Can Quantum Theory Concepts Shed Light on Biological Evolution Processes?
441
(5) Molecular structure of the genetic material (DNA) par Crick, Watson and Wilkins
in 1953. The synthetic theory of biological evolution [6], founded in the 1940s to
70s by paleontologist Simpson, biogeographer Mayer, genetician Dobzhansky, and
others [e.g. 7–10] endeavors to integrate the findings from various fields, including
embryology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular biology. But it maintains
natural selection as the keystone of the structural and functional order of the living
world.
For sociobiologists as Dawkins [11], natural selection acts even at the gene level:
social behaviors such as altruism are governed by ‘selfish genes’ that presented some
selective advantage during evolution, each gene trying to expand even at the expense
of its own carriers. But Dawkins also investigated cultural evolution and introduced
the concept of a meme (unit of cultural behaviour), a cultural analog to the gene
in biological evolution. In Mind and Matter [16], Schrödinger had earlier noticed
that, if not to the first (biological) degree, to the second (cultural) degree, evolution
appears as Lamarckian:
‘It is the physical change in the parents that modifies … their behaviour; and this change is
… transmitted to the progeny, along with the physical change carried by the genome.’
For Schrödinger, new behaviours induced by genome mutations, especially in human
societies, can change environments in such a way as to make natural selection less
(or more) effective (dynamic retroaction).
Scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory started very early (including from his
half cousin Sir Francis Galton), and were renewed in recent times. They bore essentially on: (1) the gradualism of Darwinian evolution (for Darwin followed geologists
Lyell and Owen in holding Aristotle’s view that ‘Nature does not make jumps’); (2)
the key roles attributed to natural and sexual selection. In the 1970s, paleontologists
Eldredge and Gould [12] proposed a scheme of stepwise progression with alternate
periods of large mutations and others of relative stability, evoking the light and dark
interference fringes in wave theories. In the 1980s, genetician Kimura [13] proposed
a neutralist scheme in which, at the molecular level, most evolutive changes result
from random shift of selectively equivalent mutated genes. Recent schemes involve
an evolution programmed by architect genes similar to those monitoring the embryo
development, reminding of ‘intelligent design’.
The strongest criticisms to Darwin’s theory were that, in spite of findings by Oparin
in the 1920s and Miller in the 1950s, natural selection cannot explain the emergence
and the specificity of life and also that, if numerous races and varieties have been
produced by man, no new species has ever appeared. In spite of its improvements, it
still does not properly account for such phenomena as speciation and radiation (the
formation and divergence of species) or for the remarkable permanence of specific
species over geological durations.
Regarding the human species, paleontology does not seem very relevant to reveal
much of its past. As for the future, if evolution is monitored by external effects
rather than by internal processes (functionalism), it seems unlikely that man will
continue to evolve under natural selection. This is because he is now able to create
new tools expanding his body functions and making him an actor competing with
441
(5) Molecular structure of the genetic material (DNA) par Crick, Watson and Wilkins
in 1953. The synthetic theory of biological evolution [6], founded in the 1940s to
70s by paleontologist Simpson, biogeographer Mayer, genetician Dobzhansky, and
others [e.g. 7–10] endeavors to integrate the findings from various fields, including
embryology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular biology. But it maintains
natural selection as the keystone of the structural and functional order of the living
world.
For sociobiologists as Dawkins [11], natural selection acts even at the gene level:
social behaviors such as altruism are governed by ‘selfish genes’ that presented some
selective advantage during evolution, each gene trying to expand even at the expense
of its own carriers. But Dawkins also investigated cultural evolution and introduced
the concept of a meme (unit of cultural behaviour), a cultural analog to the gene
in biological evolution. In Mind and Matter [16], Schrödinger had earlier noticed
that, if not to the first (biological) degree, to the second (cultural) degree, evolution
appears as Lamarckian:
‘It is the physical change in the parents that modifies … their behaviour; and this change is
… transmitted to the progeny, along with the physical change carried by the genome.’
For Schrödinger, new behaviours induced by genome mutations, especially in human
societies, can change environments in such a way as to make natural selection less
(or more) effective (dynamic retroaction).
Scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory started very early (including from his
half cousin Sir Francis Galton), and were renewed in recent times. They bore essentially on: (1) the gradualism of Darwinian evolution (for Darwin followed geologists
Lyell and Owen in holding Aristotle’s view that ‘Nature does not make jumps’); (2)
the key roles attributed to natural and sexual selection. In the 1970s, paleontologists
Eldredge and Gould [12] proposed a scheme of stepwise progression with alternate
periods of large mutations and others of relative stability, evoking the light and dark
interference fringes in wave theories. In the 1980s, genetician Kimura [13] proposed
a neutralist scheme in which, at the molecular level, most evolutive changes result
from random shift of selectively equivalent mutated genes. Recent schemes involve
an evolution programmed by architect genes similar to those monitoring the embryo
development, reminding of ‘intelligent design’.
The strongest criticisms to Darwin’s theory were that, in spite of findings by Oparin
in the 1920s and Miller in the 1950s, natural selection cannot explain the emergence
and the specificity of life and also that, if numerous races and varieties have been
produced by man, no new species has ever appeared. In spite of its improvements, it
still does not properly account for such phenomena as speciation and radiation (the
formation and divergence of species) or for the remarkable permanence of specific
species over geological durations.
Regarding the human species, paleontology does not seem very relevant to reveal
much of its past. As for the future, if evolution is monitored by external effects
rather than by internal processes (functionalism), it seems unlikely that man will
continue to evolve under natural selection. This is because he is now able to create
new tools expanding his body functions and making him an actor competing with