Darwin Meets Heisenberg, Part 2: New Discoveries Show How Life Evolves Increasing Creative Potential, Without Goal-Seeking, Planning or Design
Summary
New discoveries demonstrate the mechanisms with which life evolved greater creativity and organizing power than goal-seeking, planning or design. Genetic variation is not truly random. The theory of facilitated variation begins to address this problem, and discovery of new mechanisms such as slipped-strand mispairing, recombination, and many others, demonstrate that existing biological structures can act as tools that facilitate the emergence of new organization and adaptations. The genome links accumulated organizing power to future potential. Structure and function emerge via molecular recognition. Complex adaptations arise via interaction and linkage of biomodules. Innovations are connected by recombination and shuffling events during reproduction in a nonlinear way. The potential for new adaptations to arise transcends individuals and generations. All contrivances are tested in the crucible of the struggle for existence. This also explains the origins of some modern-day limitations in the human brain and human societies. Natural Selection 3.0 represents a more holistic perspective that upgrades classical and neodarwinian theory, while retaining their essential framework.
Foreword
Part 2 continues where Part 1 left off, and takes the story much further than before.
(If you have the time, I still recommend Rethinking Evolution as an optional Prologue to Part 1).
In Part 1, I borrowed from an intriguing perspective on the nature of reality, in popular and technical discussions of quantum physics theory-- namely, that potential events (res potentia) are as much a part of reality as actual events (res extensa).
The authors suggested that this broadened definition may help to resolve apparent paradoxes in quantum mechanics.
In parallel, I suggested that a related perspective may have value in resolving some conceptual difficulties in natural selection theory. These difficulties led to misunderstandings of evolution among the general public, and make it difficult to understand the plausibility of natural selection.
As In Part 2, I have combined the res potentia insight with my ongoing interests in genomic evolution (which began in graduate school with my discovery of slipped-strand mispairing, SSM) and in evolutionary developmental biology, (which began during my undergraduate years at UC Berkeley) and the non-randomness of genetic variation in general and recombination in particular.
Natural Selection 1.0 and 2.0
I have whimsically titled Part 2 as “Natural Selection 3.0” (which is completely unrelated to a similarly titled game), because it emphasizes that (1) the solid core of Darwinian theory remains as a useful framework, and (2) because this is a major update that enhances the original scientific theory. (Scientific theories, it is worth emphasizing for non-scientists, have a special status that is almost opposite to the common usage of the term theory. They are the antithesis of subjective speculation.
Continuing with the metaphor of naming major releases of a new software platform with version numbers, classical Darwinian theory (circa Charles Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species in 1859, through the end of the 19th century) can be viewed as Natural Selection 1.0.
Natural Selection 2.0 came of age as discoveries in genetics and the dynamics of gene flow and speciation in populations led to the “Modern Synthesis” (a.k.a. the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, from the title of a book by Julian Huxley published in 1942.
This perspective remained dominant long after the discovery of DNA (1953) and the genetic code in 1960s. It even remained dominant through the mid-1970s, when recombinant DNA cloning and the biotechnology revolution were coming of age.
I would argue here, as have others in recent years, that further progress in evolutionary theory will now be greatly served by incorporating more recent perspectives made possible by dazzling discoveries in genome evolution, cell biology, and developmental biology.
The history of evolutionary thought demonstrates that these three versions have a thoroughly scientific and Darwinian core.
The Genome Stores Accumulated Potential
Consider another kind of storage vessel-- the full set of DNA sequences in the nucleus of a fertilized egg. This represents a particular combination of alleles-- contributed by the shuffled haploid genomes of the parents--that has the potential to develop into a multicellular individual.
The genomes of the parents represent a cumulative library of potential, that will develop into a remarkable collection of interacting modules, that carry out various functions that are mediated by cellular and molecular structures.
