The difficulty is that evolutionary theory is both simple and comprehensive, so almost any extension of it is easy to subsume under the general rubric of the ex

The difficulty is that evolutionary theory is both simple and comprehensive, so almost any extension of it is easy to subsume under the general rubric of the existing consensus. But this is not to say that conceptual modifications aren't potentially interesting. We see this in physics, where even before the modern revolution we had two completely incompatible, contradictory conceptual approaches to motion: Newtonian mechanics (forces cause motion) and the classical mechanics of Hamilton and Laplace (minimizing the action causes motion). Although these two approaches are mathematically equivalent, they are conceptually entirely different, and only one of them is sufficiently extensible to subsume quantum mechanics (unless you believe Bohm's quantum potential theory, which attempts to explain single-electron atoms as resulting from a new force that holds electrons still.) We live in an era where we use Newtonian physics as the metaphor for almost all causation. We may be entering an era where Darwinian explanations are similarly dominant, and it's worth thinking about variations on the Darwinian theme to see what kind of mileage we can get out of them. Some may turn out to be surprisingly general and powerful. My own fictional, speculative look at what might result from an axiomatic, mathematical approach that generalizes Darwinian evolution to, well, pretty much everything, can be found here, if anyone's interested: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/B00KBH5O8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413919183&sr=8-1&keywords=darwin%27s+theorem http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/...