Evolution by Self-reference


author: Zbigniew Lisiecki,     version 1.7      19.11.2009   (former versions) 
  0.1         02.09.2008
1.0         15.02.2009
1.1         19.02.2009
1.2         23.02.2009
1.3         26.02.2009
1.4         17.03.2009
1.5         19.06.2009
1.6         21.06.2009
1.7         19.11.2009
1.8         21.02.2014

This list is only for documentation purposes.
Old versions are not valid any more.
 

First Reading
Expand All
Contract All
Your comment
Register, please with your name and sirname to the forum to provide your comment, or just read other comments.
po polskupo polsku
english english
deutsch deutsch
pa russkij по руccкий
translate by google translate

  1. Abstract

    The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution of species with the natural selection between competiting forms  (1) 
      (also with the random DNA drift and other 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 one of which is provided by the loop closed with heriting appears as the main engine promoting evolution. The concrete phenotype is still shaped by the natural selection. With a new view explaining some phenomena appears more natural and easier to undestand.

    Contents

    1. Abstract

    2. The engine of evolution
      1. Why is the competition model insufficient
      2. The feedback model
      3. The mathematical model
      4. The natural spectrum

    3. Examples
      1. The paaring behaviour
      2. Sudden evolution jumps and the speciation
      3. The emergence of life on the earth
      4. Evolution by competition versus evolution by cooperation
      5. The hypothesis of god and the emergence of language
      6. The noncoding DNA
      7. Regaining control over social systems
      8. The evolving planet - What comes next after humans ?

    4. Conclusions
      1. Summary and the outlook on future unifications
      2. FAQ - frequently asked questions

    Status of this document



  2. The engine of evolution

    The Theory of Evolution (ToE) build on the work by Charles Darwin explains the evolution as a aggregation of small changes, which appeared more efficient in the competition between many organisms. The so called "modern synthesis" unified the work of many scientists adding beside the natural selection also 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 organisms.
    1. Why is the competition model insufficient

      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.
      1. Pairing behaviour in biology

        The diversity of forms evolved around pairing behaviour seems to be denied by the urge of efficiency stemming from natural selection. It seems, no one knows for sure why a peacock has a long tail or why a deer carries antlers. The choice made by the female proposed as an explanation lacks a logical cause  (2) 
          While the contemporary theory explains that these forms does not contradict the natural selection mechanism, the true cause why they generally appear is still not well explained. Arguments why the female makeing it's choice interprets males diffeomorphism as the power and not as weakness are at least not stright forward.  

        and the gene drift  (3) 
          see also the sexual selection  

        alone does not explain why these appearences are so strong and important in many species. Also the homosexuality belongs to this cathegory  (4) 
          Authors relying on ToE suggest to explain homosexuality with the benefit provided by the common upbringing children. Yet this argument explains only the friendship and not the erotic charm.  

      2. Sudden jumps of evolution

        The fossil records suggest long periods without significant changes in the evolution of species divided by vivid developements, which take place suddenly and in which new species appear. Changes in the environment (e.g. climat) has been proposed as a cause for these "jumps", but a true link has never been demonstrated.  (5) 
          Stratigrafic convention naming periods in the earth history with eons: precambrian, phanerozoic, cenozoic, and their subdivisions has been chosen in the way which signs discontinuities in fossil records, some of which point on huge overall changes in the whole biosphere. Yet the temperature and sea level diagrams are continuous on the borders between these periods. Thus no correlation between jumps of evolution and the clima is evident.

        Even if some argue the supposed discontinuities reflect more the limited number of records we have, the idea some developements occurs rapidely, when compared with longer stabile periods between them, is well accepted.
         

      3. 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 ? Appearing of some primary chemical cycles  (6) 
          see Hypercycles by M.Eigen.  

        seems not to be explained by ToE in convincing way. Still scientists dispute if it was a rare event, which took place by chance or it was a necessity.
      4. Controversy about competition and "egoism"

        Accepting the natural selection as a main mechanism of evolution promotes a competition paradigma with which the main task of an individial organism appears to be to compete with other organisms for limited ressources. This view appeared so obvious, that it has never been justified with hard data. Thus it remains not clear if this view is rooted in the biological data or rather in the paradigma itself. The competition model causes also some paradoxes.

        1. The question has beed widely discussed why cooperation behaviours exist (the so called "althruism"). It has been tried to justify "althruism" with competition between groups. Yet some authors argued that this explanation is not sufficient. It is well possible yet that the controversy stem from false paradigma and not from the nature itself.

        2. If the main task of an organism is to compete with others why no only one single organism evolved in each environment, which eliminated competitors. A mechanism limiting competition must exist, which has yet not been identified properly in the theory.
      5. Social systems, the evolution of culture

        The mechanism based on the natural selection proposed by ToE should be in principle also applicable 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 nor a genetic drift strong enough to promote the emergence of human language.
      6. Evolution with no selection pressure at all

        Even without any competiting subjects the evolution can take place and new complexity may 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. Why did organisms erobering new continents or comming out of the ocean aquired new abilities if no selection pressure existed at the beginning of these expansions ? The standard answere says that in the new environment survive best adopted, but the problem appears if the worst adoped survive too.
      7. One evolving organism

        Not only without competitors but also without any outer environment the evolution of a single system is (internally) possible. 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. Other examples regarding emergence of new synthesing 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 evolving parts might promote new comprexity or cause a selfdestruction of a whole such organism equally probable.

      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:
      1. The contemporary standard caueses misundestandings.

        Misundestandings of the theory of evolution (ToE) are well known.  (7) 
          A good example is the situation about Richard Dawkings' gene centered view of evolution in which he asks the question if the subject of natural selection are organisms, groups of organisms, species, or just individuial genes, even if this is not the valid alternative. Genes and organisms are subjects of the same selection yet on different organisation levels.

        Another example is the 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 the natural selection. Evolution with many mechanisms seams not to be the best paradigma.
         

        This text claims to show that these misundestandings have the common root: Elements of the theory have 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 where secondary.

      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.  (8) 
        Traditionally evolutionists deny a possibility of another cause promoting evolutionary emergence of new complexity while rejecting objections from creationists.  


      It is often so, 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 reason or cause explaining why these phenomena actually takes place. Before it is found a reference to the proper description may appear as if everything possible has already been said. The urge for cause may even appear as a typical weakness of a human mind, espacially if it promotes some biassed and wrong undestanding. Still there are the efforts made to satify all needs of our mind, which make the progress possible.

    2. The feedback model

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

      Heriting plays an undispensable role in the biological evolution. Parents bring up children, which can be considered to be copies similar to the parents. In the contemporary theory heriting is the way to introduce changes in genome, which remains than stabile during the life of each individial organism. What has been overseen yet is the fact that heriting closes the feedback loop by which the genome plan refers itself. It is crucial, that the feedback refers not an organism, but rather it's abstraction - an organism form (or a genome plan, as stated above).

      This feedback loop is naturally promoting self-amplification of forms. The reason for this amplification is the nature of a feedback loop itself. The striking example of such self-amplification is the population growth, which generally takes place in nature until some limits, ussually posed by the environment are reached. The main insight of this article is the idea that the biological evolution is build upon such self-amplifying feedback loops. Beside the loop closed by heriting genes, which we call the natural feedback loop, we will consider also other feedback loops. They appear if generally some (biological) functionalities are passed to the next cycle. Bringing up children is a good example.

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

      1. The natural selection appears only as a natural limit set to self-refering loops.

      2. The natural selection is therefore not a neccessary condition for the evolution to take place. Without it the the self-refering loops expand until they reach selections as their limits.


      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) demonstrates more clear, what has (partially) already been known that:

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

      2. Without the natural selection the evolution is well functioning. The genetic drift is an example.

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

      4. It suggests mathematical means to cope with evolution of a species pool filling a chosen ecosystem.
    3. The mathematical model

      Let us denote the organism form or type by letter x. Than the mapping between such forms, which are realising the feedback and are denotet here by the letter F can be expressed with:

      xn + 1     =     F(xn) (1)


      where n is the generation number. For a huge number of generation one may consider changes between them and time intervals small. For dx = xn + 1 - xn realised in some time unit dt it follows dx / dt = x (F - 1). We further assume that F is linear for small changes  (10) 
        This assumption seems to be nontrivial, we even did not define the space of x properly. Yet for the first model descrition it is sufficient to imagine that the bigger the difference between two forms x1 and x2 the bigger it will be in the next generation. We will return to the question of F-linearity and the x-space definition later on.  

