author: Zbigniew Lisiecki

Evolution by Self-replications

    version 2.1      11.06.2015   (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
2.0         03.06.2015
2.1         11.06.2015

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

First Reading
Expand All
Contract All
Your comment
  1. Introduction

    1. Abstract

      The contemporary standard theory explaining the evolution of species with the natural selection between competing forms  (1) 
        also with the random DNA drift and other evolution mechanisms like gene flow  

      is not sufficient as a general paradigm. This article proposes a change of view by which a feedback mechanism a main example of which is the loop closed with self-replication appears as the engine promoting evolution. The new view does not deny that in case of a biological evolution the phenotype is in the most cases shaped in the process of natural selection. Yet on a more general level it is the feedback mechanism that decides that some forms appear and other don't. With a new view explaining some phenomena appears more natural, it is easier to understand and it embraces examples of non-biological evolution too.
      1. Table of Contents

      2. Status of this article

        The way we discover and explain the nature has changed during last decades a lot. Originally new ideas have been promoted by insights which were sufficient as justification. Later on ideas have been formulated as theories, which demanded proofs. But now we only have "models", which describe some aspects of nature less or more adequately. Models cannot be proved as true. They can sometimes be regarded as false if they lack self consistency. It is this self consistency tat fits together to some limited application area, which appears more important for their success than links to any "objective reality" or any "proof". Almost everybody can develop models today, but even if they were ingenious scientists often find it tedious to find out to which hard facts do they fit and to which they don’t. General models with little relevance to professional detailed knowledge are therefore rarely considered even if they are great.                        

        This article offers some insight and a new paradigm derived from it. Due to the scarce reference to detailed scientific literature it might be considered as being not a scientific work, as it was defined above. Additionally instead of adding new piece of hard facts it is rather restructuring of what is already well known. Yet the author hopes that it could be at least some inspiration for others.

        The idea presented here is best justified by examples. Therefore this text is still under construction as long as the discussion keeps on and new examples can be added or elder replaced.

        I hope also the reader will forgive me using a common language understandable for everybody instead of a scientific one. It is explained by the task I undertake here: It should be in principle possible that everybody could verify the new paradigm.
        1. Discussions and critics

          This article has been rejected by the journal Nature. Professor Michał Ostrowski from the University Cracow in Poland claimed that the article should rather start with a deeper literature review of the contemporary work in this subject. Otherwise it's useless. Professor Stephen Stearns from Yale University pointed out that: "Most of the problems you list with the existing theory are pseudo-problems for which adequate solutions are known, and the added value of bringing in self-referential replication is not made at all clear. ".

          If you'd like to contribute or just to comment you can use my private forum at (The registration with the proper name is necessary to acquire the right to post). Important discussion takes place at (arguments stated by RSNorman) and in

        2. The engine of evolution

          The standard Theory of Evolution (ToE) built on the work by Charles Darwin explains the evolution as an aggregation of small changes, in organisms which appeared to be more efficient in the competition with other 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 gen-centric view was added. Still the main force promoting evolution is considered to be the competition between organisms.
          1. Why is the competition model insufficient

            The ToE with the natural selection at its core, as defined above has been claimed to be insufficient in important cases. A vivid discussion in science and in the society persists to this day. Below I list cases which explanation by the standard paradigm of ToE appears neither natural nor straightforward and which on the other hand can be explained more accurately by the Evolution by Self-reference model EbS presented in this article. The list of examples provides items at different levels of abstraction and hence can result in partial overlap.
            1. Mating behavior in biology

              The diversity of forms evolved around mating behavior seems to be denied by the necessity for efficiency stemming from natural selection. It seems that no one knows for sure why a peacock has a long tail or why a male 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 making it's choice interprets males diffeomorphism as the power and not as weakness are at least not straight forward.  

              and neither do the gene drift nor the sexual selection alone explain why these appearances are so strong and important in many species. Also the homosexuality belongs to this category  (3) 
                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 developments, which take place suddenly and in which new species appear. Changes in the environment (e.g. climate) have been proposed as a cause for these "jumps", but a true link has never been demonstrated.  (4) 
                The stratigraphic convention naming periods in the earth history with eons: precambrian, phanerozoic, cenozoic, and their subdivisions has been chosen in the way which denotes discontinuities in fossil records, some of which point on huge overall changes in the whole biosphere. Yet the temperature and sea level diagrams are often continuous on the borders between these periods:
              see also geological temperature record
              Only the perm mass extinction 252 million years ago (90% of species die out) is due to the above diagram accompanied by a temperature jump, but even in this case some scientists suspect biological causes.

              Surely biological i physical causes are not only interwoben, but the ratio of temperature jump might be important in each specific case too. Supposed discontinuities in biological forms might on the other hand reflect rather the limited number of records we have than the true jumps, as some argue.

              Therefore the above argumentation is only a vague sketch. Nevertheless no correlation between jumps of evolution and the climate is as evident as it could be. The idea due to which some developments occurred rapidly and without obvious outer causes when compared with longer stable periods between them is well established, and it seems to be not sufficiently covered by ToE.

            3. The origin of the DNA-machinery

              It is often argued that the evolution can due to ToE only take place when it's subject (here the DNA-machinery) already exists. Yet why did the DNA-machinery emerged at all ? Appearing of some primary chemical cycles  (5) 
                see Hyper cycles by Manfred Eigen  

              does not seem to be explained by ToE in convincing way. Scientists are still disputing the question if it was a rare, random event or actual necessity that lead to the creation of DNA.
            4. Controversy about competition

              Accepting the natural selection as a main mechanism of evolution promotes a competition paradigm with which the main task of an individual organism appears to compete with other organisms for limited resources. 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 paradigm itself. The competition model causes also paradoxes, two of which I list below:

              1. The question why cooperation behaviors exist (see also "altruism") has been widely discussed. It has been tried to justify the "altruism" with competition between groups. Truly some groups may win the competition with other groups if some of their individuals show altruistic behavior. Yet some authors argued that this explanation is not sufficient. It is well possible that the controversy stem from a false paradigm and not from the nature itself.  (6) 
                  As an example an anthill could win against other anthills if it's ants cooperate or even offer their life to defend it. Yet anthills seem rarely compete between each other this way. An anthill of non-cooperative ants could find enough resources in the forest, yet it'll dissolve on other reasons. The last idea is pointing to quite another way of thinking than "competition".  

              2. If the main task of an organism is to compete with others why a single organism did not evolve in each environment, which eliminated competitors ? Truly we need many to compete, but as the mechanism begins to work an individual could be the result.
                A mechanism limiting competition and always allowing many to survive must exist, which has yet not been identified properly in the theory.
            5. How to explain social systems and the evolution of culture

              The human culture obviously does evolve. The mechanism based on natural selection proposed by ToE should in principle be applicable also to the evolution of a human culture, of social and economic systems, etc., but ToE seems to fail to explain these processes sufficiently. There seem to be no species competing with humans, which could cause a natural selection to be strong enough to promote the emergence of human language due to the standard paradigm.  (7) 
                The simple competition with neanderthals is not yet been considered as a cause of emergence of human language with all is't diversity.  

            6. Evolution with no selection pressure at all

              Even in the absence of competition, the evolution takes place and creates new complexity. Some of the examples above fall into this category. Another examples is: conquering new environments were the pure number of resources discloses any selection pressure. Why did organisms entering new continents or coming out of the ocean to land acquired new abilities if no selection pressure existed at the beginning of these expansions ? The standard answer is that in the new environment best adopted survives, but the logical problem with the model appears if the worst adopted survives too.

              In this category falls the general question if, why and how the genotype changes without that some "badly adjusted" branches die out. Is the dying out the only method to fix genotype changes ? If the genetic drift, as it was discovered, embraces the majority of DNA changes, which makes the natural selection mechanism to take the second place, than possibly something might be wrong with the general theory, in which natural selection plays a central role.
            7. One evolving organism

              Not only without competitors but also without any external environment the evolution of a single system is (internally) possible. An example is given by the Gaia-hypothesis describing the evolution of the biosphere as a whole, which cannot be reduced to nor explained by the evolution of its parts. Other examples regarding emergence of new synthesizing 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 complexity or lead to self-destruction of a whole such organism with equal probability.
            8. The contemporary standard ToE causes misunderstandings

              Misunderstandings of the theory of evolution (ToE) are well known. Some are listed


              1. The well know objection to ToE asks: "Can it all happen just by chance ?". A true randomness, not just the one made due to some earlier clever "design" is in the heart of understanding how the natural selection promotes the adjustment to the environment and do not follow any other well thought path. Yet the randomness is not the true and indispensable source of force for the evolution generally to take place, at least not at this description level. The misunderstanding is the result.

