The economic disruptions tied to the headline below are almost all tied to space travel and colonization as will be much of GMO HUMANS. These are man-made disruptions and the human evolution created to fit these goals is man-made as well.
The Five Most Disruptive Innovations At CES 2015
Big Bang Disruption authors Paul Nunes and Larry Downes pick the most disruptive innovations at CES 2015.
DARWIN'S GRADUAL EVOLUTION as we said helps with today's medical science because knowing how our human body organ systems developed-----using lower animals to test chemical and PHARMA reactions on those body systems have allowed modern medicine and public safety from chemical exposures to create quality of life for 99% of US citizens.
Below we see what is a NATURAL EVOLUTIONARY DISRUPTION=======bacteria being that simple animal capable of changing its DNA/RNA RAPIDLY in order to survive extreme environmental changes. Oil spills kill the food ocean bacteria eat---so these bacteria changed their genetics to be able to eat chemicals in oil.
What we know as well is this: what occurs naturally in oil-eating bacteria -----natural evolution------has been replicated by BIOGENETICS and much of what are now oil-eating bacteria are GMO.
Hydrocarbon‐degrading bacteria: the oil‐spill clean‐up crewRob J. W. Brooijmans
Margreet I. Pastink
Roland J. Siezen
First published: 20 October 2009
Crude oil (petroleum) is a highly complex mixture of organic compounds of which some 1.3 million litres enters the environment each year. More then anything else, the numerous oil‐shipping disasters, such as of the Exxon Valdez (1989), the Erika (1999) and the Prestige (2003), have captured the public attention to this environmental problem (Fig. 1). However, these accidents account for only a small part of the annual global release of crude oil, as most enters the environment from deliberate discharge and processing sites. Around three million tons of oil enters the sea each year, of which about 20% originates from oil‐pumping operations, transport and refining activities and 25% from non‐tanker shipping and natural seepages. More than half (55%) originates from illegal activities that include the dumping of ballast water and oil residues as well as accidents (Golyshin et al., 2003). Hydrocarbons are also produced continuously by living cells as natural oils and fats (de Lorenzo, 2006). The observation that the oceans are not covered with an oily layer is a testimony to the activity of the hydrocarbon‐degrading microorganisms (Head et al., 2006). Several bacteria are even known to feed exclusively on hydrocarbons (Yakimov et al., 2007). For these (facultative) hydrocarbon degraders the occasional supertanker oil spill forms an occasional carbon banquet. They play an important role in the clean‐up after an oil spill and form the biological basis for the natural oil‐degrading capacity of the ecosystem. Studies have focused on identifying and characterizing these oil‐eating microbes, as well as how they cope with the oil/water interface, and how to improve this capacity. Here we highlight some of the recent genomics advances in this field.
Open in figure viewerPowerPoint
Left: Oil spill in the ocean (http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/oil_spill/). Right: Shipping disaster of Exxon Valdez (http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/blame‐exxon‐valdez‐on‐captain‐bligh‐midwest‐storms/).
Degradation of hydrocarbons
Over 17 000 organic compounds have been identified in crude oil, and subdivided into four main classes: the saturates, aromatics, asphaltenes and resins (Marshall and Rodgers, 2004). The susceptibility of hydrocarbons to microbial degradation can be generally ranked as follows: linear alkanes > branched alkanes > small aromatics > cyclic alkanes (Leahy and Colwell, 1990). The bioremediation efforts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill have indeed shown that the (light) alkanes are depleted first and that some compounds, such as the high‐molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), may not be degraded at all (Atlas and Bragg, 2009).
Many environmental factors influence the breakdown of carbohydrates by microorganisms. Specifically in marine environments, low phosphorous and nitrogen levels may limit growth of oil‐degrading microorganisms and thus rapid oil consumption. There have been attempts to ‘fertilize’ oil‐spill areas to create a more optimal C : N : P balance of 100:10:1 (referred to as biostimulation) (Nikolopoulou and Kalogerakis, 2008). In open‐sea environments, dilution of soluble nutrients quickly occurs, and the administration of insoluble or hydrophobic (oil‐soluble) fertilizers is thought to enhance biostimulation effectiveness. Biosurfactants seem another promising form of biostimulation. Biosurfactants increase the oil‐surface area and with that the amount of oil actually available for attack by bacteria (Nikolopoulou and Kalogerakis, 2009). When oil washes up on beaches and is sequestered in the sediments, the bio‐availabilty can be severely reduced, significantly slowing down or even preventing biodegradation. Depending on the particular local circumstances, tilling of beaches may be applied to expose the sequestered oil. However, tilling itself is disruptive for many coastal plants and animals and, as the oil was beyond the reach of the biota in the first place, may do more harm than good. Local conditions, in general, have a big effect on the efficiency of oil breakdown, such as temperature, waves (mixing), availability of oxygen, and of course the composition of the spilled oil. These should be taken into account when devising an intervention strategy.
Diversity and metabolism of oil‐degrading bacteria
Notwithstanding all the factors that influence the oil‐biodegrading capacity, it all comes down to the metabolic veracity of bacteria that do not mind to get their ‘hands’ dirty (or greasy to be more precise). A great number of bacteria have been identified that help clean up the hydrocarbon compounds in the aftermath of oil spills. But a significant part of the hydrocarbon content in seawater has a biological origin. Lipids and fatty acids from plants, animals and microbes and the products of their conversion in anoxic zones are ubiquitous. Evolution has created some bacteria that dine exclusively on hydrocarbons, including obligate hydrocarbon degraders of the genera Oleispira, Oleiphilus, Thalassolituus, Alcanivorax and Cycloclasticus (Fig. 2).
Open in figure viewerPowerPoint
A phylogenetic tree illustrating the diversity of aerobic hydrocarbon‐degrading bacteria. Organisms shown in blue can degrade saturated hydrocarbons, whereas those in red can degrade polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The organisms shown in black do not degrade hydrocarbons. Reprinted from Head and colleagues (2006) by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd, copyright 2006.
In typical carbon utilization tests, these bacteria only catabolize hydrocarbons such as Tween 40 and 80, leaving other carbon sources, including sugars and acids, untouched (Yakimov et al., 2007). Current interest in the metabolism of (obligate) hydrocarbon‐degrading bacteria has spurred on various genome sequencing projects (Table 1 and Fig. 3).
REAL left social progressives have gone crazy trying to stop the FAKE FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS corrupting our REAL GREEN policies with these MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS. Oil and gas global corporations have been telling us DON'T WORRY----WE WILL MANUFACTURE AN ANIMAL THAT WILL CLEAN UP THESE OIL SPILLS. That was back in 1990s. People think GMO bacteria that eat oil spills---not so bad. What happens when once species rapidly fills the ocean to clean oil spills? Natural ocean species die and our ocean ecology is heavily based on those tiny sea plants and animals. We are not winning with these GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION products----they are using them as BAND-AIDS creating the need to patent more and more GMO ANIMAL PRODUCTS.
These were the battles back in 1990s with GMO animals In 2000s it was clear this battle was now GMO HUMANS.
Natural evolutionary disruption examples are the GALAPAGOS ISLAND animal species isolated from mainland forced to change their living patterns happening RAPIDLY allowing only those animals making those changes to survive. An example of TODAY'S ECONOMIC EVOLUTIONARY DISRUPTION is humans made unable to reproduce because of SEX GAMETE GENDER BLENDING setting the stage for RAPID elimination of NATURAL HUMANS.
Most US citizens will remember these STEM lessons in K-12. DARWIN'S gradual evolution would not have brought these rapid changes in beaks if not for a natural isolation of land from coast.
Darwin’s finches – and Darwin’s humans
Tuesday, August 16th, 2011
Darwin gets a lot of credit in biology. And rightly so, given the sheer quantity of persuasive proofs and fascinating conundrums that he put forth during his career. This is a man who saw a foot-long nectary on an orchid from Madagascar and asserted the existence, sight unseen, of a moth with a proboscis long enough to reach the nectar at the bottom and pollinate the flower. Forty years later he was proven correct. So it is no exaggeration to say that Darwin left a legacy of leads for his intellectual inheritors, many of whom are fond of claiming Darwin not only as an ancestor but also as the source of all of the best ideas and problems in evolutionary biology to this day.
The Galápagos Islands have long been the scene of such claims. Darwin travelled around the world from 1831 to 1836, but he spent barely over than a month exploring the Galápagos.
Map of the Galápagos Islands, from Darwin's Journal of Researches, published in 1839.
Even so, this volcanic archipelago off the coast of Ecuador became one of the iconic locations of Darwin’s Beagle voyage. Because of the attention that Darwin drew to the evolutionary dynamics of the Galápagos, the islands became a so-called “natural laboratory,” where biologists have gone for generations to watch evolution in action.
In this month’s issue of Evolution, researchers led by Fernando de León from McGill University in Montréal chose these iconic islands —and one of their most iconic groups of animals, the birds known as Darwin’s finches— as the arena for tackling an appropriately Darwinian question: How do humans alter the trajectory of other species’ evolution?
This question is at the heart of Darwinian theory itself. The very name that Darwin gave to his mechanism for evolutionary change reveals how difficult it is for humans to think about evolutionary change without becoming self-referential. Natural selection is actually a passive process in which nobody is directly or consciously selecting anything. The wing length or leaf shape or antennae placement that is “selected” is merely that which allows the animal or plant to face the challenges presented by its environment and have babies that can do the same. The term “natural selection” reflects the analogy that Darwin made between what happens in nature, the product of mere survival, and what happens when humans interfere with nature and breed specific features into animals and plants through artificial selection.
In other words, humans have long been altering the trajectory of other species’ evolution. But animal and plant breeding is only the most obvious and most intentional way that we do this. As animals ourselves, with our own needs and interests, we have also been unintentionally changing the course of evolution since we came into existence.
How do we evaluate the evolutionary effects that we have on other organisms? More to the point, must we evaluate them? All animals and plants irrevocably shape the evolution of others in ways both large and small. How many of these organisms waste time worrying whether these evolutionary impacts are good or bad? It’s probably safe to say that Homo sapiens are the only ones.
In the case of Darwin’s finches on the Galápagos Islands, our authors begin with the premise that the human effect on evolution is a bad one. They investigate the loss of diversity within a particular population of finches. Darwin’s finches are distinctive for their specialized beaks, whether they eat insects or nectar or cacti. Medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis), the focus of this study, eat seeds.
Four of the fourteen species of finches found on the Galápagos, an image from Darwin's On the the Origin of Species, published in 1859.
Following this particular species over the decades, researchers have observed that it appears to be diverging into two specialized “morphs,” two groups with different beak forms. Medium ground finches with larger beaks specialize on larger, harder seeds, and those with smaller beaks specialize on smaller, softer seeds.
But the population in Academy Bay on Santa Cruz Island looks different. Academy Bay is one of the more populous human communities in the Galápagos and, as a result, human foods have become more and more available to the finches. This wealth of new food has slowed down the evolutionary divergence-in-action, leading to the slow homogenization of beak sizes in the Academy Bay population.
As de León and his colleagues put it, human food is “eroding the diet-based disruptive selection that is thought to have previously maintained beak size modality in G. fortis.” Simply put, elsewhere in the Galápagos, the natural food sources of these birds seem to be driving the evolution of these finches into two distinct groups. But the presence of humans and their foods stifles this evolutionary process.
Why do we care about “eroding” the “disruptive selection” in the Galápagos—or anywhere, for that matter? One critical reason is that this type of selection maintains diversity. And diversity represents evolutionary potential. In a world that changes all of the time in unpredictable ways, diversity is the source of adaptation to change. Genetic diversity within populations is a natural resource, an evolutionary reserve; if climate change eliminates the food source that most individuals in a population rely upon, a few hardy survivors could still exploit some new and unanticipated food source. But that potential only exists when there is diversity within a population. It’s trite but true: diversity is the raw material of evolutionary adaptation.
