJswMXw7iY8/VckXISgT34I/AAAAAAAAA1k/D4OZX8UkyIo/s1600/SchemeConscience.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SJswMXw7iY8/VckXISgT34I/AAAAAAAAA1k/D4OZX8UkyIo/s320/SchemeConscience.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Reality, Image and Conscience (<a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-evolution-made-souls.html" target="_blank">Why Evolution made Souls</a>)</div>
<br />
From the moment you start to interact with others, you start to be placed in a hierarchy, Social exclusion in the school environment is increasingly being recognized as a form of relational aggression or bullying, in which a child is exposed to harm through the manipulation of their social relationships and status (Edith Cowan University, 2009). This exclusion is just the tip of the iceberg. It's much more, it's the result of the Will that excludes the ones that do not conform in any way. In reality, the big majority isn't excluded, thanks to the <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">commitment</span></span> of accepting their rule in their <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html" target="_blank">Sociobiological Hierarchy</a>.<br />
<br />
The Image of our <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-evolution-made-souls.html" target="_blank">Conscience (Consciousness)</a>, that controls it, is the proof of the needed commitment between the individual and its Species. This commitment is forcefully guaranteed trough Emotions that are quite strong to the point of forcing the Conscience drop its control to the Image. One of those Emotions is Frustration, the main source of violence. When Conscience isn't successful, the impatience of the Image gains control, and that means visceral violence, because is a much simpler and basic form of control, much more "natural"! Nevertheless, this type of violence <b>normally</b> doesn't do more harm than a broken keyboard or a smashed phone.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J2DIQNG1LrU/Vc6dONpzR3I/AAAAAAAAA2U/YN13dVEcwDg/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J2DIQNG1LrU/Vc6dONpzR3I/AAAAAAAAA2U/YN13dVEcwDg/s400/4.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Image taking control over Conscience/Consciousness</div>
<br />
When Conscience regains control regret follows as a question, why I did it? With time we may be able trough experience to endure greater levels of Frustration, or decrease it due to the knowledge of their impacts.<br />
<br />
Another big lie that societies sell, is the lie of diversity, a byproduct of the first lie of Free Will. There is a "place for everyone", there are no handicaps there are only personalities, everyone is legally equal despite their differences and their Reality! Natural Selection is incredibly used to maintain this State of Affairs, where everyone thinks being the start of a new evolutionary ramification of their own species, or when every limitation is transformed in strength! Bio diversity between Species is transformed in Biodiversity inside Species, despite the reality pointing in the opposite direction, as modern humans display less genetic diversity than great apes, a puzzling finding given our much larger census population size. Interestingly, recent studies have shown that modern humans are not the only hominins characterized by comparatively low levels of genetic diversity (L. S. Premo1 and Jean-Jacques Hublin, 2008).<br />
<br />
The most important difference between Conscience and Image is that the second one is a Standard, a Biological Normalization like Species. All humans share a very similar Image, despite a different Conscience. However is the Image and not the Conscience that ultimately regulates the Sociobiology Hierarchy. The right Smile, the right facial expression, the right phrase and the way and time they are used are mainly due to the Image than the Conscience. In fact, the one who uses more the Conscience than the Image in their daily basis relationships is more prone to suffer from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis" target="_blank">Psychosis</a>, due to the fact of using a more expensive type of cognition. More, it's in risk of developing an emotional conflict between Image and Conscience that normally results in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder" target="_blank">Bipolar disorders</a>. This pressure of the Image over the Conscience, is many times relieved with the use of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug" target="_blank">drugs</a>, Nevertheless the Image always prevails, and the relieve that Conscience had, sooner than later <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">disappears leaving Conscience at the mercy of an even stronger Image. In this conflict, only conformity to the Image of the Species' Will brings peace.</span></span><br />
<br />
The great majority of the population manages to accept its place in the Sociobiological Hierarchy, more or less frustrated, their perceived gains compensate their perceived losses, while the Species collects their real gains.<br />
<br />
So, to Species always win, the Image has to represent their Will. And the will that best serves Species is the Will to Sex. This Will has to be very strong to allow great levels of Selection (filtering). Like a coffee filter that requires high pressure levels. As a result you get high levels of human waste, already explained in <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/species-will-on-as-natural-as-death-of.html" target="_blank">SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother"</a>. So that in the end "can't do it" really means it!<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the filter is shaped in a <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html" target="_blank">form of Shame</a>, that reduces even more the chances of passing through so that only the best quality organisms are really chosen! Emotions are the main tool for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_division_of_labour" target="_blank">Sex segregation</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_division_of_labour" target="_blank"> in the </a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" target="_blank">Division of labor</a> and other divisions based on sexuality. To Species, there shouldn't be shortcuts in the right stages of sexual intimacy, while Organisms should feel promiscuity as uncomfortable as possible. Emotions like shame are there to make all this unseen, to work under the societies' eyes, unable to see the Will of the Species. Societies are only able to make Individuals express phrases and thoughts that they don't really believe.<br />
<br />
Like everything else, the pressure to Sex is greater in men than in woman, and this single fact explains the greater violence of men over woman. Men is in a greater fight with his cognitive Image than Woman, and consequently has more episodes of rupture that result in violence, including against himself (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide" target="_blank">Gender differences in suicide</a>). Greater but not exclusive to men, like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Chubbuck#Death" target="_blank">Suicide of Christine Chubbuck</a> proves!<br />
<br />
