The missing piece in the theory of evolution

How the theory of evolution is generally portrayed
How the theory of evolution is generally portrayed

Evolution's 'missing link'

In the current theory of evolution there's an "elephant in the room," which is hardly, if ever discussed; the role of the female in shaping us as humans. Whenever evolution is written about, there's generally a hidden bias, because it's always looked at from a male point of view

When people talk about ideas like, "the survival of the fittest", it's mostly couched in terms of dominant males, who are better able to pass on their genes to the next generation because they are stronger, more adaptable or more intelligent than other males. Far less is written about the female role in evolution.

What's shocking about this one-sided approach is that our total dependence on females is ignored. They are far, far more important to the survival of any species than the male. Females either lay eggs or give birth to live young, then devote their energies to caring for them until they are able to look after themselves. If the females of any species fail to successfully nurture their young, so that they die before they are able to breed, the species will rapidly become extinct.

It's true that there are some male birds or fish who take a very active role in caring for the young, but this is hardly ever the case with mammals. Often, the only part a male plays is fertilising the female. In the case of some animals, like bears, lions and tigers, the males have been known to kill and eat cubs, especially if they have been fathered by another male. The behaviour of these males is actually harming the species' ability to survive.

In most mammals, the males are expendable. One male can fertilise large numbers of females. Even if most die, breeding will continue as long as there are adequate numbers of females. It's a completely different story in reverse. Lose most of your females and the species will be in trouble - perhaps not so much in small mammals like mice, cats or rabbits, where females give birth to litters, and do this more than once a year, but certainly in larger animals who only give birth to one young every year or so. This is why larger animals are far more likely to become extinct than smaller ones. Females are absolutely crucial to evolution, much more so than males, but you wouldn't think so if you read most books on the subject.

It's doubtful whether fierce competition between males was a big factor in human evolution, as many male scientists claim. Mammals like stags, bulls and rams fight each other every spring to get access to females and have developed fearsome weapons like antlers and horns to wound their rivals. Only the strongest and most aggressive males get to breed. This clearly didn't happen with human beings, since the human male is one of the most physically weak animals of its size. Apes like the orang-utan, chimpanzee and gorilla, all of whom are our close relations, are four times stronger than humans. Human males fighting with each other in trials of strength, couldn't have been an important factor in human evolution or we would see its results.

From the Film: 2001 A Space Odyssey
From the Film: 2001 A Space Odyssey

The Killer Ape theory

Because of the strong male bias in the way we look at evolution, those theories which place males at the centre of the picture are held to be true. In the 20th century, palaeontologists decided that man evolved from ape to human on the African Savannah

For this reason, naturally enough, it was called the Savannah theory. Women are hardly mentioned at all. It's posited that apes came down from the trees to live on the African plains and learned how to hunt animals to survive. Through traits developed to increase his hunting skills, man evolved from an ape to a human. He changed from being a plant eater to a top carnivore or 'killer ape', entirely through the efforts of males.

Much of what was proposed in the Savannah theory has been disproved, but male scientists still cling to it, desperately trying to make it work. At the same time they reject a far more plausible explanation of human evolution called the Aquatic Ape theory. It covers everything about how we evolved from apes, because it says why we walk upright, why we have no fur and why we have a larger brain than any other ape. All this happened when apes came down from the trees and foraged for marine food in the shallows of swamps, lakes, rivers and the sea.

They became upright waders in the waters, lost their heavy fur because it was a hindrance in the water and developed bigger brains because of the enhanced richness of marine food. Male scientists don't like this theory, because men don't play a leading heroic role within it. If you are foraging in the water for food, which is what women can do very well, there's not much room for hunting, which is generally a male pastime

Perhaps it is natural for male scientists to see evolution from a completely masculine point of view. Does this matter? Well it does, because it shapes how we see the world we live in, our gender roles, how we treat each other and even our politics.

