[Whitehead]:
> “there is another factor in evolution which is
> not in the least explained by the doctrine of the
> survival of the fittest. Why has the trend of evolution
> been upwards?
[Eubulides]:
> The terms 'higher' and 'upward' are, alas, left utterly undefined.
True. I would add: Even if the terms were defined or definable,
there's no reason at all to think that any such trend in evolution exists.
Sure, it's true that life began with simple forms -- where else could it begin? -- and over time developed more complex ones; but what else would you expect, given time for combinatorics to do its work? Throw the dice often enough, and you'll get a spectacular run of snake-eyes sooner or later.
The Whitehead passage really states very clearly the great unexamined assumption that many people make when they talk about evolution, namely that it optimizes or tends to improve, or for that matter tends to do anything, except come up with something new every now and then.