Sociobiology 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. Even worst, 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 Noble Savage opposed to the Civilized Man is a good example...
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, 99% are satisfied 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...
In reality your Free Will is restricted by the Image's Will (the Will of the Species), and accordingly to your conformity your Free Will is more or less Free.
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 commitment of accepting their rule in their Sociobiological Hierarchy.
The Image of our Conscience (Consciousness), 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 normally doesn't do more harm than a broken keyboard or a smashed phone.
Image taking control over Conscience/Consciousness
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.
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).
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 Psychosis, 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 Bipolar disorders. This pressure of the Image over the Conscience, is many times relieved with the use of drugs, Nevertheless the Image always prevails, and the relieve that Conscience had, sooner than later 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.
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.
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 SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother". So that in the end "can't do it" really means it!
On the other hand, the filter is shaped in a form of Shame, 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 Sex segregation in the Division of labor 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.
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 (Gender differences in suicide). Greater but not exclusive to men, like the Suicide of Christine Chubbuck proves!
Normally this frustration leads to devotion and servitude towards the chosen ones, seen as heroes or role models, promoting this way the Sociobiological Hierarchy. However, in cases of extreme frustration, where heroes and role models aren't no more or even seen as what they really are, 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 perpetrators (materialism)!
"The best way to conceive the worst reality, is to see it as it is." - The Author
I am myself influenced by the culture of the Natural Selection primacy. For everything I have write I wold like to adjust one thing, and that thing concerns Evolution trough Sexual Selection.
"The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" - Darwin
The reason that made Darwin sick when it comes to Sexual Selection, had to due with its reasoning being much different of the Natural Selection one, where he could easily show a relationship of cause and effect with the help of fossils and also with the typification of different environments and their relation to physical traits in a given Species.
I will show here that all the Natural Selection theory is just a glimpse of what is really going on, I will show how rudimentary is that theory without Sexual Selection, simple because Sexual Selection is the main force of Evolution in Eukaryotes, and that also is the correction of what I have been saying that Evolution is exclusive to Natural Selection.
"Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other
natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has
sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have
illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a
dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing
its obscurity by its very isolation." - The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality
As I post in The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature), Natural Selection per see isn't able to maintain a Species (Eukaryote), simple because Species are vulnerable to Entropy and so only trough Sexual Selection are able to avoid extinction due to Genetic Meltdown.
From here we can raise a good question, if Sexual Selection is the only one able to avoid Species to become extinct due to Entropy, isn't Sexual Selection the main Evolutionary force when it comes to Eukaryotes.
In Eukaryotes, Species centers the relationship between Sexual and Natural Selection, it represents the result of this two different and normally opposing evolutionary forces.
Returning to our conversation, why is Sexual Selection so problematic, even to Darwin, the God of Evolution trough Natural Selection. The first thing you must realize as to due with Environment, the Environment that works in Natural Selection is not the same Environment working in Sexual Selection.
The first life on earth was shaped only by Natural Selection, the Environment was the External and Physical Environment, whose actions had a direct impact on Evolution. This way, for instance, high and low temperatures, or low and high oxygen levels, shaped different Prokaryotic strains, which causality is easy to grasp and explain.
The problem that Darwin faced however, has to due with Environment identification. In Natural Selection was clear what kind of Environment was that, the planet itself, the mountains, the underground, the rivers and oceans among many other surroundings. Fossils made it clear the close link between that Environment and Species, in conclusion, the Feedback source is easy to identify.
In Sexual Selection the scenario is quite different, because first of all, there isn't a well identified source of feedback for this Selection, and thus all given explanations start with the killing expression "for some reason".
"In the past when peacocks had ordinary colour and length tails, peahens
(for some reason) showed a preference to mate with males with slightly
longer and more flamboyant than average tails. Thus, the characteristic
of slightly longer, more brightly coloured tails would be passed on to
the next generation and over many generations the peacocks' tails would
become longer and brighter. Thus, the ornate tail gives such an
advantage in terms of mating success that it is selected for despite
being a disadvantage in terms of general survival." - Darwin and Sexual Selection
This is the Darwin's struggle, struggle to find the Feedback Source for Evolution based on Sexual Selection, and he knew it that the "some reason" was not a reason at all! Other big problem, and not so evident, is how to be sure that a trait credited to Natural Selection is not in fact due to Sexual Selection. This last problem is so corrosive that Evolutionists go straight to the Natural Selection explanation for any given trait, running away from what scares them most, Sexual Selection!