The authors conclude that the case of the medium ground finch in Academy Bay is another example of “the importance of conserving the processes that generate and maintain biodiversity, rather than just the product of those processes.” The products, of course, are the organisms themselves. This approach to conservation has become increasingly common in recent years. Its proponents argue that we miss the point of conservation when we champion the cause of individual species and ignore the processes of biological change that generate the all-important, more valuable prize of diversity itself.
As arguments for conservation go, protecting an evolutionary process probably does not tug the heartstrings of most nature lovers. And as an intellectual argument, it’s important to note that evolution and evolutionary processes do not themselves have any intrinsic value. When we argue for the conservation of an evolutionary process, we must argue for it as an investment in the future, an investment in the generation of biological unpredictability in all of its incipient evolutionary potential.
But it’s difficult to know precisely how an evolutionary process may be conserved, and it’s a question that the authors do not address in this paper. In the case of Darwin’s finches, you might assume that the authors would advocate the restoration of the disruptive selection “eroded” by the availability of human foods. But they could hardly argue for the elimination of the human influences on finches in Academy Bay. After all, without humans, these biologists would have missed their chance to watch a new evolutionary story playing out. In other words, while the human community in Academy Bay could be taken as a threat to the Galápagos, we can also appreciate how it increases the archipelago’s utility as a “natural laboratory.”
Even Darwin’s finches could find some utility in their entanglement with humans. Without access to human foods, the medium ground finches of Academy Bay may have continued to diverge into two new species, each one specialized on its respective food source, thanks to its respective beak size. The multiplication of species is certainly a form of diversification. The irony, however, is that specialization does not necessarily lead to great adaptability in the future. In this sense, then, losing the close linkage between a specific food source and a specific beak morphology could be a boon for the medium ground finch, a generalizing force that might allow them to exploit a variety of foods in the unpredictable future that they face.
Should these last arguments for the utility of human influence make your inner conservationist cringe, consider that humans have always influenced —and been influenced by— the evolutionary trajectories of other species. It’s only recently that scientists have seen this form of evolutionary interaction as suitable for naturalistic investigation. And what more appropriate place to investigate the place of humans in evolutionary processes than in the iconically Darwinian Galápagos Islands?
DARWIN'S EVOLUTIONARY studies looked across all levels of animals to document how each living organ system developed-----when we read an article telling us Federal funding went to study SEA URCHINS for human medical advances its because the sea urchin was the earliest animal to have reproductive organs looking much like ours. If a chemical or PHARMA harms the reproduction in sea urchins---it is likely to harm reproduction in humans. We have from last century every kind of industrial chemical people are exposed to in everyday living tested to see how much will be TOXIC to HUMANS. These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and global corporatization of US medicine and public health has said WE DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE ARE HARMED SO WE WILL CREATE DATA THAT PROTECTS THOSE CHEMICAL/MEDICAL CORPORATIONS.
This is when we saw CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS against workplace toxicity and health problems slowly disappear. WHAT CAUSES YOUR LUNG DISEASE? NOT THAT ASBESTOS ----IT COULD BE SIMPLY BREATHING AIR.
When our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE understand today's corporate health institutions are not working to protect patient/public health but protecting corporations from any loss of profit---then we understand that ECONOMIC DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION is not helping public health, environment, human society----it is NIHILISM AND DISMISSAL OF HUMAN VALUE.
PLEASE DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE DETAILS OF ALL THIS SCIENCE-----JUST THINK ABOUT ALL CENTURIES OF COLLECTING REAL DATA USED FOR QUALITY OF LIFE MEDICINE---NOW BEING CORRUPTED TO SELL PRODUCTS AND TO MEET DEHUMANIZING GMO HUMAN GOALS.
The Sea Urchin as a Model Organism
Sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) are small, spiny animals which make up the class Echinoidea in the Echinoderm phylum. These organisms are found in all oceans across the world, and generally inhabit the shallows and tide pools of ocean environments. Sea urchins have been used as model organisms in biology since the 1800s after the invention of the microscope.
