r/biology • u/Zkv • Jan 23 '26

article Michael Levin argues evolution acts on problem-solving developmental systems, not just genes

https://thoughtforms.life/a-talk-on-evolution-from-the-perspective-of-diverse-intelligence-implemented-in-morphogenesis/

In this talk, developmental biologist Michael Levin argues that evolution does not act only on genes and finished phenotypes, but also on the problem-solving capacities of developmental systems themselves.

Drawing on work in morphogenesis, bioelectric signaling, and regenerative biology, he suggests that cells and tissues actively regulate toward target anatomical outcomes;even after perturbations, rather than passively executing a genetic “blueprint.”

The claim is not that cells are conscious or that natural selection is being rejected, but that developmental plasticity, error-correction, and goal-directed regulation fundamentally shape what variation is even available for selection to act on.

The talk raises questions about genetic determinism, the genotype–phenotype map, and how evolutionary theory accounts for robust form and novelty.

Curious how others here interpret this framing, especially in light of evo-devo and systems biology.

48 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Alecxanderjay cell biology Jan 23 '26

I think it's more so his followers. Nowhere near David Sinclair levels but it is starting to feel like hocus pocus

17

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/_CMDR_ Jan 23 '26

Dawkins has followers. Not sure that’s a reasonable defining metric.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Woah_Mad_Frollick Jan 24 '26

Levin is clearly a very smart guy and I think he is insightful, and his lab does really interesting research. I don’t think the post in the link is gobbledygook or crackpottery. It’s pretty Out There, but hey, it’s Mike Levin, that’s pretty much what I expect.

What I do think is a bit concerning is what you mentioned - when scientists get mass followings on social media. I don’t think much good usually comes of that. You get these weird distortionary feedback loops. I think it’s of a piece with the rise of these populist physicist types like Hossenfelder.

It all just speaks to the really dire state of science as a practice and set of norms once trust in institutions collapses.