In Eukaryotes we have two different Selections, so is not far fetched to assume two different Environments. The first Environment, the only one that Darwin recognized, is the Feedback source of Natural Selection. The second Environment, different from the first, is the Feedback source of Sexual Selection. So, the first step here is identify and define this second Environment.
Natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species. Climate, weather, and natural resources that affect human survival and economic activity.
Second Environment (Sexual)
Sexual interaction between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image defined at the respective Species Level.
This second Environment arrives from the interaction between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image, is this second Environment that might be responsible for the great majority of traits in Eukaryotes, something that will forcefully change the way we think Evolution has been done. If Natural Selection isn't the main force that has been shaping Eukaryotes, then the actual evolutionary rhetoric centered in Natural Selection made so popular need to be refrained and reviewed.
This second Environment is the Cognition of Organisms in a form of a Cognitive Sexual Image, that despite being very normalized is prone to deviations and has it its own Evolution. Brains are greatly allocated to Sexual Matting. Humans are a good example of that, much of a human time is dedicated to discuss sexual issues, and despite all social restrictions, Sexual Attractiveness is king in human interactions and conversations, for the best and for the worst (to Species is always for the best), an overwhelming obstinacy that for sure is not exclusive to Humans. In this strictly Eukaryotic Environment, sexual identification, fetishism, inherited sexual attraction, idealized perfection among others are the logic support for Evolution trough Sexual Selection.
Darwin didn't saw this Cognitive Sexual Image, that encompasses the ideal Physical and Physiologic blueprint before its materialization in a real body. Is the Evolution of this Image that leads trough Sexual Selection to the Evolution of the Real Existent Body and Mind. We may say that the existence of this eccentric Image proves its own Evolutionary advantage. The simple fact of having an ideal Organism before its existence in a form of Cognition is a major Evolutionary force when it comes to Sexual Selection. The big problem with the Evolution of the Cognitive Sexual Image, is that contrary to the physical Evolution trough Natural Selection, there is no way to have fossils or records of this Abstract Image living in Animals' Brains.
At this moment you may ask if this Cognitive Sexual Image is not a way of sweep under thecarpet, because the question remains, if not the real Organism but a Cognition, what did cause the evolution of that Cognition in the first place? Here is where "for some reason" makes sense! Because the Cognitive Sexual Image, contrary to the physical Organism, is not bonded to Genes, is not hardwired to the physical restrictions of an existent and real organism. The Cognitive Sexual Image is an abstraction from the Physical world and so is able to reflect an ideal that accordingly with its success might or might not trigger the respective Evolution ot the real Organism trough Sexual Selection. The prove of the existence of this Cognitive Sexual Image comes from the disparity between the Ideal Organism and the Real one... So the Real Organism is not perfect just because its degree of biological inferiority due to entropy, but also, because the utopian characteristic of the Cognitive Sexual Image!
Evolution trough Sexual Selection is a tool that Species uses to obtain the best of its Organisms accordingly to the optimal system of sexual reproduction. So, accordingly to a predefined spectrum of Sexual preferences, more successful organisms in the Species' System may induce different Sexual Traits on that System. In this system, there is a full Cognitive Sexual Image of how a Female and a Male must be, and how it must behave. Also in the Human case, every organism is able to spot what is too fat or too skinny, what is too thin or too thick, the right amount of body hair, the right body proportions and even the right skin color (Why we born Racist!), all this accordingly to an Ubiquitous and Standardized perception (Species' Will).
There is however a trade off with Natural Selection, when a Sexual promoted trait represents a real handicap, Natural Selection will restrain its Evolution (and vice versa), in Humans, a possible example is armpit hair, where the Cognitive Sexual Image isn't the same of the existing human body.
Because it collides with my Cognitive Sexual Image!
