Evolution vs Simolution
by Geoffrey Hamilton
November 1, 2000 (with updates)
The opposition of Evolution vs Creationism, set up by people
who follow the evolutionary creed is a straw argument. By this they are
able to ignore or
not understand objections to evolution. This straw argument makes
their life easier and puts them
in the position of looking more advanced. Besides the straight forward
scientific objections to standard
evolutionary theories expressed by the likes of
Richard Milton evolution
fails to explain why anything should survive or even why any life
would wish it. Simolution explains this and
more. The real opposition in academic circles should be Evolution
vs Simolution.
First an explanation of Simolution
Simolution
is the long term change of life forms due to the
effects of the game gene function
and implies change without improvement, advancement,
or purpose. Change
happens due to numerous
causes which are related to the games which
life-forms play and to the
chaotic changes of matter. Change comes through
mutations that are
random or directed or self-directed, and selection is organic,
artificial and self-consciously played out.
Simolution is
like a rumour which is passed around where all participants are attempting
to say the meaning of what they heard with different words, but where
often the meaning is not perfectly similar, and in the end the meaning can become quite different
from what was intended, and is at the same time
no better
or worse than the original statement. In the case of life, that lack of improvement means life
can only have the ultimate value
of zero.
The reason
it is passed around and mutated is because
each participant finds a unique use for it through locally created game value.
For this reason each chronologically
new version cannot be simply interchanged between participants
and could not survive
unchanged outside of the participant who made use of it. Life
too repeats itself, mis-making itself endlessly and
cannot simply be interchanged among past and future environments.
By change,
I mean any alteration in form which is accidental and or incidental
and or naively intentional, but there is room
for it to be
self directed
both through mutation and by
selection after the fact.
Many kinds of life forms also manipulate other life forms with
competitive and cooperative behaviors, but
are never in complete control of the consequences. Also, because
every life form can be looked at as a smaller or larger
context relative to another life-form, the moves
played by one level can be for the game of another level.
For example, a cell can fight an infection
simply because the larger context -- the man -- believes he
has a medicine that works, a placebo. Or,
conversely, a man could believe that a real medicine will not make
any difference and the
cell will refuse to heal despite the proper application.
Simolution explains
Simolution shows how survival is purely incidental.
vs
Evolution claims survival through reproduction to be the purpose of life.
How is survival even relevant (when everything dies and eats each other)
except as some obtuse esoteric fantasy concept.
(For fun see Blog January 10, 2006
Bachelor Evolution.)
It shows how far this attitude can go.
Simolution explains why various arbitrary life-forms exist
and not just one perfect form for each niche. Life's existence is just for fun at most.
vs
Evolutionary theory makes some life forms superior
even though all life is surviving
equally and need not survive at all.
The evolutionary
theorists all make the same
mistake of using terms that imply progress especially
when pitching evolution. That goes from Darwin to
Daniel Dennett. This despite the occasional politically correct and
hypocritical comment that they do not mean to be hierarchical.
Simolution is a description of what actually happens to life.
It does not go anywhere, do anything and adds up to nothing. Life
is only simulating itself because it doesn't
have a great imagination.
vs
If evolution happened the horseshoe crab
and other so-called living fossils would not have remained
unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Some life forms change lots some
little. They don't care.
Evolution anchors down
scientists into seeing progress when there cannot be progress
in any sense except in the context of a game.
Simolution is all about superficiality.
From
the hairdresser to the division of cells, all
life plays games, and just happens to survive because of it.
vs
Evolution is all about the grand march of time and solutions to threats and the wonders of existence
couched in pseudo-religious positivist claptrap and the superiority of
various forms over past ones - especially man.
Overall simolution conforms to observations already made in the
name of evolution.
Evolutionary theorists try to explain away superficial aspects of life forms
by using the
by
sexual selection
idea as a patch. This idea claims that the
strange dances and bizarre colouring
shown in many species are due to the need of these show-off
species to prove that they are healthy and, overall,
the best suited to mate with. The problem with this patch to evolutionary
theory is that there is no evidence
that when life forms have sex or divide that they are
attempting to reproduce or
that the concept of "best" could be a motivation for
selection. The concept of "whatever is available" could
be the main determinate, and if what is available
turns out to be ugly or a different species, then sex may still happen,
as the recent coupling of a lion and tiger proved
in the giant liger offspring.
As "whatever is available" is likely the main
determinate in sex, it is important to note that most
mammals, for example, require some adjustment time
before mating occurs -- if it does.
It is likely that some other process other
than health and breeding are being determined by the prospective mates.
Often being healthy and of good stock
does little to persuade a couple to mate.
It is the mode of introduction,
the accidents during the meeting and the
secreted values of the participants which have a greater bearing on the
matter than whether one or the other has a good shiny
coat. As this is important at all, disproves the sexual selection
idea, because the accidents of introduction
would not matter one bit if selection was being determined on
"appearance of healthiness" grounds. Yet if the last two
pandas in the world cannot get along they won't give a care for
their race, or their second selves. Conversely, if you put
unhealthy incompatible representatives of any species, or of the
same species, together, almost any level
of interaction is possible given the right
introduction. In other words, if the game of
introduction is played well a huge mix of beings
are capable of
"reproduction" whether their bodies are compatible
or not. The Stockholm Syndrome, inter species friendships and
beastiality
are all easily understood if "natural" and sexual selection
are understood as debilitating concepts.
Evolution as a game works like all games in that it can
create incidental value on its way to its goals. Luckily
when a game becomes a bore or impossible to finish it will
be given up for a new game.
Simolution is only necessary because change is necessary due to chaos.
There cannot be any point
to it because no amount of change can improve on the fact that
life need not exist at all. Any
life-form's existence is fundamentally useless
and cannot be given a point in any absolute form.
An early Simolution theory
The Black and White Universe
Context Theory, The Trick and Simolution
(September 1, 1993, Unfinished)
Outing with The Trick, Context and Simolution Theories
|
