We haven’t found any extraterrestrial life yet, but as science advances, the possibility remains open. Beyond carbon-based life, it’s entirely possible that there are forms of life we haven’t imagined, and new discoveries could be made in the future.
As of October 23, 2024, when I am writing this article, humans have yet to discover a planet other than Earth with life. This is based on the idea that life as we know it can only exist under certain conditions, and that life outside of those conditions remains uncharted territory. However, this limited perception is open to revision by future advances in science and space exploration. Similarly, in the past, humans have sought truth within the limitations of their time, and over time have expanded the realm of truth. For example, heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe, was accepted for a long time, but the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and others led to the rise of heliocentrism, which has since been revised. Similarly, life as we know it on Earth did not come easily from the beginning. Simple organic matter was created from basic particles through chemical synthesis, which led to the appearance of cells on Earth with nucleic acids, genetic material, and other life phenomena that we generally recognize as life, and these life forms evolved to become what they are today.
Based on our current scientific knowledge and observations, we know that life is carbon-based, but given the infinite diversity of the universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that other forms of life exist. There may be categories of life in the universe that we can’t imagine with our intellect. While we define life as compounds with carbon as their basic skeleton, and organisms based on them as organic compounds, there may be beings out there that live in ways that are completely different from our familiar definition of life. For example, there may be life forms that are governed by electromagnetism as their primary physical law, and they may operate under physical conditions that are beyond our imagination. As science and technology become more advanced, it’s entirely possible that these hypotheses will be validated at some point in the future.
But I’m not here to discuss these still-unknown creatures of fiction. I’m talking about evolution as we know it, the process that life on Earth has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through. Exploring how life has gotten to where it is today, in and of itself, provides important clues for predicting the future of our species. In the same way that we can prepare for the future by knowing our history, exploring the path of life can prepare us for the road ahead.
Currently, many biologists have a basic idea of Darwinism, the idea that life adapts to changes in its environment and either evolves or dies out. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is the central theory that explains the evolution of all life on Earth, and it provides concrete examples of how life has adapted and changed in response to various environmental changes. However, even within Darwinism, there are a number of different efforts to explain the theory in different ways. One particularly notable theory is Richard Dawkins’ concept of the selfish gene.
In his book ‘ The Selfish Gene, Dawkins sought to explain evolution in a clearer and more concrete way by narrowing the unit of explanation from individuals to genes: each individual dies and disappears over time, but the genes within that individual reproduce and replicate themselves, thus ensuring the perpetuation of the genes. This concept emphasizes that evolution is not just about the survival of species or individuals, but ultimately about the survival and flourishing of genes.
I would agree with Dawkins and assume that the primary purpose of evolution is the survival of the genes within an individual, not the survival of the species as a whole. This can be illustrated by the competition between species that we see in nature. For example, situations where even members of the same species compete for food or mates are well explained by gene-centered theories of evolution in that they are driven by conflicting interests between individuals, not by the interests of the species as a whole.
Meanwhile, phenotype, which we learn about at the introductory level of biology, is the opposite of genotype and refers to the observable traits that an individual possesses, such as shape, physical characteristics, behavior, etc. However, Richard Dawkins’ “extended phenotype” means that phenotypes have effects not only within an organism, but also on other organisms, and that everything an organism creates is an effect of its phenotype.