Normally this frustration leads to devotion and servitude <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">towards the chosen ones, seen as heroes or role models, promoting this way the Sociobiological Hierarchy. However, in cases of </span></span><span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">extreme </span></span>frustration, where heroes and role models aren't no more or even seen as what they really are,</span></span> collateral damage might happen, and some superior and benefited specimens might be lost, as the price to accommodate the Species' greatest good. As a result of Evolution, the cognitive Image is perverse enough to put the guilty on Organisms instead on Species, firstly when Men think and express negatively on Woman, and secondly, when Men are seen as the real <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">perpetrators (materialism)!</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hUh61AGbSA4" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-23040672663175386262015-08-11T01:43:00.001+01:002016-07-27T13:08:54.491+01:00Why Evolution made Souls!Is there a thing as a Soul? In some extent there is, but is not what you think. When it comes to Abstractions, Evolution made many of them where Species was just the beginning.<br />
<br />
As I already posted in <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/12/from-flatness-to-trinity-depart-from.html" target="_blank"><span id="goog_1635576976"></span>From Flatness to Trinity a depart from the Materialistic view</a>, the modern philosophy is dominated by Materialism, that denies the multi level reality despite all evidences. Is not just Species that are denied, the Representation nature of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness" target="_blank"><span id="goog_1635576998"></span>consciousness</a> <span id="goog_1635576999"></span>also is!<br />
<br />
Consciousness is a miracle that materialism can't explain. The miracle is nevertheless simple to explain, you just need to use Layers, Multi layering is always the answer, because reality isn't flatness!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SJswMXw7iY8/VckXISgT34I/AAAAAAAAA1g/sI1vbrhw4qw/s1600/SchemeConscience.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SJswMXw7iY8/VckXISgT34I/AAAAAAAAA1g/sI1vbrhw4qw/s320/SchemeConscience.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Before you ask how, you should ask why. Why Conscience works in a Representative Image and not on Reality? Why Indirect instead of Direct action on Reality?<br />
<br />
The advantage of working on an Image instead of Reality itself is easy to explain, while Reality is rigid in Nature an Image isn't. Also, in terms of Cognitive costs Brains consume too much energy, having an Image on which conscience works makes all the sense, and doubtfully Evolution was blind to it!<br />
<br />
With the evolution of this Image, this abstraction, Evolution gained a new Object of Selection, now was not exclusive to the physical body, this Cognitive Image was also a subject. This way Sexual Selection was the result of this new interaction, Body vs Image, physical vs logical.<br />
<br />
The consequence of this new scheme is that Conscience doesn't act directly on Reality, it works on an Image that is perceived as a Reality. This doesn't mean that that Image isn't an accurate representation of that Reality, what it means is that doesn't need to be, at least completely, and that is its great accomplishment!<br />
<br />
In the dichotomy Conscience vs Image, is important that Image is perceived as Reality, and so it should be out of reach to the "free will" of Conscience, and the best way to do it is make it out of Conscience, make it Subconscious.<br />
<br />
However this layer is there, and some times you see its glimpse. One typical phenomenon that you likely already experienced, is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_escalator_phenomenon" target="_blank">Broken escalator phenomenon</a>. When you step in a escalator that is Stoped, you may have the conscience of it, but who acts on Reality is not your Conscience is instead "your" Image, and for it the Escalator is running, because Image represents that single and experienced reality, so, when you step on your legs obey to your Image not your Conscience!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KVgGL2u-yzg/VckeVf47hLI/AAAAAAAAA1w/8i6GIRVUOBM/s1600/2012-07-09-escalator.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KVgGL2u-yzg/VckeVf47hLI/AAAAAAAAA1w/8i6GIRVUOBM/s400/2012-07-09-escalator.jpg" width="373" /></a></div>
<br />
Never wondered what really means know it as Second Nature? Or on the contrary when some one says, it didn't look Natural! This is the difference between your Image and you Conscience working on Reality, because your Conscience doesn't act directly on it and thus it will always look clumsy, unnatural!<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory#Acquisition_of_skill" target="_blank">process of learning</a> is a good example of that, basically you have the Cognitive phase and then the Associative phase, like learning to drive a car, things go like this:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory#Cognitive_phase" target="_blank">Cognitive phase</a>:</li>
<ol>
<li>Insert key;</li>
<li>Push the clutch down;</li>
<li>Put the gear in neutral; </li>
<li>Turn key;</li>
<li>Wait motor to Start;</li>
<li>Free key;</li>
<li>Free clutch.</li>
</ol>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory#Associative_phase" target="_blank">Associative phase</a>:</li>
<ol>
<li>Put motor running.</li>
</ol>
</ul>
<br />
The transition from the Cognitive phase to the Associative phase is done with practice, and the small steps when repeated become part of the Image instead of the Conscience. Then Conscience recalls them in a form of purpose, put motor running, the task now in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory" target="_blank">Procedural memory</a> is run without effort, as second nature! In some way, is like comparing the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_prototyping" target="_blank">Development of the Prototype</a> with the Factoring of the respective Product.<br />
<br />
At this point you realize that Cognitive phase is much more expensive than the Associative one, this is the consequence of the cost to maintain a Conscience in terms of energy costs and in efficiency in dealing with the Reality, so naturally all your actions with practice and experience go from Conscience to Subconscious (Image), making you an extremely automated individual, efficient and fast. For instance, <a href="http://www.livescience.com/28911-7-ways-to-trick-your-brain.html" target="_blank">in the following example</a>, children use buses more often than adults, and so, they have the bus drawn at their Image level, contrary to the adult that normally uses the car making him only able to use the Conscience, much more slow and inefficient to make conclusions.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nDiTaFn6aaQ/VdEcEAP7nnI/AAAAAAAAA20/I4ZV-PmxOlA/s1600/school-bus-trick.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nDiTaFn6aaQ/VdEcEAP7nnI/AAAAAAAAA20/I4ZV-PmxOlA/s400/school-bus-trick.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Which way is this school bus headed? </div>
<br />
By experience, you immediately guess that heads to the left, because the entrance is in the other side (US Direction)! Children, with more recent experience on buses, are much better at answering this question than adults.<br />
