Darwinian and competition

How can I convince you that Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories of evolution are unlikely to capture the reality of evolution and its fundamental processes? The details are not totally incorrect. However, I argue that the processes proposed as potentially existing or proven to have occurred are a small part of evolution.  They are unlikely to represent evolution on Earth because the base perspective is insufficient or could be wrong.  

You may say the theories appear correct, and much scientific data supports them. I agree with it. They seem logical, sensible, and realistic within their assumed context. However, the fundamental assumption on which these theories are based might be entirely incorrect or exceptional. The situation appears to resemble the history of our understanding of the universe—Geocentric, Heliocentric and Relativity. The observations were always correct, reproducible and even predictable. However, the assumptions were insufficient. Therefore, the assumptions and the interpretation were overwritten, but not the observations themselves.

The foundation of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories is that survival is a matter of competition. Life is a constant struggle for existence and a constant struggle for survival because not enough resources to support all.  Better is selected based on its genetic properties in its competitive environment; therefore, the survivors are well-adapted to their environment over time.  

Can we flip this view? Like, living organisms can choose where they live.

Perhaps, the struggle for survival is not the correct perception of life in Nature. Survival is likely always permitted as a default, but it is not guaranteed to all.

No species can live everywhere. There are places where one can live and places where one cannot. The easiest example is that humans cannot live without oxygen. In a place with oxygen, survival is permitted but not guaranteed. Indeed, the temperature (i.e. climate) would matter. There is a range within which humans can live. We can continue like this under various conditions. Then, we should realize that only the directly adjacent local environment matters. By wearing a spacesuit, humans can survive in environments with no oxygen, like in space.  After all, why not move where we can survive before being selected out?

Life emerged on Earth because its local environment provided abundant, ubiquitous resources sufficient to initiate it. Any new species originates because of abundant, ubiquitous resources becoming available for them. Survival is permitted. Then, it increases its population size, reaching its capacity, known as the carrying capacity in ecology. This is the point that not enough resources to support all. Now, survival is permitted but not guaranteed. You may say, “See! A competition starts!”.  After this, survival is essentially a matter of luck. Where you are at each moment and what your condition (e.g., age, starved or full, injured, hangover, or sick) is, are the essential factors, but this is outside of genetic regulation.  This is an accident, i.e. luck.

Flipping the dogmatic idea is very difficult. I understand that.  However, I would like you to consider the history of our understanding of the universe. Imagine the 15^th and 16^th centuries, and before that, the Earth was already recognized as a sphere (this is amazing to me!!). All stars, planets, the Moon, and the Sun are moving around the Earth where we stand. These statements remain 100% correct. By then, people could measure their positions precisely and accurately calculate their future positions.  Planets are problematic because their movements appear to be wandering around, moving back and forth. They are not consistent and unidirectional, unlike stars, the Moon and the Sun, which were believed to be painted on a screen that rotates around the Earth.

The concept of epicycles was realized in Greece by the 3^rd century BC and formalized by Ptolemy by the 2^nd century. This looks very complicated for us now. However, this was a perfectly sensible theory, allowing them to predict the future positions of planets with marginal errors. Until Copernicus proposed his crazy theory in the 15^th century, no one had doubted it. I don't know how seriously Copernicus took his idea when he realized it. Instead of using epicycles with the Earth at the center, he gave the Sun the center. Interestingly, this one simple change makes the complex epicycles disappear, but shows the concentric circles surrounding the Sun.

This model is not superior to Ptolemy's geocentric model in prediction, because the orbit of each planet was considered a circle instead of an ellipse. Instead, the idea that the Earth is cycling around the Sun appeared to be simply wrong, yet no one feels any motion. Copernicus had no way to prove his idea, but it raised a serious concern in the churches because Heaven was supposed to be behind the screen. Where does Heaven go, if his idea is correct?

Galileo is recognized as the father of modern science. Before him, if someone wanted to prove something, what they did was testimony and demonstration. Indeed, the famous story of Galileo at the Tower of Pisa was a demonstration.  Not evidence and probability.

Galileo did not have the intention to prove that Copernicus’s idea was correct. He was playing with his new toy, a telescope. He looked at the Moon and found valleys and mountains like the landscapes on Earth. He looked at Jupiter and discovered its moons, similar to the Moon on Earth. These two findings already questioned the idea of paints on a screen. His observation of the phases of Venus made him realize the correctness of Copernicus’s idea. Lastly, he observed the movement of black spots on the Sun. This was the final straw.

