Configurationalism: An Alternative to and Generalization of Darwinism

Abstract

In this thesis I present Configurationalism as an alternative to and generalization of Darwinism. Darwinism is the interpretative framework used to make sense of biological evolution in terms of concepts such as fitness, natural selection and adaptation. Darwinism is built upon two core ideas. The first ideas is that of biological design which, among other things, includes the idea that individuals adapt to their environment. The second idea is that of the struggle for existence which is understood in terms of individuals competing for survival and reproduction.

Configurationalism is an alternative to Darwinism, because it rejects the idea that individuals adapt to their environment. It might be scientific fact that individuals change over time in the presence of certain environmental factors, but it is metaphysical speculation to infer from such change that the individuals involved are `adapting to their environment'. Configurationalism is a generalization of Darwinism, because it generalizes the struggle for existence from being about individuals competing for survival and reproduction to patterns competing for volumetric occupation.

One of the reasons one might prefer Configurationalism over Darwinism as an interpretative framework for biological evolution, is because it is better able to accommodate for the evolution of non-reproducing entities like, for example, giant fungi and tree groves. It is also better able to accommodate for the evolution of entities which do not have a fundamental unit of heredity, but instead create offspring in the image of their physical constitution at the time of creation. Consequently, the evolution of altruism, as well as worker castes in eusocial insects, is more easily made sense of within a Configurationalistic framework than a Darwinian framework.

Such a change in understanding of both biological design and the struggle for existence has important consequences for how one makes sense of biological evolution. Whereas Darwinism, generally speaking, understands natural selection in terms of the differential survival and reproduction of individuals, Configurationalism understands natural selection in terms of the differential spatial expansion and temporal propagation of patterns. Similarly, whereas Darwinism understands fitness in terms of an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce, Configurationalism understands fitness in terms of the rate at which a pattern increases in volumetric occupation.

This change in the understanding of biological evolution has, in turn, important consequences for how one understands the nature of selection, the unit of selection and the nature of fitness. From the Configurationalist perspective, natural selection is a form of evolution and not a cause of evolution. Furthermore, two distinct forms of natural selection exist: system-level natural selection, defined in terms of the shape of an evolutionary trajectory, and ensemble-level natural selection, defined in terms of the representatives of an evolutionary trajectory. This distinction helps clarify the difference between natural selection as process and as outcome.

Furthermore, from the Configurationalist perspective there is no unit of selection, not in terms of a unit that benefits from evolution nor in terms of a unit that natural selection acts on. Patterns, and therefore traits, increase in representation `for their own sake' and not for the sake of the survival and reproduction of the trait carrier they are attached to. Similarly, fitness should be understood as being a growth rate which reflects the rate at which a trait increases in representation and not a disposition which reflects the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce.