Download File - Queen of the South

Biological Evolution
136
Chapter Three
Biological Evolution
Evolution is one of the great unifying concepts in Biology. In
general, without any specific designations, the word evolution means
an unfolding or unrolling, a development, a revelation or unveiling.
As a term of a scientific theory and in its restricted sense, it is
commonly understood as organic evolution. This conceives that all
the various plants and animals existing at the present time have
descended or evolved from simpler organisms by a series of gradual
or sudden modifications both structural and functional.
There are two pertinent questions which, arising from rational
wonder, interrupt the joy of the intuitive contemplation of an organic
evolution. They are its How? and Why?
The mechanism adduced by many biologists to explain organic
evolution may be described as a kind of natural selection acting on
inheritable variations of a population. The raw materials of evolution
are the mutations in chromosomes and genes. Some sort of isolation,
geographic, genetic, or ecological seems necessary for the setting up
of new species. Natural selection is a choice. It does not create new
characteristics. It plays a part in choosing and determining which
new characteristics shall survive. Gene and chromosome mutations
can be produced naturally or artificially by a variety of agents.
Genetic engineering is nothing new, but who? or what? is the
engineer. Aseity answers the Who?, her selflife answers the What?
From what we know today of the seeming fickle nature of so much
genetic material in living things and also the continual harassing
pressure of a mutation-effecting environment, it is something to be
marvelled at as to how any living organism retains any semblance of
stability. Some other’s immanence dictates set order from its selffunctioning self-evolving presence.
The concept of natural selection is central to modern theories of
biological evolution. Natural selection is generally associated with an
organism’s survival and reproductive success in response to
environmental pressures which result in the adaptation of a species to
a specific environment. Theories of natural selection in the origin
of species (species only) can be made plausible if they are based on
some factual evidence concerning the advent of certain new species
from older species of already existing types. Nevertheless most
explanations ultimately pose more questions than they answer.
Biological Evolution
137
The genesis of completely new classes of living things from preexisting ones precedes any natural selection within already formed
species and is still shrouded in mystery. If, as thought and taught by
many scientists, the process were gradual, being built up by a series
of small adaptive changes, then it is argued by many others that the
fossil evidence should be replete with an abundance of such
intermediary or transitional forms. Such is not the case. Indeed all
the evidence is to the contrary of Darwinism’s theory of cumulative
processes so slow that they take between thousands and millions of
decades to complete. Aeons of time do not seem to have been
necessary for the evolution of new classes from older ones. Their
appearance is sudden, their links with what would have been
expected in a slow process are missing from fossil records. In their
absence, one can not be blamed for concluding that they never
existed and that Mother Nature effected new classes in selected
begotten mutations of immediate eventuality.
Progressive and rapid evolution within any species could well be
assured by a favourable mixing of some different strains in various
environments and then compounding their hereditary modifications.
Cellular asexual or non-sexual reproduction has been on this earth
ever since the very first selflife manifested its self-functioning there.
Physics and Chemistry prepared the way for Biology and are
essential to it.
With the sacrifice of some of their mass, fundamental dualized
particles serve as or help to build up the nucleons (protons and
neutrons) which in turn serve to build up other atomic nuclei. The
latter, clouded with potential-reducing electron-charge, are formed
into individual atoms which under favourable reduced energy
conditions then come together to form molecules. Atoms and
molecules, either neutral and dipolar, or charged as ions, can become
integrated or made to coalesce, usually by attractive, potentialreducing electrostatic forces and select catalysts to form one, two or
three dimensional lattices.
With types of one dimensional lattices aggregates known as
polymers or macromolecules arise with possibilities of new spatial
arrangements involving coiling and twisting. Among the most
important and fundamental of these are the complex proteins and
nucleic acids which form colloidal-state collectivities of organelles
like chromosomes. The latters’ spiralling double-threaded, mirrorsymmetrical helices make for a mother-twin-daughter fission process
Biological Evolution
138
under select energy level and catalytic stimuli, and reproduction is
rendered possible in what then become living cells.
The intrinsic beauty of this ordered procession engages our
contemplation, until the child in us grows distracted and begins again
to question in wonder. Just how did not-yet-existent beings relate to
their own eventual future becomingness? Growth in complexity in
any closed system is self-functioning but also is other-dependent and
requires catalysts and extra energy from some outside source.
It was observed on Page 44, that all biological cell reproduction, in
the strict sense of the word reproduction as meaning producing exact
copies of itself, is asexual. Sexual reproduction is really a misnomer.
Sexuality is a requirement for efficient propagation, but it is not
precisely a true reproductive process. It exhibits a plurality of
functions in the cause of adaptation and the perfectioning of already
existing species, whilst being indispensable in the initiating of new
individuals, and hence possible new species.
Reproduction or replication makes two of the same sort from just
the one single and same parent. The latter, as mother, loses its
complete individuality in the formation of two such new potential
mothers who now continue the process. Life itself manifests this
never ending maternal fruitfulness in which there is no place for
death, except through accident.
Sexuality, on the other hand, is a means of making one different
sort from two distinct parents who do not lose their individuality in
the process but who are nevertheless doomed to the extinction of
death once their usefulness is expended. Reproduction effects an
increase in quantity by changing one into two, whilst sexual union
affects quality by changing two into one, fission and fusion,
distinction and union.
Cells are united into groups which in turn become differentiated
into various tissues. These serve the distinct and very diverse organs
which integrate to form complete living organisms. Evolution does
not cease here. Organisms gather together into societies, and the
process continues in ever-expanding spheres of unified diversity and
increasing coherent complexity in which the type achieves a kind of
potential immortality by its service to and incorporation into an
increasingly interrelated and interdependent commonwealth or
shared environment. After a certain stage was reached, biological
evolution could only continue and progress by means of distinct new
individuals who were limited by spaced time.
Biological Evolution
139
From the point of view of simple organic evolution the greatest
invention and revelation of Aseity in Nature is the cycle of birth and
death. It is the transitory and short-lived individual who now
constitutes the rudimentary elements of progressive biological
evolution. With the advent of the distinctioning male, sexuality and
its consequence of the eventual death of the new individual, became
the novel means to evade the rigidly conservative traditions
dominating, and as it were, enslaving the inorganic universe. Thus
was prepared a way for a furtherance of freedom of activity and
emancipation from too much outside dependence culminating in
human liberty and in self’s ability to choose this and-or that,
especially in hypothetical if...then... situations.
There are unaccountable mysteries in the developments of
evolution whereby organs appear, seemingly invented by an extraordinary genetic engineering to purposely increase the freedom of
the individual and its independence, with respect to an interdependent environment. Aseistic evolution pressed on in the past
with a lavish differentiation towards an upward spiralling goal, not
satisfied with a range of beings extending from those merely capable
of existing, to those perfectly adapted to their surroundings. For
example, the appearance of homoiothermism or constant temperature
in birds is an extraordinary and unmistakable liberation from slavery
to the environment. It has all the hallmarks of a suddenly begotten
mutation. So also has sexuality.
Sexual two-in-oneness is the great servant of evolution. It does not
serve directly, as its end, mere biological reproduction which is
antecedently accomplished in living cells by stimulated mitotic
fission. Mitosis is cell division when each daughter cell has the same
number of chromosomes as the parent-mother. Diploid cells such as
zygotes, have nuclei containing two sets of chromosomes. Haploid
cells such as gametes, have nuclei containing only one set of
chromosomes. In the reduction division of meiosis, the daughter
cells have only haploid sets of chromosomes. Sexuality represents
Nature’s most ingenious dualistic method of ensuring the perfection
of existing individuals and future ones as well. For the sake of
economy and convenience, sexual biunity is incorporated into a
propagative cycle at its most efficacious moment, whilst still
remaining, however, functionally distinct from mere reproduction.
The driving tendency of living things to adapt themselves is a
manifestation of a search for equilibrium similar to that observed in
Biological Evolution
140
the inorganic world. There, a system always tends towards a state of
equilibrium corresponding to the minimum of free energy which is
compatible with its total energy. In already formed members of a
class of living things this equilibrium tendency towards a nonevolutionary slothful self-sufficiency is prevented by an immanent
otherness programming. This latter’s need finds natural fulfilment
through haploid fission and subsequent diploid fusion with an other.
