Darwin's Error #1 Digitization

The Origin of Species, or as I like to call it, the Digitization of Life presented a great model that got people thinking in the terms of how life advances. But to say Darwin had a complete theory is to say Newton, or even Einstein had the final revelation. It's nonsense to believe in the perfection of his theory. I call this the Digitization, because, much like digital technology does to analog signals, discrete points (mating) are treated as the entire signal, ignoring the necessary understanding that much of the information is lost between the points. In this perspective, all the intricacies of life are pinned down as something to improve chances of mating.

Now, it is a perfectly good model for items of such short lifespan (e.g. microscopic organisms) that it is beyond our comprehension to try to imagine the temporal space between generations. But as the lifespan of organisms gets larger and larger, biological evolutionary mechanisms get usurped by social evolution with its own unique set of rules. Biological evolution likes to sweep it under the rug by saying whatever happened to survive is the species that was more fit. The common explanation of social evolution is a simple process of males vying to "impress the female" and females vying to "choose the strongest male". The perspective treats life like it exists in a vacuum, where nothing important comes from the non-breeding parts of a species (after all, they just die out), and also there being no useful aspect to the species except for being the strongest one that breeds. In other words in the [common conception of the] Darwinist perspective, there is no room for empathy.  This falls to pieces if even one example of an evolutionary change can be found that was influenced by a non-breeding member of an animal society(yes, animals have society too I'm not talking social Darwinism for humans.. yet).

If one example of social learning could be observed in the animal kingdom, then it is proof enough that the non-breeding portions of a society are still an important part. Is it completely unreasonable to believe that one animal can learn what not to do from another that is so bad at living that one could only call it a "fool". Even if there was little to no genetic relation between these two animals one that is smart enough to see how not to act would go on to be considered more likely to breed. Would it be possible to imagine that without the foolish animal, the smarter one could make the same mistakes simply because of the lack of a bad example, thus becoming a non-breeding one himself. Oddly enough, he himself could even become the fool for a newer generation. There are a lot of hypotheticals here, but I feel its an important thought experiment.

Society is more of a constant amorphous system that species swim through as they breed. Back to the signal analogy,  societal interactions could be viewed as "high frequency" (in relation to the low sampling frequency of breeding cycles). When you look at a system using a sampling frequency that is too low, you lose ALL higher frequency information, and this is the esoteric beef I have with the current general understanding of evolution. In the world of cultural evolution, the lifespan of ideas, attitudes, ideals and actions can be much shorter or much longer than the lifespan if their biological carriers. Taking a perspective so limiting as treating a halfway point (or even quarter-way in the case of humans) in a life as the end goal is naive at best.

I suppose the end-goal of this is to relay the understanding that genes aren't everything, not even most of it all. To believe this is so is to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy where humans focus on an any-means necessary breed as much as possible attitude. They forget all of the aspects of life that brought them to that point, and don't care much about anything that happens after because they've achieved their goal. Alternatively, even if science cannot explain the deep complexity that happens in the myriad of different livelihoods does not mean it has to be squished out of perception so we can understand the "big picture"(albeit in a flawed manner).

*I think i must emphasize again, that these are not necessarily errors that Darwin himself made, but instead are errors that emerge when his theories are taken to the utmost intellectual extremes as complete.