You state that "it must be that evolution produces stability".
I don't agree. If you look at e.g. predator-prey or
parasite-host interaction, evolution may produce a highly
unstable sequence of improvements on both sides, which could
even lead to the extinction of either side: if the predator
evolves some trait that gives it a large advantage over the
prey, in the short term this trait might become prevalent in
the predator population, but in the longer term it might lead
to extinction of the prey, and eventually of the predator
itself.
Although one could say that genes strive for immortality by
surviving from one generation of the next as many times as
possible, short-term success might lead to long-term failure.
Predator-prey cycles are notoriously chaotic, and small
(evolutionary) changes may have large effects. I am inclined
to think that evolution itself produces a chaotic system, in
which each mutation holds the potential of a radical
disturbance of the complete system.
I therefore think that your statement that "the will to
immortality is now not only desirable, but also evolutionarily
demanded" is based on shaky grounds. Furthermore, this will to
immortality is individual, i.e., we want *ourselves* to be
immortal. Evolution, which only operates from generation to
generation, does not care for individual immortality,
and not even for immortality of genes. As argued above,
short-term survival of genetic material may lead to long-term
extinction.
I do agree with you on the issue of free choice, but why do
you try to find a justification for the will to immortality
in evolution, while at the same time stating that "values
cannot be derived from facts about nature"?
One remark about "survival of the fittest" being a
tautology: fertility and sexual selection also play a role
in reproduction, and can be affected by a creature's features.
Such features might even be disadvantageous to direct survival,
(see e.g. the long tail of a peacock), but they help the genes
to survive into the next generation. The phrase is therefore
only a tautology if with "survival" one means survival of genes.
Author: Onar Aam (onar[ at ]hsr.no)
Date: Feb 1, 1995
REPLY: Evolution is meta-stable
As far as I can see the fact that evolution is unstable does not
in any way contradict the statement that evolution must produce
stability. In fact, one depends on the other. Here is a quote
from my introduction article on system theory and complexity
called 
Back to Basics:
"...Although various emergent phenomena are very different from
each other they do have some things in common. A very important
concept that connect all emergent phenomena is meta-balance. It
is a very strange concept and perhaps *the* key to understanding
emergence. A system that is in meta-balance may be viewed from
two different perspectives. On the level of detail the system is
completely *out*of*balance*. However, from a global perspective
the system seems to be stable and ordered. The strange thing is
that the system MUST be out of balance in order to produce
global order. This is perhaps the most counterintuitive aspect
of systems theory...."
