2(b) Genetic Refinement’s Limitations

Genetic refinement has three important limitations which inhibit learning about stability and thus limited development of ‘Godliness’ or integration or order among multicellular animals.

First Limitation

In natural selection (genetic refinement) the male and female pair constitute the reproductive whole and this must remain selectable. Natural selection selects wholes; it cannot select/compare parts of a whole. This means the specie members cannot become exclusively specialised as a part of a larger specie individual. Imagine if one lion were to become exclusively specialised as the food gatherer for its pride or group and in so doing relinquished its ability to reproduce. Such specialisation assists integration because it is more efficient (it is why the parts in our beautifully integrated body all specialise) but, since the lion won’t reproduce, that exclusively specialised trait will not be carried on in subsequent generations. It therefore cannot become established. This inability to make it possible for members of the species to specialise was a severe limitation to full integration and one of the limitations of the genetic refinement process.Page 107 of
Print Edition

There are two means of getting around this limitation. The first is where the specialisations are sex-linked, exclusive to one or other of the sexes. Being sex-linked the trait is assured of being reproduced. The second is where the member becomes part of an ‘elaborated reproductive unit’. In this situation the part of the whole responsible for reproduction reproduces all the other parts as well as itself.

This latter was the means by which single-celled organisms integrated to form multicellular organisms such as the human body and the way ants and bees achieved integration. In groups or colonies of ants and bees, the sexualAnt and bee
societies explained development of workers and soldiers is retarded, ‘enslaving’ them to their queen (‘enslaved’ because they are dependent on their queen to reproduce them). They foster her and she reproduces them. By doing this they overcome this first limitation of genetic learning.

Elaboration of the reproductive unit was not an option for large animals because it drastically reduced the variety of the species on which genetic refinement depended. (For example, instead of 1000 sexual individual zebras being sustained on the African plain there would have been only say 10, each with 100 workers.) Being unable to develop exclusive specialisation or division of labour, larger species were denied the opportunity to efficiently organise their available resources, which limited their integration or development. In particular,Intense mating
competition where each member of the developing specie system or individual had to remain a whole and do everything itself (get its own food, space, shelter and mate), conflict or competition was inevitable. This generally meant each animal had to remain relatively isolated from the others, non-social and unintegrated (except in times of mating) because increased proximity normally meant increased competition for available food, shelter and space. This problem of having to remain isolated could and was overcome to varying degrees and some integration achieved. Lions for instance werePage 108 of
Print Edition able to become partially integrated or ‘social’ Since they benefited from hunting together.

The final impediment to integration posed by the necessity to maintain the reproductive whole arose from the fact that of all the needs of an animal, only the quest for a mate was always advantaged by development of integration of the group members. The more a species found ways to integrate the more opportunity there was for male-female contact leading to mating. But this also meant increased opportunity for male-male contact leading to divisive competition for each mating opportunity. Mating opportunities were limited because female fertility was cyclical and was further impaired by gestation and nursing. The females were only infrequently ready to mate but the males were always ready, so they competed for each mating opportunity which arose. In the end, this mating or sexual opportunism always became so intense it brought a halt to further development towards integration of the species.

Two genetic refinement devices for minimising sexual opportunism developed as species tried to contain the divisive friction that arose from it:

i) Delayed sexual maturation, such as occurs in the Australian Bower bird, where sexual maturity (and with it sexually mature plumage in the males) does not occur until six years after the birds have otherwise grown up.

ii) Common or shared-by-all co-operative traits. The reason the term ‘common’ is used is that unless a significant proportion of the population or group exhibit the trait it cannot succeed to benefit all the members. It has to be common to work as will be illustrated shortly. The common co-operative trait most used is the dominance convention which orders and thus minimises the friction or conflict arising from sexual opportunism.

The problem with dominance hierarchy is that it results in one male dominating all theExplains the reason for
incest taboos, monogamy
conventions, exogamy others in reproduction, with the result that a serious drop in variability occurs. To overcomePage 109 of
Print Edition this, anti-dominance conventions developed. These include exogamy conventions (which permitted breeding outside the group), incest taboos (which prevented breeding within the family) and monogamy conventions (where each male paired-off with a female). Monogamy developed although polygamy appears to favour variability because polygamy leads to mating opportunism which leads to dominance hierarchy which leads to a drop in variability and thus the need for monogamy. These common co-operative conventions are genetically acquired traits held by many or all members of the group. They are cue-triggered behaviour patterns specific to one form of the problem of sexual opportunism. They were specific because genetic refinement could not learn general rules or insights or laws, it could only react to specific situations. Because they did not provide a general solution, sexual opportunism kept breaking out in other forms.

These two genetic refinement devices (delayed sexual maturation and common co-operative traits) were of only limited effectiveness in overcoming mating opportunismNon-primates at an
impasse. This is the impasse which has held back squabbling wolf packs, herd animals and other highly social non-primate species in their efforts to genetically learn to integrate or please ‘God’.

While most of the explanations given so far should appear fairly straightforward and even obvious to someone both innocent of the need to be evasive and untrained in (evasive) science, for humanity’s sake science has had to evade these integration-based understandings in favour of division-based explanations. As an example of the pervasiveness of these often transparently false but nevertheless necessary evasions, the May 1987 National Geographic magazine had just arrived in this author’s mail at the time this section was being written. It contains a story titled At home with the Arctic Wolf in which is said, ‘The third adult male [wolf] was the alpha, or pack leader . . . He was clearly in charge during important happenings and was highly protective of thePage 110 of
Print Edition pups. Probably the father of these pups, the alpha male would have a strong genetic stake in defending them.’

The evasive sociobiological explanation being given here for the dominance and paternalism of the alpha male is that he is protecting his own genes in his offspring — that he is being selfish. Stressing gene selfishness in this way was to emphasise the flaw in the genetic refinement mechanism although it purports to define the nature of the development, or the overall goal at which the mechanism is directed. The unevasive, integrative and truthful explanation is that the wolf species has developed so much integration of its members that it has to employ dominance hierarchy to contain the breakout of sexual opportunism. Wolf packs are mostly extended families comprising the parents and their offspring, often of several seasons. To maintain as much integration as possible amongst its members the wolf species has developed both dominance hierarchy within the pack and delayed breeding of offspring. Only when a territory or living area becomes available do offspring quit their family pack, mate and breed a new pack. Wolves are as integrated as they can possibly be under the limitations imposed on them by genetic refinement. They are not divisively inclined they are integratively inclined.

Second Limitation

Non-reproducing, unconditionally selfless or altruistic traits could not be learnt genetically. It was impossible for an animal to learn genetically to give its life to preserve its group or society. Full commitment to integration could not be learnt genetically. This was the second major limitation to achieving full integration by means of natural selection or genetic refinement.

This is not to deny that apparent altruism exists among genetically refined animals. Two types are informative:

1 Common co-operative traits. A lookoutApparent altruism bird drawing attention to itself andPage 111 of
Print Edition in so doing exposing itself to danger — at times even death — to give a warning squawk to the rest of its flock is really displaying a co-operative or integrative trait which is common or shared by other members. On average, each member benefits more from the shared trait of giving warnings than it loses on the few occasions it happens to be the one to give the warning. The first fish in a school to appear with silver scales which flashed in the light would have been at a distinct disadvantage. But if by chance that trait survived to become common (for instance a brood could be born with all members having the silver-sided mutation) then on average it would benefit each member of the school (by warning of an attack and indicating its direction) more often than it would expose any single member to danger. In these ways a degree of integration is achieved genetically because the requirement that the information reproduce is still being met. Such traits could only become common and thus individually beneficial if they reproduced before they were fatal.

The evasive theory of sociobiology interpreted this kind of situation as the individual selfishly preserving its own genes in its close kin or relatives, by sacrificing itself to preserve these relatives. This explanation would mean the individual had acted purely selfishly whereas the common co-operative explanation means that while the member has acted selfishly it has been co-operative as well. The ‘selfish gene’ idea has been preferred because it represented a way of justifying our own apparently selfish nature or divisiveness. It allowed us to evade integrative meaning.

2 Maternalism. A mother bear defending her cubs to the death. Genetically this maternalism is a case of a mother looking after or fostering her genes in her offspring. So while such genetic maternalism can appear to be altruistic or unconditionally selfless behaviour it is actually selfish behaviour. (Genetic maternalism is not to be confused with the maternalism in love-indoctrination which developed from genetic maternalism but which, unlike genetic maternalism, is altruistic behaviour. Love-Page 112 of
Print Edition indoctrination has been introduced and will be fully explained in section 3(e) Second Solution.)

It is this situation of genetic maternalism that gave rise to the theory of sociobiology because in it we are looking at ‘gene selfishness’ on its own (remembering that the need for genes to be selfish was a limitation of the genetic refining process not, as espoused by sociobiological theories, an indication that the meaning of existence was to be selfish). In maternalism, there is no direct genetically integrative intention asSociobiology there is in common co-operation. The nature of the genetic learning mechanism (of replication or reproduction) is that it separates information from matter. It is the information (the details for the arrangement of matter encoded in the genes) which carries on rather than the manifestation of that information (the generations of individuals). To its credit sociobiology did recognise this truth, that genetically animals existed for their genes and not for themselves.

To summarise, common co-operative and maternal traits can appear to be altruistic or selfless while they are actually genetically selfish traits, as they must be if they are to carry on in the species.

Third Limitation

Under genetic refinement it was only possible to compare a past experience with a present experience. Other events through time, such as two past experiences or a present and a past experience, could not be compared. This meant species could not learn genetically to understand what happened through time and so could not refine anticipation of what was likely to happen.

Species brought their past self to the present and through selection altered themselves to fit theOverspecialisation
and extinction present needs. They abandoned the past for the present. If the presentPage 113 of
Print Edition circumstances remained static for long enough, species would become so adapted to them, so specialised, that eventually they would shed all the variety from which they derived their changeability. Should their environment then change they could well be unable to adapt to the new circumstances and would become extinct, which is what probably happened to the large cold-blooded dinosaurs during the cretaceous period following a cool climatic change on earth.

Further, it was only by chance that a genetically learning species conformed with the future. Only if present needs happened also to suit future needs would a genetically adapting species be prepared for that future. This meant that for the purpose or objective of existence (or ‘God’, if we like to personify development) to be fulfilled or satisfied through genetic learning (genetic refinement) it would have to happen by chance. As a consequence of this limitation species often wandered up what we have come to recognise biologically as blind or dead-end evolutionary paths.