<br />
Contrary to the Image, the Conscience (Consciousness) is able to be On/Off whenever necessary as a mean to manage energy and as the result of its no physical reality (logical). In terms of conscience everything is possible to be On/Off, just like a dream, contrary to the physical world that is always On. In Reality nothing can be more volatile than Consciousness, or if you prefer, than the Soul!<br />
<br />
Science in some domains has dropped the pure materialist view, and are starting to considerate other levels, also Logical and not only Physical.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A lot of what we think is real and obvious, in fact, is, well you could call it an illusion in a way. <b>If I got pain in my hand the pain is not actually in the hand, the pain is my brain. My brain creates a three-dimensional model of the world and associates the nerve impulses coming from the pain receptors in my hand with pain in the hand and it create this illusion that the pain is actually in the hand itself, and it isn't</b>. The more you look into neuroscience the more strange and confusing it becomes. - <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/26/409719011/a-neurosurgeon-reflects-on-the-awe-and-mystery-of-the-brain" target="_blank">On how the brain creates pain</a>, Neurosurgeon Henry Marsh.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4o3OheuDbIs" width="560"></iframe><br />
Henry Marsh - BBC Documentary Storyville The English Surgeon english subtitles </div>
<br />
The pain is a good proof of the Image, because you (AKA "soul") are living in a box of perception, and in this way pain is a Perception served to you by the Image. There are two Interfaces, the physical, between Reality and the Image, and the Logical one, between you and the Image. This means that in the end you are an Abstraction that Image manipulates the way it wants, your "existence" is only there to make ends meet, to make the syntheses of a Will that isn't really yours. Again, Souls are perceptions created to conform with the real Will, the Will of the Species encapsulated in the Image the only one that represents its physical reality. If there are so many wasted Organisms in the name of the Species, why it should be different with "Souls" (Consciences)? Independent layers is the main concept here!<br />
<br />
This Image is in constant change, and it might be changed by trauma or stress. A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder" target="_blank">post traumatic stress disorder</a> (PTSD) is produced when due to trauma the Image is misfitted to a normal Reality, for instance when someone panics with fireworks perceived as a military attack.<br />
<br />
The PTSD is however a <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps alt-edited">overlooked </span></span>issue. When it comes to social interactions not even the most perverse mind is able to conceive the Reality of the Image. Accordingly to the value of the Organism defined mainly by its biology, the Image is the cornerstone of the <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html" target="_blank">Sociobiological Hierarchy</a>! By experience each Organisms' Image is shaped to its Real position in this Hierarchy, where Conscience isn't no more than an housewife trying to make ends meet. This is well seen in the Master/Slave relationship between role models and their fans! <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html" target="_blank">This relationship has Devotion as its main ingredient</a>!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GcFQcVL_19U" width="560"></iframe></div>
<br />
In the end, conscience is like someone in a control room, with manipulated pictures and emotions that are representations of Reality that isn't perceived directly. Like a big TV showing a processed reality (Image), not only by experience but also by instinct. The Image is the System outside which no Conscience is able to exist, because this System is what <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/07/species-will-definition-and-concept.html" target="_blank">The Will of the Species</a> really is.<br />
<br />
This image is not only shaped by experience, it was also shaped by evolution, like the <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/07/darwin-is-dead-sexual-and-natural.html" target="_blank">Cognitive Sexual Image</a>. In reality is expected that the great part of this Image is instinctive instead of contextual, the fear of death isn't learned but inherited. Despite that, you may be afraid of death trough instinct or trough context (Conscience). You are instinctively afraid of highs but contextually afraid of a stripped electrical wire. The first one is produced directly by Reality acting on the Image, while the second one is produced by Conscience acting on that same image!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SSyafyIcI-M/Vck6DfvL4YI/AAAAAAAAA2A/StHD1Z0QKOU/s1600/stripped-wires_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SSyafyIcI-M/Vck6DfvL4YI/AAAAAAAAA2A/StHD1Z0QKOU/s400/stripped-wires_2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Instinctive vs <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">Conscious </span></span>fear of Death</div>
<br />
Contrary to the Instinctive fear of Death, the Conscious one depends on Conscience, of learning. To be afraid of electrocution you need to know what electricity is and the respective Associative phase that instinct dispenses.<br />
<br />
Is this contextual perception that makes Conscience very useful, because no mater how sophisticate a Reality might be, the puppet Conscience is there to work it out for its puppeteer Image, like a Slave serving its Master. Image wasn't shaped to foreseeing the Reality of the futuristic technology, or the new sophisticate tools that require learning and understanding that the crude and predefined Image can't conceive, so Conscience is there to allow Image to perceive and assimilate all the <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps alt-edited">novelties</span></span>, with the final purpose of having the real control where it belongs.<br />
<br />
This Image was shaped by Evolution to make Conscience a believer of its materialism and control on Reality. <b>This feeling of control and reality is so strong that Conscience sees it self as an immortal Soul</b> despite its failure in giving a good explanation for it. So be it, as long as the work is well done and Species become rewarded by their so deluded Consciences.<br />
<br />
Here is where the materialist is religious as religious people are! A materialist refuses the existence of a Soul because for him physical death means "Soul" death, while for a believer Soul is immortal. The Materialist, like the believer, is also corrupted by the Image, because he puts at the same level Physical and Logical <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">phenomena</span></span>, sustaining that Conscience "Soul" lives the same as body lives.<br />
<br />
