Who are We, and Who (or What) Do We Want to Become? An Evolutionary Perspective on Biotransformative Technologies

Human evolution sits at several important thresholds. In organic evolution, interplay between exogenous environmental and genetic factors rendered new phenotypes at rates limited by genetic variation. The interplay took place on adaptive fitness landscapes determined by correspondence of genetic and environmental relationships. Human evolution involved important emergences that altered the adaptive landscape: language, writing, organized societies, science, and the internet. These endogenous factors ushered in transformative periods leading to more rapidly evolving emergences. I explore the impact of development of emerging biotransformative technologies capable of being applied to effect self-genetic modification and artificial intelligence-augmented cognition on the evolutionary landscape of phenotypes important to cognitive plasticity. Interaction effects will yield unanticipated emergences resulting in hyperrealm adaptive landscapes with more rapid evolutionary processes that feed back upon more fundamental levels while vastly outpacing organic evolution. Emerging technologies exist that are likely to impact the evolution of cognitive plasticity in humans in ways and at rates that will lead to societal upheaval. I show that the theoretical contribution of organic evolution in future human evolution is expected to become comparatively insignificant relative to that made by endogenous environmental factors such as external cognition aids and manipulation of the human genome. The results support the conclusion of a strong recommendation of a moratorium on the adoption of any technology capable of completely altering the course of human evolution.

Defining and Refining Selfish Genes

This chapter navigates through the rather confusing vocabulary surrounding the gene’s-eye view. It explains how the gene’s-eye view defines the word gene in an unusual way, differently from molecular biologists, and how this leads to the central claim that evolution requires two entities, replicators and vehicles. The chapter evaluates the success of the replicator–vehicle distinction compared to other general accounts, such as Lewontin’s principles, and how the debate has changed in light of the growing interests in major transitions. Finally, the chapter outlines the application of the gene’s-eye view to cultural evolution—the concept of memetics—and why it has failed to have the same influence there as it has on the study of organic evolution.

On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior-publication of the complete hypothesis of natural selection “anticipated” Darwin’s Origin of Species by 28 years and Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) Linnean papers on the same topic by 27. Founded on the premise that no naturalist read it before 1860, Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims of duel independent discovery of Matthew’s hypothesis have been accepted by the scientific community. However, the central premise upon which those claims have been accepted — that no naturalist read Matthew’s ideas before 1858 — is a proven fallacy, because the famous and hugely influential naturalist Loudon reviewed Matthew’s book in 1832, commenting that it appeared to have something original to say on “the origin of species”. The fact that Loudon was a naturalist has been totally ignored until now. Furthermore, it is newly discovered that after reviewing Matthew’s book he went on to edit the journal that published two of Blyth’s highly influential papers on organic evolution. Blyth was Darwin’s most prolific and helpful correspondent on the topic. Further new discoveries reveal that, besides Loudon, whose work was well known to Darwin and his associates, six other naturalists read Matthew’s book and then cited it years before 1858. One, Selby, sat on several scientific committees with Darwin, and was a friend of his father. Selby went on to edit Wallace’s famous Sarawak paper on organic evolution. Another, Robert Chambers, a correspondent of Darwin, who met with him, went on to write the influential Vestiges of Creation, which both Darwin and Wallace admitted was an influence on their work. Undeniable potential knowledge-transfer routes did exist before 1858, therefore, between those who read Matthew’s ideas and commented upon them in the literature, and Darwin and Wallace. In light of the fact that influential naturalists, known to both Darwin and Wallace, did read Matthew’s original ideas before 1858, veracity in the history of discovery requires now an investigation into the possibility of cryptomnesia or deliberate pre-1860 plagiarism by Darwin and Wallace. In that regard, the notion of “knowledge contamination” is proposed and presented in a three-fold typology of escalating culpability for replicators of prior published work with citation. Future research in this area should turn to the neglected correspondence and private journal archives of those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace who read Matthew’s ideas before 1860.

Multiple and ectopic pregnancies, as well as anomalies in the development of female genital organs, are considered from the point of view of the doctrine of human origin

The teachings of Darwin and Haekel's, gave rise to the author's idea, whether some phenomena in the field of obstetrics, which are considered to be pathological, do not correspond only to a state characteristic of an earlier period of organic evolution.

Darwin’s Impact on the Medical Sciences

In early nineteenth century medicine, the concepts of organic evolution and natural selection emerged in different contexts, partly anticipating Darwinian revolution. In particular, the anatomical concept of disease favored the perception that men and animals were very similar from a morphological, physiological and pathological point of view, and that this could indicate a certain degree of kinship between them. The debate around human races and human pathological heredity saw first formulations of the principle of natural selection, even if without a full appraisal of its evolutionary implications. Charles Darwin took many inspirations from these medical theories. The impact of the theory of evolution formulated by him in 1859 was only apparently slight in medicine. It is even possible to support that evolutionary concepts contributed in a significant way to the most important medical issues, debates and new discipline in the period between 1880 and 1940.