His observations were the evidence, but not the demonstration, to support Copernicus’s heliocentric model. Interestingly, Galileo attempted to demonstrate his observations through the telescope by inviting people from the church.  They came over to his house but refused to take a look at the view through the telescope.

Galileo did not demonstrate that the Earth is circling around the Sun, but provided evidence that was otherwise difficult to interpret.

Nothing was wrong with the geocentric model if we only used our naked eyes’ observations standing on Earth. We now even know that the heliocentric model is also not perfectly correct, anyway. According to Einstein, all observations are relative.  Ancient people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and no reason to doubt it. Copernicus and Galileo shifted the center to the Sun. Einstein declared that there is no such thing as the center.  After all, the question we kept asking was Where is the centre and if the centre exists.

The situation of the view of evolution resembles this. No one doubts the existence of competition, as Darwin proposed. Let’s doubt it.  Perhaps, we will see a new perspective.  

I’ll raise two questions about competition in this essay. 1. Is there a competition that can cause population-level genetic selection?  The fundamental point within this is with whom an individual competes.  Other individuals in the same species?  Against other species? Or against its environment?  2. Does a competition really exist, or a matter of accident, like finding a $100 bill someone dropped on the street?

I hope that everyone can agree that a species is a highly stable anatomical entity that cannot easily shift. On the other hand, minor peripheral appearances, such as coat colours or physiological ones, can be altered by single genes. Think about the alcohol intolerance or sickle anemia in humans. Current population genetics assumes that when the presence or absence of single gene alleles affects the survival and reproduction of individuals, it is eventually reflected in the allelic frequency within a population. I do not disagree with this. However, the question is whether this mechanistic interpretation is applicable to explain the differences between two species, two classes or even two phyla.  

My point is that a new species emerges because it finds a place to survive, not because it wins a competition. The absolute prerequisite condition for the emergence of a new species is that there is an uninhabitable space adjacent to where the original species lives. Imagine the surface of the land for fish or the Moon for humans. There's no need to move there because it's uninhabitable. Fish can live in water, and we can live on Earth. Who gets bothered? However, somehow, your properties (or capability) change, and you are now tolerant of living in the adjacent previously unlivable area.

As a consequence, now the land is full of various organisms, but fish are still in the water. The new ability does not require living in the original condition but permits living in an originally uninhabitable one. An uninhabitable condition should be directly adjacent to the original species’ habitat; otherwise, there is no chance for them to find it and explore. The uninhabitability that previously limited the expansion of the original population can no longer prevent the expansion (or invasion) of the new species. The reason for the uninhabitability is overcome in the new species.

Some may think, “This is Natural Selection!” Nature selects survivors. No human lives on the Moon, the inside of a volcano, the top of Everest or the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Does Nature or we, humans, select? Does a species get selected by its environment, or does a species accidentally find (or choose) a place suitable for it? 

Evolution is the history of innovation that overcame the lethality of adjacent unlivable spaces through accidental events, mainly bumping, fusing, shuffling and trimming. No competition, but an accidental event permits exploration into adjacent, uninhabitable, and uncharted zones. Whatever worked is kept in use as long as the environment exists. Whether vertical or horizontal gene transfer or symbiosis does not matter. If the environment remains stable over time, trimming may occur to minimize accidental errors. When the environment that supports a species' emergence disappears, the species goes extinct.  No adaptation.

Adaptation should refer to the changes that occur within an individual in response to its environment. Genetic adaptation (population-based adaptation) is the key idea that Darwin founded. His careful observations on domestic plants and animals inspired him. Then, Darwin expanded on that and invented the concept of ‘natural selection’. This is a beautiful concept. However, like all scientific theories and philosophical ideas, there comes a time for revision.

Life is built on the probability (or frequency) of bumping. Bumping is always done one at a time, and is an issue of proximity. Survival is the norm, but not a guarantee—no need to struggle for survival or existence. However, one needs to be lucky in both space and time to continue surviving.  This may go against modern humans’ intuitions. I understand that. However, only human society is competitive due to our unique cognitive abilities.  Life in Nature consists of the probability of bumping, but not competition. Bumping is an accident in space and time. Bumping can cause duels, but not a competition. Competition for selection is a human-specific concept and is unlikely to exist in Nature.

Genes play a role in determining the phenotypic variation of an individual. I agree.  However, not all phenotypic variation is genetically based, simultaneously. Think about age, nutrient conditions, history of injuries, etc. They are independent of genetics but impact phenotypic variation. The phenotypic difference between a baby and an adult is much larger than any genetic variation between two adults. Who wins when they compete?

