Pokemon Evolution (Some Actual Science)
The most common critique against Pokéscience is woefully uncreative. Let’s set the record straight.
“It’s not actually evolution!”
This fallacy seems to ring out from every corner of the internet — or, at least the corners that feel compelled to discuss the nuanced science behind Pokémon, the pocket-monster phenomenon that has grossed over $55 billion since 1996 in card games, multimedia, and microtransactions. To put that into context, Pokémon is recognized as the highest grossing franchise of all time, dwarfing properties like Star Wars and Harry Potter by the tens-of-billions.
So these nuanced corners of the Internet? They’re popular, and they’re all calling foul when it comes to a simple mechanic that’s remained fundamental to the franchise for 21+ years: evolution.
I don’t necessarily feel compelled to spell out the mechanics at work here, you probably know what’s up.
But you know who does feel compelled?! Forbes Magazine who in 2016 explained that “the game could also have a negative effect on science education” because of the misuse of that golden word, “evolution.” And this isn’t an isolated problem; I could cite Inverse Entertainment or this scientific paper or blog post after blog post that delve into detailed critique of the term evolution being wrongfully used in the context of Pokémon’s narrative.
And honestly, this critique is boring. These writers look at a children’s game and argue that it doesn’t adhere to actual science — which is an easy and technically correct assertion to make.
But what if it did adhere to science? What if in Pokémon, “evolution” was actually just that, in the truest sense of the word.
Things get cool. And we learn some stuff!
At the simplest degree, it’s important to recognize that the mechanics in Pokémon more closely resemble metamorphosis over a malaprop like “evolution,” although from a linguistic perspective the two are practically synonyms. And if we compare to real biology, sometimes this phenomenon checks out. Think of a Pokémon like Beedrill (above) as the perfect example — one ripped straight from observable biology. Larvae to pupa to adult. Easy peasy.
But we’re not looking for etymological loopholes — we want to define these lifecycles as genuine evolution as it appears in the biological sciences. I’m talking dictionary, not thesaurus:
At its core, evolution can be summed up as a change over time in a given species. It’s as simple as that. Of course, that change doesn’t need to be enormous. Hell, it doesn’t even need to be visible. Homo sapiens are ‘evolving’ right now in a billion different ways, but most of these changes don’t matter, even if they could be measured. Eventually, though, when enough of these small changes compile in a given gene pool, a species becomes different enough from the “previous” version to be considered…new.
Cool? Cool. There’s one final piece of terminology I want to throw into the mix before we get to the meaty bits.
Over a species’ evolutionary narrative, this long lineage of different iterations will increase in complexity — a term that many biologists agree on, but has become very challenging to define. As small, unpredictable mutations aggregate, the genetic menu of a species will grow messier and messier. Exactly how that manifests to the visible eye is less clear:
“Features of living organisms such as the locomotive organs, internal organs like the heart and the kidneys, the sense organs, the ability to react on external stimuli, the social behavior, the understanding of symbols, the use of language, and the intelligence are examples of features displaying complexity according to the suggested meaning. The natural variation of such capabilities in a population is what natural selection is acting on and it is reasonable to think that an enhanced capability of such features in many cases give the organism a reproductive advantage, thus implying that increased complexity is driven by natural selection.” Ekstig, 2015
It’s exactly what we see in Pokémon. Real evolution doesn’t turn ‘cute’ looking animals into ferocious fighters (like the videogame template seems to suggest) but it does result in more complexity and randomness in DNA. Many Pokémon lineages don’t fit into our typical definition of Earth biology, but truth be told, they’re not impossible.
A Blastoise could have evolved from a Squirtle. Nothing rules that out. In fact, as stated above, increases in complexity are to be expected.
This includes hydro-cannons.
But there’s a big snag we can’t ignore: the timing. When a trainer sees a Pokémon evolve, they’re not sitting back and waiting thousands of years, watching for incremental changes in DNA across hundreds of generations until that species has become physiologically altered. It reaches level 20 and poof, new body. How?
One theory is biological.
Evolution, as we saw before, is simply defined as changes to DNA — we’re accustomed to this happening through a cycle of birth, reproduction, and mutation…but that’s not the only case.
Think about viruses like HIV, that mutate and “evolve” every time a virus is copied due to the recombination of genetic material. Or bacteria that can share DNA without the need to reproduce — a process known as horizontal gene transfer.
And if you keep up with the news, you may also have heard of CRISPR — a mechanism that can modify genetic material inside a human host. It’s not an exact corollary to Pokémon, but it’s still relevant so I’m keeping it in the article.
The fact remains that evolution doesn’t require hundreds of generations, as we’re often taught. Sometimes it’s funkier.
So when Pokémon evolve, perhaps they’re releasing some biological mechanism — maybe a virus, maybe an enzyme — that goes to town on its DNA. Nom nom nom. This could be released in a ‘puberty-like’ period of maturation, and for a few brief moments during this change, the organism’s genetic code is crunched, modified, and rebuilt in a rapid-fire “evolution” that takes mere minutes rather than thousands of years. What comes out the other side? A different species. Maybe this quick series of mutations winds up approximating a future ancestor that would have arisen naturally over enough time. We can’t say for sure.
And it’s worth noting that this mechanism is distinctly different than a metamorphosis. Even in insects that undergo significant changes in physiology, their DNA always remains intact. What we’re describing is a miraculous evolutionary phenomenon. Unrealistic? Sure. Impossible? Not quite.
However, if this theoretical ‘enzyme’ did exist…would we actually see consistent results? By definition, evolution is random and unpredictable — it has no foresight, although when looking backwards down the tree of life, it’s sometimes hard to see it that way.
So an enzyme-induced, rapidly-evolved Wartortle would certainly be different than its predecessor, but there’s no guarantee that two individuals undergoing this process would turn out the same on the other side. In fact, it’s almost a certainty that the resulting “evolutions” would produce different results. The mechanism is scientific, but the outcome doesn’t quite solve our Pokémystery.
A second theory is more technical, and a bit less exciting, but has more basis in the mythos of the Pokéverse. We’re almost there.
Somewhere between the past, present, and future of this universe, all creatures have and will exist. There’s a family tree of Pokémons that connects all iterations of these species, across all of time. That’s not impossible to imagine; we have one for actual species too, only it just goes up until the year 2017 and has a few gaps scattered around in the distant past.
This exists in Pokémon biology as well, except that in their universe, they’ve hacked it. And naturally, Pokémon are data. Or, at least they can be stored as data. That’s canon.
So when a Pokémon is “ready to evolve,” its data is replaced by the DNA data of its future ancestor. One who evolved from the previous species into something different. These creatures become less organic and more like…trophies. They’re toys that can be downloaded and upgraded with the flip of a switch. It’s a game.
Twisted.
Are either of these theories right? Probably not. But if you ever see someone complain that Pokémon evolution “isn’t real evolution,” tell them to sit down. For all we know, our modern perception of natural selection is only one narrow subclass of evolution in a vast, limitless array of biologies.
None are obliquely ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ one just happens to be ‘real’ and the others…simply fun to think about. Consider them as-of-yet-unexplored. And if you get even more pushback, just give up. It’s a child’s plaything, there’s only so much arguing we should do before going outside.
