3 Reasons Why Darwinism Fails to Define Human Nature

evolution_of_manChristina Sarich, Staff Writer
Waking Times 

You’ve heard of ‘survival of the fittest’, the Darwinian paradigm that has shaped at least the last 1000 years or more of civilization? It turns out, that though Darwin had some interesting observations of the natural world, he was gravely mistaken about human nature, and its ability to evolve in what is defined as an overly competitive world.

Since at least the 1850s Darwin created a world view that was based on concepts like transmutation of the species and an evolutionary construct detailed in his greatest work, On the Origin of Species, which included concepts on natural selection, the Weismann barrier (the principle that hereditary information moves only from genes to the body cells, and never in reverse) and dogmatic definitions of molecular biology. His concepts were against a ‘divine’ design, or the possibilities of other influences like extraterrestrial interference in our bloodlines and DNA.

Arguably, no one has a hard-and-fast grasp on the way life forms and is created and sustained in this world, but there are at least three solid reasons why Darwinism is an outdated, dusty paradigm which we can make a leap from in order to shape a better future.

1. We are a cooperative species.

In Darwinistic terms animals, especially human beings, will always act in their own best interest, as part of the ‘survival of the fittest’ impetus to propel biologically the genes that are fastest, smartest, and strongest. English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), who popularized Charles Darwin’s ideas of evolution, once said, “The animal world is about on a level of a gladiator’s show… whereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest (sic) live to fight another day.” Hollywood and the mass media has perpetuated these ideas. They give us the same plot lines, the same convoluted news about aggression and violence repeatedly, brainwashing us into believing it is our very nature to fight one another.

Conversely, there is mounting evidence that the biological world actually exists in altruism and cooperation instead. The theory of natural selection proposed that an ape, for example, would always look to gain his own reproductive advantage, and even steal food from his own mother if it meant he could outlive her. Darwin himself started to explore this interesting phenomenon – of animals and people actually putting the needs of others ahead of their own in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, but did not follow it to its logical conclusions. In 1902, the Russian zoologist, Peter Kroptokin, picked up where Darwin left off in his anarchist book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.

“The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that is has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history.” ~ Peter Kroptokin

In an argument against Darwinism, Robert Augros and George Stanciu, published The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom of Nature, which points out that cooperation, not competition, is the norm in nature, because it is energy-efficient and because predators and their prey maintain a kind of balanced coexistence. They found that “nature uses extraordinarily ingenious techniques to avoid conflict and competition, and that cooperation is extraordinarily widespread throughout all of nature.”

Example in nature abound – and for some reason we have forgotten to look right under our noses for this evidence of cooperation instead of competition. Look at bees and flowers, and how they interact with the human food supply,  ant colonies and how they work together tirelessly to build a home, the long-eared owl and her blind-snake that acts as a housekeeper to keep away flies, ticks and other nuisances from baby owl chicks. There are literally thousands of demonstrations of our cooperative nature in Mother nature. Human beings are no different.

Some may ask if a truly selfless act exists, since it inherently boosts our own well-being when we help others – but this just might be the genius behind cooperation in evolution. When you do something for someone else, you can’t help but do something for yourself.

2. Darwinism can’t explain the presence of ‘human’ life-forms in ancient times even though archeological evidence is showing up all over the planet that extremely ancient intelligent civilizations existed.

There is evidence that humans were on this planet before, during and after the dinosaurs even. Darwin would say that evolution is the process of inherited characteristics of a biological set of parents over successive generations. This includes everything from human beings to DNA and proteins. He also argued that evolution happened via three primary processes: the more offspring that are created, the more that there is likelihood of some surviving, traits will vary among said offspring and vary future generations’ abilities to create more offspring, and all traits come from inheritable genes.

We now have multiple theories that human beings developed traits which their parents, and ancestors did not possess. We’ve experienced quantum leaps in evolution many times in our history. Our human DNA can ‘mutate’ at any time to become super human – spiritual beings, you could say – without any understandable reference to Darwinism. There are even documented cases of children being born now with three strands of DNA. Doctors can’t explain this, and Darwin certainly couldn’t. Medical science calls it a ‘faulty’ gene, but might not this toddler be an example of our greater capacity as a spiritually evolved species, and not animals fighting over a singular meal or mate?

3. Science is now proving we can change our genes with our diet, with sound, with light and with thoughts and feelings. 

We are not relegated to the singular set of genes our parents gives us. There is research in multiple countries which proves we can reprogram ourselves, and that 90% of our DNA is not ‘junk DNA’ at all.  A pioneer of this work is Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev who explored the DNA under vibrational frequency changes. He has basically proven what yogis and adepts, shaman and wise men from Indian tribes have known for millennia – that “Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation.” This means they can be programmed – at any point in their life cycle. Simply using things like affirmations, autogenous training, hypnosis, and positive sound energy can transmute gene sequences.

There are of course, multiple other reasons we need to shift from this erroneous thinking – that life is based on the survival of the fittest and that natural selection determines our lot in life and as a species. While the elite few running the mind games at the top of the pyramid would have us believe we are groveling, violent animals, they are dead wrong, and quite possibly delusional. We are infinite. We are cooperative, and evolution is a lot more fascinating than Darwin would have ever expected.

