Zbigniew Lisiecki

Evolution by Self-Reference

First Reading         Expand All         Contract All        

   



  1. Introduction

    1. Abstract

    2. The contemporary pic18
      standard theory explaining the evolution of species with the natural selection between competing forms  (1)  
        also with the random DNA drift and other evolution mechanisms like gene flow  

      is not sufficient as a general paradigm. This article proposes a change of view by which a feedback mechanism, the main example of which is the loop closed with self-replication appears to be the engine promoting evolution. The new view does not deny that in the case of biological evolution the phenotype is in most cases shaped in the process of natural selection. Yet on a more general level, it is the feedback mechanism that decides that some forms appear and others don't. With a new view explaining some phenomena appears more natural, they are easier to understand and new clues regarding the overall evolution of the biosphere as a whole on our planet are possible.

    3. Table of Contents

      1. Introduction
      2. The engine of evolution
      3. Examples
      4. One-organism planet
      5. Conclusions

    4. Status of this document

    5. pic02 The way we discover and explain nature has changed during the last decades a lot. Originally new ideas have been promoted by insights that were sufficient as justification. Later on, ideas have been formulated as theories, which demanded proof. But now we only have
      "models", which describe some aspects of nature less or more adequately. Models cannot be proved as true. They can sometimes be regarded as false if they lack self-consistency. It is this self-consistency that fits some limited application area, which appears more important for their success then links to any "objective reality" or any "proof". Almost everybody can develop models today, but even if they were ingenious official scientists often find it tedious to find out to which hard facts they fit and to which they don’t. General models with little relevance to professional detailed knowledge are therefore rarely considered even if they are great.

      This article offers such a model - some insight and a new paradigm derived from it. Due to the scarce reference to detailed scientific literature, it might be considered as being not a scientific work at all, as was defined above. Additionally, instead of adding new facts, it is rather restructuring what is already well-known. Yet the author hopes that it could be at least some inspiration for others.

      The idea presented here is best justified by examples. Therefore this text is still under construction as long as the discussion keeps on and new examples can be added or elder replaced.

      I hope also the reader will forgive me for using a common language, which is understandable for everybody instead of a scientific one. It is explained by the task I undertake here: It should be in principle for everybody possible to verify the new paradigm presented here.

    6. Discussions and critics

    7. This article has been rejected by the journal
      Nature without comment and most probably without reading it by a reviewer. Professor Michał Ostrowski - an astronomer from the University of Cracow in Poland claimed that the article should rather start with a deeper literature review of the contemporary work in this subject. Otherwise, it's useless. Professor Stephen Stearns from Yale University pointed out that: "Most of the problems you list with the existing theory are pseudo-problems for which adequate solutions are known, and the added value of bringing in self-referential replication is not made at all clear. ".

      Only a few were interested in a discussion, not to mention reading it in full.

      If you'd like to contribute or just to comment you can use my private forum at forum.evot.org Some discussion took place at talk.origins (arguments stated by RSNorman) and in scienceforums.net, but they did not lead to any clues.


  2. The engine of evolution

  3. pic19

    The
    standard Theory of Evolution (ToE) built on the work by Charles Darwin explains evolution as an aggregation of small changes, in organisms that appeared to be more efficient in competition with other organisms. The so-called modern synthesis unified the work of many scientists adding besides the natural selection also the genetic drift as another possible mechanism promoting evolution. Mid-60-ties after the DNA discovery a gen-centric view was added. Still, the main force promoting evolution is considered to be the competition between organisms.


    1. Why is the competition model insufficient

    2. The
      ToE with the natural selection at its' core, as defined above has been claimed to be insufficient in important cases. A discussion in science and society persists to this day.

      Below I list cases which explanation by the standard paradigm of ToE appears neither natural nor straightforward and which on the other hand can be explained more accurately by the Evolution by Self-Reference Model (EbS) presented in this article. The list of examples provides items at different levels of abstraction and hence they can partially overlap.

      1. Mating behavior in biology


      2. pic02 The
        ToE surely partially touches these objections, but the proposed solutions at least do not seem straightforward, efficient, and very convincing. They somehow seem to neglect the true cause of change. At a more abstract level, this cause yet possibly exists.  (8)  
          Traditionally evolutionists deny a possibility of another cause promoting evolutionary emergence of new complexity while rejecting objections from creationists. But even if "Intelligent Design" lacks any scientific method, denying any other possible cause promoting evolution then the standard ToE mechanisms seems to throw the baby out with the water.  


        It might often be, that the official science gives a correct description of phenomena. This description may even allow to manipulate the researched object in a technically sufficient way. Yet the human mind is satisfied only when it gains some overall reason or cause explaining why these phenomena take place. Before such reason is found a reference to the plain description alone appears unsatisfied  (9)  
          This is so even if the urge for cause may otherwise, be considered as a typical weakness of the human mind, especially if it promotes some biased and wrong understanding. Efforts made to satisfy all needs of our mind do make sense.  



        The structure of matter on our planet do evolves. But if natural selection is not the ultimate explanation what it is then, that makes it more, and more complex as time passes ?

      3. Sudden jumps of evolution

      4. The fossil records suggest long periods without significant changes in the evolution of species divided by vivid developments, which took place suddenly and in which new species appear. Changes in the environment (e.g. climate) have been proposed as a cause for these "jumps", but a true link has never been demonstrated sufficiently.  (4)  
          The stratigraphic convention naming periods in the earth history with eons: Precambrian, Phanerozoic, Cenozoic, and their subdivisions has been chosen in a way that denotes discontinuities in fossil records, some of which point to huge overall changes in the whole biosphere.

        Yet the temperature and sea level diagrams are often continuous on the borders between these periods:
        ( source)
        see also geological temperature record
        Only the perm mass extinction 252 million years ago (90% of species die out) is due to the above diagram accompanied by a temperature jump, but even in this case some scientists suspect biological causes. Mass extinctions are today connected rather with meteors, or volcanic eruptions, but for this article sudden developments are more important then extinctions. Relative rapid explosions of life, which took place on the borders between eons cannot be explained with catastrofs ! Contemporary ToEdoes not explain them either.

        Surely biological and physical causes are not only interwoven, but the ratio of temperature jump might be important in each specific case too. Supposed discontinuities in biological forms might on the other hand reflect the rather limited number of records we have then the true jumps, as some argue.

        Therefore the above argumentation is only a vague sketch. Nevertheless, no correlation between jumps of evolution and the climate is as evident as it should be due to standard ToE. The facts due to which some developments occurred rapidly and without obvious outer causes, when compared with longer stable periods between them, are well established, and they seem not to be sufficiently covered by ToE .
         



      5. The origin of the DNA machinery

      6. It is often argued that the evolution due to
        ToE can only take place when its subject (here the DNA machinery) already exists. Yet why did the DNA-machinery emerge at all ? Appearing of some primary chemical cycles  (5)  
          see Hyper cycles by Manfred Eigen  

        does not seem to be explained by ToE itself in a convincing way. Scientists are still disputing the question of whether it was a rare, random event or the creation of DNA was a necessity. ToE says nothing about it

      7. Evolution without competition

      8. pic27 This point does not give an objection against
        ToE itself, but rather against it's wrong understanding. Accepting natural selection as a main mechanism of evolution promotes a competition paradigm with which the main task for an individual organism seems to be to compete with other organisms for limited resources. This view appeared so convincing because it seems somehow to be suggested by ToE. Yet it is wrong. Sufficient understanding of ToE shows that it is not identical to the competition model. An example is given below:

        The question of why and how cooperation behaviors evolved (see "altruism") has been widely discussed. It has been tried to justify "altruism" with competition between groups instead of competition between individual organisms. Truly some groups may win the competition with other groups if their individuals show altruistic behavior towards group members.

        Let us consider yet ants in an anthill, which work together to keep the anthill alive - a behavior without which an anthill dissolves. How such a behavior emerged. Consider a lot of anthills, but placed in a wood in a sufficient distance from each other. It is obvious that such anthills fight against bad weather, humidity, and other difficult circumstances to survive. Those, which do wrong do not survive. This way only ants supporting each other in an anthill survive and pass their genes forward.

        Yet no competition between anthills takes place, the less the competition between individual ants. Anthills do not know each other. The competition model generally cannot be applied here. It is wrong in this case.

        More then this - an anthill of non-cooperative ants could possibly find enough resources in the forest ! It dissolves yet for other reasons. Simply some self-reference is missing and this is enough to exclude evolution trails of non-cooperative ants. This shows also, that altruism can evolve even without any fight for resources. Such mechanism has yet not been identified properly inside a paradigm of ToE.

      9. How to explain social systems and the evolution of culture

      10. The human culture obviously does evolve. The mechanism based on
        natural selection proposed by ToE should in principle apply also to the evolution of human culture, of social and economic systems, etc., but ToE appears to fail to explain these processes sufficiently. There seems to be no species competing with humans, which could cause natural selection to be strong enough to promote the emergence of human language due to the standard paradigm.  (7)  
          The simple competition with Neanderthals is not yet been considered as a cause of the emergence of human language with all is't diversity.  



      11. Evolution with no selection pressure at all

      12. pic12 Even in the absence of selection pressure evolution does take place and it creates new complexity. Some of the examples from above fall into this category. Another example is conquering a new environment where the pure number of resources discloses any selection pressure. Why did organisms entering new continents or coming out of the sea to land evolved at all acquiring new abilities if no selection pressure existed at the beginning of these expansions ? The
        ToE answers that in the new environment best adopted survive, but the logical problem emerges if the worst adopted survive too.

        In this category falls the general question if, why and how the genotype may change and evolve without "badly adjusted" branches dying out. Is dying out the only method to fix genotype changes ? Genetic drift has been proposed as a solution, yet it has no adaptive feature. then possibly something might be wrong with the general theory, in which natural selection plays a central role.

      13. One evolving organism

      14. Not only without competitors but also without any external environment the evolution of a single system is (internally) possible. An example is given by the
        Gaia-hypothesis describing the evolution of the biosphere as a whole, which cannot be reduced to nor explained by the evolution of its parts. Other examples regarding the emergence of new synthesizing systems are the emergence of thallus and generally multicellular organisms. The proper model of evolution should at least suggest a mechanism with which evolving parts (like species or cells) cause the new unifying complexity (like an ecosystem or thallus) to emerge. By the standard ToE on the other hand evolving parts might both - promote new complexity or lead to the self-destruction of a whole such organism with equal probability.

      15. The contemporary standard ToE causes misunderstandings

      16. Misunderstandings of the theory of evolution (ToE) are well known. Some are listed here:

        1. The well know objection to ToE asks: "Can it all happen just by chance ?". True randomness, not just the one made due to some earlier clever "design" is in the heart of understanding how natural selection promotes the adjustment to the environment and does not follow any other well-thought path. Yet the randomness is not the true and indispensable source of force for the evolution generally to take place, at least not at this description level. The misunderstanding is the result.

        2. Richard Dawkins is asking in his gene centered view of evolution the question if the subject of natural selection are organisms, groups of organisms, species, or just individual genes The misunderstanding stems from the fact that these are not the true alternatives. Genes and organisms are subjects of the same selection yet on different organization levels and thus also on a different abstraction of the description. They don't contradict each other even if they do not overlap.

        3. Another example is genetic drift. It covers possibly up to 80 % genome changes in which no competition takes place and it must therefore be treated as another mechanism alternative to natural selection. Evolution with many mechanisms seems not to be the best paradigm.

        This text claims to show that these misunderstandings have a common root: Elements of the theory have the improper balance of importance - some without which the theory works well are positioned in the center of considerations and some other crucial aspects are spelled out as if they were secondary.


    3. The self-replication model

    4. As stated above nature shows the tendency to evolve towards more complexity even beyond the applicability of natural selection. How does this come about ?

      The solution of the above question, which this article gives is the insight that the true cause of the evolution is the self-amplification promoted by self-reference. In the case of many organisms situations, the structure evolves by self-replication of these organisms and their groups sharing a similar structure, which is build on competition and renewal (death and birth) self-amplification promoted by self-replication.
      To see how this argument proceeds I recall the classical
      ToE build of three stages:

          I. Organic matter is replicating itself by passing DNS structure to its' children.
      II. Thereby unavoidable small changes in the DNA structure appear and
      III. the environment distinguishes between them by damping structures,
      which are less adjusted and allows better adjusted to spread around.

      The main idea of EbS is that only the first stage is necessary for the evolution to take place.
      We'll see examples of evolution with neglected natural selection or with no environment at all, which yet do evolve.

      1. The power of self-reference

      2. Let us explain first why self-replication, as it is well known of DNS is a self-reference e.g. considering biological procreation machinery as a feedback engine  (10)  
         
        A short explanation, of what I mean by a feedback engine is given below:

        To demonstrate how it works let us consider an example of an audio amplifier fed back through the microphone by the sound that it's loudspeaker produces.



        Some high tone emerges. Control Theory distinguishes between positive and negative feedback. The exponential growth (explosion) is the consequence of the first one, while the steady vibration is the consequence of the second.

        Consider an audio amplifier, which output (the speakers) is directed to the input (by a microphone). An amplifier is transforming each tone and produces a copy of it with an amplified volume. Obviously, the amplitude is growing more and more as a result. As the growth is exponential the current reaches very soon it's limits determined by internal dumping. The balance of exponential growth with internal inefficiencies causing dumping will emerge. This dumping is different for different tones, so some spectrum of how much of each tone is represented in the output will establish itself. For a common audio amplifier, this is simply some high tone, but generally, a spectrum of tones with different amplitudes emerges.

        Such an amplifier describes of a general feedback model. Let us notice also that:

        1. The true amplifier fed back by a sound it produces never creates unlimited exponential signal growth. This growth is only during a short time possible, after which internal and external dampings decide over the signal spectrum and the level. This is also with the biological feedbacks similar.

        2. The negative feedback, which mathematically causes vibrations plays in the nature important role in self-regulatory mechanisms. (Take as an example of such "vibrations" switching on and off of the refrigerator, which regulatory loop is feed back by a negated temperature signal.)

        One may wonder if an amplifier-model can be found between living organisms.

         

        Living organisms as products of the procreation mechanism accomplish that on one abstraction level higher the self-replicating structure (like DNS) refers and amplifies (actually increases in the number) itself.

        The necessary abstraction moves from looking at individual organisms to considering organism structure. It is this structure then, which experiences amplification in the number of its instantiations.  (11)  
          I use a language developed for Object Oriented Programming in computer science here.  

        . Each instance inherits the same structure from antecedents, the number of instances increases and in this sense, the structure itself is getting amplified. It is the structure itself, which is its own product. (An amplification obviously takes place if there is more then one copy on output.  (12)  
          Practically speaking amplification means that two parents have more then two children.  

        .) This way self-replication closes the feedback loop by which the genome plan refers itself. It is crucial, that the feedback refers not to an organism, but rather it's abstraction - an organism structure (or a genome plan, as stated above). Only with this abstraction the loop truly closes.

        When we speak of feedback in the case of self-replication we don't mean that an individual descendant refers isn't ancestor and possibly a son influencing the way his father lived. Instead, we mean an organism structure i.e. its abstraction. It is also an organism structure (a specie), not an individual organism that evolves.  (13)  
          The self-replication is on one hand trivial in the case of living species, on the other hand if one set specie = individual then the loop won't close. This was probably one of the reasons why this trivially appearing theory was completely overseen in it's consequences.  



        If one allows small differences between input and output now one can see that the self-replication loop stabilizes the form and amplifies the number of copies or it makes it move towards some other form until it is stable. This is the way evolution usually takes place.

        The feedback loop of self-replication is naturally promoting self-amplification. The reason for this amplification is the nature of a feedback loop itself. A striking example of such self-amplification is population growth, which generally takes place in nature until some limits, usually superimposed by the environment are reached.

      3. The gain of a new theory compared with the standard EoT

      4. What is the gain of this description compared with the standard
        ToE ? - It explains the cause of evolution and the true force which makes it happen. The main idea is that biological evolution is built upon such self-amplifying feedback loops. Besides the loop closed by inheriting genes, which we call the natural feedback loop, we will consider also other feedback loops. They appear if generally some (not only biological) functionalities are passed to the next cycle.

        In the EbS model, natural selection remains the important mechanism shaping a concrete phenotype and thus influencing long-term development. It curves the individual species out of the stream of generation cycles. Yet:

        1. Natural selection appears only as a hard limit set to self-referring amplifications. It means that the loop won't survive at all, which might be rather rare in nature and not so common as the standard ToE demands. In the standard description, one usually expresses this by saying that evolution , and selection take place on the level of individual genes, which survive or not, whereas the whole organism does survive. The EbS model, on the other hand provides more flexibility in the description: some elements are more amplified, some are less or even dumped, but the true elimination is rather a limit, not a common way things happen.

        2. Natural selection (elimination of elements) is therefore not a necessary condition for evolution to take place.

        3. Without it (the selection) the self-replication loops expand until they reach some limits. The spectrum which emerges might appear due to possible different damping factors as their cause and the Darwins' natural selection is only one of them.


        Aldow inheritance plays in the evolution of organisms undeniably the central role traditionally it was natural selection, which has been put in the middle of the ToE description. This caused the self-amplification, which the model presented here stresses to be overseen. As a consequence, the whole theory was widely half-understood in society and important phenomena have been half-explained by science.

        The self-replication (self-reference or feedback) model (EbS) demonstrates on the other hand more clear, what has (partially) already been known that:

        1. The power of evolution comes not from the competition, but rather from the sun supplying the feedback circles with energy. Without it, no evolution (whichever selection conditions are chosen) is ever possible.

        2. Without natural selection, evolution is well functioning.

        3. The EbS model points toward extensions capable to explain social phenomena and the possible future evolution of our planet as a whole.

        4. It suggests more calculatory means to cope with the evolution of a species pool filling a chosen ecosystem.


        Therefore the EbS can be seen as a more general evolution theory embracing ToE as a special case with natural selection.

      5. The self-replication in a chain-reaction

      6. A similar self-replication like in the ancestor-descendant chain of organisms one may generally find in a chain reaction. By the latter I mean a situation, in which some event Ei causes other similar events Ej. If the number of successors of Ei is greater one we obviously have a cascade. Why is such a cascade getting bigger and bigger like an avalanche ? This is the case in the equivalence class in which we abstract from differences between events and treat the predecessors and successors as of the same type. Even if the number of successors is very slightly greater then one, e.g. hundred predecessors a have hundred and one successors if applied to the electrical amplifier model the output is bigger then the input and we may speak of an amplification.
        Such avalanches are well known. They are described by the velocity and the rate of growth.

        Most processes in living nature are performed as cascades controlled by some dumping factors.

      7. The natural spectrum

      8. pic24 Let us examine the feedback engine of the whole biological ecosystem. Obviously different parts of it like species can be dumped with different strength. Such considerations allow some immediate clues. One can argue that the spectrum of some distinct "tones" (which we used to call species) with only a small transfer between them (gene transfer) must come about.  (14)  
          Let us call it a natural spectrum for a given ecosystem.  

        Why is it so ?

        Without providing strict proof this article suggests that in any given initial random spectrum naturally some minima and maxima more and more distinct from each other appear. The areas of these contractions are distinguished by the strength of self-reference. Roughly speaking the DNS mappings cause contractions the more immediate they are, which leads to fix points  (15)  
          See also Banach fix point theorem  

        . Biology identifies these fixpoints with species. The more complex they are the less gene transfere between them is possible. It is amazing to consider which kind of "dumpings" existing in a given ecosystem to which kind of emerged species spectrum leads.

        The computational methods can in principle be applied to judge, what species spectrum will emerge. The computer program could identify self-replicating structures in a top-down manner hiding the details of modules of which they are constructed. For the given ecosystem the overall basic physical environment like astronomical data (the day-night rhythms, the energy flux from the sun), etc. together with the climate data (and pollutions) could pose main conditions. Yet the true challenge appears when different "abstraction levels" are considered i.e. organisms build each one of the others.

        The astronomically stable ecosystem makes the development direction and complexity less dependent on the outer influence.

        Therefore computations for limited ecosystems might be more successful.

        Let us see one more what consequences the mathematical model has on speciation. From the described contractions in the species spectrum, one may follow, that individual species will be more and more distinct from each other. Practically this means, that a gen flow between species will be weaker and weaker during eons. This explains why the gen flow in the micro-world is significantly bigger then in the macro scale, where gene mappings pose more complex and thus more stabile structures.

      9. EbS and speciation

      10. This chapter is making a remark on the consistency between
        EbS and speciation. Traditionally the question of the cause of sexual selection, is at the root of referring considerations. Without sexual selection no species can be defined properly.


        Threads of development of organisms renewing themselves with cloning diverge. Recombination of chromosomes from two lines each suffices to keep a group of organisms, which can be called a family and later a specie together. This is also the required condition for the evolution of a species due to EbS generally to occur. For organisms multiplying themselves with cloning generally one can hardly define a proper self-reference.

        The consequence is that if the life on earth begun due to the EbS-mechanism the sexual selection must have been at the root of such development.

