Survival of the Fittest focuses on the evolution of single species. Competition is expressed in terms of what happens within each species. The fittest individuals survive to breed. Relationships with other species are of interest solely in terms of any influence they have upon natural selection within a particular species. So if we focus on rabbits their survival might depend upon foxes and grass and a few other species but the focus is on rabbits bravely evolving away.
It is interesting how 'fittest' is held to imply that the survivors are somehow better than the ones that don't breed. Of course, we have no way of knowing what is being selected. Whatever we might think of as desirable such as greater strength or stamina might not be what is in fact selected. This is important when we consider what a more highly evolved creature might be like - it won't always be what we think it should be.
Just as all the living organisms around us have evolved over millions of years, we need to recognise that so have ecosystems. Over millions of years ecosystems will tend to become more diverse, supporting increasing numbers of species. All living organisms evolve within ecosystems and it is nonsense to think of individual species evolving outside of their context. When we try to calculate the number of generations it might take a species to evolve, we need to consider their context. Is it possible that species living together, over generations increasing the complexity and depth of their relationships and interdependency, might need fewer generations to evolve then calculations based on lone species might evolve?
To discuss the evolution of one species or one gene is reductionism. Reductionism is a useful tool in science so long as we don't forget what we're doing. Reductionism is to model a simplified version of evolution. At some point we have to return to the natural complexity, perhaps with enhanced understanding and contemplate the whole. Species and genes do not evolve on their own.
This simplification resonates with with some of Kim's thinking in Christ's Body in Corinth. The tendency to think of the Body of Christ as the single united community is a form of reductionism. It forgets the complexity and diversity of believers. The stable ecosystem is a diverse ecosystem where no species dominates; so too diversity effects reconciliation within communities.
We should not be surprised at this parallel. It is down to two factors. First, we tend to think in simplifications and these simplifications tend to be about what is right and who is powerful. Second, complexity or diversity leads to greater stability and creativity.
We can think of evolution as species in conflict, internally and between species. Or we can see diverse species collaborating. We're looking at the same thing; the question is how we interpret it.
We should not be surprised that when we look for conversations, for evolution is a conversation, we find them. If the universe is based upon conversations, as I suggested in an early post, then you would expect to find conversations all over. Theologically, oikoumene participates in these great cosmic conversations.
Comments