While there is talk of Micro and Macro Evolution, the evidence indicates that there is only one kind. While Evolution might select for a larger, wider, sharper, or more complex Nose, Evolution wasn’t responsible for the Nose and the sense of Smell. These were the result of Emergence.
Emergent features are the stuff that evolution works upon - Smell, sight, sex, cells, and self reflection don’t evolve - they are just fit emergent features - which occur spontaneously - when smaller groups of cells self-organize, naturally.
A big difference between emergence and evolution is the concept of continuity. Evolution is continuous and gradual while Emergence happens in steps. Evolution is wave-like while Emergence is discontinuous.
Those who are overly attached to Evolution desperately search for missing links to establish the necessary continuity. Because they are commited to the belief that Evolution is the root of all biological changes and adaptation, they are fooled for decades by elaborate hoaxes. They fail to see the self-evident principle of emergence - because their logic filter is on - effectively blocking out the Direct Experience of Reality.
However evolution and emergence work hand in hand - Not Either/Or but Both/And. Not either Evolution or Emergence, but both Evolution and Emergence work together to form the biological world.
Cells clump together, naturally - self-organizing - in larger and larger packages. The primary grouping is the foundation for a secondary structure - which itself is the foundation for the tertiary structure. Each of these self-organizations has different emergent features. Evolution is constantly working with these emergent features. In terms of reproduction and survival - the fit emergent and evolutionary features survive to reproduce, while the unfit perish.
Of course the term ‘fit’ is a relative term. In one environment one feature might be fit and another unfit - while in another environment the circumstances could be reversed. Hence there is no inherently fit or unfit state. Instead the relative fitness of each state is determined by the environment rather than by some absolute measuring stick. Fitness is relative, not absolute. Paraphrasing Woody Allen: “I was lucky to be born in Brooklyn. Funny irreverent Jewish guys like me get sent to Siberia if they are born in Moscow.”
The rigid evolutionist feels that somehow everything has evolved gradually. The rigid emergence adherent is akin to the creationists believing that everything has emerged from the ground and that there is no such thing as evolution. Both are a bit anal retentive in regards their dogma. For evolutionists to deny emergence as a factor is absurd - just as it is for creationists to deny that there are evolutionary principles at work.
A common example of an emergent feature of human consciousness is music. The sounds that aided existence turned into something beautiful. Beauty is another emergent feature of self-reflective consciousness - which defies evolutionary principles. The cells, then organs, which compose the body, have no concept of beauty. Nor do the corporations of humans - which is composed of bodies. Only the individual human - with his self-reflective consciousness - experiences the thrill of indefinable beauty.
Only after music emerged did it begin to evolve. It is easy to track the evolution of music, which many call its history. Yet the concept of music didn’t evolve from species to species - becoming ever more complex. Instead it just happened - emerging as the complications of the organism reached a critical mass. What happens at that point is unpredictable and unique.
One person can’t emerge into sports. However a collection of competitive people - with no place to hunt and fight - emerge into sports naturally - and then sports evolve.
An ardent evolutionist might claim that sports evolved from battle naturally - or that music evolved from listening to birds - or that male and female evolved from single celled organisms - or that life evolved from the interaction of energy and matter. But they are begging these points and must create volumes of explanations to justify their point.
It is reminiscent of the old astronomers - with Ptolemy the crest of their wave - generating vast amounts of theory - to justify an earth centered astronomical system that accurately described the movements of the planets. The simpler and more straightforward notion of a solar system - the earth circling around a sun - eventually overwhelmed it - but not without a fight. Indeed Galileo’s condemnation was partially based around the conflict between Ptolemy’s old world view - which had been dominant for nearly 2000 years - and the new world view - based upon an aesthetic committment to simplicity combined with better observations - because of better equipment. The intensity of the conflict was based around the ever-present connection between science, religion, and culture.
We grant these types the possibility that evolution occurs in every situation, but wonder about the efficiency of the explanation. Let us instead speak of emergence and it all becomes clear - Occam’s razor. This is not to neutralize research into emergence or evolution. It is merely an attempt at looking at a larger picture.
Evolution is one logically consistent system; emergence is another.
The mixture of the two is the Complete system -
Which transcends logic -
And embraces intuition, as a blend of logic and instinct.
This complete System not only embraces the transformation of Life -
But the transformation of matter as well -
The Emergence of diamonds from coal.
Home The Firing Process IV. Self & Will Previous Next Comments