Analysis: “The Red Queen”

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (1993) presents and explains what the book’s author, Matt Ridley, asserts are the fundamental facts about human beings—human nature. Unfortunately, this provocative and complex thesis is assembled within the crippled Darwinian paradigm. Concretizing Ridley’s error is his assumption that the only alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution is the equally flawed Creationism of some religionists (or the theory of Intelligent Design)—an antithesis he addresses through use of a general term: “divine creation.” Such persistent dyadic grasping for knowledge that is accessible only through using higher neurological circuits permeates and handicaps mainstream science, much of which is stuck in the 17th century. 

As we have introduced and referenced in earlier posts such as: “New View on Evolution,” “Evolving beyond Darwin,” “Picking-up Piltdown,” “Transhuman Nature,” “Quantum Enigma Solved,” “The Matter of Intelligence,” “Transforming the Power of Story,” “Snapping a New Light on Popp,” “Dissecting the ‘…Midwife Toad’,” “Analysis: ‘The Sociopath Next Door’,” “Neanderthals under the Bed?” and “Reptiles Rule and Humans Drool?” our Noetitek™ system has opened us to a new and better explanation for changes within biological organisms over time. Our “third view” is not reliant on completely remodeling prehistory, yet it does comport with anomalous findings of archeologists, findings which add hard evidence to our non-Darwinian conclusions. 

The Red Queen character in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass was first used by biologist Leigh Van Valen to elucidate his Law of Extinction, specifically, the idea that some species—e.g., humans and antagonistic microorganisms—co-evolve via a reciprocally cyclic competition akin to each running to stay in place; both survive while neither gains any lasting ground against the other. Building on this original Red Queen Hypothesis, which addresses the big picture (macroevolution), others have gone on to apply the hypothesis to reproduction and to “sexual selection” at the level of individuals (microevolution). Sexuality purportedly serves the species survival process better than asexuality not only because it facilitates faster genetic changes but because gender-based mate-selection behavior also evolves and helps to ensure perpetuation of genes. 

Ridley’s thesis begins with statements such as: “…reproduction is the sole goal for which human beings are designed…” and “…free will was not created for fun…” and, further, that free will has no “good” apart from its contribution to reproduction; yet nothing is the product of intent or “design”—a self-contradiction. “Bad biology” is rooted in bad physics birthed from out of Descartes’ homogenized “new metaphysics.” Omniverse, as we discovered through Noetitek™—which guided the shaping of our NoetiTaoism™ and formulation of our Theory of Everything—is nine-dimensional. Ridley and his ilk study biology, psychology, and sociology through glasses that filter out all but four. 

Scholarly packages tied together by simple logic and “common sense” and presented amidst flashes of genuine illumination are irresistible to those convinced that they already know the fundamentals of a game and its associated tokens. PluribusOne™’s assessment is that Ridley’s erudite thesis is defective in its foundation. Our analogy for his theory and its host paradigm is this: an intricately crafted ship of attractive but unseaworthy design built inside a bottle. Through a zoom lens it looks like the real McCoy on high sea, but it is nonetheless a model in a bottle. And because critical engineering factors were ignored, when lowered into real water it can only sink like the convincing-looking replica of the Bronze Age boat sank at Dover Marina in England. Step aboard at your own peril.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Analysis: “The Red Queen””

  1. Stark Raven Says:

    Are your conclusions about the theories in the book supported in the work of any recognized mainstream western scientists? I assume the answer to that is no.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    The answer is yes with respect to the Darwinian paradigm. To cite two examples:

    Francis Harry Compton Crick, the English molecular biologist who jointly won a 1962 Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule said: “DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design…” and suggested: “Life did not evolve first on Earth; a highly advanced civilization… genetically-modified their DNA and sent it out from their planet on bacteria or meteorites…”

    In a step even closer to the truth, British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said: “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it… big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

    “Purposeful intelligence,” in our Theory of Everything, is correspondent with the first three dimensions of our articulation of nine-dimensional Omniverse. Crick’s “directed panspermia” is a reasonable postulation for the way DNA appeared on Earth, although our theory finds that method of intervention and proliferation unnecessary.

  3. Tigersprite Says:

    So you’re basically saying that the book isn’t worth the cost of the paper.

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    No, not saying that. The book contains a great number of apparent facts as well as interesting perceptions that make food for thought for readers who trouble themselves to filter out faulty assumptions and erroneous conclusions. For example, the fact that intent is a powerful factor at all levels: the individual, the species, and beyond is completely ignored.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s