How Faith in Neo-Darwinism May Be Holding Us Back

Do you believe in Neo-Darwinist evolution? New-Darwinism is often used as something of a shibboleth to separate the scientific cognoscenti from the flat-earthers and creationists. But is such a "test of scientific rationality" justified? Only if there are no alternatives to Neo-Darwinism which better fit the observed facts. But what if there were better alternatives? Who would be the flat-earthers then?

Lynn Margulis is a prominent thorn in the side of institutional neo-darwinism, and one of the foremost promoters of the theory of Symbiogenesis. On occasion, Margulis can seem like something of a flake, but it is just that quality which allows her to stand up to the pressures of conventional thinking and make her own way against the crowd and its political consensus.

Faith in any conventional form or ideology will hold humans back from discoveries that may seem to contradict those forms and ideologies. We live in an unfortunate age when academic and intellectual thought has been largely taken over by one general ideology -- which actively suppresses debate and open epistemological inquiry into topics which may be too near and dear to the hearts of the thought leaders within the uber-dominant ideology.

Even the so-called "skeptics" today are often nothing better than papered-over consensualists. "Skeptic" Michael Shermer has written a book called The Believing Brain, in which he attempts to explain human belief using game theory, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology. But as skeptics go, Shermer tends to be something of a credulous skeptic, as he tends to accede to "consensus" a bit too easily. Like many writers and historians of science who are not actually scientists, Shermer relies on second- and third-hand anecdotes and clever phrasing a bit more than he perhaps should. One can learn nothing about the next level from "skeptics" like Shermer, who is a fashionable and consensual kind of skeptic, always safe and well far behind the cannon fodder.

Fortunately, Neo-Darwinism is only peripheral to the central political issues that drive the dictators, critics, and pseudo-skeptics of modern academia, media, and politics, so it is still permissible to question some aspects of neo-darwinian theory as long as one is not too threatening to the status quo. For example, scientists are learning that some "acquired characteristics" of parents and grand-parents can be inherited by children and grandchildren, via epigenetic means. We are likely to discover many more contradictions to conventional genetic and evolutionary theory as we go along.

But none of these piecemeal discoveries are likely to be as liberating as the potential explosion of knowledge which might arise from a real-world demonstration of controlled symbiogenesis in action.

Neo-Darwinian evolution may be the best theory we've got to explain evolution -- or there may be something better. There are still many profound discoveries waiting to be made, using the mental framework of neo-darwinian theory. It will always be useful in the sense that Newtonian physics will always be useful -- within specific limited domains.

Who is going to come closer to the global optimum, the path to rapid expansion of knowledge in evolution and biology? The rational gadfly who is unafraid to question popular convention, or the uber-conventionalist who hides behind a faith in crowd consensus?

Things can change very rapidly when radical theories and tools are discovered. Modern hierarchies of ideas and power can be overturned almost instantly in the face of the type of discoveries which are possible. Which societies are capable of withstanding radical change, which is bound to occur sooner or later? A society whose women are increasingly choosing not to have children because children cramp their style? Or a society of people who welcome change, even as they continue the eternal cycles of love, family, child-raising, birth, death, and continuation in the face of all odds and challenges?

It can be frightening to step outside the mainstream -- particularly if you do so by yourself without the support of a group. But if you take a look at the state of the modern world, it should not take you long to see that the mainstream has very little to offer a conscientious seeker or a driven pathfinder. In fact, the mainstream appears to be taking an express train to the Idiocracy.

In basic rescue and resuscitation, we first look at the ABC: airway, breathing, and circulation. Then we proceed to the finer points of diagnosis and intervention. In your lives, you need to take a similar prioritised approach. But try not to get so caught up in basic survival issues that you do not keep one eye on the sky, for falling sacred cows and orthodoxies.

Just one, small and seemingly insignificant scientific or technological discovery could overturn almost all the conventional wisdom and hierarchical power structure of your society. And there are a lot of discoveries in the pipeline at this time. Not all of them will be developed to their potential -- particularly in our modern age of faux environmentalist energy starvation and a general aversion to disruptive technologies by the ruling classes and thought leaders.

But in reality, it is not up to them any longer. They just do not realise it yet.

A 60,000 Year Explosion of Invention?

IQ Map of World
Most readers of this blog have heard of the "10,000 Year Explosion" by Harpending and Cochrane, which convincingly describes how evolution can quickly work to change an insular breeding population of humans. Something similar -- the evolution of invention -- may have taken place on a global scale, after early humans moved out of Africa sometime over 60,000 years ago.

Before relatively recent contact with outside cultures, Subsaharan Africans did not invent the wheel, did not invent writing, developed minimal art, or agriculture, lacked musical instruments beyond simple percussion, and came up virtually empty in terms of math, science, and technology. Why the almost complete absence of invention and development?

The map of world IQ at top provides a tentative answer to the question, but the map raises a more central question: Why do SubSaharan African populations test so low, on average, on tests of IQ, executive function, and impulse control? Is it possible that a significant part of the development of the human "superbrain" -- which makes invention and modern advanced civilisation possible -- developed only after humans left the African birthplace?

The dispersal of modern humans from Africa to Europe [60,000 some] years ago provides a “minimum date” for the development of language, Hoffecker speculated. “Since all languages have basically the same structure, it is inconceivable to me that they could have evolved independently at different times and places.”

A 2007 study led by Hoffecker and colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences pinpointed the earliest evidence of modern humans in Europe dating back 45,000 years ago. Located on the Don River 250 miles south of Moscow, the multiple sites, collectively known as Kostenki, also yielded ancient bone and ivory needles complete with eyelets, showing the inhabitants tailored furs to survive the harsh winters.

The team also discovered a carved piece of mammoth ivory that appears to be the head of a small figurine dating to more than 40,000 years ago. “If that turns out to be the case, it would be the oldest piece of figurative art ever discovered,” said Hoffecker, whose research at Kostenki is funded in part by the National Science Foundation.

The finds from Kostenki illustrate the impact of the creative mind of modern humans as they spread out of Africa into places that were sometimes cold and lean in resources, Hoffecker said. “Fresh from the tropics, they adapted to ice age environments in the central plain of Russia through creative innovations in technology.”

Ancient musical instruments and figurative art discovered in caves in France and Germany date to before 30,000 years ago, he said. “Humans have the ability to imagine something in the brain that doesn’t exist and then create it,” he said. “Whether it’s a hand axe, a flute or a Chevrolet, humans are continually recombining bits of information into novel forms, and the variations are potentially infinite.” _SB

The absence of sophisticated invention or innovation prior to the human diaspora out of Africa, or in SubSaharan Africa since that diaspora, suggests a potentially deep distinction in the way that humans inside SS Africa think in comparison to how Eurasian humans learned to think.

It would be good to be able to research this puzzle, but unfortunately, the straitjacket of Political Correctness prevents the raising of such questions -- even for purposes of objective scientific research. Which means that those of us who are curious will have to conduct our investigations under the table, so to speak.

Is that not always how it is, when intelligent and curious humans are faced with oppressive and authoritarian culture-reichs, such as the modern quasi-left postmodern PC culture?

More: Some links to websites listing some ancient inventions:

Ancient Inventions

Inventions of Ancient China

Top 10 Ancient Inventions

Adapted from an earlier article at abu al-fin

Science Unshackled: Putting Knowledge in Real People's Hands

Modern humans have become slaves to the "hyperspecialist," the so-called experts who tell us what to think and how we should act. But the hyperspecialisation of modern society is a huge step backward to an authoritarian society, ruled from the top down. Much better for as many people as possible -- credentialed or not -- to acquire the specialised knowledge and tools which will reveal the path to a higher level of knowing and being.

One of the pivotal areas of knowledge and research which should be propagated widely, is the new biology and genetics. Bio-hobbyists and bio-hackers are pushing against legal and institutional constrictions and biases, asserting the rights of individuals to master these important tools. Journalist Marcus Wohlsen recently published the book "Biopunk," which looks more closely at the phenomenon of bio-hacking.

In Biopunk, journalist Marcus Wohlsen surveys the rising tide of the biohacker movement, which has been made possible by a convergence of better and cheaper technologies. For a few hundred dollars, anyone can send some spit to a sequencing company and receive a complete DNA scan, and then use free software to analyze the results. Custom-made DNA can be mail-ordered off websites, and affordable biotech gear is available on Craigslist and eBay.

Wohlson discovers that biohackers, like the open-source programmers and software hackers who came before, are united by a profound idealism. They believe in the power of individuals as opposed to corporate interests, in the wisdom of crowds as opposed to the single-mindedness of experts, and in the incentive to do good for the world as opposed to the need to turn a profit. Suspicious of scientific elitism and inspired by the success of open-source computing, the bio DIYers believe that individuals have a fundamental right to biological information, that spreading the tools of biotech to the masses will accelerate the pace of progress, and that the fruits of the biosciences should be delivered into the hands of the people who need them the most.

With all their ingenuity and idealism, it's difficult not to root for the biohackers Wohlsen meets. Take MIT grad student Kay Aull, who built her own genetic testing kit in her closet after her father was diagnosed with the hereditary disease hemochromatosis. "Aull's test does not represent new science but a new way of doing science," Wohlsen writes. Aull's self-test for the disease-causing mutation came back positive.

