Enhanced evolution

LanDroid · Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:56 pm Post subject: Enhanced evolution

Looking at the book as a whole, one idea Bloom should have emphasized more was that considering evolution as a system larger than the force of a selfish gene does not contradict individual selection or the theory of evolution itself. Looking at a bigger picture actually strengthens the theory of evolution by showing how natural and social forces, in addition to random mutations and individual gene selection enhance and accelerate the process of evolution. Some of these enhancements could be summarized briefly as follows.

Some bacterial species, by communicating and operating as a system rather than as individuals, are capable of redesigning their genome to solve intractable problems. Recall Eshel Ben-Jacob and his studies of e. coli and other bacteria that can design mutations to effectively turn poisons into food. This accelerated change could lead to huge evolutionary leaps very quickly.

Humans have the counter-forces of conformity and diversity. Groups tend to enforce conformity, increasing uniformity of what is desirable. However, "creative bickering" sets in, forcing sub-cultures that do not agree with the dominant culture to separate and even move away in extreme examples. These sub-groups may move into very different environments, North into the Arctic or South to the tropics, which select against the group in different ways from the environment they left.

The sub groups develop different ideas of what is desirable in beauty, aggression, sociability, and many other characteristics. Genes that support these desires are enhanced, others are repressed. The social aspects of the sub-culture reward genes in different ways from the group they left. Differences are accentuated - recall the anthropologist who found that penis shape and breast size were affected when groups became separated over time. Through isolation, different environmental variables, and cultural differences in gene selection, the gene pools of sub-groups diverge. This divergence is enhanced and accelerated compared to stasis, i.e. if "creative bickering" had not caused groups to split away.

Some societies were much less conformist than others. This spawned more diversity, allowing individuals with similar eccentricities and fetishes to group together. However, the sub-cultures still competed for dominance in the society. Those who succeeded in this more open inter-dependent society were rewarded and tended to pass on more progeny than others – “Homo isolatus became homo commercialis.”

Inter-group tournaments bring in another level of selection. Conquered people were forced to conform to the dominant culture. Groups with military or genetic advantages frequently extinguished sub-groups with different ideas, genetics, or technology. Recall from both Jared Diamond and Howard Bloom how "Native Americans" were separated from the rest of the world for 11,000 years and so did not develop immunity to smallpox and other diseases - 90% of the population was wiped out on that factor alone. We will never know if the victims of that genocide had other genetic advantages that could have benefited human evolution.

I take it from previous conversations that those who reject Bloom's arguments and hold fast to selfish genes and individual selection think these effects are either illusory or trivial. Considering the Native American situation alone handles both of those reservations - a 90% population loss due to lack of immunity to a specific organism transmitted by other humans is certainly not trivial.

Again, as I started out, these considerations should not be seen as an attack or a replacement, but as an enhancement to the theory of evolution. Some of these systemic forces reduce the evolutionary dependence on pure chance, deflecting the gnattering about monkeys, typewriters, and Shakespeare. Some of these systems also accentuate differences and accelerate change, further bolstering the overall theory…

ZachSylvanus · Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:04 pm Post subject: Extraordinairy claim?

I really want to know if anyone has repeated Ben-Jacob's findings....because it seems to me that the claim of bacteria essentially controlling their evolution is a fairly extraordinairy. Even with chemical signalling, I don't see any method short of just activating existing genes with a messenger system that would be a viable claim in biology. Perhaps it's just that I don't understand what Bloom is getting at.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT