When you quaff your favourite pint, do you ever get to thinking about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution? Probably not. But recently I did. I was struck at the parallels between his explanation of how species change and the history of beer styles. Unlike most random thoughts during a session of elbow tipping, this particular thought stuck with me. It eventually grew up to be my latest Beer 101 column, which you can read here.

Examining Darwin’s key observations, I constructed four essential parallels between his theory (law?) and beer styles. For the details you need to read the column, but allow me to summarize them here.

First, Darwin argued species vary geographically in response to local environments. Beer is the same way. There is a reason an Irish Dry Stout and a Foreign Extra Stout are so different – the local conditions in which they are brewed, including water, fermentation temperature and consumer preference, shape sub-styles. Both are stouts, but markedly different from one another.

Second, species change over time. As have beer styles. The 18th century porter would be nothing like today’s porter (and it is not alone). Styles move and morph over time. IPAs have become both more and less hoppy (depending on the interpretation) over time.

Third, Darwin is misunderstood to have argued that evolution is a slow march toward improvement and perfection. Despite he never made such an argument, this thought has long been associated with Darwinianism. Such a similar misconception exists with beer styles. Often we fall into the trap that today’s versions of the style are preferable to past versions. In one way this might be true, due to our advances in micro-biology and zymurgy. But just because our beer are more consistent and less likely to spoil does not mean they are inherently “better”. That slight lactic note in 18th century porter adds an intriguing complexity to the style.

Darwin has also been misunderstood around the term “survival of the fittest”. The term (actually coined by Herbert Spencer) was intended in a rather straightforward sense of the ability to reproduce. However, we have transformed it into a pseudo-capitalist notion of “only the best survive”. Beer reflects the true Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest. The post-war period was one of corporate agglomeration and rapacious destruction of thousands of small and regional breweries. This didn’t happen because the big corporate pale lager were “better” than the eclectic mix of beer they bought out. It happened because the big breweries were better at “reproducing” than the little brewers. However, as I argue in the column, it also applies to the old brands that have survived. Some, like Alexander Keith’s, were strong enough to prevent being completely gobbled up, although many were “evolutionized” beyond recogntion.

I have no idea whether Mr. Darwin enjoyed a good pint – although as a Brit I suspect he did. But I am pretty sure he never considered applying his world-changing theories to beer. Doing so might be goofiness, but I don’t think so. I will let you judge for yourself.