This blog post examines the history and philosophical implications of evolutionary theory and explores how it defines the direction and superiority of modern biology.
When students first learn about evolution, they are inevitably taught how the theory of evolution came to be. More than just a biological explanation of phenomena, evolutionary theory involves a philosophical and scientific inquiry into the origin and development of life. In this context, it is very important to understand the historical background of early evolutionary theory. A common example is the transition from Chevalier de Lamarck’s Theory of Use and Disuse to Darwin’s Natural Selection. There are two arguments: that giraffes lengthened their necks because they were trying to stretch, and that long necks gave them a competitive advantage. The subtle differences between the two are difficult to grasp for people who are learning about evolution for the first time.
The theory of evolution has been refined through various scientific discoveries and theoretical developments. Lamarck’s theory was an early attempt to explain the process of change in living things, but it was modified and supplemented by other scholars as the theory evolved. A key point of contention in many theories, both within Darwinism and natural selection, is the direction of evolution. The question of whether evolution is progress in the sense that we often think of it goes beyond a simple life history understanding and is linked to philosophical considerations about ourselves. The idea that evolution is pushing life in a “better” direction goes hand in hand with beliefs about human progress and superiority. However, there is still much debate about whether this view is scientifically valid.
Discussions about the direction of evolution are essential for defining superiority and for making predictions about the future evolution of life, but we need to move beyond mere theoretical speculation and instead rely on scientific evidence and experimental findings. The discovery of genes embedded in cells and the elucidation of how they arise has clarified many unrefined theories, including the theory of solubility. These discoveries naturally shifted the focus of evolutionary theory away from the external elements of organisms and the predetermined functions of proteins. This led scientists to delve deeper into the microscopic processes inside living things, and new theories began to emerge to explain genetic diversity and how it changes.
Evolutionary theorists used genes, their interactions, and the gene pools available within a population of organisms as evidence to support their theories. This led to an increased focus on how combinations of genes change, and in particular, how genetic diversity affects the adaptability and survivability of organisms. This was a major turning point in our understanding of the evolutionary process of life, and contributed greatly to explaining the complexity and diversity of life.
Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, two of the most vocal biologists on the subject, share a common understanding of how evolution works in Full House and The Blind Watchmaker, respectively. In a nutshell, evolution is the superficial changes that result from the increasing diversity of gene combinations. Like a blind watchmaker, the outcome of gene combinations is highly irregular and does not itself determine direction with any purposefulness. In this process, organisms gradually change through adaptation to their environment, and it is the cumulative effect of these changes that leads to evolution.
It’s not hard to prove that this is true. We’ve already established that genes are the key instructions for trait expression, so it’s worth noting that they themselves are subject to variation. It is sufficient, then, to discuss the purposefulness of evolution by discussing how the variation of these genes, or the diversification of gene combinations, tends to be. These tendencies often work in a way that allows life to survive and thrive in a particular environment, which is the result of natural selection.
And no matter what lower-level physical concepts we bring to the table, we can’t add any additional complexity to creating new combinations of genes. In the first place, the logic of combining genes is as simple as the basic interactions that exist in nature, and it defies our common sense that there are subordinate concepts that are simpler in form and more complex in concept that determine it. Unless some incomprehensibly small, complex, hitherto undiscovered new discovery of physics is added to the mix, it is impossible to argue that a new combination of genes is completely irregular.
If there is a big difference, it is in the interpretation of the resulting direction of evolution. Even if the distribution of gene combinations is irregular, they are not immune from probability. It’s clear in principle that they have a certain distribution function if we compare them against some standard. However, since we are already constrained by the environment in which we live, and since evolution has been going on for generations and generations, it is clear that there are competing forces that can affect the distribution function itself. Even in distribution functions, there are some things that are relatively more likely to exist and others that are less likely. If this is the criterion we want to use, then the result is clearly directional. Stephen Jay Gould describes this external factor that prevents a shift from an irregular increase in diversity to a bimodal distribution as a barrier.
It has been explained that directionality can also be seen in the evolutionary principle of irregular increases in diversity. What about superiority? If something is better equipped, even if only consequentially, according to our criteria, can we say that it is superior, at least with respect to its conditions? Can we say that combinations with a smaller probability of existence can emerge through evolutionary succession, that is, progress? Even though the principle of evolution has been identified, the controversy has not subsided, and this point has become a criterion for classifying different evolutionary theories.
Stephen Jay Gould, being a paleontologist by nature, was inclined to favor life forms with relatively high probabilities of existence in the distribution function. While his book does a great job of explaining how evolution works, he deliberately avoids mentioning that combinations with a low probability of existence would not have existed if evolution had not repeated itself. The discussion of dominance is intentionally blunted by the fact that the distribution of fossils is much more diverse and their numbers and total mass are overwhelming. But the discussion of dominance is not just about analyzing past distributions. Modern biology continues to use new techniques and discoveries to analyze the traces of ancient life and attempt to use them to predict current and future biodiversity.
While we acknowledge that there could be an infinite number of criteria for new distributions as well as an infinite number of distributions, our established mathematical system can meaningfully determine infinite cases. To avoid the possibility that, no matter how diverse the criteria for a distribution, the probability of existence of an infinite number of criteria may have a common scarcity is, if done incorrectly, to confound our understanding of higher animals.
If evolutionary superiority can be defined as a rarer probability of existence, then the sense of superiority it engenders may be meaningless. However, it seems necessary to understand that this is an unintended direction that has arisen as a result of irregular evolutionary iterations, and it seems even less necessary to deliberately deny or reject it. To the extent that we have the ability to set our own standards for the distribution of scarcity, it is clear that we have also attained the ability to change the distribution to some extent to meet our standards. But by that logic, we would also be somewhere in the middle of a higher-dimensional distribution function, and the slight peak we have created in the distribution function would be just the tip of the iceberg in the overall distribution function.
Finally, a discussion of evolutionary theory is crucial to understanding the origin and development of life. Evolutionary theory is the foundation of the life sciences and is essential for explaining the complex interactions of all living things, including humans. Evolutionary theory allows us to understand the origins of life, track its development, and predict future changes. In doing so, we can reflect deeply on our place and role in the world. More than just a scientific theory, evolution raises philosophical questions about human existence and its meaning.