      . It follows:

      x (t)     =     x0   e(F - 1) t (2)


      with 1 denoting the identity operator. The generator of an organism form x is exp (difference between generation mapping F and the identity). In most cases F ist just the reproduction and it is nearly unity. If the reproducion of an organism form F equals identity, than the generator is also the identity and the organism form x don't change at all meaning:

      xn + 1     =     xn (3)




      On the other hand if one considers the population of many organisms with nearly identical forms each then F maps them not only to themselves but crossmappings are possible. Such crossmappings might be promoted be the gene transfere, but may also be some accidental changes. In the mathematical model we neglect the cause.



      Surely x is a vector of many forms in this case and F is acting in product space. Crossmappings are expressed with nondiagonal elements of F if F is put in a matrix form.

      Now one may consider stability of such ensamble of forms. The main idea behing this article it is the self-replication which provides stability. A nonstabile part just spreads around and vanishes. Self-replicating forms s are Eigenvectors of F as:

      F (s)     =     a   *   s (4)


      Eigenvalue a can be interpreted as the number of children, which s has. In the case of an Eigenvector the equation (2) describes the exponential population growth.

      What I'll try to show now is that the highest population explosion occurs for stabile forms. We'll speak of a resonance in such cases. In the next chapter I'll argue why a random form distribution evolves to only few forms (resonances), which are replicating best.

    4. The natural spectrum

      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. Let us notice also that:

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

      2. The negative feedback, which mathematically causes vibrations plays in the nature importand 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.)



      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) between them must come about.  (9) 
        I call it a natural spectrum for a given ecosystem.  

      Why is it so ?

      Without giving the strict proof this article suggests that in any given initial random spectrum naturally some minima and maxima appear just by definition of a random variety. They must further contract and posess thus fixpoints  (10) 
        See also Banachs' fix point theorem.  

      identified in the biology as individual species. It is emasing to consider why "dumpings" of a given ecosystem choose the emerged species as it's natural spectrum.

      The computational methods can in principle be applied to judge about it what species spectrum will emerge. The computer program could identify self-reference circles in the top-down manner hidding the details of modules of which they are constructed. For the given ecosystem the physical environment like astronomical data (the day-night rythmus, the energy flux from the sun), etc. together with the climat data (and pollutions) could be the main bundary conditions. Yet the true challenge appears when different "abstraction levels" are considerd i.e. organisms build each one of the others.

      The astronomically stabile ecosystem is makes the developement direction and complexity less dependand on the outer influence.

      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.
  3. Examples

    This chapter is providing examples, in which explanation, which the evolution by self-reference model (EbS) offers seems to be more successfull than the standard theory (ToE).
    1. The paaring behaviour

      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. What is this pressure build of ? 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.  (11) 
        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.  

       (12) 
        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.

    2. Sudden evolution 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 that closing of new feedback loops naturally occur suddenly compared with longer periods of stabile feedbacks.

      In the standard model speciation is often explained as a conequence of erobering new environments. On the other hand in the model presented in this article new envirnment is not neccesssary. The speciation will suddenly take place also in a constant and fully occupied ecosystem just by closing a new self-reference loop. With each new self-reference a specie is adopting new subsystem, which commonly refers new functionalities, whereas a new specie emerges if a self-reference loop closes in significant parts through the outer environment

      When does new loops emerge then ? This question may be substituted by the question, when it is easy for a specie  (15) 
        or even for the whole ecological niche  

      to adopt new subsystems. To answere this one must undestand given functionalities and imagine possible developements. The part of the answere is easily given in situations after big catastrophes, when free ressources are easily accessible and old abilities are not fully forgotten.

      Surely sudden jumps can be graded as sudden only relative to a smooth and stabile background without change and vice versa.
    3. The emergence of life on the earth

      The energy from the sun pumped into a quasi-stable biosphere is stored in it in form of circulating processes. Yet the convection alone seems not capable to promote self-reference. The periodicity is neccessary for self-refering structures to emerge  (16) 
        Periodicity can be undestood 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) rithmes could be searched for in primary cycles  (17) 
        See also a M.Eigen Hypercycles.  

      Two rythmes more than double their capacity to aggregate substances and thus to promote cycles.

      The above idea is not yet a proper hypotheses. Yet it shows that the self-reference paradigma is consistent with the emergence of life as primary cycles and especially with M.Eigens' idea. Within this paradigma the emergence of life appears rather as a neccessity than as a singular unprobable event. The paradigma of a natural selection othe other hand can hardly be applied to explain cycles.

      The above picture fits well into the idea of dissipative systems by I.Prigogine. Setting the self-refering circles as information storing cells in the middle of the model makes this storing (and damming) to be undestood easier.
    4. Evolution by competition versus evolution by cooperation

      The new paragidma 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 paradima and possibly stemming from the cultural background in the epoche of Darwin.
    5. 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 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 (to members of their old social group).

      While trying to explaing the emergence of language the ussual starting point is to expect some sort of adaptation is  (18) 
        See "Language evolution - consenus and controversies" by Morten H. Christansen and Simon Kirby  

      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.  (19) 
        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.  

    6. The noncoding DNA

      In the standard ToE the selection mechanism demands high efficiency from each functional element which survives during a long competition fight. The EbS on the other hand releases this condition. Some inefficient structures in DNA known as noncoding DNA sequences, which the natural selection would get rid of may in EbS-model not only survive, but they can even sum up in situations of self-refering feedback.

      The high percentage (up to 80%) of genetic drift can be thus be regarded as a proof that the main part of evolution occured by self-reference mechanism rather than by the natural selecton.

      One may ask now, why some species (like a salamander) have much more DNA than others (like humans) (see a C-value paradox). Due to EbS this is connected with the different philogenesis of this species. The one which survived longer in constant friendly environment directed more it's feedback forces to just copying DNA without any need driven by selection. The ToE won't explain it so easy.
    7. 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, the global trade, the internet. The emergence of new formal systems posessing abstract structures of information exchange one can experience as awakeings beasts, or one can 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 - 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 answere: The feedbacks are crucial ! To regain control we must strengthen or weaken some of them and contsruct new ones, possibly ones, which enclose human sociology. Influencing the feedbacks is the best way to influence the developement and thus the future evolution.

      The EbS entails in the natural way the human selfconsciousnes as a wehicle for our culture.
    8. The 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 well enought itself 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. Why ? - Just because it's the next possible closing loop.
  4. Conclusions

    1. Summary and the outlook on future unifications

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

      The new Theory build on self-references can in principle be pointing to some possible general physical unity connecting the time, the enthropy and the space. Truely the time might be understood as some self-reference between physical events.
    2. FAQ - frequently asked questions

      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 than stated properly.

      2. What does the self-refering 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 reproduction of an organism of it's own structure and concrete of building new organism simmilar to itself. This cycle alone induces self-amplification of forms. The self-reference refers not an individualiii organism, but rather an abstraction - it's structure (a form).
        The generations development is often pictured with a spirale. 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 spirale 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 heriting 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  (20) 
          The explosion of human pupulation is such incidence rare in nature.  

        in situation, when they compete to each other  (21) 
          See the example of oscilating populations of foxes and rabits (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 resambles as if one says a car's motor is build 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 developement. 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 than the natural selection ?

        Do you say the self-reference is more important than the natural selection ?
        But 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 answere ?

        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 yet why the drifting direction receives amplification.

        The explanation why it is so seems obvious, but it has not been stated properly. On the other hand the sythesis presented here offers a complete description. See also example below.

        A genetic drift has been introduces 1920 by Sewall Wright as a 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 undistinguishably 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 uncomparable 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 pairing behaviour this changed point of view might be not neccessary for you. Yet the mayority cannot see it this way.
      8. Mass extinctions can be explained well with the standard theory

        You claim changes in the environment, like clima 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 than 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.

Copyright © by the author, evot.org 2009