In reality, the believer, the religious, gives you a better clue of the real nature of the Soul than the Materialist. Because the believer expresses what he feels, he expresses his second nature, his Image, and <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps alt-edited">unintentionally he </span></span>gives the truth of what a Soul really is, the Conscience of an immortal Image in a volatile Reality, where its real duration is surely <b>far less</b> than the body where it "lives" in (multiple <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_%28computer_science%29" target="_blank">instantiations</a>). However, the Materialist is corrupted by is naive and benevolent view of reality, failing to see the crude reality prevents him to see reality itself, because the best way to see reality is to conceive the worst one!<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, Evolution made Souls to better serve their Species accordingly to its Will. SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-50320061143722988212015-07-31T21:57:00.002+01:002016-11-19T00:33:58.029+00:00Darwin is Dead: Sexual and Natural Selection on Evolution!<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote>
"<i>The best way to conceive the worst reality, is to see it as it is.</i>" - The Author</blockquote>
</div>
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.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!</i>" - Darwin</blockquote>
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Az9-t3_9ut8/VbtjbLYyuLI/AAAAAAAAA0k/S3_WL01Odwk/s1600/SchemeSpecies.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Az9-t3_9ut8/VbtjbLYyuLI/AAAAAAAAA0k/S3_WL01Odwk/s400/SchemeSpecies.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>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. <b>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</b>, emphasizing
its obscurity by its very isolation.</i>" - <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_048281.html" target="_blank">The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality</a></blockquote>
As I post in <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html" target="_blank">The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)</a>, 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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutational_meltdown" target="_blank">Genetic Meltdown</a>.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In Eukaryotes, Species centers the relationship between Sexual and Natural Selection, it represents the result of this two different and normally opposing evolutionary forces.<br />
<br />
<table bgcolor="#FFFFFF" border="0"><tbody>
<tr><td style="font-weight: bold; width: 200px;">Property</td><td style="font-weight: bold; width: 400px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection" target="_blank">Natural Selection</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; width: 400px;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection" target="_blank">Sexual Selection</a></td></tr>
<tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">Interface</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Environment vs. Species</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Species vs. Organism</td></tr>
<tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">Diversity</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Increases Diversity</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Reduces Diversity</td></tr>
<tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">Environment</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Species External / Physical</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Species Internal / Cognitive</td></tr>
<tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">Evolution</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Trait Specific</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Trait Exhaustive</td></tr>
<tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">Complexity</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Unsupported</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">Supported</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The above small table is an update to the one already made in the post <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2011/05/eukaryotes-from-prokaryotes-and.html" target="_blank">Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes and the Greatest Lie - For the Folks</a>.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>In the past when peacocks had ordinary colour and length tails, peahens
(<b>for some reason</b>) 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.</i>" - <a href="http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=d4" target="_blank">Darwin and Sexual Selection</a></blockquote>
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment" target="_blank">First Environment</a> (Natural)</li>
<ul>
<li><b>Natural environment </b>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.</li>
</ul>
<li> Second Environment (Sexual)</li>
<ul>
<li><b>Sexual interaction</b> between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image defined at the respective Species Level.</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<br />
This second Environment arrives from the interaction between Organisms with their <b>Cognitive Sexual Image</b>, 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.<br />
<br />
This second Environment is the Cognition of Organisms in a form of a <b>Cognitive Sexual Image</b>, that despite being very normalized is prone to deviations and <b>has it its own Evolution</b>. 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.<br />
<br />
Darwin didn't saw this <b>Cognitive Sexual Image</b>, 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.<br />
<br />
At this moment you may ask if this Cognitive Sexual Image is not a way of <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">sweep under the</span> <span class="hps">carpet, because </span></span>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 <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html" target="_blank">entropy</a>, but also, because the utopian characteristic of the Cognitive Sexual Image!<br />
<br />
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 <b>in the Species' System </b>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 (<a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-we-born-racist.html" target="_blank">Why we born Racist!</a>), all this accordingly to an Ubiquitous and Standardized perception (<a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/07/species-will-definition-and-concept.html" target="_blank">Species' Will</a>).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_tbke-qmg4A/VbuT4PybHdI/AAAAAAAAA00/1j7mZzal_0c/s1600/2e2e8d1e898711590d612104f80f50a4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_tbke-qmg4A/VbuT4PybHdI/AAAAAAAAA00/1j7mZzal_0c/s1600/2e2e8d1e898711590d612104f80f50a4.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Because it collides with my <b>Cognitive Sexual Image</b>!</div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html" target="_blank">DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"</a>.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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 <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">Species' sponsorship</span></span> at the top of the sociobiological hierarchy.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/50hzvVqj68g" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
