Natural Selections

There has been a lot of talk lately about the theory of evolution and Charles Darwin's theories of natural selection. It seems that we are being made to choose between believing that it is human/animal nature to dominate vs. human/animal nature being more cooperative and niche-filling. I just want to drop my two cents on it.

First: Natural Selection states three things. 1. Organisms (bacteria, plant, animal, etc) must compete for resources in any given environment. 2. Only the most fit will receive enough of those resources to have their genes survive in their particular population. The less fit are eventually eliminated from the population through genetic drift (the tendency for the survivors to survive and procreate, dominating that population's gene pool) 3. Mutations in the genetic code aid natural selection in the elimination or the augmented fitness of an individual.

I don't believe that one organism benefits only at the loss of another. I hypothesize that the better we work together (WITHIN OUR MEANS), the more likely we are to survive.

Take, for example, the fish that swim under the shark's belly and feed off of the flesh that falls by the wayside. These fish are clearly not the most adept at attaining their own food by killing it. So, how did they come to fit this niche and not become shark food? Well, at some point the type of sharks they follow had to decide that they do more good than harm. Now, I do not know the ultimate premise behind their current role. However, it is these types of relationships that suggest that our nature is more cooperative than previously thought. I mean, why should one individual win, while others lose? Over time that organism would become very lonely if that were the case. Besides, team sports are more fun than individual ones anyway... just ask Tiger Woods. (yeah, I said it!)

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!

Until the next one...

Peace.