EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE

EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE

Mahendra February 10^th , 2024

Welcome to my first post in 2024. 

The Theory of Evolution is now almost universally accepted as a scientific fact. There are aspects within the general theory that are very clear and unambiguous, but some of the terms used above create some ambiguity.

The use of the term “selfish” is unfortunate as it implies “agency”. Only an agent (a sentient being with an image of self) can be selfish. To say that a gene is selfish implies that it has agency. Of course, it may not have been used in a literal sense, but it has caused a lot of damage as it has made evolution appear to promote selfish societies with no moral values.

The ultimate mechanism for spontaneous variation and evolution of change over time is the random mutations that occur in genes. As I understand it, these are entirely random and can manifest physically (? And non-physically) as a whole range of possibilities. These possibilities are also random and not directed in any way. What then happens is purely a result of those that have a better reproductive or survival value being “chosen”, and not by a thing that chooses but by the simple fact of what is best suited to survive. If evolution is driven directly via mutations which are needed, that implies that the environment somehow dictates the mutation process to follow a favourable path. This is not so. A whole random range is produced, and the winner is the one with the best chance to survive, merely through a perfectly natural process, and those produced which are not suitable just do not survive. This explains why evolution has to be thought of in the context of a massive scale of time. If purposeful mutation has occurred, the whole process would be shortened, but… an explanation is then required on how these purposeful mutations occur, and it will be very tempting to postulate a grand designer. 

Survival must be considered in the context of time (age) and species. In the lowest form, physical attributes will play a large part, such as a long neck (giraffe) or number of limbs, flexibility of joints, skin pigmentation, presence of hair etc. But at a higher level, surely behavioural characteristics must come into play. If that is so, it then implies that behavioural characteristics must also be heritable so that the advantage that promoted survival must be transmissible to the next generation, which is key and central to the theory of evolution. 

It is often mistakenly thought (in my view) that favourable behavioural characteristics have an underlying moral principle. This has the danger of making nature “personal” and possibly the design of a higher power. In my view, it is just basic material sense that drives the process. This explains why “bad” things still happen, as, in a purely mechanistic sense, a “bad” thing could be the best solution. But if we think of survival and its importance, then it is clear that as species become more and more complex, attributes such as cooperative behaviour, empathy, loving-kindness, and generosity will enhance the propagation of a species. “Moral” behaviour then becomes sensible behaviour to be automatically encouraged or supported by the process of evolution. This, again, needs a long-term perspective. We must not think that we can change the nature of future species or our own species by short-term measures applicable to the infinitely tiny time we occupy the universe If behavioural changes are heritable, then they will influence future generations and future species in a direction that we consider “moral”, but as it is a process of automatic selection and not driven by a designed perfect mechanism, there will always be heterogeneity in species behaviour as well as in species physical attributes.

We are also not slaves to evolution as a society; we must understand evolution but not treat it as something we cannot influence. We must not fall into the trap of determinism and inevitability. We must also keep reminding ourselves that to think of Evolution, we must think long-term. The whole process is driven by the need for survival, mediated via genes and natural selection. To murder your opponent sometimes may be a good strategy purely in terms of survival, but our intervention with the moral aspects of such a deed will create a better Society and inevitably, if behaviour traits are heritable, create better societies in the future; but it won't happen overnight, not even in a few generations.

We owe a lot to Charles Darwin for his research and intellectual abilities. But we must not forget the contribution of Alfred Russel Wallace, who almost simultaneously had the same thoughts as Darwin. Until the theory of evolution was propounded, it was not easy to debunk the Designer theory favoured by theistic religions. Evolution provides the best explanation for the blindingly vast variety of life and its progression through so many different stages in the space of millions of years. But in my mind, the emergence of a sophisticated animal which Home Sapiens is, and so different in intellectual capacity to any other animal past or present, quite so late in the scale of time living beings have existed, still needs an answer.