Figure 1: Sea Urchin.
The sea urchin embryo has long been used as a model organism to address many questions in developmental biology. There are a number of important features that make the sea urchin an ideal system. The straightforward artificial spawning, fertilization and rearing, and embryo optical transparency make this organism a great resource. Also, the simple organization makes the sea urchin embryo a great organism in which to study morphogenetic movements and effects (Hardin 1995). Though in the Echinoderm phylum, sea urchins have a genome which encodes for many vertebrate immune system-related genes. The recent sequencing of the sea urchin genome has made this model organism even more important in the study of development (Rast et al., 2006).
Because the early development of the sea urchin has been studied in such depth, the steps of its fertilization are known in much more detail than many other organisms.
Male and Female sea urchins release their gametes directly into the marine environment they inhabit. The sheer number of gametes released by these organisms is staggering- sea urchins of various species are known to produce between 8 and 20 million eggs.
Figure 2: Sea urchin sperm, after locating an egg that has already been fertilized, are unable to fertilize the egg themselves.
The sea urchin sperm follows a typical sperm structure. It has a long flagella, which allows it to move quickly through the water it is released into. The flagella is connected to a middle piece which contains the mitochondrion necessary for powering the flagella as the sperm moves towards the egg. The middle section is connected to the sperm’s thick head, which contains the nucleus carrying genetic information and the acrosome, which contains enzymes used for breaking down the jelly-like layers surrounding the egg.
The egg is similarly simple in structure. It is a stationary structure with the three parts: the outermost part is made of a jelly-like substance which protects the egg, the second structure is the vitelline layer, which is composed primarily of glycoproteins, and the innermost layer surrounding the genetic information is the plasma membrane, common to all egg cells.
'A Crack in Creation': Jennifer Doudna's CRISPR memoir is flawed, but convincing
Nathaniel Comfort | Nature | June 7, 2017'
We encourage all 99% of US and global WE THE PEOPLE to take time to educate on what is a complicated issue having almost no academic writing against the goals of these issues because all our US public universities have been corporatized. Knowing what global banking 1% are selling as data or goals is necessary to understand how that data is FAKE and those goals hidden.
We shared yesterday an article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN by researchers from GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE BERKELEY ------reminding us that our human emotions and ability to empathize and be compassionate are hardwired in our brains and is what makes humans different than other animals. Here is where DARWIN'S EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES hit primate and human studies-------THE DESCENT OF MAN. We shouted to watch out for the goals of this SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article. Remember, MOVING FORWARD is filled with NIHILISM------the goals of ending those human feelings of compassion, empathy, and shared survival. Finding those brain centers and understanding how those feelings happen in our human minds-----allows GMO HUMANS to be created WITHOUT those human emotions. What brings THE DESCENT OF MAN to which DARWIN referred? The fact that man is an animal not attached to a higher being-----not tied to BEING A MODEL OF DIVINITY----GOD.
Mind Scientific American
Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts
A psychologist probes how altruism, Darwinism and neurobiology mean that we can succeed by not being cutthroat.
Why do people do good things? Is kindness hard-wired into the brain, or does this tendency arise via experience? Or is goodness some combination of nature and nurture?
Dacher Keltner, director of the Berkeley Social Interaction Laboratory, investigates these questions from multiple angles, and often generates results that are both surprising and challenging. In his new book, Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life, Keltner weaves together scientific findings with personal narrative to uncover the innate power of human emotion to connect people with each other, which he argues is the path to living the good life. Keltner was kind enough to take some time out to discuss altruism, Darwinism, neurobiology and practical applications of his findings with David DiSalvo.
When we read JENNIFER DOUDNA'S Crack in Creation we read a well-written book on the history of MOVING FORWARD GMO HUMANS----but without the critical voice of REAL left populist opinion and without the discussion of REAL GLOBAL BANKING 1% goals for GMO HUMANS. We see this article in NATURE----NATURE not being public interest science journal anymore.
What is being sold as genetic engineering having the goals of bettering mankind -------it's all about better health outcomes------is mostly NOT.
