Theory of Dominant Genes-Filling a Hole in Darwin's Theory of Evolution-REPOST

People who subscribe to my feed using feedburner got another dated version of this post-this is the real one. Sorry about that..
---
In the last few years I have come up with some ideas about evolution, and where Darwin might have left some space to be filled. I will call it The Theory of Dominant Genes.

In every group of individuals of the same species, there is a tendency of genetically similar individuals to group together. They will form sub-groups based on this similarity, and eventually this sub-group will split off (or drive away the other members of the parent group) and form another species. Until then, this group will be the dominant gene in the group-the others will have to obey the rules laid out by them.

An example. Let's see you see a bunch of dogs in an area. Large dogs will tend to hang out with large dogs, black dogs with black dogs, intelligent dogs with intelligent dogs, and form little sub groups of dogs. The dominant subgroup will rule-it will dominate the other dogs. It may even kill all other dogs or drive them away. That sub group will form the next group of dogs in that area, which will eventually lead to a new species.

This is how new species are formed. The dominant group is a precursor to new species.

An example with humans. You will see people of similar characteristics form groups. For example, tall people prefer to hang out with tall people, and marry tall people, and so on. This is a precursor to forming new species.

In case of conflicts, the dominant genes of let's say tall people will drive away all the rest to new places, or there will be war, and the others will be wiped out.

This also explains the formation of new towns, countries, and why we would form new languages (it is the way of speaking of the dominant group with others copy, and eventually leads to a new language).

It is easy to see this for individuals in species-a dominant individual will act the say way.

The theory will easy to apply for all animals, and plants. Darwin pointed out that the competition within individuals of a species is more severe than the competition between species (because they share the same food habits, same geographical area) and this theory explains how that competition really works, that some individuals or group begin to dominate, and eliminate the others.

Sanjay

Combining Adam Smith with Charles Darwin's ideas

Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) talks about how only wise and virtuous people can have lasting friends. Vice is capricious, says Smith-and by definition, good life long friendships are born on stability and trust, which can only be found amongst virtuous people. Thieves and dishonest people can't be friends of each other---they will always screw over the other party to destroy the friendship's investments.

My experiences in life with humans have confirmed this to a very high degree.

Enter Darwin. Darwin observed that our characteristics are inherited-that nurture can't do mucho. In his autobiography he pointed out to how different his siblings were to him and to each other, even though brought up in the same family. This I can confirm from my own family and observations of many other families around me.

I believe that this "virtue" which Smith talks about, this "honesty", is genetic. (Being genetic, it has a propensity (a probability, not a certainty) to be hereditary-but that's another topic). This is tied in to my earlier post about how I believe that people who are faithful to their partners are genetically designed to be so. They are all the same-genetically faithful, honest, virtuous, etc.

In reality, dishonest people may learn to be honest and fake it...but it needs a discerning eye and lots of experience to see this. I have been fooled many a time by both men and women, but seems like I am getting better at recognizing the genetically unfaithful (dishonest) people...:-)

If Smith were born after Darwin he would surely have incorporated Darwin's acute observations about humans and animals into his TMS-and I suppose it would have been along these lines.

Sanjay

Books/Authors I like-and why biology and economics are difficult

I live off three books/authors when it comes to biology and economics.

Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"
Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species"
and Nassim Taleb in "The Black Swan" and "Fooled by Randomness".

What's the connection between biology and economics?

Both deal with life, living species.

That's why they are harder that physical sciences-Physics, Chemistry, Engineering.

As long as we deal with inanimate objects are have great laws of motion, of thermodynamics, of Quantum Mech and of Relativity-to make us really understand mother nature and use that knowledge to our advantage.

Biology is difficult-because it deals with life. But we are progressing. And economics deals with behavior of humans-living objects-making it much "harder" than Thermodynamics or Quantum Mechanics.

But with all these problems-Adam Smith and Darwin stand out. They have a lot of empirically provable stuff to say in The Wealth and The Origin.

Unfortunately most other authors I have read make lots of errors-especially in economics. They are not scientists.
That's where Taleb comes in. He tells you to not revere the suits and the ties, the high positions (the apprenticeships-in Smith's language). That most people don't understand much-that we tell elegant stories, but they are unscientific, unempirical, unprovable. They are very logical-but that is not enough (the earth is flat is a logical statement for all humans-but it is false).

Taleb gives us courage to stand up against the false knowledge in humans. He is often right-in questioning the validity of all this apparent knowledge around us.

Taleb's website is here.

The Wealth of Nations and The Origin of Species are 10 dollar books on Amazon.com. Taleb's are pretty cheap too. Pure knowledge is quite inexpensive!

Sanjay