Or take Meredith Patterson, who is trying to create a cheap, decentralized way to test milk for melamine poisoning without relying on government regulators. Patterson has written a "Biopunk Manifesto" that reads in part, "Scientific literacy empowers everyone who possesses it to be active contributors to their own health care, the quality of their food, water and air, their very interactions with their own bodies and the complex world around them."

Biohackers Josh Perfetto and Tito Jankowski created OpenPCR, a cheap, hackable DNA Xerox machine (PCR stands for "polymerase chain reaction," the name for a method of replicating DNA). Interested biohackers can pre-order one for just over $500 or, once it's ready, download the blueprint free and make their own. According to the website, its apps include DNA sequencing and a test to "check that sushi is legit." Jankowski "hopes to introduce young people to the tools and techniques of biotech in a way that makes gene tweaking as much a part of everyday technology as texting," Wohlsen writes. Jankowski, together with Joseph Jackson and Eri Gentry, also founded BioCurious, a collaborative lab space for biohackers in the Bay area. "Got an idea for a startup? Join the DIY, 'garage biology' movement and found a new breed of biotech," their website exhorts.

Then there's Andrew Hessel, a biohacker fed up with the biotech business model, which he believes is built on the hoarding of intellectual property and leads companies to prioritize one-size-fits-all blockbuster drugs. "During the sixty years or so that computers went from a roomful of vacuum tubes to iPhones, the pace of drug development has never quickened," Hessel tells Wohlsen. Hoping to change that, Hessel is developing the first DIY drug development company, the Pink Army Cooperative, whose goal is to bioengineer custom-made viruses that will battle breast cancer. "Personalized therapies made just for you. In weeks or days, not years. Believe it. It's time for a revolution," the company's website proclaims. "We are trying to be the Linux of cancer," Hessel explains. _TechnologyReview

Bio-hackers tend to be as intelligent as mainstream researchers, but a bit more unorthodox, and sometimes skeptical of mainstream approaches. In science, skepticism and lack of orthodoxy can be very good things, leading to new approaches to problem-solving. Conventional scientists and other academics and institutional workers too often get caught up in "groupthink," where they fear the risks of moving too far away from the herd.

A good example of this "herd thinking" is the reaction of many scientists to 81 year old celebrated biologist Edward O. Wilson's new ideas on group selection in evolution. Wilson has moved away from the popular concept of "kin selection" to a broader concept of evolutionary selection that applies to groups, rather than only to individuals and their close kin. The blowback from "the group" has been furious.

His position is provoking ferocious criticism from other scientists. Last month, the leading scientific journal Nature published five strongly worded letters saying, more or less, that Wilson has misunderstood the theory of evolution and generally doesn’t know what he’s talking about. One of these carried the signatures of an eye-popping 137 scientists, including two of Wilson’s colleagues at Harvard.

The last time Wilson found himself embroiled in controversy as scalding as the current one was after the publication of his book “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis” in 1975. In that landmark book, he made an argument about the power of genetics, demonstrating how all manner of social behaviors observed in insects and animals could be seen as the result of natural selection. What landed Wilson in trouble was the last chapter, in which he extended his argument to humans. That chapter thrust Wilson into a long and loaded debate over how much our genetic heritage — as opposed to, say, culture — has shaped our behavior. Amid the outcry over “Sociobiology,” Wilson was pilloried by critics on the left as an agent of biological determinism and racist science. Protestors once interrupted Wilson while he was speaking at a science conference and poured a glass of water on his head.

....What Wilson is trying to do, late in his influential career, is nothing less than overturn a central plank of established evolutionary theory: the origins of altruism. _boston

Notice that the focus of the controversy circles around the concept of the origin of "altruism" and "self-sacrifice." But such concepts have almost nothing to do with the main thrust of evolution, or the most important questions which evolutionary theorists must answer. Far more important to evolutionary progress than altruism, is "cooperation." Politically correct scientists and science journalists are attempting to construct PC moralistic edifices upon tangential scientific and pseudo-scientific foundations. And they get away with it because knowledge is "supposed to" come from the top down.

It is this "beside the pointness" of much of scientific argument -- and most of the journalistic inspired arguments about science -- which reflect and reveal the destructiveness of hyperspecialisation and "top-down science" and scholarship. The need for citizen science, and citizen scholarship in general, has never been clearer than in modern times, when the "experts" have been so widely coopted by political interests and political correctness.

Bio-hacking should be one useful restorative to the balance of knowledge tools -- and the balance of knowledge power. But much more is needed. We are on the fast road to Idiocratic authoritarianism, aided by the dual crises of skyrocketing debt and demographic decline.

Give it some thought. You may come up with some solutions on your own, which is what all of this is about.