The Runes of Evolution: How the Universe became Self-Aware

Author and evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the Introduction to this 2015 book, “Indeed this book is a celebration of how our world is (and was) populated by a riot of forms, a coruscating tapestry of life… Even a tally of really key steps as to how the first eukaryotes evolved into the biological form writing these lines would run into the hundreds, if not the thousands… Each of the features… is an essential component in a much broader argument that forms the core of this book. Each and every one of them is either demonstrably convergent or inherent in terms of prior history, that is, drawing on building blocks that have already evolved (and as often as not for a quite separate purpose.” (Pg. 1)He continues, “a whole series of neglected evolutionary questions arise… Why, for example, are convergences such as parasitism, carnivory, and nitrogen fixation in plants concentrated in particular taxonomic hot spots? Why do certain groups have a propensity to evolve toward particular states?... Whatever other significance convergence must have, it is central in the study of evolution because it confirms the power of adaptation.” (Pg. 2) He adds, “The aim of this book is far wider than simply to show the ubiquity of evolutionary convergence… here is the nob of the problem. How is it that we have imaginations that can conjure up counterfactual possibilities? More generally, how is it that the Universe became self-aware?” (Pg. 6) He adds, “As the Universe became self-aware, we as one of its products can appreciate its deep beauty. But suppose…. Mind is not so much self-realized as brains increase in size and complexity but rather the brain serves as conduit. In this way it encounters the abstract realms of mathematics, music, and language, all of infinite potentiality. “ (Pg. 8)He observes, “convergence opens up new ways of looking at evolution, fresh possibilities that may yet transcend the oxymoronic triumphal aridity of the ultra-Darwinists who continue to rejoice in both the complete meaningless of the universe while taking a special, if not gleeful, pleasure in perversely magnifying our utter cosmic insignificance. An emphasis on convergence as the key to a deeper structure in biology is certainly not meant to imply that EVERYTHING is convergent… To identify examples of biological uniqueness, therefore, by no means undermines the general thesis. Thus, not only might convergence delineate the map of life, but by implication also provide a predictive framework.” (Pg. 43)He points out, “the many convergences between [birds] and mammals are explored below. One obvious difference, feathers versus fur, may be much less profound than might appear. Both of keratin, and their emergence from the integument relies on specific areas of dermal condensation. Ultimately these form papillae, and in both cases the molecular machinery… is employed… The implications for this are intriguing, because among other possibilities, this suggests that the primitive arrangement in birds may have been to be covered with feathers, and indeed the fossil record of the theropods supports this view. If correct, then while evolutionary biologists like to point to the scales of a chicken as triumphant confirmation of their reptilian origins, oddly enough these arrangements might actually be secondary. This is not to dispute the origin of birds from theropod dinosaurs, but to remind ourselves that once a keratinous integument managed to evolve areas of dermal condensation, then the glory of a bower bird or the fur of a mink were very much in the cards.” (Pg. 199)He notes, “We hear the drumbeat of evolutionary convergence, irrespective of whether in terms of differences that transpire to be skin-deep or as functional inevitabilities… the remarkable structures known as the mushroom bodies… provide a test case for neural convergence within the invertebrates. But they also have a wider significance. Insects and mammals both have brains, but even if they have similar functions, one might expect they are too different to pursue any detailed comparison.” (Pg.245-246)He states, ‘as [sharks] slip toward extinction possibly an entire cognitive world will vanish. But who can complain? Shouldn’t we as loyal Darwinians rejoice in the inevitabilities of evolution? There’s the rub; evolution may be the way in which the Universe becomes self-aware, but although cognitive worlds are bubbling up all around us, only we actually KNOW. And while it is understandable to seek out in the oceans and skies parallel examples of massive encephalization, we must always recall that brain evolution emphatically is not a one-way street.” (Pg. 253)He says, “In the final analysis, the only reason why evolution is of the remotest interest is neither that it is true… nor that it is fascinating… but because it is the mechanism by which the Universe has become self-aware. In doing so it has allowed us to enter previously unimagined worlds.” (Pg. 286)He continues, “Let us then suppose that biological evolution is simply the search engine that allows the universe to become self-aware. Seen from one perspective it simply looks like emergence. But this qualifies as a narrative, but scarcely an explanation. We are left none the wiser as to how biological systems actually achieve any sort of mental state, let are in a position to make claims that it is comprehensible, let alone rational. If, however, we concede that we perceive …. is not all there is, there are deeper structures within the Universe---then we might make some progress. That animal cognition has begun to tap these Platonic worlds is consistent with such a view, but there seem to be limits to their intellectual capacities. It would be easy to attribute the differences to our enormous brain, but matters are not so simple… it seems sterile to dwell on either the overwhelming similarities or seemingly miniscule differences. Either way we have transcended any animal mind, and however fortuitous or chosen they may be, some among us repeatedly provide penetrating insights into new worlds.” (Pg. 295)He notes, “the very fact that it can understand these constraints points to mind being even stranger than most are prepared to admit. Whether in terms of numbers, mirror self-recognition, qualia, or the incomprehensibility of death, each leads us toward worlds in which any self-respecting materialist should begin to feel deeply uncomfortable. To him these are tiresome intangibles that must ultimately be specters; they like everything else in the Universe do not actually MEAN anything. Do you really believe that? Let us insist that mind and consciousness are real and evolution is simply the search engine to enter new worlds. Who better to address this question than we humans?” (Pg. 298)He points out, “I would argue that our inability to provide any adequate explanation for the nature of consciousness is paradoxically quite encouraging… Darwin’s genius was to explain the seamless nature of evolution, but extrapolation can only remain valid if the unfolding story remains embedded in the same world. When it comes to the question of our mental capacities and how they were in any way reliable, Darwin found himself on much less secure ground. As he realized, if he was simply a process of extrapolation from material causes, how then can we trust any insight, let alone build vast architectures of thought? Consciousness remains the acid test.” (Pg. 300)This highly interesting book will be of great interest to those studying the “broader” implications of evolutionary theory.