'A Crack in Creation': Jennifer Doudna's CRISPR memoir is flawed, but convincing
Nathaniel Comfort | Nature | June 7, 2017
The prospect of a memoir from Jennifer Doudna, a key player in the CRISPR story, quickens the pulse. And A Crack in Creation does indeed deliver a welcome perspective on the revolutionary genome-editing technique that puts the power of evolution into human hands....
So far, the Broad Institute has controlled the CRISPR narrative. Rich in funds and talent, the Broad melds sleek, high-tech sexiness with a sense of East Coast, old-money privilege...[In 2016], institute director Eric Lander published a now-infamous piece entitled 'The heroes of CRISPR' (E. Lander Cell 164, 18–28; 2016)...Lander's clear implication was that they were laying the groundwork; Zhang's group got CRISPR over the finish line. To many of us, such tactics made Team Broad look like the villains of CRISPR.
Doudna's book was a chance to deliver a righteous knockout blow. Instead, we get a counter-narrative just as constructed as Lander's article...Rather than dispel the cartoon-character feel of this epic battle, Doudna elaborates on it. She presents us with a persona so flawless that it seems more concealing than revealing.
Here is from where REAL LEFT social progressive concerns soar------and we KNOW the goals of global banking are tied to a REAL DESCENT OF MAN.
From the time of DARWIN through all last century the studies of EVOLUTION identifying MAN as a result of evolution from animals has led to HEATED DEBATE. Creationists wanting to believe ADAM AND EVE appeared in EDEN in GOD'S likeness want to be literal. Rather than thinking our creation story simply starts at the point when animal evolution created a life-form capable of having a SPIRIT---SOUL......ERGO, what people believing in a HIGHER-SPIRIT-----GOD feel is our human connection to GOD.
DARWIN was simply that scientist following his goals of collecting data on animal systems from the smallest to the biggest. As any scientist he did not do these studies to prove one group of animals----one group of humans were better than the other. What has been called the END OF HUMANS ATTACHED TO THE DIVINE-----THE DESCENT OF MAN-----what is called SURVIVAL OF FITTEST as often tied to EUGENICS----was not a goal of DARWIN.
This is the NATURAL EVOLUTION of humans from simple animals tying our human social behaviors to the same gradual development as Darwin's physical organ system development. OBSERVATION OF DIFFERENCES AND LIKENESS------not judgemental.
Nancy Armstrong, “On Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man, 24 February 1871″
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) lays out how the principle of sexual selection could produce the splendid variety of animal life forms. This was Darwin’s way of explaining how human beings descended from animals. More to my point, however, this was Darwin’s way of accounting for the variations required before his principle of natural selection could promote some forms of life at the expense of others. Without the concept of “variation,” the theory of natural selection he proposed in The Origin of Species (1859) would not have been all that different from those of his competitors, save Alfred Russell Wallace. Nor could Darwin’s theory of evolution have achieved the extraordinary explanatory power it did. The Descent invites us to rethink this concept outside the gendered binaries of Victorian thought, so that it can challenge the primacy of natural selection.
Download this page in PDF format
Figure 1: Charles Darwin, photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron (1868)
A century and a half after the publication of The Origin of Species, readers—both expert and popular—still regard the process known as “natural selection” as the mainspring of Charles Darwin’s theory, the means by which he transformed what was then “natural history” into a modern “history of nature” (Foucault, Order 275). Writing on the “after” side of the historical fault line that Michel Foucault elaborates in The Order of Things, Darwin saw even the most comprehensive taxonomies of biological life as flawed by the discrepancy between the limits of human perception and the imperceptibly gradual but relentlessly dynamic process that created differences within and among the species. Virtually inseparable from the vital principle itself, “natural selection” directly challenged earlier accounts of natural historical change all the way from spontaneous creation to linear development. (See, for example, Cannon Schmitt, “On the Publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species, 1859.″) Natural selection redefined each and every species as but a temporary nodal point that sent out shoots which in turn sent out more shoots and developed branches in a haphazardly multidirectional manner wherever and so long as resources allowed. Multitudes either fell by the wayside or failed to materialize, not in the name of maintaining or perfecting the phenotype, but for the sake of producing new forms better able to avail themselves of resources and thus reproduce. At each step along the way, though, Darwin had to defend his conviction that natural selection was not a deadly force so much as a creative one and the primary cause of evolutionary change.
