The genesis of my idea on evolution is what sparked this article. Focusing on the species is one of the consequences of the theory of evolution I have in mind.

For instance, evolution often cites competition as a primary force. It's how the faster fox gets luckier than the slower one that gets favoured and passed onto the next generation.

But as for the first organism, it doesn't have this force. What then happened for it to evolve?

Neither can we cite cooperation as a force. The first organism had nobody to cooperate with.

But by thinking of how organisms assert their existence, you begin to see how evolution can take on a new lens. The first organism could not be explained by the taxonomical tree we use.

It is all of the above. It is the domain, kingdom, class, species, genus and an organism all wrapped in one. But we hardly think of it that way.

When we begin to think of an organism in different levels of complexity, including the species level, it introduces a new possibility in viewing evolutionary biology.

It began with the question - if there is nobody to cooperate nor compete with, how does the first organism evolve?

Other questions are: if evolution by natural selection requires a long period of time, does that exclude the first organism?

And if natural selection happens only in large populations, isn't the first organism inexplicable by this theory?

Which of the mainstream theories adequately explains the first organism?

All these questions are difficult to answer using gene-centered views of evolution, symbiosis, genetic drift, mutation or gene flow.

But when we look at the organism, which is the primary entity needed for evolution to happen, then we can understand the remainder tree of life and taxonomy in a different light.

Makes sense?