The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution of species with natural selection between competiting forms and with random drift of DNA is not complete. A proposed sythesis describes the feedback mechanism provided by the loop closed with the generation change as the main engine of the evolution. The phenotype is still shaped by the natural selection.
- The engine of evolution
- Why is the contemporary understanding insufficient
- The feedback model
- The natural spectrum
- Why sytheses come about
- Paaring behaviour
- Sudden jumps and the speciation
- The hypothesis of god and the emergence of language
- Regaining control over social systems
- Evolving planet - What comes next after humans ?
- FAQ - frequently asked questions
The engine of evolution
The Theory of Evolution
build on the work by Charles Darwin
the evolution as aggregation of small changes,
which appeared more efficient in the competition between many organisms.
It's modern synthesis
work of many scientists up to late 40-ties. Mid 60-ties after the
DNA discovery a gene-centric view
has been added.
This text substitutes the main engine of evolution
(now undestood to be the natural selection) by the selfreferencing
feedback provided by the generation order. The natural selection
remains the main mechanism shaping a concrete phenotype.
Why is the contemporary understanding insufficient
The contemporary standard (ToE) has been claimed
to be insufficient in importand cases. A vivid discussion
in science and in the society generally still holds on.
To explain phenomena, which the natural selection was not quite
capable to cope with, a genetic drift has been adopted as
as mechanism alternative to the natural selection.
It is questionable yet if they can both be considered as alternatives
to each other as they overlap with the cause by which they are driven.
The genetic drift lacks the explicite explanation of it's persistence.
Below I list phenomena which are not explained by ToE well and
strightforward, which on the other hand the model presented
here claims to explain much easier.
Pairing behaviour in biology
The diversity evolved around pairing behaviour seems to
be denied by the urge of efficiency stemming from natural selection.
No one knows for sure why a deer carries horns.
The choice made by the female proposed as an explanation
lacks a logical cause and the gene drift alone does not explain
why these appearences are so strong and important in almost
every specie. Also the homosexuality belongs to this cathegory
||The ToE suggests to explain homosexuality with
the benefit provided by the common upbringing children. Yet
this way it only explains friendship and not the erotical charm.
Sudden jumps of evolution and long periods without change
The evolution of species shows long periods it time in which
species live well without significant change and abrupt changes
in which also new species emerge. Changes in the environment
(e.g. climat) has been proposed as a cause, but a true link has
not been demonstrated.
The origin of the DNA-machinery
The evolution due to ToE can take place when it's subject
(here a DNA-machinery) already exists. Yet why did it emerged
at all ? Appearing of some primary chemical cycles seems not
to be explained by ToE in convincing way.
||Which is often pointed out as a objection by creationists.
Social systems, the evolution of culture
The mechanism based on the natural selection
proposed by ToE should be applicable also to the evolution of a human
culture, of social and economical systems, etc., but ToE seems to fail
to explain these processes sufficently.
Evolution with no competition at all
There are examples, in which even without any
competiting organisms a new complexity suddenly emerges.
Examples from the points above fall into this cathegory.
Other examples are erobering new environments were the pure
number of ressources excludes any selection pressure. Yet even
without competiting partners such systems do evolve.
The ToE surely touches these objections, but the solutions
proposed seem at least not to be stright, efficient and very
convincing: These cases are traditionally explained with:
- competition between it's subsystems and thus their evolution
- the genetic drift
Unfortunately this seems to be somehow neglecting the true cause
of change. At a more abstract level this cause yet do exists !
Adding to this the hypothesis of Gaia
suggests that the complexity and the evolution of the biosphere
as a whole cannot be reduced to nor explained by it's parts.
Obviously the development takes place on the earth as a whole
even without another competiting planet !
It's important to stress that we neglect the developement
of individual species at this level. Why ? -
There is no mechanism explained by ToE with which
the evolution of individial species might cause the emergence
and the evolution of an embracing ecosystem,
like the biosphere as a whole. We only notice that ecosytems
are drifting in some direction without explaining the reason
for this direction nor it's velocity.
The feedback model
As stated above the nature shows tendency to
evolve towards more complexity even beyond the aplicability
of natural selection mechanism. How does this come about ?
In this article the natural feedback is proposed to be the
true engine of evolution. In living organisms the natural feedback
is realised by the generation order successing and amplifying
functionalities stored in DNA (inheritance). Parents bring up children,
which can be considered copies similar to themselves.
This feedback "engine" is supplied by the negative enthropy
from the sun. It stores it for some time in form of circles
preventing from immediate spread in cosmos.
The natural selection, while still important is ascribed
only a shaping role. It curves the individual species
out of the stream of generation cycles.
The natural selection is not a neccessary condition
for the evolution to take place.
Without it the evolution simply fills all possibilities
spreading around so far as it reaches selections.
Aldow the ineritance plays in the evolution of organisms
undeniably the central role
traditionally a genetic drift has been considered as the
counterpart to the natural selection. This omitted the
the selfamplification, which the model presented here stresses.
As a consequence the whole theory
was widely half-undestood in the society and importand
phenomena has been half-explained by the science.
The natural spectrum
The selfreference (or feedback) model on the other
hand demonstrates more clear, what has partially
already been known that:
- The power of evolution comes from the sun supplying
the inheritance circles with a negative enthropy and without
it no evolution (even with the best selection conditions)
is ever possible.
- The evolution is even without a natural selection possible.
- It shows toward extensions capable to explain social
phenomena and the possible next evolution period of our planet
as a whole.
- It suggests mathematical means to cope with evolution
of a species pool filling a chosen ecosystem.
To demonstrate how a feedback engine works let us consider
an electric amplifier fed back through the microphone by the
sound that the loud speaker is producing. Obviously some high
The control theory
between a positive and a negative feedback. The expotential
growth (explosion) is the consequence of the first one,
while the steady vibration is the consequence of the second.
Considering a feedback engine of a chosen ecosystem
is much more complex, but some clues are seen immediately.
One can argue that the spectrum of some distinct "tones"
(called species) with only small information transfere
(gene transfere) beteewn them must come about. Why is it so ?
Without giving the strict proof this article suggests that in
any given initial distribution some "minima" and "maxima" appear
just by definition of a distrubution variety. They must further
contract and posess thus fixpoints
in the biology as individual species.
The computational methods can in principle be applied to
judge about it what species spectrum will emerge.
Some astronomical data like the day-night rythmus,
the negative enthropy flux, etc. could be the bundary conditions.
Yet the true "mystery" appears when:
- different abstraction levels are considerd.
i.e. organisms consists one of the others
- the biosphere is astronomically stabile,
which makes the developement direction and complexity less
dependand on the outer influence, while still takeing
the energy to supply it from outside.
Why sytheses come about
At this point it is worth to consider
why and how the complexity of subsystems contribute
to a new system (new feedback link).
Truely 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 for a human mysterious. This
- partially due to the time scale of such a link creation,
which compared with a steady functioning inheritance circle
resembles naturally a jump.
- due to the human tendency to search for reasons,
which observing the mechanism only partially suggests
some "purpose of the evolution".
||The cause of this mistake is suggested deeper in chapter 2.2.
- Yet some unexplained rest still remains for future
syntheses. A selfreference promoted by the negative enthropy can
in principle be considered as copying of some possible
general unity connecting enthropy, time and innersion,
which is the subject of physics.
This chapter is providing examples,
in which explanation offered by the evolution by selfreference (EbS)
seems to be more successfull than the standard theory (ToE).
Let us demonstrate how the EbS explains the diversity
of paaring behaviour. The fertilisation poses obviously a bottleneck
in the generation cycle: A small amount of DNA is transfered which
has vast conseqences to the expression of the next cycle (new organism).
A huge pressure at least from the whole cycle concentrates at
this point. Yet a grown up male and female posess enought
ressources to realise and to amplify the behaviour which ever
appears. As a consequence nearly all possiblities are realised.
To carry horns is just not difficult enought to stand this preassure.
In a more pictorial metapher one can compare this situation
with the meandering of a river
As an example also the homosexuality has a simple explanation:
There are enough ressources (also of erotic charm) collected
at this point near the reproduction means.
The pressure of a feedback alone without outer cause nor benefit
shows here it's power.
Sudden jumps and the speciation
The feedback model easily explains sudden jumps in
past evolution of living organisms, which the paleonthology
is suggesting. The cause, why such "jumps" take place is
the closing of a new feedback link, which naturally occurs
suddenly compared with a longer period of building subsystems.
Let us see what consequences the mathematical
model has on speciation. From the described contractions
in the spiecies 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.
This explaines why the gen flow in microworld is significantly
smaller than in the macroscale - the microworld is simply much elder.
In the standard model speciation appears as if it were the
consequence of erobering new environments. On the other hand
in the model presented in this article this is not neccesssary so.
The speciation will take place also in a constant and filled
environment just by closing a new selfreference.
With each new selfreference a specie aquires new abilities,
whereas a new specie emerges if a selfreference closes
in significant parts through the outer environment.
The hypothesis of god and the emergence of language
This chapter is highly speculative.
It is included here to demonstrate the power, which
the new theory offers. The justifying research and a scientific
proof, which must follow may show that the picture drawn
here is a oversimplification.
Let us imagige a group of hominids as a social entiety,
bound together by exchanging social signals regarding
individuals like signals refering bringing up children,
hierachy in a group, common threats, etc.
Let us as a simplification imagine that these signals regard
only social issues and are realised by some instance in
each individual psychic.
Let us further imagine that this system manages enough complexity
to be one day (possibly by some collapse in the psychics)
used beneth its' proper applicability for social themes
to describe issues from the physical world outside of a social group.
It appears than that threes, mountains and lakes aquire
personal features now. They are "he", "she" or "it" !
Such hominids begin to hear, what mountains "are saying".
Obviously its' just a misuse of a social competence.
It is crucial to notice yet that this false application
closes a strong feedback loop. A hominid group suddenly
acquires (abstract) means to handle it's environment
in a new way, which on the other hand drives
the redefinition of the psychical instance mensioned above.
What follows is an explosion of language and a human culture.
As a reminder of this developement some "ghosts" stay back.
People hear even to still life the way the did to their parents.
It's no competition, nor natural selection, nor any
genetic drift, but only a pure strong feedback which causes
new complexity to appear. It
is even not neccessary that the psychics of such hominids
is the most skilled (the biggest) between neighbouring species.
Rather a weakness, which made a wrong use of posessed skills
was crucial, which yet closed the feedback.
||An interesting question arises when
asking if such a developement was necessary and could be foreseen.
It is for example known that elefants show the simmilar affinity
to this type of error. They consider dead relatives as if
they were not dead.
Regaining control over social systems
Undeniably sudden social changes challenge the humanity.
New important feedback links has been closed even
in the last decades with the mass media
||Consider ideologies like racism, communism and ill undestood
religion as the consequence of.
The comparison with the bottleneck mechanism described in
first example makes the violence-metapher even more stressing.
the global trade, the internet.
The emergence of new formal systems posessing abstract
structures of information exchange one can experience
as awakeings beasts, or does not notice them at all, like
children not noticing the danger, because it's too difficult.
One of such beasts is the monetary system claiming to map
human values to natural numbers, while in the reality
this mapping is getting more and more one-directional.
Where does it all evolves to and what are our chances
to regain control ?
The EbS model has an abstract, but simple answere:
The feedbacks are crucial ! To regain control we must
strengthen or weaken some of them and contruct new ones,
possibly ones, which enclose human sociology.
The EbS entails in the natural way the human selfconsciousnes
as wehicle for our culture.
Evolving planet - What comes next after humans ?
Let us consider the possible evolution of the
biosphere as a whole. If it sucesses (possibly with a human
help as a mediator) to stabilise the clima we could truely be
witnessing the birth of some new (global) organism.
Yet an important element of it's selfreference is still lacking.
This system does not know itself well enought to provide
stability. Without such self-knowledge no true feedback link
seem to be possible and it will decay by itself
while destroying our environment and possibly us humans too.
The challenge to the humanity stresses the fact that
left alone this system seems aquiring the knowledge
of human sociology by testing now. Why ?
- Just because it's the next possible closing loop.
FAQ - frequently asked questions
- Is the Darwins' Theory of Evolution false now ?
It is not false, but incomplete. It stresses natural selection,
while the importand part - the selfreference is
rather grasped as obvious than stated properly.
- What is wrong in saying that the natural selection
is the "engine of evolution" ?
It has a more metatphorical value, but taken literally it resambles
as if one says a car's motor consists of miles the car passes.
It does not explain where the "energy" comes from
aldow it suggests to explain it.
- Do you say the selfreference is more important than
the natural selection ?
But which of the both takes the stronger influence ?
Natural selection and the selfreference are complementary.
The selfreference is "supplying the power" and the selection
is "providing the shape".
- What does your selfreferencing feedback consists of ?
Why do you claim a new generation of individuals refere
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 ability of an organism to
produce an organism simmilar to itself. This cycle
induces amplification of forms. The selfreference refers
not an individual, but rather it's abstraction - a traith (a form).
- 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
than 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
why the drifting direction receives amplification. The
explanation of the former is obvious, but never stated properly,
which the sythesis presented here offers.
- Why do you refer wikipedia instaed of the proper scientific
The significant objection against the contemporary theory
is that misunderstaendigs and discussions still hold on in
the society. The cause of this is the lack of proper synthesis,
which the contemporary theory failed to supply, even if
all facts and partial sytheses where well known.
In this sense this text may refer the "school book knowlegde"
- Your theory is simply messy.
It is messy from it's nature as contradicting of the canon of
thinking about evolution. Specifying more details
and justifications will do make this article even more messy.
The only way out is to undestand it.