The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution of species with
the natural selection between competiting forms and with the random drift of DNA
||(as also with other known evolution mechanisms like
the gene flow )
is not sufficient as a general paradigma.
This article proposes a change of view by which the feedback mechanism provided
by the loop closed with heriting appears as the main engine of the evolution.
The concrete phenotype is still shaped by the natural selection.
With a new view explaining some phenomena appears more natural as thus easier.
The theory presented here is still worked on. It has been send as an article
to scientific press for publication. The presented version is not the ultimate one.
- The engine of evolution
- Why is the contemporary model insufficient
- The feedback model
- The natural spectrum
- Why sytheses come about
- Paaring behaviour
- Sudden jumps and the speciation
- The emergence of life on the earth
- The hypothesis of god and the emergence of language
- Regaining control over social systems
- Evolving planet - What comes next after humans ?
- The outlook on future unifications
- FAQ - frequently asked questions
The engine of evolution
The Theory of Evolution
build on the work by Charles Darwin
the evolution as a aggregation of small changes,
which appeared more efficient in the competition between many organisms.
It's so called "modern synthesis"
work of many scientists up to late 40-ties adding beside
the natural selection
the genetic drift
as another possible
mechanism promoting evolution. Mid 60-ties after the
DNA discovery a gene-centric view
has been added.
Still the main engine of the evolution is considered to be the competition
between many forms.
Why is the contemporary model insufficient
The ToE, as defined above has been claimed
to be insufficient in importand cases. A vivid discussion
in science and in the society generally still holds on.
Below I list phenomena which explanation in the standard paradigma of ToE
appears not natural 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 peacoc has long tail nor why a deer carries antlers.
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
The paleontology record suggest suddenly starting vivid developements
(in which also newss species appear) and long periods without change
beween them in the evolution of species. Changes in the environment
(e.g. climat) has been proposed as a cause, but a true link has
never been demonstrated.
The origin of the DNA-machinery
It is ofter argued that the evolution can due to ToE only take place
when it's subject (here the DNA-machinery) already exists. Yet why did
it emerged at all ? Also the gene drift refers rather existing systems
than their sudden emergence, which on the other hand obviously took place.
Appearing of some primary chemical cycles seems not
to be explained by ToE in convincing way.
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. There seem to be no specie
competiting with humans, which caused a natural selection and
a genetic drift of the magnitude of for example human language
seems curious at first sight.
Evolution with no competition pressure at all
Even without any competiting subjects the evolution can take place
and new complexity may suddenly emerge.
Some examples from the points above fall into this cathegory.
Others are erobering new environments were the pure
number of ressources excludes any selection pressure. Yet even
without competiting partners such systems do evolve.
The direction and the persitance of a genetic drift
Species (and also the whole ecosytems) are ussually drifting in some
direction yet the standard theory don't explain the reason for the
direction of this drift nor for it's velocity.
A future theory might accept the challenge to explain such drifts
One evolving organism
Not only without competitors but also without any outer environment
the evolution of a single organism (or a single functionality)
An example is given by the hypothesis of Gaia
describing the evolution of the biosphere as a whole, which
cannot be reduced to nor explained by the evolution of it's parts.
The proper model of evolution should at least suggest a mechanism
with which evolving parts (like species) cause the new unifying
complexity (like an ecosystem) to emerge. The todays ToE
don't exclude that evolving parts cause a selfdestruction of a whole.
||The above list gives items at
different abstraction levels, which also partially overlap
The ToE surely partially touches these objections, but the solutions
proposed seem at least not to be stright, efficient and very
convincing. They seem to neglect somehow the true cause of change.
At a more abstract level this cause yet possibly exists.
||Traditionally evolutionists deny such a
possibility to reject objections from creationists
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 ?
This text argues for the change of view.
The self-referencing feedback provided by the generation order
is proposed to be the source of power promoting the evolution.
The natural selection yet remains the main mechanism shaping
a concrete phenotype.
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 going on supplied by the energy from the sun.
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 self-reference (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 (see the last chapter).
This chapter is providing examples,
in which explanation offered by the evolution by self-reference (EbS)
seems to be more successfull than the standard theory (ToE).
Let us demonstrate how the EbS explains the diversity
in paaring behaviours. The fertilisation poses obviously a bottleneck
in the generation cycle: A small amount of DNA is transfered which
has wast conseqences to the new organism (new cycle).
A huge pressure from the whole self-refering loop 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 otherwise strange behaviours are amplified.
For a deer to carry antlers is just not difficult enought to stand this pressure.
||Also P.J.Weatherhead and R.J.Robertson pointed with their
sexy son hypothesis towards some self-reference
as a explanation for the sexual behaviour.
In a more pictorial metapher one can compare this bottleneck situation
with daming up a river by narrows, which causes it to overflow.
An evolution perpendicular to the ussual direction spreads around.
Using this metapher one explains also the homosexuality in a simple way:
There are enough ressources, also of erotic charm collected (damed)
at this point near the reproduction events.
The pressure of a feedback alone without outer cause nor benefit
shows here it's power.
Let us ask also why the reproduction occurs in the middle of a cycle
and not at the end. Creating a sucessor at ones death appeared
technically more logical.
Sudden jumps and the speciation
The feedback model easily explains sudden jumps in
the 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 self-reference.
With each new self-reference a specie aquires new abilities,
whereas a new specie emerges if a self-reference closes
in significant parts through the outer environment.
The emergence of life on the earth
The self-reference model explains the emergence of life
on the earth also with a bottleneck mechanismus. In the contrary to
the bottleneck described in the first chapter (the pairing behaviour)
it regards the whole flow of negative enthropy reaching
the earth from the sun. A relative stability of the earth ecosphere
posesses the ability to store this negative enthropy.
It is easy to conclude, that in one, or the other manner some
circles must emerge.
The hypothesis of god and the emergence of language
This chapter is highly speculative.
It is included here to demonstrate the power, which the self-reference
paradigma offers. The justifying research and a scientific
proof, which must follow may show that the picture drawn
here is a oversimplification.
Let us imagine 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. 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 was a social behaviour is a "wrong-behaviour"
or a behaviour-substitute (a symbol) now.
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 inanimate nature the way the did to their parents.
Trying to explaing the emergence of language expecting of some sort of
adaptation is the ussual starting point
On the other hand
the picture drawn above didn't presume that any adaptation has taken
place ! 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 social 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 self-reference 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.
While the Darwin's Theory of Evolution woke up the
humanity showing that even the life itself is a
explainable process the unifying view presented here
provides means to cope with it in our planetary surrounding
as a whole. It points also towards it's source.