New characteristics are introduced into older species, whilst at the
same time there is provided the possibility of developing completely
new ones and even new types of living things by chromosomal gene
mutation. Thus the equilibrium barrier is continually being broken.
In actual biological propagation, sexual distinction and union is
merely a conditional occasion for any increase in quantity. It is a
functional element for diversity. It is the efficient cause for quality,
sometimes for better, and often unfortunately for worse. Evolution,
through sexuality, guarantees that in more ways than one, some of
the good will get better and that many of the bad will get worse. If
the transitory or limited self-perpetuating powers of two relatively
unrelated parent organisms are joined together through union of their
genetic material or genes, then the resulting offspring may acquire a
survival or perfectioning potential which is far greater than that of
either parent alone. They could be worse off too. They may acquire a
double share of undesirable qualities which may hasten their demise
and bring about the eventual deterioration and destruction of the
particular strain.
Sexistential relativity is fundamental to Nature. As a unique
biological unity of distinction and union, it is observed in some very
early levels of life, not as begetting a new member of some species,
but as perfecting only existing ones by exchange of gene sets as in
the protozoon Paramecium, or in the cold-resisting zygospore of
Spirogyra. In these and all other organisms, humans not excluded,
sexual union and propagation are equally distinct, even though for
efficiency the two processes do link together. Accompanying the
sexual process, there is a real but poorly understood protoplasmic
rejuvenation on the biochemical metabolic level. Hormone exchange,
stress reduction and psychical as well as physical rejuvenation can be
important aspects of orgasmic sexuality for adult humans and also, as
now verified, among fish, birds and animals.
Reproduction is conservative. By it, parental characteristics are
passed on faithfully in the mother-twin-daughter fashion from
Biological Evolution
141
generation to generation as long as the surroundings are favourable.
Sexuality, on the other hand, is a liberating process. It helps survival
under changed or new conditions and by combining the best features
of both parents can introduce doubly advantageous material into the
resulting organisms. It thus has adaptive and perfectioning value for
both already existing, and also possibly improved future individuals
who will in time spread their new advantages throughout the whole
population. Freedom from blind traditions and inertial conservatism
are thus secured for all time.
As a cosmic symbol and in the psychical realm of affective interpersonal relations and true mystical experience, human sexuality can
be raised to levels of meaningfulness which totally transcend its mere
biological significance. As such it can render procreation of new
individuals unnecessary and contraception, even artificial, both valid
and advisable. Sexuality knows its profoundest reality in involvement with religion and selflife experience. Personal development and
self-transcendence through sexual relations can and should have
sacrificial connotations. To sacrifice should mean to make sacred in
an act of reverential worship. For sexuality to perfect a new cultural
and religious species in evolutionary ascent, we must apply such
ideas of sacrifice analogously to personal relationships involving a
self and its other. Unless the I-self’s grain of selflife seed die, there
remains but a sterile “me and mine”, but if it submits to a psychical
metamorphosis on encountering a beloved “you”, then it enjoys a
more abundant life as “we, us and ours”.
In the orgasm climax of sexual union there should be experienced
the ecstatic pleasure of a mystical death. Biology’s sex-functioning
introduces limits bringing eventual death to the individual’s body
and likewise psychologically, there should be exacted a similar
transition with respect to the individual self’s conscious personal life.
This is the self-sacrificial price that has to be paid for Nature’s
selective growth in unity and complexity. Sexual fertility, with its
potential for an increased quality and diversity in the fruits of its
union, requires ultimately the sacrificial surrendering of the fleshmasked personal individuality of both its participants.
Biologically, the male’s sole function is to provide a distinctioning and fertilizing sperm in a moment of time. An adult testis is
stable both in structure and role and secretes only one hormone to
promote and maintain masculinity. On the other hand, woman’s
endocrine control of phase-linked sexual functioning is much more
Biological Evolution
142
involved and far more highly evolved. It is to the mother’s s-f-f-s
that a future generation owes its becomingness. Though male and
female are correlatives and complementary parts of a cosmic duality,
it must always be remembered and understood that in human sexual
relativity, man’s role is to serve woman with distinction in union.
Aseistic evolution as a progressive revelation is opposed in many
respects to adaptation which is strictly conservative and opts to get
out of the erratic race. Paradoxically, evolutionary development
would seem to have both constructive and destructive aspects,
manifesting not only a retrogressive entropic aspect towards
uniformity and directional irreversibility, but also a progressive
tendency towards greater distinction in unity as if a series of goals
had to be attained. There is displayed a fine purposefulness and
prodigality whereby Nature seems not content that there should be
mere life, but that it should abound both in quantity and quality of
increasingly sophisticated and selected improbable types. Biological
evolution begins with amorphous living matter or things like
Coenocytes which are without a real defined cell structure, and ends
in social human beings endowed with freedom and an expanding
selflife consciousness, in which there is an increasing awareness of
an inner revealing and loving maternal otherself.
The three phases of mutation, adaptation and a rational sort of
natural selection, functioning progressively together in that order are
simple mechanisms which have contributed at times to a gradual
blossoming or lateral unfolding of Nature’s revelation, without in
themselves being in any way vertically progressive. They are not
determining factors in general ascending evolution. The criterion of
adaptation is usefulness in the present. A vital criterion of aseistic
evolution is freedom for the future. It seeks a progressive liberating
from entropy’s anarchy and the suicidal randomness of unordered
independence to a freely chosen and ordered symbiotic interdependence of one self with others.
The cliché, adapt or perish, is a half-truth. If it really means
abandoning a selfish independence in a self-only-survival situation
and adaptively adopting an altruistic interdependence with others,
not only for common survival but for self-perfecting growth, then
such prudent adaptation is beneficial all round. It must always be
remembered that such adaptation demands a self-sacrificial negative
feedback for true success and spells the end of entropic self-only
interest. Adapting oneself to become a unit part of a fertile whole
Biological Evolution
143
unity means perishing as a sterile individual. Generally this is not the
understanding which evolutionists have in mind when they speak of
adaptation. More often than not, they are referring to mere changes
in habits or habitats, like adapting to new food chains or climatic
conditions.
When the equilibrium constituting their perfect adaptation still as
individuals has been finally reached, living things naturally cease to
be transformed. As long as the environmental situation is not
sufficiently modified to make further adaptation necessary and thus
as long as the equilibrium is not violated, no further evolution is
required and indeed, if such adaptation is the only goal, then no
further evolution is possible. Much of the fauna and flora observable
in Nature, though they are masterpieces of ecological adaptation, are
but in fact the mere leftovers of progressive evolution. Only one
stock amongst all the others never arrived at adaptation’s equilibrium
and not merely survived but culminated in what we humans call
ourselves. It is not the thing best adapted to its environment which
contributes favourably to evolution. It is true that its chances of
survival are thus much higher, but its better adaptation excludes it
from any upward spiralling progression and only increases the
number of dropout quasi-stagnating species which inhabit the earth.
In its passage through the sea, over mountains and across deserts
towards its destined Promised Land, Aseity’s if...then...vertical
evolution progresses or struggles from one instability to another and
would cease if it gave up the struggle, not just for mere existence, but
for more and more existence or selflife on a higher level of
complexity. Natural environments may change and those things
which were the fittest in a former situation may find the new
conditions quite harmful. Adaptation then works to offset its own
previous efforts, and natural selection tends now to choose to do
away with those whom before it had encouraged. In all such cases,
adaptation is certainly not progressive but conservative, selfprotective and defensive. Paradoxical situations emerge revealing
that some of the theoretical and seemingly plausible mechanisms that
are ascribed to Nature in evolution actually militate against the very
process for which they are supposed to account.
Freedom from being a slave of the environment, freedom from the
necessity of having ever to adapt, freedom to be able to adapt the
environment to our own rational needs, these are the ends which
Aseity, in her selflife revelation, seems to have set out to achieve and
Biological Evolution
144
to a certain extent has achieved in us, sometimes for better and often
for worse.
For people disposed to see it this way in a contemplated and
comprehensive overall view, evolution has all the manifestations of
being a choice, always made in the same direction, ascending
towards fixed goals amongst which freedom of activity in systems of
increasing selflife is a dominating consideration. It is with certain
mutants amongst whole populations of individuals that such a choice
seems to be made. Many, or all, are called for the new adventure but
only a relative few are actually chosen. Aseity randomly selects
whom she wishes, for what she wishes, when and where and how she
wishes. She does this often with a revolutionary touch of typical,
unpredictable feminine humour and teasing caprice, which
misunderstanding masculine minds might consider quite irrational.
This interpretation of the concept Natural Selection is different from
that as understood by many orthodox Neo-Darwinians.
The increasing liberty among living things is evident if one
begins from one-celled organisms and considers such factors as
locomotion and dependence on the environment with respect to such
things as saline medium, temperature and food. The real menace of
destruction by other species demands liberating new developments as
does also such things as freedom from the necessity of using hands
for walking and for digging. Biological evolution climaxes in the
female placental mammal. Culturally, it continues in the psyche
where there is the liberation, through programmed speech and
memory, from the old time-consuming gene method of passing on
favourable acquired characteristics and useful experience. Modern
electronic computers aid their cerebral counterparts in the rapid
processing and utilizing of information.
Finally we have personal liberty in the human self’s will-powered
choice of that unity in positive plural becomingness whose truth sets
us free from the disorders of singular virgin existence. The perfection
of liberty does not lie in inertial sterile independence, but in willed
fertile interdependence.
The real problems in theorizing about evolution do not arise in the
history of a genus or species, but in the formation of the much
broader phyla and classes. There are numerous forward and upward
non-adaptive jumps in evolution which defy any Darwinian,
mechanistic or statistical explanation and which all bear the
hallmarks of the immediate activity of a manufacturer and operator
Biological Evolution
145
of Do-it-yourself Kits. To such a begetter we have assigned the
personal name Aseity. She is both an artist and a scientist, skilled in
chemical, mechanical, electrical and genetic engineering and an
absolute wizard at cerebral computer programming.
Already two of these extraordinary leaps have been noted as with
constant blood temperature in birds and animals and the introduction
of sexuality into propagation processes. Others of note in Nature’s
long list of wonders are the passage from monocellular beings, the
Protozoa, to the Metazoa composed of many kinds of cells,
specialized to perform new particular tasks. Among the characteristics of living things are properties such as metabolism, movement,
and irritability or response to stimuli. The development of chemicals
and structures for these functions presupposes knowledge of some
end in view. Enzymes and hormones are essential parts of living
systems whose self-functioning presupposes their existence. They are
not just fortuitous findings amid an abundance of wild isolated
compounds in a disordered chemical junk yard. Are such systems
capable of conceiving themselves by the operation of a fictional
natural magic, called chance, which in theory is blind, chaotic and
has no real existence, and yet in practice sees and knows everything
and invents the most extraordinary ordered complexities with
relentless regularity, contrary to all thermodynamic restrictions?
No intelligent and unbiased person could possibly object to the
basic idea that from just mere simple beginnings, and somehow or
other, by a succession of gradual transformations the more complex
living things eventually evolved. Just how this happened is the
subject of much conjecture. In the past study of Natural History, such
evolutionary ideas had often been proposed, but it was not until after
Charles Darwin elaborated his Theory of The Origin of Species that
major controversies arose when explanations based on chance began
to be voiced. At the risk of incurring the ill will of many academics,
this writer dares to assert that the introduction of the word chance
into Biological Science as an accepted fact rather than as a novel
fiction, is one of the great cultural deceptions of our time. So too is
the insistence on the actual existence somewhere out there in space
of a mythological daddy god .
In theorizing about physical processes, the concept of randomness or free movement of particles must be taken into account.
Random mutations are continually occurring in Nature. Randomness
means relational freedom from other restraints. It is improperly
Biological Evolution
146
conceived as some kind of sophisticated chance which is now made
respectable from its mistakenly imputed mathematical associations.
We design special machines that function non-randomly, yet
generate approximations to theoretical randomness. The motion of
particles in a gas can be understood as random or free. The effects
such motion brings about are not occasioned by chance.
Biologists project their own personal consciousness onto Nature
and into their theories of evolutionary processes. Hence we have
approaches which range from reductionist differentiation to holistic
integration, from a selfish survival of the fittest to the altruistic
symbiosis of self-other-functioning feedback systems. It is a much
jaundiced eye which only sees Nature as red in tooth and claw, and
accepts violence and a wild struggle for individuals’ singular
survival as the sole operative norms in evolutionary processes. There
is no technological evil nor malice in the natural processes of animal
metabolism which demand a necessary life-and-death food chain in a
s-f-f-s. Ideas about struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest
find their place in conceiving biological entropy and male territorial
dominance. In the aseistic evolution of self-functioning feedbacksystems, it is the friendliest and most cooperative who ultimately
triumph as a unity. Aseity has her own way of eliminating those
supposedly fittest, but in fact foolish, individuals who choose to act
out of step with her.
Who or what dictates the selflife program by which the mutant
gene develops and now functions in some new live s-f-f-s? People,
blind from birth, wandering aimlessly in a picture gallery, who do
not know what looking is like, nor what to look for, are in an
impossible position for the successful self-development of visual
aesthetic appreciation. With hindsight we observe how a fertilized
egg with foresighted genes grows into a fully developed member of a
particular species. We understand now the niceties of sexual
propagation, but how did the first fertilized egg (or eggs) of any
species get the reflexive hindsight to develop with transitive
foresight the way it did and still does.
Feedback trial and error processes are foresighted means to attain
certain determined ends. The very existence of a success or a failure
in such trial and error technologies demands that such processes be
designed for a purpose.
Self’s conceived self-survival demands some self who seeks
survival either in or through some thing. Trial and error techniques in
Biological Evolution
147
an evolving s-f-f-s imply actual foresight of the existence of possible
success or failure. The degree of symbiotic incorporation into an
ecologically favourable environment measures success, whilst
rejection by such as unsuitable or detrimental determines failure. In
all eras preceding the advent of human self-consciousness in this
planet’s evolutionary development, the eventual fate of any new
parts, through success or failure, would have been judged by their
feedback effect on the whole system, for better or worse, for richer or
poorer.
It is opportune to let elementary Statistical Theory clarify the use
of fictional chance. In Mathematics, a chance event is one to which
a probability value can be given for its future occurrence. Such a
value is assigned from the ratio of the number of favourable events to
the number of possible. A probability of 1 relates to certainty, whilst
a probability of zero denotes absolute non-occurrence. In this sense
the word chance can be replaced by probability.
Improbable means not probable or unlikely. In Mathematical
procedures, the statistical measures of probability and improbability
are related but are calculated differently. Probability is a measure of
success, the occurrence of an event, while improbability is a measure
of failure or the non-occurrence of an event.
Before a mathematical chance event has some kind of foresighted
existence, the probability of its future certain existence from the pure
nothingness of its present non-existence is zero divided by zero,
which is meaningless. Once a new event has occurred, the
probability of this event having occurred is one. The probability of
its occurring again in a similar way at some future time is a whole
new ball game.
There never was nor could be any ratio of favourable to possible
before the possible events actually existed. It makes no sense to use
the word probability in such a context because there is no way of
listing all the future possible outcomes before they actually exist. It
would seem that most chance-minded biologists and academics do
not understand that probability calculations only have reference now
in present time to known future possible events, not to past ones.
Quantum Mechanics requires taking cognizance of an uncertainty
principle and employs techniques of statistical mechanics. Whilst
the outcomes and configurations of experimenting in the Quantum
realm necessitate the use of Probability Theory, it can in no way be
understood that these events take place by a species of chance.
Biological Evolution
148
Scientists who apply Probability Theory and its associated
Improbability Theory to past events are no different from science
fiction writers. Any explanation that depends wholly, or even partly,
on a fictional chance is only a fictional chance explanation
A statistical interpretation of the Law of Entropy exacts that
any system or process, left to itself, can change only in such a way as
to increase the probability of the increasingly disunited state in which
the system finds itself as a whole due to the increased lack of
coordination of its parts. Unkempt gardens soon give way to weeds.
That the system, like the garden, should return of its own accord
either to its pristine state or evolve to a more complex one becomes
ever more highly improbable. In practice there are infinitely more
ways of getting things wrong than getting things right. The more
numerous the small changes, the more accidents are statistically
possible with the far greater probability of something going wrong
with the system.
Shaking a plentiful supply of the different parts of a watch in a
container for aeons and aeons of time will wear out both the parts
and the container and reduce them to rubble, but the only time the
outcome will measure is a prolonged period of futility. The
probability of a continual increase in entropic disorder is infinitely
greater than any miraculous chance increase automatically in
complexity.
When any closed system is left to its own devices and selffunctioning, we can be certain that if anything can go wrong, then
eventually it will go wrong. In hell’s heated thermodynamic prison
from which there are no possible exits, the dice are so loaded and the
cards so stacked that a random player can never ever win nor ever
escape from losing. There are not enough typewriters in the world for
immortal chimpanzees to play with and wear out trying to fulfil some
scientist’s ambition to create a literary monkey-piece. In a world
where obsolescence is inbuilt, long periods of time are more of a
hindrance than a help in an upward self-functioning evolution
Chance events, to which a meaningful probability of their future
occurrence can be calculated from the ratio of favourable to possible,
only exist in the human mathematical mindset. Statistically and
scientifically Probability Theory is valid only for factual prognostic
purposes NOW, in regard to FUTURE well-defined events. When
applied to the past, it is not just fictional fantasy, but is also unreal
and absurd. The odds of a fall of a HEAD with any fair coin are
Biological Evolution
149
exactly the same now as in Caesar’s time, but the games of the past
have already been played and won or lost.
Predictability and probability have close associations. They both
refer to possible future events, not to past events. Hindsight’s only
role in probability calculations is to determine the ratio of a known
number of past or present favourable events to all possible future
ones in a precisely specified set of circumstances. It is inane to speak
with hindsight of the mathematical probability of past improperly
called chance events, like the gradual evolutionary emergence of lifeforms. It is a trivial pursuit also now for those creationists opposed to
any sort of natural evolution, to try to compute the ratio of the
favourable number of ways to the total possible number of ways that
atoms could have been arranged in a past chance event to produce
the first complex protein molecules. For us, the past has certainly
occurred. Only the future is uncertain, and though we can hopefully
choose at times the ways we would like it to unfold, we have no
guarantee that such will eventuate. Today’s future uncertainties
become tomorrow’s past certain historical realities.
Seeming random selection may appear as Nature’s way of freely
choosing which molecules are to be initially involved in evolutionary complex structuring, but the outcome of such experimenting is
never in doubt. When Nature wants something done, nothing is left
to ill-chance. Mother Nature has her own means of deciding who or
what shall take part in the revolutionary outcomes of her child’s
evolution. Her largess is prodigal as in egg and sperm profusion.
The choreographed network pantomime acted out in the course of
our species of spaced time follows definite patterns of self-otherorganization and has valid meanings for those who seek to unveil the
elusive and teasing laws of Aseity herself. Laboratory accidents may
occasion the appearance of new chemicals which are made, not by
chance, but by the inexorable interplay of chemical and physical
laws involving asymmetries and the interaction of one thing with an
other. In universal relativity, no single thing, be it charge, mass, spin
or particle itself is allowed to ignore its other, whether the latter be a
symmetric image or not.
Our limited yet expanding selflife is but a sustained living
evolving echo-image in the maternal field of the extraordinary
Aseity. She, as the Mother Self of the Cosmos, is immanent in and
reveals her self’s projected becomingness in and with and through
us, at her ovoidal being’s otherself focus. The human psyche is the
Biological Evolution
150
tuner-receiver of a broad-cast selflife seed. The psychical field is as
real and as elusive of explanation as any gravitational or electromagnetic field. We concern ourselves with the physical objects of
knowledge without knowing what knowledge actually is in the
psychical subject. We do ourselves the greatest disservice by not
responding resonantly to Aseity’s acknowledged muted presence
within us, wanting to make the water of our humanity blush into the
wine of consciously sharing her own selflife.
Whilst empirical science, professedly, may only be concerned with
uncovering general laws relative to the present and its past and which
are then predictable for the future, the true natural philosopher must
ask and try to resolve questions about the real genesis of these laws
in the past. Is there any sense in asking whether or in what way the
laws of chemical composition existed before the evolution of
chemicals? Are Laws of Nature the manifestations of a selflife
immanence in universal mass-energy relativity which makes all
otherself generation possible? Aseity’s Universal Relativity governs
all her revelations of self and other functioning in her self-evolving
Cosmos.
Language analysis may be allowed to have the last word on
questions of causal agents in evolutionary events. Words mean what
we want them to mean. Selection as in Natural Selection or selection
by Nature implies some sort of choice. We can select numbers at
random in lotteries. We do not act blindly or mindlessly without a
purpose. We have a purpose in mind, namely to win a prize.
There are two necessary conditions for any selection process or
cumulative procession. Selection is the name of an operation, not an
operating agent. On whose agenda is the Evolution of the Cosmos
listed?
Selection implies, as a first condition, the existence of an actual
operating agent who then, as a second condition, makes choices
according to certain known or just plausible if....then.... criteria. In a
whole s-f-f-s, Natural Selection operates implicitly with hindsight of
the past and foresight for the future. Only some actual functioning
whole s-f-f-s is capable of any sort of progressive evolution by
purposeful natural cumulative selection.
For some religions, Creationism as a supernatural fiction, may be
more plausible than any fortuitous evolution sponsored by the
irrational fiction of blind cumulative chance. The former, however, is
as simplistic as the latter is absurd. The only valid and verifiable
Biological Evolution
151
scientific system of real natural selection is aseistic evolution in
which the infinite being of selflife energy acts from within its own
enwombed becomingness. An immanent Aseity, working from
within in the unity of a distinction-union relation can very simply
and quite effectively initiate the creative leaps, gradual or otherwise,
necessary for the appearance of new orders and fresh types of being,
from already existing ones.
Biological entities can automatically reproduce themselves, but
initially they do not automatically invent themselves nor can they
adapt themselves by themselves to new environmental situations
simply by their own past genetic engineering. They need an other
self to do that. They need to be part of a pre-existing, well-ordered,
universal self-other-functioning-feedback-hypersystem, aptly named
in the language of today’s Economics, Selflife Incorporated, or
abbreviated to the more personal, Aseity Inc.
The true experience of unity in the mute contemplation of the
grandeur of the Cosmos and the interwoven networks and structured
complexities of life on Planet Earth compels the acceptance that what
has happened in the Universe is a dynamic evolution. With the
whither? and whence? of such we associate two points of view,
foresight and hindsight. Some of yesterday’s foresight has become
today’s hindsight. Without foresight in the past we cannot have
hindsight in the present, for they are the two sides of the one same
coin of reflexive and transitive self-other sighting relations.
Hindsight’s set of all feedback systems confounds any theories
which postulate the absence in the past of their foresighted design.
A trial-and-error feedback system necessarily demands some
purpose in foreseeable success or failure. It is another one of the
ironies of a deceptive logic in modern science that molecular
biologists accept the existence of programmed genes, which by
definition are unique units of hereditary hindsight data and which
achieve their foresighted effects by directing the purposeful synthesis
of proteins, and yet at the same time many such biologists would
deny any hindsight, foresight and purpose to the evolutionary growth
of genes from bits of old fashioned chemical stuff. The patterned
structured growth in complexity of inorganic, organic, and cerebral
psychical activity in matter-made forms follows logically if matter
itself is thought of as a spaced time self-functioning otherself
masquerade of the immanent self-existent self-evolving Aseity in her
field unity of self-other co-consciousness in the Cosmos.
Biological Evolution
152
Disillusioned academics, blinded by their own fictions, continue to
pull more and more wool over the eyes of those whom they have
already blindfolded and the latter, trapped in the ditches of
frustration and uncertainty, become the laughing stock of philistine
anti-science lobbyists.
Theories of Natural Selection are quite plausible in the origin of
species. A species is a group of closely related, structurally and
functionally, similar organisms which in Nature interbreed with one
another, but which do not interbreed with organisms of other groups.
Natural selection is fundamentally a peaceful creative force,
spreading genetic novelty through reproduction and sexual
propagation. It does not involve struggle for existence or survival of
the fittest. It does not eliminate the unfit, but is based on comparative
reproductive success or differential reproduction.
Science cannot validate imaginary concepts of an unpredictable
fictional chance, but it does pontificate infallibly on all predictable
unlucky chance events. For any system in isolation, if anything can
go wrong, given enough time it will go wrong. There is no cause for
pessimism. If one optimistically accepts self-other relativity’s
pervading of the Universe, then aseistic evolution becomes a sexbased two-in-one comedy-romance with a happy ending - even if
there are only relatively few humans left to enjoy it.