RH: Darwinism Revised

From: Robert Ho (ho3@pacific.net.sg)
Subject: RH: Darwinism Revised
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
Date: 2004-09-26 22:24:00 PST

RH:

1. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the biggest ideas in the
history of mankind. It explains, in one elegant [the best ideas are
always elegant] stroke, how the world came to be and how we came to
be.

2. Today, I would like to append a small idea to his big idea.

3. I read decades ago, that the bat's sonar navigation is so advanced that when scientists strung a wire across the path of flying bats, not a single bat flew into that thin wire, proving that their sonar could indeed detect even the thin wire.

4. The big question is, how did the bat develop such an amazing
faculty?

5. Think about it. For this advanced bat sonar navigation to be so
perfect, several things had to happen simultaneously, the absence of
even one of which would prevent this marvellous faculty from being
developed.

6. For example, bats do have eyes, but probably very inferior ones,
so the first requirement for a bat to develop sonar is to have a
reduced use for 'normal' eyes. This is quite plausible by assuming
that sometime back, bats started living in dark caves where there is
little light to see by with normal eyes, and so, bats needed to
develop an alternative 'sight'. However, the question remains, why
couldn't the bat develop better eyes that can see in the dark, even in dark caves? We know that many animals can see in the almost dark, such as hunter animals like the big cat predators, that have highly
developed night vision. So, why did the bat develop sonar instead of
night vision eyes like some of the big cats? Thus, Mr Darwin fails
here. [It is possible that sonar is better than eyes for catching
flying insects in the almost dark].

7. For the second requirement, the bat has to develop an ultrasonic
squeak that could effectively 'bounce' back from objects [like the
thin wire], the echoes being then received by the bat's highly
sensitive ears, which must be responsive to the sound frequencies of
the bat's squeak -- these ears being the third requirement. Meaning
that the bat's ears had to develop or evolve in tandem to its sonar
squeaks, so both together function like a radar or sonar location
finder.

8. The fourth requirement is for the bat to develop a brain function
that could process the echoed squeaks and create a picture of the
terrain highlighting the obstacles [like the wire] to avoid and
probably even prey flying insects to catch for food.

9. Here comes the punchline : all 4 faculties must be
developed/evolved SIMULTANEOUSLY for the sonar navigation to work.
Even if 1 of the requirements is missing or developed/evolved later,
the bat's sonar navigation will not work.

10. Now, that seems almost impossible if you assume that natural
selection is a hit or miss affair, that is, there are many genetic
changes in every creature and that some of these genetic changes then
prove to be useful for survival and so are preserved by the creature
passing onto to offspring, thus keeping the favourable genes in the
gene pool while unfavourable genetic changes doom the creature that
has it thus leading to an early death or inability to mate and pass on this gene or set of genes.

11. If I remember my Darwin correctly, it does seem that Darwin
postulates that evolution is a hit or miss affair, with favourable
genes being passed on and unfavourable genes dying out, both
naturally, that is, by hit or miss.

12. Could mere chance result in the bat's sonar navigation? Remember
that for the bat to evolve this faculty, at least 4 requirements have
to be developed SIMULTANEOUSLY. Even if 1 of the 4 evolve later than
the others, the faculty would not work and thus, according to Darwin,
the bat/s possessing this would die out and not produce progeny that
would further pass on or refine such a faculty.

13. I now come to my little idea. Which is that evolution is not a
hit or miss affair or due to blind chance but guided by an active
impulse. What I am postulating is that, evolution is not just mere
accidental genetic changes that result in survival advantages to the
bearer and are thus passed on, into the gene pool, but that every time a creature develops a set of skills good for survival, this set of skills or abilities get passed on, even if in a general way.

14. To give an example, perhaps a poor one, what I am saying is that, if David Beckham develops a fine set of footballing skills, and this happens to be good for his survival, these footballing skills get passed onto his progeny. It does not mean that his children will be talented footballers like him, but will possess better than ordinary physical attributes such as hand-eye coordination, physical reaction times, balance, excellent leg skills, etc.