The Descent of Man comes close to assigning the winnowing process that Daniel C. Dennett famously names “Darwin’s dangerous idea” to a secondary role in Darwin’s powerful challenge to earlier theories of evolution (42). The reversal of his philosophical and scientific priorities in favor of sexual selection, however, was one for which he had prepared the way. In offering this alternative principle of selection, Darwin managed to solve his career-long problem of accounting for “variation” without dislodging natural selection as the dominant force of evolution. To formulate the principle of natural selection, he had to imagine a field of living organisms in which, as he put it, “[no] two individuals of the same race are quite alike” (860). So conceived, “variation” not only provided the given enabling him to imagine natural selection as a creative force, variation also raised a problem that natural selection could not adequately address—namely, how to account for the extraordinary diversity of forms that failed to become meaningful retroactively as traits that either had once or now distinguished species. Variation, as Darwin construed it, had to provide raw material without influencing the rate or direction of evolutionary change (Gould 137-55).
The following passage is one of many in which Darwin reminds his readers that it takes a surplus of biological possibilities, most of which never see the light of day, to produce the beauty of the common English garden:
We behold the face of nature bright with gladness, we often see a superabundance of food; we do not see, or we forget, that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seed, and are thus constantly destroying life; or we forget how largely these songsters, or their eggs, or their nestlings, are destroyed by birds or beasts of prey. (489-90)
What begins as a rather conventional personification of domesticated nature rapidly turns ugly, as Darwin catalogues the life that has been sacrificed in providing a “superabundance of food” for the diversity of species that presently cohabit a nineteenth-century garden with their human admirers. The prose gathers force as it moves past the limits of human perception, or what “we behold,” to envision the ongoing process of natural selection that has choreographed this moment of aesthetic amnesia. Darwin obviously staged the scene of nature’s abundance, so that he could expose the “face of nature” as only a fleeting moment in an ongoing process in which one element of nature feeds upon another. Thomas Malthus’s “principle of population” clearly casts its shadow over Darwin’s garden, as the “face of nature bright with gladness” blends into that of a human observer so enthralled with the apparent “superabundance of food” that he or she forgets that scarcity inevitably results from just this sense of plenty. Even so—indeed, because of the incipient violence of the scene—such scarcity enhances the sensory appeal of plentitude that induces the act of forgetting. Even here, however indirectly, Darwin calls attention to the sensual power of nature to distract us from the competitive struggle enabling the survival of some variations at the expense of others.
MALTHUS IS MOVING FORWARD AS CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION MEETS STRIPPING THE EARTH OF ALL NATURAL RESOURCES-----CREATES NEED TO DEPOPULATE
In his description of an English garden, Darwin pushes us beyond the rivalry that produces winners and losers in order to apprehend a nature that he had, in writing The Origin, come to understand in terms of the subtler difference between actual and potential manifestations. To reconceptualize biological life in these terms, he had to shift his focus away from both the living forms of life and the fossilized remains available to his observation and onto those variations that had either dropped out of view or had not yet materialized. Like the life force itself, the logic of natural selection—its ability to transform seemingly meaningless differences into those identifying discrete species—depended on a system in which possibilities are not lost but instead accumulate as a surplus of potential differences available for selection.
'Darwin beautifully reminded us to be humble at the end of The Origin:
We must ... acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all of his noble qualities, which sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other man but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system — with all these exalted powers — Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin'.
Remember our discussion of DAN BROWN and his ORIGIN-----in that case he predicted the collapse of human race ------and JESUS/GOD as divine would be that FREEMASON-------GMO HUMANS.
