Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL EVOLUTION: ANOTHER VIEW ROBERT DEGABRIELE* As a biologist, I am concerned at the repeated attempts to borrow, misapply, and distort the principles ofthe Darwinian theory ofbiological evolution in the context of human social evolution [1, 2]. Consider a recent example [3] in which the Darwinian theory has been invoked in what amounts to a defence of "the family as the basic unit ofsociety" and of the "traditional roles within the family." The argument appears to rest on four bases: an expression of concern at the rate and extent of social evolution; respect for the idea that only successes survive evolution ; the statement that social systems are the product of evolution; and the proposal that radical, rapid change invites social and biological disaster . Taking these arguments one at a time, I agree that human social evolution has been, and is, proceeding at a far greater rate than does biological evolution. In fact, "Natural selection has become unimportant in changing our species because it must work in the slow Darwinian mode .... Cultural evolution, however, is not Darwinian. It proceeds in the rapid direct Lamarckian mode by the 'inheritance' of acquired characters . . . The evolution of the human mind has created an enormous discontinuity in the history of life because it initiated the first natural process that could operate by Lamarckian inheritance ... a process that has superseded natural selection and made it subordinate in the determination of our future history" [4]. Thus, the successful human adaptation that has survived the evolutionary process has been the quantumjump from the Darwinian to the Lamarckian mode. This is conceptually no different than the quantum jump from geological to biological evolution when life began some 2,000 to 3,500 million years ago [5]. *School of Applied Science, Riverina College of Advanced Education, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2650, Australia.© 1985 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 0031-5982/85/2804-0434$01.00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 28, 4 ¦ Summer 1985 \ 559 Social systems are indeed the product of evolution. The majority of social animals have gone through the Darwinian mill; only one, humankind , has gone through the Lamarckian mill. The assertion that radical, rapid change is disastrous cannot be sustained . On the one hand, Lamarckian evolution is rapid and is certainly a radical departure from Darwinian evolution. On the other hand, this assertion suggests a "Where will it all end?" mentality—most unscientific. Even if one were to accept Hazzard's [3] strictly Darwinian view, the consequences of such a view are not necessarily as he has proposed. While it may be true that the genetic basis for humankind has remained essentially unchanged, perhaps for at least 50,000 years [4], the nature of thatbasis is by no means clear. There are many views ofthe earliest humans. One view [6], a view shared by Hazzard [3], proposes that the critical human adaptation is the nuclear family, with its consequent monogamy, cooperation, and division of labour. An alternative, divergent view [7] proposes that the earliest human groups were matrifocal, with gathering being the prime source of food and hunting having only minor significance. Yet another view warns against adopting any of the singlecause theories of human evolution (there are more than the two already mentioned), since many are based on different interpretations of essentially the same evidence [2]. Whatever the genetic basis for human social groups may have been, there is no evidence for continuity between any extant social pattern, least of all the current Western system [8], and the original bands of humans [2]. In fact, many of the human social systems that have existed, including patriarchy, matriarchy, monogamy, polyandry, polygyny, and promiscuity, seem to have arisen as Lamarckian solutions to social counterparts of biological situations. In other words, humankind is a Darwinian generalist with a Lamarckian capacity to specialise. REFERENCES 1.Oldroyd, D. R. Darwinian Impacts. Kensington: New South Wales Univ. Press, 1980. 2.Bleier, R. Science and Gender. New York: Pergamon, 1984. 3.Hazzard, W. R. Biological and social evolution. Perspect. Biol. Med. 27:22-24, 1983. 4.Luria, S. E.; Gould, S. J.; and Singer, S. A View ofLife. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings, 1981. 5.Margulis...