In an earlier post I introduced the formula: phenotype equals genotype plus environment. In my last post I argued against ascribing selfishness to genes and that genes are not selected in isolation from other genes. The same applies to species, they are not subjected to natural selection as individual species. Nothing evolves on its own, species evolve together as ecosystems.
For some reason we tend to think of natural selection acting upon individual species (or individual genes). If a species (or a gene) survives loads of other species (or genes) survive with it. There is complexity and a dynamic to evolution, we do not observe isolated objects evolving.
It is crucial we understand these principles. The thing I find difficult is modern debates about evolution often ignore the basics of the biology I was taught thirty odd years ago.
For many the predator prey relationship epitomises 'survival of the fittest'. It is an excellent example of how we are prone to read the concerns of human society (or our version of it) into nature. Every schoolchild knows that prey species need predators for survival. The reason is competition for the prey's food. If the numbers of prey species are not controlled then at some point the prey will die through overpopulation. So, it is the relationships between species that keep the species going. Even in this simplified model three species (predator, prey and prey food) benefit.
Why do we not see the predator prey relationship as co-operation? Is it because we see nasty cunning foxes killing nice innocent cute bunny rabbits?
'Survival of the fittest' implies certain moral values. We are not obliged to read these particular values into evolutionary theory. We can just as easily read in altruism and be just as wrong. I prefer 'natural selection' as it is less value loaded. Nevertheless it still seems coloured by the ideology of 'survival of the fittest'.
Comments