environment or ecosystem through which its meaning is actually determined. Consequently, the definition of the phrase can only be determined within the context of a specific ecosystem. Much like the universe at large, as Einstein showed us, it’s all relative. Consider a couple of examples.

The boundary between the Permian and the Triassic periods of the geologic calendar marks the demarcation between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. This boundary corresponds to perhaps the greatest of the extinction events that appear to have occurred from time to time throughout the earth’s history. During this boundary period, which lasted for perhaps a million years or so, some 90 percent of all marine species of life and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct. For a time, at the beginning of the Triassic period the dominant terrestrial species were actually various forms of fungi. The era subsequently gave rise to dinosaurs as the dominant family of species. Throughout the Mesozoic era, mammals and bird species also lived and evolved. However, the environment in which these species found themselves as they came into being perhaps was most hospitable to the characteristics of the dinosaurs. In this era, that is, in this ecosystem, the concept of fittest was well characterized by the traits exhibited by the dinosaurs.

A couple of hundred million years later a new extinction event occurred. At the boundary between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary periods came the rapid downfall of the dinosaurs. In the new ecosystem that characterized the Tertiary period, mammals and birds flourished. While there is considerable speculation about what caused these two major extinction events, the point of most significant interest to us is that the concept of fittest changed significantly at the boundary in each case. Specifically, if we consider the dinosaur population comprised of big individuals, then the post-dinosaur era to current times would seem to be comprised of small individuals. While we don’t necessarily understand which characteristics of the environment led to this dramatic shift in what constitutes the fittest, it seems clear that the shift did occur. Thus, the details of the ecosystem define the evaluation criteria that pass judgment on the evolutionary processes that occur within that ecosystem.

Natural selection is generally recognized by evolutionary biologists as a well-defined principle describing the basic interactions among individual entities of all species in their quest to simply live and propagate. Much more ambiguous is the role played by collections of entities, social groups, in the propagation of individuals and their respective species. What is ambiguous is whether groups, particularly with respect to the human species, constitute evolutionary entities in their own right. That is, do human groups compete in an evolutionary manner with other groups, and consequently is there a natural selection process in play among such groups? History is replete with examples of the human species functioning within social groups. Do such groups simply impact the evolutionary ecosystems of individual humans, or do they represent entities with their own ecosystem-based interactions? When we discussed the mechanics of evolutionary processes in the previous chapter, we suggested that natural selection required a language mechanism through which could be conveyed the design of the species. Human groups are not obviously constructed from a blueprint mechanism with anywhere near the apparent efficacy of DNA as it pertains to individual entities of the species. Perhaps, however, there are higher order, and hence much more subtle design mechanisms in play with groups. It seems obvious that the most basic human social group, that is the family, constitutes a response mechanism to the physiological constraints or requirements of the human infant. Beyond the basic family however, it becomes more uncertain as to what makes the formation of human groups such a recurrent mechanism and what holds such groups together once they are formed. Our conjecture is that the feedback mechanism for such groups encompasses the higher cognitive functions of the mind. However, since we do not seem to have a grouping instruction manual that has been passed down to succeeding generations through the ages, the physical manifestation of grouping design has yet to be well defined.

Book available at Midori Press (regular)
Book available at Midori Press (signed)
Book available at Amazon (regular)