When the ideal body image is different of the existing body, a Sexual Selection pressure rises, and Evolution is the result. The reason for this difference between Image and Reality might be caused by Sex Identification, where body air in a woman gives the sexual repulsive and contradictory sign of being a man. Nevertheless, the point is that Cognitive Sexual Image is the Evolutionary feedback source of Sexual Selection, something clearly difficult to encompass in a fossil or reproduce in a simple cause and effect scheme.
Considering that traits resultant of Sexual Selection exist to favor the respective Species, some traits might exist to reinforce a sociobiological hierarchy accordingly to the biological quality of its Organisms. Same to say, make rulers out of superior organisms, and slaves from inferior ones. All this accordingly to what I have told in DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God".
So, Sexual Evolution might be the cause of thick red lips in humans as it might be the cause of laugh, scorn, prejudice, facial blushing, shame and many others... All in the Species best interest!
Evolutionists that search in Natural Selection all the traits that can find, don't realize that some traits are intended to prejudice the Organism in favor of the Species. So scorn and disrespect together with laugh may work in favor of the Species, mainly when its purpose is to diminish the respective inferior organisms in the sociobiological hierarchy. When someone hasn't a body accordingly to the Cognitive Sexual Image, the existing differences will be used to keep that someone in the right place of the hierarchy, while on the other hand, the superior one that is closest to that Cognitive Sexual Image is able to dictate and forge how others must behave and stay, all that with the Species' sponsorship at the top of the sociobiological hierarchy.
This way, if cognition can't be disassociated from Sexual Selection, this is a good clue to how volatile and unphysical this second Environment is.
"Complex brains evolved much earlier than previously thought, as evidenced by a 520-million-year-old fossilized arthropod with remarkably well-preserved brain structures. Representing the earliest specimen to show a brain, the fossil provides a "missing link" that sheds light on the evolutionary history of arthropods, the taxonomic group that comprises crustaceans, arachnids and insects." - Cambrian fossil pushes back evolution of complex brains
If Complex Brains are the main feedback of Evolution trough Sexual Selection, Cambrian Explosion might be more due to Sexual Selection that Natural Selection, supporting the Complexity Threshold. In this moment you might find a contradiction, how Sexual Selection may be the main source of the Cambrian Explosion and at the same time reduces Diversity. Again, Diversity and Evolution aren't the same thing, you have Speciation, from one Species trough Speciation you are able to have two or more completely different Species, and also, the same Species may simple evolve and despite that become even less diverse! More Species doesn't mean that they are more diverse, it simple means that they are in greater number. To know more about Diversity see my post The myth of Diversity in a error-prone Environment. And as in my post The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature), Natural Selection is balanced with Sexual Selection trough a process of Induction allowing faster and fitter adaptations to the existing first Environment type.
When it comes to Evolution, the Second Environment has a much stronger feedback that the First one, and so, Sexual Selection is much more powerful that Natural Selection in promoting it.
"Sexual selection is responsible for the evolution of male ornaments and armaments, but its role in the evolution of cognition—the ability to process, retain and use information—is largely unexplored. Because successful courtship is likely to involve processing information in complex, competitive sexual environments, we hypothesized that sexual selection contributes to the evolution and maintenance of cognitive abilities in males. To test this, we removed mate choice and mate competition from experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster by enforcing monogamy for over 100 generations. Males evolved under monogamy became less proficient than polygamous control males at relatively complex cognitive tasks. When faced with one receptive and several unreceptive females, polygamous males quickly focused on receptive females, whereas monogamous males continued to direct substantial courtship effort towards unreceptive females. As a result, monogamous males were less successful in this complex setting, despite being as quick to mate as their polygamous counterparts with only one receptive female. This diminished ability to use past information was not limited to the courtship context: monogamous males (but not females) also showed reduced aversive olfactory learning ability. Our results provide direct experimental evidence that the intensity of sexual selection is an important factor in the evolution of male cognitive ability." - Male cognitive performance declines in the absence of sexual selection
Once you understand that Cognition in Eukaryotes is the main source of Evolution trough Sexual Selection in Animals (Eukaryotes), and Humans evolved mainly due to Sexual Selection, it will become clear that Darwin Died when Cambrian Explosion Started! The real world is much more perverse and relentless that the one envisioned by Darwin. In conclusion, blessed are the Prokaryotes that live under the basic laws of Darwin.