About the Author

Christina Sarich is a musician, yogi, humanitarian and freelance writer who channels many hours of studying Lao TzuParamahansa YoganandaRob Brezny,  Miles Davis, and Tom Robbins into interesting tidbits to help you Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

Additional references:

– Gilbert Gottlieb, Individual Development and Evolution: The Genesis of Novel Behavior (Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press, 2001).

This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…

  • Zabelisa

    Natural selection has nothing to do with “survival of the fittest”, it relates to adaptation to environment. It is clear to me that you don’t have much knowledge in biology, genetics or evolution. DNA does not change very often but the transcription mechanisms can be manipulated with environment. Physical or chemical changes can lead to activation or suppression of transcription factors. Sure cooperation has help with survival of many species, but in most cases, it was the alpha males who were always able to procreate the most (you can call him the fittest). As a result, the majority of offsprings come from the fittest in most wild species. Anyway, no need to expand, those of you who understand what Darwin was saying know better.

  • Really interesting article, but not diggin the ‘we are becoming superhuman’. I am VERY wary of that desire and concept for a variety of good reasons. ALl the fascists have myths of the ‘superhuman’ one need only thing of Hitler and the Nazis dream of the ubermensche or superman. If the small ‘elite’ right nwo who think of thsmselves as gods or supermen. The push by them for Transhumanism also known for short as H+ which is this same concept ‘fastracked’ with technology.

    BUT I don’t hear anything of indigenous people, and their deeply sensual humanness that many many moderns have LOST. That rather than becoming ‘superhuman’ we need to remember to BE human and not machines. I see this civilization savage suppression of our relationship with sacred vegetations and substances which keeps us robotic and thus FROM being really human and related to all other species.

  • The Human Organism outside the confinement of society and in a direct relationship to nature transcends time and space

  • Darwin was a git but not for any of the reasons listed.

    When I was in High School a mentally disabled child was granted twice as much federal money as a gifted child. In Darwin’s world anyone not contributing to society would be put out on an ice floe like the Inuit do when their grandparents teeth are worn out and can no longer chew on hides to soften them for wearing.

    The use of any analogy of the insect world on humans is invalid. Probably all insect hive colonies are mostly female clones. They are under the pheromone thrall of the Queen to do her bidding so they have no mind or will of their own. Wait! I retract! That is EXACTLY LIKE HUMAN BEINGS! You need look no further than the pharmwhores of the Midwest who have sold out to industrial agriculture that tells them what genetically monsterified products to plant with which toxic chemicals the plants cannot live without. They do this because The Hive supports them and their criminal actions are the feedback loop to support the hive. GMOs and whoring yourself out to money is neither Natural, cooperative, altruistic or evolutionary. It is UnNatural, antithetical to Life on this planet, criminal greed, and devolution.

    This is why I say that Darwin was wrong. We see nothing in Nature that supports survival of the Fit. The unfit are in govern mente. The unfit grow non-food that cannot even survive its own seed. Devolution has been sponsored. As to the ability of changing our own genes there are hundreds of people across the globe with intent, intelligence and innumerable attempts with technology and mental techniques to heal themselves of the disease that the above-mentioned devolved monsters have inflicted on us with no results. Because, if it were possible to make ourselves and therefore the world better, Darwin would not be in our vocabulary and we would not be having this discussion.

  • Larry Peterson

    This must be that guy who thinks that the “Flintstones” was a documentary. There exists no evidence that would pass scientific scrutiny that Man and Dinosaur co-existed. You make the same error that other non-science people do-you equate physical struggle with fitness.(Darwin never said that anyway)He was talking about the Genes-the genetically fit would survive, and reproduce. You cite nothing as evidence that would never even be on the fringe of critical thinkers. Your article makes a mockery of one of the greatest scientists that ever lived. You show a total lack of knowledge-you don’t take into account that primitive man lived in tribes because he had a better chance of survival. That alone was an intelligent move.>READ!

  • dimitri ledkovsky

    Darwinism should be relegated to a footnote in educational curricula. It’s anti-scientific conclusions are an intellectual embarrassment. It will be best remembered as a propaganda tool used by the brutal anglo-saxon empire builders: Britain, the United States and Canada.

  • John Cook

    Yes, yes, yes! There is So much more to learn.
    Even the arch advocate of explicit “Selfisness” Ayn Rand made it clear that when people are genuinely self interested, that is, they do what is best for themselves in the long term, it looks like “altruism”. True “altruism”, that is sacrificing yourself in favor of another is a poisonous philosophy but Reciprocal altruism, the way nature works to collaborate with other entities is beneficent to all.
    That is why humans (and probably other creatures) have refined abilities to detect Cheaters, those who do not return the favor.

  • Dr Bonnie

    Having 3 strands of DNA doesn’t make you super human. This is the cause of Down’s syndrome and other congenital syndromes, and doctors understand it very well. In The Descent of Man, Darwin said that a tribe that cooperated would have an advantage over one that didn’t, and this would also be an example of natural selecton. He never used the term “survival of the fittest.”

  • WwttwW

    Great job…I believe we are all spiritual beings that have experienced a de-evolution into a a human, and even animal conscious….also another big Darwin fail was that both male and female would have had to simultaneously evolve. When you look back at Darwin’s theory century’s from now it’s gonna be like thinking the world was flat.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend