Better than bacteria

Colin Tudge takes issue with the PC line on evolution; Life's Grandeur by Stephen Jay Gould, Cape, pounds 16.99

Life's Grandeur, Gould tells us, is "a companion volume of sorts to my earlier book, Wonderful Life." And so it is. That was largely spurious as well. Both are magnificent flights of rhetoric, unique in the canon of 20th-century science. But, in the end, they're a massacre of straw men, most of whom were heavily mildewed well before Gould set about them. Gould's prose is indeed brilliant if a shade otiose - must trees always be "arborescent"? - but its fury signifies nothing very much and what it does is largely beside the point. It really is time that somebody pointed this out.

Thus, in Wonderful Life , Gould told us that living things have not really become more varied this past 500 million years as we thought they had, because the Burgess Shale fossils of the Mid-Cambrian period contained a host of weird and wonderful forms that don't exist any more.

In Life's Grandeur he assures us that evolution does not lead to biological progress. In this, in fact, most modern biologists would agree with him but for the wrong reasons. Many, like Gould, have reacted too impetuously to late 19th-century bullishness. Thus, in the years after Darwin, many biologists and philosophers (but not Darwin himself!) tried to argue that natural selection was bound to produce super-intelligent creatures like us, since intelligence is sure to be advantageous. They went on to argue that human beings are superior to other creatures because we are "more highly evolved"; and suggested that some subsections of the human species - races - are superior to others for the same reasons. Finally, they suggested, such superior creatures have a "right" to rule over the others. Thus, under the borrowed cloak of Darwinian theory, they re-invented Genesis in its least attractive and most authoritarian mode.

Gould is quite right to expose such junk, and did so many years ago in The Mismeasure of Man. But we should not throw out intriguing babies with sullied bathwater nor replace 19th-century metaphysics with 20th-century political correctness. For the crude post-Darwinians made three mistakes Gould does not clearly spell out; and he falls into fresh errors of his own. First, their science was bad; so, for example, there is no biological reason to suggest that any human race is superior to any other. Equally mistakenly, they conflated "progress" with "destiny", and argued that the presence of any superior-seeming life form was somehow inevitable. Third, they conflated biological progress with moral advance, which is bad philosophy. As G. E. Moore later pointed out, what is "right" cannot simply be inferred from what is "natural". So the idea of evolutionary progress has been perverted, but if we reject it out of hand we will miss some very important insights.

To provide himself with a windmill at which to tilt, Gould first tells us that "we" are "driven to view evolution's thrust as predictable and progressive in order to place a positive spin upon geology's most frightening fact - the restriction of human existence to the last sliver of earthly time". Is that frightening? Really? Spiders, perhaps, if their legs are too long, but old rocks? But let us suspend incredulity and see where he is leading us. It is to tell us that we define progress according to criteria that are "obviously concocted, if we would only be honest and introspective enough about our motives, to place Homo sapiens atop a supposed heap."

Even Gould has to admit that this is a bit strong, for not everyone accepts "the maximally simplistic account of a single [evolutionary] ladder, with humans on top". On behalf of the half dozen or so who do, Gould assures us that Homo sapiens in practice occupies just one twiglet on an "floridly arborescent" evolutionary tree, that there is nothing about us or any other creature to justify any thought of progress, and that indeed there are no evolutionary "trends" by which such progress might be gauged. In fact, we are evolutionary dead-ends and general washouts, and would treat other creatures with more respect if only we realised this.

Well, I certainly support Gould's conclusions that we should treat our fellow creatures better. But the argument that leads him there is simply an exercise in schoolmanship, of the kind that 12th-century abbots used to dazzle unruly acolytes. First, Gould castigates Victorian metaphysics not with biology, but with a metaphysics of his own by appealing to the slippery concepts of dominance and success. Then - a neat piece of tautology - he defines success in a way that makes his argument irrefutable. Thus he equates "successful" with "numerous" so that creatures like us or peregrines or elephants must always rank below bacteria because there are so many more of them. And I thought it was because bacteria are smaller, which gives them more room.

But if we argue that a scientist should appeal to what is measurable, and if we do as every philosopher should and compare like with like, then trends, and progress, come roaring through the evolutionary tree. In lineage after lineage, creatures become measurably better at what they do as the generations pass. Any engineer can see that modern fish swim better than ancient fish. Their skeletons are lighter and more flexible, the bone is where it needs to be, and there are more places to attach a more intricate array of muscles. Furthermore, lineage after lineage - mackerel, herring salmon, tunny - independently developed these refinements. Similarly, pigeons, peregrines, swallows and albatrosses independently improved, measurably and unequivocally, on the flying skills of Archaeopteryx. Each line shows progress, objectively measurable by the people - engineers - who have the clearest view of what progress means.

To be sure, no Cambrian era zoologist could have predicted that we, Homo sapiens, would come on the scene 500 million years later, or that any creature would develop our particular brands of consciousness and language. Evolution does depend to a large extent on time and chance, so we can't predict any particular outcome. But the lack of such precision does not imply an absence of trends. That sentience would develop in some life form was absolutely on the cards.

Life itself was always likely, and is probably common throughout the universe. Early living slime was always liable to divide into discrete organisms. Organisms were always likely to separate ecologically into autotrophs, which feed themselves like plants, and heterotrophs, which eat autotrophs as animals do. Autotropy and heterotrophy each evolved many times on earth, in scores of lineages.

Heterotrophs can feed more efficiently if they are sentient - and sentience has also evolved many times. And sentience is always liable to upgrade into mental processing, as octopuses, insects, and vertebrates independently demonstrate. Among vertebrates, mammals' intelligence generally has a more flexible quality than birds'; and among mammals, porpoises, monkeys, squirrels, pigs and dogs independently evolved impressive intelligence from the small-brained mammalian ancestor that they shared about 85 million years ago. If group after group independently pursue the same line then we can infer a trend, especially if we can find very good reasons why such a trend should have been favoured.

To argue, as Gould does, that there is no such trend because the majority of creatures - that is, bacteria - did not grow more intelligent is sophistry and sleight of hand. Bacteria did not have the option of intelligence and neither would natural selection have favoured them if they had, for an introspective salmonella would lose out to one that focused on the more immediate task of decomposition.

The fact that bacteria did not become extinct when clever mammals appeared has nothing to do with the case. The two categories of creature occupy different niches and rarely compete directly. Significantly, the small- brained mammals which are obliged to compete with brainy ones have largely gone by the board except when they occupy very special niches - like koalas or moles.

In short, when you look at nature objectively you do see progress in lineage after lineage. You see definite trends that do not represent simply an adaptation to a particular niche but a more general response to the universal problems of gravity, behavioural flexibility and so on.

No one lineage was destined to give rise to Homo sapiens, but it would always be on the cards that some creature would develop some kind of intelligence, and many have done so. To argue otherwise is to erect a metaphysics that may be more PC than that of the imperial Victorians, but is still no more acceptable. Life's Grandeur, like Wonderful Life, is obfuscation. Life is indeed both wonderful and grand, but it is still too short for such stuff.

Suggested Topics
Arts and Entertainment
Call The Midwife: Miranda Hart as Chummy

tv Review: Miranda Hart and co deliver the festive goods

Arts and Entertainment
The cast of Downton Abbey in the 2014 Christmas special

tvReview: Older generation get hot under the collar this Christmas

Arts and Entertainment
Dapper Laughs found success through the video app Vine

comedy Erm...he seems to be back

Arts and Entertainment
Wolf (Nathan McMullen), Ian (Dan Starky), The Doctor (Peter Capaldi), Clara (Jenna Coleman), Santa Claus (Nick Frost) in the Doctor Who Christmas Special (BBC/Photographer: David Venni)

tvReview: No ho-ho-hos with Nick Frost's badass Santa

Arts and Entertainment
Bruce Forsyth and Tess Daly flanking 'Strictly' winners Flavia Cacace and Louis Smith

tv Gymnast Louis Smith triumphed in the Christmas special

Arts and Entertainment
Rhys says: 'I'm not playing it for laughs, but I have learnt that if you fall over on stage, people can enjoy that as much as an amazing guitar solo'
musicGruff Rhys on his rock odyssey, and the trouble with independence
Arts and Entertainment
Krysia and Daniel (Hand out press photograph provided by Sally Richardson)
How do today's composers answer the challenge of the classical giant?
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Arts and Entertainment

ebooksNow available in paperback
Arts and Entertainment

Shenaz Treasurywala
Arts and Entertainment
Jason Watkins as Christopher Jefferies
Arts and Entertainment
Star Wars Director JJ Abrams: key character's names have been revealed
Arts and Entertainment
Pharrell Williams won two BBC Music Awards for Best Song and International Artist
Arts and Entertainment
Mark, Katie and Sanjay in The Apprentice boardroom
Arts and Entertainment

Film The critics but sneer but these unfashionable festive films are our favourites

Arts and Entertainment
Frances O'Connor and James Nesbitt in 'The Missing'

TV We're so close to knowing what happened to Oliver Hughes, but a last-minute bluff crushes expectations

Arts and Entertainment
Joey Essex will be hitting the slopes for series two of The Jump


Who is taking the plunge?
Arts and Entertainment
Katy Perry as an Ancient Egyptian princess in her latest music video for 'Dark Horse'

Arts and Entertainment
Dame Judi Dench, as M in Skyfall

Arts and Entertainment
Morrissey, 1988

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?

ES Rentals

    Independent Dating

    By clicking 'Search' you
    are agreeing to our
    Terms of Use.

    Aren’t you glad you didn’t say that? The worst wince-and-look-away quotes of the year

    Aren’t you glad you didn’t say that?

    The worst wince-and-look-away quotes of the year
    Hollande's vanity project is on a high-speed track to the middle of nowhere

    Vanity project on a high-speed track to nowhere

    France’s TGV network has become mired in controversy
    Sports Quiz of the Year

    Sports Quiz of the Year

    So, how closely were you paying attention during 2014?
    Alexander Armstrong on insulting Mary Berry, his love of 'Bargain Hunt', and life as a llama farmer

    Alexander Armstrong on insulting Mary Berry and his love of 'Bargain Hunt'

    From Armstrong and Miller to Pointless
    Sanchez helps Gunners hold on after Giroud's moment of madness

    Sanchez helps Gunners hold on

    Olivier Giroud's moment of madness nearly costs them
    A Christmas without hope: Fears grow in Gaza that the conflict with Israel will soon reignite

    Christmas without hope

    Gaza fears grow that conflict with Israel will soon reignite
    After 150 years, you can finally visit the grisliest museum in the country

    The 'Black Museum'

    After 150 years, you can finally visit Britain's grisliest museum
    No ho-ho-hos with Nick Frost's badass Santa

    No ho-ho-hos with Nick Frost's badass Santa

    Doctor Who Christmas Special TV review
    Chilly Christmas: Swimmers take festive dip for charity

    Chilly Christmas

    Swimmers dive into freezing British waters for charity
    Veterans' hostel 'overwhelmed by kindness' for festive dinner

    Homeless Veterans appeal

    In 2010, Sgt Gary Jamieson stepped on an IED in Afghanistan and lost his legs and an arm. He reveals what, and who, helped him to make a remarkable recovery
    Isis in Iraq: Yazidi girls killing themselves to escape rape and imprisonment by militants

    'Jilan killed herself in the bathroom. She cut her wrists and hanged herself'

    Yazidi girls killing themselves to escape rape and imprisonment
    Ed Balls interview: 'If I think about the deficit when I'm playing the piano, it all goes wrong'

    Ed Balls interview

    'If I think about the deficit when I'm playing the piano, it all goes wrong'
    He's behind you, dude!

    US stars in UK panto

    From David Hasselhoff to Jerry Hall
    Grace Dent's Christmas Quiz: What are you – a festive curmudgeon or top of the tree?

    Grace Dent's Christmas Quiz

    What are you – a festive curmudgeon or top of the tree?
    Nasa planning to build cloud cities in airships above Venus

    Nasa planning to build cloud cities in airships above Venus

    Planet’s surface is inhospitable to humans but 30 miles above it is almost perfect