1.2 – Evolution and natural selection, anthropologically

The previous section on Human Nature and Anthropology examined how reflections on human nature began to move from the philosophical and religious spheres into the scientific sphere and the development of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is important to anthropology as a framework for understanding species change and human origins. However, anthropology has generally tried to emphasize the complexity of evolution and how it is much more than “survival of the fittest.” Anthropology stresses the richness and diversity of evolutionary processes, cautioning against the reduction of evolution to overly simplistic mechanisms:

In The Origin of Species, however, Darwin had virtually nothing to say about human evolution. Indeed, he had nothing really to say about evolution at all, for the word appears only once in the entire book–in the very last sentence! Instead, he spoke of “descent with modification”. Only subsequently, largely as a result of a colossal mistake perpetrated by the philosopher Herbert Spencer and compounded by generations of biologists ever since, was the concept of evolution substituted for that of descent with modification. (Ingold, Against Human Nature 2006:264)

Charles Darwin preferred to characterize his explanation as “descent with modification.” Only later did people insist on using the term evolution. Darwin was originally correct. Using evolution as a term for describing observed natural processes is problematic. We will not be able to retroactively correct this terminology–anthropology will continue to use the term evolution and continue to talk about human evolution. However, we should recognize how much baggage the term evolution has acquired and be on the lookout for common misconceptions:

a) Evolution is not a progressive march

Even as biologists and others are now trying to explain there is nothing inherently progressive about the evolutionary process, that it is fittest within a particular and changing environment, it has become almost impossible to separate the idea of progressive march from the word evolution. Evolution is not a progressive, unilineal track. There is no guidance inherent to the process, no in-built directionality. Organisms can become simpler or can become more complex. Sometimes a simpler organism will be better adpated to a changing environment.

One of the most eloquent cases against a built-in evolutionary directionality is from Stephen Jay Gould’s Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin (1996). Gould’s examples are fascinating: from the assertion we are still in the “age of bacteria” and that bacteria are still the most evolutionarily successful organisms; to a much fuller and more complex picture of the evolution of the horse; to an illustration of the “drunk man’s walk” to describe how complexity arises randomly and not inevitably–it’s Gould at his finest. However the book is not entirely without problems–the examples may now be seen as dated, and since Gould has been under attack (see Mismeasuring Gould), his ideas might be discounted. I also found that by stressing so much the randomness and improbability of human emergence, the book paradoxically began to reinforce the counter-argument, perhaps not entirely accomplishing Gould’s purposes. Nevertheless, it is eloquent support for banishing notions of a built-in progressive march to evolution.

b) Evolution is not just natural selection

Natural selection is of course an important mechanism of evolution. But there are other mechanisms, like sexual selection. There is the fact that organisms inevitably alter the conditions of the environment, wittingly and unwittingly, which in turn alter the conditions of selection for the next generation. This insight is at the basis of the idea of niche construction which has been an important development in evolutionary theory. However, the term evolution is almost always equated with natural selection. Natural selection, in turn, is always talked about as “survival of the fittest” without adding the point that fitness can only occur within a specific and ever-changing environment.

One example of this from 2011 is the column by David Brooks, Nice Guys Finish First. By beginning with an impoverished view of evolution and natural selection, Brooks trumpets the importance of revisionist understandings. However, there would be no need for such revisionism if the original richness of “descent with modification” had been developed.

Michael Shermer combines these two issues in a 2009 blog-post titled A Skeptic’s Take on the Public Misunderstanding of Darwin. Shermer laments “two myths about evolution that persist today: that there is a prescient directionality to evolution and that survival depends entirely on cutthroat competitive fitness.” Instead, Shermer emphasizes selection is a process, not a force, and with no inherent directionality. Fitness can arise from cooperation and aid rather than competition (2009).

