I Thought I Knew What Evolution Was
Boy was I wrong
Before thinking of a new framework for understanding evolution, I never thought the very topic would prove elusive.
At the time, I was interested in the brain size relative to the body size of human beings.
Neanderthals had a larger brain size relative to their body size. It intrigued me how we attribute our rise to global dominance because of our brains yet Neanderthals had larger brains than ours.
It turned out, there’s more to the brain besides size.
Concurrently, I was thinking of the gene. So much was explained away using genes. But there were questions about the genetic inheritance system which just didn’t make sense to me.
How much of the inherited traits can we attribute to genes? Surely, not all of them.
This was an inference I drew on a hunch.
I later found evidence to support my thinking. Eva Jablonka and Marion. J. Lamb discuss three other inheritance systems besides the genetic one.
Defining an organism can be difficult. Defining evolution can fall into the same difficult category.
This much I discovered the time I intended to tell the world about my theory.
So…
What is evolution?
I did not have an efficient note-taking system when reading books on evolution.
So I must have forgotten which book or article it was that quoted John Maynard Smith.
He said something along the lines of:
Nobody knows what evolution is.
It’s similar to what Feynman said regarding quantum mechanics. Those who claim to understand it are not being completely honest with themselves.
Here’s what Britannica says about evolution. I’ve added the parenthesis for clarity:
Evolution (is a) theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
It mentions the changes over time.
The definition is given with Natural Selection in mind. That is, evolution happens in populations. It's why species are a hallmark of evolution.
Organisms undergo changes, but Natural Selection works with large numbers. It hardly factors small numbers. It is one of the shortcomings of the theory.
Wikipedia cites two scientific resources when it says:
In biology, evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
It’s also more inclined to describe evolution according to Natural Selection. First, there are heritable traits. It is one of the requirements described by Lewontin in his 1972 paper.
It also mentions populations. Natural Selection happens in populations.
The third thing is it happens over successive generations. It has to happen over a long time.
This is another flaw. By this yardstick, it would mean the first organism cannot be explained in evolutionary terms. Neither does Natural Selection explain the first organism. The very first organism is hardly a population as described in Natural Selection.
It’s one of the central reasons I gave my book the title — The First Organism.
It’s also the reason I decided to look at evolution in a different way.
Here’s how I look at evolution
Populations try to modify their heritable characteristics to suit the environment they are in at a particular time.
The best-suited heritable traits then tend to spread throughout the population.
The emergence of these traits and their survival would depend on the trait that best fits the groups of individuals in a species or population.
Ergo, survival of the fittest.
Not the strongest.
Not the smartest.
But the one which fits the time and space where the population resides.
For it to continue existing, it needs to avoid complete obliteration. First, it will exist, then it will avoid annihilation. The only way it can survive is by avoiding death.
Evolution should then be the ability to avoid annihilation.
The trait can emerge, replicate through various inheritance systems, and then persist. These are mechanisms of avoiding annihilation.
Thus, I define evolution as follows:
The ability to avoid annihilation.
It is very general. I know.
But you will also notice how evolution is presently described based on the theory which best explains it. This is Natural Selection.
If the definition hinges on the theory, I can argue that my definition also stems from my theory, Organismal Selection.
It also hints at how we can define and identify an organism. This has further implications on how a theory of evolution can describe the very first organism. I’ll touch on this at the very end of this article.
How can you identify an organism?
I use two requirements to describe an organism.
1. Existence
2. Probability
First, an organism has to exist. Then, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, it will eventually die.
But as long as it is alive, it will try to avoid annihilation.
Thus, an organism is an entity that exists and has a tendency to avoid annihilation.
This one, yet again, is general. It, however, relates to the definition I have given evolution.
The central question then becomes — how do you identify an organism?
How do you determine existence?
1. An organism must be organizationally closed, yet thermodynamically open
It is easy to say that an organism has a boundary. This is okay. It shows that it has an enclosed structure.
The same organism needs to make use of its environment to sustain itself. It has to open itself up to surrounding energy in its various forms.
Thus, an organism must be:
- Organizationally closed, but
- Thermodynamically open
This is the first bit.
2. Organisms must be coherent
The second is it must be coherent.
Not in terms of speech. Only humans and a few other species can speak. Even then, coherence among humans is not guaranteed.
What I mean by coherence is the coordination of processes. These processes must help the entire entity to survive.
For instance, the role of the brain serves the heart and lungs and vice versa. Such symbiotic relationships are necessary to form stable and robust systems.
These two requirements are almost deducible from any rational being. It is the third that I introduce that is different.
3. An organism is detected when subjected to a credible form of threat to its existence
An organism is easily identified by subjecting it to a form of credible, imminent threat.
If it is an organism, it will respond the only way organisms do — by avoiding annihilation. Recall that an organism will do anything to avoid death.
You might have an organizationally closed and thermodynamically open entity, that is coherent, but if it does not retaliate to a form of credible threat, it is not an organism.
So far, I have yet to encounter one which does not satisfy these three requirements.
If you are to think of any organism, ANY, it will satisfy these three requirements needed to identify it.
It does more — it makes evolution more interesting.
Organismal Selection now does more than Natural Selection.
From the definitions I have mentioned, Organismal Selection can now do what Natural Selection can’t.
It can define the very first organism.
Recall that Natural Selection only happens in populations. The first organism is hardly a crowd.
But if we look at it the way I have described it, we have a theory of evolution which describes the first organism.
To my knowledge, no other theory of evolution has the ability to describe the first organism.
But Organismal Selection does.
It’s different. It’s unique. It’s yours to dissect.
Experience the lightest newsletter on the Internet exploring Extreme Value Creation, because all you need is one alternative view, only one, to edge you closer to extreme value creation, but I give you four.