Each organism has its own genome. The genome encompasses all genes and other non-coding DNA sequences. Nature or nurture is always in people’s interests. Although I cannot tell how much the genome defines an individual’s phenotypic properties, I can comfortably make a statement that the genome defines each species. An organism carrying human genome should develop into Homo Sapiens. The genome defines each species. The genome provides a standard form and a range of plasticity for the species.  Therefore, no human has wings. The genome controls development, birth, youth, and adulthood without altering the gene sequence; instead, it regulates the expression of these genes. Aging, nutrient conditions, or accidental injuries can change the size or shape of individuals without altering their gene sequence.

What is a species? A species is a group of organisms that share similar anatomical and physiological traits and can exchange genetic material through sexual reproduction (in the case of eukaryotes). The phenotypic variation we observe in individuals is due to genetics, epigenetics, external environmental experiences, or a combination of these factors. The key is commonality and variation. The genome defines the commonality and the range of variation in a species. On a unique occasion, a single gene is tightly linked with a phenotypic variation; however, this should not occur at the early stage of development, but rather at the final stage or after development is completed. The basic body plan of animals is not controlled by a single gene, but by complex, timely interactions of genes in space and time during development.

On the other hand, coat colour or some physiological traits can be modified by a single gene. In analogy, you cannot renovate a Japanese-style house into a European-style castle without demolishing it and starting from the beginning. On the other hand, you can install modern, air-tight windows or repaint the walls without altering their foundation.

A population-level genetic selection is very difficult to occur in a population with a wide range of plasticity. Plasticity-based variations can mask the validity of genetic-based differences. Many phenotypes reflect the history and experience of individuals that are beyond the control of genetics and create wider phenotypic variation than genetic variation within a species.  Even with an identical genetic background, age, from infancy to old age, can impact their phenotypic properties. Unlike in Judo or Boxing competitions, there is no weight class or age class separation in Nature. There is no Paralympics. The fitness (or phenotypes) of individuals change during their lives without changes in their DNA sequence. How do genetically better ones get selected? Impossible.  

A Sunfish female produces 300 million eggs. Are the survivors genetically better? I do not think so. Any deficiency, such as lethality, has no chance of success. That’s for sure. However, all decently functional survivors enter a lottery of survival. All experiences that an individual faces are unique in space and time. No two are identical. A one-minute or one-meter difference could mean the difference between life and death. Only the lucky ones survive till adulthood and reproduce. They are lucky enough did-not-die. I do not think that the number of eggs of sunfish gradually increased after the species emerged. From the onset of emergence, they produced 300 million eggs to take the previously uninhabitable adjacent niche. This is the number that permits them to keep reproducing as a species from the beginning.

A species exists because it found an abundant environment providing enough resources to live in at the beginning.  Then, a population expands and reaches its equilibrium point, saturation – carrying capacity. The survival in saturation is not genetic selection but luck. Being at the right place at the right time with the proper condition is luck.

When two individuals bump into each other for food or mates, they might fight- a duel. There is always a possibility of age difference, one might have lost one leg in a previous accident, or might have had food poisoning.  These factors contribute to the result of the duel, but have nothing to do with population-based genetic selection. Duels happen, but they do not impact the species’ stability and commonality. The range of non-genetic variation is much larger than the range of genetic variation. Commonality within a species causes a duel. Non-genetic differences dictate the consequence of a duel. Therefore, a species - the genetic variation as a whole - is stable despite many duels. Then, the stable genome as a whole governs commonality.

When something fundamentally supporting the existence of a species changes, the species disappears. Extinction. A new species emerges because there are enough resources for survival in a directly adjacent previously uninhabitable area.  This direct adjacency is essential because organisms are physical entities that can only move into their proximity.  

Then, we need to realize two distinct types of resources.  Uniform and opportunistic. Uniform means abundantly available and ubiquitous.  Oxygen for land organisms and seawater for marine organisms are good examples.  No effort is required for access to it. However, on the other hand, they are absolutely essential for survival.  When this condition changes beyond the range of plasticity of the species, no chance of survival.

Interestingly, infectious diseases, such as viral infections, exhibit a similar uniformity. If the presence of one gene is the decisive factor for life or death, a population genetic selection can occur. This was observed in human history.  

The second type of resource is opportunistic. The richness of opportunities is measured by the frequency. Food, mates and predators are all categorized in this type.

Imagine a die. Dice are randomly distributed and briefly hidden in a field. When you find it, you roll it. You need to hit six every 24 hrs for survival. One rolling opportunity per die. If you hit 6, you are Ok for the next 24 hrs. However, once you hit 6, you cannot search a die for 12 hrs. If you hit other numbers, you need to find another die.