In my another post, <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2010/10/truth-about-species-part-2.html" target="_blank">The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)</a>, I try to give an explanation to something that despite the doubts, is still regarded as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion" target="_blank">Cambrian Explosion</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><b>Complex brains evolved much earlier than previously thought, as evidenced by a 520-million-year-old fossilized arthropod with remarkably well-preserved brain structures</b>. 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.</i>" - <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010131436.htm" target="_blank">Cambrian fossil pushes back evolution of complex brains</a></blockquote>
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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Complexity_threshold" target="_blank">Complexity Threshold</a>. 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 <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html" target="_blank">The myth of Diversity in a error-prone Environment</a>. And as in my post <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3.html" target="_blank">The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature)</a>, Natural Selection is balanced with Sexual Selection trough a process of Induction allowing faster and fitter adaptations to the existing first Environment type.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><b>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</b>. 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. <b>Our results provide direct experimental evidence that the intensity of sexual selection is an important factor in the evolution of male cognitive ability.</b></i>" - <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1781/20132873" target="_blank">Male cognitive performance declines in the absence of sexual selection</a></blockquote>
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.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Only one thing oppresses and manipulates the entire humanity, that thing is the Species and its Will</i>" - The Author</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/clak8BaqgJw" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Reproduction of the <b>Cognitive Sexual Image</b></div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-53265082077556703162015-07-25T01:35:00.001+01:002019-02-27T05:16:17.990+00:00The truth of God, Species and Sexual Selection<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zs-f7lgtAho" width="560"></iframe>SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-22019278327084084602015-07-21T21:22:00.003+01:002015-08-23T11:42:22.813+01:00Sociobiology: Not So Simple, let's Romanticize!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQGvbSK_Nfg/Va6oSuXUE1I/AAAAAAAAAz4/pvXZAJoMzUc/s1600/short-or-tall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQGvbSK_Nfg/Va6oSuXUE1I/AAAAAAAAAz4/pvXZAJoMzUc/s400/short-or-tall.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The Romanticism of Shortness is very simple: For <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/12/from-flatness-to-trinity-depart-from.html" target="_blank">simple models</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination" target="_blank">simple realities</a>... And so it's the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology" target="_blank">Sociobiological Hierarchy</a>!SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-41869553351883779812015-07-20T21:27:00.001+01:002017-03-12T17:55:04.874+00:00Schopenhauer, Darwin and Me<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oR8y6WH4lRw/Va06BlH2NLI/AAAAAAAAAzE/yL9SEhI5_EU/s1600/sexual_selection.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oR8y6WH4lRw/Va06BlH2NLI/AAAAAAAAAzE/yL9SEhI5_EU/s400/sexual_selection.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There are three books that made a century, those books are:<br />
<ol>
<li>The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer, <b>1818</b>;</li>
<li>On the Origin of Species, Darwin, <b>1859</b>;</li>
<li>The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, <b>1900</b>.</li>
</ol>
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.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wSy6mjhJC1k" width="420"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Philosophy - A Guide to Happiness: Schopenhauer on Love </div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The problem with Schopenhauer is that he put Nature and Species in the same bucket, his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_live" target="_blank">Will to Life</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Darwin with his work much more robust and scientific, was able to <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism" target="_blank">Scientific Materialism</a>, always focused on the object without seeing the big picture behind it, as exposed <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/12/from-flatness-to-trinity-depart-from.html" target="_blank">here</a>. In some extent, Nietzsche is another minor figure that contribute to the </span></span>Schopenhauer lowering, like a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Coelho" target="_blank">Paulo Coelho</a> 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.<br />
<span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><br /></span></span>
<span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">The void that Darwin leaved, was occupied by Freud not Schopenhauer, and so, that void still exists today, and extraordinary, <b>psychology and not biology</b> 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.</span></span><br />
<span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><br /></span></span>
<span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">For instance, when explaining suicide, there isn't a better explanation than the one that </span></span>Schopenhauer gives:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>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. <b>The individual who commits suicide gives
up living, but does not give up willing.</b> In the act of suicide, the will
affirms itself, even though it puts an end to its individual
manifestation.</i>" - Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, translated by Jill Berman (London: Everyman, 1995), pp. 250-1.</blockquote>
Much better and understandable that <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-trinity-of-suicide-and-self.html" target="_blank">the clumsy and forced Altruistic Suicide</a> of the Pure Darwinian Natural Selection way of thinking, well saw in the Selfish Gene paradigm (microevolution).<br />
<br />
The problem when you only have a single Split and two Layers, is that everything that needs that extra layer is inevitable <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">swept under the</span> <span class="hps">carpet.</span></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Other limitation of him, come from not embracing the extreme Standardization of Species, so he didn't spoke very much on the <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html" target="_blank">repulsive feelings for aberration avoidance</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
If Schopenhauer was able to distinguish Species from Nature, he would understand that <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3-entropic.html" target="_blank">Entropy, a natural phenomenon, </a>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.<br />
