Evolution by Selfreference

The ToE with the natural selection beeing the main evolution mechanism, 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 nor strightforward, which on the other hand the model presented in this article claims to explain much easier.

The above list gives items at different abstraction levels, which also partially overlap. To this phenomena list one may add as a seventh point a general problem stating that:
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.  (6) 

Traditionally evolutionists deny a possibility of another cause promoting evolutionary emergence of new complexity while rejecting objections from creationists.

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

This text pays a special attension to the self-referencing feedback loops. One such obvious feedback loop is closed by inheriting DNA by the organisms in the next generation. These loops are naturally promoting self-amplification of forms. The reason for this amplification is the nature of a loop itself which is closed by passing functionalities to the next cycle. The biological evolution is build upon such cycles. Thus in living organisms the natural feedback is realised by successing and amplifying functionalities stored in DNA (inheritance). Parents bring up children, which can be considered to be copies similar to themselves.

In the EbS model the natural selection remains the main mechanism shaping a concrete phenotype. It curves the individual species out of the stream of generation cycles. Yet the natural selection is not a neccessary condition for the evolution to take place. Without it the evolution promoted by self-reference simply fills all possibilities spreading around so far as it reaches limits (like selection condtions).

Aldow the ineritance plays in the evolution of organisms undeniably the central role traditionally the natural selection 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-undestood in the society and importand phenomena has been half-explained by the science.

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

To demonstrate how the feedback engine works let us consider as an example an electric amplifier fed back through the microphone by the sound that the loud speaker is producing. Obviously some high tone emerges. The control theory distingushes 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 whole 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 random distribution some minima and maxima appear just by definition of a distribution variety. They must further contract and posess thus fixpoints  (8) 

See also Banachs' fix point theorem.

identified in the biology as individual species.

The computational methods can in principle be applied to judge about it what species spectrum will emerge. For the whole ecosphere some astronomical data like the day-night rythmus, the energy flux from the sun, etc. could be the bundary conditions. Yet the true "mystery" appears when:



Therefore computations for limited ecosystems might be more successfull.

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 during eons. This explaines why the gen flow in microworld is significantly bigger than in the macroscale - the microworld is simply much elder.

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 mysterious for a human. This is:

Yet some unexplained rest still 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:



The principle says that genotype frequences remain constant under such condition. This is often undestood, 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 mathamatical identity.

Still most people won't even call is an evolution. It just the increase in population size. Systems of many semi-identical individuals posess an importand feature, which one such individuum 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-physicst ask a question why a slide caliper with a dense pitch measures much more exact than 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 ensamble as a whole is appearing. There is only one step more needed to follow that such a system in Hardy-Weinberg equilibruim 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.

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 substance with 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. A grown up male and female posess enought ressources to realise and to amplify the behaviour which ever appears. Each must end with the fertilisation yet. As a consequence otherwise strange behaviours are amplified equally often as the strightest one. For a deer to carry antlers is just not difficult enought to stand this pressure.  (10) 

Such mating rituals has been studied and described. E.g. see Fisher in July 12, 1990 issue of Nature referenced by Chris Colby, Evidence for Evolution, sexual selection, 1997. What lacked was an explicite qualification of this mechanism as feedback amplification.

 (11) 

Also P.J.Weatherhead and R.J.Robertson pointed with their sexy son hypothesis on some self-reference as an explanation for the sexual behaviour.

In a more pictorial metapher one can compare this bottleneck situation with daming up a river by dam, which causes it to overflow. An evolution perpendicular to the direction, which the main feedback cycle (main stream) is pointing to spreads around.

Using this metapher one explains also the homosexuality: 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. Using the river metapher from above one may say the dammed river overflows and some water break out of the cycle.

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. Even for some species males die immediately after female fertilisation. To answere such questions it seems usefull to consider for a given specie the whole birth and death cycle and ask in which part it is stronger and in which is is more vulnerable. The well know answere: the fertilisation must occure, when the organism has te most power, receives an inspiring support from the EbS-theory: The feedback loop amplifies the strongest part the most, because the part which follows is lost  (12) 

This surely the case only is we omit breeding. We disregard it to get the first aproximation.

.