I've been thinking about evolution a lot lately, as the natural selection theory (while certainly true) does not jive with my mathematical intution. Of course, my intuition could be wrong, but I've been considering alternate ideas that could hopefully provide a theoretical framework to start the process of observation, hypothesis, etc.
I'd appreciate thoughts on where my ignorance might be misleading me, etc., and how these ideas have been contemplated by more qualified evolutionary thinkers.
1. An Alternative View of "Intelligence" in Nature
This is really more of a philosophical explaination of my biases than a real point...
One of the things that bothers me about the ID concept is that I'm unclear what exactly is meant by "intelligence". It seems to me to be presently more of a philosophical concept as opposed to an empirical one.
That being said, I'm manifestly bias against materialism. While I don't have "faith" in the notion, I tend to think that there is some type "mind" that is an important mystery to be understood in science. Of course intelligence could just be a function of matter, but I'm inclined to believe the evidence points in another direction.
I'm not arguing that I have a precise definition of "mind". I view it as sort of an umbrella term of unknowns covering consciousness, intelligence, choice and powers of observation.
But it seems there is something there that hasn't been empirically defined in a way that it can be well studied by existing science. This could be a limitation of our capabilities, but I'm inclined to believe it is more a limitation of observation and definition.
It seems most would agree that building a bridge is an example of "intelligent design"...But what about a primitive shelter? Or a beaver damn? Or a bird's nest? What about the reponse when stepping on an ant hill? Certainly an obective inquiry of intelligence would recognize these as potentially intelligent acts?
Which brings me to a basic premise. While I don't claim to have the answer, it appears obvious that consciousness exists, however a clear explaination of it, let alone a material one seems elusive. I am inclined to think that "mind" exists in nature just as matter does. Indeed, there would be no science without observation, and quantum physics has unveiled links between observation and matter.
My hunch is that mind and matter are linked like space-time, and that it is likely that one does not really exist independently of the other.
This all relates to a flaw that strikes me of ID theory. It seems we have yet to empirically prove a concept of intelligence, consciousness, mind, etc. It seems like understanding this concept in more empirical detail would be the starting point of examining how it might interact with nature.
It seems like people are looking for "divine" intelligence, rather than the more mundane examples of intelligence that would really better our understanding of the concepts.
It also strikes me that there is an inherent bias (probably associated with the individual awareness that consciousness implies) whereby we assume that mind is either limited to individual organisms or to God.
My alternative whereby mind is an inherent quality of nature is a fairly abstract and vague concept, and I'll try not to delve into philosphy much more...Other than to say, I think empirically identifying "mind" will be a major revolution in science.
2. Causation and Reproductive Genetics
I don't know much about genetics, but it strikes me that the prevailing view is that an organism produces genetic material by chance, according to existing DNA. Is this idea of chance based on evidence, or on assumption?
It seems like it was Baker and Bellis who provided evidence that the amount of sperm a man ejaculates is based not on when he last ejaculated, but how long his separation from his lover was. It seems like this would be demonstrative that - at some level - organisms produce reproductive material in response to environmental stimulus, rather than just by chance.
How do we know that an organism couldn't produce allele frequencies or even mutations in response to environmental stimulus?
Indeed, if it were possible for organisms to evolve this capability, then it is almost certainly an advantage that would be present in many modern species - particularly those who experience longer gaps between generations.
An organism that produced genetics that were most likely to survive with changing conditions would be adaptable at a far greater rate than one that relied on the slow, random process of mutation and natural selection.
This would allow for much more rapid adaptation, and if it were possible to develop, it would seem very likely that it is present today.
3. Social Selection
When I consider the recent history of primitive cultures, and all I've seen, I'm inclined to think that there is an important aspect of hominid evolution that I've never seen discussed.
I'll call this "social selection", but it derives from the recognition of tribalism seems a natural state for primitive men on various continents.
In Africa, I've seen morphological differences between tribes that inhabit the same area. This was also common in North America hundreds of years ago. Sure, it's possible that this is due to migration.
But it also seems likely that tribalism could lead to a form of social and reproductive isolation that could potentially ultimately result in speciation.
It seems that tribes could adopt very different patterns of behavior and sexual selection (and arguably artificial selection) that drive this change independent of natural selection.
It also strikes me that the social nature of tribalism is perhaps not limited to hominids, but rather a natural occurrance in many species...From whale pods, to wolf packs, to caribou herds, it seems social group idenitification and isolation is fairly common in nature.
That being the case, could this type of social isolation combined with diverging behaviors and perhaps sexual selection be a driver of speciation independent of any real physical isolation? Could this be an explaination for speciation in marine life that has less real potential of physical isolation?
4. Inheritence of Instincts
This brings me to another hunch that's related to the others. I'm not totally clear on what instincts are or are supposed to be.
But my inclination is to beleive that instincts, or behaviors, or consciouss reaction - while certainly inherited in some sense - is not limited to inheritance via generational mortality.
Indeed, the divergence of tribes, leading to difference customs and sexual selection would arguably be demonstrative that instincts are not purely inherited. Of course, you could argue that hominids are unique, but one of my premises is that we're subject to the same evolutionary forces as other species. So what could be true for us (certainly in the stone age sense) could be true for them as well.
In other words, why wouldn't it be possible for instincts and/or behaviors, and/or thought processes of group A within a species that to diverge from group B that has a different recognized group identity? And if these instincts could diverge, couldn't it lead to a bunch of different sexual and other behaviors that could promote different genetics?
All of these ideas are all kind of interrelated, but it would seem that they could open up new avenues for evolutionary mechanisms.
I would appreciate more informed thoughts on the matter.
Thanks!
- Benton
™ Version 4.2