Evolution. A heterodox view

This video introduces the philosophical beginnings of the Darwinian idea, going back to the standard creation myths and outlining how the pre-Socratic philosophers laid (and did not lay!) the groundwork for evolutionism: the doctrine that life has a history.

This episode continues developing the philosophical foundations for evolutionism. We consider the main opponents of the atomists: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle: the Socratic philosophers.

Is life a unique phenomenon, unlike any other? If so, what makes it unique? This is the basic question that underscores how we think about evolution.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was one of the earliest truly evolutionary thinkers. He was part of an 18th century movement called the French evolution. He is a widely misunderstood scientist who deserves a better reputation.

Georges Cuvier was the second pillar (after Lamarck) of the French evolution. A common trope about Cuvier is that he did not believe in evolution. This is a disingenuous distortion: Cuvier was the founder of paleontology, and his work solidly established the fact of evolution. What he was not was a Darwinian evolutionist. What did Cuvier actually have to say about evolution? In this video, we find out.

Charles Darwin did not come from nowhere. He had deep roots in upper middle class England, with all its attendant values and mores. The origins of Charles Darwin's thinking about evolution are enriched by an understanding of this history.

How did Charles Darwin come up with the theory of natural selection? He had the elements worked out within a few years of returning from his voyage on the Beagle, but spent twenty years in an effort to build an irrefutable case for his theory. Finally, his hand was forced by another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, forcing Darwin to rush an "abstract" into publication: The Origin of Species. His theory was, however, flawed in its reasoning.

Natural selection is built upon three pillars. (1) heritable variation of form. (2) Competition in an ongoing struggle for existence. (3) Evolution through slow and gradual change of varieties over time. All three, to varying degrees, do not hold up to critical scrutiny. How, then, can a theory based upon erroneous reasoning, be considered true?

Following the publication of The Origin of Species, the Darwinian idea faced significant opposition. Contrary to the prevailing myth, the opposition was not religious, but scientific. The scientific opposition set the stage for the late 19th-early 20th century crisis of Darwinism.

Modern Darwinism is built around selection of genes. The development of that consensus had to deal with a fundamental paradox: how could evolution be accomplished through hereditary particles (genes). The resolution led to the modern genetic theory of natural selection. This was at root anti-Darwinian in conception.

This series is a heterodox view of evolution. What do we mean by heterodoxy? By orthodoxy. Darwinism is purported to be orthodox evolutionary theory. Why do people say this? Why are Darwinism and evolutionism cultural flash points?

Modern Darwinism explains evolutionary adaptation as the selection of "apt function" genes: genes which enable the organism to work well in prevailing conditions. Logically, this explanation is a fallacy.

Adaptation is ultimately a thermodynamic problem: work to sustain an unstable disequilibrium. Adaptation only happens in a context of cognition, however, which also makes evolution a cognitive phenomenon.

The extended organism concept is central to a rational theory of adaptation. The extended organism is based upon the management of energy and mass flow, both conserved quantities, across so-called adaptive boundaries. I illustrate the extended organism idea with the "earth" worm, which co-opts the soil into the worm's water balance.

The termites of the genus Macrotermes are a spectacular example of the extended organism concept. They also present an interesting bridge between physiological adaptation and evolutionary adaptation.

Modern Darwinism asserts there is a radical difference between physiological adaptation - the ongoing adjustment of organism to environmental conditions - and evolutionary adaptation - the ongoing adjustment of lineages to environmental conditions. This notion divorces life itself from the evolution of life. To reconnect the two forms of adaptation, a new way to think about adaptation is required.

Modern Darwinism has difficulty with the concept of adaptation because it has committed itself to a narrow conception of hereditary memory - the object known as the gene - and along with it, a narrow conception of fitness - as replication of genes. To unite physiological adaptation with evolutionary adaptation, we need to rethink what heritable memory is.

One of the mainstays of modern Darwinism is that genes are specifiers of structure and function, and that heritable memory resides in genes. This leads to a radical conclusion that adaptation in organisms can have no influence on hereditary memory. This drives a very thick wedge between organismal adaptation and evolutionary adaptation. August Weismann and his eponymous Weismann barrier are the mainstays for this point of view. It may not be so solid after all.

Our developing understanding of the gene, and the rich interaction of genome with the rest of the cell opens up a new perspective on Lamarckism, and casts doubts on the adequacy of gene selectionism as a model for evolution.

Up to now, I have been building a critique of the modern narrative of life and evolution: Darwinism. From here, I will be building an alternative narrative, one based upon life's distinctive attributes of purposefulness, intelligence and design. In this episode, I introduce how this will be approached, with the misunderstood and trivialized conception of homeostasis.

Claude Bernard articulated the phenomenon of homeostasis., which is central to a coherent theory of adaptation and evolution. Here, we explore who Claude Bernard was, and how this contributed to his theory.

Homeostasis is key to a credible non-Darwinian theory of evolution. Homeostasis, like natural selection, has been described in various ways. I outline three: Bernard's own model, a mechanistic model known as the clockwork homeostasis, and a thermodynamic theory, which was anticipated in an odd way by one of paleontology's great scientists, Edward Drinker Cope.

The clockwork homeostasis posits that homeostasis is the outcome of the operation of a "homeostasis machine." This idea fails both in logic and in its failure to model body temperature regulation adequately.

Evolution is a biological phenomenon. So is cognition. Those are arguably the truest statements one can make about life. Are they connected? The Darwinian dogma is that they are not. That is a hard position to sustain. I explore the connection with mole crickets and early eukaryotic cells.

The concept of the ecological niche has been the focus of novel attempts to reconcile adaptation with Darwinism. This episode reviews the various conceptions of the niche, including the most recent, niche construction theory. None have been able to capture the essential intentionality of the evolutionary process.

Alfred Russel Wallace independently discovered the principle of evolution. We hear little of him today: "Darwinism" is the preferred appellation to the idea of natural selection. Who was Wallace, and why is he comparatively less well-known. In the first of a two episode, we explore the career of Wallace, and explore how Wallace was as early example of "cancel culture."

Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin were eventually to part ways over human evolution, which is how Wallace came to be eclipsed by Darwin. Wallace could not reconcile natural selection with the evolution of the complex human brain and mind. Both Darwin and Wallace foundered over the importance of cognition as a driver of evolution, which undermined the whole Darwinian idea.

For a rich site for history, images, and discussions about Alfred Russel Wallace, see: The Wallace website: http://wallacefund.info/ The Wallace Correspondence Project: http://wallaceletters.info/

Is origin of life within the scope of evolutionary theory? The usual Darwinian response is that origin of life is not something we can expect a good Darwinian explanation for. Why should that be? In this episode, I explore the surprising reason why origin of life is kept at arm's length from evolution of life. In the next lecture (Origin of Life. If not Darwinian, what?), I explore how origin of life and evolution of life can be united under a single theoretical umbrella.

Origin of life research has focused on how life might have originated from the molecular scale up – inspired by Darwin’s metaphor of the “warm little pond”, introduced in the previous episode (Episode 28). All have been ingenious attempts to explain how “chemistry becomes life.” However, what makes life unique is arguably not its chemistry, but its thermodynamics informed by cognition. Origin of life and evolution of life have in common that they are both cognitive phenomena. Origin of life is therefore tantamount to the origin of cognition.

Darwin's famous book was titled "On the origin of species." The species concept is central to our current thinking about evolution. One would think that we have a very good idea of what a species is. Yet, the species concept is rife with uncertainty and confusion. Why should this be? And what is the alternative?