Richard Dawkins was asked by a religious man what man’s final and perfect state would be. In other words, if we are evolving (always changing – improving on the biological structures of our ancestors), then when will man reach his ultimate goal and then be “done” with evolution? Dawkins simply remarked that evolution has no goal. It is a slow, continuous process, which will continue indefinitely – as long as there are living things on earth.
The man’s question shows a common flaw in how people think. There is often a reversal of biological cause and effect. There is an assumption that evolution is forming man into an ever-increasing, more perfect creature. It is true that man is one of the most remarkable creatures. Our language, art and invention are evidence of that. The evolution of a larger brain and increased intelligence has served us well…. so far. From a species survival point-of-view we are doing quite well. Our
population growth is strong and we can be found almost everywhere on the planet. We will not be going extinct for some time (at least that is what we hope!). There may be some serious consequences to our rapid growth and domination of the planet. But, until the population starts to die off in large numbers, we can easily be labeled an evolutionary success. The numbers don’t lie. We are as successful as the insects…
True, our intelligence has increased our odds for survival. But that is not the same as saying that our genes “foresaw” this fact and therefore strove to increase our biological capacity for intelligence. We were, you could say, simply lucky. We are fortunate to be in an evolutionary “renaissance”. We just happened to be in the line that developed a large brain and a high level of intelligence. There are lines of worms that have been around longer than we have (e.g. the bristle worm
Platynereis dumerilii). Their biological form has remained virtually unchanged for all of this time. However, they too can be seen as a biological success because they, like us, are still alive and thriving today.
Again, the word “lucky” might be more appropriate than “successful”. The word successful implies that a preconceived goal existed. Yet there was
no plan or goal. Specific forms of worms happened to be robust enough to avoid the many destructive biological, meteorological, geological, and astronomical events that occurred over hundreds of millions of years. Through the eons (in which countless non-worm-form species perished) the worm lines just happened to survive. Most of us don’t speak much about the many species that died off long ago – they seem easily forgotten…
Tiktaalik roseae from the late Devonion period.
Evidence of a transitional species?
We can say then that man, too, has been very lucky so far. We have an amazing ability to adapt and live in almost any environment including underwater and in space (with the appropriate technology). But this survival was not the result of some “genetic goal”. It was really just a combination of luck and many isolated and independent incidents of selective breeding (i.e. our choice of a mate). It is perfectly reasonable to suggest, assuming our line does not die off, that we could possibly evolve into a species with less intelligence than we have now. (Some, with tongue in cheek, would suggest that this has already begun.) Or, possibly, we could develop the capacity for flight (as did birds) or adapt to return to life in the oceans (as did whales). But whether or not that happens depends upon many unforeseeable factors. One could argue that any evolutionary direction is plausible, so long as the series of changes allows our line to survive and continue to reproduce.
It may seem unromantic or even blasphemous (to the religious) to suggest that we could possibly evolve into something “less” than what we are now. But if you do not believe that man was created “in the image” of God, then you could see it as merely a continuation along a natural and exotic evolutionary path. There is no final, perfect, or ideal state. Although there is much to be said about how wonderful we are in our current state (the language, art, and invention argument), nature simply does not care! If our species dies off leaving the non-speaking, inartistic, non-inventing worm, then so be it. If through the evolution of our species we lose intelligence (because other characteristics favor the survival of our line) then so be it. Evolution is an unconscious, amoral process. Its consequences are indifferent to our judgement.
The existence of vestigial structures (or organs) in various animals shows how nature can “abandon” certain structures which are no longer critical for the survival of a line. The
dew claw in dogs and wolves and the
vestigial “splint bone” toes in the feet of horses are two classic examples. It is difficult to say if nature has ever “dumbed-down” a species line (evolved to a lower level of intelligence). I will have to search for examples of this. Perhaps since we are the most intelligent species so far there has not been enough time for this to happen to us. Perhaps it will never happen to us because intelligence has always aided our survival. As long as a trait aids survival, natural selection will favor it.
Just because intelligence is an advanced and complex characteristic does not mean that it is immutable. Consider the animal eye – often used as an example of an organ “too complex to have evolved”. One would think that once this organ had evolved it (like intelligence) would be too useful to ever lose. Yet we know that many different animal lines which once had eyes (e.g. the cave salamander
Proteus anguinus) took up residence in dark caves and, over a long period of time, became blind again. The development of eyes in dark caves is not always favored and the complex sense of sight can be lost after many generations. Often in these species other sensory organs (for hearing or smell, for example) are highly adapted to compensate for the loss of sight. Just as eyes “de-evolved” could intelligence also fade away? Typically we see a level of intelligence in animal lines develop to a low level (or never really go anywhere, as with our friend the worm).
An evolutionary “improvement” is just an adaptation that ensures the continued survival of a biological line. The adaptation can be a simple thing or a complex thing, as long as it provides a survival or reproductive advantage. Again, clarifying the concept of cause-and-effect, the change is not “intentional”. Instead, it is “consequential”. A random genetic mutation that is harmful (prevents reproduction) will not be passed on. A useful genetic mutation can be passed on to descendants. There was no conscious “meddling” with the genes in an attempt to improve an organism. The random change survived because it increased the probability of survival. This is a vital concept.
A person enveloped in religious doctrine (such as a Christian fundamentalist) can never reconcile doctrine with the reality of the evolutionary process. The two are simply incompatible! For this reason, if we wish to follow a path of logic and reason, traditional religious doctrine must be abandoned. Just as we mature intellectually and abandon the childhood beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, we must, as adults, abandon the mythological aspects of religious doctrine. Some selected parts (related to law and morality) may still have value, but these things are, for the most part, independent of science.
Once we fully understand cause and effect and once we abandon the mythological doctrine, our minds are freed to learn and discover the more profound and fascinating scientific truths.
This does not minimize who we are. We know much but we certainly do not know everything. And that is ok. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know.” It is not a failure but rather an exciting opportunity to conduct research – to learn and grow intellectually. To merely concede and say “God just made it that way” removes the impetus to keep asking “why?”.
This post was inspired by:
Richard Dawkins - The Genius of Charles Darwin
