In this blog post, we will examine the history and philosophical significance of evolutionary theory and explore how modern biology defines the direction and superiority of evolution.
For those learning evolutionary theory from the beginning, the origins of the theory are inevitably covered. Evolutionary theory goes beyond simply explaining biological phenomena; it encompasses philosophical and scientific inquiries into the origin and development of life. In this context, understanding the historical background of early evolutionary theory is crucial. A common example used to illustrate this transition is the shift from Chevalier de Lamarck’s Theory of Use and Disuse to Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection. There are two claims: one that giraffes’ necks grew longer because they stretched them, and another that giraffes with longer necks survived in competition. The subtle difference between the two is difficult for beginners to grasp.
The theory of evolution has become increasingly sophisticated through various scientific discoveries and theoretical developments. Lamarck’s theory was an early attempt to explain the process of change in living organisms, but it was revised and supplemented by numerous scholars as the theory of evolution evolved. Even within the Theory of Use and Disuse and the Theory of Natural Selection, a central point of contention among many schools of thought is the directionality of evolution. The question of whether evolution aligns with the commonly held notion of progress extends beyond a simple understanding of the history of life; it is also linked to philosophical reflections on our own nature. The idea that evolution is leading living organisms in a “better” direction is intertwined with beliefs about human progress and superiority. However, there remains significant debate regarding whether this perspective is scientifically valid.
Discussions regarding the directionality of evolution are essential for predicting the future course of biological evolution and for defining superiority. However, when discussing the directionality of evolution, we must move beyond mere theoretical speculation and base our approach on scientific evidence and experimental results that have been verified. The discovery of genes inherent in cells and the elucidation of the principles of their origin helped to resolve many unrefined theories, including the theory of use and disuse. Through these discoveries, the focus of evolutionary theory naturally shifted away from external factors affecting organisms or the predetermined functions of proteins. Consequently, scientists began to explore the microscopic processes within living organisms more deeply, and new theories emerged to explain genetic diversity and the processes of its change.
Evolutionists presented evidence to support their theories, such as genes and their interactions, as well as the gene pools that exist within biological populations. Through this, they began to focus on the direction in which gene combinations evolve. In particular, active research was conducted on how genetic diversity influences an organism’s adaptability and viability. This marked a significant turning point in understanding the evolutionary process of life and contributed greatly to explaining the complexity and diversity of living organisms.
Two prominent biologists who have been vocal advocates of evolutionary theory, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, present a common view on the principles of evolution in their respective works, *Full House* and *The Blind Watchmaker*. To summarize the core idea, evolution is a superficial change that occurs during the process of increasing genetic diversity. Like a blind decision-maker, the results of genetic combinations appear in an extremely irregular manner and do not themselves possess any purpose or determine a specific direction. In this process, living organisms gradually change through adaptation to the environment, and evolution occurs as these changes accumulate.
Proving the validity of this is not particularly difficult. As we have previously noted, since we have established to some extent that genes serve as the core blueprint for trait expression, we must pay attention to their variations. Therefore, simply discussing the tendencies of these genetic variations or the diversification of gene combinations is sufficient to address the question of evolution’s purpose. These tendencies often act in a direction that allows organisms to survive and thrive in specific environments, leading to the result of natural selection.
Furthermore, no matter what more fundamental physical concepts we bring in, we cannot add any additional complex concepts to create new combinations of genes. The logic of gene combination is, from the outset, as simple as the basic interactions found in nature. The existence of a subordinate concept that is formally simpler yet conceptually more complex—one that determines this process—contradicts our common sense. Unless a new discovery is made in the realm of subatomic physics—one so small and complex as to be incomprehensible and yet undiscovered—we cannot refute the claim that new gene combinations are thoroughly random.
The key difference lies in the interpretation of the direction of evolution as it manifests in the results. Even if the distribution of gene combinations is irregular, it cannot be free from probability theory. It is clear in principle that, if compared against any given criterion, they possess a specific distribution function. However, since the constraints of the environment in which we live are already in place, and since the competitive dynamics between organisms have become clear as evolution has repeated over many generations, it is evident that factors capable of influencing the distribution function itself have emerged. Even within a distribution function, there are combinations with relatively high and low probabilities of existence. If we set our own criteria for this, the result clearly appears to have a directionality. Stephen Jay Gould describes these external factors that prevent an increase toward one particular distribution within the irregular increase of diversity as “blocking walls.”
It has been explained that directionality can be observed even within the evolutionary principle of the irregular increase of diversity. So what about superiority? Even if it is merely a matter of hindsight based on our criteria, if a form possesses better conditions, can we not at least describe it as superior in relation to those conditions? Can we not use the term “progress” to describe the possibility that combinations with lower probabilities of existence might emerge through repeated evolutionary processes? Even though the principles of evolution have been elucidated, the controversy surrounding them has not subsided, and this point has become a criterion for classifying various evolutionary theorists.
As a paleontologist by training, Stephen Jay Gould sought to assign a higher value to life forms with relatively high probabilities of existence in the distribution function. While his book explains the principles of evolution very simply, he deliberately avoids mentioning that combinations with low probabilities of existence would not even exist today if evolution had not occurred repeatedly. He deliberately obscures the discussion of superiority by citing the fact that the distribution of ancient organisms is far more diverse and that their population size and total mass are overwhelming. However, the discussion of superiority cannot be limited to merely analyzing past distributions. Modern biology continues to analyze the traces of ancient organisms through new technologies and discoveries, and based on this, attempts to predict current and future biological diversity.
While I acknowledge that there could be an infinite number of criteria for new distributions, given the vastness of their distribution, our established mathematical systems can meaningfully determine the relative magnitude of infinity. No matter how diverse the criteria for distribution may be, avoiding the fact that the probability of existence can be universally rare even across an infinite number of criteria would, if mishandled, only cause confusion regarding our understanding of higher animals.
If evolutionary superiority can be defined by a rarer probability of existence, the sense of superiority derived from it may be meaningless. However, it seems necessary to understand that this is an unintended directionality born from repeated, irregular evolution, and there appears to be even less need to intentionally deny or resist it. We possess a degree of rarity commensurate with our ability to establish our own criteria for distribution. And it is clear that we have also attained the ability to alter that distribution to some extent in accordance with our own standards. However, if we follow that logic, we too would likely be situated somewhere in the middle of a higher-dimensional distribution function, and even the slight peaks we have created within our distribution function would be merely the tip of the iceberg in the overall distribution function.
Finally, discussions on evolutionary theory play a crucial role in understanding the origin and developmental process of living organisms. Evolutionary theory forms the foundation of life sciences and is an essential theory for explaining the complex interactions of all living organisms, including humans. Through evolutionary theory, we can understand the origin of life, trace its developmental process, and predict future changes. In this process, we are led to deeply reflect on the position and role of humanity. Evolutionary theory goes beyond a simple scientific theory to raise philosophical questions about human existence and its meaning.
