The Theory of Evolution is Stupid
“At the heart of evolutionary biology, since Darwin, has been the idea that any genetic traits and behaviors that outfit an animal with an advantage — that help the animal make lots of offspring — will remain in a species, while ones that don’t will vanish. In short, evolution gradually optimizes every animal toward a single goal: passing on its genes. “Our field is a lot like economics: we have a core of theory, like free-market theory, where we have the invisible hand of the market creating order — all commodities attain exactly the price they’re worth. Homosexuality is a tough case, because it appears to violate that central tenet, that all of sexual behavior is about reproduction. The question is, why would anyone invest in sexual behavior that isn’t reproductive?” –— much less a behavior that looks to be starkly counterproductive. Moreover, if animals carrying the genes associated with it are less likely to reproduce, how has that behavior managed to stick around?”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything in life work this way. Scientists talk about the biological imperatives that spur humans or any other animals to behave in a certain manner, but this seems to assume a backwards sort of cause and effect relationship — people survived and spread exponentially, so we must have “selected” certain behaviors over other more destructive ones.
This is a false tautology. Some productive behaviors lasted, some died out. Some destructive behaviors lasted, some died out. Overall, we did well — except if you look at the growth patterns, the type of exponential growth we’re in has always ended in catastrophic extinction for a species. So what conclusions can we draw about our “biological success?”
To assume that all sexual behavior is for reproduction goes against almost every example we have of it. It is at its core a heteronormative assumption as well as based on a foundation that assumes that everything natural must have a functional purpose. Why can’t things in nature be random?
Scientific inquiry into sex and music never adds emotion to the equation properly.
Posted on April 1st, 2010 by DeepthiW
Filed under: Uncategorized
I enjoyed reading this and have a lot of unconnected thoughts on the subject, but mostly I disagree with the subject title, haha, not your actual thoughts on the subject which fascinate me. I wouldn’t be qualified to identify one opinion or another as correct or incorrect when it comes to Darwinism and the Evolution of Human Sexuality because I don’t really know that much.
But I do not think that destructive traits that so obviously exist are proof that natural selection is not holding up its end of the bargain. Natural selection as I understand it “selects” the whole package that makes it to the finish line, unconcerned with the individual traits such as blue eyes, long dick, curly hair, dark skin, crooked teeth, bad heart, etc.
The apple tree provides and interesting example of the trees relationship with natural selection. Every apple from one single apple tree may look and taste like one another but the coding in it’s seeds will each be different, even so far as the five or so individual seeds in one given apple. Resulting is at least five different trees that will produce apples that are different from its cousins and different still from the mother tree. Apple growers figured out long ago how to graft limbs from selected apple trees onto new trunks from new sprouts, resulting in a plant that is wholly dependent on us for its survival because every pest interested in devouring the apple tree or its roots has had an easier time evolving without such handicaps. But I like that the apple tree has no clue which of its traits are desired, is it the sweet ones or the sour ones, the reds or the greens or the scorched browns or the speckled. It has no idea but figures it’s best bet is to over saturate and then get back on with it’s own personal struggle with existence.
Same still with puppies or humans or whatever. We all look a little bit different than our siblings and cousins, we resemble our parents and grandparents but you sometimes have to look pretty hard.
The owl whose wings flap the softest will have a better chance at scooping up the mouse whose ears are finely tuned, and if that owl gets that mouse it will live another day which might be just enough time to pass on its genes, of course, the mouse might hear a little bit better and beat the owl to the finish line, that parry keeps going on and they adapt in increments. But natural selection is just a snapshot of a single moment, not the heart attack that gets up later on, or the drugs we become addicted to in the process. Harder for us, because not only are we inside looking out, but we have erased our predators from the playing field. The traits we developed when we existed in the predator/prey game are now not so special, faster running, good aim, etc. A clumsy and near-sighted guy has just as good a chance at bagging the blonde with big tits than anyone else. Or, it would seem.
I hope I’m not boring you.
I think you might be interested in the work for Jared Diamond. His insights on evolution, rises and collapses of societies, and human sexuality are so interesting and easy to understand because he himself approached the subject by accident, mostly because he liked watching birds. Most pertinent to this post would be Why Is Sex Fun? where he addresses why we are the only animal to have sex in private; why we disguise fertility; have sex for recreation and etc. His earlier book The Third Chimpanzee has several chapters devoted to sexuality and it’s basic weirdness that you might also like.
The case for homosexuality is an interesting one. I think that our culture has painted us into some kind of corner where we are expected to love what we fuck, and then also be ashamed that we want to fuck at all. Desires are still so taboo, and it goes so much deeper than sexual preference. I know that my own desires, as a straight man, are based somewhat on my own insecurities, some due to the fact that I am short, and feel that natural selection is overlooking me, so to speak. And then you look at other common desires out there that seem downright depraved, like the slave owner who gets off by raping his black mistress, but does not love her. Or the modern day business man who flies to Thailand for sexvacations. Desire and Love don’t appear to be on the same wavelength to me. The long married couple who are trying to make it work and “spice things up” tend to dress up in masks and chains which seems like it’s just enough to make them forget they are fucking the same ol’ person. Perhaps it’s man who is mostly unequipped for his role in this culture, because we are hardwired to be trigger happy and always on the lookout like that apple tree, trying to spread our seed to whoever is interested. Women just don’t seem that reckless to me, but maybe I just don’t know the right women, haha.
My own desires are difficult, and have changed over time. Unfortunately for me I am no longer attracted to tall woman, nor big ones, and because I am small and desire an equally small woman my choices are more narrow and further complicated by my few choices unwillingness to choose me back. But in my youth I dated taller women without incident, so somewhere along the way I have narrowed my desire to a sharp instrument with nothing to poke. Is it intellect confusing the matter? Whatever the reason, based on this I have only a slightly better chance at reproduction than a homosexual.
I have more thoughts on the subject but fear that I have bored your enough unsolicited. But thank you for your post, and look forward to more.
Mark, thank you for your extremely thoughtful comment in response to a post written hastily in an insomniac’s annoyed state of mind. I’m surprised any of it made sense to you. I have to go to school now, but I’ll come back to this as soon as I can and respond more properly (and possibly flesh out my post a little). But, no, you definitely did not bore me, and I will check out Diamond’s work.
Hello Deepthi,
I like talking about evolution. I think our genes are incredibly forceful, as the ever-presence of sexual desire in human life exemplifies. Its variety and special weirdness when compared to other species is, if I understand the hypothesis correctly, due to our ability to prioritize the symbolic value of a thing over its use value. Thus sex isn’t just about reproduction. Its also about power, community, etc. Music is a quintessential example of the same prioritization. We gather around stuff that carries identifiable meaning for us, and we invest all that we can with meaning. This also explains why homosexuality can be so threatening, that it’s existence threatens many culture’s hierarchies by re-signifying sex and suggesting alternative hierarchical significations and hierarchical arbitrariness in general. And a hierarchy viewed as arbitrary is a weak hierarchy.
Birds of paradise are pretty extraordinary. Big tales, eccentric behaviors, and other ornaments, that would normally be liabilities for a gene spreading organism, are able to flourish in their predator-less environment, so that mating becomes almost the singular evolutionary pressure. In out case social formation is a dominant priority, so that all our behavior becomes a part of social bonding, developing ties and reaffirming our place in the social order. We don’t just fuck for babies, but also to feel pretty, powerful, and loved. To feel valuable to our tribe.
Very small point to add: evolution develops many traits far removed from immediate procreation in their advantage. Especially for social animals. We can only really quantify those evolutionary “advantages” when we are willing to see them as such.