              2. Richard Dawkins is asking in his gene centered view of evolution the question if the subject of natural selection are organisms, groups of organisms, species, or just individual genes The misunderstanding stems from the fact that these are not the true alternatives. Genes and organisms are subjects of the same selection yet on different organization levels and thus also on a different abstraction of the description. They don't contradict each other even if they do not overlap.

              3. 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 paradigm.

              This text claims to show that these misunderstandings 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 proposed solutions at least do not seem straightforward, efficient and very convincing. They somehow seem to neglect 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. But even if "Intelligent Design" lacks any scientific method, denying any other possible cause promoting evolution than standard ToE mechanisms seams to throw the baby out with the water.  

            It might often be, 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 overall reason or cause explaining why these phenomena actually take place. Before such reason is found a reference to the plain description alone appears unsatisfied  (9) 
              This is so even if urge for cause may be considered as a typical weakness of a human mind, especially if it promotes some biased and wrong understanding. Efforts made to satisfy all needs of our mind do make sense.  


            Organic matter do evolves, but if it does not due to the natural selection what is it than, that makes it more and more complex when time passes ?

          2. The self-replication model

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

            The solution of the above question, which this article gives is the insight that the true cause of the evolution is the self-amplification promoted by the self-replication.
            To see how this argument proceeds I recall the classical ToE build of three stages:

                          I. Organic matter is replicating itself by passing DNS structure to its' children.
            II. Thereby unavoidable small changes in the DNA structure appear and
            III. the environment distinguishes between them by damping structures,
            which are less adjusted and allowing better adjusted to spread around.

            The main idea of EbS is that only the first stage is necessary for the evolution to take place.
            We'll see examples of evolution with neglected natural selection or with no environment at all.
            1. The power of self-reference

              Let us explain first why self-replication, as it is well know of DNS is actually a self-reference e.g. consider a biological procreation machinery as a feedback engine  (10) 
              A short explanation, what I mean by a feedback engine is given below:
              To demonstrate how it works let us consider an example of an audio amplifier fed back through the microphone by the sound that it's loudspeaker produces.

              Obviously some high tone emerges. Control Theory distinguishes between a positive and a negative feedback. The exponential growth (explosion) is the consequence of the first one, while the steady vibration is the consequence of the second.

              Consider an audio amplifier, which output (the speakers) is directed to the input (by a microphone). An amplifier is transforming each tone and produces a copy of it with an amplified volume. Obviously the amplitude is growing more and more as the result. As the growth is exponential the current reaches very soon borders determined by internal dumping. The balance of exponential growth with internal inefficiencies causing dumping will emerge. This dumping is different for different tones, so some spectrum of how much of each tone is represented in the output will establish itself. For a common audio amplifier this is simply some high tone, but generally a spectrum of tones with different amplitudes emerges.

              Such an amplifier provides a description of a general feedback-model. Let us notice also that:

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

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

              One may wonder that an amplifier-model can be found between living organisms.


              Living organisms as products of the procreation mechanism accomplish that on one abstraction level higher the self-replicating structure (like DNS) refers and amplifies (actually increases in number) itself.

              The necessary abstraction moves from looking at individual organisms to considering organism structure. It is this structure then, which experiences amplification in number of it's instantiations.  (11) 
                I use a language developed for Object Oriented Programming in computer science here.  

              . Each instance inherits the same structure from antecedents, the number of instances increases and in this sense the structure itself is getting amplified. It is the structure itself, which is it's own product. (An amplification obviously takes place if there is more than one copy on output.  (12) 
                Practically speaking amplification means that two parents have more than two children.  

              .) In this way self-replication 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 structure (or a genome plan, as stated above). Only with this abstraction the loop truly closes.

              When we speak of a feedback in the case of a self-replication we don't mean that an individual descendant refers is't ancestor and possibly a son influences the way his father lived. Instead we mean an organism structure i.e. it's abstraction. It is also an organism structure (a specie) not an individual organism that evolves.  (13) 
                The self-replication is on one hand trivial in the case of living species, on the other hand if one set specie = individual than the loop won't close. This was probably one of the reasons why this trivially appearing theory was completely overseen in it's consequences.  