<br />
The same way, pure Darwinists aren't able to explain Sexual Selection, and also, they <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">swept under the</span> <span class="hps">carpet, they <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html" target="_blank">embrace the Red Queen Hypothesis just to </a></span></span><span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html" target="_blank"><span class="hps">sleep well</span> </a><span class="hps"><a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html" target="_blank">in their ignorance</a>. So, they ignore <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2010/11/truth-about-species-part-3.html" target="_blank">Induction, another natural phenomenon</a>, 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.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WPxeTDQM1wU/Va1Pqew_eKI/AAAAAAAAAzU/864Vo0nB0tg/s1600/why_sex_great_question.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WPxeTDQM1wU/Va1Pqew_eKI/AAAAAAAAAzU/864Vo0nB0tg/s400/why_sex_great_question.jpg" width="387" /></a></div>
<br />
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 <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">incompleteness</span></span> of Schopenhauer couldn't compete.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2bpQZQewdJg/Va1UX8J73gI/AAAAAAAAAzg/FZIzIA1eC-8/s1600/schopen_freud_borges.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="299" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2bpQZQewdJg/Va1UX8J73gI/AAAAAAAAAzg/FZIzIA1eC-8/s320/schopen_freud_borges.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Claridge and I agree that the entities we call <b>species are real biological units</b>." - <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444314922.ch6/summary" target="_blank">Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities</a>, Brent D. Mishler</blockquote>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-62798878334018820502015-07-03T17:51:00.000+01:002015-08-23T11:21:26.772+01:00Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>The sexual impulse is an instinct, and like most instincts, it represents <b>the will of the species</b>, which creates the delusion in individuals that they are seeking their own good when in fact they are seeking <b>the good of the species </b>(the continued existences of individuals of its kind)</i>" - Historical Dictionary of <a href="https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer" target="_blank">Schopenhauer</a>'s Philosophy By David E. Cartwright</blockquote>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BjwzzNOM1OU/VZW0Ck8G8CI/AAAAAAAAAxk/43fmeJKkzHc/s1600/LayersInterfaces.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="163" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BjwzzNOM1OU/VZW0Ck8G8CI/AAAAAAAAAxk/43fmeJKkzHc/s400/LayersInterfaces.PNG" width="460" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote" target="_blank">Eukaryote</a> Scheme of Natural and Sexual Selection</div>
<br />
In the Eukaryotic universe, Species are nuclear, they aggregate all the information given by Natural Selection, <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2011/06/species-definition-materialist-one.html" target="_blank">working as a Proxy</a>, they define what an Organism must be.<br />
<br />
There are two conditions to the Existence of the Species' Will, and those two conditions are:<br />
<ol>
<li>Species are real in the same sense as Organisms are;</li>
<li>Species are able to aggregate and control the traits of its Organisms.</li>
</ol>
For the first condition we have the following scientific support:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Claridge and I agree that the entities we call species are <b>real
biological units</b>."</i> - <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444314922.ch6/summary" target="_blank">Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities</a>, Brent D. Mishler</blockquote>
The second one is about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution" target="_blank">Macroevolution</a>, where Species instead of Genes are the aggregated unit of Selection, and so:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>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 <b>definition of species selection to include aggregate characters</b>.</i>" - <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC45710/" target="_blank">Species selection on variability</a>, E A Lloyd and S J Gould</blockquote>
There is a systematically confusion between <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/species-will-on-as-natural-as-death-of.html" target="_blank">Sampling</a> 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, <b>already Specified</b>.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html" target="_blank">is wrongly misunderstood as diversity</a>, 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 <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.pt/2015/03/the-myth-of-diversity-in-error-prone.html" target="_blank">Hypocritical and Delusional Diversity</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VoOQRrcaQf8/VZb1fXu7alI/AAAAAAAAAyI/aenabhRffIg/s1600/article-1363848-0D815889000005DC-771_634x624.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VoOQRrcaQf8/VZb1fXu7alI/AAAAAAAAAyI/aenabhRffIg/s200/article-1363848-0D815889000005DC-771_634x624.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Two heads Turtle, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363848/Two-headed-turtle-discovered-Slovakia-African-Spurred-Tortoise-mutant.html" target="_blank">let's call it Diversity</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
The Species' Will may be defined in the following way:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Species' Will is the Indirect Control of Organisms' Actions accordingly to an Equilibrium of Contradictory Emotions"</blockquote>
This Equilibrium produces Organisms meant to be Slaves and others meant to be <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/devotion-as-natural-as-believing-in-god.html" target="_blank">Devoted</a>. The emotion to be accepted is a very strong one, so the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch" target="_blank">superman</a>" that everyone appreciates is accepted by <i>a priori</i> 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 <b>to Survive at all cost</b>, Species crafted Organisms <b>to Conform at all cost</b> 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.<br />
<br />
Other example of contradictory emotions, discussed in the post <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html" target="_blank">Why Shame on Sex</a>, 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 <span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">chastity</span></span>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4z3neYMW-sI/VZa7o7dphTI/AAAAAAAAAx4/ty2fGo5-OMo/s1600/quote-reason-is-and-ought-only-to-be-the-slave-of-the-passions-and-can-never-pretend-to-any-other-david-hume-89382.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4z3neYMW-sI/VZa7o7dphTI/AAAAAAAAAx4/ty2fGo5-OMo/s400/quote-reason-is-and-ought-only-to-be-the-slave-of-the-passions-and-can-never-pretend-to-any-other-david-hume-89382.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