In each population, the genomic alleles will been systematically varied and shuffled during gamete formation and sexual reproduction, and in each individual, the sets of systematically varied genomic alleles will be tested against the real world, through repeated rounds of variation and selection.
The trial-and-error aspect of natural selection-- repeated rounds of variation and selection-- represent an exquisite toolkit for systematically iterating through future potential.
Repeated rounds of variation and selection were articulated in Darwin’s classical theory of 1859 as well as the “modern synthesis” put forward circa 1940. This solid framework of Darwinian theory has been consistently supported by concordant empirical evidence from many sources.
The modern synthesis correctly states that DNA is the genetic material, and it followed that mutations (changes in the DNA sequences), and recombination (reshuffling of DNA sequences during crossover events) are important sources of that variation.
LImited Concepts of Random Mutation and Recombination
In Huxley’s “ Evolution in Action” published in 1953, he asserted that:
“Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution: it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions… [The effects of mutations] are not related to the needs of the organism, or the conditions in which it is placed.”
In 1988, John Maynard Smith had this to say about variation arising through recombination:
“All that recombination can do is to produce a more random distribution from a less random one…”
Maynard Smith also shared similar views in a video.
I have previously addressed both of these topics in “Rethinking Evolution” (a popular science article) and “Crossovers Generate Non-Random Recombinants” ( a technical report). Also, we now know of a variety of other ways that DNA sequences can change other than point mutations.
The broader range of ways that DNA sequences (both protein-coding and regulatory) can change, the ways that DNA can be expanded and genes can be duplicated, and the significance of recombination per se as a way of changing the informational content of DNA sequences, not just shuffling them, all demand that our 19th and 20th century concepts of variation be updated.
In a previous technical paper, and in a popular discussion, I have addressed the importance of crossovers (recombination) as a means of cobbling together potent new solutions to multivariate problems that defy linear analysis by engineering or design approaches.
Computer scientists will be familiar with the power of the genetic algorithm, which is styled after biological evolution, to provide potent solutions to otherwise intractable problems.
The concept of facilitated variation put forward by Mark C. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart begins to address this issue, and could be considered as a part of Natural Selection 3.0. But there is much more to discuss.
Molecular Recognition
Most cellular events are initiated by molecular binding interactions. For example, a signal binds to a cell-surface receptor, leading to a shape change in cell-surface proteins, which in turn leads to a cascade of intracellular events, culminating, for example, in the activation of a transcription factor that initiates the expression of genes in the nucleus. Numerous well-characterized examples have been described.
The feature that I want to emphasize here is that of molecular recognition: that is, the ability of one molecule (or molecular structure, often consisting of multiple protein chains) to fit together and bind with another.
This is so common that present-day biologists tend to take it for granted.
The ability of two molecular structures to fit and bind together is subject to variation and selection at the levels of nucleotide and amino acid sequences. Once a serendipitous binding event occurs, it can be refined through incremental changes-- a quintessential modern interpretation of Darwinian Natural Selection.
To summarize: molecular binding interactions, involving molecular recognition, between assemblies of molecules-- are frequent occurrences in all living cells. Assemblies of molecules form structures that carry out functions, and act in a modular fashion. Molecular recognition events can bring modules together, in serendipitous ways, to create new, higher-order units of structure and function, which become modules in their own right. This demonstrates a common way that natural selection can bring about new levels of organization in a species, which can be viewed as a complex adaptive system.
Biomodules
I’d like to introduce a new term: “biomodules”. Biomodules (short for biological modules) represent identifiable, empirically observable units of structure and function. Biomodules are reused flexibly, and serendipitously, by natural selection. Such has already been widely observed in the relatively new and active field of biological research known as evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo for short.
Biomodules interact via dynamic binding events that take place at the molecular level. They involve receptor-ligand or enzymatic changes in shape, and enzyme-mediated chemical modifications, and other biological functions, that take place when two or more molecular structures bind to one another.
Often, an elaborate and indirect cascade of interactions bring about a particular biological function, for example in signal transduction pathways. (Incidentally, the indirect nature of these interactions provides evidence for their origins by natural selection). The macromolecules involved are often protein structures as well as DNA sequences, RNA molecules, and other biomolecules.
Modularity in biology, broadly speaking, implies self-contained units of structure and function. One of the core principles of Natural Selection 3.0 is this:
Biomodules can interact with other biomodules to bring about higher levels of complexity, resulting in emergent properties, structures and functions.
The Need for a Holistic Perspective
Since humans tend to classify objects as isolated entities, and tend to view units that are separate in time and space as being independent, our view of reality is a limited one.
An alternative vision of reality can, at least in very general terms, be described as holism. Visionaries in quantum physics, such as David Bohm and F. David Peat, and philosophers such as Arthur Koestler, have offered more connected visions of reality.
Long before this, many practitioners and visionaries in Eastern religions and spiritual traditions, including some interpretations of Buddhist philosophy, Hindu philosophy, and Taoist philosophy, have a long and rich tradition of exploration and debate regarding the oneness and interconnectedness of reality.
Holism stresses that systems, including biological systems, should be viewed as wholes, rather than collections of parts.
The discussion of biomodules above does recognize biomodules as “separate” functional units in their own right, because their structure and function can be largely understood, analytically, in those terms. But I have also emphasized that the potential interactions and connections between biomodules often give rise to higher-level units of structure and function, which can also be viewed as biomodules. I would argue that this is a useful compromise that allows us to perform empirical observations and experiments, and understand biological structure and function, while also appreciating that these units are, in reality, interconnected, and that we are creating an approximate, but useful, map of reality when we speak of biomodules as separate units.
Limited perspectives concerning the separateness and independence of objects is in some ways related to our tendency to view reality as only consisting of events that have already occurred. Our views of separateness pertain not only to 3-dimensional space, but to the 4th dimension of time, and there is general agreement among physicists that space and time are actually both part of a relativistic fabric known as spacetime.
Res potentia is also an important holistic perspective. The discussion of res potentia argues that potential events should be considered as much a part of reality as actual events. In biology, potential events of special interest involve potential interactions between biomodules-- particularly because so much cumulative potential is systematically stored in the genome from generation to generation, after having been selected for its efficacy by natural selection.
I will argue here that in lineages of living organisms, reality actually consists of a holistic collection of seemingly independent biomodules and potential new biomodules, which, although separated in space and time, do routinely come together in unexpected ways, over evolutionary time, and that prior stored potential does continuously change the nature of what is likely to occur in the future.
Reality must be considered to include not only actual events, but the potential interactions that can take place between biomodules, and the fact that these interactions can be mediated by still other biomodules.
This should be factored into a broader perspective on the holistic nature of reality.
A Useful Analogy for Innovation in Evolution
In this section, let me state at the outset-- to avoid possible misunderstandings-- that thoughts-- that is, mental processes, and the structures and functions that make them possible, are distinct from evolutionary processes, and the structures and functions (biomodules) that make them possible. Thoughts imply consciousness, intelligence, and the potential to plan and design, whereas natural selection does not. There is no sentience, supernatural design, planning, or intention involved in natural selection.
With that caveat in mind, I do think it will be useful to provide an example of the ways that existing mental elements can act as modules, including tools, that allow new, more complex modules to emerge. Let’s call them “mental modules”, and remember that their origins are distinct from the evolution of biomodules. Mental modules should be familiar concepts in neurobiology and the nature of creative thought.
I am not, however, a neurobiologist, and the example I provide here is based on introspection, rather than empirical laboratory observations. Although caution is advised when trying to comprehend the nature of consciousness and thought by introspection, I would argue that the sort of analysis and labeling that I have attempted in this example can have sufficient reliability to have some value as an illustration of how modules can come together to create new modules. I would argue that is possible to grasp, in very general terms, the way that the contents of conscious thoughts can interact and connect during a flash of creative insight.
