507
In his book The Paradox of Evolution, physiologist Stephen Rothman suggests
that the universe is essentially without purpose; that life—comprising reproductive assertiveness and a compulsion to survive—is inherently at odds with itself.
That threats of all persuasion induce life; destruction rallies counterintuitively
around creation. But that natural selection, while ensuring survival, is not the
actual force urging the optimization of specific traits (allele frequencies) within
populations, a notion greatly at odds with traditional biological theory. While
Rothman proposes that natural selection has no purpose, reproduction, he
claims, does.
6
There are other fundamental contradictions exposed within the overarching
concept itself of ecology. Modeled behavior, versus that of real-world (real-time)
interactions. In the so-called paradox of enrichment, a phrase coined in 1971 by
University of Arizona population ecologist, Michael Rosenzweig, populations
whose food supplies have been increased, may result in a destabilization (or utter
crash) of the overall system. This follows upon a crucial insight applicable both to
rabbits and to humans. If carrying capacity is artificially increased beyond a viable
threshold, there is a logistical tautology that cannot remain for long. Both conceptually, and in the wild, there is ensuing entropy and a species, either locally or—
theoretically, at least—in cosmopolitan coordinates, can go extinct.
7
Purpose, carrying capacity, stability, instability: four elements of evolution that
are either empirically proved by observation and mathematical formulation, or
simply present the illusion of evolution. Species interactions have traditionally
been viewed through a biased, human lens that is content to define “predatorprey” relations as the most common form of interaction (e.g., Lotka-Volterra
equations; dog- eat- dog world).
8
When, in fact, there is a non-violent modality far
more pervasive throughout the biological world, namely, photosynthesis: nCO 2
[carbon dioxide] + 2nH 2 X [hydrogen] = nCH 2 O [carbohydrate] + 2nX [byproduct]
+ nH 2 O [water] affecting all life forms, the conversion of “light energy to chemical energy”.
9
We could set up this division in other ways. For example, the differences between
an Albert Schweitzer and a Machiavelli; Gandhi and Genghis Khan; legionary
behavior (foraging raids) in (army) ants, colony fissions (population thresholds),
6 See The Paradox of Evolution: The Strange Relationship Between Natural Selection and
Reproduction, by Stephen Rothman, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2e015. See review by
Michelle Martinez, New York Journal of Books, https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/
paradox-evolution/; and https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-63388-072-6; https://www.
goodreads.com/book/show/25310542-the-paradox-of-evolution, Accessed May 22, 2020.
7 Michael Rosenzweig, “Paradox of Enrichment: Destabilization of Exploitation Ecosystems in
Ecological Time,” Science Vol. 171: January 29, 1971, Issue 3969, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3969.385. pp. 385–387, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/171/3969/385, Accessed
May 22, 2020.
8 Berryman, A. A. (1992). “The Origins and Evolution of Predator-Prey Theory” (PDF). Ecology.
73 (5): 1530–1535. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940005. JSTOR 1940005.
9 See
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/plant-biology/photosynthesis/mostimportant-process-in-the-world, Accessed May 22, 2020.
54.1 Dualistic Centralities
In his book The Paradox of Evolution, physiologist Stephen Rothman suggests
that the universe is essentially without purpose; that life—comprising reproductive assertiveness and a compulsion to survive—is inherently at odds with itself.
That threats of all persuasion induce life; destruction rallies counterintuitively
around creation. But that natural selection, while ensuring survival, is not the
actual force urging the optimization of specific traits (allele frequencies) within
populations, a notion greatly at odds with traditional biological theory. While
Rothman proposes that natural selection has no purpose, reproduction, he
claims, does.
6
There are other fundamental contradictions exposed within the overarching
concept itself of ecology. Modeled behavior, versus that of real-world (real-time)
interactions. In the so-called paradox of enrichment, a phrase coined in 1971 by
University of Arizona population ecologist, Michael Rosenzweig, populations
whose food supplies have been increased, may result in a destabilization (or utter
crash) of the overall system. This follows upon a crucial insight applicable both to
rabbits and to humans. If carrying capacity is artificially increased beyond a viable
threshold, there is a logistical tautology that cannot remain for long. Both conceptually, and in the wild, there is ensuing entropy and a species, either locally or—
theoretically, at least—in cosmopolitan coordinates, can go extinct.
7
Purpose, carrying capacity, stability, instability: four elements of evolution that
are either empirically proved by observation and mathematical formulation, or
simply present the illusion of evolution. Species interactions have traditionally
been viewed through a biased, human lens that is content to define “predatorprey” relations as the most common form of interaction (e.g., Lotka-Volterra
equations; dog- eat- dog world).
8
When, in fact, there is a non-violent modality far
more pervasive throughout the biological world, namely, photosynthesis: nCO 2
[carbon dioxide] + 2nH 2 X [hydrogen] = nCH 2 O [carbohydrate] + 2nX [byproduct]
+ nH 2 O [water] affecting all life forms, the conversion of “light energy to chemical energy”.
9
We could set up this division in other ways. For example, the differences between
an Albert Schweitzer and a Machiavelli; Gandhi and Genghis Khan; legionary
behavior (foraging raids) in (army) ants, colony fissions (population thresholds),
6 See The Paradox of Evolution: The Strange Relationship Between Natural Selection and
Reproduction, by Stephen Rothman, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2e015. See review by
Michelle Martinez, New York Journal of Books, https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/
paradox-evolution/; and https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-63388-072-6; https://www.
goodreads.com/book/show/25310542-the-paradox-of-evolution, Accessed May 22, 2020.
7 Michael Rosenzweig, “Paradox of Enrichment: Destabilization of Exploitation Ecosystems in
Ecological Time,” Science Vol. 171: January 29, 1971, Issue 3969, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3969.385. pp. 385–387, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/171/3969/385, Accessed
May 22, 2020.
8 Berryman, A. A. (1992). “The Origins and Evolution of Predator-Prey Theory” (PDF). Ecology.
73 (5): 1530–1535. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940005. JSTOR 1940005.
9 See
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/plant-biology/photosynthesis/mostimportant-process-in-the-world, Accessed May 22, 2020.
54.1 Dualistic Centralities