Evolutionary theory explains much, but it struggles when the genuinely new appears.
Novelty — the emergence of traits, behaviours, or interactions that are not predictable from prior states — is tolerated only as a recombination of what already exists.
It is rarely accepted as ontologically emergent.
The Familiar Turn
Scientific explanations of novelty often rely on familiar mechanisms:
-
mutation as random recombination
-
recombination as reshuffling of existing elements
-
exaptation as repurposing of prior traits
-
selection as pruning of pre-existing variation
In each case, novelty is tamed: it is something derivative, something traceable, something manageable.
The radical potential of truly new forms is bracketed.
Why Novelty Is Uncomfortable
Novelty threatens two deep commitments:
-
Predictive continuity — the expectation that outcomes can, in principle, be anticipated given sufficient information.
-
Ontological stability — the expectation that the entities in play are sufficiently persistent and well-defined to carry explanatory weight.
Emergent traits resist both. They cannot be reduced to prior states without leaving residue. They cannot be assigned to fully stable entities without distortion.
The Usual Repairs
When novelty appears, evolutionary thought often attempts to restore tolerability:
-
reframing novelty as recombination or mutation
-
postulating latent potentials in genes or environments
-
invoking selection as retroactive explanation
-
constructing adaptive narratives that smooth discontinuities
These repairs are technically elegant and empirically useful — but they are compensatory. They preserve intelligibility at the cost of acknowledging true emergence.
Novelty as Relational
From a relational perspective, novelty is a natural condition of becoming.
New traits, behaviours, or forms do not emerge from nothing, but neither do they reduce entirely to what came before. They are actualisations of possibilities within a constrained field.
Emergence Without Teleology
Novelty is frequently misread as optimisation: better forms, fitter traits, more complex structures.
This is a temptation born of intolerance.
Genuine novelty is not necessarily advantageous. It is not inherently adaptive. Its significance arises only in relation to the system in which it manifests — in context, in interaction, in selective pruning.
The Cost of Refusal
By refusing novelty its ontological independence, evolutionary theory repeatedly:
-
reduces emergence to combination
-
recasts the new as recombination of the old
-
retrofits explanation to outcomes
-
obscures the relational dynamics that produce difference
In doing so, it preserves the comfort of continuity at the cost of clarity about becoming.
Relational Response
A relational stance does not deny explanation.
It acknowledges that novelty is constitutive, not exceptional; that the field of evolution is not fully predictable; that selection acts on possibilities, not fixed entities; and that what emerges is situated, not prefigured.
Looking Ahead
With novelty acknowledged, the stage is set for the final evolutionary pressure point: The Intolerance of Lineage.
If units are provisional, fitness is relational, and novelty is emergent, then what persists? How does evolution trace patterns without imposing identity where there is none?
Lineage — the persistence of pattern without reified essence — is where all previous intolerances converge.
The next post will explore this tension directly.
No comments:
Post a Comment