              If one allows small differences between input and output now one can see that the self-replication loop stabilizes the form and amplifies the number of copies or it makes it move towards some other form until it is stable. This is the way the evolution usually takes place.

              The feedback loop of self-replication is naturally promoting self-amplification. 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, usually superimposed by the environment are reached.

            2. The gain of a new theory compared with the standard EoT

              What is the gain of this description compared with the standard ToE ? - It explains the cause of evolution and the true force which makes it happen. The main idea is that the biological evolution is build upon such self-amplifying feedback loops. Beside the loop closed by inheriting genes, which we call the natural feedback loop, we will consider also other feedback loops. They appear if generally some (not only biological) functionalities are passed to the next cycle.

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

              1. The natural selection appears only as a hard limit set to self-referring amplifications. It means that the loop won't survive at all, which might be rather rare in nature and not so common as the standard ToE demands. In standard description one usually expresses this by saying that evolution and selection takes place on the level of individual genes, which survive or not, whereas the whole organism do survives. The EbS model on the other hand provides more flexibility in the description: some elements are more amplified, some are less or even dumped, but the true elimination is rather a limit not a common way things happen.

              2. The natural selection (elimination of elements) is therefore not a necessary condition for the evolution to take place.

              3. Without it (the selection) the self-replication loops expand until they reach any possible limits. The spectrum which emerges might have different possible damping factors as their cause and the natural selection is only one of them.

              Although the inheritance 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-understood in the society and important phenomena has been half-explained by the science.

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

              1. The power of evolution comes not from the competition, but rather from the sun supplying the feedback 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 a good example.

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

              4. It suggests more calculatory means to cope with evolution of a species pool filling a chosen ecosystem.

              Therefore the EbS can be seen as a more general evolution theory embracing ToE as a special case with natural selection
            3. The self-replication in a chain-reaction

              A similar self-replication like in the ancestor-descendant chain of organisms one may generally find in a chain reaction. By the latter I mean a situation in which some event Ei causes other similar events Ej. If the number of successors of Ei is greater one we obviously have a cascade. Why such a cascade is getting bigger and bigger like an avalanche ? This is the case in the equivalence class in which we abstract from differences between events and treat the predecessors and successors as of the same type. Even if the number of successors is very slightly greater then one, e.g. hundred predecessors have hundred and one successors if applied to the electrical amplifier model the output is bigger than the input and we may speak of an amplification.
              Such avalanches are well known. They are described by the velocity and the rate of growth.

              Most processes in living nature are performed as cascades controlled by some dumping limits.
            4. The natural spectrum

              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 transfer (gene transfer) between them must come about.  (14) 
                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 possess thus fix points  (15) 
                See also Banach fix point theorem  

              identified in the biology as individual species. It is amassing 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-replicating structures in the top-down manner hiding the details of modules of which they are constructed. For the given ecosystem the physical environment like astronomical data (the day-night rhythms, the energy flux from the sun), etc. together with the climate data (and pollutions) could be the main boundary conditions. Yet the true challenge appears when different "abstraction levels" are considered i.e. organisms build each one of the others.

              The astronomically stable ecosystem makes the development direction and complexity less dependent on the outer influence.

              Therefore computations for limited ecosystems might be more successful.

              Let us see what consequences the mathematical model has on speciation. From the described contractions in the species 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 explains why the gen flow in micro world is significantly bigger than in the macro scale - the micro world is simply much elder.
        3. Examples

          This chapter is providing examples, in which explanations given by the self-replication model (EbS) seems to be more successful than explanations given by the standard theory (ToE).
          1. The mating behavior

            Let us demonstrate how the EbS explains the diversity in paring behaviors. Consider threads of possible behaviors leading to fertilization. The fertilization. itself poses obviously a bottleneck for these threads:

            A small amount of substance with DNA is transferred which has wast consequences to the whole DNS-feedback cycle. A huge pressure from the whole self-replication loop concentrates at this point. What is this pressure build of ? A grown up male and female poses enough resources to realize and to amplify random behavior. which ever appears. Each of it must end with the fertilization. yet.

            As a consequence otherwise "strange" behaviors are amplified by the DNA self-reference equally often as the straightest one.

            For a deer to carry antlers is just not difficult enough to stand this pressure.  (17) 
              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 explicit qualification of this mechanism as feedback amplification.  

