Darwinian or Lamarckian?

[ZIM]

People talk occasionally about how martial arts evolve over time, for instance tai chi became different styles, or hsing yi evolved form an earlier art. Presumably the art becomes more effective or adapted to time and place, circumstances, and sometimes a new art is started...

My question: do you think the process of evolution in MAs is Darwinian or Lamarckian? Why? ;)

[ZIM]

I thought maybe I should provide definitions, in case you're not familiar...

We're familiar with Darwin: survival of the fittest [strong, fast], the fitttest to reproduce & its characteristics, etc. So changes in a thing occur because of strength and inheritance of sought-after traits.

Lamarck states:
In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

So: in Lamarckian terms, a horse gets a hoof from running on its toenails...

...yes, I'm pretty bored right now...:p

[Former castleva]

Darwin is da man. ;)

I think it is also should be considered that according to evolution theory as I see it,evolving is still on.
If we would/could have an idea,we could approach this from paleo-anthropological view (strange) and stuff,do not know how to mix them up... :rolleyes:
In a way this is also flawed idea since Darwin did not know much about genes those days,which did not debunk him anywhere since the work was more like strengthened later.
Quite rambling,maybe we should combine ma history into that of evolution?
Anyway,very old arts have survived and are still being dragged around.
Blah.

[Marky]

Hi ZIM,

I don't believe martial arts evolve by either of those methods. Since it is the responsibility of a person to improve himself, then share that knowledge with the next generation, I don't see how either of those can fit (I suppose one could argue for Lamarckian if he/she really wanted to). It's CERTAINLY not Darwinian, since evolution in that sense relies upon the death of the "unfit". Unfortunately, we live in a world of freedom, and out of ego some people refuse to let ANYTHING die, even lousy martial arts. If people think your martial art is no good, you just talk to different people until they agree with you, and BINGO BANGO, you've suddenly got a "good" martial art. Not everyone works in this way, but there are enough, considering that there are no regulations for teaching (essentially, the environment no longer promotes evolution. Live and let live, as they say).

Another reason martial arts aren't uniformly evolving these days is because of the "ancient lost secrets" gimick. A friend of mine once boasted that he was practicing an ancient martial art that was almost lost and only 100 people practice it in the whole world, etc., etc. I told him, "THERE'S PROBABLY A GOOD REASON FOR THAT!"

If you look at history, you'll see that martial arts "goodness" is generally normally distributed. There are as many "good" as there are "bad", although it's all relative to perspective anyway. I don't think anyone could argue that as some martial arts improve, others get worse (from person to person, school to school, etc.). When all is said and done, I imagine that the net evolution of the martial arts is 0. There are just too many martial arts still out there that prevent us from claiming that they're all converging on "good".

That's my opinion, at any rate. But I'm often wrong!

[Former castleva]

You expressed it better than I,Marky.

[ZIM]

You're identifying some of the 'tricky bits'!

IMHO, it's probly both.

Start with an art that says 'develop your iron bridge', which they say is the forearms. Another sifu comes up with an innovation, saying 'I'm going to develop legs in the same way' [Lamarckian].

He goes around defeating other sifus and gaining students [Darwinian] but the idea itself doesn't catch on [Lamarck again?]...

Conversely, we could get into the whole grappling vs. striking thing...;) If groundfighting worked as good as they say, why isn't it more common...? :p

[Kinjit]

[i]

Conversely, we could get into the whole grappling vs. striking thing...;) If groundfighting worked as good as they say, why isn't it more common...? :p [/B]


Worked... Not works? What do you mean... Why groundfighting isn't more common among traditional arts?

[Surferdude]

Well I have a hypothosis....
Lamarck says either use it or lose it
Darwin says Surival of the fittest(sp)

Now I think that where some teachers dont show you some techniques then you dont know it... so you become a teacher and open a school then you dont show your students some other techniques then your stundents dont know 2 "secret techniques"
And so on and so forth until no one knows anything but the basics
This is strictly hypothetical and probably wrong:D

Or it could be that only the MA's that are practiced the most will go on....
I dont know:confused:

[WinterPalm]

WHat you described Lamarckian sounds exactly like some of Darwins theories. In fact I think its the basis for sexual selection and evolution lineages, where a certain trait is exagerated by a member of a species and that trait helps it live and reproduce more frequently therefore leading to a general overuse of one aspect of the creature such as the trunk of an anteater.
Maybe i'm confused but either way who is Lamarckian? IS he/she an evolutionist or is it just a theory?

However, maybe we should consider whether martial art is revolutionary in the true sense or evoulionary. I mean we always come back to the beginning in our training and the foundation is constantly revisited.

[Marky]

Hi Winterpalm,

Darwin and Lamarck sound similar at first, but Lamarck proposed SPONTANEOUS change, while Darwin proposed generational change.

As a wing chun person, I can honestly say that I've considered the evololution (de-evolution) of wing chun. Gone are the days when a person who's wing chun skill was so bad, that he could be beaten to the point that his shame prevented him from teaching it, he became a laughing stock, or he was so physically damaged that he could no longer function as a teacher. People saw what a few good wing chun guys could do, and a lot of people wanted to practice it. Since NO ONE regulates instruction, every half-wit who had learned a wing chun technique could claim to be a teacher ("I can teach someone wing chun as long as I stay one lesson ahead of them!"). Now the market is flooded; there are good wing chun people, but there are far more bad ones. Those who's skills could not speak for them, made use of intricate marketing strategies and large-scale promotion (resulting in more students, and more money). I'm not talking about lineages, but individuals.

But that doesn't mean wing chun is de-evolving, it's just a set of principles, and they're still there. Personally, I'm HAPPY whenever a wing chun guy looses in a NHB match or a street fight or whatever. If it happens often enough, it will become less popular, people will stop practicing wing chun, and the charlatans will move on to BJJ, muay thai, etc (with any luck, they won't last long there). I'm ashamed of my selfishness, but that's life.

The point is, as long as people remain the same, the state of martial arts will remain the same. As long as there are posers and suckers, martial arts won't evolve. When the martial arts community on the whole begins to better itself entirely (mentally, not skill-wise), you'll start to see some big improvements in ALL martial arts.

[tsunami surfer]

God made the platypus especially for Darwin.

['MegaPoint]

Originally posted by Surferdude
Well I have a hypothosis....
Lamarck says either use it or lose it
Darwin says Surival of the fittest(sp)

Or it could be that only the MA's that are practiced the most will go on....
I dont know:confused:

Darwin never used that phrase "survival of the fittest". That's the credo of "Social Darwinism" a movement that began after the "Voyage of the Beagle" and had nothing to do with real evolution theory. This American led "movement" was the forerunner to fascism/ national socialism (Nazi isht) and involved eugenics and other "weeding out" ideas. Oh, we were an integral part of that "way of thinking", too!

What evolution states is not "the strongest/fittest survive", but that those most able to adapt to their environment will prosper. Dinosaurs who were decimated by various disasters, were much bigger and stronger than the smaller mammals that survived, and became us. The truth is man is so successful because he can live anywhere on earth (soon beyond), and his ability to create tools and other technology makes him successful (thus far).

MAs is ever changing. Nothing is stagnant in the universe. Even traditional arts adapt in order to survive. Some arts have changed considerably, and others have changed, what seems to be, very little. No thing is ever the same. "Cutting to the chase", doesn't guarantee any more success in real life. A P.A. can go to condensed Medical School, learn 85-90% of what a Physician learns, but he still ain't no Doctor. He may be proficient and sufficient for the task required of him, but he hasn't mastered a da mned thing!

The same goes for fighting sport vs. traditional MAs. They both entail the same general purpose; to make you better prepared to defend yourself and to strengthen you as a person- on some level. The difference is that one is a short term thing and the other is more of a lifelong pursuit. One is real when it needs to be, and the other is a forced reality (want). I doubt that most of you will ever fight for real in life, but many of you will choose to fight for "real" in competition. The difference is subtly complex. The purpose slightly different, yet similar. A "traditional" mindset depends on if you trust your own judgement and the analysis of others before you.

If you don't you might want to "see for yourself". You know, learn the hard way through self-inflicted pain and second guessing. In the end the conclusion will be the same. Fighting= not good unless absoultely necessary. The "shortened" process will actually exact more of a toll on many in the long run. Think about it.

As an organism man has slowed his natural evolution by tinkering with Natures plan. Our ability to vastly augment our limited physicality/mentality has quickened this "manufactured" adaptability. We are trying to circumvent time, by controlling Nature's course in our "sphere of influence". If things don't change our destination is obvious. Destruction and extinction. You know- from exploitation to greed to "$hittin' where we eat"!

Since MAs is a human ideation and endeavor, its evolution was naturally slowed when people use to fight for real all the time, for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. The human body hasn't changed for almost 100,000 years. Smaller people use to squab', now bigger folks squab'. That "bodies are bigger and stronger BS" is just that. Everything is relative! What knocked /choked a mo-fo out then will do it know! This is the reason that good traditional things are long lasting and quite relevant and valuable. Cheap, shallow imitations of the original are diluted quick fixes, superficial in their overall worth and doomed to extinction, no matter how "strong" they may seem right now. "Standing the test of time" is the final validation!

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH!!! MP is probably pretty awesome as a fighter. He probably knows some traditional stuff, too. All I know is that those martial artists who trained in good traditional systems, and used it for real to save theirs or someone elses arse, are just as effective for that purpose as any Gracie. I can't say how they would do in MMAs, but some of them would fair well without any NHB training. I know this for sure because I have done both.

What MMAS claims to be doing was done in antiquity. Ancient Greece, Egypt, India, China, Okinawa, the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, Africa, Persia-- well you get the gist. Submission fighting was the first "controlled" form of battlefield combat (empty hand) fighting arts. Most holds were really not "barred" back in the day.

Padding and more rules. That is a lot of "evolution". So how evolved is it compared to "traditional" systems? Tricky, tricky.... Hahahaha!!!

[Crimson Phoenix]

Very simple: it's both.

Arts are faced with an evolutive pressure that makes the less efficient one disappear. This is the Darwinian part. Yet, founders and practicionners of the art can perceive what is lacking, what should be improved and added when it comes to dealing with several compartments of fighting. So they can implement it in the art, or at least adapt it, to mak it evolve. It is therefore an inductive process, it's the Lamarkian aspect.

[Liokault]

Is MMA the platypus of the martial arts world?

[Surferdude]

You are correct after all:D
Good job!!!:D
Now I feel dumb:o :D

[ZIM]

I thought i wouldn't get any answers to this, especially not serious ones! Thank you! :)

'Mega Point: If I'm reading you right, it looks like you lean towards the idea that there is a single, underlying "MA principle" that is either preserved or gotten away from in the various arts... I don't know if I personally agree with that, but the idea of it is common currency in some sub-cultures.

Most obvious is the splits that occurred within Aikido: some are sport, some are more aikijutsu than aikido, then there are those that stick by O-sensei, or take him to extremes that he possibly never intended...

Others consider that fighting is just fighting, how do you want to do it? There are no "right" answers. Thus, tradition is just that- tradition- and may be disregarded if it gets in the way. JKD is a prime example, so are MMAs, of course.

Crimson Phoenix: agreed in the sense that it's 'very simple'. But this also means that, [as a result of Lamarckian evolution] arts may not be 'true' for combat effectiveness, but may have survived to be passed on by simple politics. A way of doing things was merely a trend that was preserved. :eek: ;)

simple, yet again...!

Kinjit: yes, both. :p

Liokault: The platypus MIGHT have ruled the planet!! In different circumstances... :p

[Former castleva]

From a purely martial point of view,traditional martial arts=hand to hand combat arts should possibly have died out already if this was evolution in that sense.

[ZIM]

They have! Consider Fencing, Cornish Wrestling, Duello, etc. Do the ppl of Finland still go berserk and carry spears? Dude, that'd make for a killer army! LOL

I have no doubt that there are many CMAs that have disappeared.. I have heard of a 'crab' style that has, for instance...

Many of these were deadly and effective- for their time! Needs became for other things...

[Former castleva]

"Do the ppl of Finland still go berserk and carry spears?"
Not spears. :D

I have no doubt that there are many CMAs that have disappeared.. I have heard of a 'crab' style that has, for instance... ""
I´m suspecting even hundreds. :eek:

"Many of these were deadly and effective- for their time! Needs became for other things..."

Yes.But while neanderthalian clubbing is not the case,I suspect that various arts have disappeared for reasons other than that of effectiveness (such as secrecy,conflicts,lineage issues etc.)
The crab style you mentioned,which I do know little about (just to pick an example) I think could very well be here among other insect/animal oriented styles if it would not be for those reasons,mechanics are the same for long and the ones that are left of such are seemingly unlikely to be more "up to date".

[ZIM]

"up to date"

Thats the exact phrase that makes any of this worth talking about, albeit that this is a weird way to go about doing so. :D

A case:
In CMAs it is typically taught to 'go for' the solar plexus area with various kinds of strikes/kicks. In the West, a typical fight seems to usually involve strikes to the chin/jaw... these are cultural ways of regarding a 'winning hit', the best way to do some damage...

Yet many who wish to adhere to tradition still stick to the tactical sense engendered by the cultures of the East. That is, the tactics of their arts are reliant upon similar tactics being employed by the opponent.. this is an old argument, sure. ;)

In the sense that I'm bringing this up, thats a Lamarckian, not Darwinian thing: it is evolution towards a particular purpose rather than towards 'survival' and efficiency.

I do not think that MMAs necessarily have a better answer for that, BTW- I'm betting that the very same had been done throughout many centuries and cultures, all of which have disappeared or become codified to whatever end... they are the crucible of change, thats all.

LOL @ the 'not spears' ! :D

[Former castleva]

"In CMAs it is typically taught to 'go for' the solar plexus area with various kinds of strikes/kicks. In the West, a typical fight seems to usually involve strikes to the chin/jaw... these are cultural ways of regarding a 'winning hit', the best way to do some damage..."

I have never thought about it in this way but thanks for broadening up my world,whatever that is.
:D

Seems to me you have carefully managed to chew this thread into it´s end,at least for me that is. :)

[ZIM]

Seems to me you have carefully managed to chew this thread into it´s end,at least for me that is.

Surely.
A mere week-end's entertainment, a curiosity. And so to end.

"Thank you" extended to all who replied! :)