I am not suggesting that biological evolution is a mental process-- it is not.
But the modular nature of mental processes (which has been called the society of mind), and which has been discussed in the context of mindfulness, and even the evolutionary origins of the human triune brain, does seem to capture some essential features of how complex organization can emerge from existing units, during the process of natural selection.
Please consider the following admittedly commonplace example, which may be familiar to those who use social media and digital media, including streaming media, on the Internet. Since this is an example from personal introspection, I refer to myself in the 1st person.
The Mental Module Example: Emergence of a Creative Thought
Some time ago, I posted a polite, considerate, measured response to a Twitter comment that seemed confrontational and provocative. This became a long-term memory that I could recall in some detail.
Let’s call this memory of a polite, measured reply to a provocative comment Mental Module 1.
Recently, I watched “Contact”, a thought-provoking movie based on the book by Carl Sagan. That generated a number of memories, including a recollection of the confrontational way that the fictional but all-too-real antagonist (David Drumlin) addressed the protagonist (Ellie Arroway) in a disrespectful and confrontational way, (and later interfered with funding for her project, and later took credit for her discovery, when she succeeded in spite of him.)
Let’s call that memory (of a confrontational, disrespectful fictional conversation) Mental Module 2.
The creative, initially unconscious event that took place in my brain (presumably involving the normal physiology of thought), established a conceptual connection, based on the recognition of contrasts, between Mental Modules 1 and 2.
Let’s call the mental tool that allows recognition of contrasts by comparison, and the establishment of a conceptual connection on the basis of those comparisons, Mental Module 3.
(I do not pretend to understand the precise nature of how the brain recognizes similarity or contrasts between concepts, nor how that is manifested in the electrical and chemical activity and circuitry of the brain. Those are matters that I will leave in the capable hands of neuroscientists.)
Then another tool-- call it Mental Module 4- replayed both connected thoughts for me at a conscious level, along with a new thought, a new perspective, that noted the distinction between these opposite sorts of conversations.
Recognition and linkage by Mental Module 3 connected a fictional memory with an actual conversation, in a creative way, due to a common feature (or contrast).
Since the recognition of the contrasts led to reflection on positive vs. negative modes of human discourse, which represents still additional thoughts, let’s call those reflections Mental Module 5.
In the future, Mental Module 5 may, upon recall, influence my future behavior in a positive way (providing that I am mindful enough to think before reacting).
Analysis of the of the Analogy to Biological Evolution
So why am I taking the trouble to analyze this (perhaps mundane) anecdote? Because it shows how existing modules interact, both as subunits and as tools, to generate higher-order modules. I would argue that such interaction between mental modules provides an analogy for interactions between biomodules, again both as subunits and as tools.
In the mental example, the potential for Modules 1 and 2 to be connected by their contrast by a contrast recognizing module 3 led to new actual events: namely, through conscious replay (Module 4) it led to production of a new creative thought (Module 5) that may, in turn, influence future behaviors when it is recognized as relevant to a future situation. The interactions between these mental modules led to the creation of something more complex that may influence the future.
Please recall the discussion in Part 1, regarding the nature of reality: comprehension and appreciation of the full meaning and significance of existing modules depends on their potential to interact with other modules. It is generally quite difficult for us to imagine all of the potential (possible) interactions with other modules that have not yet taken place-- particularly when some of those modules don’t yet exist!
This helps to explain why it is difficult for most people to intuitively grasp the way that creative thoughts arise.
More important for our present discussion, though, is that this example is analogous to the ways that biological modules interact during the evolutionary process-- and it’s worth noting, in passing, that, as a species, we have a tendency to think in terms of linear, intelligent design, rather than potential modular interactions, when we try to explain how complex structures are built. But evolution does not work through intelligent design.
What does take place is that existing biomodules create new potential for serendipitous interactions that generate new biomodules, and that the potential organizing power of these interactions leads to breathtaking results. When I refer to natural selection as a creative process, that is what I have in mind.
So, what are some analogous modules that participate in biological evolution, what are their potential interactions, and what sorts of new modules can be created as a consequence of those interactions?
In the anecdotal story about the synthesis of a creative thought, we can describe Mental Module 3 as having played the role of a Connector/Recognizer Module-- it connected two related thoughts, presumably because of shared characteristics in the patterns of their neural or electrical signatures.
Mental Module 4, which replayed the two related thoughts, and compared and contrasted them, can be described as a Facilitator Module.
And the new awareness of that asymmetry, and the resolution to act positively in the future, which now have the potential to alter future actions and future events, represent a creative synthesis, and the creative emergence of something new. (This collection of related thoughts is, for simplicity, referred to as Mental Module 5).
The true and full significance of the contrasting memories (Mental Modules 1 and 2) can only be grasped in the context of their potential to be recognized and acted upon by Mental Modules 3 and 4, leading to future change through the production of Mental Module 5.
Reality, in the realm of interacting Mental Modules, consists of the playing out of potential and otherwise obscure connections, which change constantly as new modules come into existence.
Any advantages that arise from the higher-level modules must be, at least in part, attributed to the Connector/Recognizer modules. These modules act as tools that have enormous potential organizing power, and that power depends upon a whole range of interactions with other modules that are possible.
To recap, the constantly changing potential of various types of interacting modules, some of which can act as constructive tools, is a legitimate part of reality.
Implications for R&D in Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Brief Interlude
With this understanding and perspective, natural events that give rise to consciousness and thought, and that depend on the “hardware” of the brain- neural networks, neurotransmitters, cellular transcription, and electrical impulses-- and the “software” of the brain (the memories and thoughts that “run” like programs-- can be better understood.
In fact, I would assert that precisely this sort of analysis makes it possible for visionary software developers to make tremendous advances in AI, with software that performs functions similar to Mental Modules. I will leave those explorations in their capable hands.
Molecular Binding and Recognition in Connector/Recognizer Modules
But now I wish to return to the subject of the roles of how innovations can arise via potential interactions between biomodules in evolution by natural selection.
The Neo-Darwinian synthesis brilliantly combined new discoveries in genetics and the dynamics of populations and speciation, but it, too was a product of its times.
With the new, holistic considerations in mind, we are now prepared to see how recent discoveries in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, and the new field of evolutionary developmental biology, (evo-devo), all support an upgrade to Darwinian theory.
Can we find biological examples of Connector/Recognizer Modules and Facilitator Modules. The answer is an emphatic yes! We have already seen, in the section on Molecular Recognition, that molecular binding interactions not only generate biomodules, including static structures as well as dynamic interactions, and that molecular binding allows structures or pathways that are fully functional units in their own right to become subunits when they interact with other fully functional units, which also become subunits. These molecular binding interactions-- which involve exquisite specificity-- generate new, emergent levels of structure and function. Often, these new units are more complex, and more capable, than the subunits that comprise them.
Stored, coded information (in the genetic code and regulatory sequences of genomic DNA) is transcribed and translated, and assembles into a broad range of functional modules-- such as enzymes, signal transduction pathways, and transcription factor-DNA complexes, and many more.
Units of structure and function can be found at every imaginable level of complex organization, such that modules that are fully functional at one level of organization are prone to interactions and structural or functional assembly into higher-level, more complex modules. In general, these interactions are mediated by physical binding and shape changes that take place in macromolecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA.
Now, add the new perspective concerning the reality of potential events-- namely, that potential events can vary, and when they do, they have the ability to change actual events in the future-- and we arrive at a revitalized concept of the nature and roles of variation and selection, which can be briefly stated as follows:
The cumulative storage, modification, and reshuffling of encoded structural and functional modules-- representing genetic variation--and the testing of the phenotypes that arise from those variants-- for relative fitness in a given environment-- represents enormous potential for adaptation.
But that is just the beginning. The modules-- through molecular binding interactions-- have the potential to interact with other modules in unexpected ways. These can readily evolve into new levels of complexity, and new adaptations.
The potential for variation in the DNA that encodes these modules depends on the sequences that already exist in each individual genome, as well as the micro-machinery of the cell that can alter those sequences. This potential changes in each generation during the evolutionary process.
The potential for the encoded modules to interact, at the molecular level and above, in novel ways, is also dependent on what already exists. This means that opportunities for new structures and functions can be influenced--and enhanced-- by what is already there. Previously selected functions can contribute to what is likely to arise in the future, in powerful ways.
Potential Modular Interactions Between Connectors, Recognizers, and Facilitators in Evolution
Bioinformatics provides a variety of tools that help us to establish lineages of multigene families and lineages of species, involving comparisons of DNA (or protein) sequences.
Although by its very nature, evolutionary changes are not usually observable (there are actually some cases where we can observe this), we can make reasonable inferences from the wealth of empirical data from laboratory observations, analysis, and experiments that is available in the scientific literature. In the examples that follow, I seek only to paint the broad outlines of some well-characterized evolutionary innovations, and some reasonable inferences about how they evolved. The purpose is to clarify the roles of stored genomic information, molecular recognition, and potential interactions between modular structure and function, and the ways that new, complex innovations and adaptations can arise.
Slipped-Strand Mispairing, Gene Duplication, and the Origins of the Adaptive Immune Response
With the new features of Natural Selection 3.0 in mind, it’s not difficult to find well-characterized examples that illustrate how they come together to provide a deeper understanding of the forces responsible for natural history.
For example, the DNA polymerase-- the enzyme that copies DNA sequences, and repairs them-- has evolved in such a way that it favors relatively random production of mutations consisting of insertions of repetitive sequences, by the mechanism that I dubbed “slipped-strand mispairing” (which was the subject of my doctoral research; it is also widely known as replication slippage). More recent discoveries indicate that additional mechanisms, such as tandem duplications or indel slippage, may also contribute to insertion of repetitive sequences. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and may interact in synergistic ways. Events due to one mechanism may increase the likelihood of events mediated by others.
As I described in the seminal paper subtitled “A Major Mechanism for DNA Sequence Evolution”, SSM can generate simple repetitive sequences in a self-accelerating fashion. Things get more interesting when these repetitive sequences are modified by point mutations- changes in individual nucleotide subunits of the DNA sequence. This generates more complex repetitive sequences from the simpler ones.
More importantly, the repetitive sequences become hotspots for unequal crossover events, and this increases the likelihood of gene duplication events.
Most of the proteins in the genomes of multicellular species are members of gene families that arise by gene duplication events. So, the potential for useful new functional units to arise has been enhanced, in surprising and powerful ways, by SSM insertion mutations.
Gene duplication events have led to the production of literally hundreds of copies of similar, but not identical, DNA sequences-- called multigene families-- that encode the proteins of the adaptive immune system-- including antibodies (and many others).
A number of well-known mechanisms further recombine and diversify the antibody protein chains of the multigene families-- including somatic recombination and somatic hypermutation.
The antibody proteins have tremendous diversity, and that is how they are able to recognize and bind to tens of billions of different foreign antigens, including those produced by pathogens and by cancer cells-- including antigens that were never seen by the individual.
In these well-established examples, SSM acts as Facilitator Modules, and the recombination apparatus acts as a Connector Modules.
(In this discussion, let’s not get bogged down by the fact that there are actually several modules involved, and that the roles of Facilitator and Connector are just convenient terms used to describe relevant, empirically observed events that are known to take place at the molecular and cellular levels).
These examples are just scratching the surface of the functional structures and functions that are routinely studied in the fascinating modern fields of molecular and cellular immunology.
Broader Implications
Previously existing functional modules can pave the way for remarkable new structures and functions to arise. The variation that gives rise to these wonders of natural history is not random.
But the non-random potential for future evolutionary events does not imply, in any way, that a sentient, intelligent, or omniscient brain or supernatural being is directing or planning what takes place in evolution. Rather, it demonstrates the special, but entirely natural, ways that stored potential can and does influence the origins of novel organization and complex adaptations.
Let’s compare and contrast the emergence of a creative thought with the emergence of a new evolutionary innovation.
In both cases, seemingly unrelated, seemingly independent modules have the potential to come together and interact in surprising ways.
In addition, general mechanisms involved in the formation of the body plan (such as Hox genes) and mechanisms that promote pattern formation during development, have tremendous flexibility, such that the shape and form of, for example, the streamlined torpedo shape of birds, dolphins, and fishes have independently evolved (converged) to be well-adapted to rapid movement through fluids, whether those fluids are in the air, in lakes or rivers, or the ocean.
The molecular, cellular and developmental modules that control the development of the body plan and the shape and form of cellular structures, allows for considerable variability among individuals, in each generation. Classical Darwinian principles of repeated rounds of variation and selection can readily account for the efficacy of structures and adaptation to the environment. This adaptability (or evolvability) of shape and form is entirely compatible with a variety of flexible developmental mechanisms (such as embryonic induction) that assure that cells cooperate when they produce a variety of variant individuals with varying shapes and forms, which will then be subject to incremental change as they are tested (selected for maximal survival and reproduction) against various environments.
Teleonomy, Complex Adaptive Systems, and Biological Organization
Wikipedia defines teleonomy as “the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural laws (like natural selection).”
The special features of biological organization and complex adaptive systems, that defy description, in part due to the reductionist semantics of human language, have been noted by others.
A number of biologists have made both laboratory and theoretical contributions to these general topics, in original reports as well as books, including Robert Rosen, Richard Dawkins, Rudolf Raff, Mark W. Kirschner, John C. Gerhart, Stuart A. Kauffman, Sean B. Carroll, and others too numerous to reference here.
Here, I will focus primarily on the implications for Natural Selection 3.0, as described in this paper (see summary at the beginning).
I would argue that these ramifications led logically (or ontologically) to a turning point in evolutionary theory, as follows:
Natural Selection 3.0 is supported by an abundance of empirical evidence in biology. This can be seen by exploring the Wikipedia hyperlinks.
New perspectives in quantum physics are also relevant.
A variety of mechanisms show how natural selection generates complex adaptations with molecular toolkits that are more potent than any imaginable nonliving design.
Our current understanding of biological mechanisms has outgrown our previous obsession with the appearance of planning or intelligent design in the living world.
At this point in history, the widespread confusion about the nature and efficacy of natural selection is a product of subjective bias and a lack of adequate means of communication between professional scientists, journalists, and the general public.
Natural Selection 3.0 states that there is no requirement for imagining or planning for the future in order for evolution to maximize the probabilities of attaining futures that are useful to the organism.
This is different than just saying that evolution has the appearance of design, or that variation is random. Evolution incorporates tools and stores biomodules that are useful and increase the probability that they will come together in even more useful ways than before.
That means that evolution can influence future events in a nonrandom fashion that is more likely to favor success, even for extraordinarily complex solutions to problems that have not yet even arisen.
Trial-and-Error and Imperfection
Of course, there is still the element of trial-and-error. That is built in. When we talk about potential, we are talking about probabilities, not definite or predetermined sequences of actual events, and actual events that do ultimately occur are each tested in the crucible of the struggle for existence.
Most lineages eventually go extinct. But others continue to evolve.