There are several resources for thinking anthropologically about evolution. The introductory textbook by Lavenda and Schultz, Anthropology: What Does It Mean to Be Human? takes a non-directional approach and is one of the few textbooks to mention and emphasize niche construction. Lavenda and Schultz use niche construction to introduce the idea of agency in evolution, that living creatures play an active role in the process, and they return to this idea to discuss human evolution and the domestication of plants and animals. Emily Schultz, one of the co-authors, brings a sophisticated perspective on these matters and has written an interesting article Resolving the Anti-Antievolutionism Dilemma: A Brief for Relational Evolutionary Thinking in Anthropology (2009).

For more on evolution as cooperation, see The Mermaid’s Tale: Four Billion Years of Cooperation in the Making of Living Things by Kenneth Weiss and Anne Buchanan (2009). This book was favorably reviewed by biological anthropologist John Relethford (2010). Based on a continuing investigation of the themes in their book, the authors run a frequently-updated blog on matters related to evolution, also titled The Mermaid’s Tale. See the 2012 post A modest proposal: Please make us teach creationism for related material and that corresponds to some of the suggestions from the Teaching Theories articles mentioned in the above sidebar.

c) Human history cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms

People talk about the “evolution of markets” or the “evolution of law.” There may be some parallels between processes that occur in the social world and processes of biological evolution, but in general these comparisons have led to many dead-ends and false starts. It is time to put such dubious associations to rest. To explain contemporary institutions, we need a detailed and empirical history, not an explanation through selective mechanisms (see blog-post Anthropology is Necessary and Tim Ingold’s 2007 The trouble with ‘evolutionary biology’).

d) Evolution is a process, not a thing

The term evolution leads people to assume an outcome, or a noun, or one coherent line of advance. It is really an ongoing process with lots of little mechanisms and quirks, and a tremendously varied research agenda. Seeing evolution as a thing also makes it easier to dismiss. It is easy to say “I don’t believe in evolution.” But does anyone say “I don’t believe in descent with modification”?

Agustín Fuentes points a way forward in his article A new synthesis: Resituating approaches to the evolution of human behaviour (2009). Also see Evolution in Four Dimensions (Jablonka and Lamb 2005).

e) Evolution is not belief

The very idea evolution is something people should “believe in” (or not) is rather misplaced. We are talking about evaluating evidence and debates. What is important is not the beliefs, but to understand the processes and mechanisms of evolution, and to become familiar with the picture of human emergence.

As Immanuel Wallerstein writes in The End of the World As We Know It, “we must most of all lower our arrogance decibels” (1999:156). People are not going to be persuaded by arrogant positioning and invocations of intelligence and authority. For a 2012 example, see Barbara J. King’s blog-post, Will Richard Dawkins Drive A Stake Through The Heart Of The ‘Reason Rally’?

Accepting evolutionary evidence and understanding human continuity with all of nature does not mean accepting everyone who tries to claim the mantle of evolution. In a provocative history of anthropology and evolutionary thought titled Why were the first anthropologists creationists?, Jonathan Marks offers a compelling distinction and call to scientific responsibility:

The acceptance or rejection of “evolution” may have rather more to do with the particular representation of evolution being offered, its rigor and its implications, than it does with the general intelligence of the target audience. That, in turn, would imply a greater measure of responsibility on the part of the scientific community toward the public, the responsibility to differentiate among the various invocations of Darwinism so that the public knows what it is accepting or rejecting, and that invocations of evolution are not all equally credible. That is to say, it is the responsibility of the scientific community to explain that it is possible to reject the racism of Philippe Rushton or James Watson, the evolutionary psychology of Steven Pinker, or the fanaticism of Richard Dawkins, and yet not be a creationist. (2010:226)

This injunction is also a great way to begin the next section on Racism and biological anthropology.

Previous: 1.1 – Human Nature and Anthropology

Next: 1.3 – Racism and biological anthropology

To cite: Antrosio, Jason, 2012. Evolution and natural selection, anthropologically. Living Anthropologically, http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/evolution-natural-selection-anthropologically/. Last updated February 22, 2012.