In the news today, "Ancient shark with 300 teeth found by scientists". It turns out that this guy is about 80million years old, give or take 5 million. What evolution is it doing? It's not. Why has evolution left the sharks alone? Well, it's something we don't often think about, and quite frankly I'm not going to do a lot of thinking about here. But I will propose the question, and maybe some of my friends here will know better than I.
What if we are only speculating about the different hominids? I mean what if, as I've heard more recently, Homo Sapiens actually did breed with the Neanderthals and with earlier hominids like Heidelbergensis, Erectus and Ergaster? I remember when I was a kid, I heard a lot more about Homo Erectus, and Homo Erectus is about 1.3 million years old. So let us speculate that we went back a million years in our little time machine. Obviously we'd clean up a few of those dudes and chicks and hang out with them. But would they be sexy to us? I'm thinking they would be. And I'm thinking we'd try them out. And what a surprise if babies happened!
That would prove that our ideas about speciation as far as humans are concerned is all speculation. How could we prove that the DNA is just that distant enough to say Erectus was real species barrier? I don't know. Maybe somebody spent the time on this question that just popped into my head. But what if human beings are about as perfected as we get in terms of speciation? We are already adapted to our environment as well as a shark is to the sea, and we don't need to evolve. Evolution is not this thing that relentlessly changes us. We relentlessly change ourselves. But we are not and have not faced an extinction event. If H. Erectus is our actually reproductive genetic blood, for a million years, maybe this is as far as evolution needs to take us, absent a nuclear holocaust. See what I'm saying?
The other implication here is that just like all dogs are just dogs, all humans are just humans. We pretend that breeds are more differentiating than they actually are. I find it difficult to believe that vets learn in their schools that you must operate on poodles differently than bulldogs. There's no DNA barrier. It's just perception. We know that to be true of race. It's just human breeding for shallow effect. That means that 'social Darwinism' is really the only evolution that's going on, which is to say no actual biological evolution, just lethal discrimination. So if there is no actual scientifically empirical evidence for human evolution on the scale of half a million years at the DNA level, it's very clear that there's nothing we've got that the Romans didn't have, except for a better way of specializing ourselves into extremes. Usain Bolt and Angela Merkel can have a baby tomorrow. OK well, maybe Angela is past it, but you get my drift. The kid won't be as exceptional as either parent.
So I think that leaves a lot more room for what we believe about 'genetics', but nothing anywhere close to speciation. That also means those Neanderthals were probably not as stupid on average as the average stupid person today. This argues for a very broad interpretation of the continuity of humanity as a lot more constant where it really counts, across the millennia. I take that to implicate our tendency to overhype our environmental circumstances. The guy with the iPhone X is really not better than the guy with no phone at all. And that means that stupid people aren't really that stupid. We laugh at Chihuahuas, but they still actually bite like wolves.
Finally, this leaves me in an interesting place with regard to Extremistan. If more things are actually just social Darwinism, maybe we're just jawboning ourselves into superiority and inferiority. Maybe this is the secret the wealthy and powerful don't want us to know. Could it be? Nahh. Ok maybe.
Recent Comments