Movement is an inseparable feature of all kinds of matter. Therefore we have not to justify it.
But evolution is more than movement. We have to explain grounds and causes. As dialecticians we are searching for dialectical contradictions. The German philosopher Schelling saw the ground of all productivity in nature in an "Absolute" - the natura naturans, which appears in all things. Also Hegel assumed such an "Absolutes".
The concept of Co-Evolution assumes different ("vertical") levels of kinds of matter (physical, chemical, biotical, social...) and ("horizontal") different systems, in which essential interactions (= "laws") produce its "wholeness". This short sentence contains the definitions of "system" and "law" in terms of Herbert Hoerz (Germany, GDR). "System" contains (produces) its essential interconnections (=laws) and these connections build the system. Elements and relations are the moments of system and interchangeable (like in elementary physics particles and their interactions.)
Each part of the world is moving and contains moving parts itself. We can speak instead of parts of "processes". These movements can be circular. Some ecologists think, that the universe is an eternal circular process. "Development" is criticized by much feminists and people from "developing countries" too, because the western concept of development and progress is forced on them and it is not their own self-evolution.
Writing my first book about "Philosophy of self-organizing evolution (in nature)" I had problems to find dialectical contradictions in each concrete realm of reality. I found a help to explain the cause of change (to avoid eternal circle-processes). This cause is - generally spoken - the: self-changing of conditions of the processes. This self-changing of conditions I could show in each concrete process with the exception of cosmically structure building after Big Bang. Since the separation of physical forces (gravitation, electro-magnetical, strong and weak nuclear forces) after Big Bang they act as separeted forces and evolution of cosmos is grounded in the "impulse of Big Bang" and its forces. All later evolution "lives from" the external condition-changing (expansion and cooling of our universe). In biotical evolution there are often external causes of changing conditions (catastrophes). But the really changes in organisms had internal causes (what is showed by modern biology, which is more than mutation-selection-theory).
Nothing is isolated. Processes of all things interact with their environment.
The environment consists of systems itself. All systems exist as processes (with energy-import and entropy-export) and all of them interact with others (vertically and horizontally). Each system is a moment of extensive systems and each moment/element of a system is a system itself ("vertical"). Because of the necessity of interaction for the existence of each system the evolution of all systems is interconnected. This characterized the co-evolution.
In changing its (inner) conditions each system reaches its limits and borders (at the "bifurcation-point"). Than the system ends. Either it falls to pieces (and pieces are used in another systems) or it develops into another system with new essential interactions (laws).
That's why it is usefully to distinguish between "system" and "thing". Things may exist longer that its "systems" (if essencial interactions changes).
Self-organizing evolution/development is lawfully and is not lawfully:
This point of view is not an hegelian at first. Thinking like Hegel - I have the problem to find out, where the "other" for each thing comes from. It is in the Absolute/totality for Hegel. The negation of each thing we found - knowing the totality before. In objective reality - is there such a totality? Sartre did not found it (because he did not search. Therefore he refused dialectics of nature.) Much modern ecologists see this totality in the "wholeness of universe" - but they don't accept any real evolution.
To put these dialectics in concrete form, we can see the dialectical contradictions in the interaction of systems - in the co-evolution of them. Dialectical contradiction within a system - is the co-evolution of moments, which are itself systems...
Co-Evolution means not only solidarity, but also controversies. Controversies in this sense, that they exchange matter and energy. One thing needs something, another thing excludes the same. In spiral patterns there exist "ecologically" exchanges. "Struggle" was overemphasized (from a one-sided biologically point of view, caused in a one-sided social point of view).
We must pay attention to the fact, that the "competition" for resources is not dissolved by "being the strongest" - but by: create new possibilities to exchange resources in a effective way . Sometimes also waste is effective - when new systems are created (this needs much more entropy-production). But this is another topic.
Dialectical evolution is not: more of the same ("stronger"), but it is: in another way do another things!
To create a new society - we have to do the same. Not "better work" than capitalism - but : differently live and work, with different/new aims. (Therefore we have to leave the "value-socialisation").
I see in the bifurcation-picture a picture of historical evolution:
All visible "attractors" (in the middle of the picture) shows forms of society with a central principle (king, value-socialisation...). The "turbulent chaos" on the right side is not a chaos without order (like in 0-Point of the thermodynamic equilibrium). Turbulent chaos is a "Order without Reign" (the pattern of fractals show their complexity). I assume, that historical evolution of mankind reaches the point of possibility of such societies (plural!). Evolution of productive forces (of people and techniques also) gives us the possibility to live and work in non-central-networks of regions, which interact with each other. We need a productive (but ecologically) technology - much exchanging - but each region can organize itself in a democratic way. This needs a great pattern, a self-organized order, which we have to create in the way. We don´t know all principles and laws of such societies - but this is self-evident in evolution.
To come to such societies, we have to go beyond the today's economy and way of life. But the aim determines the way. Going the way (striving for this aim)- we create the new!