This blog post examines the debate over whether evolution signifies progress based on Darwin’s theory, exploring how the concept of progress is applied within evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory, born from the roots of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, has led to the establishment of various related theories in modern times. While many of these theories are complementary, others exist that explain parts of evolutionary theory from different perspectives and thus oppose each other. In his book Darwin’s Table, Korean professor Jang Dae-ik divided the leading proponents of these opposing theories into the ‘Dawkins team’ and the ‘Gould team’. He structured their debates around a given topic each week, where each team presented their position and refuted the opposing team’s stance. They fiercely debate diverse topics such as whether rape is an adaptive product, the reasons behind altruistic behavior, and the pace of evolution. I intend to focus specifically on the topic: ‘Is evolution progress?’
Life forms on Earth have evolved repeatedly over billions of years, from primordial cells to modern humans. But can we say that higher-level organisms in the evolutionary hierarchy are more advanced? In other words, can they be called more advanced? The progressivism team, led by Dawkins, answers “Yes,” while the anti-progressivism team, led by Gould, firmly concludes “No.”
On this question, I believe the progressivism team is correct ‘for now.’ Before stating my opinion, let’s first examine the views of Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, and both teams. In one note, Darwin expressed skepticism about progress, stating, “Avoid using terms like ‘higher’ or ‘lower’.” Yet, in his book On the Origin of Species, he revealed the opposite stance by writing that all living things evolve toward perfection. Thus, even Darwin, who laid the foundation for evolutionary theory, found it difficult to judge the relationship between evolution and progress.
Returning to the main point, Dawkins’ team asserts that all life progresses, explaining that increasing complexity in species is a natural consequence of repeated evolution. They equate evolution with progress, citing the far greater complexity of the human body compared to bacteria as evidence. The Gould team counters that complexity alone is not the measure of progress. They use the analogy of a drunkard walking down a path. When the drunkard staggers along, if a wall is on the left, he will eventually move to the right. This illustrates that while evolution can occur in all directions, it cannot evolve into forms simpler than bacteria, so it merely appears to grow increasingly complex. The Gould team supports this with the concept of passive drift. Passive drift describes the tendency of species to undergo new speciation independently of the passage of time. Since this trend has been observed in nature, the Gould team’s argument gains credibility.
In short, the Gould team views the concept of progress as closely tied to evolutionary directionality. They argue that since passive drift prevents any specific trend from emerging in evolution, the term ‘progress’ is inappropriate. In response to this logic, the Dawkins team points out that viewing progress solely through the lens of complexity is anthropocentric bias. They contend that progress can be explained from an adaptationist perspective. That is, they argue that if evolution is seen as adaptation toward survival and reproduction, and if the environment remains constant, then evolution and progress coincide.
However, the Gould team counters this by emphasizing that environments in nature rarely persist for long, and that organisms have undergone repeated evolution through multiple mass extinctions. The Dawkins team accepts this criticism but then discusses the ‘evolution of the capacity to evolve’. They argue that evolution has passed through at least eight major stages, such as the evolution of self-replicating molecules into molecular assemblies within primitive cells, or the evolution of independent replicators into chromosomes. Each time a watershed was crossed, life’s evolutionary capacity developed dramatically. They explain that irreversible progress exists in evolution, much like multicellular organisms cannot revert to single-celled ones. To illustrate this using the Gould team’s drunkard’s walk analogy, it means that once the drunkard moves a certain distance to the right, he cannot return.
The Gould team fails to provide a clear rebuttal to this, and the discussion concludes.
To reiterate, I sympathize more with the progressive view. This is because the concept of progress from an adaptationist perspective particularly resonated with me. I believe the concept of progress is implicit in the explanation from The Selfish Gene that genes are selected in forms advantageous for survival and reproduction to ensure their transmission to subsequent generations. If genes advantageous for survival and reproduction survive and natural selection occurs, then from nature’s perspective, individuals more advantageous for survival would be perceived as higher-order organisms. Therefore, it is questionable whether evolution can even be explained without the concept of progress.
The concept of ‘watershed moments’ mentioned in the evolution of evolutionary capacity also left a deep impression. According to the explanation that irreversible progressive innovations appear in life’s evolution each time a watershed is crossed, multicellular organisms cannot revert to single-celled organisms because multicellularity was selected by natural selection. I see this as analogous to the development of our writing systems. In the past, there were simple scripts like pictographs and cuneiform, but over time, numerous scripts emerged, eventually leading to today’s writing systems. Clear evolutionary turning points, akin to watershed moments, must have existed during this process.
Even if a mass extinction were to occur and human civilization vanished, future new humans would develop writing systems. Their form might differ, but they would start from basic pictographs and gradually evolve. In conclusion, from the perspective of progress within an adaptationist framework and the evolution of evolutionary capacity, I believe progress can be discussed. This debate concludes with my decision victory after a fierce clash between two sharply opposing camps.
However, in the distant future, super bacteria might dominate all life, or after dozens of mass extinctions, a new humanity could emerge, prompting renewed discussion about ‘evolutionary theory’. Future lifeforms might provide a clear answer to the difficult question that today’s scholars cannot resolve: “Do evolving lifeforms progress?” Therefore, in the face of our ignorance about the future, I cautiously offer a small justification: ‘for now,’ the progressive view holds the upper hand.