Natural selection has led to the complexity of the human brain. This is perhaps the best evidence that natural selection, with its immense power, by its very nature creates sublime, complex organization that is, nevertheless, far from perfect. That is because evolution is a tinkerer, and because the principal criterion for “success” that is favored by natural selection is survival and reproduction. But anyone who has ever watched nature documentaries will quickly realize that, for example, there is much suffering brought about by the fact that consumers survive by eating other living things.
The human brain is perhaps the best example of an exquisitely complex and powerful adaptation that has a number of negative tendencies. This is because our brains have been cobbled together by natural selection as a triune structure. These flaws have led human societies to continue to tolerate activities that, for example, contribute to global warming, and threaten our very existence on planet earth.
In their roles as science popularizers, visionaries such as Robert Wright, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan and others have offered rational perspectives intended to help us rise above these limitations. I remain optimistic that we can do so.
Appendix: A New Approach to Theoretical Biology that Also Embraces Open Science
I fully support the critical importance of academic rigor, and the peer review process, in advancing our search for a better and better semblance of the truth (i.e. getting closer to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -which certainly should apply as much to science as to legal testimony).
But I have also found, among professional biologists and institutions, that caution with new ideas, hierarchical professional roles, concerns with peer review, impact factors, and funding have all tended to stifle three critical aspects of science:
(1) the ability of outside-the-box thinkers to find support and forums for advancing broad, theoretical ideas, rather than reviews or original technical reports;
(2) good communication between professional scientists and K-12 teachers and students, and
(3) appreciation for the wonders of science, and an understanding of the difference between scientific theory and pseudoscience or subjective propaganda, among the general public. In 2017, this is more important than ever.
The good news is that:
(1) movements to promote open science (and wide distribution of preprints and popular accounts of science, on sites including, but not limited to
(1) arXiv, biorXiv, ResearchGate, Science News, and open-access journals;
(2) popular social media; and
(3) crowd-sourced sources of reliable knowledge such as Wikipedia; and
(4) digital media such as documentary videos on nature and science
have all served to open the door to new kinds of communication.
In Darwin Meets Heisenberg, I am exploring new styles of science writing, and my introduction of the extensive use of hyperlinks is evident here. As in Part 1, I have annotated this posting with hyperlinks, from Wikipedia and elsewhere, and have written a very short post about that in the hope that others will see this as a valuable approach to improving discussions of science with the general public. In addition, the visible text that is hyperlinked provides the context, while the hyperlink to Wikipedia demonstrates the breadth and depth of previous research and other work related to the subject matter.
New modes of digital communication are needed to bridge the gap between scientists, journalists, and the general public, while also making theoretical biology more accessible to professional scientists. This is just one of many innovations that should be explored.
Today, it is much easier to share this sort of theoretical perspective than in the past.
I am taking this opportunity to promote discussion of what I consider to be a significant and important update to Darwinian theory. Here, the supporting empirical science is already so strong, that traditional citations of original research seems less effective than pointing the reader to the excellent summaries that can be found on Wikipedia and other online resources.
I write this, and, in the spirit of open science, share it as a means of encouraging both the scientific community and the general public to consider adopting an updated version of natural selection theory- a re-energized evolutionary theory that rests firmly on the solid framework of classical and neo-Darwinian (a.k.a. “the modern synthesis”) perspectives, but takes it much further.
Copyright ? 2017 by Gene Levinson. All rights reserved.
#AI, #artificialintelligence, #neurobiology, #Darwin, #naturalselection, #evolution, #cellbiology, #molecularbiology, #developmentalbiology, #naturalselection3.0, #evolutionarytheory, #biomodules, #DarwinMeetsHeisenberg, #interactions, #holism, #respotentia, #biology, #biologicalsciences, #facilitatedvariation, #variation, #selection, #science, #hyperlinks, #education, #teaching, #openscience, #evodevo, #complexity, #organization, #aadaptations, #adaptation. #modernsynthesis, #charlesdarwin, #quantumphysics, #implicateorder, #emergence, #connections