In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection (Richard Dawkins).
In the previous
post (Part 30) I used the
terms 'biological evolution' and 'natural selection', without realizing that I
have not yet explained them. I do that in this post.
The name most
associated with evolution is that of Charles Darwin. The year 2009 marked his second birth
centenary, as also 150 years of the publication of his celebrated book On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. The basic idea of
biological evolution by natural selection is remarkably simple, yet of
fundamental importance:
Consider the mother-child relationship. Mothers go through very
substantial pain, hardship, risk to health and life, deprivation, sacrifices
etc., and yet most of them are happy to bear a child and rear it. Why is that
so?
In a population of females, there would be some variation regarding
attitude to motherhood. There are bound to be some who avoid undergoing all the
hardships and sacrifices I mentioned above. As a result, they do not get
pregnant and bear children. Similarly, there are some females in the population
who are happy with the very thought of motherhood; pain and sacrifices
notwithstanding. Such females would not only contribute their progeny to the
population, the progeny is likely to be like them, favourably disposed to the
idea of motherhood.
Over many generations, the result would be that the percentage of females
not inclined to become mothers decreases; no progeny means no representation of
the tendency against motherhood in the population. This is 'natural
selection': Nature selects in favour of those females who are happy being
mothers, and weeds out those who are not. There is a gradual 'evolution'
of this trait in the population, so much so that, in due course, there are
hardly any females left who do not wish to bear children.
Such
reasoning can be generalized to other forms of biological evolution. Living
organisms are thermodynamically open systems, i.e. they are constantly
exchanging matter and energy with the environment. There is a fair amount of
dynamic equilibrium between a living organism and its surroundings. The
organism cannot survive if this equilibrium is disturbed too much, or for too
long. The fact that an organism survives implies that, in its present form, it
has been able to adapt itself to the
environment. If the environment changes slowly enough, organisms can evolve (over a long-enough time period)
a new set of capabilities or features which enable them to survive even under
the changed conditions. Over long periods of such evolutionary change,
creatures may even develop into new species. This was the message of Darwin’s
(1859) bold theory of evolution through cumulative natural selection.
A
consequence of Darwin's theory was that all living organisms are the
descendents of only one or a few simple ancestral forms.
Darwin started
with the observation that, given enough time, food, space, and safety from
predators and disease etc., the size of the population of any species can
increase in each generation. But this indefinite (exponential) increase does
not actually occur. In fact, usually only a small minority of the offspring
reach maturity to produce the next generation of offspring; the rest die
prematurely. Thus, there must be limiting factors in operation. Influenced by
Malthusian ideas, Darwin imagined that if, for example, available food is limited,
only a fraction of the population can survive and propagate itself. But what
decides who will survive and who will not?
Darwin’s
answer was that, since not all individuals in a species are exactly alike (i.e.
since there is variation in the
population), those better suited to cope with the prevailing conditions stand a
better chance of survival ('survival of
the fittest'). Moreover,
the fittest individuals not only have a better chance of survival, they are
also more likely to procreate. Thus, attributes conducive to survival and
propagation have a better chance of getting ‘naturally selected’ at the expense of less conducive attributes.
And the effects of this natural selection accumulate over time, i.e.
over several generations. This is the process of cumulative natural
selection recognized by Darwin.
Children tend
to resemble their parents to a substantial extent. The reason is that the
progeny of better-adapted individuals in each generation, which survive and
leave behind more offspring than others, acquire more and more of those
features which are conducive for good adaptation to the existing or
moderately-changing environment. A species perfects itself, or adjusts itself,
for the environment in which it must survive, through the processes of both
cumulative natural selection and inheritance.
Thus there are
four basic features of Darwinian evolution:
- Variability and variety in members of a population in the matter of coping with a given environment.
- Inheritance of this variation by the next generation, with a few random modifications.
- Differential survival and reproductive success of individual members of this new generation in the given environment.
- Establishment of a new population more adapted to the environment, possessing new variations for passing on to the next generation.
Darwin changed
the way we humans perceive ourselves. And the basic idea of evolution by
natural selection has gone far beyond the precincts of biology. Apart from
biological Darwinism, we speak of chemical Darwinism, quantum Darwinism, neural
Darwinism, and what not. What evolves in any open system of interacting
entities is complexity.
Biological
entities embody enormous amounts of order and organization. Can Darwinian
evolution alone explain it? No. As Stuart Kauffman has emphasized, there is, in fact, an
underlying complexity and order on which Darwinian evolution operates. Evolution
of biological complexity is determined by two factors: self-organization (to be
discussed in the next post), and natural
selection. Self-organization or spontaneous ordering can occur in any open dynamical system, Darwinism or no Darwinism. Darwinian
natural selection acts on this existing
order and hones it further.
Mr Vinod Wadhawan
ReplyDeleteDarwin was correct only to the extent that evolution has occurred. The concept of self- organization can not be reconciled with randomness of Darwinian variations. Only if you appreciate the enormity of task involved in evolution of a species, then only you can appreciate the improbability of accumulation of random variations accounting for it.
The terms open systems and closed system are rather arbitrary since there are systems who need a fixed quantity of energy associated with them to keep existence and there are systems that require a continuous energy flow through them to keep existence.
In the 30th chapter of my book "Encounter of Science with Philosophy - A Synthetic View" I have not only given detailed arguments against
Darwinism as well as Lamarckism but also given
detailed mechanism of evolution worked out by me. Visit http://www.sciencengod.com
Thank you, Dr. Jain. Many of the issues raised by you will be addressed in future posts.
ReplyDelete