      11. Evolution driven by multiplicity

      12. It is worth considering why and how the complexity of subsystems contribute to a new system (new feedback link). Truly the sudden emergence of a synthesizing system may appear as a miracle if the former growth of it's parts is disregarded. Yet even if subsystems are known the emergence of a new feedback link appears mysterious for human. This is:

        1. partially due to the time scale of such a link creation, which compared with a steady functioning inheritance circle resembles naturally a jump.

        2. due to the human tendency to search for reasons, which observing the mechanism only partially suggests some "purpose of the evolution".  (16)  
            The cause of this mistake is suggested deeper in chapter 3.4.  



        Yet some unexplained rest remains. Let us left all known mechanisms causing change aside and see if an evolution is still possible. To do this let's start with the
        Hardy Weinberg equilibrium The principle defining this equilibrium demands:

        1. random mating
        2. no mutation
        3. no migration
        4. large population
        5. and no selection pressure


        The principle says that genotype frequencies remain constant under such condition. This is often understood, as if no evolvment is possible at all. Yet in a feedback model a significant change do takes place even under such conditions ! The population is growing explosively ! Surely the Hardy-Weinberg Principle remains valid as a mathematical identity.

        Still most people won't even call is an evolution. It just the increase in population size. Systems of many semi-identical individuals poses an important feature, which one such individual don't have. It has a drastically increased susceptibility to the outer environment influences. To see this for a physicist is easy (think of an frequency comb). For a non-physicist ask a question why a slide caliper with a dense pitch measures much more exact then a simple scale. There are new interferences, which appear now. While still no mutation and no selection pressure on individuals exists, some new "pressure" on an ensemble as a whole is appearing. There is only one step more needed to follow that such a system in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium do evolves in a new super-system.

        Til now we considered identical individuals and no further evolution seemed possible. But the symmetry of identical individuals can under some circumstances break spontaneously. Imagine as an example that these individuals specialize in their different roles in a group. Then a new super-system appears without natural selection and possibly even without an outer environment. We call such a situation a spontaneous synthesis.



  4. Examples

  5. This chapter is providing examples, in which explanations given by the self-replication model (
    EbS) seem to be easier and more direct then explanations provided by the standard Theory of Evolution  (17)  
      Examples given below might appear to be wrong. The general thesis they demonstrate is correct yet. How is this possible ? The aim of this article is to describe the new evolution theory, in which the stady emerging of more and more complex ogranisms is driven by the self-reference. The full description of examples provided below may appear to require detailed studies, which are not included here. After such studies some descriptions might appear to be superficial and not sufficient.  



    1. The mating behavior

    2. Let us demonstrate how the
      EbS explains the observed diversity in paring behaviors. Consider threads of possible behaviors leading to fertilization. The fertilization. itself poses obviously a bottleneck for these threads:


      A small amount of substance with DNA is transferred which has wast consequences to the whole DNS-feedback cycle. A huge pressure from the whole self-replication loop concentrates at this point. What is this pressure build of ? A grown up male and female poses enough resources to realize and to amplify random behavior which ever appears adequate for them. Each of it must end with the fertilization yet. As a consequence all of these diverse behaviors are amplified by the DNA cycle self-reference equally well as the straightest one.


      In a more pictorial metaphor one can compare this bottleneck or a tunnel situation with stacking and damping up a river by a dam. The pressure from the river source may also cause it to meander. During the fertilisation only limited resources are given forward.  (18)  
        This allows interesting clues, which this work did not check in full extent. For example, an mammal cannot fertilise over 1000 children at once. The situation can be different between insectes or fishes. If and in what circumstances the pressure causing damming appears between insects and fishes has been omitted in this version of the article.  

      In both cases: stacking or meander a force perpendicular to the main stream must appear.

      It is this force, which steadily supplies sexual selection -mechanism, which will otherwise dissapear. For a deer to carry antlers is not difficult enough to stand this pressure. Other examples are well known: peacock with peafowl, male lions with mane. etc.  (19)  
        Such mating rituals has been studied and described. E.g. see Fisher in July 12, 1990 issue of Nature refered by Chris Colby, Evidence for Evolution, sexual selection, 1997. What lacked was an explicit qualification of this mechanism as feedback amplification.  

       (20)  
        Also P.J.Weatherhead and R.J.Robertson pointed with their sexy son hypothesis on some self-reference as a possible explanation for the sexual behavior.  



      The EbS metaphor explains also the homosexuality: There are enough resources, also resources of erotic charm collected (dammed) at this point short before the actual reproduction event ( fertilisation). The pressure of a feedback alone without outer cause nor benefit shows here it's power. Continuing the river metaphor from above one may say the dammed water overflows and some of it breaks out of the cycle. This happens for sexual behaviors, which do not lead to fertilisation.

    3. Sudden evolution jumps and the speciation

    4. pic09 The feedback model easily explains sudden jumps in the past evolution of living organisms, which the
      paleontology is suggesting. The cause, why such "jumps" take place is that closing of each new feedback loop naturally occurs suddenly compared with longer periods of stable circulation.

      One of such sudden jump is the speciation. In the standard model speciation is often explained as a consequence of erobering new environments or just promoted by any environment pressure. In the model presented in this article on the other hand new environment is not necessary. The speciation will suddenly take place also in a constant and fully occupied ecosystem just by sudden closing a new self-reference loop. With each new self-reference loop a specie is adopting a new subsystem, which commonly depicts new functionalities, whereas a new specie emerges if a self-replication loop closes in significant parts through the outer environment. The latter is equally well reached by environment changes as by a change of an internal structure.

      When does new loops emerge then ? This question may be substituted by the question, when it is easy for a specie or for the whole ecological niche to adopt new subsystems. To answer this one must understand given functionalities and imagine possible developments. A good examples are situations after big catastrophes, when free resources are easily accessible and old abilities are not fully forgotten. They are restructured in most simple ways then.

      Surely sudden jumps can be graded as sudden only relative to a smooth and stable circulation without change of structure.

    5. The emergence of life on the earth

    6. pic16 The energy from the sun can be reflected from the earth or stored in its' surface. This energy pumped into a quasi-stable biosphere is stored most directly in form of circulating processes. This regards also ussual heating. The heat escapes from the earth surface in form of radiation or it supplies some circles of energy transformations. This shows, that energy circulations must appear in every planet like ours, which do not immediately reflects the energy from the star.

      It seems to be the general feature of an energy flux, that it might promote circulations. Here we consider circles of density of chemical substances. It is easy to imagine that these circles partially cache energy into convection. The energy convection alone seems to be not capable to promote self-replications at first sight. But considering it in more datails this is exactly the situation, which promotes appearing of chemical cycles.

      The periodicity helps for self-referring structures to emerge faster.  (21)  
        Periodicity can be understood as convection it time, wheres the proper convection closes it's loop in space  

      Natural periodicity results from the earth rotation or the see waves. Therefore a 24 h and 4 sec (sea waves on the shore) rhythms could be searched for primary cycles  (22)  
        See also Manfred Eigen Hyper cycles.  

      Periodicity of two rhythms more then double their capacity to aggregate and deaggregate substances and thus to promote cycles.

      The above hypotheses shows that the self-reference paradigma is consistent with the emergence of life as primary cycles and especially with M.Eigens' idea. Within this paradigm the emergence of life appears rather as a natural consequence then as a singular unprobable event. The Darwins' natural selection paradigma on the other hand reaches not deep enough into an undelying cycles structure and it can hardly explain the emergence of primary cycles.

      The above picture fits well into the idea of
      dissipative systems by Ilya Progogine. Setting the self-referring circles as information storing cells in the middle of the model makes this storing (and damming) to be understood easier.

      An important point must be stressed here yet. In the above view stabile structures of circulating matter alone are reagarding as life. Traditionally this is not enough ! In the contemporary view the self-replication is a neccessary condition to fulfill the definition of life. This is not yet given at the stage derscibed above. Selfreplacation means here, that structures renew themselves: old ones are replaced by new and the old die out. An dramatic step how selfreplicating structures emerge from structures of circulating matter must have occured in the history of our planet. This is the place, where the terms of "dead", "parents" and "children" has been "invented by nature". This requires additional explanation. Obviously one must ask a question here, why selfreplicating structures, which renew themselves are more efficient. Answering it explains also the start of a evolution in common sense.

    7. Evolution by competition versus evolution by cooperation

    8. pic05 The new paradigm presented here solves the controversy about competition in a trivial way: The evolution takes place by competition and by cooperation equally well. The true measure of success on the way of evolution is not the win against other organisms nor a common task preformed with others, but the self-replication alone. It may be reached on different paths.

      From this point of view the competition model appears as a consequence of a wrong paradigm and possibly stemming from the cultural background in the epoch of Darwin.

    9. The emergence of language and the human culture

    10. The idea of this chapter is speculative. It is included here to demonstrate the power, which the self-reference paradigm offers. The justifying research and a scientific proof should follow. It must show if the picture drawn here is correct, an oversimplification, or wrong.

      Consider hominids with well functioning social structure, which bounds group members together by exchanging social signals regarding individuals like signals refering bringing up children, hierarchy in a group, common threats, etc. Let us further as a simplification imagine that these signals regard only social issues and are processed in some instance in each individuals psychic.

      pic05 As far as it reflects details of human feelings such a system posesses enough complexity to be one day (possibly accompanied by some collapse in the psychics, by which I understrand the usage beneath its' proper applicability) applied to describe issues from the physical world outside of this social group. It appears then that threes, mountains and lakes acquire personal features e.g. the'll be managed by the same mental structures as individuals from ones social group. With one relatively sudden step such hominids acquire powerful means to handle symbolically their physical surrounding and these symbols come from social group symbols. Not only became trees, lakes and mountains "he", "she" or "it", such hominids begin to "hear", what mountains "are saying", etc. Obviously its' just a misuse of a social competence, but it works.  (23)  
        There are a lot of indications pointing at the hipothesis, that mental structures evolved to handle communication between family members collapsed to the general use to describe the physical reality outside of families. Read as an example the following passage:

      The eastern horizon of the sky trembled as the voice of the goddess Nut sounded, clearing the way for Re, before the Great, that he might close the circle of his journey. Arise, O Ra! Arise, you who are in your chapel, that you may revel in the wind, inhale the breath of the north wind, swallow the spine (of your enemy Apophis), spit out a new day and kiss Maat. (Your) minions surround (you) as your barge sails towards the goddess Nut. Let all the great ones tremble (hear) the sound of your voice. Count your bones and join the members of your body together. Turn your face towards the beautiful West Country as you come anew each day. For indeed your form is of gold, and your hair is radiant. Heaven and earth fall before you, moved by your reappearance each day (Sarcophagus Texts, ch.1029).

      Whom is the author speaking about ? This "person" is the sun ! Why is he attributing human identity to pure physical objects ? One could guess that, the anthropomorphism has the general root in the ease to use mental representations for family members to describe random physical objects.
       

      Let's see how it does and why it develops fast :

      It is crucial to notice that this false application closes a strong feedback loop. Such hominids suddenly acquire abstract (symbolical) means to handle their environment in a new way, which on the other hand drives the redefinition of the mental social structures mentioned above. What was a social behavior is a behavior-substitute (a symbol) now. What follows is an explosion of language and human culture. As a reminder of this development some "ghosts" stay back. People hear even to inanimate nature the way the used to their parents (to members of their former social group). Some overwhelming certainty of a presence of human-like being like one's father pervading the nature which we used to call god might be another consequence of such a rapid development promoted by a new feedback loop beeing closed.

      Trying to explain the emergence of language the usual starting point is to expect some sort of adaptation. Scientists ussualy search for any selection mechanisms.  (24)  
        See "Language evolution - consensus and controversies" by Morten H. Christansen and Simon Kirby  

      The picture drawn above on the other hand did not require any selection pressure, which drives slow adaptation. No competition, nor natural selection, nor any genetic drift, but only a pure strong feedback closed suddenly suffices for a new complexity to appear. It is even not necessary that the psychics of such hominids is the most skilled (the biggest) between neighboring species. It is rather a weakness, which made a wrong use of possessed social skills, which could closes a feedback.  (25)  
        An interesting question arises when asking if such a development was necessary and it could be foreseen. It is for example known that elephants show the similar affinity to this type of "error": They consider dead relatives as if they were not dead, which appears to be the starting point for social competence structures used for dealing the purely physical inanimate objects.  

      that could be crucial.

      Another point regards objections to the accepted hominisation model, which claim that the development of human kind was not a stright line
      from australopitecus to homo sapiens, but rather a discontinuous random link. Such fossil records fit much better to a sparkling short circuit picture and thus to the EbS model. The hominisation was a suddenly closed self-reference with gains seen only after some period of time. The aquired ability to kill ourselves and our loved ones proves that this development could be valuated rather as misuse of capabilities and surely not as slowly addjustment to the environment.

      Continuously talking language structures in our head are qualified as foreign and strange enough by some philosophers, which makes them to postulate giving up any language and a deep quiet and as a proper stance for human to recognise the reality. This could also be considered as a proof, that the emergence of language poses rather a rapidly closed circut, then a slow and smooth evolution by adujstement to the environment in Darvins' sens.

      An example described in this chapters stresses once again the ability of EbS to explaing and describe sudden changes.

    11. The "noncoding DNA"

    12. In the standard
      ToE the selection mechanism demands high efficiency from each functional element which survive during a long competition fight. The EbS on the other hand releases this hard demand. Some inefficient structures an example of which is noncoding DNA sequences may not only survive, but they can also accumulate in time and close new self-referring feedbacks one day. The natural selection would get rid of them unavoidably.

      One may ask, why some species (like a salamander) have much more DNA then others (like humans) (see a C-value enigma) Due to EbS this is connected with the different phylogenesis of this species. Organisms which survived longer in constant friendly environment directed more it's feedback forces to copying DNA without any need driven by selection. The standard ToE fails to explain it so easy.

      Also the high percentage (up to 80%) of genetic drift can be regarded as a proof that the main part of evolution occurs rather by self-reference mechanism, then by any kind of natural selection.

      If the strongest evolution mechanism were the competition between different genotype trails, organism would tend to get rid of unused components as soon as possible treating them as a ballast. If on the other hand the self-reference by replication were stronger, then unused components would be hold over generations without change, or even accumulate. One can imagine that some equilibrium between both will be established in the true life. Surely it depends on the individual case if unused DNA will be kept or thrown away. Yet the very existence of unused DNA over generations proves that some mechanism strong enough to stand against the competition pressure must exist.

      Examples are also provided by Elaine Morgan in her book "The scars of the evolution", in which she describes residues from ancient times in humans, which we carry with ourselves against current needs. According to the traditional ToE something like this could not happen.

    13. Evolution of social and economical systems

    14. Undeniably sudden social changes challenge the humanity. New important feedback links has been closed even in the last decades with the mass media, the global trade, the internet. One can experience the emergence of new formal systems possessing abstract structures of information exchange as awakenings beasts, or one can not notice them at all, like children not noticing the danger, because it's too difficult to cope with. One of such beasts is the monetary system claiming to map human values to natural numbers - a mapping getting more and more one-directional, which provokes misuse.

      Where does it all evolves to and what are our chances to regain control ?

      The
      EbS model has an abstract, but simple answer: The feedbacks are crucial ! To regain control we must strengthen or weaken some of them and construct new ones, possibly ones, which enclose human sociology. Influencing the feedbacks is the best way to influence the development and thus the future evolution.

      The EbS entails in the natural way the selfconsciousnes as a vehicle for human culture.
      1. Why and how organized crime evolves

      2. Let us compare how
        ToE and EbS explain the evolution and growth of organized crime. Due to ToE the growth experiences an organization, which succeeded with the biggest deal and thus drove other from the "market". Due to EbS on the other hand growth comes from the self-reference i.e. wins, who succeeded to invest money from the crime to the next deal and thus makes resources to circulate. The first point of view explains only an accidental (random) growth, while the second way of thinking explains developments during longer period of time. Only the EbS explains the importance of money laundering  (26)  
          It is well known for the police, that fighting money laundering plays a crucial role in preventing crime.  

        while ToE justifies a false hope, money coming from crime invested in a sound business could make criminals to resign from crime. While some aspects of ToE mechanism may still play a role in the real world i.e. if criminals want to secure their assets for individual use, nevertheless EbS has the greater ability to explain socioeconomy of organized crime as a whole in the way providing means to fight against it.

      3. Misused political information circulation - propaganda
      4. The hopeless liberal economy

      5. There were many trials to apply Darvins' theory to economy, but somehow they always led to inhuman conclusions. Common arguments attempted to preserve the liberal market has been drown from the urge for human freedom, which has no immediate monetary value. Yet the standard Darvins' theory applied to the liberal economy is leading to the curious result - there is only one winner, all others die out ! An obvious error in this conclussion is the reduction of the liberal market to purely monatary values, while human true motivations to work and to trade are much, much broader.

        If we try to correct the economy by additional conditions, like the ones imposed by the state, like taxes, concessions, why seems the result - one wins, all other die out - to be so inavoidable, no matter how clever we do these corrections ? The cause lies in the mechanism already described in chapter 1.2.5. Without true unselfish value transferes between objects no proper "species"-threads can be defined, the self-references decline and the whole system seems to decay. Also here the circles of self-references are crucial. There are multi-areas concerns, which strenghten them and thus they truly survive.

        The same argument can be formulated as a trial do weaken the digital 0-1 processing - "survive or die" - into more analog one, in which subjects are stonger or weaker working for others, but they are still kept alive. The dramatic trade difference between productes, which cost $ 1.000 and nobody buyes them compared with simmilar products costing $ 0.999, which attract all large-scale buyers due to their unavoidable efficency programs can be omitted here. It appears that the proper way to escape the competition trap is to weaken the digitality to the advantage of more analog processing, which offers more flexibility to handle weaknesses then the rude monetary efficiency urge.

        Also here the
        EbS model set in the center of considerations explains much.


    15. Horizontal gene transfere

    16. Horizontal gene transfere required significant discoveries in the framework of the standard
      ToE  (202)  
        See the work of Carl Wosoe, Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis and others.  

      In EbS these efforts are not neccessary. The reason why this is so, is that EbS does not consider individual species as subject of evolution, but rather circules of self-references. The curculation of genes acros the borders of species is an easy ide.


  6. One-organism planet

  7. pic10

    In this chapter we consider the possible evolution of the earths' biosphere as a whole. It's hard to explain it as a result of competition between many, as Darwin tried, because our planet obviously do not compete with other planets in our time scale. Yet the biosphere of our planet do evolves not only in competiting parts, but also as a whole. This is a result of complex interdependences between subsystems.


    1. Self-integration of the earth's biosphere

    2. The biosphere of our planet is self-integrating in a new global organism.  (301)  
        I use the term "organism" in the sense of some organized structure, which emerges.  

      This is the end of many organisms planet. The species and organisms remain in the contemporary forms, but they become parts of the new entity, which we call "The Planet-Orgasnism" here.

      1. Why does it takies place ?

      2. The self-integration takes place because the result consists of self-strenghtening subsystems. One can see it by recognising circles of such self-integration. It is thus a natural and unavoidable developement.

        Most astronomical objects simmilar to our Earth can be seen as a form of g-planet simply by the existence of spacialy closed self-influences. But in our case a new stage of organisation emerges.

      3. Evolutionary explanation

      4. The Darwins' theory assumes many competing organisms, some of which win, some of which die out. Respecting the paradigma of different competitng organisms
        Club of Rome (CoR) calculated 1968 such global fight for limited resources and it has forcast a global "sudden and uncontrollable decline". The equations in their model grew in an uncontrolled way, which led to an explosion.  (305)  
          The question of the limit of an exponential growth (like the growth of economy) has been asked by Club of Rome 1968 in it's Report. An explosion ending with the break down has been forseen. We can see now, that this partially very rapid evolution is not just a cause of bad habits, which people could overcome to prevent the break down. The report by Club of Rome has recognized some circles of interdependances, but their complexity has been underestimated. These circles are the true cause of evolution and not their exceptional distorting disturbances beyond the "normal" quiet development. In the limited earth biosphere there is no place for an explosion. The circles of dependances shift and influence each other and cause unavoidably a selfintegration of the whole biosphere.  



        EbS on the other hand stresses the circules of self-reference as a main motor promoting the development. Aldow significant tenssions and destructions are not excluded increasing number of global links promotes rather the picture of a new global organism, which appears. Compared with calculations made in Club of Romes' Report if one gives up the necessity of distinct organisms or species fighting against each other and considers rather self-references and feedbacks instead, one notices, that from global linkks with limited resources it follows rather the self-integration. There is in EbS-scenario somehow no space into which the Club of Romes' -explosion could expand. Circles of interdependencies emerge or die out, but tenssion they cause do not excape into free space, which does not exist in EbS-model, but they rather cause other circles to appear. A globl self-integration is the result, which stabilises as soon as all resources are integrated, which due to their limit soon or later must occur.

        The split of the biosphere into independent individual organisms or species appears not to be a necessity. The stronger the interactions the stronger also the force dictating interdependencies. As soon as tenssions transform into links a one-organism biosphere emerges, which in the astronomical time-scale appear as more natural.

      5. Natural developement

      6. Let us consider the question if the self-integration of Earth is human made, or rather a natural thread, which the Earth follows with us humans, and without homo sapiens as well. In this article we stick to the second idea.

        Philosophers  (306)  
          Roger Penrose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvS2K06dg4.  

        consider simmilar question if mathematics was invented by humans (human made) or rather discovered (preexisting). Our answere explains why humans follow this thread. This is so because of self-references which promote mathematics. The self-integration of Earth is pre-defined by self-references. If we human have not done it another specie would invent a language directing in digital processing, because the self-integration od Earth into a digital organizm is the easiest way such integration refrs itself and tightens.


    3. The role of a man kind

    4. The human race plays a mediating role in this integration of the Earth's biosphere into a global organism, which I speak about here. Obviously the circuts of information exchange plays a significant controll promoting role, but other human-made subsystems are important co-playing parts as well. Let us list some of them: people migrations, global producion, global trade, global money circulation, global media distribution like films, the Internet network. Also some animal migrations, spreading of global microorganisms surroundings like pandemias, etc. belong to it. They influence peoples behavour in one place, but an effect reaches other, hardly forseen places on the Earth, and "unknown" and "unseen" feedbacks are initiated. This process resembles a precursor of a lightening, which searches unexpected ways, but on ionised air the true lightening can follow. In our case a circle of self-reference once initiated randomly helps to establish stronger and more stabilke interdependences.

      Human race is the main mediator for these feedbacks to emerge. The new organism's controll is currently built globally on human sociology. Nevertheless it's tedious to undestand this global organism as human invention. It emerges naturally without human race as well. This is caused by the very existence of self-strenghtening circuts so.

      This emerging global organism appears currently to map human psychic (human sociology) into own information system by "challenging" us - humans. One can guess this by observing that managing of important earth resources is still ideology driven. Yet this phase transforms itself reaching deeper and deeper layers of human psychic. We experience such stages as emerging of certain common "fashions" or common anxietys. The circulating of pandemia assessments is a good example of it as well.

      1. Precursor role, human culture, fuzzy controll

      2. the disaster of fuzzy controll No common animal does anything like this. Obviously we humans play a mediating role in tightening the elements of a new global organism together. This organism is build on our, human sociology. Why is this so ? Let us consider self-reference ties chaotic and without any rule in the first approximation and let us ask which ties will ovewhelm after some time. Obviously circulus with strongest positive feedbacks will decide what happens next.

        At first sight this system seem not to know well enough itself to provide stability. And without such self-knowledge no true global feedback link seems to be possible. A possible consequence could be the decay while destroying our environment and possibly us humans too. To answere where this knowlegde is hidden let us notice first the following:

        New new system of global links left alone is naturally tending to acquire the knowledge of human sociology by challenging us. Why ? - Just because it's the next possible closing loop ! It could be our choice of the way how it happens and the speed it does so.

        The relativ stability is reached after all main forces of human sociology are integrated. One could paraphrase this as the condition, when all troubles of humanity are involved in the adequate way.

        The self-knowledge of a new global system is hidden in our models of human behavior  (304)  
          An example of which are data warehouses for trade.  

        connected with true links transporting material values.

        Are these the common stock exchanges ? Well, oficially we do not trade wars, migrations, nor human dignity on them, yet we already trade media companies and thus the human knwlegde distribution. A vast pressure of human needs appears with other channels as well.

      3. Self-integration of feeling intelligence

      4. The dramatic situation, we are in, with fuzzy controll causes inexpressed fundametal needs. Contemporary a lot of people live with the impression the state in which they survive is actually "impossible" as a "normal" life. It appears yet, that some of these fundamental needs could be assured only socially and only if they are properly expressed. Writers tried to - as an example. But still something fundamental remains, which is totally unexpressed.

        The self-integration into a new organism offers for us hummans some chance to touch these needs. Here the question arrises if the intelligence sensing by reflecion could influnce the social self-integration. A competition to the common ideologies are meant here, of which we know they caused tensions without true solutiuons. Can intelligence sensing by reflecion circulating in an unseen way influence the stage of integration we will achieve ?

        The obvious answere says - let's try.


    5. Can we recognise this developement ?
    6. Why digital integration ?

    7. The crucial controll part of this global organism integrating the earth's biosphere appears at the current stage to be a digital one. One may ask why planet's resources are naturally integrating themselves into a digital structure.

      The cause stem from the fact, that it is information driven, and information processes naturally occur in form of symbols denoting abstractions.

      We succeded to handle human sociology and psychology in form of digitally processed streams of information exchange. The digital feature of a G-Planet is a natural and unavoidable thread because information processing is most effectively done by handling abstractions as processed objects. There must be only a few of them in the initial case.  (302)  
        Here is also the answere to the question if mathematics is invented by man or it is a pre-existing feature of reality. Well, the self-reference decides. Processing digits and numbers is a natural developement for a planet, like ours.  



      Aldow this new emerging controll system is built on information processing, it does not mean, a communication between independant human instances, like a language between people. A new organism will also not communicate with others, because no other exist, but rather with itself. The very meaning of information aquires here another significance.

    8. The fate of Planet

    9. Despite possible inital oszillations the system of global feedbacks stabilizes common earth's resources. (like the climate)  (303)  
        This is in the contrary to the Club of Rome forecast, in which such growth leads to explosion, disaster and collapse. Nevertheless it is hard to guess in which form in this next stabile stage the humanity survives.  


    10. The fate of human race

    11. Aldow the G-Planet stabilises itself in a natural way, it does it with our sociology. This means that it do depends on our own efforts as humans at which stage we survive as subsystem of a G-Planet.

      Ethical postulates are well know mechanisms, we used to care about societys as a whole and they remain crucial for the human kind fate.

      1. What is ethic ?

      2. Let us see with patience what are these "ethical postulates". The obviously very fast developement of human race caused our mental controll to be spread over many instances, which partially compete with each other. Truly we posess instinct controll like other animals, but we are able to switch it off, or on by our feelings. Similarily we can block feelings with rational centers positioned in neo-cortex, but not all of them. Instinct, feelings and rational controll compete with each other. What happens if some wishes are stronger, then the rational controll. Ussually such situations lead to further tensions. Therefore the postulate of ethics stresses the necessity to keep these different controll center together, which means to strive for consistency in feelings and rational thinking. Who does not search for this unity, his psychic can fall apart. All this regards individuala and groups like families as well.

        Undestanding the cause of human race rapid evolution allows to see the true cause of challenges of ethics.

      3. What about electronic intelligence ?

      4. The rapid developement of human race, which took place in two to five milion of years are over now. Computer evolve much faster and we will rather not exchange our human minds with electronic hardware, as there is no need for this. We have yet the opportunity to integrate fuzzy controll centers of our psychik, which made so much troubles on a new stage. This is the challenge of feeling rationality and to cultive it is the way.



  8. Conclusions


    1. The source of self-references in nature

    2. The basic mechanism described in this article is the one build on self-references. Some evidence in physics points to the idea, that the very term of time in physics is deeply related to self-reference. This allows to consider the view in which the time-process of evolution follows the same path of self-references, which makes the very physical reality to emerge, simmlar like the ontogenesis following the phylogenesis by reusing the same trait.

      Obviously one must know what time is to fully understand the cause of such time process as evolution.

    3. Predictions

    4. Predictions of a new theory (
      EbS) reach much further then those of the old one (ToE).
      1. EbS predicts phenomena, which seem not to have justification in efficient survival, which old theory demands. Examples are mating behaviors, sexuality without offsprings, altruistic behaviors, etc.
      2. Self-references may promote storing significant values without immediate reason. They often only make the reference-loop stronger, due to the rule "the stronger, the stronger", which promotes loop stability. Hypothetically this may be in the case of considerable overweight of non-coding DNA, which has been found in human genome. EbS explains the existence of non-coding DNA in an easy way, wheras due to the standard Theory of Evolution it must have been eliminated by the forces of competition.
      3. In Darwins' theory no evolution can take place without that some organisms or even evolution traits die out. EbS can foresee evelopements without dying out. Aldow adjustments to the environment of a single organism are taken into account by the contemporary biology too, they are always consequences of already existing capabilities. In EbS emerging of a new mechanism, which allows single organism to survive are possible. They appear if such an organism succeds to close neccessary new self-reference loops.
      4. Due to the Darwins' theory organisms evolve, 1. when they are mutiple in a group big enough to cover competition areas and only 2. as much as their environment changes. The EbS on the other hand explains why 1. a singular organism may steadily change towards more complexity (may evolve), and why it can take place even without any external envoronment at all. EbS provides also some terms and notions to partially describe such newly created complexity.
      5. Due to the Darwins' theory in the environment of organisms competing with each other one specie wins or the spectrum of species converges to the network of symbiotic links. In EbS the spectrum may diverge, what we observe in the nature.

      6. Due to the standard Theory of Evolution mating behaviors must appear in considerable less cases. Yet the are not rare but rather quite widespread in nature. EbS explains why this is so.

      7. Due to the standard Theory of Evolution sudden evolution jumps must somehow correlate with sudden changes in the environment, as they are driven by the environment. EbS on the other hand explains why this is so.

    5. Summary and the outlook on future unifications

    6. b430 This article is offering a change of paradigm in biology unified with an insight in social sciences. The Darwin's Theory of Evolution is replaced by a new theory based on self-references. While the Darwin's Theory of Evolution showed that even the life itself is an explainable process the unifying view presented here provides means to cope with evolution by influencing its' self-referring loops.

      As an example the survival of the stronger suggested as being justified by natural law is replaced by another rule: What we repeat (cultivate) makes us to carry also the consequences.

    7. FAQ - frequently asked questions

    8. b440
      1. Is the Darwins' Theory of Evolution false now ?

        It is not false, but rather incomplete. It stresses natural selection, while the important part - the self-reference is rather grasped as obvious then stated properly.

      2. What does the self-referring feedback consists of ?

        Why do you claim a new generation of individuals refer somehow the former one ? They live their own life and may forget ancestors ! There is also no DNA transfer back from an individual to it's parent, so how could any feedback loop be closed here ?

        The loop is closed with the reproduction of an organism of it's own structure and concrete of building new organism similar to itself. This cycle alone induces self-amplification of forms. The self-reference refers not an individual organism, but rather an abstraction - it's structure (a form).
        The generations development is often pictured with a spiral. Yet to imagine evolution it is a wrong picture. If one considers the proper abstraction level it is not an organism, but rather it's structure, which reproduces itself and the spiral changes to a closed circle, which causes self-amplification of this structure.

      3. What proof do you offer that any self-amplification takes place in inheriting sequence ?

        This proof is difficult as the self-amplification is in the nature seen only incidentally and/or for a short time. Due to the EbS model exponential amplification almost immediately reaches it's limits which cause natural selections. These natural selections are therefore easier to observe (as also the history shows). Self-amplifications can be observed beside incidental population explosions  (35)  
          The explosion of human population is such incidence rare in nature.  

        in situation, when they compete to each other  (36)  
          See the example of oscillating populations of foxes and rabbits (predators and victims).  

        or break down.

      4. Why is the natural selection not an "engine of evolution" ?

        Saying that the natural selection is the "engine of evolution" has a metaphorical value. Yet taken literally it resembles as if one says a car's motor is built of the miles the car passes. Such a picture does not say where the "energy" comes from and it does not explain the true cause of the development. Take as an example a hypothetical competition between organisms which takes place without the energy supplied from the sun. Trivially these organism will die out and not select the strongest out. This example demonstrates the impossibility to construct the evolution driven alone by competition and selection.

      5. Is the self-reference more important then the natural selection ?

        Which of the both takes the stronger influence ?

        Natural selection and the self-reference are complementary parts of the model, yet the self-reference is indispensable. In the first approximation one may say the self-reference is "supplying the power" and the selection is "providing the shape".

      6. Is the genetic drift not the sufficient answer ?

        Why do you think the genetic drift is not sufficient to explain all phenomena, which are not explained by the natural selection ?

        The genetic drift is rather the correct statement of facts then their explanation. In this sense it covers most facts, which I listed as unexplained by the current theory. The genetic drift alone does not explain yet why the drifting direction receives amplification.

        The explanation why it is so seems obvious, but it has never been stated properly. On the other hand the synthesis presented here offers a complete description. See also the example below.

        A genetic drift has been introduces 1920 by Sewall Wright as an alternative to the natural selection explaining phenomena, which the natural selection was not quite capable to cope with. It is questionable yet if both, the selection and the drift can be considered as alternatives to each other as they partially overlap with the cause by which they are driven. To see this consider the following:

        Contemporary theory suggests experiments comparing the influence of different evolution mechanisms like the natural selection and the genetic drift with each other. Yet if you consider natural selection over many generations some outcomes described by the drift will be included indistinguishably in the outcomes stemming from selection. The only way to exclude the drift component is to exclude random DNA changes. In such a case the selection over many generations is the same as over one generation cycle only, if the environment don't change. Yet one cycle selection is incomparable with the drift over many cycles. The drift over one cycle makes no sense either.
      7. The inheritance is already included in the contemporary theory.

        The inheritance (or self-reference as you wish to call it) is an obvious and significant element of the contemporary theory. Do you claim do add something new to this ?

        The main change is the unifying and a more simple point of view. If you are capable to see easily with the contemporary theory for example the cause of diversity of the mating behavior. This changed point of view might be not necessary for you. Yet the majority cannot see it this way.
      8. Mass extinctions can be explained well with the standard Theory of Evolution

        You claim changes in the environment, like climate changes are not the sufficient explanation of mass extinctions. But also some new diseases (new viruses) may cause extinctions.

        Yes, this is true. There might be also some internal causes of discontinuity in the evolution. These are exact such cases, which I claim, the model presented here is describing better then the standard ToE does. I suggest that some mass extinctions might have been caused by breakdowns of important circles of self-reference, while the ToE seems not to cope with such phenomena well.

    9. This part is still in work now
    10. Not yet translated