My understanding of evolution has been wrong, or incomplete, or simply a misinterpretation.
As I read David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" and research Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" I keep wondering, how did I not come across this understanding of evolution before?
Was I taught the wrong interpretation? Did I somehow make up my own understanding based on what was taught? Or did society's understanding of evolution influence my own? What exactly is, or was, my understanding?
'Survival of the fittest' is usually the first thing I think when the topic of evolution is raised. Underpinning that is the idea that the survival of something like a plant, animal, or insect is what explains why we see certain species around us today. The group of organisms obviously weathered all the storms of life and is thus worthy to be alive in the modern world. Moreover, the various visible features of a species and their corresponding skillsets have been developed, in order to assist in their survival, and is thus passed on from one generation to the next ensuring the group's continued propagation.
I often hear another aphorism, "That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" often applied if an organism is observed to be going through various trials and tribulations. Built into this idea is the assumption that should one have the fortitude to stand up to life's challenges they will not only be stronger, but they will survive.
Again, it's unclear to me how, or why, but I've taken the oft-repeated aphorisms along with their built in societal understandings and made them part of my own programming. Simply put, my belief has been that the ability to survive of a given individual in a particular species naturally passes on the acquired learnings and survival skills to its offspring and thus perpetuates the longevity of that species. In essence, their bloodline will have a larger probability of long term survival.
Except that it's all mostly wrong, or a badly misinterpreted explanation. It's not the individuals or the species that are evolving, but rather the genes themselves, and the manifestation of the genes in the form of a plant, animal or other is in essence, the gene's vehicle for survival. The metaphor I came across recently is that the genes use their specific phenotype as slaves to do their dirty work. Rather than I, or us, controlling how our genes will adapt, in order to perpetuate our survival, the genes are in some sense, the ones in control, and we are merely at their mercy.
Genes mutate, and if that particular gene mutation survives, then there is a good chance it was made for the environment. But this isn't determined unless and until the organism that is expressing the gene is put into the environment and is tested. And so, evolution is not of the fittest persons, or that surviving makes one stronger conferring those traits to offspring ensuring their survival, but that genes are themselves trying to propagate their best, from one generation to the next. The result of survival is the success of a gene to have spread itself through the community.
It is also a common understanding that genes do in fact grant certain skills to their organism so that their chance of survival is improved. However, if a gene has not sufficiently evolved for a given environment then it may be the case that no matter how much one survives, or endures the environment and the conditions in it, it simply may not be sufficient to spread itself and multiply through the species.
This has led to my own mini enlightenment. It's been a perfect reminder to question everything, even my own long held, misguided beliefs, or my own programming. It would seem we are much less in control of our destinies given this view of evolution. Should I, and we, still do our best, and use our will power to evolve? Well, last I checked we are still endowed with the instinct to survive. And it's worth it that we do try, for ourselves, and for society, especially if our survival is the spreading of truth and a better explanation of reality. In 2021, with the availability and accessibility of knowledge, it's critically important that one be capable of changing one's mind, one's understanding of reality. Being able to modify one's worldview is a favorable feature for one's own benefit, as well as others, even if doing so, might not mean my genes intended this for their survival and spread through the species. It at least improves my own life in the here and now, and maybe, others.
Happy New Year!
As I read David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" and research Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" I keep wondering, how did I not come across this understanding of evolution before?
Was I taught the wrong interpretation? Did I somehow make up my own understanding based on what was taught? Or did society's understanding of evolution influence my own? What exactly is, or was, my understanding?
'Survival of the fittest' is usually the first thing I think when the topic of evolution is raised. Underpinning that is the idea that the survival of something like a plant, animal, or insect is what explains why we see certain species around us today. The group of organisms obviously weathered all the storms of life and is thus worthy to be alive in the modern world. Moreover, the various visible features of a species and their corresponding skillsets have been developed, in order to assist in their survival, and is thus passed on from one generation to the next ensuring the group's continued propagation.
I often hear another aphorism, "That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" often applied if an organism is observed to be going through various trials and tribulations. Built into this idea is the assumption that should one have the fortitude to stand up to life's challenges they will not only be stronger, but they will survive.
Again, it's unclear to me how, or why, but I've taken the oft-repeated aphorisms along with their built in societal understandings and made them part of my own programming. Simply put, my belief has been that the ability to survive of a given individual in a particular species naturally passes on the acquired learnings and survival skills to its offspring and thus perpetuates the longevity of that species. In essence, their bloodline will have a larger probability of long term survival.
Except that it's all mostly wrong, or a badly misinterpreted explanation. It's not the individuals or the species that are evolving, but rather the genes themselves, and the manifestation of the genes in the form of a plant, animal or other is in essence, the gene's vehicle for survival. The metaphor I came across recently is that the genes use their specific phenotype as slaves to do their dirty work. Rather than I, or us, controlling how our genes will adapt, in order to perpetuate our survival, the genes are in some sense, the ones in control, and we are merely at their mercy.
Genes mutate, and if that particular gene mutation survives, then there is a good chance it was made for the environment. But this isn't determined unless and until the organism that is expressing the gene is put into the environment and is tested. And so, evolution is not of the fittest persons, or that surviving makes one stronger conferring those traits to offspring ensuring their survival, but that genes are themselves trying to propagate their best, from one generation to the next. The result of survival is the success of a gene to have spread itself through the community.
It is also a common understanding that genes do in fact grant certain skills to their organism so that their chance of survival is improved. However, if a gene has not sufficiently evolved for a given environment then it may be the case that no matter how much one survives, or endures the environment and the conditions in it, it simply may not be sufficient to spread itself and multiply through the species.
This has led to my own mini enlightenment. It's been a perfect reminder to question everything, even my own long held, misguided beliefs, or my own programming. It would seem we are much less in control of our destinies given this view of evolution. Should I, and we, still do our best, and use our will power to evolve? Well, last I checked we are still endowed with the instinct to survive. And it's worth it that we do try, for ourselves, and for society, especially if our survival is the spreading of truth and a better explanation of reality. In 2021, with the availability and accessibility of knowledge, it's critically important that one be capable of changing one's mind, one's understanding of reality. Being able to modify one's worldview is a favorable feature for one's own benefit, as well as others, even if doing so, might not mean my genes intended this for their survival and spread through the species. It at least improves my own life in the here and now, and maybe, others.
Happy New Year!