This Cartoon explains everything about Social Darwinism
This Cartoon explains everything about Social Darwinism

Adolf Hitler

Hitler believed in Social Darwinism
Hitler believed in Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism

ÏNot long after Darwin published 'The Origin Of Species', people began to wonder how evolutionary theory affects our present- day world. It was from these musings that Social Darwinism was created, which sees the concept of the "survival of the fittest" in terms of competition, conflict and sometimes violence.

It provided a strong justification for laissez-faire capitalism, eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism and warfare. After the defeat of the Nazis in World War Two, Social Darwinism became discredited because it had been used by the Nazis to justify the genocide of the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and Gypsies. These people were not seen as 'fit' to survive and therefore could be eliminated. In spite of this, it keeps on going, except it is no longer called Social Darwinism, Fascism or Nazism. It has other names now.

Many right-wing politicians in Western countries call for something called, "rolling back the state". This involves cutting back on social welfare spending of any kind, but they don't really say why we need to do this when it's clear that the most vulnerable members of our society would suffer. The answer can be seen in the writings of Darwin himself in his book "The Descent of Man", when he says. –

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed

Ayn Rand

Is Objectivism another name for Social Darwinism?
Is Objectivism another name for Social Darwinism?

Survival of the Fittest

Anyone agreeing with these sentiments would certainly feel that the welfare state, with social housing, free medical care, disability benefits and unemployment pay is harmful to the genetic future of mankind. It's not much of a jump to then claim that it is better if people who are sick, disabled or poor, die of neglect and starvation, rather than allowing their 'unfit' genes to be passed onto the next generation

Another small jump and you can make a strong case for genocide, ethnic-cleansing and eugenics. People who are judged as unfit should be exterminated, rather than waiting for them to starve to death. You could even argue it is the kindest thing to do, in the same way humans 'put to sleep' injured animals. This allows the human race to evolve without hindrance.. In recent times this brand of Social Darwinism has been called 'Objectivism', a name invented by the writer Ayn Rand. Her ideas justify greed and selfishness, as well as the large gap between rich and poor, in the name of evolution.

But is the "survival of the fittest" really all about aggression and ruthless competition? In 1902 Peter Kropotkin wrote a book called "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution", arguing that co-operation between humans is the single most important factor in our evolutionary success. Unfortunately, his ideas never caught on. One reason might be that evolution is mostly seen from the masculine point of view, which celebrates competition above all else . We ignore the nurturing, feminine, inclusive traits of our species, which have been just as, if not more important than the contribution of combative males.

The most important factor in the survival of any species of animal is not how big, strong or aggressive the males are, but the nurturing skills of the mothers. It's even more important in humans because it can take from 15 to 20 years for a child to fully mature. A human baby is one of the most helpless infants on the planet. It can't even crawl for the first few months of its life and it can take over a year to learn to walk. In contrast, many animals on the African Savannah have to be able to run within an hour of being born if they are to survive. A human mother in Neolithic times, say, had to have a very strong and lasting commitment to the welfare of her children for the survival of the human species

The maternal instinct

Mothers play a more important role in the survival of any species than fathers.
Mothers play a more important role in the survival of any species than fathers.

Nurturing Mothers

Male scientists largely ignore this fact because they are focused on what males are doing and how that impacts on our capacity to survive. They like to claim that the males protected and fed the females back in those times

It may be true, but if we look at the behaviour of many men today, there's room for doubt. Plenty of young men abandon their female partners and their small children.

In many cases, husbands drink or gamble away the family's money, leaving their wives and children destitute. The paternal instinct in human males is often not very strong. This shouldn't be a surprise to us, because the concept of 'fatherhood' is a fairly recent one, invented along with marriage and the restriction of female sexuality, to protect a male's property from falling into the hands of children who are not his own. It had very little influence in our evolution

Back in the Stone Age, we may have had pair-bonding and a certain amount of support from males, but generally, women had to rely on each other for help in rearing and feeding their children and not on individual males. Had child- care been left to males, the human race would probably have become extinct long ago. Their priorities were different from that of females and it's still true today. Most male politicians and businessmen tend to see child welfare and care as a very low priority indeed, even though the next generation is as crucial as ever in ensuring our survival as a species.

