A brief history of the theory of evolution, where it is lacking, my suggested solution and what it could mean for us. Or – how I lost all my readers on the account of arrogance
\ This is the most daring post that I have written to date.
\ The claims below are, well, slightly beyond my field of expertise. It will be surprising if they are right (and if it is the case – not thought before), but I find them interesting as a thought experience – not only for practical reasons.
\ So that's it. My proposal to fill the gaps as well as to extend the theories of the evolution of Darwin and Mendel and DNA.
Still there? Great. Let's take a visit to the history of evolution, let's see where the cracks are (where, some say, God is taking a look) and how I suggest that we install them.
\
\
Darwin's theory of evolution
The year is 1836, Charles Darwin returned to England, all excited by a 5 -year cruise on the Beagle. He has a theory circulating in his head, so he sits down to put him on paper. Absorbed by his work, he does not look at his watch, and 23 years later, he published “on the origin of the species”. The book that first illustrated the theory of evolution. In short – the theory says that species evolve over time by natural selection – those with advantageous features (in the environment in which they live) survive and reproduce more, passing these features to their offspring. He then invented the term “most capable survival”.
\
A monk called Mendel
\ In 1866, a few years after Darwin's book, a monk named Gregor Mendel published a dark article (then) entitled “Experiences on the hybridization of plants”. He found something, which he called “Elerenten” – that it was not until the beginning of the 20th century, when his work became famous – obtained the name of “genes” and is considered the constituent elements and the motor force of evolution.
\
Chance is slow
During the first decades of the 20th century, understanding of evolution and genetics was supplemented by the concepts of mutations and chance. Meaning – The evolution progresses by genes undergoing random mutations. Some of these mutations are advantageous for the creature “made” of these genes and others are not. Creatures born with random “improvements” have better chances of survival and thus – evolution is advancing.
\ Since change by random mutations is a very slow process – especially for large creatures with a long lifespan and little offspring – the evolution of new “functionalities” is super -belabble. It is estimated that our eye has evolved towards its current in short form of approximately 100 million years. This is why it is so difficult for us to understand how much complex “parts” of our body exist (and where the idea of ”conception” by an all-powerful entity comes to our human intuition). What we forget is that even a less eye is useful. Whoever can only detect light for example. Or movement. Thus, the less advanced creatures in front of us were satisfied with what they had – as the children of our children of our children will be happier with a eye that has zoom capacities, can detect heat and see through clothes.
\
A selfish gene
\ In 1974, Richard Dawkins, British biologist, wrote a book entitled “The selfish gene”. He took the theory of “notch” evolution in terms of scale. He called “selfish” genes as a metaphor for his theory (since adopted by the large scientific community) that selection for the best mutation occurs at the gene level. Not the creature (he calls us “vehicles”). If a genetic mutation is better to survive in “the environment” in which it exists – it will prosperate. And the lines on a larger scale (such as eyes, wings, speech and construction of satellites) are “emerging” of complexity below.
\
[Dawkins is one of my favorite writers. Aside from this book he also wrote ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, ‘The God Delusion’ and other books which are fun, easy to read and enlightening].
\
Only 36%
So we have genes more random mutations and time to explain how we have come to whom we are, right? Not so fast. In recent years, many things have been discovered that cannot be explained by genes and random evolution. For example, only 36% of our children's height is directly attributed to parents' genes (and no, this is not an explanation why the baby is not like the husband).
\ Another example of a random taking a break is the case with mothers exposed to air pollution, developing asthma and passing the condition to their children to be born even when children were not exposed to the same environment.
\
Lamarckism, epigenetics and influencers
So, a short collar giraffe, stretches and trying to reach higher leaves, means that its offspring has longer cous? Apparently not. This is why Jean-Baptiste Lamarck preached at the beginning of the 19th century and has since been refuted in experiences and observations. So how can we explain these non-random generation adaptations? By complexity, epigenetics and influencers.
\ Complexity – The simplest explanation – says that things are, well, complex. The height cannot be explained by a “height gene” simply because there is none. There are many genes that interact in a complex way which has an impact on height (or intelligence, or love mint ice cream). And this complexity can evolve at random while hiding from our understanding. But complexity cannot explain intergenerational effects. Here is the epigenetics.
\ Epigenetics is a modern explanation showing that genes have “expressions” – how they manifest themselves in lines (phenotypes) – which are not only affected by their plan (genotype) but also by external marks (hereditable!). These epigenetic marks are influenced by external things (remember the pollution above? But also positive environmental conditions and even, surprisingly, deliberate). And so we have a “evolution” of a single generation.
\
Cascade creatures
Let's take a scale of the scale on a scale.
\ Our DNA is stored in the nucleus of the cell. This nucleus exists in a variety of creatures – animals, plants, mushrooms. These cells are called eukaryotic cells. But these are not the only type of cells. There are also procaryotic cells which are simpler and which are in bacteria (OK – and Archaea. For organic purists in the rear row).
\ The interesting thing is that the eukaryotic cells (our complexes) have probably been created by prokaryotic cells (simpler) “swallow” other prokaryotic cells and find that it is better to exist in this way (because I am sure that you wandered – that's what is called the Endosymbiotic theory And it is widely accepted today).
\ Of the most basic constituent construction of a living thing – creatures eat / merge with smaller creatures. They take advantage and collaborate with their environment thanks to these assimilations.
\
\
Gene matrioshka-hives
Each living creature can therefore be imagined as a Matrioshka-Ruche of genes. A creature inside another inside another – all collaborating (or operating) each other and their environment.
\ There are incredible examples of how it happens at the macro level. The emerald sea slug swallows an algae, adopts his genes and begins to photosynthesize through her skin. He can then stop eating – produce all his nutrients required from light, like a plant. Broccoli seems to complete a missing genetic property in people tend to lung cancer, reducing their risk of illness.
\ Biocommunication (communication between creatures at different levels such as plants and animals) and semiochemicals (the ability to affect the behavior and features of other creatures) are all around us. I will omit the history of Zombies ants And our vagus nerve to protect your sleep.
\ A multitude of long words (endogenous retrovirus, transposable DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, microarn) regulate our genes a third of time. Not our genes themselves, as we initially think. In addition, the fact that our body contains more non -human cells than human people can give us an overview of what we think we “are” and what we are really controlled.
\
Evolution clocks
Let's go back to the microscopic level and look at creatures like bacteria. These little things multiply. Very quickly. They divide and do not reproduce sexually, have simpler and “run” genomes on a much faster clock. They evolve (at random) on a different scale compared to larger creatures. So, if a need comes (that is to say-change in the environment), their successful generations will appear very quickly (random, random, random, bingo!).
\ And if these creatures are at the bottom (and a bar) of the Matrioshka hive – the evolution can (and fact) operate at a different rate compared to the Mendelian / Darwinian mathematics. As long as he responds to the “wishes” of the hive at all its levels.
\
[By the way – this “behavior” of possible jumps in evolution is supported by fossil evidence and is named Punctuated Equilibrium but I do not want to go into the argument or join a camp in the “evolution by jerks” vs “evolution by creeps”].
\
Gather all of this
We have gone a long way. Darwin's natural selection, through Mendel's genes, understanding mutations and randomness, epigenetics and the concept of cascade creatures. And we discussed factors with an impact on the rate of evolutionary cycles.
And here is my new theory of evolution:
\
Large-scale evolution can occur at a non-random and flowing pace if the creatures in the We-Siélent then decide.
\ The reason we don't see people with wings? Scale and complexity. So that apparent changes emerge many “interests” must align the scale of the scale.
\ But that does not mean that they will not. Or that we will not be able to “solve” the complexity one day and influence evolution in this way. Either by intention or by mistake.
\ As for the intention – food is a good starting point. Each creature is interested in food – so if we provide the right scale on the right scale – we could make the whole hive live and prosper. Signation – If there are small creatures at the base of our matrioshka which can generate positive genetic results on the scale – for example not to age and do not fall ill – we want to make sure that they are well nourished and happy. And it could be done with the right food for the right amount for the right kick.
\ As for errors – Please do not start with the vaccination of the cocovid mRNA. Your third eye is a contraction.
\
\