"Only one thing oppresses and manipulates the entire humanity, that thing is the Species and its Will" - The Author
Galileo Galilei now seen as a revolutionary figure from the scientific point of view, it was in its time, a blasphemous that dare to say the most ridiculous thing, that earth was not in the center, but the sun instead. Nowadays, the Red Queen paradigm is the same as that centuries ago, where clamming diversity as the reason of Sexual Selection, is the same as it was, that earth doesn't move, and yet it moves!
"A recent discovery made international headlines when published in Science in March 2008, announcing the discovery of the origin of sex. The paper, by Mary Droser and Jim Gehling, described a new kind of organism from the Ediacara site, which they named Funisia. Funisia was a worm-like tubular organism, the fossils of which are found abundantly at the Ediacara sites, so much so that different stages of its growth can be studied and measured in detail.
Droser and Gehling identified that these organisms were budding off ‘sprats’, or juveniles from the adults, which were all at a similar growth stage. Hence instead of shedding or budding asexually (shedding identical clones of itself), as expected for primitive organisms of this period, it is likely that the ‘sprats’ developed all at the same time due to an act that began them all: sex.
Put simply, if they were budding asexually then a wider range of sizes would be expected in the juveniles. The fact that they were always at the same size suggested an act that was timed, a mutual shedding of sperm and eggs into the water, such as occurs for corals." - From Cosmos
In the Abstract of the previously referred article, it's written:
"The most abundant taxon of the Neoproterozoic soft-bodied biota near Ediacara, South Australia, occurs as clusters of similarly sized individuals, which suggests synchronous aggregate growth by spatfall. Tubes of Funisia dorothea gen. et sp. nov. were anchored within the shallow, sandy sea bed and lived in dense, typically monospecific concentrations. Tubes were composed of modular, serially repeating elements. Individuals grew by adding serial elements to the tubular body and by branching of tubes. Their construction and close-packed association imply likely affinity within the Porifera or Cnidaria. These data suggest that several of the most successful marine invertebrate ecological strategies known today were in place in Earth's oldest known metazoan ecosystems before the advent of skeletonization and widespread predation." - From Synchronous Aggregate Growth in an Abundant New Ediacaran Tubular Organism
Well, it's obvious that all this synchronous is argued as the timing, and not as the form, of Sexual Reproduction. As it's said, you simple have groups of organisms that started their growth at the same time (same size individuals). However, all the Similarity, the Clustering, and the Synchronous nature of Sexual Reproduction should ring a simple idea, that this Clustering is the true Origin of Species. And yet it clusters!
BBC - David Attenborough's First Life - See 46:16.
In the People arena, there is the supposed knowledge about evolution that has been used as argument for a serie of events that intended to prove, or justify. People think that, for example, a systematic selection in an competitive environment is a good example of Natural Selection. This kind of survival of the fittest is in my opinion, the Greatest Lie that persists, because is one that supports as Natural something that isn't.
In a complex environment, or reality, Natural Selection isn't the systematic, or competitive actor, Sexual Selection is. So, in a complex world, systematic selection is Sexual Selection accordingly to a logic, or abstraction, that in reality, is the only product of the so argued Natural Selection. However, in the best interest of that logic, or abstraction, it's important that the competitors, or elements, fighting for its acceptance, believe in their competition as a sort of Natural Selection, were in fact, is Sexual Selection. This is the picture of the Greatest Lie.
"After the origin of eukaryotes the next transition suggested by Maynard Smith is the origin of sex. Sexual reproduction, the sharing of genes between two individuals to produce offspring, is normally viewed as a primary character trait of all eukaryotes. There are many eukaryote species that can reproduce asexually, but there are only a few that must reproduce asexually, and in those cases it is usually clear that they stem from sexual ancestors - They have given up sex, rather than never having had it in the first place." - Tim Lenton, Andrew Watson, 2001, Revolutions that Made the Earth
Next we will see the differences traditionally used to distinguish eukaryotes from prokaryotes listed by Mayrd.
In the end, it will be obvious that Sexual Selection is like a wedge, maintaining the achieved evolution and encapsulating the entropy of Natural Selection inside the organism's layer. In this way, the achieved evolution is protected at the cost of wasted organisms, washing away any entropy from Natural Selection. However, this view stills very oppressed, because Natural Selection exclusivity is the spine of the contemporaneous philosophy, serving the status quo.
