"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.
I'm starting to be like Darwin, like when people talk about Men from Apes.
When I say that there aren't Asexual Species, people normally forget that I'm taking from granted that only Eukaryotes have species.
Albeit the complains, again, and again, evidences fall in my hands telling me that I'm right, only Eukaryotes have species, because only them have Sexual Selection.
The first one tells you that Sexual Selection promotes Punctuated Equilibrium, like my same conclusion in my post Inductive Nature, and the second one ends up making the following statement:
"Thus definition of species on this basis is not adequate for assessing the functional diversity of prokaryotic communities."
This last one, subscribes my post Why Sex, where I say:
"The placed pieces of the classic view do not solve the puzzle, because they are wrongly positioned in the next way:
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
