Evolution Is Not Just About Life

[sealchan]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind. Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind. Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

The problem is that many creationists like to play semantic games. They in reality have the most trouble accepting biological evolution. A common tactic of theirs is to find a form of "evolution" that is not as well supported by evidence and then use that to try to claim that all "evolution" is false. I do not mind an honest use of an expanded definition of evolution. There is nothing wrong with that. I do object to the dishonest games that some creationists try to play in attempting to refute the theory that they hate so much.

 

[sun rise]

An internet search for evolution supports the OP. Animals evolve including major changes. Plants evolve. The Earth has evolved. Nations evolve.

I noted this story today that raises an interesting evolutionary mystery Is it a dog or is it a wolf? 18,000-year-old frozen puppy leaves scientists baffled

Stories like that and other discoveries add to the gigantic mountain of proof that evolution exists and that we are learning more about the how it works all the time.

 

[ChristineM]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind. Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

Good post and i have 2 points to add. You mentioned scientific disciplines, medicine is the most practical user of evolution. Using evolutionary biology to prevent and cure disease. One example of prevention is the annual flu shot. The flu virus evolved, the virologists predict the evolution and create s vaccine to counter the virus.

Re your last paragraph. The second law of thermodynamics, entropy predicts life and evolution of life.
Why did life emerge?

 

[sealchan]

The problem is that many creationists like to play semantic games. They in reality have the most trouble accepting biological evolution. A common tactic of theirs is to find a form of "evolution" that is not as well supported by evidence and then use that to try to claim that all "evolution" is false. I do not mind an honest use of an expanded definition of evolution. There is nothing wrong with that. I do object to the dishonest games that some creationists try to play in attempting to refute the theory that they hate so much.

Yes, and even as a believer I find those same arguments dishonest.

These dishonest attacks substitute a disciplined, rational understanding with an quick, intuitive one and a willingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of an emotionality that such people bring with them to the "battle field". In this way one intuition and one's "provoked tribal loyalty" is enough to topple the countless hours of research and thought that goes into ToE. You basically have these drive by shooters (creationists) shooting at a fortified castle (of science)...the building will stand forever but the shooters are scoring all the points because they are defining the playing field.

This is why I see the work of popularizers of science like Bill Nye and Carl Sagan as so important. These are individuals who go beyond the simple science and make it more palatable and more interesting to those who are otherwise susceptible to taking science for granted. It still gets me that so many science deniers can be on the internet saying stuff...cause what sort of internet would there be without the science?!

So my thing here is that if we recognize that evolution is an example of a universal experience at all levels of physical systems then we leave the safety of our (science's) castle walls and take the battle to those who are resting comfortably back in their camps thinking the scientists won't come out to get at them.

Here are the sorts of ways that I have come up with to expand the idea of evolution out to the realm of belief in a most literal way and in some of these a metaphorical or figurative way:

• Sacred texts have evolved from their original source material
• Oral stories transitioned to a literate, written context
• Oral cultures are the source of many of the stories in sacred texts
• Political factors have changed the understanding of sacred texts
• Sacred texts contain massive evidence of crossbreeding with texts from across traditional cultural boundary lines
• Groups within religious traditions have changed and evolved greatly over time
• There are many missing links between our oldest copies of sacred texts
• Many sacred texts show signs of being "younger" than traditionally believed
• Groups that became the most different were separated by greater geographical and political distances

 

[ChristineM]

An internet search for evolution supports the OP. Animals evolve including major changes. Plants evolve. The Earth has evolved. Nations evolve.

I noted this story today that raises an interesting evolutionary mystery Is it a dog or is it a wolf? 18,000-year-old frozen puppy leaves scientists baffled

Stories like that and other discoveries add to the gigantic mountain of proof that evolution exists and that we are learning more about the how it works all the time.

My avatar is another example. A fully, modern human skull, 22000 years old with anatomical differences attributable to evolutionary development. Thicker, heavier bone structure, slightly enlarged brow ridges, larger than modern humans and with a 13% larger brain capacity.

The last i find particularly interesting, we have a smaller brain than our Cro-Magnon ancestors, why, were cro-magnon more intelligent or has the brain evolved greater efficiency?

 

[sealchan]

An internet search for evolution supports the OP. Animals evolve including major changes. Plants evolve. The Earth has evolved. Nations evolve.

I noted this story today that raises an interesting evolutionary mystery Is it a dog or is it a wolf? 18,000-year-old frozen puppy leaves scientists baffled

Stories like that and other discoveries add to the gigantic mountain of proof that evolution exists and that we are learning more about the how it works all the time.

If I were a field paleotologist or archeologist I would be looking at the melting tundra for a lot of new discoveries.

 

[sealchan]

Good post and i have 2 points to add. You mentioned scientific disciplines, medicine is the most practical user of evolution. Using evolutionary biology to prevent and cure disease. One example of prevention is the annual flu shot. The flu virus evolved, the virologists predict the evolution and create s vaccine to counter the virus.

Re your last paragraph. The second law of thermodynamics, entropy predicts life and evolution of life.
Why did life emerge?

Stuart Kauffman has proposed that autocatalytic molecular reactions automatically form into self-replicating systems. Here you have an undesigned natural evolution of self-replication well below that of the cellular life form.

Mathematical modeling reveals spontaneous emergence of self-replication in chemical reaction systems

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

Disagree (see below)

An internet search for evolution supports the OP. Animals evolve including major changes. Plants evolve. The Earth has evolved. Nations evolve.

But the theory of biological evolution encompasses only the evolution of living populations. Yes, we have material (Big Bang) and chemical evolution (abiogenesis) preceding biological evolution, and psychological and cultural evolution following the advent of life and biological evolution. Also, individuals evolve - growth and development. But these are all different topics.

It seems perfectly reasonable to partition these and consider them separately. Isn't that the error that those conflating social Darwinism with biological evolution make - implying that evolution is evolution, and survival of the fittest is survival of the fittest whatever the context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

Well... it is a theory of biology. Biology is about living things.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind.

Psychology, ha? Psychology of rocks? Of mountains? Volcano's? Space rocks?
Nope. Psychology of living things by any chance?

Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Sure, the core principles that make biological evolution work, can be applied to non-biological things.
That doesn't make the biological theory of evolution about anything other then living biological things.

You can also apply these principles to the development of languages. There are lots of paralells in the mechanisms by which languages develop and change with how living organisms develop and change.

This again doesn't change the fact that biological evolution is a theory of biology.

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

Like said previously, the core principles are applicable to other things as well.
This doesn't change the fact that biological evolution is about biology. Ie, living things.

But the core abstract principle of "duplicate using top performers, alter, do a fitness test, repeat" can indeed by used to optimize all kinds of things. Likewise can we see such principles, or principles like it, at work in other phenomenon of reality.


But again, this doesn't change the fact that biological evolution is about biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An internet search for evolution supports the OP. Animals evolve including major changes. Plants evolve. The Earth has evolved. Nations evolve.

I noted this story today that raises an interesting evolutionary mystery Is it a dog or is it a wolf? 18,000-year-old frozen puppy leaves scientists baffled

Stories like that and other discoveries add to the gigantic mountain of proof that evolution exists and that we are learning more about the how it works all the time.

The word "evolve" is an english word and by being such, it is applicable in all kinds of context where "things change over time".

That doesn't mean that all those things are addressed by, or within the scope of, the biological theory of evolution.

The biological theory of evolution, is just about the development of life and biodiversity.

That the core abstract principles, or some of them, can also be applied to other things, doesn't change that.

 

[exchemist]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind. Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

Yes I agree with the others. I think you are stretching a point.

The word evolution is a widely used to term to describe the way a system changes with time from its starting conditions.

But the Theory of Evolution refers to the process of natural selection of genetic changes by which populations of organisms change over successive generations. So it is quite specific to biology.

Emergent properties are quite another subject.

You can't have natural selection without replication and you don't find physical systems that replicate and and are subject to natural selection except in living organisms, surely?

Or can you provide an example of a non-living system that is subject to this process?

 

[sealchan]

Disagree (see below)



But the theory of biological evolution encompasses only the evolution of living populations. Yes, we have material (Big Bang) and chemical evolution (abiogenesis) preceding biological evolution, and psychological and cultural evolution following the advent of life and biological evolution. Also, individuals evolve - growth and development. But these are all different topics.

It seems perfectly reasonable to partition these and consider them separately. Isn't that the error that those conflating social Darwinism with biological evolution make - implying that evolution is evolution, and survival of the fittest is survival of the fittest whatever the context.

Certainly progress in biological evolution can mainly be concerned with itself. And anyone wanting to discuss matters in biological evolution can choose to focus on that topic.

However, it is unlikely that evolution in biology is strictly a property of organisms and their environment. It is also likely that how organisms have evolved is also a property shared with other, non DNA defined units interacting together in a shared system.

There is research exploring computer models of iterative systems which are meant to be similar to biologically evolving systems. These genetic algorithms are being used to explore the mathematics of evolution. Artificial life simulations also look at the mathematics of the evolution of living systems.

My favorite go to theorist and researcher is Stuart Kauffman who believes that natural systems with certain abstract mathematical properties tend to find a balance between order and chaos and in doing so also tend to form self-replicating behaviors.

So this is really new stuff but how it promises to tie into our understanding of the universe as a whole is likely to incorporate a lot of common wisdom experience that we have because we are immersed in multiple complex systems all the time but we dont have familiar metaphors to describe it all with.

 

[sealchan]

Well... it is a theory of biology. Biology is about living things.



Psychology, ha? Psychology of rocks? Of mountains? Volcano's? Space rocks?
Nope. Psychology of living things by any chance?




Sure, the core principles that make biological evolution work, can be applied to non-biological things.
That doesn't make the biological theory of evolution about anything other then living biological things.

You can also apply these principles to the development of languages. There are lots of paralells in the mechanisms by which languages develop and change with how living organisms develop and change.

This again doesn't change the fact that biological evolution is a theory of biology.



Like said previously, the core principles are applicable to other things as well.
This doesn't change the fact that biological evolution is about biology. Ie, living things.

But the core abstract principle of "duplicate using top performers, alter, do a fitness test, repeat" can indeed by used to optimize all kinds of things. Likewise can we see such principles, or principles like it, at work in other phenomenon of reality.


But again, this doesn't change the fact that biological evolution is about biology.

Well its perhaps the core principles I am talking about. To the extent that self-replicating, evolving, biological systems can be modelled abstractly we may discover more universal mathematical principles which biological systems follow.

 

[sealchan]

Yes I agree with the others. I think you are stretching a point.

The word evolution is a widely used to term to describe the way a system changes with time from its starting conditions.

But the Theory of Evolution refers to the process of natural selection of genetic changes by which populations of organisms change over successive generations. So it is quite specific to biology.

Emergent properties are quite another subject.

You can't have natural selection without replication and you don't find physical systems that replicate and and are subject to natural selection except in living organisms, surely?

Or can you provide an example of a non-living system that is subject to this process?

DNA based biological systems are obviously the most noticeable (now) evolutionary systems. But it is likely that molecular systems also have an evolutionary story and that this story gives rise to the possibility of more complex evolutionary systems.

Then we can look at the extra biological systems. How how about the evolution of ideas, of technology, of consumer products, of religious ideas and institutions, of forms of government, of languages, etc? These might not "run" on DNA based evolutionary systems but what happens at the level of cultural systems is only partly related to biological evolution. In fact the evolution of cultural systems is probably more important now to the direction of human biological evolution than it was throughout much of human history and certainly more important than to any other species unless we consider how that cultural-social evolution has had profound wide-spread impact on all the species on this planet.

All of these cases above have a component of self-replication. Molecular reactions form chains that may increase in volume and cause further growth of those cyclical molecular reactions. Many of the cycles of molecular behavior in our bodies may have had their origins prior to the formation of cells.

Consumer products that sell generate further production of those products. Ideas that are spread create institutions that help preserve those ideas. Once it is realized just how many ways we are immersed in these feedback loops which select various products to either promote or suppress their existence, we should more clearly see that biological evolution is just one of many, many kinds of evolution. With the work already being done in complexity science this is already becoming apparent.

 

[exchemist]

DNA based biological systems are obviously the most noticeable (now) evolutionary systems. But it is likely that molecular systems also have an evolutionary story and that this story gives rise to the possibility of more complex evolutionary systems.

Then we can look at the extra biological systems. How how about the evolution of ideas, of technology, of consumer products, of religious ideas and institutions, of forms of government, of languages, etc? These might not "run" on DNA based evolutionary systems but what happens at the level of cultural systems is only partly related to biological evolution. In fact the evolution of cultural systems is probably more important now to the direction of human biological evolution than it was throughout much of human history and certainly more important than to any other species unless we consider how that cultural-social evolution has had profound wide-spread impact on all the species on this planet.

All of these cases above have a component of self-replication. Molecular reactions form chains that may increase in volume and cause further growth of those cyclical molecular reactions. Many of the cycles of molecular behavior in our bodies may have had their origins prior to the formation of cells.

Consumer products that sell generate further production of those products. Ideas that are spread create institutions that help preserve those ideas. Once it is realized just how many ways we are immersed in these feedback loops which select various products to either promote or suppress their existence, we should more clearly see that biological evolution is just one of many, many kinds of evolution. With the work already being done in complexity science this is already becoming apparent.

Dawkins made the cultural point when he invented the concept of the "meme", which replicates by repetition. It seems he did this to it explain why ideas he personally considers daft, particularly religious, spread and become culturally embedded. But even he was stretching the analogy, I think.

As for molecular chain reactions I can't off-hand think of anything involving differential rates of replication of variants of a "parent" original. Do you have something in mind?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well its perhaps the core principles I am talking about. To the extent that self-replicating, evolving, biological systems can be modelled abstractly we may discover more universal mathematical principles which biological systems follow.

We do use such core principles, although somewhat modified, in practical applications like optimization software, through genetic algoritms. Such algoritms also can play a huge role in thing like search heuristics, machine learning, AI, etc.

I don't think this is something exclusive to biological evolution.

 

[sealchan]

Dawkins made the cultural point when he invented the concept of the "meme", which replicates by repetition. It seems he did this to it explain why ideas he personally considers daft, particularly religious, spread and become culturally embedded. But even he was stretching the analogy, I think.

As for molecular chain reactions I can't off-hand think of anything involving differential rates of replication of variants of a "parent" original. Do you have something in mind?

I'm not familiar with "differential rates...of variants". That may be addressed in genetic algorithm work which considers evolutionary systems that have gene-like parts of the system.

Evolution isnt just a DNA based system. What you need is a sufficiently large number of parts of more or less similar character interacting with mutual impact in non-linear ways and forming hierarchical relationships in some defined context. Such things can be created in a computer lab precisely or found in natural or human systems in varying degrees of separation from systemic interactions outside the scope of the focus.

In my undergraduate work I attempted to create a genetic algorithm that used personality type and a weighted strength of attraction. I created a population of individuals with one of sixteen personality types, had them pair up interactively at a "party" and generated a new generation of descendants based on the pairings that formed and the children that resulted. I dont recall the logic I used to determine the resulting personality but it may have been modelled on a simplistic version of DNA combination. I then ran the simulation and watched what resulted after several generations. I looked for long term outcomes in population to see if it would settle into a monoculture or maintain a random distribution. I also adjusted parameters such as population size to see what I could see. No big discoveries were made in my case other than learning about how to understand such systems in an algorithmic way. In this work I took clues from Melanie Mitchell and John Hollands work as published in books.

This is all to show by way of example how to abstract a population, model an iterative process of self-replication and observe whether emergent or long-term orderly behavior results.

Of course, as with any complex non-linnear system, such as the weather, this work must aim at understanding general mathematical principles rather than make specific predictions of the exact outcomes of measured natural systems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind. Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

No biochemists or related in the scientific field would debate or discuss evolution outside of biological terms. Evolution just does not occur in inorganic nonliving material. It only occurs in living organisms.

That's my understanding of it.

I initially got it watching a debate between Kent Hovind and a biochemist during a debate on ID to which he said he couldn't even answer the questions Kent was asking because his examples had nothing to do with living organisms.

That's why things like the watchmaker nonsense and the illustrious self-assembling car examples doesn't work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've seen the argument often made that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a topic restricted to the change in biological organisms over time and that it should only be discussed in that context. However, this seems to me to be increasing short-sighted and insular.

There are a growing number of scientific disciplines that incorporate evolutionary mechanisms in other realms. Evolutionary psychology comes to mind. Historians clearly see how cultures and groups come and go due to environmental influences. It has even been proposed that individual ideas or images undergo evolutionary behaviors (memes).

Also, understanding evolution without understanding ecological systems is nonsensical. Ecology is also the premiere science of systems. We have had systems sciences now for almost 70 years. Feedback systems, cybernetic systems, chaotic systems and other mathematical and modeling treatments of systems in an effort to understand how emergent order seems to arise from lower level behavior.

So it seems really odd to me that people would not look at the evolution of biological organisms as deeply connected with the evolution of all the physical systems we observe in the universe. Understanding evolution in this context makes it clear that evolution isn't some completely unique and isolated phenomenon but is a kind of a much larger phenomenon that is clearly at work in the physical systems in our Universe. That is would happen to biological life forms is to be expected. It may be that in biological life forms we have the most profound expression of systems undergoing evolutionary alterations.

Any sincere response is welcome.

I agree with the thrust of your OP, evolution is change over the passage of time and this is noted in many systems within and outside of biology. However, I see the application of evolution in the form of the theory of evolution as a focus on biology rather than a myopia. As the most well-established and we'll supported example of evolution, it can serve as a metaphor for describing change in other systems. The ToE can used as model to search for change in other systems and in the formulation of theories applicable to those systems and disciplines. Evolutionary psychology is one of those instances that you mentioned already. Chemical evolution is another. There are practical application as well and manufacturers have already applied evolution-based methods in the design of some products.

Change can be observed and studied in any system, with hypotheses formulated and theories describing and explaining that change postulated. And the ToE is really just one of the earliest and best examples of a theory specific to biology.

A great OP, thanks for putting it out there.