Directional Evolution
So how can evolution be guided without the need of the ‘hand of a god’? Until now we have seen intelligence as something that belongs to living creatures only. But Artificial Intelligence has shown us that this is not a condition. DNA looks much like a computer program and the last years computer programs have been developed with some kind of incorporated intelligence. So why should the DNA of humans and of other living creatures not also include some sort of intelligence? I have no clue why that should not be possible. You could say that it needs something super natural to add intelligence to DNA but then why does is not need that for programming a type of species? It is one or the other: or both parts of the DNA program were ‘written’ or no parts. And let us not forget that recent studies have shown us that indeed RNA, a molecule which looks to be as important for life as its ‘brother or sister’ DNA, shows some kind of intelligence: our cells contain a protein-directing machine, made of RNA and proteins, that sends newly made proteins to where they’re needed most in a cell. This machine is called the signal recognition particle (SRP) and so knows and decides where newly produced proteins will have the most benefits. Nothing random about it.
If you can imagine that a kind of ‘intelligence’ (intelligence not as ‘human intelligence’ but meaning _circumstances in or influences acting on DNA/RNA leading to a clear direction in the evolution of a species__*) can be incorporated in the genome, many new possibilities come into view. That this ‘Artificial Intelligence’, or maybe *_‘Natural Intelligence’ (NI)** is a better word, is a condition that is there all the time and so can do its job all the time or only at the moments it is triggered.
How could NI work? One could imagine that as a whole variations are random but on a species level or even on an individual level one variation is more likely to occur than another, for instance due to a lesser stability or a lesser protection against mutations of the concerning region or regions of their/its DNA/RNA. In fact recent research has revealed that mutations are not entirely random, so that in this respect the Evolution Theory is not accurate. For every species and even for every individual his or her DNA is (slightly) different. So you can image that offspring can inherit that specific sensitivity for these not random and more likely variations. Say that for some kind of fish the speed of swimming offers a favourable fit. And one individual fish has a small variation leading to a bit faster swimming. According to the here presented theory this is not a 100% random happening because this fish is a bit more susceptible for DNA/RNA-variations in the region that determines the swimming speed than for other variations. Because it is the better fit, this fish will produce extra offspring and some of this offspring will also inherit this instability or less protection, leading to this susceptibility. This can result in a lasting focus on faster swimming and so would lead to an evolutionary direction not purely dictated by coincidences and ‘survival of the fittest’. This susceptibility could be there all the time or could be triggered by specific circumstances. The term ‘intelligence’ is even more to the point if this trigger is caused by a situation that needs a better fit in order to be evolutionary successful or even to survive.
You could think: what a ignorance or even arrogance to assume that mutations in DNA/RNA are not completely random while that is a fundamental axiom of the Evolution Theory. But in 2022 J.G. Monroe at al. published in ‘Nature’ some remarkable findings (by the way: they are not completely undisputed).
They found that the genetic variation in a genome was not random and tended to be much lower around parts of the genome involved in the most important traits of the investigated species (plant called Arabidopsis). These parts seemed to be protected from mutations and in the same regions DNA damage repair seemed to act more actively. You can imagine that this sounds quiet logic because mutations/damages in these parts could easily finish the viability of the concerning living creature. In the same regions inhibiting epigenetic features were more common. As the word says they inhibit mutations. And it becomes even more striking. They also found that these epigenetic features were less than average present in and around the more specialized genes that were associated with environmental responses and so will have a bigger chance on genetic variations. So the genes responsible for adapting to a changing environment. And finally these scientists stated that these mutations seemed to be more important than natural selection to adapt to these changing circumstances. If these findings are accurate and will be supported by other findings resulting from research on other species, the presented theory of a directional evolution will become will get a scientific basis.
One can even wonder if something like a ‘positive susceptibility’ could be possible: that the chances on a positive mutation becomes larger and the chances on a neutral or negative mutation smaller. RNA knows where the proteins are needed the most. So if SRP knows where proteins are the most needed maybe there is also something like a molecular process that repairs negative mutations but don’t react on positive mutations. Does that demand too much intelligence of the DNA? Could be, so I won’t go that way and still let the evolution of a trait and the internal and external circumstances decide what is a positive mutation and what isn’t.
In this presentation ‘susceptibility’ is defined as a greater than random chance to get a mutation in the concerning region of the genome influencing one or more specific traits of a species, due to a trigger activated by interior or exterior circumstances affecting this region (‘active susceptibility’) and/or due to a lesser than average protection against mutation of this region (‘passive susceptibility’) and/or due to any other genome related influence leading to a greater than random chance of a specific mutation.
The theory that external or internal circumstances could favour specific mutations looks even more a contradiction opposite to the random mutations according to the Evolution Theory. So even more a bold statement. But Wielgos S at all. published in 2013 results from a research with the title “_Mutation rate dynamics in a bacterial population reflect tension between adaptation and genetic load_”. And they found that bacteria showed hypermutability in order to adapt to new conditions. And in this document the researchers wrote about a strong influence from the environment. So they found a clear relation between the circumstances in the outside world and the occurrence of mutations. They even wrote that this hypermutation enabled a population to avoid extinction. It is not clear, if these mutations were random or in accordance with their NI. But you can imagine that an extreme number of mutations within a short period going in every direction is waste and is like shooting with buckshot on a fly. No, far worse than that! Because if a huge number of random mutations happen by far the highest percentage of these would be negative so this would increase the life threatening situation instead of the opposite.
Another research done by Toon Swings at al. published with the tittle “_Adaptive tuning of mutation rates allows fast response to lethal stress in Escherichia coli_” gave some information about that: _specific mutations allow organism to adept to stressful environments. As soon as the right adaptation is reached, the mutation rate declines. Cellular mortality appeared to be the major force driving the quick evolution of mutation rates._
Devon M. Fitzgerald and Susan M. Rosenberg wrote in an article with the title “_How microbes “jeopardize” the modern syntheses”_ the following: _Mutations were assumed to occur by chance: constantly, gradually, roughly uniformly in genomes and without regard to environmental input. But recent discoveries reveal a totally different picture of highly regulated mutagenesis, up-regulated temporally by stress responses and activated when cells/organisms are maladapted to their environment potentially accelerating adaption. And mutation is also not random in genomic space, with multiple simultaneous mutations in local clusters which may allow concerted evolution._
Very interesting words in these articles are:
- hypermutability in order to adapt to new conditions
- a strong influence from the environment
- hypermutation enables a population to avoid extinction
- specific mutations allow organism to adept to stressful environments
- as soon as the right adaptation is reached, the mutation rate declines
- cellular mortality appeared to be the major force driving the quick evolution of mutation rates
- up-regulated temporally by stress responses and activated when cells/organisms are maladapted to their environment potentially accelerating adaption
- and mutation is also not random in genomic space, with multiple simultaneous mutations in local clusters which may allow concerted evolution.
Even more recent studies clearly indicate that evolution is not completely random and so not completely unpredictable. One more interesting study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (_PNAS_). This study was led by Professor James McInerney and Dr. Alan Beavan from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Nottingham, and Dr. Maria Rosa Domingo-Sananes from Nottingham Trent University.
One conclusion was that the evolutionary trajectory of a genome may be influenced by its evolutionary history, rather than determined by numerous factors and historical accidents. You could translate “influenced by its evolutionary history” as some kind of inheritability and as an evolutionary direction.
One research, and article based on the results, that could rebut these findings and so intends to confirm that mutations are as random as the Evolution Theory dictates, and as fiercely defended by evolutionists, has the name: _A broad mutational target explains a fast rate of phenotypic evolution_, written by Fabrice Besnard at al.
The abstract of this article states: _The rapid evolution of a trait in a clade of organisms can be explained by the sustained action of natural selection or by a high mutational variance, that is the propensity to change under spontaneous mutation. The causes for a high mutational variance are still elusive._ Yes indeed: it is about this second sentence and especially about this last word ‘elusive’. What about a certain susceptibility in certain regions of the genome?
And the abstract finishes with: _Our data indicate that a broad mutational target size is the cause of the high mutational variance and of the corresponding fast phenotypic evolutionary rate._ So, if I understand it well, the researchers claim that a more often, than random as to be expected, change of a trait, and so a faster evolution than other traits, is caused by the fact that the concerning trait is coded on more than one location on the genome, or even on a couple of these locations, and that a trait with less mutations is coded on one or just a few genes. So if one or a few genes are involved instead of many the mutation rate will be lower based on the happening of random mutations. As an example of a faster than random evolution of a trait, based on a multitude of locations, the large brain of primates is mentioned.
I feel the urge to make a couple of observations:
- If the size of the brain of a primate is coded in several locations in their DNA, than would it not be logical to expect that this also concerns other mammals? Is there any reason to suspect that their brain size is coded at less locations? To me that doesn’t sound logical. And so if the number of locations is more or less comparable than why doesn’t this ‘broad mutational target’ work for these animals to also have a fast evolving brain?
- More complex traits are often coded at more locations (loci) than simple traits. Do complex traits change more often? That would in my opinion really be a threat to the evolution of life in the direction of steadily more complex species.
- If a trait is located on several locations and one of these regions mutates, will that by definition have an (decisive) effect on this trait and so on the phenotype (the species with its traits as in looks like and appears in our world)? Could it not be the other way around? That if a trait is located on (quote) many genes, that this trait has a certain redundancy? So the capability to sustain a mutation without any or without a substantial impact? It looks to me more logical that a trait, which is coded in only region, is much more likely to be effected by one mutation if you are talking about the phenotype.
Let me limit the possibility of susceptible DNA-regions for a moment to the evolution of mankind, that has pushed us since the prehistoric times slowly but steadily towards an increasing human intelligence. That is the general opinion. If in our DNA it is programmed that a growing human intelligence is our focus of evolution, then what could trigger this program to be activated, if we are talking about an active susceptibility? A shortage of food could be such an event or of some specific nutrients. Or, maybe even more likely, a longer period of anxiety. Obviously these situations are life threatening and can be caused by not fitting properly anymore due to developments in the outside world. The shortage of food causes a lack of certain nutrients in our body that could give a signal to the region in our DNA/RNA that can initiate a ‘sudden’ change in our DNA, and to be more specific the regions that define our human intelligence. Anxiety produces specific hormones that could do the same. What a cell becomes, is determined by what molecular machines—RNAs and proteins—are operating in that cell. And those RNAs and proteins that are present in a cell are determined by transcription factors that switch genes on and off. So indeed RNA and proteins can switch genes on and off and so can change a cell and these cells in their turn can define the species. And also mutations in the RNA can result to new proteins and lead to fundamental changes in living cells. And it is not difficult to imagine that external influences like a shortage of specific nutrition’s or dying of cells could have such a triggering effect on these processes.
I wrote that in my opinion the human intelligence of say the Romans was not less than of humankind nowadays. So the conclusion could be that during the last 2000 years no significant mutations have taken place in the NI-regions of men, nor passively nor triggered by any circumstances. The latest could raise eyebrows because during this period there were wars, famines and other life threatening situations. Of course 2000 years is an in evolutionary context very short period, so if you look at it from the viewpoint of passive susceptibility that is not surprising. But from the viewpoint of active susceptibility this could raise questions. Does it really exist or is only passive susceptibility the possible way NI could work?
During the last 2000 years the world population of mankind has steadily been growing if you look at it globally. But there have been regions where during certain periods within this timespan this was not the case. For instance Ireland halfway the 19th century during the great famine. Could that event have had a positive effect on the human intelligence of Irish people? Another even more extreme example is the decline of the number of Jewish people in Europe during the first half of the 20th century. And what are the two richest ethnic groups, born in the USA? Yes, indeed, people that decent from those two ethnic groups. Just a coincidence? One should realize that these people survived those bad times, where more often threatened populations are bound to disappear or to be subdued. By the way if you look for the nations with the highest IQ you will end up in East Asia (Japan, Taiwan). If there were heavy times in those countries the last centuries I don’t know. Well, the recent history of Taiwan was quiet turbulent. The problem with IQ is that it says more about the level of education than of the real human intelligence.
If certain regions have a bigger than average chance to mutate, if these regions concern traits relevant to adapt to changing circumstances and if indeed an evolutionary trajectory of a genome is influenced by its evolutionary history, you can speak of a specific type of mutation that plays an essential role in the adaptation, survival and so evolution of a species. I call that a focused trait.
A focused trait is a trait that has a determining effect on the evolution of a species, resulting in a gradually and steadily development in time of this trait towards a higher level, due to an (active or passive) inheritable susceptibility for mutations in the region(s) of the genome that determine(s) this trait. This inheritability means that offspring has a bigger than random chance to inherit this specific susceptibility. Both the favourable susceptibility and the inheribility could be an evolutionary result.
Logically human intelligence could be a focused trait of mankind. Could there be more focused traits in the genome of the human species? Yes I think so. Like ‘walking upright’, like ‘language’, like ‘enjoying music and other arts’, like ‘fine motor skills’ and like ‘morality and religion’. I don’t want to imply that no other species have none of these traits but not in the scope human beings have them. Beside these traits we have way more traits but those are not more developed in mankind than in other mammals. Like running, smelling, seeing, digesting, breathing, growing hair, aggression, feeling fear, sexual drift and so on. Estimates indicate that humans have thousands and thousands of traits. And so have other species. Focused traits represent only a fraction of that number and could be as little as, I guess, 1-2% of all traits that a species has.
Let us take a closer look at this one outstanding focused trait of mankind: his or her brains and in connection with that his or her intelligence. Although, as I wrote before, the last thousands of years saw no improvement of our intelligence, research on older fossils and sculls show that the human brain has grown to about twice the size it had a couple of million years ago. There were periods of a relatively more rapid grow and period of a slower grow. As a time with a more rapid grow often the period between 800.000 and 200.000 years is mentioned. The given cause is a dramatic climate change during this period. That sounds indeed like a trigger.
Bruce Lahn, the senior author at the Howard Hughes Medical Centre at the University of Chicago and his colleagues have suggested that there are specific genes that control the size of the human brain. These genes continue to play a role in brain evolution, implying that the brain is continuing to evolve. The acquired data - obtained from humans, macaques, rats and mice - showed that the genes in the human brain evolved much faster than those in the other species. So the NI of humans including their focused trait could be the right if not only explanation for this striking difference.
Evans, Patrick D. at al. wrote in the publication “_Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans_” the following:
The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose ~37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift. This indicates that it has spread under strong positive selection, although the exact nature of the selection is unknown. The finding that an important brain gene has continued to evolve adaptively in anatomically modern humans suggests the ongoing evolutionary plasticity of the human brain.
With respect to NI and so ‘directional evolution’ a couple of words are very interesting: “_under strong positive selection_”, “_frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift”,_ “_the exact nature of the selection is unknown_”. Well the nature that can explain this strong positive selection and the speed of this process is the NI of humans; a more than random chance of mutations in the region of these genes due to their susceptibility. Another explanation could be a higher fitness (for mutations) that humans could possess compared to other primates. But other researches indicate that the genes of chimpanzees have had more mutations than the genes of mankind so to me that explanation looks less likely if not unlikely.
Limited to mankind those influencing circumstances (or even without them, if we talk about a passive susceptibility) would mean a (small) increase of human intelligence (and so by definition not any other trait that could also have given a better fit in these circumstances) that would make it possible for us to adept to these changing and maybe even threatening circumstances. So based on the incorporation in our DNA/RNA of a programmed intelligence (NI), that may be triggered if needed or that may be there all the time, we do not need anything super natural. And that can indeed explain the more or less constant growth of intelligence of humans over a (in human terms) very long period of time, something the Evolution Theory can’t. So focused traits will have a bigger impact on the evolution of a species than ‘survival of the fittest’ has. But in the end this broadly accepted dogma has indeed the last word, because it determines if this more than random mutation of a focused trait will be a favourable one or not for the individuals that carry this mutation (if the starting point is that in the situation of focused mutations the chance of a _positive_ mutation is not bigger than in the situation of random mutations).
Note: This presentation of the rate of mutations is simplified in order to make it more transparent. For instance in reality the rate of mutation will increase with the size of the population.
The theory of focused traits can also explain why not every species develops in the same direction – for instance a growing ‘human’ intelligence - because say food shortage triggers another region (gene) of their DNA/RNA and so initiates a change in these active genes and/or produced proteins which in their turn lead to the improvement of another trait, their focused trait, which has given and gives them in this way in their environment the needed (improved) capacities. And this over and over again. It is also possible, like the given example of the fast swimming fish, that just the inheritance of a less stable or less protected region of the genome on its own may already offer this same improvement over and over again. So at more random moments and so not triggered by specific circumstances. In the standard’ Evolution Theory these possibilities and processes are not incorporated.
What about the finches on the Galapagos Islands? Did they develop their bowed beaks because of any susceptibility in their genes? That could have been the situation. If we look at an active susceptibility food shortage could have been a trigger. But is it logical that there was something in their DNA/RNA that these kind of circumstances would lead to such an effect? Possibly but not necessarily. So the Evolution Theory looks to be a good or maybe in these situations even the best explanation. But if you combine it with Natural Intelligence (NI) much more can be explained and understood than without this significant addition. Both complement each other.
The fact that the brains of some mammals also grew during their evolution, but way less than in humankind, can also be seen as an example fitting within the Evolution Theory. The focus of their NI was not on human intelligence but nevertheless the ‘survival of the fittest’ did have some influences on their brains with a positive effect as a result, but not focused and so not comparable with the growth of human intelligence appearing in mankind over the same period of time.
By the way: is the fact, that a coincidental variation in the DNA can give a better fit, indeed nothing but a coincidence? Is it not striking that, there where coincidences are the driving force, there are mutations and also so many chances? Look at how many seeds trees produce every spring. Or the almost immeasurable number of sperm cells men produce during their lives. It looks like waste but it could also be a way to make the chance of a coincidence and of a positive outcome bigger. So indeed ‘coincidences’ don’t exclude some kind of a creator……
There is also something else. It becomes more and more clear that the development of new variations and species happened more quickly than presumed so far. See for instance ‘Nature’ 29 May 2022: _New research suggests that Darwinian evolution could be happening up to four times faster than previously thought._
So if the appropriate variation of the DNA is not limited to one individual and if this variation is not in random directions, that could explain why these processes of evolution or even of specification (origin of a new species) seem to go more rapidly than expected on the basis of just the Evolution Theory.
There are more reasons to doubt the evolution of animals and of mankind as only a process based on coincidental events. And without any other influences or mechanisms except ‘survival of the fittest’. A random process of DNA variations will go on and on without any restrictions and without any cause. So logically the origin of new species will be in its basis an exponential process: 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 8, 8 becomes 16 and so on. Of course this will be slowed down by the lack of isolation in a lot of circumstances (that’s where the survival of the fittest comes in), but it would still happen and lead to an in time increasing frequency of confrontations between species. This is, as far as I know, not the reality.
‘Natural Intelligence’ in DNA can’t foresee everything. Situations can appear that are life threatening but don’t generate the right response from the genome (for instance the right protein), passively or actively. Extinction can be the result of that. An active susceptibility will give a smaller risk of extinction than a passive susceptibility because there could be a ‘direct’ response to a more or less acute life threatening situation.
An interesting question is, if there are indeed other animals with such an incorporated focus or for specific variations susceptible DNA-regions, like there is for some plants and, or supposed to be, for mankind. It is reasonable to assume that would concern traits in which these animals excel or at least make a difference.
One can read for instance the following text on internet (Evolution of giraffes by MeetTheFossyls on DeviantArt):
The evolution of giraffes and the Okapi isn't as straightforward as once believed. For a long time, the body plan of the Okapi was thought to be a form between the primitive ancestors of giraffids and the species that live nowadays. A study in 2015 showed, though, that the evolutionary branch of the giraffes and Okapi split at about 16 million years ago during the Miocene epoch. From here, the neck vertebrae started to elongate in the branch that would result into the giraffes and shorten in the branch that would result into the Okapi.
One can read that 16 million years ago the elongation process of the neck of giraffes started. So maybe in the short time it was not a straight forward process but over a longer period the direction of this evolution is clear: a longer and longer neck. By the way: strangely enough it is hard to find on internet these kind of described evolutions other than that about the human species. For instance the cheetah: I expected to find an overview of fossils of ancestors of the cheetah with improving speed in time. But I could only find information on the evolution of their scull.
There are more examples that make an evolution influenced by NI, complementary to an evolution caused by random mutations, more likely than an evolution purely initiated by coincidental mutations. In Africa and Asia more than one species of felines live. But that also applies to America. How is it possible that animals with so much in common have been living on continents that are divided from each other by a huge ocean? The theory is that during a period with a low sea level some 5 to 9 million years ago felines migrated from Eurasia to America crossing the Bering Street. By the way if you search for an explanation for the living of mammoths on both these continents (strangely enough) 1,8 million years ago and 100.000 years ago are mentioned as periods of low sea level at this location.
But ok, the isolation from each other was perfect so it is remarkable that the resemblances between say a leopard and a puma are still striking. This can mean two things (or both combined): or there have been just a few evolutionary steps over all these millions of years (while humans and chimpanzees have had many more and many more far reaching steps over the same period); or there have been more steps than just a few but, based on the ‘NI’ in their DNA/RNA, these steps were independently from each other more or less in the same direction(s) on both continents. Which, by the way, would make isolation less important concerning the origin of new species, than normally considered. Fossils from both continents could shine light on this.
We can compare this with the origin of humans 6 to 9 million years ago. So more or less the same period till today. If you compare these results you may conclude that the differences between men and apes are way bigger than say between leopards and a pumas. If that is also true on the level of DNA, I don’t know, but just looking at both, what food they eat, how they walk etc. this is undeniable (on the level of the phenotype). But ok the conclusion could be that one species evolves quicker than the other. Based on the Evolution Theory there is no explanation for this if both populations are more or less equal in size. Why should there appear more variations in the DNA of primates than in the DNA of felines or why should the variations in the first situation over and over again be more favourable?
But with the incorporation of NI it is easier to explain, if you look at the way active susceptibility could work. The programmed triggers of primates may be more sensitive to events in their environment than the programmed triggers of felines. Or during the period of 6 to 9 million years the circumstances that trigger the DNA/RNA region containing NI of primates have occurred more often than the circumstances that trigger that DNA/RNA region of felines. If we look at the possibility of passive susceptibility there is also an explanation. And this is that the regions on the genomes that influence the traits which determine the direction of evolution, are better protected in felines than in primates and so are less vulnerable for mutations. Another explanation based on passive susceptibility is that the focused traits of primates offer more opportunities than those of felines.
Indeed the frequency of mutations varies between species. It is qualified as the mutation rate. Maybe this term is more or less the same as susceptibility. And if the mutations, according to this rate, happen in specific regions of DNA than is confirms my theory.
If we look at, at least concerning the phenotype (the species as we see and experience it), the much bigger division between men and apes on one side and the much smaller division between felines living on different continents, appearing over more or less the same time span on the other side, the question is how to explain this (or between two other species with a clear difference in evolution speed). There is more than one possible reason:
- The critical variation of the DNA/RNA region concerning NI was in the situation of the ancestors of humans and apes bigger;
- The critical variation of the DNA/RNA region concerning NI was in the situation of the ancestors of humans and apes more essential;
- The critical variation of the DNA/RNA region concerning NI hit in the situation of the ancestors of humans and apes a bigger group, so the process of change had a bigger and faster impact (more favourable).
