Evolutionary Theory, Early Observations

     Early man observed and understood the basics of animal breeding while he was still subsisting as a hunter gatherer. The observable fact that there is a slow succession of changes in physical characteristics from generation to generation, in both plants and animals, has never been questioned. This slow evolution of characteristics is obvious and is universally accepted. Also accepted is the fact that the slow process of generational change is sometimes interrupted by the advent of an individual with physical or behavioral characteristics very different from their ancestral stream. These anomalies have been noted for eons and, until recently, interpreted as super-natural occurrences or interventions by an unseen god.

     The idea of evolution is much older than Darwin, but the concept remained buried because there was no observable mechanism to explain how nature could practice selective breeding using random methods, or how a small errant modification could lead to a completely new variety or species. A purposeful creation by the gods with a unique pre-existing design for each creature was the accepted explanation throughout much of man’s history and is still accepted by many.

     Evolutionary theory lay dormant for many centuries but continued to tease the observant by prompting the same inevitable questions. With the discovery and exploration of the New World, hundreds of new life forms were observed. New plants, new insects, new birds, new fish and new animals were all discovered. As sketches and samples of these amazing plants and animals arrived in the Old World, questions as to their origins were inevitable, and the pursuit of an overall explanation for the diversity of living forms was revived. Functional forms seemed to fit their environment perfectly, why? Were long necks or strong jaws developed out of need and these traits somehow passed on to later generations? How could stretching one’s neck transform the necks of the next generation?  Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, struggled with these age old questions long before Charles took up the quest. On the surface it seemed obvious. If an animal needed a long neck to reach food it grew one and then passed the long neck quality on to its offspring, but how?

     Man discovered early that containing and controlling selected animals was much more efficient than following their migrations. Animal domestication predates civilization, and man learned quickly that he could change the characteristics of an entire heard by selective breeding, and could not help but wonder if similar changes in wild animals might be due to selective breeding by some unseen hand. Early man was close to asking the right questions, but far from being able to answer them. It took Charles Darwin’s observations of birds, plants and animals, from various islands in the Galapagos, to refine the questions and create a relevant answer, not a final answer, but one that put us on the right path.

     Darwin noted that identical species on different islands often exhibited slightly different characteristics in size and color. If there was no apparent difference in their environments, where did the differences come from? The obvious answer was that the changes were random and the results became preferred for insignificant reasons. What Darwin was observing and recording, but not explaining, was the occurrence of genetic drift. Equally important, were his observations of adaptive changes in a species when slightly different environments were presented. Separated groups originating from identical stock could apparently have their physical characteristics selected to fit a changing environment when nature practiced its own version of selective breeding. The difference between nature’s selective process and man’s selective process is that man can reach his selective breeding goals in a few dozen generations, while nature usually takes hundreds or thousands of generations and, unlike man, has no final goal in mind, and depends upon genetic errors to offer up divergent characteristics.  

    Natural selection requires a very large number of individuals and extremely long time periods to affect changes. The process is completely random and has no stopping point. A very slight modification in form or function that gives a slight advantage in breeding or survival will carry forward as a small statistical preference that can, occasionally, become a strongly preferred trait. A new trait or form arriving spontaneously as a genetic mutation faces the same test. The new anomaly must add a small statistical mating or survival advantage immediately, and then remain an advantage over the long term. These advantageous traits, arriving either from the slow drift of individual characteristics, or an occasional spontaneous modification, are both subject to cancellation or enhancement if the environment that supports them changes. The process of natural adaptation is slow. Environmental changes however, can be swift by comparison. A trait that has a strong survival advantage can be cancelled in just a few generations by an environmental change or the introduction of a new predator. Survival and mating advantages are also a complex mix of causes and conditions. They are never a one at a time test and a mix of preferred and detrimental characteristics can carry poor performance traits forward through many generations. The process is random, uncertain, has no apparent goal and has created an amazing array of divergent life forms ranging from bacteria to mammals, and the process of genetic drift and environmental testing continues without any apparent stopping point.

     We are so accustomed to our own creative methods that we have difficulty imagining any other. For most of our history we insisted on the preposterous notion that nature, or the creator, had to do things like humans and within time spans we could comprehend. For us a pocket watch is always evidence for a watch maker. We assume that when the watch is complete it will stop being modified, and that a design and a purpose for the watch necessarily preceded its creation.  Fortunately nature doesn’t do things like humans. In nature basic laws govern firmly but allow extreme latitude. No advanced design is needed to create a planet a mountain or a living thing. Creative events can occur very quickly, too fast for a human to notice, or very slowly, too slow for a human to comprehend, and the creative process is ongoing, nothing is ever completed, and as a result, life persists.

     The creator, if one exists, appears to be playing an unending game of dice, continually casting the die into every environment and whenever doubles come up, lets them reproduce until a change in the environment cancels the play. From this perspective life has no special significance and no purpose beyond the game itself. There is however, another perspective that may give the observable creative process significance. Continual play and adaptive changes both testify to a natural tendency to fit life into every possible environment and to adjust living forms as needed to maintain a living presence as the environment changes. Life seems so important that it is tested against every possibility, adjusted as needed to persist, incorporates increases in complexity as a survival advantage, is randomly introduced and transforms itself to fit into every possible physical domain. To insure life’s continuation it never stops adapting. Explaining this persistence may be beyond our capabilities, but denying it is equally difficult. The development and continuance of life appears to be as much a part of the universe as the laws of physics. The hierarchy of physical creations seems echoed in the hierarchy of living creations. From atoms to organic molecules to nucleic acids to cells to multi cellular forms, life is ordered in a hierarchy that is obvious but difficult to explain.

      The universe seeks entropy by smoothing all of its parts into a uniform energy mix. It is opposed in this natural tendency by the creative force of gravity as it gathers basic elements into the nuclear furnaces we call stars, and by the persistence of life as it gathers organic molecules into complex energy forms. This opposition to entropy creates sequences of ordered events that we could interpret as creative intent, but we have no evidence to support such a conclusion. We can only observe and continue to ask; does life have any purpose beyond being a persistent part of a universal mechanical mix? Our self awareness makes our questions inevitable. Why am I here? What am I supposed to be doing? What happens when my awareness ends? Aware of our own existence we have no choice but to answer that our existence must have a purpose and that we are important in the scheme of things, otherwise there is no point to the inquiry. To assure ourselves that we have significance we have been very inventive. Creation theories, myths, religions and scientific inquiry, all testify to our need to find answers to these universal questions

     Nature’s book is open for us to read, but the conclusions we draw will always be self aggrandizing. Getting beyond our own limited self awareness will always be difficult. We seem doomed to read nature’s book with our own reflections constantly blurring the pages. We are very small creatures in a very large universe and are forced to observe our surroundings at our own living pace, within our own limited scope of awareness, and restricted by our conceptual limitations.