- There are many ways of describing and explaining the properties of living systems; causal, functional and reductive accounts are all necessary, but no one has primacy. The history of biology as a discipline has given excessive authority to reductionism, which collapses higher level accounts, such as social or behavioural, into molecular ones. Such reductionism becomes crudely ideological when applied to the human condition with its claims for genes 'for' everything from sexual orientation to compulsive shopping.
- The current enthusiasm for genetic and ultra-Darwinist accounts, with their selfish gene metaphors for living processes misunderstand both the phenomena of development and the interactive role that DNA and the fluid genome play in the cellular orchestra. DNA is not a blueprint, and the four dimensions of life (three of space, one of time) cannot be read off from its one-dimensional strand. Both developmental and evolutionary1 processes are more than merely instructive or selective; the organism constructs itself, a process known as autopoiesis, through a lifeline trajectory.
- Because organisms are thermodynamically open systems, living processes are homeodynamic, not homeostatic. The self-organising membrane-bound and energy-utilising metabolic web of the cell must have evolved prior to so-called naked replicators. Evolution2 is constrained by physics, chemistry and structure; not all change is powered by natural selection, and not all phenotypes are adaptive.
- Finally, therefore, living processes are radically indeterminate; we, like but to an even greater degree than all other living organisms, make our own future, though in circumstances not of our own choosing.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)