We need more (thousands?) of hypotheses. Could the opportunity for mutation acting in tandem on single cell organisms with fitness selection be expanded radically (exponentially?) by interplanetary “seeding “ through comets or asteroids? Could there be truth in this “multiverse” theory?
Is it just possible that the genes for new species lie dormant in quite common species we know today?
Could they be activated by stressors in times of environmental change, although this would presumably be noticed by humans in today’s world today’s world is quite young.
In a former life Dawkins would have burned heretics at the stake. Why demand absolute faith in a multitude of possible falsehoods when there’s greater satisfaction in knowing a single truth, with a nod to wonderful weddings and happy honeymoons - love perhaps? Is it ok to evolve from childish thoughts to a grown up appreciation of this world, reluctant to lose a good metaphor along the way!
Well put! The implications of evolutionary psychology are indeed bleak... If the "fitness" of a human being is determined by how many offspring they leave behind, it is in a man's interest to impregnate the maximum number of females. As for a female, it is in her interest to obtain the best quality genes she can obtain from sperm donor and then dupe some other guy into helping her raise the resulting offspring... Or at least that's what evolutionary psychology teaches us to expect.
But that's a subject for another day.
I want to note quickly that I've been careful not to use Darwinism and "evolution" interchangeably. Evolution itself simply means change, and natural selection is self-evidently true, to a certain extent. There are also some evolutionary theorists I very much like, most notably Sarah Hrdy, author of Mothers and Others. But the Neo-Darwinism which is promoted by Richard Dawkins has very little to do with science. It is a weird kind of cult. And it isn't marginal at all. It is the favoured view of evolutionary theory both in academia and in popular perception. So if that's what we're talking about, I'm dead-set against "the theory of Evolution". But I'm more to willing to entertain other evolutionary theories.
We need more (thousands?) of hypotheses. Could the opportunity for mutation acting in tandem on single cell organisms with fitness selection be expanded radically (exponentially?) by interplanetary “seeding “ through comets or asteroids? Could there be truth in this “multiverse” theory?
Is it just possible that the genes for new species lie dormant in quite common species we know today?
Could they be activated by stressors in times of environmental change, although this would presumably be noticed by humans in today’s world today’s world is quite young.
Interesting stuff.
In a former life Dawkins would have burned heretics at the stake. Why demand absolute faith in a multitude of possible falsehoods when there’s greater satisfaction in knowing a single truth, with a nod to wonderful weddings and happy honeymoons - love perhaps? Is it ok to evolve from childish thoughts to a grown up appreciation of this world, reluctant to lose a good metaphor along the way!
Well put! The implications of evolutionary psychology are indeed bleak... If the "fitness" of a human being is determined by how many offspring they leave behind, it is in a man's interest to impregnate the maximum number of females. As for a female, it is in her interest to obtain the best quality genes she can obtain from sperm donor and then dupe some other guy into helping her raise the resulting offspring... Or at least that's what evolutionary psychology teaches us to expect.
But that's a subject for another day.
I want to note quickly that I've been careful not to use Darwinism and "evolution" interchangeably. Evolution itself simply means change, and natural selection is self-evidently true, to a certain extent. There are also some evolutionary theorists I very much like, most notably Sarah Hrdy, author of Mothers and Others. But the Neo-Darwinism which is promoted by Richard Dawkins has very little to do with science. It is a weird kind of cult. And it isn't marginal at all. It is the favoured view of evolutionary theory both in academia and in popular perception. So if that's what we're talking about, I'm dead-set against "the theory of Evolution". But I'm more to willing to entertain other evolutionary theories.