As IF Times

link:  https://scitechdaily.com/decade-long-study-challenges-traditional-views-of-evolution/

An article came to my notice which quite piqued my interest.  It does not concern politics or culture per se and in fact is quite an arduous read.  But if you can get through it, the ramifications of the findings of this article should make people think about issues which have always been accepted as being incontrovertible science.

Even those with only a rudimentary education will understand the concept of Darwinism.  Very broadly, it postulates that in an ecosystem, the strong will survive and the weak won’t.  The popularity of this theory has been adopted as a universal truth in society and accepted in scientific circles as well.

Reading of this 10 year study will induce sleep faster than watching golf on TV, but the gist of the conclusion indicates that genetic codes in Daphnia plankton have a mechanism that can quickly adapt to changing external conditions which enables them to survive. In other words, they don’t just die off because of change, they are able to adapt to the new environment.  Here’s the salient excerpt:

They discovered that the strength of natural selection on individual genes varies significantly from year to year, maintaining variation and potentially enhancing the ability to adapt to future changing environmental conditions by providing raw material for natural selection to act on.

While this distinction may be subtle, the eggheads in the science world are now facing the possibility of changing their views of species evolution.

As gripping as this may seem, it would just draw a blank stare from the less scientifically inclined.  The implication is that, by extrapolation, all living species have the capacity to adjust their genetic codes to suit changes in their environment.  The caveat though, is that this happens over generations and not during a sudden change in the environment

As these findings trickle through the scientific community, it’s going to cause a lot of narratives about shrinking polar bear populations and missing bees and penguins into question.  At the very least, this demonstrates the fundamental foundational tenet of all science:  An observation is made and then attempts are made to explain a phenomenon by objective study and testing to validate any claims.  It’s quite the thing to find out that something that’s been accepted to be true…may not be at all.  Empiricism has to be the basis for knowledge.

We’ve all realized by now that much of what passes as science can often be traced to whomever may have been funding the study.  Examples such as cigarette brands most recommended by doctors; foods best suited for long life, good teeth and shiny hair.  And of course, as has been exposed of late, the efficacy of vaccines. All were once apparently endorsed “by science”. When I read the linked article, I can’t determine if anyone had an axe to grind either for or against Daphnia plankton, so we assume its objectivity.  Plankton doesn’t engender as much cuteness sympathy as baby polar bears, thus no teen-aged girls are championing their issues.

What this discovery should lead to is the dampening of the mass hysteria propagated by all quarters on the existential dangers of driving a pick-up, using plastic straws or of dangerous flatulent cows. It appears that animals, including humans, have the innate capacity to adapt to ecosystems over time.  This also has implications for treatment of illnesses. Thus any plans to depopulate the world to save it are not only despotic, but truly unhinged.  In fact, if you think about it, that whole belief system is anti-science.

In earlier times, the official world narrative used to be controlled by those who had the capacity to do so.  This included religious organizations and feudal rulers.  The vast number of people just accepted their dictates as truths.  As we know, the availability of education to everyone eliminated (mostly) these institutions’ monopoly on information.

But as we all know, human nature is predictable; that is, people are malleable. The modern day feudal lords propagate their worldview by control of the media narrative, rather than sending men with swords to the doors.  They effectively use influential proxies as their messengers as well as painting skeptics as deniers of science.  Imagine the pushback Galileo must have endured when he first proposed that the universe did not revolve around the Earth.  Or the ancient Greek, Pythagoras when he surmised that the earth wasn’t flat. Of course they were proven to be correct over time and empirical observation.  But someone brave had to question the established beliefs.

And yet to this day, you still have people pushing flat earth narratives, rising oceans and imminent human calamity.   Even worse, an entire bunch of entitled people still think that the world revolves around them.

I’ve spilt plenty of virtual ink discussing the evolution of the accessibility of information to the masses over the course of history.

There have always been those in any given society who had preferential access to knowledge, or at least information, that they used to great advantage over those less in the know.  For the longest time and even up to present day, religious practitioners were the arbiters of information and truth.   Entire civilizations were founded and run by those with the power conferred upon them by a religious hierarchy and this continues to this day.  Thus, access to information and knowledge was the key to population control.

This model works pretty well since being the ultimate authority on information and truth means that it wasn’t necessary to actually prove anything.  To paraphrase the utterance of Al Gore, the truth is like gravity….it just is.  Of course we know what happened over time.  Some of the great thinkers of humanity decided to take more objective measures on truth and reality.  Men of great intelligence and bravery dared to challenge the established truths of their time and thus their revelations laid the foundation for modern education. Men such as Da Vinci, Copernicus and Galileo showed that knowledge can be empirically achieved and not just by taking someone’s word for it.

Most of everything which we consume and from which we benefit in our daily lives depends on empirical science.  Observations are made about our environment, they are measured, there are experiments and then there are conclusions which become universal truths.  Notwithstanding that in modern times, the notion that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is a racist construct to some, this does not change the fact that 4 is always the answer when 2 plus 2 is the question.

The entire point of education is to spread the ability to think and act rationally via legitimate processes of thought.  It is therefore of the greatest irony that despite mankind having the greatest access to information ever in human history, that populations are as clueless as those who used to depend on the town gossip for their truths.  The modern purveyors of ‘truth’ are often the most vapid.

Part of this paradox lies with what actually constitutes an education.  Whereas once rational processes were taught at schools, now we see more and more squishiness on topics of knowledge.  Relativism is as important in education as are the lenses through which education is transmitted.   At the end of the process, we get people who are pretty sure that 2 plus 2 equals 4, but we also have those who think that this result has an asterisk.  Both of these constituencies have the same nominal degree, but both operate under quite different realities.  Thus, entire populations emerge, notionally ‘educated’ populations, who can never agree on a plainly evident logical construct.   You cannot easily make good policy decisions if there are those who think 2 plus 2 contributes to Global warming.

Unfortunately, in a free society, such people can, and often do, rise to positions of political influence which detrimentally affects everyone.  Anyone who was perhaps a drama teacher or part time snowboard instructor, could impress their version of 2 plus 2 upon a population vastly more educated and qualified than them to make big picture decisions.

So it appears as if we’ve come full circle on the distribution of information and knowledge.  The only difference is that this time people actually know the truth and are able to verify thus for themselves….should they choose.  Oddly, large numbers don’t.  They instead rely on the utterances of those unable to give an answer to a simple 2 plus 2 question.  Entire societies have been run like this for the better part of two generations.  They have allowed the least qualified to make policy. Given the tack taken by governments of many nations on numerous favored woke issues,  we can easily see the day when we don’t even need schools, the government will just tell you all you need to know in official pamphlets….or they could employ a national broadcasting corporation.  As is already true in nations such as China, we can see the circumstance when disagreeing with the official narrative is made illegal; but at least they help to ‘re-educate’ you if you so stray.  Or Canada, where they close your bank accounts down if you don’t agree with their positions.

I mentioned some of the great thinkers of history above as being foundational for rational thinking and education which led to the creation of great civilizations.  But it’s also thanks to authors such as George Orwell and Ayn Rand to remind us that the natural inclination of man to control others by information or misinformation is always at work.  Julian Assange has proved this. There may be the equivalents of Da Vinci and Galileo somewhere today, great thinkers who may yet lead civilization again, but in the meantime, the mental midgets…er, little people,  are running the show.