Scientists believing in a higher being GOD while believing DARWIN'S evolution have no conflict. Human attachment to GOD came because of our advanced brain evolution -----the capacity to feel divine presence and the will to be COMPASSIONATE, EMPATHIZE, BE EMOTIONAL FEELING SYMPATHY because we have SOULS.
Global banking 1% and their dastardly 5% freemason/Greek players are trying to ERASE that brain capacity in MOVING FORWARD. They don't want humans having these feelings morals and ethics----they want GMO HUMANS more like lower animals.
While we read discussions from INSIDERS working on GMO HUMANS give great STEM descriptions of the science of genetics meets biotechnology----they NEVER discuss these goals.
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL-----SOCIETAL DYSTOPIA BROUGHT TO 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE by far-right wing global banking CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA in MOVING FORWARD.
It's important for 99% WE THE PEOPLE to understand today's scientists tied to MOVING FORWARD GMO HUMANS are far-right wing NIHILISTS-----sociopaths-------the majority of scientists do NOT see DESCENT OF MAN as proof of MAN BEING just another ANIMAL
'12 Famous Scientists On The Possibility Of God
Feb 01, 2016 · In fact, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, American scientists are about half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher, universal power. Still, the survey found that the percentage of scientists that believe in some form of a deity or power was higher than you may think -- 51 percent'.
If humans are simply just another animal----then we can BREED HUMANS as we do DOGS.
Global banking 1% are PLAYING our 5% players making one population group feel they are SUPREMACISTS-----when global 1% are Asian, European, Arabic all thinking their race is SUPREME. EUGENICS is an ECONOMIC term......
DARWIN KNEW THAT.
Know what we have called those dastardly OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS looting our US Treasury and taking a strong, CIVIL SOCIETY down to third world chaos? VISIGOTH BARBARIANS.....especially our WHITE EUROPEAN GLOBAL 1%.
02/17/2015 01:44 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017
Darwin’s Revolutionary Evolution
By Mario Livio
On Feb. 12 we celebrated Charles Darwin’s 206th birthday. (Fig. 1 shows Darwin late in life.) This calls for at least a brief essay, to remind ourselves of Darwin’s remarkable achievement.
Figure 1. Darwin in his old age (reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library).
Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote once that Darwin’s theory of evolution “caused a greater upheaval in man’s thinking than any other scientific advance since the rebirth of science in the Renaissance.”
Indeed, together with the Copernican revolution, the Darwinian revolution basically demolished the human anthropocentric view of the universe. The impact of the Darwinian revolution was and still is felt far beyond the boundaries of science.
But Darwin’s theory did much more than that. By boldly stating that species are not eternal and immutable, Darwin introduced the concept of an evolving (rather than static) world. This fundamental idea was later expanded, and its adoption encompasses everything from the Earth to the stars to galaxies to the universe as a whole. Even though the laws of nature (as far as we can tell) stay unchanged, everything within the cosmos is evolving.
Another major consequence of the new Darwinian perspective has been the complete denial of any cosmic teleology. Evolution by natural selection has no long-term “strategic plan” or ultimate goal. Rather than striving toward some perfection, natural selection simply tinkers by elimination of the individuals with characteristics that are less adapted to the particular conditions of their environment.
If not for the fact that Darwin’s theory had meaningful implications for the nature and status of humans, I doubt that his theory would have caused quite the same outcry.
In fact, Darwin himself chose to dodge the issue of humans in the first edition of On the Origin of Species, by only cryptically hinting that “In the distant future ... light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.” Only in his later book, The Descent of Man, did Darwin explicitly explain that humans are nothing special but just another product of a continuous evolution. The seeds of this idea, however, had already been planted in On the Origin of Species: “Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form.”
The history of science since Darwin has shown us time and again that from a purely physical perspective, humans are but tiny specks of dust in the grand universal scheme. Even the stuff we’re made of — ordinary (baryonic) matter — constitutes less than 5 percent of the cosmic energy budget.
Darwin beautifully reminded us to be humble at the end of The Origin:
We must ... acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all of his noble qualities, which sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other man but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system — with all these exalted powers -- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.