If we admit the important role of intelligent, dedicated, nurturing mothers in evolution, the ideas of Social Darwinism on war and poverty become unacceptable. It goes against the nurturing and caring instincts of women to have their sons killed by the thousand in wars or to have their children die in poverty. Given a free choice, which in most of the world they don't have, women would opt for a society in which the effort they have made to rear their children does not go to waste.

Nuclear war

Nuclear war is still a threat to our civilization
Nuclear war is still a threat to our civilization

The survival of the human race

Human society has come close to committing global suicide through nuclear warfare .It may be committing slow suicide by allowing greenhouse gases to wreck our environment.

If we accept that the main reason for our survival is the powerful maternal instincts of mothers, then it makes sense to eliminate war and poverty, give people decent housing and free medical care and allow women to limit the size of their families

The human race has successfully survived so far because of the way mothers care for their children and in spite of male desires to fight, kill and generally destroy their fellow humans in ever more inventive ways.

Unfortunately, in our male- dominated world, the maternal instincts of mothers are greatly undervalued and even treated with disdain. Men see the caring side of women as a weakness. And perhaps it is, if all you want to do is grab power and wealth in our patriarchal society. However, the end result is that we have ruthless, aggressive and sometimes violent men ruling our world, who think nothing of starting a war with another country. With modern weapons technology, this is becoming an increasingly dangerous thing to do.

We also see a big increase in the gap between rich and poor, which can lead to an unstable world of violent revolution and extremist political parties rearing their ugly heads. In the early 20th century, social unrest threw up extreme ideologies like communism, fascism and Nazism. It could easily happen again. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction might get into the hands of insane dictators or terrorist groups who care very little if at all about the welfare of anyone but themselves

Our survival does not, and never has, depended on men being strong, brutal and ruthless, however much they tell themselves it's true. It is a result of the many-faceted nurturing skills of intelligent mothers. For our continued survival, it's important to have such women in positions of power, ruling our world. We do not have to live in a world of conflict, war, genocide and grinding poverty. Instead, we can live in a caring and loving world, ruled by maternal and nurturing women.

© 2013 William Bond

More by this Author

  • Mermaids Are Real: Part Five
    4

    The witch hunters used a ducking stool to see if a woman was a witch. Where a woman was forced underwater when tied to the stool. The cruel logic was that if she drowned she wasn't a witch but if she lived, she was!...

  • Mermaids Are Real: Part Two
    0

    Why do we mostly have myths and sightings of mermaid and not mermen? The reason could be that, most working breath-holding divers are women.

  • Mermaids Are Real: Part One
    10

    The accepted theory for why we have mermaid legends and myths, is that sailors have mistaken sea cows for women with fish tails. Which suggests sailors must of been very stupid. This hub gives a more sensible...


Comments 30 comments

CertifiedHandy profile image

CertifiedHandy 3 years ago from Jonesboro,Georgia

How do you explain the example of Women Warriors in history.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

That they are so few in number. You are comparing a handful of female warriors to millions of male warriors throughout history.


Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 3 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal

Excellent hub, William that raises so many valid questions and points! Voted up and shared! I note that science books are all about male scientists. I have one that is written by a male scientist and there is no mention of women in it. It is as if they do not exist according to science and this book is dealing in modern scientific theory including the Big Bang and Quantum Physics. You could read this and think women have never been scientists and if they have they have never discovered anything!


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Thanks a lot Bard. Yes, I'm afraid science is still dominated by male chauvinists, who don't seem to like women.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

How does an ape evolve from a herbivore to a carnivore?


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

By eating meat. Though this didn't really happen, it was just a theory. The only humans who can call themselves a carnivore are the Eskimo or Inuit people, of the frozen North where plant food is very difficult to obtain.


CertifiedHandy profile image

CertifiedHandy 3 years ago from Jonesboro,Georgia

@wabond, Ididn't compare women and men warriors. I asked a question; how do you explain women warriors in your evolutionary scheme since they do exist in however few numbers.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

In evolutionary theory there are always mutations, animals that are different from what is normal. Mostly these animals are unsuccessful and die out but sometimes a mutation will be a success and breed better changing the nature of the species.