Our author is the an urbane and witty Cambridge paleontologist, and as with others of the elite from his island he has two last names, "Conway Morris". The island in question is a little north of Europe and called Scingland. Conway Morris is from the southern half it, called England, with which the historically minded reader may be familiar for leaving the planet in a shambles after its colonial ventures a century ago. He made his reputation with his exposition of the famous Burgess shale animals, a reason for me to buy this book. It is published by the Templeton Foundation, an organization with a mixed reputation. It is dedicated to investigating the relationship between science and religion. Conway Morris is a Christian and finds in biology reason to support his religious views. None of this bothers me.The book takes the form of page after page of cases of convergent evolution in (mainly) the animal kingdom. In this sense it has a gee whiz quality as we meet scores of most remarkable life forms. Because he uses terms both biological and taxonomic which are academic, several reviewers have commented on the difficulty of reading it. For me, I was familiar with a lot of it and a Latin and Greek education helps. Just like they said it would in 1950. But anyhow, you really don’t have to stop and look up everything as the jist of what’s being said and the kind of animal involved is almost always clear enough. Additionally, by page 90 I was doing a lot of skimming since the point was by now incredibly obvious: evolution is not a matter of a random walk ( a la Gould) but exhibits a strong"directionality", illustrated by the convergences of features in different organisms. These are ubiquitous because the environment on this planet which different forms of life occupy demand similar solutions. This may strike the reader as somewhat unearthshaking, but as Conway Morris, remarks, it can cause spittle to form on the lips of many evolutionists. And to talk of a "direction" in evolution is pretty unusual. I think C-W makes a provocative case here.These convergences are categorized in the first dozen chapters, teeth, limbs, eyes, and so on. He is at pains to dismiss the assumption that the specific convergences result from deep structure (say of protists) but more generated by environmental factors. As he mentions, however, many of the basic protein forms are already present early on (chrystallins, opsins, etc.).I started paying detailed attention again toward the end when we started to talk about brains and intelligence. That’s what Conway seems to think the goal of the whole shebang is. But you really have to pay attention to the more philosophical remarks dropped in between the expositions every few pages. He’s kind of negative, I think, about creationism and goal oriented evolution. The point seems to be that it’s the environment that presents the constraints which result the general types that many different living things have on this planet. So it’s a curious mix of teleology and determinism, with, it seemed to me, the determinism being the stronger flavor. Even though awareness is the operative goal all along, it's not exactly a vanilla teleology, and that's the point of the case studies. I googled this guy for a little more background. Apparently he is of the opinion that life is rare in the galaxy or universe, I would agree, but that when it does occur it will take forms much like those found here. I would disagree with the latter. Right now, it's just speculation. We don't know anything about what "life" may be possible in other extraterretial locales.I would also remark that the section of color photos of animals in the center of the book seeems to function as just relief from the densly packed prose. I think this is a book that could really have benefitted from line drawings, charts, etc. within the text for some visual help with the exposition, not color animal photos!In his suggested view that life is inevitably targeted at reality becoming aware of itself, well, there are plenty of cowboys at that campfire: Bergson, Whitehead, de Chardin, Schopenhauer, and, wait, who’re they over there