From Evo Devo Universe
“If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: “Make life!” And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct. ...if it is, it represents a shift in the scientific world-view as profound as that initiated by Copernicus and Darwin put together.” -- Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle, 1999, Simon and Schuster, p 246.
I am suggesting that there may come a time when physics will be willing to learn from biology as biology has been willing to learn from physics, a time when physics will accept the endless diversity of nature as one of its central themes, just as biology has accepted the unity of the genetic coding apparatus as one of its central dogmas. -- Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions, 1988, Harper, p 47.
Situation. The underlying paradigm for cosmology is theoretical physics. It has helped us understand much about universal space, time, energy, and matter, but does not presently connect strongly to the emergence of information, computation, life and mind. Fortunately, recent developments in cosmology, theoretical biology, evolutionary developmental biology, and the complexity sciences are providing complementary yet isolated ways to understand our universe within a broader ‘meta-Darwinian’ framework in which contingent and selectionist or "evolutionary" and convergent, hierarchical, and replicative or "developmental" processes appear to generate complexity at multiple scales. The rigor, relevancy, and limits of an "evolutionary developmental" approach to understanding universal complexity remains an open and understudied domain of scientific and philosophical inquiry.
Course of Action. These results and hypotheses deserve to be explored, criticized, and analyzed by an international interdisciplinary research community ‘Evo Devo Universe (EDU)’. Where merited, they may lead to expanded conceptual framework that improves our understanding of both contingent and convergent complexity emergence in the universe.
Benefits/Results. If validated, such a framework promises to advance our understanding of both perennially chaotic, creative, and unpredictable processes (evolutionary processes) and of constraining, convergent, hierarchical, and predictable processes (developmental processes) in the universe as a system, and of evolutionary and developmental process at all scales, including the human scale. If falsified in any part, this endeavor will improve our critical thinking about the generation and regulation of complex systems, and the role and limits of organic analogies in understanding our universe.
Evolutionary Development (Evo Devo)
Biological systems engage in evolutionary (variational and selective) process, and they also develop (have heredity, reproduction, a predetermined, predictable and convergent series of hierarchical emergences within a life cycle). In living organisms, these two processes comprise the general model of "evolution". Yet evolutionary and developmental processes are actually quite different, even antagonistic in their roles in living systems. Evolutionary process is fundamentally creative and contingent, while developmental process is fundamentally conservative and convergent with respect to the generation and handling of biological information. Both processes are fundamentally necessary to the self-organizing phenomenon we call life, and they may also be fundamental to all complex replicating systems in the universe, including the universe itself, if it is found to be a replicating system within a metaverse or multiverse.
We propose therefore that the phrase "evolutionary development," or "evo devo," is a more useful description of organic change than the term "evolution," which has historically ignored or minimized the role of developmental process (organismic development, species development, environmental development) in guiding and constraining long-range evolutionary processes at all scales. The new generation of "evo-devo" (hyphenated) biologists understand this, as they stress the long-range effects of organismic developmental constraint (homeobox genes, body plans, developmental path dependencies) on evolutionary process.
Those who use the term "evo devo" in its unhyphenated form, as we do here, are scholars and theorists who suspect that both evolutionary (evo) and developmental (devo) process are likely to be equally fundamental to understanding change in a broad range of complex systems, including non-living systems, and over all scales, including the universal scale.
While evolutionary process (“evo”) is creative, contingent, and famously unpredictable, many aspects of development (“devo”) are conservative, convergent, and quite predictable, with the right theoretical or empirical aids. For example, if you have a sense of what stage a developing system (such as a cycling star) is at in its ‘replication’ cycle (birth, growth, reproduction, aging, or recycling), you have a strong basis to expect what stage is coming next, as long as you have a sufficiently advanced understanding of stellar physics to discover the cycle, or have made sufficient astronomical observations to infer the morphology of cycle stages. In practice, identifying any evolutionary process and predicting any developmental process requires a mix of observation, analogy, and theory.
Organic molecules also show evolutionary (variational, selectionist) process as they develop and replicate. So do stars, and their dependent planets. In fact, that’s how our own life-generating solar system came to exist, through a long process of stellar “evolutionary development” (reproduction of progressively more chemically complex solar systems) in our galaxy. Ideas or ‘memes,’ which replicate between human brains, also engage in evolutionary and developmental process, according to several scholars. So do technologies, which undergo selection, replicate as dependents on human cultures, and exhibit long-term complexification. Several scholars in our community also suspect that even our universe itself may replicate, evolve, and develop, which would place all universal creative evolutionary process, prebiological, biological, and postbiological, under a set of universal developmental constraints. We have known for 150 years that our universe is dying (second law of thermodynamics). We've known for 80 years that it has had a finite time of origin (Big Bang). We've known since 1999 that the universe appears to be fractionating into informational islands at an accelerating rate (dark energy). What other developmental constraints will future physics reveal?
The idea that the fundamental constants of our universe, and thus, many of its physical laws are fine-tuned (or, in an evo devo model, were self-organized to become fine-tuned, over multiple universe cycles, as with replicating organisms) to have the precise values that make life and intelligence emerge as a developmental process would be one such set of constraints, if fine-tuning of univeral constants exists. This idea has been championed for decades by scholars of the anthropic principle, a topic that some scientists, including Lee Smolin (Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle, 2004), contend cannot presently yield any falsifiable predictions, and thus must remain the realm of philosophy, not science, at least in our present state of cosmology and astrophysics.
Nevertheless, there is today a striving by a growing number of disciplinary and interdisciplinary researchers to articulate a 'meta-Darwinian' theory of universal change that predicts certain systemic aspects of complexity's hierarchical emergence as statistically probable, arising from the unique parameters (laws, constants, conditions) of our particular universe and the environment in which it is embedded (dark matter, multiverse, etc.), and which reconciles such a developmental hypothesis with the primarily contingent Darwinian mechanisms of emergence in living systems, and stochastic mechanisms of emergence in nonliving systems at multiple scales. The scientific need to organize, make accessible, and critique the literature, evidence, models and arguments of those proposing such articulation and reconciliation is great. So also is the need to identify promising research topics within this domain on an annual basis, and to promote productive collaboration among investigators and students in those research topic areas.
Modern evolutionary theory is more useful and validated than ever, yet with its gene-reductionist and individual-selectionist emphasis it is very unlikely to be a complete description of dynamics in biological systems. A growing community of evo-devo, ecological, and theoretical biologists propose that natural selection, while dominant, is not the only long-range influence on biological change. Developmental process and structure, and the unique physical features of our universal environment (its fundamental parameters and laws) are among a handful of 'non-adaptive' processes that are likely to constrain and direct long-range evolutionary change in many still-poorly-understood ways (see Ho and Saunders 1984; Müller and Newman 2003; Reid 2007 for a variety of different approaches to this crucial and unresolved question).
Fortunately, recent developments in cosmology, evolutionary developmental ('evo-devo') biology, astrobiology, and philosophy of science have provided promising new avenues of research for meta-Darwinian investigations. Consider the following insight from evo-devo biology: two genetically identical twins are always unpredictably unique in their stochastically-determined dynamics and structure (organogenesis, fingerprints, retinal patterns, neural connectivity, etc.) yet they are also predictably highly convergent over a broad range of far-downstream systemic attributes (gross physical appearance, key psychological attributes, lifespan, etc.). A number of nonbiological processes, such as snowflake formation, and biological ones, such as brain emergence, can be modeled as both replicative on a variable, adaptive and environmentally-heritable template (e.g., 'evolutionary') while having aspects that are directional, cyclic, and statistically predictable across the lifespan of the system (e.g., 'developmental').
By analogy, to what degree might we model our universe as another evolutionary and developmental nonlinear complex adaptive system? Would two initially parametrically identical universes each exhibit unpredictably unique and creative internal evolutionary variation over their lifespan, and at the same time, a broad set of predictable developmental differentiation milestones and shared structure and function between them? Such investigations may yield insights into evolutionary and developmental processes operating at multiple levels in complex systems.
Consider how many universal processes involve replication, variation, selection, and adaptation, and may be described by unpredictable (in most instances) stochastic, selectionist, evolutionary dynamics. Consider how a subset of other processes, such as entropy increase, dark energy, and apparent accelerating change, may be described by statistically predictable long-range, developmental dynamics. Can future science develop a common framework for relating universal evolutionary and developmental process by better understanding the interplay between evolutionary and developmental process in living systems? Can we come to understand evolutionary and developmental processes as generic to all complex systems?
A Research Agenda in Multi-Domain, Multi-Level, Multi-Scale Variation, Selection, and Development
We can today find tentative evidence and hypotheses for both evolutionary and developmental process in complex systems in multiple academic domains and systems levels, and at all universal scales, including the development of spacetime to create our quantum-relativistic universe (Jan Ambjørn, Renate Loll and Causal Dynamical Triangulation), in the selectionist emergence of classical from quantum physics (Wojciech Zurek and Quantum Darwinism) in Darwinian approaches to thermodynamics (Ping Ao and Darwinian thermodynamics), in the selectionist and deterministic aspects of stellar nucleosynthesis (Donald D. Clayton, George Wallerstein and others), in the themodynamically and kinetically constrained emergence of predetermined chemotypes in inorganic and organic chemistry (J.J.R. Frausto da Silva, Robert J.P. Williams), and in chemical and mathematical models of RNA complexification and cellular biogenesis (D. Eric Smith, Eörs Szathmáry and others). In the biological sciences, innovative scholars in genetic and cellular self-organization (Stewart A. Newman and dynamical patterning modules (DPMs), Stuart Kauffman in self-organizing autocatalytic sets, Eric Davidson and gene-regulatory networks) ), in evo-devo and theoretical biology (Werner Callebaut, Sean B. Carroll, Christian de Duve, Manfred Laubichler, Gerd B. Müller, Massimo Pigliucci, Rupert Riedl, Richard Reid, Stanley Salthe, Günter P. Wagner and others), in epigenetics (Eva Jablonka and others), in niche construction and stigmergy (Benjamin Kerr, Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee) in evolutionary convergence as a limitation on biological form (George McGhee, Simon Conway Morris and others), in evolutionary transitions (Eörs Szathmary), in the thermodynamics of progressive evolution (Alexander I. Zotin), and evolutionary escalation (Geerat Vermeij) are attempting to construct an "extended evolutionary synthesis", one that sees the gene- and individual-centric process of natural selection as a major factor but not the only process of macroscale biological change. In this view, Darwinian evolution must operate within a framework of developmental and environmental constraints that will themselves provide some statistically-observed long-range directionality, and constrain and dictate certain types of evolutionarily convergent morphological and computational process, structure, and function.
Variations of this new synthesis, involving an interplay between mechanisms of unpredictable variation and predictable accumulated constraints, are being attempted in evolutionary and developmental bioenergetics (Alexander I. Zotin), in brain development (Gerald Edelman and Neural Darwinism), in cognitive selectionism and neural synchronization in perception, attention and consciousness (Gyorgy Buzsaki, William Calvin, JA Scott Kelso, John McCrone and others), in evolutionary psychology and the evolution of cognitive and moral preferences (Richard Alexander, Jerome Barkow, Samuel Bowles, Leda Cosmides, Michael Ghiselin, Herbert Gintis, John Tooby and others), in evolutionary epistemology, or the autopoetic production and organization of social knowledge (Ross Ashby, Donald T. Campbell, William P. Hall, Humberto Maturana, Ikujiro Nonaka, Karl Popper, Francisco Varela, Heinz von Foerster and others), in neuroeconomics and evolutionary economics (Kurt Dopfer, Ernst Fehr, Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Elinor Ostrom), in evolutionary anthropology (Robert Boyd, Terrence Deacon), in evolutionary approaches to human history (Dan Smail), in the evolution and development of social and religious beliefs (Donald T. Campbell, Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson), in general theories of 'memetic' selection occurring in human brains (Robert Aunger, Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others), in evolutionary computation and 'artificial life' in computers (Chris Adami, Mark Bedau, John Holland, John Koza, Chris Langton, and others), in the development of ecological and human cultural hierarchy and scale (John Bonner, Geoffrey West, and others), in flow maximization in living and technological systems (Adrian Bejan and constructal theory), and in general technological evolutionary development (Brian Arthur, David Brin, Kevin Kelly, Ray Kurzweil and others). In each case, tentative models of both evolutionary and developmental process and their interactions may be usefully defined and discussed.