In this condition, to survive with a 90% or higher chance, one should find 13 opportunities within 12 hours. For 95% or higher, 17 opportunities. If only 10 opportunities, the chance of survival drops approximately 84%. Another way to phrase this is that even 20 opportunities, a 2-3% chance of not surviving (i.e., 20 rolling opportunities, but no six even once).

The total number of dice matters. However, this is not a fixed number, but the frequency. The frequency is not affected by others’ success. Think about bears and salmon on a river. One bear catching a salmon does not impact other bears catching it. However, different events, such as changes in river tracks (e.g., the construction of a dam), can influence the frequency.

How easy it is to catch it also matters. There is a good spot to catch a salmon. But no one takes it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And there are other places that are not as good as the best, but still manageable. It all comes down to the probability. Never zero or 100%. You will never be able to be 100% sure if you will have a salmon tomorrow.

One at a time. This is the essence of life. No one can take more than they need at a time, except for humans.

Humans ‘own’ and ‘exclude’ under the name of storage and saving. We take more than one can eat at a time. We try to take ALL for the future. We EXCLUDE others even if something is not in use and outside of our reach of senses. Owning something outside of the senses, with the exclusion of others’ access, is a unique cognitive ability of humans. Humans modulate the frequency of bumping by building, owning and excluding. This unique ability built human society, but simultaneously created competition within it.

Except humans, no other stock up on anything more than they can eat at a time. You may say ants or squirrels collect their food. I agree that they collect. However, they do not have an inventory. Collecting something is instructed, but not for storage to be used later with a specific intention. The collection is for the sake of collecting. What’s in the collection needs to be rediscovered each time. It is not a storage, but instead gathered without memorization. This instructed behaviour helps to modify the frequency of bumping. They are collecting machines without intention. Thus, the collection is not theirs but for everyone. The collecting behaviours likely helped to live in an adjacent previously uninhabitable area and time.  The collection and its rediscovery overcome the previous uninhabitable.

The frequency of opportunities (i.e. bumping) limits the size of the population. This is constant equilibration. When the frequency of opportunities declines, the size of the population decreases.  When the frequency is too low to sustain a population, a species becomes extinct. The frequency of opportunities is the decisive factor in a species’ survival. Extinction occurs when the uniform abundance is altered or the frequency of opportunities is too low to sustain it.

Population-based genetic selection occurs only against uniform abundance in its environment, with a high threshold for live-or-die selections. For population-level adaptation to happen, a strong threshold of lethality based on genotype is necessary that creates a bottleneck. This is not the constant struggle of existence, but one life-or-death choking point.

On the other hand, the frequency of opportunities is inherently impossible to compare side by side.  The opportunities are inconsistent, transient and not uniform in space and time. They are sporadic and vary in size and duration.  

For each species, the opportunities they can use are unique and distinct from those of others. The opportunities for one species are not entirely identical to those of other species, but are not fully independent; instead, they are layered. Species A eats flowers, Species B eats premature seeds, and Species C eats ripe fruits of the same tree and so on. If everything is eaten before ripening, no chance of Species C’s survival. This is not a competition. The layered probability.  Other individuals in the same layer (meaning within the same species) cannot impact your frequency of success because the opportunity is probabilistic, and none can take all.  However, if other species in the upper layers completely take away your opportunity, no chance of contention for the species in the downstream.  This is the case of invasive foreign species. When a species finds abundant, ubiquitous resources at a new location, it expands. Typically, this only happens to the physically adjacent place. The physical proximity limits expansion. When physical proximity is overcome by human activities or altered by climate change, some species discover a place suitable for their survival. For native species, the frequency of opportunities is severely compromised because the invasive species takes the upper layer, and they face the possibility of extinction.

Individuals of the same species cannot compete because probabilistic opportunities and their frequency are unable to compete with each other. Two species cannot compete because they live in two distinct layers. Individuals do not compete with their environment. They move where it is suitable for them or become extinct.

Humans compete because of our ability of owning, excluding and building. The common cognition of space and time under the same logic (i.e., rules) permits competitions to happen. Humans compete for resources for the future with each other because everyone aims for the same resources and tries to take as much as they can. Everyone is on the same layer and aiming for the same goals. Not as one at a time. Select the best at a time and take ALL for the future.

Humans take resources away from many other organisms by building and excluding them, which alters the downstream frequency of opportunities that support them. Humans continue to evolve through the invention of technology, enabling the use of previously unusable resources without changes in DNA sequences. This permits us to expand and invade previously uninhabitable adjacent space and time. Lights and lamps allow us to live in the dark nights. Controlling heat by fire and electricity permits us to live in cold areas and seasons. We all know these happened not due to competition. We continually modify the frequency of opportunities and venture into previously uncharted spaces and times.  

A new form and properties emerge by accident, bumping, fusing, shuffling and trimming. When a new form permits living in the adjacent previously uninhabitable area, it can continue. The new form can be useless or even detrimental in its original place, but it permits living in what was previously uninhabitable.  The new form enables them to discover a sufficient frequency of opportunities in the current uncharted outside to sustain themselves. This is evolution.

Without reproductive isolation, the new properties are diluted and mixed with those of the original population. If not genetically dominant, the likelihood of the expansion or persistence of the properties in the population is low. Instant reproductive isolation helps the fixation of the new properties that are genetically recessive or multigenic by creating a bottleneck.  

The first life on Earth must have emerged in a place with abundant, ubiquitous resources. There was no need to search for resources, as they were fully surrounded. However, this condition restricted the place where the first life could live. A resource searching ability was not necessary in an area of abundant, ubiquitous resources. If a species gained the ability to search for resources or pause its resource demands, it would be able to live with spatial and temporal resource scarcity.  These abilities permitted exploring the adjacent area with scarce resources.  Neither ability was necessary in a place with abundant, ubiquitous resources. They could have even negatively impacted the frequency of opportunities. However, as long as an adjacent uninhabitable niche/space/zone became available for living by the new ability, they continued at the new place.  

Life is a perpetual circuit within a local environment, creating a sufficient frequency of bumping. Bumping is fundamentally random.  Sufficient randomness permits the emergence of cyclic momentum. However, the randomness can also cause errors or even interfere with the cyclicity.  To keep a cyclic momentum in the circuit, constraints of randomness are useful. I.e., reducing errors for continuous cycling, consequently. Rather than exploring all possibilities of bumping, constraining and restricting the bumping and its outcomes would increase the probability of reproducibility. In analogy, too many detours can lead a person astray, compared to one direct route.  This is not an intention. The erroneous system cannot continue the cyclic momentum.  Reducing the number of detours would help reduce errors. However, without exploration into randomness, the first circuit would never emerge.

A species exists because abundant resources are available at the onset of its speciation. This limits where it can live. Any changes that modulate the frequency of bumping, by altering their genome through mutations or chromosome rearrangements, or by interacting with other organisms, such as through symbiosis, horizontal gene transfer or hybridization, if the change consequently permits the organisms living in an adjacent uninhabitable environment, then they persist. Doesn’t matter how they do. Exploring the adjacent previously uninhabitable is the essence of evolution.  The novelty can be useless in its original place or population, but essential in the adjacent previously uninhabited area.

If the novelty can be shared within a population, more individuals may join the exploration. However, there is no point in leaving the original resource richness at all. Without a high threshold of live-or-die selection, the novelty is not necessary at all. Any unnecessary would not be maintained over time. It would have errors in replication and disappear from the population.  

If reproductive isolation is simultaneously accompanied, the novelty can be instantaneously fixed. Either the useful or the unnecessary novelty will be fixed together. Importantly, reproductive isolation does not mean complete independence from all other species, but only a clear separation from its original population.  For example, there is an original population A. A new population B is separated from population A. At a different time or place, a new population, C, is separated from A. A and B, or A and C, should establish a barrier between them. However, B and C may not be. If B and C encounter, they may mix and produce a new hybrid population D.

No organism can control space and time. In addition, abundant ubiquitous resources are not uniform nor eternal. The first life emerged because its local adjacent environment was sufficient for the first cyclic event. The size of the initial environment supporting life could be a centimetre cube for 24 hrs or a kilometre cube for millions of years. I do not know. But the point is that THAT was sufficient for the first cycle of a circuit. Then, as long as they were in the same environment, the subsequent cycles could have occurred.  Genes control the internal reproducibility. This local environment provides sufficiency for reproduction, but simultaneously constrains where the cyclic events reproduce. After all, evolution is the process of overcoming the constraints of the local environment, not competition.

A gene is not the centre. An organism is neither.  An environment does not select survivors. An organism can move to any adjacent environment. There is no decisive entity for survival. The cyclic perpetual momentum of water and molecules. One circuit is within an organism as replication, growth and reproduction. A nested circuit is between organisms and their local environment. The cyclic momentum within nested circuits is what constitutes life and the biosphere on Earth. The first circuit and cyclic momentum were accidentally created on Earth. Bumping, fusing, shuffling and trimming. Amazingly, the momentum still continues.