Translate

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Wouldn't There Be Too Many Destructive Mutations (Compared to the Number of Constructive Ones) Were It not for Oneness as a Guide for Evolution?

Functions needed to succeed better than rivals would not evolve by simple trial and error without too many mistakes made for there to be reason in believing that it could be done without there being extremely many fossils from freaks resulting from all the errors there really would be.Moreover, those changes that do arise, if it is that simple, would mean reproduction from only one individual if that trait is to be passed on to the next step in evolution. For the (rather many, aren't there!?) changes into new species that necessitate more than one change from the former type, there's inheritance in that specific traits for a new species arrive, but would they meet and try to reproduce, those individuals carrying them. Would they see that they can complete each other? How in that case?

And how would the new traits seem to be trustworthy for all the other individual beings of that species, who probably might easily for their own survival feel a need to counteract that new trait that could be superior were it more ordinary. Also, in other ways, why would survival of the fittest not imply that the winners are those who eliminate competition, by whatever methods  -  not at all necessarily fair play!

The answer, I feel, must be that there needs to be some instinct or instincts for actually surviving as a trait. It is seemingly (for me at least) impossible for the traits to survive if they cannot be learned by other individuals of that species  -  and at best of other species as well.The learners of this new trait might have an inability to handle it as easily as the first one to come up with it, which might mean that they rely on this individual being and therefore support its, his or her survival, for the sake of being able to handle the trait well enough for it to support their own survival.

So if you should come up with a new trait, then that trait is to be viewed as good by the environment, or they are likely to reject it, and perhaps you with it. Although this seems, perhaps, to pertain only to none-human creatures or so, it is rather unlikely that there could not be (at least) subconscious rejections of that kind even long humans  -  and similarly among all other kinds of creatures too! It is not possible, per se (is it?), to survive without adaptivity and thereby there are not any means of trying to resist all possible traits that might come up, usually. However, in (oftentimes more or less hiddenly) dogmatic societies, there are clues to having there seem to be nothing for others either in that trait. ...

Either way, survival of the fittest includes the virtue of good ability to do for others what one does for oneself. This is partly what the concept of oneness is about.

I believe the neanderthals would have beat us sapiens in being human if it were not for that oneness was better in the humans! That is, due to some sapiens humans at the time, there was smarter adaption and taking after the abilities of the neanderthals, by supporting their beings enough to learn from empathy. In that sense there actually can be a Lamarckian evolution, and without any, how in the world could there not be extremely many traces of errors for evolutions trial and error!?!?!?

By the way, one reason to believe in the since-long-abandoned theory Lamarckian evolution is the frequent occurrences of exaptation in natural developments of functions in different species. That is evolution seems to copy some functionality for one capacity to fit in with functionality for another capacity  -  oftentimes more than ones. Moreover that seems to happen both between species and within the same individual body (thereby of course within the same species). More than using Lamarckianism for explaining such things, probably one can also believe sensitivity in oneness, and so, is an issue that might be considered more or less adequate for an explanation, too. 

Back to oneness or not, there exist no real good evidence, nor, I believe, even any good real smart indication (Does there?!) for that there can simply emerge life from matter, if there was no life there before it. This I cannot (at the very least not easily) believe it could, since none-living matter doesn't evolve in itself. ... It is not true that evolution seems very academically sound, if it's considered impossible that material life is a manifestation of the life that pre-existed in a none-material form. It is true, however, that it's unproven, as of yet (as far as I know), in an academically sound way, that life could not exist by accident, although Darwinian presenters of it, seem to rely on the soul for presenting evolution as sound and good.

Due to this possibly very great advantage for the empathetic, the savage don't simply rule the planet (which I presume they would due to savagery's might). It is however not true that they cannot at all pertain to oneness, too. It seems to me very certain that a very strong general enthusiasm for oneness of savagery has been observed by religious people and defines their 'devil', the 'fallen angel' 'Lucifer'. Other enthusiasms for savagery can also gain spirit in the evolutionary sense, but they cannot manipulate their way out of loosing empathetic capacity for doing so, it seems.

I do not  -  at all  -  meant by this that we should all be into going to our churches or so, but I do mean that there is a God in that oneness matters in evolution!