The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution
of species with the natural selection between competiting forms
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.
- The engine of evolution
- Why is the competition model insufficient
- The feedback model
- The mathematical model
- The natural spectrum
- The paaring behaviour
- Sudden evolution jumps and the speciation
- The emergence of life on the earth
- Evolution by competition versus evolution by cooperation
- The hypothesis of god and the emergence of language
- The noncoding DNA
- Regaining control over social systems
- The evolving planet - What comes next after humans ?
- Summary and the outlook on future unifications
- FAQ - frequently asked questions
Status of this document
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.
The so called "modern synthesis"
work of many scientists 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 organisms.
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.
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
||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
does not explain why these appearences are so strong and important
in many species. Also the homosexuality belongs to this cathegory
||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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
- 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.
- If the main task of an organism is to compete with others why no
only one single organism evolved in each environment, which eliminated
A mechanism limiting competition must exist, which has yet not been
identified properly in the theory.
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.
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.
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
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:
The contemporary standard caueses misundestandings.
Misundestandings of the theory of evolution (ToE) are
||A good example is the situation about
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.
||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.
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.
- The natural selection appears only as a natural limit
set to self-refering loops.
- 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:
- 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.
- Without the natural selection the evolution is well functioning.
The genetic drift is an example.
- The Ebs model shows toward extensions capable to explain social
phenomena and the possible future evolution of our planet
as a whole.
- It suggests mathematical means to cope with evolution
of a species pool filling a chosen ecosystem.
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:
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
realised in some time unit dt
it follows dx / dt = x (F - 1).
We further assume that F is linear for small changes
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
. It follows:
x (t) = x0
e(F - 1) t
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:
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:
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.
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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
||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
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
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.
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).
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.
||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.
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
||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
Surely sudden jumps can be graded as sudden only relative to a
smooth and stabile background without change and vice versa.
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
||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
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
Setting the self-refering circles as information storing cells
in the middle of the model makes this storing (and damming) to be
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FAQ - frequently asked questions
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.
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.
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
||The explosion of human pupulation
is such incidence rare in nature.
in situation, when they compete
to each other
||See the example of oscilating populations of foxes and rabits
(predators and victims).
or break down.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.