But this is supposed to be for the Folks' eyes, right? Yes, it is. And so, I draw my own table to make clear what is and what isn't Natural Selection in a complex environment, a table that works as an instrument to avoid folks being fools.
The first question you should make about yourself is, are you an organism? Now, even if you made part of a very strict military selection, for a special force, you may be made to think in that selection as Natural Selection. But think a little more, where is the Logic? Is the military soldier the Logical or the Physical element? The answer is simple, the soldier is the physical element. But where is the logical one? Well, the process of military selection itself is the logical element. Is the criteria for the "good soldier" that in the future will be Natural Selected, not the soldier itself, the last one was Sexual Selected in the past, in a systematic way!
Now the Greatest Truth. Your condition of organism, no matter the species you belong to (obviously one), puts you in a state of systematic testing. Because you belong to the physical world, evolution for you is an unachievable thing, the only thing that achieved something was the Species. This Greatest truth is a dramatic one when it comes to organisms, it's the drama of systematic provision of your good will for what the species it's concern, a provision that isn't meant to be definitely achievable, except for the logical element, the species itself.
But there is more, it's not only how the organism is made, it's also what that same organism wants. Think a little, what is connecting organisms that makes them wish essentially the same? Do you think that, because something is thought in an common way turns out to be a fact? Think in optical illusion, is not that common in humans? The conclusion is obvious, your will comes from the species, your feelings of reward or regret are constructions that are to much common to be really yours.
For those organisms that make questions about the meaning of life, and about the path to happiness, here is the answer:
"Life is waste, and happiness relief."
Is this pessimist? Well, all depends, if are the species commanding the organisms or vice versa. Until now, the species have been ruling with no exception.
A Good Soldier like a Good Specimen under the Species' Eyes
Some people truly become annoyed with the following What Ifs:
What if speciation is more than an handy classification?
What if speciation is an acquired skill?
What if Sexual Selection is the mechanism of that skill?
Those people say that I'm completely wrong, and that I do not understand what a Species is. In their opinion:
"Species are only a human construction that is convenient for us humans to understand the world, but which has no special biological value."
However, I show some quotes that surely those people are unaware:
"The appearance of sexual reproduction i.e., syngamy, genetic recombination and meiosis has long been considered a major evolutionary threshold, giving rise to a fundamental increase in variation (Schopfetal. 1973), a novel ability to remove deleterious mutations (Muller 1964), and indeed ‘‘true’’ species and speciation (Stanley 1975). The presence of at least two distinct spore-producing phases in Bangiomorpha, and their close comparison to sexual phases in modern Bangia, presents a convincing case for eukaryotic sex by at least ca. 1200 Ma." - in Bangiomorphapubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/ Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes
and another one:
"Sexual reproduction predominates among organisms mainly because most evolutionary change is concentrated in speciation events, and asexual species cannot speciate in the normal sense. Asexual clones seldom diversify rapidly enough to overcome normal rates of extinction. In contrast, phylogenetic groups of sexual species (clades) commonly develop broad, heterogeneous adaptive zones rapidly enough to ensure survival." - in Clades versus clones in evolution: why we have sex
and last but not least:
"For over a century, the paradigm has been that sex invariably increases genetic variation, despite many renowned biologists asserting that sex decreases most genetic variation. Sex is usually perceived as the source of additive genetic variance that drives eukaryotic evolution vis-Ã -vis adaptation and Fisher's fundamental theorem. However, evidence for sex decreasing genetic variation appears in ecology, paleontology, population genetics, and cancer biology. The common thread among many of these disciplines is that sex acts like a coarse filter, weeding out major changes, such as chromosomal rearrangements (that are almost always deleterious), but letting minor variation, such as changes at the nucleotide or gene level (that are often neutral), flow through the sexual sieve." - in Sex reduces genetic variation: a multidisciplinary review
Modern mature (multiseriate) Bangiaatropurpurea in transverse cross-section. A–C, Asexual/vegetative filament showing the radially arranged wedgeshaped cells. D, Portion of female plant showing the 8–16 fertilized carpospores produced by each wedgeshaped cell. E, Portion of male plant showing the ca. 128 spermatia produced by each wedge-shaped cell. Redrawn from Garbaryetal. 1980.
