In his article
‘10500.
Darwinian Algorithm and a Possible Candidate for a “Unifying Theme” of
Big History’ David Baker postulates another aspect of the
long-sought after ‘unifying theme’ of Big History, in addition to the
rise of complexity and energy flows. He looks briefly at the
manifestation of
the ‘Darwinian algorithm’, that is to say an algorithm of random
variation and non-random selection, in many physical processes in the
Universe: cosmology, geology, biology, culture, and even the occurrence
of universes themselves. This algorithm also seems to gradually open
more forms of variation and more selection paths over time, leading to a
higher level of free energy rate density, or what we know as
‘complexity’. In fact the complexity of the object under discussion
seems to correspond to the available number of selection paths.
The article also reflects on what the Darwinian algorithm and
the rise of complexity could possibly mean for the humanity and the
future
of the cosmos.
It is worth making some editorial comments on David Baker’s paper. This
is an interesting and audacious article trying to find a common
evolutionary mechanism not only within, but beyond Big History as well.
Baker starts his article with analyzing the selection of universes
within which there could appear some physical laws and parameters
allowing the universes to evolve. Baker explores the selection mechanism
among an enormous number (potentially 10500 –
a fabulous number even for modern cosmology) of universes in the
‘multiverse’. Of course, the idea that there exist other universes
besides ours is still an absolutely unconfirmed, though outstanding,
hypothesis. But consideration of hypotheses is one of the main
activities in science. In our opinion, the algorithm, which Baker
analyzes, could hardly be called Darwinian in proper sense with respect
to cosmic evolution and a fortiori with respect to the selection
of universes and physical laws. He rather speaks about the evolutionary
selection in general – that is not the selection of the fittest, but
rather the selection of those capable to evolve – which is much wider
than the Darwinian selection. The matter is that in biology we always
have limited resources (even in the absence of direct competition) and
constantly changing conditions. If the resources were not limited and if
conditions did not change constantly, there would be no selection. The
Darwinian selection means the survival of the fittest. How could this be
applicable to universes? Would not it be more correct to speak about a
random cosmic selection which later in the course of evolution could
evolve into non-random (though not directed) Darwinian selection? Or at
least would not it be more appropriate to call the cosmic selection
proto-Darwinian? No matter how one interprets such cosmic selection, we
cannot but appreciate the author’s endeavor to point out selection as
one of the most important evolutionary mechanisms at all stages of Big
History.
Dmitry A. Skladnev, Sergey P. Klykov and Vladimir V. Kurakov
the important subject of biological evolution in the paper titled
‘Complication of Animal Genomes in the Course of the Evolution Slowed
Down after the Cambrian Explosion’. They also propose an original
mathematical model which takes into account a multiphase character of
development and importance of multidirectional trends in evolution. The
authors argue that for the first time the growth rate of minimal animal
genome size is shown to have slowed down in the course of the evolution
from prokaryotic forms to mammals after the Cambrian explosion. From the
biological viewpoint, the authors explain the exponential change of
minimal genome size which occurred in the beginning of the evolutionary
process and slowed down after the period of the Cambrian explosion; they
also present certain parameters of evolutionary processes resulting from
their model application. According to the proposed model, the S-shaped
curve with distinct inflexion point adequately describes the increase of
minimal genome size.
Arthur Saniotis, Maciej Henneberg and Jaliya Kumaratilake
present the article ‘An Evolutionary and Anthropological Examination of
Brain/Mind and Novelty’. This article provides an overview on how the
brain/mind works in relation to novelty from evolutionary and
anthropological perspectives. They maintain that the human brain
functions evolved to support the survival of our ancestors as omnivores
in natural environments that were of complex and varied nature. This
evolution, of necessity, had to support the development of extensive
memory systems and of an ability to imitate behaviors of others. Novelty
as an expression of creative thought probably evolved along with the
increasingly complex social processes of earlier human ancestors. Novel
thought was especially expedited by the evolution of complex societies,
which allowed for increasing of the individual specialization. The paper
locates brain/mind novelty in terms of evolution, pattern and
evolutionary learning. The authors conclude that novelty is contingent
on social systems, and that current human societies need to challenge
habituatal ways of thinking in order to reduce social and ecological
problems.
* * *
The final section (Discussion. Evolution: Pro et Contra)
is devoted to a discussion. As we declared in the first issue of our
Almanac, we want to encourage as much an open discussion as possible
about evolutionary studies, in hope that sometime in the future a new
diversity of approaches may lead to the emergence of a new unifying
approach. In the present volume the subject of the discussion has turned
out to be the very essence of evolutionism rather than particular
aspects of the evolutionary theory (whatever important they could be).
The discussion is opened with Gregory Sandstrom’s article
(‘Peace for Evolution’s Puzzle: The Arrival of Human Extension’) that
can be regarded as generally antievolutionist.
One of the initial reviewers of this article, Edmundas Lekevičius notes
that Sandstrom tries to present (as he claims) a positive alternative to
evolutionism as a universal ideology that can be applied to social
sciences and humanities (as Sandstrom believes) without sufficient
justification. He is inclined to leave Darwinian evolution to biologists
only, and he is strongly against its application to social studies, for
example, in the form of Sociobiology. His position is based on the
following points.
He believes that both Darwinism and neo-Darwinism consider struggle and
competition as the primary cause of evolution and as its driving force
(note that this critique is rather obsolete dating to the late
19th – early 20th century), whereas
in social systems cooperation turns out to be more important (here
Sandstrom relies on Kropotkin’s article that must be regarded as very
one-sided and besides rather out-dated by present). It is just
cooperation that secures
socioeconomic progress. The society develops, but does not evolve in the
sense in which evolution is understood by the biologists. The
development of society is reversible, whereas the development in nature
is irreversible. Sandstrom also believes (without serious reasons) that
the notion of ‘natural selection’ is not applicable to the social/human
realm.
Though the author claims to offer a theory that could serve as an
alternative to evolutionism, he has actually failed to produce such an
alternative. He insists rather persistently on the substitution of the
term ‘human evolution’ with the notion of ‘human extension’. In this
respect, Edmundas Lekevičius notes the following: ‘I am not ready to
call such a substitution “a new methodology” or a new paradigm. The
author pays too much attention to this purely linguistic aspect of the
issue under discussion’. Together with Lekevičius, we can also draw the
readers’ attention to the fact that the author did not even try to give
at least a couple of examples of inadequate application of the Darwinian
approach in Sociology and Economics. As a result, in his article he had
to fight an entirely imaginary enemy.
It might have looked natural for the Evolution Almanac to reject
such an article. However, we believe that at present the Evolutionary
Studies are sufficiently strong not to avoid the participation in
discussions on the relevance of classical evolutionary approaches for
modern social sciences. We will not go in detail in the critique of
Sandstrom’s approach, as the famous evolutionist Henri J. M.
Claessen has expressed not only his position, but also the position of
the editors and many our authors in his reply to Sandstrom that is
published in the final part of the present Almanac.