Rebuilding the evolutionary theory

Charles Darwin proposed a new perspective on life in his book “On the Origin of Species published in 1859. 

Although Darwin was not entirely correct, his central idea of evolution, known as ‘Natural Selection’, has been widely recognized as valid. The three essences of Natural Selection are heredity, variation, and selection. Heritable phenotypic variations dictate the survival of individuals in their resource-limited environment. Not everyone can survive, only those most suited to their surroundings. Over generations, the best suitability becomes more common in the population (i.e., adaptation based on heritable variations).  

Before Darwin, heredity was already recognized by Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin’s grandfather. The issue of the increasing population size and available resources in human societies was discussed by Malthus in his 1798 essay, which posited a struggle for existence. The early 19^th century was a period of significant growth in imperialism, capitalism, and industrialization. Darwin must have been fully aware of the social situation at that time.  Additionally, his experience on the voyage of the Beagle and his knowledge of the selective breeding of domesticated animals and plants must facilitate his thinking process.

Although ‘Natural Selection’ is widely accepted, I must claim that it does not work in nature.

Survival in nature is fundamentally dictated by ‘where and when one exists’, rather than ‘who one is’. In addition, ‘who one is’ is dictated by one’s history of ‘where and when one existed (i.e. experience)’ and its age, rather than ‘what intrinsic variation one carries.’

I agree that the phenotype is one crucial factor for survival in an environment. However, the most essential issue for life is continuity. This continuity is not the individual’s survival, but that of the group, a species. A species has no intention to continue. Retrospectively, it has been continued. Living organisms only exist as various species, but not as individual, eternal living entities – there is no such thing as eternal life. 

This is worth thinking deeply about.

No living organism sustains as an individual’s eternal life. This did not happen. This did not work. Living organisms continue their existence at the species level, but not the individual level. A member of one species means having a shared, consistent shape and properties. The shared, consistent shape and properties guarantee a chance of survival in its environment, albeit not 100% or 0%. Here, an individual’s survival is not important at all. As a group, enough chances for a sufficient number of survivors to sustain.

Think of Sunfish. Millions of eggs. Tiny numbers of survivors. However, there are enough chances to have a sufficient number of survivors to sustain the species. The same concept can be applied to a tree and its seeds.  The survivors are no better than the non-survivors. They are fortunate to be in the right place at the right time.

All individuals within a species are equipped with the shared, consistent shape and properties. Additionally, there is a range of variation in their shapes and properties, which genetics, epigenetics, and personal history could contribute to. This range allows enough chances to have a sufficient number of survivors in their environment.

This species-specific range of phenotype is highly stable and consistent. It remains unchanged from the emergence of a species to its extinction. Adaptation within an individual occurs within this range but not beyond it. This means that no genetic adaptation at the population level.

Genetic adaptation as a population occurs only in monogenic traits under a high threshold, uniform, and consistent survival selection. It is better to phrase purifying filtration. This is possible in monogenic dominant traits. Very difficult in monogenic recessive traits. Almost impossible in multigenic traits with epigenetic regulations.  Exceptions are domestication through human-controlled selective breeding.

Monogenic traits are usually cosmetic or physiological, rather than affecting the level of the body plan of organisms. The anatomical variation, i.e. the variation in shape, is the classification criterion of species. It means a species is a multigenic entity. Therefore, even after selective breeding, we can recognize that the origin of dogs is from wolves, not bears.

I mentioned that ‘when and where one exists’ is much critical than ‘who one is’. In addition, ‘which life stage one is at’, i.e. one’s ages, is much more crucial than the genetic variation one carries. Most multicellular organisms have developmental processes.  The massive transition in shape and properties from a single cell to an adult organism. This variation is much larger than monogenic genetic variation.  

Natural Selection typically works as a purifying filter to eliminate lethal changes. Purifying filtering of lethality. This is not a competition. Natural Selection does not produce anything novel.

Novelty comes from an accident. Accidents happen because the DNA replication system is erroneous.  The various energy-dependent mechanisms support the fidelity of the system. In the case of energy stress, these fidelity mechanisms are compromised, and this appears to facilitate changes as a consequence.

Keep in mind that DNA is a material. The genome is the sequence of DNA materials.  Imagine the genome as a story written in a book. Errors are not limited to typographical. Shuffling or missing pages.  Doubling pages or mixing two books. Incorrect collating.  Accidentally, a readable new story may emerge. This is a new species.

For the continuity of a new species, an environment needs to provide enough chances for a sufficient number of survivors. In other words, the new differences in the new species need to create novel usable resources from previously unusable in the physically adjacent accessible environment.

In most cases, if not all, the new species takes the waste, unusable or upstream for others.

For example, eukaryotes took the environment where prokaryotes couldn’t live due to the presence of toxic oxygen. Fungi took the waste of plants and animals.  Vertebrates took the current water beyond the seabed due to their swimming ability.  Because no one else had previously been enabled to take it, and the unusable was physically adjacent and accessible.

When the previously adjacent unusable becomes a usable resource due to accidental changes in the genome, this is the chance of speciation - the emergence of a new species.

No need for better.

We are all familiar with something like this in the realm of technological evolution. Oil was useless until the modern era. A new technology changed it.

Is there a competition after the resource is realized as usable?  Only in human societies. Competition is a unique phenomenon in human societies, not in nature.

Humans are the only species using cognitive ownership. Cognitive ownership is ownership without physical occupancy and possession. Cognitive ownership controls the probabilistic chances of ‘where and when one exists’ by excluding others. Cognitive ownership allows storing and pre-owning by exclusion. ‘What one owns’ can partially overcome ‘where and when one exists’.

Exclusion is the foundation of competition. Cognitive ownership is the concept behind exclusion. Cognitive ownership creates vested interests. Competition is an opportunity for the expansion of cognitive ownership, increasing one's vested interests through exclusion. Losers in the competition are excluded from the privilege of winning. For a fair competition, the uncertainty of ‘where and when one exists’ is eliminated. The time and place are the first things defined for a competition. In this way, the importance of ‘who one is’ is exaggerated, including ‘what one owns.’  Therefore, human societies can have competitions.

Without cognitive ownership, everything is momentary occupancy and consumption. Without physical presence to defend an occupancy, no one respects its ownership. Accidental encounters only cause duels. The consequence of a duel is a temporal repulsion. A winner does not (cannot) take all. A loser is not excluded but repelled transiently. The loser can come back to take the leftovers or find a better opportunity somewhere else.

Life in nature is not competition. The perspective of a struggle for survival (existence) is inherently flawed and human-centric.  Life continues as various species in nature because there are enough chances for a sufficient number of survivors in their environment to continue as a species. When the environment cannot provide enough chances, the species becomes extinct. The properties of the species are suited to its environment from the onset of speciation, allowing enough chances for a sufficient number of survivors. In essence, the survival of individuals is probabilistic in their environment, dependent on ‘where and when one exists’.  

Surplus is not owned but shared. Encounters are unpredictable. Therefore, life is full of surprises and uncertainty. That is why life is fun and we exist.