This will be the last post of the series of 4. Today I will try to close this subject about species.
In the post about the Cambrian Mystery, there is a very important thing that was not talked about. Today I want to show that life has a real cancer, this cancer has its roots in the entropic physical world. Nowadays, entropy in evolution is a no man's land. Here the Classic Evolutionist has little to say, for him mutations take millions of years where the deleterious ones are minimized by Natural Selection.
What you don't see a Classic Evolutionist doing, is answer the following questions:
How can Natural Selection minimize frequent day by day deleterious mutations being a very slow process?
If denovo deleterious mutations are so frequent, why aren't called entropic mutations?
To have an idea of the amount of this deleterious mutations, we may refer the numbers from the CDC showing America's leading types of birth defects. Researchers looked at the U.S. rate of birth defects from 1999-2001.
Here's the list of the six major types of birth defects covered in the CDC's report, along with the number of babies per year born with those conditions:
Genetic defects (Down syndrome and other conditions): 6,916 babies per year;
Musculoskeletal defects (including arm/leg defects): 5,799 babies per year;
Stomach/intestinal defects: 2,883 babies per year;
Eye defects: 834 babies per year.
Birth defects are the leading cause of infant death and contribute substantially to long-term disability, the CDC reports.
As we can see in the following graphic, the incidence of this kind of diseases is more or less the same along time, something that make us suspect of its systematic character, something that strongly indicates limitations intrinsic to the reproduction system.
In this case, not even Chernobyl can compete with age when it comes to cause birth defects.
"In terms of the sheer number of cases, genetic factors are the most important cause of congenital anomalies. It has been estimated that they cause approximately one third of all birth defects (see Fig. 19-1) and nearly 85% of anomalies with known causes. Any mechanism as complex as mitosis or meiosis may occasionally malfunction; thus, chromosomal aberrations are common and are present in 6% to 7% of zygotes. Many of these early embryos never undergo normal cleavage to become blastocysts. The changes may affect the sex chromosomes, the autosomes, or both (chromosomes other than sex chromosomes). In some instances, both kinds of chromosome are affected. Persons with chromosomal abnormalities usually have characteristic phenotypes, such as the physical characteristics of infants with Down syndrome. Numerical and structural changes occur in chromosome complements." - in Before We Are Born, Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud
Fig. 19-1: Aneuploidy - a deviation from the human diploid number of 46
Here the Classic Evolutionist supports Natural Selection exclusivity arguing that the severity of the previous anomalies have a serious effect on health, making impossible the achievement to the reproductive age, and so, minimizing this anomalies in the gene pool. However, they don't have nothing to say about the systematic character of this anomalies.
But even with the argument of the reproductive age we have problems, for instance, if we include the children up to 2-year-old, we have an increase of incidence of birth defects from 3% to 6%! And in the case of including the up to 5-year-old children we have 8% of incidence, due to the fact of some birth defects being only detectable at upper age. And more can be said:
"Congenital anomalies may be single or multiple and of major or minor clinical significance. Single minor anomalies are present in approximately 14% of neonates. Anomalies of the external ear, for example, are of no serious medical significance, but they indicate the possible presence of associated major anomalies. For example, the presence of a single umbilical artery alerts the clinician to the possible presence of cardiovascular and renal anomalies." - in Before We Are Born, Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud
Those minor anomalies doesn't necessarily diminishes the population at fertile age, making Natural Selection exclusivity a little bit limited.
Now that we start to realize that Entropic Nature aren't a far-fetched idea, we can see it as a barrier to the development of complex organisms as explained in the following graphic:
Per-site mutation rate versus genome size for CChMVd and other biological entities
"These primitive replicons would also resemble hammerhead viroids in their extremely error-prone replication. Thus, our results support the notion that the emergence of replication fidelity mechanisms was central to the evolution of complexity in the early history of life." - in Extremely High Mutation Rate of a Hammerhead Viroid by Selma Gagoetal.
Complexity is an important issue, and so, it's unsurprisingly that human activities, like production, have to solve the same problems as those that from the beginning undermined life's complexity.
In the end of the 20st century, increased complex products, like chips, demanded a new and more strict kind of quality control. The old 3 Sigma became obsolete to this new increased complexity, and for those new extremely complex products, like mobile phones, computers, and other electronic devices, was drafted the new 6 Sigma, resulting in 3.4 defects per million items, something that makes nature blush of shame. Not so much? Yes, you are right!
We should not misunderstand life. Organisms are of an extremely and unimaginable complexity and incomparable with the most complex devices ever made. However, my point isn't about increased conformity, it's more about the need for a new form of reproduction, the Sexual Reproduction in life.
Because the Classic Evolutionist lives obsessed with the sexual dimorphism, that in fact is no more than a curiosity, he became a passionate to the point of believing in this sexual dimorphism as a prerequisite for sexual selection. For me, sexual dimorphism is just a variable trait specific to the specie, so, you may have great dimorphism, middle dimorphism, low dimorphism and no dimorphism at all (see New Mexico whiptail in Why Sex), and yet, because they are all species, they are all sexual mating organisms (see Why Sex). Now I will exemplify how Sexual Selection blocks Replication Entropy accordingly to that same dimorphism in the next manner:
Sexual Reproduction same as Gaussian Product
Sexual Reproduction same as Gaussian Product, because attractive organisms are more likely to inbred between them, and consequently, produce more offspring. It's up to species to guarantee that organisms, albeit similar in traits, doesn't became able to reproduce if aren't conform to its will (sexual attractiveness).
For the special case of two Gaussian probability densities:
the product density has mean and variance given by:
Those two Gaussian curves represent the distribution of Sexual Attraction (relative to a protocol's blueprint) for each sex. Note that as told before, this is a kind of fitness at the species level, that has nothing to due with environmental fitness. This fitness is all about Sexual Selection (a priori) and nothing about Natural Selection (a posteriori).
For a Classic Evolutionist, Sex is all about diversity, and more diversity. So, it's hard to convince him of Sex as a mechanism of Speciation, as a mechanism of sameness, where inducted diversity is the only diversity, as explained in The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature). But as we can see, Sexual Reproduction reduces variance, because the product of two Gaussian probability densities with variance less than 1 (high levels of replication fidelity), results in a new Gaussian probability function with a reduced variance, reinforcing the Species' Kernel.
Lower variance greater conformity (narrow bell shape)
Asexual vs. sexual reproduction in replication fidelity
If the problem is the expression entropy, we can call it noise, distortion, inefficiency, drift or any other name that essentially means the same, divergence of alignment.
Now we realize that induction is the main tool against entropy, and population number is the fuel of that induction. With low populations induction loses its strength, and the fitness of the organism can't be sexual selected accordingly to the now weakened fitness of the respective specie, because this species starts to act more as a singular organism than a group of them.
There is a miss-intuition that says that genetic homogeneity is the cause of genetic diseases (intrinsic to the organism). But if genetic diseases are distortions how can we say that there is a genetic homogeneity? In fact, it's the other way around. What we have is a distortion trough entropic mutations that become accumulated in the gene pool, and finally, because the mechanism of induction is weakened, those mutations start to being fixed trough genetic drift, and it's this fixation that indicates a greater vulnerability to intrinsic diseases that have never before been able to fixate.
For instance, the Cheetah species accumulated intrinsic genetic diseases, due to low population size able to induce otherwise, and so, it become divergent of its own otherwise normal specie, trough genetic drift and resultant genetic diseases.
By other words, we are assisting to a Population bottleneck, something that doesn't only supports the notion of Species' Kernel, but also the irreversibility of a species opposed to what it happens in the case of a polymorphism, just as supported in all the previous posts (see Inductive Nature).
To end this series of posts, I can add to the second post about the Cambrian Mystery, that the explosion may also happened mainly due to this entropic nature conquered by the new speciation skill, with induction as his essence.
Today I will specify the terms I have been used before. One of the terms are Software. When I say that Sexual Selection it's more about Software than Hardware what I'm really saying?
For Software I mean what Faraday expresses about Matter and its Lines of Force, whose theory holds that all reality is made up of force itself. So, I will explore this Lines of Force to explain speciation.