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

            In a more pictorial metaphor one can compare this bottleneck or funnel situation with stacking and damping up a river by dam, which causes it to overflow. A development perpendicular to the main direction spreads around. This "damming up a river" is in our model yet best explained when self-reference forces are identified.

            Using this metaphor one explains also the homosexuality: There are enough resources, also of erotic charm collected (dammed) 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 metaphor from above one may say the dammed river overflows and some water breaks out of the cycle.

            1. Sudden evolution jumps and the speciation

              The feedback model easily explains sudden jumps in the past evolution of living organisms, which the paleontology is suggesting. The cause, why such "jumps" take place is that closing of each new feedback loop naturally occurs suddenly compared with longer periods of stable circulation.

              One of such sudden jump is the speciation. In the standard model speciation is often explained as a consequence of erobering new environments or just promoted by any environment pressure. In the model presented in this article on the other hand new environment is not necessary. The speciation will suddenly take place also in a constant and fully occupied ecosystem just by sudden closing a new self-reference loop. With each new self-reference loop a specie is adopting a new subsystem, which commonly depicts new functionalities, whereas a new specie emerges if a self-replication loop closes in significant parts through the outer environment. The latter is equally well reached by environment changes as by a change of an internal structure.

              When does new loops emerge then ? This question may be substituted by the question, when it is easy for a specie or for the whole ecological niche to adopt new subsystems. To answer this one must understand given functionalities and imagine possible developments. A good examples are situations after big catastrophes, when free resources are easily accessible and old abilities are not fully forgotten. They are restructured in most simple ways then.

              Surely sudden jumps can be graded as sudden only relative to a smooth and stable circulation without change of structure.
              1. 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-replications. The periodicity is necessary for self-referring structures to emerge  (19) 
                  Periodicity can be understood 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) rhythms could be searched for in primary cycles  (20) 
                  See also Manfred Eigen Hyper cycles.  

                Two rhythms 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 paradigm is consistent with the emergence of life as primary cycles and especially with M.Eigens' idea. Within this paradigm the emergence of life appears rather as a necessity than as a singular unprobable event. The paradigm of a natural selection on the other hand can hardly be applied to explain this.


                The above picture fits well into the idea of dissipative systems by Ilya Progogine. Setting the self-referring circles as information storing cells in the middle of the model makes this storing (and damming) to be understood easier.
                1. Evolution by competition versus evolution by cooperation

                  The new paradigm 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 paradigm and possibly stemming from the cultural background in the epoch of Darwin.
                  1. The emergence of language and the humankind

                    The idea of this chapter is speculative. It is included here to demonstrate the power, which the self-reference paradigm offers. The justifying research and a scientific proof should follow and show if the picture drawn here is correct, an oversimplification, or wrong.

                    Consider hominids with well functioning social structure, which bounds each group of them together by exchanging social signals regarding individuals like signals referring bringing up children, hierarchy in a group, common threats, etc. Let us further as a simplification imagine that these signals regard only social issues and are realized by some instance in each individuals psychic.

                    Such a system manages enough complexity to be one day (possibly accompanied by some collapse in the psychics) used beneath its' proper applicability for social issues to describe issues from the physical world outside of a social group. It appears than that threes, mountains and lakes acquire personal features e.g. the'll be managed by the same mental structures as individuals from ones social group. With one relatively sudden step such hominids acquire powerful means to handle symbolically their physical surrounding and these symbols come from social group symbols. Not only became trees, lakes and mountains "he", "she" or "it", such hominids begin to "hear", what mountains "are saying", etc. Obviously its' just a misuse of a social competence, but it works. Let's see how it does:

                    It is crucial to notice that this false application closes a strong feedback loop. Such hominids suddenly acquire abstract (symbolical) means to handle their environment in a new way, which on the other hand drives the redefinition of the mental social structures mentioned above. What was a social behavior. is a behavior-substitute (a symbol) now. What follows is an explosion of language and a human culture. As a reminder of this development some "ghosts" stay back. People hear even to inanimate nature the way the did to their parents (to members of their old social group). Some overwhelming certainty of a presence of a human-like being like one's father pervading the nature which we used to call god might be another consequence of such a development.

                    While trying to explain the emergence of language the usual starting point is to expect some sort of adaptation is  (21) 
                      See "Language evolution - consensus and controversies" by Morten H. Christansen and Simon Kirby  

                    The picture drawn above on the other hand 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 closed suddenly, which causes new complexity to appear. It is even not necessary that the psychics of such hominids is the most skilled (the biggest) between neighboring species. Rather a weakness, which made a wrong use of possessed social skills, which yet closed the feedback.  (22) 
                      An interesting question arises when asking if such a development was necessary and could be foreseen. It is for example known that elephants show the similar affinity to this type of "error": They consider dead relatives as if they were not dead, which appears to be the starting point for social competence structures used for dealing the purely physical inanimate objects.  

                    could be crucial.

                    Another point regards objections to the accepted hominisation model, which claim that the developement of a human kind was not a stright line from australopitecus to homo sapiens, but rather a discontinuous random link. Such fossil records fit much better to a sparkling short circuit picture and thus to the EbS model. The hominisaion was a suddenly closed self-reference with gains seen only after some period of time.

                    1. 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-referring feedback.

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

                      One may ask now, why some species (like a salamander) have much more DNA than others (like humans) (see a C-value enigma) Due to EbS this is connected with the different phylogenesis 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 standard ToE won't explain it so easy.
                      1. Evolution of social and economical 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. One can experience the emergence of new formal systems possessing abstract structures of information exchange as awakenings beasts, or one can not notice them at all, like children not noticing the danger, because it's too difficult to cope with. 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 answer: The feedbacks are crucial ! To regain control we must strengthen or weaken some of them and construct new ones, possibly ones, which enclose human sociology. Influencing the feedbacks is the best way to influence the development and thus the future evolution.

                        The EbS entails in the natural way the human selfconsciousnes as a vehicle for our culture.
                        1. Why and how organized crime evolves

                          Let us compare how ToE and EbS explain the evolution and growth of organized crime. Due to ToE the growth experiences an organization, which succeeded with the biggest deal and thus drove other from the "market". Due to EbS on the other hand growth comes from the self-reference i.e. wins, who succeeded to invest money from the crime to the next deal and thus makes resources to circulate. The first point of view explains only an accidental (random) growth, while the second way of thinking explains developments during longer period of time. Only the EbS explains the importance of money laundering  (23) 
                            It is well known for the police, that fighting money laundering plays a crucial role in preventing crime.  

                          while ToE justifies a false hope, money coming from crime invested in a sound business could make criminals to resign from crime. While some aspects of ToE mechanism may still play a role in the real world i.e. if criminals want to secure their assets for individual use, nevertheless EbS has the greater ability to explain socioeconomy of organized crime as a whole in the way providing means to fight against it.
                        2. Misused political information circulation - propaganda

                          With the invention and use of mass media at the beginning of XX century a curious new loop was closed. One of the sudden consequences was an explosion of propaganda with disastrous developments - world wars. Some of these circules still hold on (Russia). Obviously the proper information distribution and not a military prevention is what EbS offers to control the development, why the ToE still stick to competition ideas :-(
                      2. The evolving planet - What comes next after humans ?

                        Let us consider the possible evolution of the biosphere as a whole. It's hard to think of it in traditional terms of competition between many, because our planet obviously do not compete with other planets in time scale, in which the earth's biosphere as a whole do evolves. At first sight a suggestion suffices the planet evolves as a whole, just because parts of it (subsystems) evolve. We'd like to look at it in more details yet.

                        The exponential growth (especially the economical growth, we seem to experience and urge for) is not just a bad habit, which people could overcome, if we were morally stronger as Club of Romein it's Report suggests. It is on most cases the consequence of feedback mechanisms. Some feedbacks we can define and create, some other we may dissolve, but the strongest emerge totally beyond our control.

                        In the following I'd like to present three thesis:

                        1. Some global circulations (money, trade, internet are examples) may grow due to feedbacks far beyond any human conscious intentional control and work well, which means to stabilize resources (like climate)  (24) 
                            This is the contrary to the Club of Rome suggestion, in which such growth in-evidently leads to explosion, disaster and collapse.  


                        2. The evolution, which traditionally regard many organisms may regard also one organism. One organism may evolve on his own without others in the sense it grows in complexity and self-control.

                        3. The emerging global system tries to map all features of human psychic by challenging us.

                        The way out seems to be to consider elements of all positive feedbacks which bound the biosphere more and more. Yet now these elements between which feedbacks are tied are not only individual organisms, but rather whole populations and other biophysical aggregations like woods, savannas, oil deposits, elements of weather, etc. Obviously we humans play a mediating role in tightening these elements together e.g by human trade. Let us consider these ties chaotic and without any rule in the first approximation and let us ask which ties will ovewhelm after some time. Obviously circulus with positive feedbacks will decide what will happen.

                        If our planet successes (possibly with a human help as a mediator) to stabilize the climate and the environment we could truly be witnessing the birth of some new (global) mechanism. As it is made of interrelated organized parts we are allowed to call it an organism.

                        At this stage there is no matter how this stabilization is achieved in smaller details. The only parts we consider are elements constituting positive feedbacks.

                        Yet an important element of it's self-reference is still lacking. This system does not know well enough 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 acquiring the knowledge of human sociology by testing. Why ? - Just because it's the next possible closing loop.
                        1. Deficiencies of evolution

                          If the strongest evolution mechanism were the competition between different genotype trails organism would tend to get rid of unused components as soon as possible treating them as a ballast. If on the other side the self-reference by replication were stronger than unused components would be hold over generations without change. One can imagine that some equilibrium between both will be established in the true life. Surely it depends on the individual case if unused DNA will be kept or thrown away. Yet the very existence of unused DNA over generations proves that self-replication is strong enough to stand against the competition pressure.

                        2. Conclusions

                          1. Predictions

                            Predictions of a new theory are similar to those of the old one. Here I review  (25) 
                              This chapter is repeating, what has been already explained in more details earlier. Is is included here due to readers questions.  

                            only the differences, which allow to distinguish between both theories comparing what we find in the nature:

                            1. Due to the Darwins' theory one organism evolves only as much as its' subsystems evolve. The EbS on the other hand explains why singular organisms (systems) steadily change towards more complexity (evolve). EbS provides also terms and notions to describe this complexity.

                            2. Due to the Darwins' theory in the environment of organisms competing with each other one specie wins or the spectrum of species converges to the network of symbiotic links. In EbS the spectrum may diverge, what we observe in the nature.

                            3. As in Darwins' theory no evolution can take place without that some evolution traits die out. In EbS this is possible and common.

                            4. Due to the standard theory there must be considerably less non-coding DNA than 80 %, which is found in human genome. EbS explains the existence of non-coding DNA in an easy way.

                            5. Due to the standard theory mating behaviors must appear in considerable less cases. Yet the are not rare but rather quite widespread in nature. EbS explains why this is so.

                            6. Due to the standard theory sudden evolution jumps must somehow correlate with sudden changes in the environment, as they are driven by the environment. EbS on the other hand explains why this is so.

                            1. The source of self-replications in nature

                              Some insights into possible general physical unity connecting time, space and entropy build physical laws on self-references. Truly time and space can be understood as self-references between physical events. Therefore it's not surprising that the biological evolution is copying more fundamental patterns like the ontogeny is copying phylogenesis. Therefore the full explanation of evolution requires the explanation of time and reason of enthropy growth.

                              1. Summary and the outlook on future unifications

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

                                As an example the survival of the stronger suggested as being justified by natural law is replaced by another rule: What we repeat (cultivate) makes us to carry also the consequences.

                                1. 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-referring feedback consists of ?

                                    Why do you claim a new generation of individuals refer 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 similar to itself. This cycle alone induces self-amplification of forms. The self-reference refers not an individual organism, but rather an abstraction - it's structure (a form).
                                    The generations development is often pictured with a spiral. 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 spiral 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 inheriting 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  (26) 
                                      The explosion of human population is such incidence rare in nature.  

                                    in situation, when they compete to each other  (27) 
                                      See the example of oscillating populations of foxes and rabbits (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 resembles 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 development. 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 ?

                                    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 answer ?

                                    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 never been stated properly. On the other hand the synthesis presented here offers a complete description. See also the example below.

                                    A genetic drift has been introduces 1920 by Sewall Wright as an 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 indistinguishably 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 incomparable 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 mating behavior. this changed point of view might be not necessary for you. Yet the majority cannot see it this way.
                                  8. Mass extinctions can be explained well with the standard theory

                                    You claim changes in the environment, like climate 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, 2014