15. I would go further than just physical skills like learned and
mastered football skills. I would even postulate that even cultural
skills such as singing or dancing or PhD research skills also result
in changes to the set of characteristics in the bearer of such skills, and thus get passed on to progeny.

16. There is one simple way to test this hypothesis. If a simple
survey is done, and I am right, it would show that a man who fathered
children when young [meaning that he has not mastered any important
skills important for survival] would have pretty ordinary children
compared to say, a PhD scholar who had children long after he had
learned and mastered his faculty/faculties. To use Beckham again, if
Beckham had fathered children when in his teens, say, and again
fathered children after he became a top footballer, then his children
from AFTER his mastery of footballing would be better physical
specimens than his children fathered when Beckham was young and had
not achieved his peak, all other things being equal.

17. A quick survey comparing the children of old fathers to the
children of young fathers would show, if I am right, that old fathers, who would have had more time to master a physical or intellectual or even a cultural skill like music, etc, produce children more gifted in the same general area than young dads.

18. Note that I use the example of fathers. Not mothers. There is a
reason. A woman, even from the day of birth, already has all the eggs
that she would ever produce. This means that her egg-carried genes are fixed already from the time of her birth and therefore cannot carry 'learned' skills like footballing [in Beckham's case], even if the woman egg-carrier were to learn to kick footballs as well as Beckham.

19. On the other hand, males keep producing and expending millions of sperm all the time. This means that, according to my hypothesis, males are responsible for the rapid evolution of the human race, and not females. When a male masters a skill or learns to use his brain in a new way, his sperm changes to carry that new skill or brain
achievement. Perhaps not by way of genetic changes in the sperm but in some as yet undiscovered X-Factor, maybe even in the proteins that
seem to hold much of a person's character and even physical
development. If I am right, males hold the key to evolution and not
females.

20. From Cave Man to Robert HO is just about 10,000 years, or about
200 generations, if we take a generation to be 50 years. 200
generations is very, very short to develop from Cave Man to Robert HO. Yet it has been done. Could hit or miss blind chance evolution
depending on accidental changes to genes accomplish this feat? I don't think so. If I am right, each time a Cave Man learns something new, like, initially, a better way to hunt animals, or later, a better way of using his brain, etc, this even cultural skill gets passed on to his progeny to become part of the gene pool.

21. If I am right, there is not only hope for mankind but also some
suggestions of some important policies for governments. For example,
if learned attributes like say, a talent for music composition, or
mathematical skills, etc, can all be passed on to future generations
in a general way, it does seem good to encourage all individuals to
excel in some areas, whatever it may be.

22. Incidentally, my theory does explain why many skills are seen in
the children of exceptional parents, usually the fathers. Again,
another simple survey could help prove my point, which is that many
cultural skills tend to be passed on from fathers, not mothers. A
survey could show whether children of gifted fathers tend to be more
gifted than children from gifted mothers.

23. One aspect of Darwin's theory is that of survival of the species, not just the individual. We have come very far in just 200
generations. Imagine where we would be in another 200 generations. My
theory suggests that such active impulse in improving the species is
what brought us here so fast. My theory is different from Darwin's in
that Darwin suggests blind chance as the key to our development while
I suggest that an individual's active impulse is the key to the
individual's as well as his species' survival and triumphant
development. Ultimately, my theory is a theory of hope. It says that
the fate of mankind is in our hands, not blind chance, not hit or
miss. And if you think about it, isn't this the most important
development in our species' survival and triumph, that this 'active
impulse' is exactly what the human race has developed as the ultimate
survival mechanism? And what brought us here so far so fast?

Robert HO
27 Sep 04 1320
Singapore
http://groups.google.com/groups?start=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=soc.culture.singapore&selm=c443dfe.0409262123.62226538%40posting.google.com

Footnote 14Aug2010: Without elaboration, explanation or argument, I aver:
a. we inherit almost everything from a parent that we are almost clones of that parent
b. we inherit not only physical characteristics but also character, temperament, inclinations, personality, everything
c. we even inherit physical oddities or deformities our parent may have gotten in injuries or accidents but sometimes transversed left to right or vice versa
d. sons are clones of fathers and daughters are clones of mothers