Women warriors have not been a success in the human species. Armies of male warriors have in history have conquered other nations and forcefully imposed their rule on them. At no point in history has an Amazon army has ever done the same. Probably because men produce more testosterone than women, which not only makes men bigger and stronger but far more aggressive as well. This is probably why men rule our world, but the question is, do we want these violent and brutal men ruling our world?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"...sometimes a mutation will be a success and breed better changing the nature of the species."

What is the 'nature' of the species?


spond741 3 years ago

I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Thanks for the feedback Spond41


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi spond741, the nature of something will be, "the whole" or "everything to do with it".


SilentReed profile image

SilentReed 3 years ago from Philippines

A Lion kills the cubs of the previous leader of the pride that he deposed in order to propagate his own genes.

Ayn Rand didn't promote class struggle, she argued against decisions base on emotional appeal and perception instead of using one's intelligence and power of reasoning. Altruism and selfishness both serve the purpose of Darwin's "survival of the fittest". The problem lies in when and where to apply them.

It is generally understood that when "Man" or "Mankind is use in describing humans, it refers to both gender. If it discriminates then perhaps we should remove it from the dictionary. Do you have any suggestions for the word to replace it? Theories of how humans evolve are continuously being debunk or change with each new scientific discovery. Humans just happen to be on top of the food chain and all the species living on planet Earth. This might change with a future catastrophic event and insects like the common cockroach becoming the dominant species.

Several of your articles have propose feminine rule and a matriarchal society, which except for a few primitive tribes have never been accepted in human history. If evolution is all about adapting to changes in order to survive, then surely the society you envision should have taken place by now after millenniums of human strife and "Man's" mismanagement of his stewardship over this planet. Shall we put all the blame solely on the male gender for all the ills of society?

Can a gender bias be corrected with another gender bias? Like the yin and yang of the Tao, there is a need for both patriarchal and matriarchal elements in society. They are in constant flux as evince by the gradual maturity in modern thinking where both gender are being integrated and given recognition for the parts they play in today's society. It takes time.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Silent Reed, Just to answer a few of your comments.

Lions killing cubs simply shows the difference in male and female. It demonstrates that females have a stronger maternal instinct than males and so will put more effort in keeping their young alive, so they can in turn breed when they are adults. This is why the survival of any species, depends far more on the female than the male.

I know many Conservatives like to claim they are not involved in class warfare, but their policies always seem to benefit the rich and certainly not the poor. Ayn Rand likewise gives arguments that supports the vast gap between rich and poor. That is probably why the rich like her.

The word 'mankind' that is used for humans, shows us clearly that the role of women are not considered in most academic writings. This is the reason I use the word 'mankind', because it reflects how academics view women.

I personally think that if the human race is to survive, then we do urgently need women ruling our world. Modern technology is becoming far too powerful and dangerous to be left in the hand of testosterone driven men. We had a lucky escape in the cold war when we came very close a number of times in having a nuclear war between the USSR and NATO. Nuclear weapons haven't gone away they are still with us and spreading to other nations. We also have the problems of pollution, over population and global warming. Problems that patriarchal governments find very difficult to solve, because they find it hard to come to any sort of agreement with each other. So if we are talking about the survival of the fittest. Then the type of governments that are will be 'fit for purpose' to ensure our survival, will be matriarchal governments. Because they will not be so stupid in starting a nuclear war, and far more likely to make global agreements with each other, to solve world problems. This is because women are far less aggressive and competitive with each other, than men.

I find it strange that men have had a strong gender bias against women for thousands of years. Yet the moment anyone suggests that women rule the world, they have the cheek to say; this is wrong because it is gender bias. I am sure in a Matriarchal world men will still play a important role, perhaps in things like science and engineering, it is just that, as we see in our history, they do a poor job in ruling our world and so need to be kept well away from politics.


Peter Kvint profile image

Peter Kvint 3 years ago

If you look at the monkeys, it is the females that go on two legs, for the longest time when they have a sick young. When the female is tired of walking on two and three legs and she can no longer bear kid, the kid is doomed.

Humans must have five liters of drinking water daily. So before we invented the water bottle, so we came never far from the rivers.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Agreed Peter, probably one of first uses of bipedal walking was for females carrying their young. It also has been pointed out before that for a tropical animal, the human body is very wasteful with water. We sweat all over the body which quickly evaporates on a naked skin in the heat. Most other tropical animals can keep cool without wasting so much water. This is another reason for suggesting we evolved in a water environment. We were able later travel away from water because we developed ways of carrying water with us. Something no other animal can do.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

Camels carry water with them.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Inside their bodies Nicomp.


Peter Kvint profile image

Peter Kvint 3 years ago

"Most other tropical animals can keep cool without wasting so much water."

The tropical animals have problem by the heat. Therefore, they sleep during the day and eat at night. The animals are very fast, 15km/h and can reach far from the pond before they have need to go back again. Present people can go 5km/h where the past people could only go 3km/h in the daylight.

The first humans on two legs only walked in the midday heat while lions lying in the shade with all four legs in the air.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I'm not sure about this theory, Peter, of early humans only walking in the mid-day sun. The Aboriginals in Australia kept out of the sun as much as possible and only walked around in the early morning and evening. In the mid-day heat they would find shelter from the sun, but if they couldn't find shade they would stand upright but wouldn't move. They did this to prevent sweating and so to conserve as much water as they could.


Peter Kvint profile image

Peter Kvint 3 years ago

The Aboriginals living in Australia, and they are modern humans and not ancient ape-men, who lived in Africa, where there are lions.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Well I'm not in favour of the Savannah theory Peter, about why humans stood upright. I far prefer the Aquatic Ape theory which says that humans evolved to walk on two legs through wading in the water to forage for marine food. This is why the humans are probably wasteful in using water to cool themselves because they evolved in a water environment.


aincas 3 years ago from uk

I do wonder what will happen to our planet if we continue to keep going in the same direction. The planet is being destroyed and it is all down to males being in control. Males are just naturally aggressive and greedy, they always want more.

I find it very interesting that females are not mentioned much in the origins of the human race - personally I think it is down to the males not allowing females to be mentioned. I think this is because deep down most males realise the importance of the female, that the female is far more important that the male and males do not like this. I think males are very threatened by the fact that the female is the far more important sex


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Agreed Aincas, history shows us it has been a complete disaster allowing men to rule our world. We will always have war and poverty while men are still in charge.

I'm afraid the academic world is still dominated by male chauvinists and this is why women are hardly mentioned in any evolutionary theory.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

"I'm afraid the academic world is still dominated by male chauvinists and this is why women are hardly mentioned in any evolutionary theory."

prove it.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Nicomp, women make up 50% of the human population and play a far more important role in our reproduction than men. (We were all created in the wombs of our mothers). Yet women are hardly mentioned in any theory of evolution. We see a similar problem in archaeology where Marija Gimbutas was savagely attacked for trying to put forward a female point of view in archaeological theory. You can read more about this at. -http://www.suppressedhistories.net/


nicomp profile image

nicomp 3 years ago from Ohio, USA

wabond, your anecdotal evidence smacks of sexism. One female savagely attacked is not proof of systemic male chauvinism.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Nicomp, And I suppose scientists referring to human beings as 'man' is not sexism. Up until fairly recently, females have been hardly mentioned in any scientific discussion on evolution.


Peter Kvint profile image

Peter Kvint 3 years ago

It is quite clear that it is women who have undergone human evolution from ape to man. The difference between a woman and a female monkey is greater than between a man and a male monkey.

The large amount of fat as a woman to have to get menstruation, must mean that man has developed a place where there is often a shortage of food. And the sweat glands work best in dry air. Since there are seasons in a mangrove and very high humidity so it is not woman's original habitat.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Peter, according to the Aquatic Ape theory the reason why women have far more fat then any other ape is so that she can keep warm in the water. It is the same as the blubber around whales, dolphins and seals. large sweat glands, is also commonplace with other marine mammals.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working