in the shadows? Is that Hegel? God, I think I even see some Neo-Platonists at the chuck wagon......The questionof dircetionality/determinism reminded me of some other hotly contested issues: altruism/selfishness; genetic evolution/phenotype evoluution; nature/nurture. Is there some directionality to life on this planet as with all other chemical processes? Or is it all what randomly comes up, snowball earth, meteors..? It all depends on how we define our terms. I'm not sure how much deep science or, worse, metaphysics all this can support. When we get to life elsewhere, this doesn't help at all.And, by the way, if we take Conway Morris' guess to its conclusion, we'll discover that, as he says, the fields of consciousness of organizisms are basically subjective, so how the universe is becoming self-aware is totally a matter of private sensations, isn't it? Is Morris a realist, in the philosophic sense? Am I or a paramecium aware of reality or, as Morris says at one point, "qualia"? Big difference. You might say the universe only is aware of itself thru the veil of maya. A perennial speculation. C-M takes some stabs at this problem in the second to last chapter where he proposes perhaps the most astonishing convergence of all, Plato and Hume. The thinking seems to be that when you, a parrot, a wasp, and I experience ,say, red, we are all seeing the same thing - a universal feature of reality. This is how the universe becomes self-aware. This was a very provocative couple of paragraphs. It's pure philosophy, not biology. I think if our paleontologist would stroll across the green to the philosophy faculty (especially at Cambridge!) he would find it a hard sell, but that doesn't make it uninteresting. I am sympathetic to his readiness to go all the way down with awareness. In fact he even suggests one celled organisms may be aware. If you are a beekeeeper like me, you have no doubt that the bees are as conscious as the keeper is. A nineteenth century biologist, I forget who, remarked that if amoebae would be the size of dogs, we'd be attributing all sorts of mental attributes to them.I think the problem for the reader is whether this a natural history book aimed at enlightening her on the evolutionary subject of convergence or is it a really aimed at proffering a "theory" about the ultimate nature of the universeI? If the former, it’s way too detailed and academic: a list of examples which, as other reviewers have remarked, becomes tedious. If the latter, well, it really needs a lot clearer and convincing argumentation. I honestly believe most hard scientists are a lot smarter than I, but when they - and I include the swarm of books on ultimate physics and second big offender, neoroscience and consciousness - I am usually surprised at how unsophisticated they are. A cool worldview has nothing more to recommend it than the next cool worldview. Much as I enjoyed Conway Morris's guesses at ultimate reality, I'm afraid I'd have to include this book in the scientist-as-amatuer-philosopher genre.But as an old philosophy guy by training and a natural history and evolution buff by inclination, I found this book very thought provoking. If that were my standard, I’d give it a five. The philosophy of biology, which I thought was bit of a poor sister in the philosophy department long ago when it seemed organisms were just bags of chemicals maybe formed by lightning in the ancient atmosphere, has turned out to be a lot more engaging now that we’ve learned so much more in the last 50 yrs. A lot more understanding has led to a lot more mysteries. That’s science, fer ya!Looking at some of Morris' publications, though, I think I’d suggest Life's Solutions or Deep Structure for the reader with a more general interest.

Sreven Gould was the reason why I sterted to read Simon Conway Morris; The Crucible of Creation, about the Burgess Shale and then Life's Solution.... Iwas hooked ! Reading The Runes it have been like going home. A brilliant book.

A highly technical review providing multiple examples of convergent evolution drawn from a vast array of organisms.

A very impressive read , very thought provoking