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. <b>This God's Will is the pretty face of the Species' Will</b>, a way to make it benevolent and good while in reality is pervert and crude. Religions' Priests or Species' Supermen, are well embody in <a href="https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin" target="_blank">Rasputin</a>, a Saint at Sight and a Devil out of It, always taking advantage of the inferiority of others!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TH260P4IwA8" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
If the God's Will was really benevolent and good, there wouldn't be so many asking <span class="hps">why</span> <span class="hps">they were abandoned, if Emotions were not contradictory, hardly <span class="hps">someone</span> <span class="hps">become</span> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_skills" target="_blank"><span class="hps">socially</span> <span class="hps">inept</span></a>, and if conformity was not the ultimate purpose of the Species' Will, Outcast would be a word without meaning.</span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vEFScBZh-Iw" width="560"></iframe><br />
Species' Will sees no Blue Blood</div>
SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8949110584776480845.post-58280142035408742712015-06-29T00:37:00.001+01:002016-11-22T04:01:44.355+00:00DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"Life is sacred, and for a good reason. That reason is servitude, servitude to the chosen ones.<br />
<br />
Species are the physical and psychological blueprint of its organisms. That blueprint molded by Natural Selection defines the best fitted Species, meanwhile, species chose their best organisms in accordance to that blueprint. The same way the physical hardware of an organisms has its own purpose, feelings also play its equally decisive rule.<br />
<br />
As saw before <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/species-will-on-as-natural-as-death-of.html" target="_blank">about Sampling</a>, there is a great deal of waste in terms of living organisms. However, Species throughout Natural Selection, adjusted their feelings in an way to avoid complete waste, and more important, to take advantage of it.<br />
<br />
Devotion has a very specific function, devoid the Organism of self interest in favor of the Species interest. Doing so, it produces two results, first increases will pressure to sexual reproduction, allowing a more restricted filter that increases the effect of <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/species-will-on-as-natural-as-death-of.html" target="_blank"> Sampling</a> (in war and love everything is fair), and second maintains a share of organisms willing to serve the chosen ones in exchange of the pleasure of being accepted by them.<br />
<br />
Religions, where devotion is mandatory, the concept of "created at the image of God" is a classic. When it happens, it's important that God itself represents how a male or female should be at the eyes of the Species!<br />
<br />
So for Jesus Crist we have the following male model:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uc_zecEfknw/VXeAaoIB6_I/AAAAAAAAAu0/R-GtlRPhYKc/s1600/Jesus%252520Christ%252520Chelsea.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uc_zecEfknw/VXeAaoIB6_I/AAAAAAAAAu0/R-GtlRPhYKc/s320/Jesus%252520Christ%252520Chelsea.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Despite the <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/" target="_blank">reality</a> being slightly different:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ja8JpNz15Os/VXeAsGxD8PI/AAAAAAAAAu8/iamHg_jL5zg/s1600/54c80aa6d2610_-_face-of-jesus-01-0312-de.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ja8JpNz15Os/VXeAsGxD8PI/AAAAAAAAAu8/iamHg_jL5zg/s1600/54c80aa6d2610_-_face-of-jesus-01-0312-de.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
But who says that Religion is about reality? Religions are Synthesis of Devotion, extensions of the Species Will.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“<i>Let us make man in our image, in our likeness</i>” (Genesis 1:26) </blockquote>
<br />
So, in all religions the figure of God is a important matter. Some religions, like Islam, avoid the problem by simple not showing any face, nevertheless, there is a devoid of individualism <span class="hps">towards collectivism. Humans have the instinct to veneration and subjugation.</span><br />
<span class="hps"></span><br />
<span class="hps">If it's truth that some religions are restricted in human body veneration, others have an history of promoting it. <a href="http://renaissance/" target="_blank">Renaissance</a> and its art is a good example of that body veneration.</span><br />
<span class="hps"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wTAa_kalVaw/VXy6fte7DjI/AAAAAAAAAvk/2v8MZQpxsu8/s1600/David_von_Michelangelo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wTAa_kalVaw/VXy6fte7DjI/AAAAAAAAAvk/2v8MZQpxsu8/s400/David_von_Michelangelo.jpg" width="208" /></a></div>
<span class="hps"></span><br />
<span class="hps">Of course that <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-shame-on-sex.html" target="_blank">Shame on Sex</a> plays its rule here, and the modern veneration of it is more discrete:</span><br />
<span class="hps"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--g992y1leMU/VXy8akYLAVI/AAAAAAAAAvw/uX8oqO1JU3w/s1600/cristiano-ronaldo-statue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--g992y1leMU/VXy8akYLAVI/AAAAAAAAAvw/uX8oqO1JU3w/s320/cristiano-ronaldo-statue.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<span class="hps"></span><br />
Devotion is an instrument of Species to impose servitude trough standardized feelings. The classic example is on Superstars Devotion, where common people is willing to offer them selves to the Superstar without compromises. The brains of common people are cooked to the point of extreme hysteria, including fainting and self mutilation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SN8sFxk1KEU/VXzCYQkyOYI/AAAAAAAAAwA/fTsnwKiN1q4/s1600/0e2855645d90d5064688f188d1f95b92.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SN8sFxk1KEU/VXzCYQkyOYI/AAAAAAAAAwA/fTsnwKiN1q4/s320/0e2855645d90d5064688f188d1f95b92.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CXKPzFgeTK0/VXzLsa8RsbI/AAAAAAAAAwc/bIJBn3TbPvI/s1600/enhanced-buzz-18123-1357590738-11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CXKPzFgeTK0/VXzLsa8RsbI/AAAAAAAAAwc/bIJBn3TbPvI/s400/enhanced-buzz-18123-1357590738-11.jpg" width="342" /></a></div>
<br />
This happens in the best interest of Human Species, because it promotes the greater success of biological superior organisms, where the inferior people is the happy red carpet. This would be impossible if there wasn't a standardized Species Will guiding the entire humanity.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2013/12/justin-bieber-reduces-size-14-fan-to-tears-after-allegedly-calling-her-a-beached-whale" target="_blank">Justin Bieber reduces size 14 fan to tears after allegedly calling her a "beached whale"</a></blockquote>