There are also a number of hypotheses for potentially 'universal' developmental architecture and process in complex systems in our universe, including scale invariance and scale relativity (Laurent Nottale, Jean Chaline and others), criticality (Didier Sornette) and self-organized criticality (Per Bak, Kim Sneppen), self-organization under far-from equilibrium dynamics (Stuart Kauffman, Ilya Prigogine), self-similar hierarchy (Robert L. Oldershaw, Peter Winiwarter), free energy rate density and cosmic expansion (Eric Chaisson), complexity emergence acceleration either as an exponential, log-periodic, hyperbolic, or scale-invariant phenomenon over macroscales of space and time (Henry Adams, Francois Meyer, Carl Sagan, Laurent Nottale, Jean Chaline, Pierre Grou, Philip Tobias, Anders Johansen, Didier Sornette, Richard Aunger), or as a continuous or bounded long-wave logistic escalation (Derek De Solla Price, Richard Coren, Theodore Modis, Tessaleno Devezas), entropy production and infodynamics (Roderick Dewar, Stanley Salthe, and others), fine-tuning of fundamental physical parameters as a developmental approach to cosmology (John D. Barrow, Paul Davies, Lawrence M. Krauss, Martin J. Rees, and others), and the evolutionary development of the universe as a system (Lee Smolin and Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS), James N. Gardner and early hypotheses of 'CNS with Intelligence' (CNS-I)).
Many mathematical and process models of long-proven use in biological systems, such as logistic growth curves, normal and power laws, representative maps, connectionist and hierarchical networks, reaction-diffusion systems in chemical and embryonic development (Alfred Gierer, Hans Meinhardt), and thermodynamic models of ecological dynamics which involve not only bottom-up (evolutionary) but also top-down (developmental) control, such as developmental ascendancy (James A. Coffman, Robert Ulanowicz) and panarchy (Lance H. Gunderson, Crawford S. Holling), and the interaction of cybernetic systems and evolution to produce self-organization (Terrence Deacon, Carlos Gershenson, Francis Heylighen, Stuart Kauffman and others) are beginning to be applied more rigorously to prebiological, biological, cultural, and technological systems, and deserve much wider analysis and attention.
We have seen similar theoretical advances in the previous century. When classical physics, as powerful as it is, came to be understood as a subset, yet also the most accessible and broadly used component, of general relativity, we gained a theoretical framework with significantly greater long-range explanatory and predictive value. Should evo-devo and theoretical life scientists point the way to a new, meta-Darwinian synthesis in biological systems, with (intrinsically unpredictable) macroevolutionary and (statistically predictable) macrodevelopmental processes both operating simultaneously over nearly four billion years of life on Earth, we may also gain insights into the nature and extent of quasi-evolutionary and quasi-developmental process at the universal scale.
The Universal Roles of Information, Computation, and Intelligence
Hypotheses of universal evolutionary development must also seek to understand the role and emergence of information, computation, and intelligence within the universe. As one facet of this search, we must learn to reconcile the two most fundamental approaches to modeling human cognition, connectionism and computationalism. Connectionist (neural network, parallel and distributed, associative) processes (James L. McClelland, David E. Rumelhart) seems strongly evolutionary, selectionist, and adaptive, yet may also be coupled to developmental process to create 'biologically inspired' evolutionary and developmental systems. For example, we may use genetic programming techniques ('description languages') to control the expression/development of (presently primitive) artificial neural networks (Daniel Rivero, Julián Dorado), and allow environmental selection on the informational genotype of the expressed computational phenotype, as in living systems. By contrast, computationalist (symbolic/logical/Bayesian) informational and cognitive processes (Alan Turing, Jerry Fodor) seem likely to be a specially restricted and emergent subset of the most socially complex and imitative connectionist systems (e.g., humans). Learning how to unify these two approaches, as in the neural-symbolic integration agenda (Barbara Hammer, Pascal Hitzler, Marco Gori) seems a necessary goal of future theory. Advances in neuroscience, mathematics and nonlinear science, information theory and complexity (algorithmic, computational, informational, and physical), and of course planetwide empirical and commercial engineering efforts all seem likely to play a role. Perhaps, at the end of this process, we may even come to understand the universe itself as a computational entity, a contention that has been championed in various forms by an impressive array of physicists in recent generations (Konrad Zuse, John A. Wheeler, David Deutch, Gregory Chaitin, Ed Fredkin, Stephen Wolfram, Seth Lloyd).
Of particular interest to our near-term cultural future are questions in technology growth and evolution. Many classes of macroscale technology, such as transportation or steel production, demonstrate a pattern of logistic growth and punctuated equilibria in their evolutionary development, with long periods of relative stasis. In contrast, as Ray Kurzweil, Chris Magee, Gordon Moore, Hans Moravec, Bela Nagy, William D. Nordhaus, John M. Smart and others have observed, a select subset of information, computation, communication, and physical nanotechnologies (energy, etc.) have shown exponential capacity development over long spans of cultural time. These long-term price-performance curves are called technology performance metrics, and they represent an important new area of scholarly study. Chris Magee has published a number of academic works on these, and Bela Nagy has developed a Performance Curve Database at the Santa Fe Institute to collect technology performance metric data across the technology domain.
As Ray Kurzweil has shown, digital computers have doubled their price-performance ratios every one-and-a-half to three years, since at least the 1890's and particularly rapidly since the 1930's, while simultaneously migrating across mechanical, electromechanical, vacuum tube, transistor, and integrated circuit manufacturing paradigms. Are some hidden laws at work here? Are Moore's law and a collection of related exponential technology capacity growth laws part of a universal developmental process arising from some interaction between the physical structure of our universe and the value of computation at the 'leading edge' of evolutionary developmental adaptation?
Or are these historical consistencies, as some have argued, merely random consequences of some law of large numbers? In a complex universe, a few physical processes must occasionally show powerful growth, for astronomically insignificant periods of time (eg., early-universe inflation, supernovas). Is our recent history of stunning informational, computational, and nanotechnological acceleration here on Earth part of a critical, central process of cosmic evolutionary development, or is it an isolated statistical outlier, with little impact on future universal dynamics? Scholars are beginning to address such humbling yet fundamentally important questions.
In 1956, John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathan Rochester, and Claude Shannon convened a small and very interdisciplinary group to "proceed on the basis of a conjecture" that computers can be designed to simulate biological learning and intelligence. Their Dartmouth Summer Research Conference on Artificial Intelligence is considered the beginning of the "artificial intelligence" research community. In 1987, Christopher Langton convened the first interdisciplinary conference on "artificial life", a research community that proceeds on the basis of the conjecture that useful computer simulations of living systems, and perhaps even autonomous intelligent systems themselves, may be developed by biologically-inspired computing strategies. In the same vein, the EDU community convened in 2008 to proceed on the basis of a conjecture that analogs to the biological processes of evolutionary variation, selection and of convergent, hierarchical, and replicative development may also help explain universal complexity emergence and dynamics.
There is no a priori supposition that our universe is “alive” or “computational” in these investigations. Vitalistic and technologic analogies in complexity science may be useful cognitive tools, but only to a point. Likewise, there may be sharp limits to the generalizability of evolutionary and developmental processes of change in nonbiological systems, and in representations possible in current nonlinear science. Nevertheless, humanity is very early in these investigations and we see much potential ahead.
Major Transitions in Evolutionary Development
Theoretical biologists Smith and Szathmáry (1995) have proposed eight major transitions of evolutionary developmental emergence of biological complexity in universal history to date:
- 1. Replicating molecules to compartmentalized replicator populations (microspheres, etc.)
- 2. Independent nucleic acid replicators to chromosomes (linked replicators)
- 3. RNA as replicator template and enzymes to DNA as template and protein as enzymes
- 4. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes (with captured mitochondria and chloroplasts)
- 5. Asexual eukaryotic clones to sexual populations
- 6. Single-celled sexual protists to multicellular organisms
- 7. Solitary multicellular individuals to societies
- 8. Primate societies to human societies with language
Each of these may be considered a metasystem transition (Turchin 1977; Heylighen and Campbell 1996), the evolutionary emergence of a more complex and global (by some metrics) level of organization and control, and a system with greater internal diversity, both structural and behavioral. Promising mathematical and complexity models for several of these transitions also exist (Fontana and Schuster 1998; Nowak 2006). These and other transitions may form a specification hierarchy (Salthe 1993), may be quantitatively periodized (Nottale et. al. 2000; Aunger 2007), and have been proposed to form an evolutionary developmental arrow of complexity (Bedau 1998; Stewart 2000) for our universe.
Strictly speaking, transitions 1 and 2 above are prebiological (chemical evo devo). Other prebiological evolutionary developmental transitions may include:
- 1. Replicating black holes generating 'fecund' complex universes in cosmology (Smolin 2004)
- 2. Evolving space-time generating the quantum-relativistic world in cosmology (Ambjørn 2006)
- 3. Quantum einselectionism leading to emergence of the classical universe (Zurek 2003)
- 4. Replicating stellar nucleosynthesis generating complex pre-organic elements (Clayton 1968)
- 5. Interstellar and planetary environments generating replicating organic molecules (Ehrenfreund and Spaans 2007)
Smith and Szathmáry's transition 8, to oral/written language, may be partly 'postbiological' (cultural evo devo). Scholars have proposed additional postbiological transitions, such as:
- 14. 'Memes' (replicating ideas and behavioral algorithms, in brains) generating 'temes' (replicating technological algorithms, in machines) (Blackmore 1999).
- 15. Biologically-inspired machines leading to a technological singularity (autonomous machine intelligence) (Vinge 1983, Kurzweil 1999, Clark 2003)
- 16. Postsingularity human-machine symbiosis leading to a global superorganism (Miller 1978, Stock 1993, Bloom 2000, Lifton 2004)
- 17. Postbiological intelligence eventually replicating its universe (Crane 1994, Harrison 1995, Gardner 2000)
- Which of these (and other) transitions seem plausible, from a theoretical perspective? Which are mere conjecture?
- Which may we hypothesize from a universal perspective, as ‘evolutionary’ processes that generate ‘developmental’ emergence?
- Which may be tentatively modeled, and which may be presently falsified by observation in universal history?
- In cases where the sample is presently only one (biogenesis) or where which the proposed transition is still very early in development (autonomous technology) what other methods may be used to test or falsify the hypothesis?
- How do our tentative models of evolutionary and developmental process differ, and what features do they share in common across these transitions?
- In which transitions can we identify evolutionary processes of natural selection, adaptation, creativity, divergence, contingency and/or unpredictability?
- In which transitions can we identify developmental processes that are directional, convergent, conservative, cyclic, and/or statistically predictable?
- How do cosmology, astrophysics and astrobiology, evo-devo and theoretical biology, and the complexity and information sciences inform our thinking about evolutionary and developmental processes across these transitions and in the universe as a system?
EDU Community and Conferences
Promoting interdisciplinary research into the arguments, evidence, and models for evolutionary and developmental processes that may operate in our universe is the unifying theme of the EDU Community. We seek to ground this inquiry in partnership with scientific disciplinarians from each of the proposed transitions listed above. Research topics are chosen roughly proportionately across five disciplinary academic domains: physics, chemistry, biology, society, and technology. In addition, we seek to emphasize three primary interdisciplinary approaches: complexity research, philosophy, and systems theory. Please see EDU SIGs for more on the Special Interest Groups we are seeking to develop in our community.
A subset of our research themes are selected for presentation and collaboration at each EDU conference or workshop. Conference presentations are recorded and posted to a scholars discussion group, EDU Talk, along with presenters slides and papers. Presented papers are subject to open peer commentary and selected peer-reviewed papers are published in an academic journal.
Universal Evolutionary Development ('Devology') vs. Universal Darwinism ('Universal Evolution')
Investigations in universal evolutionary development, also called devology by physicist Georgi Georgiev, include hypotheses of universal selection, also called universal Darwinism, but go substantially beyond variation and natural selection to seek evidence for directional, hierarchical, and perhaps cyclical processes of universal development that may coexist with and constrain evolutionary process, just as development constrains variation and selection in biological systems.
Such questions must be asked if we suspect our universe is not only evolving but also developing, perhaps even in the manner that a biological system develops from seed, to organism, to reproduction, aging, and ultimately death/recycling. Early 'grand synthetic' models of this type were pioneered by Charles Pierce, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Huxley, Vladimir Vernadsky, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Alfred North Whitehead, and other twentieth-century scientists and philosophers. Ervin Laszlo, Ken Wilber, and others are today notable successors to these theorists, yet many of our synthetic models remain less rigorous, testable, and quantified than modern science demands.
Such models are often called hypotheses of 'universal evolution'. This is a misnomer. They are actually hypotheses of devology, or universal evolutionary development, as they are efforts to describe both evolutionary and developmental process at the universal scale. Though the distinction between these two processes was and still is rarely made sufficiently clearly or rigorously, both terms - evolution and development - are used extensively by these theorists and their successors to describe universal change.
Models of universal Darwinism do not, as a rule, admit to any inherent melioristic or orthogenetic (improving, complexifying) trajectory to processes of universal change, other than the traditional features of evolutionary process in biology (increasing variation, increasing specialization, etc.). As such they fail to address such apparently developmental features as the accelerating emergence of hierarchy in the universal, biological, and human-historical record, the accelerating adaptability and computational complexity at the leading edge (reproductive or 'germline') of local complex systems over cosmic time, and the increasing senescence and entropy of the general ('somatic') universe at the same time. Models of universal evolutionary development can and do address such features.
As in evo-devo biology, modern hypotheses of universal evolutionary development must attempt to investigate and describe the broad evidence of multi-level selection operating not just in biological systems (e.g., genetic, kin, sexual, and cultural selection in human beings), but also in pre- and postbiological systems. But at the same time, they must seek to describe the many ways evolutionary processes are likely to be constrained and conserved by an equally fundamental set of processes of universal development, just as evolutionary processes appear to be constrained and conserved by developmental architecture and process in all biological systems.
In conclusion, evo devo universe investigations are an attempt at describing the state of hypotheses in universal evolutionary development, as a tentative 'next step' beyond the useful but incomplete hypothesis of universal Darwinism toward a meta-Darwinian theory of universal change. Thank you for adding your insight and critique to our community.
- Aunger, Robert (2007) Major transitions in 'big' history, and A rigorous periodization of 'big' history. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 74(8):1137-1178.
- Ambjørn, Jan; Jurkiewicz, Jerzy; & Loll, Renate (2006) Quantum Gravity, or The Art of Building Spacetime. In: Approaches to Quantum Gravity, D. Oriti (Ed.), Cambridge U. Press.
- Bedau, Mark (1998) Four Puzzles About Life, Artificial Life 4:125-140.
- Blackmore, Susan (1999) The Meme Machine, Oxford U. Press.
- Clarke, Andy (2003) Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence, Oxford U. Press.
- Clayton, Donald D. (1968/1984) Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, McGraw-Hill.
- Coffman, James A. (2006) Developmental Ascendancy: From Bottom-up to Top-down Control. Biological Theory 1(2):165-178.
- Crane, Louis (1994) Possible Implications of the Quantum Theory of Gravity: An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle.
- Davidson, Eric H. (2006) The Regulatory Genome: Gene Regulatory Networks in Development and Evolution, Academic Press.
- Deacon, Terrence W. (2011) Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter, W.W. Norton.
- Ehrenfreund, P. and Spaans, M. (2007) Cosmic carbon chemistry. In: Chemical Evolution I: Chemical Change Across Space and Time, Oxford U. Press, pp. 232-246.
- Fontana, W. and Schuster, P. (1998) Continuity in Evolution: On the Nature of Transitions. Science 280:1451-1455.
- Harrison, Edward R. (1995) The Natural Selection of Universes Containing Intelligent Life. R.A.S. Quarterly Journal 36(3):193-203.
- Heylighen, Francis and Campbell, Donald T. (1996) Selection of organization at the social level: obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. World Futures 45:181—212.
- Ho, M.W. and Saunders, P. (eds.). 1979. Beyond neo-Darwinism - An epigenetic approach to evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 78(4):573-591.
- Kauffman, Stuart (1993) Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford U. Press.
- Kurzweil, Ray (1999) The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, Penguin.
- Lifton, R. J. and Olson, E. (2004) Symbolic Immortality. In: Death, Mourning, and Burial: A Cross-Cultural Reader, Antonius C.G.M. Robben (Ed.), Wiley-Blackwell.
- McGhee, George (2011) Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful, MIT Press.
- Miller, James Grier (1978) Living Systems, McGraw-Hill.
- Müller, Gerd B. and Newman, Stuart A. (2003) Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, MIT Press, 368pp.
- Nottale, L., Chaline, J., Grou, P. (2000) On the fractal structure of evolutionary trees. In: Fractals in Biology & Medicine, III, Losa et. al. (Eds.), Birkhäuser Verlag, pp. 247-258.
- Nowak, Martin A. (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard U. Press.
- Reid, Robert G.B. 2007. Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, MIT Press.
- Salthe, Stanley M. (1993) Development and Evolution: Complexity and Change in Biology, MIT Press.
- Smith, John Maynard and Szathmary, Eörs. (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution, W.H. Freeman.
- Smolin, Lee (2004) Cosmological natural selection as the explanation for the complexity of the universe. Physica A 340(4):705-713.
- Stewart, John (2000) Evolution’s Arrow, Chapman Press.
- Stock, Gregory (1993) Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism, Simon & Schuster.
- Turchin, Valentin F. (1977) The Phenomenon of Science, Columbia U. Press.
- Williams, Robert J.P. and Frausto da Silva, J.J.R. (2005) The Chemistry of Evolution: The Development of our Ecosystem, Elsevier Science.
- Zurek, Wojciech H. (2003) Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics 75(3)715-775.