Next we see stated the following about the The Survival of the Fittest:
"By analogy, it means the survival of the most adapted object to the environment. By induction, it means the survival of the most adapted protocol to the environment induced by its objects." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
Looking to the scheme, we can see that speciation doesn't apply to Prokaryotes. There is a void in the line of species.
In the sentence that follows, we see speciation associated with induction, that supports a take off of a new layer, here called protocol. The organisms aren't considered in an isolated way, the fitness is now made collectively, it's the species the most fitted not the organism, supporting a strict differentiation between organism and specie.
Recognizing this layer of species as a reality, and not just as a mere classification, we are able to frame Sexual and Natural Selection per interfaces. So we have for each interface:
Concept/Protocol: Natural Selection;
Protocol/Object: Sexual Selection.
This view is fundamental for any step further in the explanation of evolution.
Now we will take the concept induction a little further. We will try to construct a good metaphor for this induction idea.
We know that the most efficient way to induce an electric current it's trough a solenoid, or a coil if you prefer. This solenoid is made of loops or turns, where the Inductance (the induced electric voltage) is proportional to the square of the number of loops, and some how to the coil radius.
Solenoid as a group of loops
Now we will construct our metaphor. I stress the word metaphor, to rest no doubts about this reasoning.
In this example we will think in a species of birds and two differing environmental opportunities (small seeds in patch A, large seeds in patch B). This two differing environmental opportunities can result in two polymorphisms or in two species through a speciation process. This environmental opportunities need to be two previously unexplored opportunities, or else, they aren't opportunities at all.
Thinking in the Solenoid metaphor we have the following two scenarios:
1. Polymorphism as a single bended solenoid (specie)
We may argue that there is a Ultimate Limit State beyond which the species breaks up. The line of force comes from the opportunity that resembles a strong magnetic field.
This disruption is well described in the following images:
"In this way, a polymorphism is reversible if, for any case, the associated opportunity ceases its effect. On the other hand, a speciation has its own kernel, ending the previous implication, that is, a speciationis not reversible if, for any case, the associated opportunity ceases its effect." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
In the same article sited before it's stated the following:
"However, there is one thing that I think as a wrong presumption. The presumption that the migration rate leads the speciation, because is another example of bad intuition. In the Fig. 3 of your article, where you correlate migration rate with sigma, there is a clear symmetry. This symmetry reveals a correlation between sigma and migration rate, with the first causing the last! Being so, migration rate is the consequence, and not the cause." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
For the question, in which way it's Sexual Selection the mechanism of speciation? We may answer that Sex; Selects the Fitting of the Organism accordingly to the Fitting of the Specie, which in turn, Fits the Species to the Environmental Opportunity, or metaphorically saying, Inducts the Alignment of the Loop accordingly to the Alignment of the Solenoid, which in turn, Aligns the Solenoid to the Magnetic field. In other words, this opportunity is always expressed on Species, because there is always a significant population of Loops that retain its Fitting as Sexual Fitting.
By other words, Sexual Selection forces the integrity of the Species (Solenoid), not allowing any change by nothing else than an opportunity acting in an aggregated way, and it's exactly because of this aggregated way, that species, instead of polymorphisms, are reversible only by extinction.
So Sexual Selection isn't about diversity as many try to prove! Sexual Selection is about aggregated exploitation of existing opportunities. Sexual Selection doesn't support diversity by itself, Sexual Selection "accepts"aggregated diversity at the cost of an opportunistic exploitation.
For this aggregated diversity, we may even think in the premises of another kind of induction, the mathematical induction. Here we basically need two conditions:
The basis: One chosen organism within one given aggregated diversity represents an opportunistic exploitation;
The inductive step: An opportunistic exploitation by one organism within one given aggregated diversity, implies the same opportunistic exploitation by one other subsequent organism within the same aggregated diversity.
The previous conditions are needed to any specific diversity become dominant in an opportunistic niche.
"Mutation is the resource of information for any species, however, it has to be amplified by an Opportunistic Exploitation to be convergent at the Species level." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
The speciation skill forces the integrity of the species with the respective kernel, so we should expect long periods of stability and short periods of fast change (speciation). In general, we may conclude:
