Why hasn’t one species “won” evolution? Why hasn’t one super-species outcompeted all competitors?

Humans are the dominant species based on our technology and industry intelligence, opposable and language skills. There are creatures that eat humans, but homo-sapiens as a species won’t be wiped out because of it. Most of us just avoid being in a place where we might get eaten by a shark or a crocodile or a lion.

We have our educational institutions, Internet, electricity, cities, medicine, cellphones, transportation and so on.

In that sense, we are the super-species.

But there’s nothing saying we will improve in the future. We could devolve over a few hundred thousand years time. Dependence on technology and shopping in supermarkets doesn’t advance mean we will evolve “upwards.” For example, I wear eyeglasses, but it used to be in days of yore if you couldn’t see clearly you’d die soon enough. There’s nothing saying that our eyesight, teeth and a host of other things will improve over time.

Right now, however, we’re the pinnacle, standing at the top of the hill. Like this picture that I took in Caprock Canyon State Park in Texas and then heavily modified it inside The GIMP.



What will be the next major step in the evolution of the human species?

You know, evolution doesn’t always mean things get better.

It used to be if someone couldn’t see clearly they’d die of starvation. Now we have eye-glasses, so the need to have perfect eyes isn’t required by our species anymore. It used to be if someone had no teeth they’d starve. Now we have dentists that fix teeth, so having good teeth isn’t a requirement for our species anymore.

So it could be that in the future mankind will have bad vision and bad teeth.

We might devolve, which just means the rules for survival of the fittest changes.

This image might strike a point. Please excuse the vulgarity of the message. It was not my intent to offend.


Dark Perplexity: Garden of Eden or Big Bang?

So which is it? Adam and Eve or the Big Bang? It’s a dark mystery.

We all know how an atheist would answer, and we all know how a fundamentalist Christian, Jew or Muslim would answer. Trying to argue either side would therefore be fruitless, like expecting to convince a pro-lifer or pro-choicer to accept the opposing view.

Simple acknowledgment will suffice. Both communities are replete with ambiguities. For example:

  • Do we really understand how chemical evolution morphed into biological evolution? Just how did amino acids become DNA anyway?
  • What’s causing the galaxies to accelerate apart rather than slow down and collapse in on themselves? Dark energy? What’s that?  Obviously, astrophysicists don’t know. That’s why they call it dark. Not as in evil, but as in “I have no clue.” All they know is gravity should be slowing it down and it’s not. What’s really happening is a dark mystery.

It goes on and on.

  • There’s too much mass in the galaxy. They call that one dark matter. Instead of flying apart, the outer stars, like ours, remain orbiting the galactic center and we don’t understand why.
  • What is gravity anyway?

I’m sure you realize I don’t have the answers either, but that’s the whole point, isn’t it?

The whole quandary is a dark perplexity.