So, Love is not only about affections is also about exploitation, in this way there is <span class="hps">Affective</span> <span class="hps"></span>Love and Exploitive Love.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Despite reports that the majority of pimps used violence to keep the women in the trade, violence was rarely reported as being used to first get the women into the trade. Instead, most pimps use one or a combination of the following five techniques: (a) love, (b) debt, (c) drugs, (d) the “gorilla” technique, and (e) position of authority. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>Love. Sixteen percent of the prostituted women interviewed described being turned out by a boyfriend or a pimp to which they had an emotional attachment. The seduction process was also described by informants from the Prostitution Offender Program. It appears that pimps were able to convince underage girls to prostitute themselves by pretending to love them.</b> Playing on their vulnerabilities, stereotypes, and insecurities, pimps could distort a young woman’s sense of right and wrong with alarming speed. Several ways that this seduction process could occur were reported but, in most cases, a pimp would scout out a vulnerable, insecure teenager and woo her with attention and gifts. Not only would he wine and dine her, but he would make sure that she was aware of how much money he had been spending on her. Then, after the girl had fallen madly in love with her new ‘boyfriend,’ the pimp told her that they were out of money. Knowing how much money her ‘boyfriend’ had spent on her, the girl felt responsible for the situation and was willing to do anything to help. And so, with the help of her ‘boyfriend,’ the girl found herself prostituting on the corner to bring home some money.</i>" - <a href="http://alexiskennedy0.tripod.com/lab/id21.html" target="_blank">Research Article: Routes of Recruitment into Prostitution</a></blockquote>
The inverse is also true when it comes to servitude of the superior organism, it doesn't matter if women or man, in the end superior biology it's all it matters, with many extremely wealthy man giving their dimes for a pretty woman.<br />
<br />
To know how devotion works out in favor of superior organisms you may read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_S._Hamermesh" target="_blank">Daniel Hamermesh </a>and its "<i><a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9516.html" target="_blank">Beauty Pays</a></i>". There is no need to give examples here, you just need the facts Daniel Hamermesh gives, they are so many that they become boring!<br />
<br />
As shown in <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/06/species-will-on-as-natural-as-death-of.html" target="_blank">SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother"</a>, as more perfection you demand, more samples you need. This means that there is an hierarchy of samples, where less and less samples are at the top, in a logarithmic way. This way biology works like a system of casts, where morals exist to preserve that cast system and serve the biological superior ones. So this cast system may be compared with the Indian cast System, with religion supporting and justifying this hierarchy this Sociobiological Hierarchy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y53DlYy8J0E/VZBrbj0Q8LI/AAAAAAAAAww/bhDIyEDAoOw/s1600/caste-system-in-india.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y53DlYy8J0E/VZBrbj0Q8LI/AAAAAAAAAww/bhDIyEDAoOw/s400/caste-system-in-india.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Sociobiological Hierarchy (analogy)</div>
<br />
As an <b>analogy</b>, the untouchable are all those that Species doesn't want to be reproduced, and so sexually untouchable, where the condition to satisfy their instinct of survival is to serve the upper class. They live in a <a href="http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-evolution-made-souls.html" target="_blank"><b>box of perception</b></a>, where <a href="http://hierarchy%20pyramid/" target="_blank">shame on sex </a>works to maintain that restrained perception. The upper cast, priests, are the ones who make their own rules, deciding how, what and who should be respected.<br />
<br />
The real "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch" target="_blank">Superman</a>" by its superiority is easily capable to become a source of devotion, normally in the universe of arts and culture, like theater, cinema, music and others alike. The common plot is the nonconformity with the social norms, a kind of liberation. However what is really going on, is the exclusive liberation of the Superman by supporting "secondary" rules that specify who is cool, who is a Priest of these new rules, that in reality have nothing new in the way that are just an extension of the old rules. This extension is many times saw as the Evil side of Humans, like a constant slip from Good to Evil. But what it really is, is the allowance of the chosen ones to be over the mainstream moral, and this is why they are associated to a kind of dark side, sometimes as Sweet Evil Figures. All this supported by, and in accordance with, the Species Will!<br />
<br />
Contrary to a clumsy social moral, the Species Moral is much more perverse and subtle. If it is easily to complain about an unjust social system, saying that doesn't give you access to food, shelter, it's a very different deal to complain about beauty, sexuality or vanity. The morality is there to allow just an elite to come out as while as complies with the Species Will.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EucdTiQMuEw/VZB4p8htotI/AAAAAAAAAxA/LLT4seSaW8g/s1600/james-dean-quote-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EucdTiQMuEw/VZB4p8htotI/AAAAAAAAAxA/LLT4seSaW8g/s320/james-dean-quote-1.jpg" width="245" /></a></div>
<br />
The devotion trough the Superman makes him out of critic, any one making a critic is immediately confronted with its terrain cast. "Who are you to say that?" In a world of devotion there is no way to wake up some one whose devotion means devotion of criticism. But the most important of all, is the aggregated will that roller over any critic that makes you realize the Species Will protecting the chosen ones.<br />
<br />
For instance, The Species Will is used in marketing to sell products, where a pretty face is unavoidable. What many see as Capitalism creating a Will, is in reality Capitalism taking advantage of that Will.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2liHBNdIvQ/VZCBfMfIHUI/AAAAAAAAAxQ/ixwN1GITWtE/s1600/scarjo-sodastream.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2liHBNdIvQ/VZCBfMfIHUI/AAAAAAAAAxQ/ixwN1GITWtE/s320/scarjo-sodastream.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Scarlett Johansson signed on as the first-ever “global ambassador” for SodaStream, which sells snazzy home-carbonating technology. </i>- in <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-politics-of-celebrity-ambassadors" target="_blank">The Politics of Celebrity Ambassadors</a><br />
<br />
As far as diversity is allowed to go, is to dress superior organisms with even more mysticism, and so, diversity doesn't go further than a sexy vampire. This system of casts is not compatible with diversity, that is why diversity is the greatest lie that exists to feed the "Perception Box" that imprisons the lower casts, believing that there is value in their difference, while everyone is devoting the same God.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ABhDiXbUaBE" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />SpeciesProtocolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14577219839309264388noreply@blogger.com0