Or/and:
- The evolutionary trigger of humans and/or apes was more often triggered (active susceptibility) or the concerning DNA regio was in humans and/or apes less stable (passive susceptibility);
- The evolutionary trigger of humans and/or apes had a bigger effect at the moments it was triggered (active susceptibility) or the instability in the concerning DNA regio was in humans and/or apes more essential (passive susceptibility).
There is even another explanation possible. I will come to that later on.
By the way: if you wonder if indeed the genetic differences (genotype) between apes and humans are bigger than between the different types of felines, yes it is. Homo Sapiens but also Neanderthals have/had 24 pairs of chromosomes, while all apes have just 23 pairs. All felines have 38 pairs of chromosomes except ocelots.
Research indicates that the adaptive evolution of mankind after ‘the split’ was relatively limited (which by the way I can’t follow) and that the adaptive evolution of chimpanzees was significantly bigger. But, maybe surprisingly, in the past not so much research has bene done in relation to the development of the human brain. Ethical issues could be the reason behind that.
There is an evolution theory based on the fact that during life some species can adapt themselves to changing circumstances. And that these changes can be inherited by the offspring of these species. Implicating an evolutionary process with the speed of light compared with the speed of this process according to the traditional Evolution Theory. There are a lot of species which respond to poor quality diets by increasing their food intake, enlarging digestive organs, and increasing the capacity of the digestive tract. This kind of adaptation is named Plasticity and it allows individuals to 'fit' their phenotype to different environments. One can imagine that this capacity can present an evolutionary advantage and so can present ‘the survival of the fittest’. This is something within the limits of the Evolution Theory. But assuming that this can become the start of a new or changed trait or even species, is way outside these limits.
Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies _Polypterus senegalus_, AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but prefer living underwater. But when Standen took Polypterus, that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years. But the Senegal bichir does this in a single generation. (The Guardian, _Do we need a new theory of evolution_?, By Stephen Buranyi)
If you read that external circumstances can trigger this adaptation process and if it appears that Plasticity is limited to one or just a few traits of a species, this adaptation process could be an extreme form of active susceptibility.
The three diagrams below more or less summarize the possible evolutionary processes concerning the population of a species and its better fit. This is a schematic presentation bases on the assumption that the biosphere keeps constant and so offers a living to the same population size.
Directional evolution instead of an evolution evolving on the basis of random mutations, implies an essential difference. And that is the fact that the traits, that are the subject of the directional revolution, could differ from the traits that would give the survival of the fittest in a certain situation. Directional evolution of a species is not by definition focused on the best fit but on another fit, than the ancestors have/had. So not with the focus on competing with those ancestors but directed to and focused on a way of living beside their ancestors.
In the late 60s molecular biologists looked through a microscope, focusing on individual molecules. And when they looked, they found that the genes were evolving while natural selection wasn’t playing any part in this process. It looked like some genetic changes were being preserved for no reason at all. Again an evidence or at least a support for the existence of focused traits.
If you follow this process, it becomes understandable why in a world where dominance, strength, cunningness and so on would have given the best fit to humans, still the growth of human intelligence appeared and appears to be the dominant evolutionary process of mankind. And why not all men have six packs. That could be a part of our evolution but clearly not of our directional evolution.
Earlier I wrote that it somewhat surprised me that people still have a conscience while unfortunately men without conscience have become our leaders over and over again, so were and probably still are in an evolutionary context the best fit. According to the Evolution Theory therefor conscience should have disappeared out of our gens a longtime ago. So one has to conclude that losing our conscience is not a part of our evolution. This implicates some kind of a genetic block incorporated in NI. Beside the essential traits that every living creature needs to be able to survive, there could be more DNA-regions that are extra protected against the chance of mutations. So there are also less than random variations in some (other) DNA-regions. What about the codes in our genes that determine that our body grows older so at the end we will die? Never heard of anybody who’s concerning codes mutated in such a way that this person does not age.
The following influences could limit or even block the occurrence and/or evolutionary development of a certain trait:
- Trait is the result of a non-inheritable mutation;
- Extra protection of the concerning region against mutations or extra repair efforts to undo mutations (which may be affected by internal or external circumstances);
- Genetic restrains in these regions limiting the development of the trait these regions code;
- Restrains imposed by other traits (for instance: is our blood circulation capable to transport enough oxygen to even bigger brains?). (Later on I will qualify this as an ‘internal fit’). During evolution these restrains may be lifted due to the parallel evolution of these restraining traits.
NI could have three effects: giving direction to the evolution of a species, excluding evolutionary directions and limiting the process of evolution in respect to certain traits. For instance that could limit the human intelligence and explain why there have been no further growth of human intelligence over the last thousands of year. If indeed this is incorporated in DNA that would also explain why the process of evolution will likely not spin out of control. How could the evolution of a trait be blocked by DNA? By ending its susceptibility and giving the concerning regions an enhanced defence against mutations. I would like to call that negative susceptibility. Or even by changing the code, production of proteins and so on.
One can wonder if during the evolution of a species the susceptibility in connection with the focused traits, that define this new species, may change. A higher susceptibility in a small population would make the chances for the new species to become successful bigger because its (new) focused traits would develop faster and so also the distance to its ancestors. Besides that, we are talking about a knife that cuts both ways. If the number of focused mutations is more than random, than one can expect that the number of other mutations, that could be life threatening, is lower (assumed that the total number of mutations is constant). If so, this will be significant because in small populations there is a bigger risk of the fixation of deleterious alleles, which decreases genetic diversity and adaptive potential. There is even a third positive effect that a higher (positive) susceptibility could have in the first phase of the evolution of a new species: there will be less concurrence of other possible beneficial mutations which in its turn strengthens the focus on this one (new) focused trait, and so accelerates the speed with which the distance to the ancestors grows.
A negative susceptibility of a once focused trait, if the population of the ‘not so new anymore’ species becomes larger, would slow down the development of its focused traits and so possibly also of this species. That could limit the threats it presents for other species. Besides that, a negative susceptibility concerning ‘non-focused’ traits can protect a species against negative mutations, something that is extra important in the first phase of a new species when the population of this species is still small.
So during evolution a lot of changes are imaginable, some happening during different states of evolution, some happening more or less parallel if it concerns different (focused) traits:
- Focused trait going to a non-focused trait (or the other way around);
- Focused trait going to a trait with a negative susceptibility or even to an evolutionary blocked trait (and the other way around);
- Non-focused trait going to a trait with a negative susceptibility or even to an evolutionary blocked trait (and the other way around).
- Focused trait changing concerning its sensitivity, its trigger and so on.
Studies have been made, on a theoretical basis and a more practical basis, to see if there is a relation (beside the statistics) between size of a population and the frequency of mutations. But these are all based on the assumption that mutations – positive, negative or neutral – are happening randomly. Mostly in this context it is stated that large populations due to a lot of mutations, can lead to decreased growth rates and heightened mortality; therefore, population size also tends to decrease as mutation rate increases. With focused traits these negative mutations will get less chance, so could that increase the threat of this ‘not so new anymore species’ for its environment? I guess not. For two reasons:
- Probably there is an end to every positive trait that a specific gene code can offer (so also a limitation to the evolutionary drive of ‘survival of the fittest’).
- Other traits and physical restrains influence how beneficial a focused trait can be. We could qualify that as an ‘survival of an internal fit’.
To give an example: why are birds not becoming bigger and bigger? Because that would demand longer wings. And that would in its turn result in heavier bones. But extra weight ask for bigger wings. So this evolutionary process ends somewhere; at a certain moment there is no internal fit possible anymore. Sometimes traits can be linked and so is their evolution. This is called Phenotypic integration. That can be beneficial in reaching an internal fit and extent the mentioned limit. Later more on this.
By the way: Normally the differences between genotype and phenotype are limited to the existence of dominant and recessive alleles and the impact (or not) they have on the phenotype. In the context of my theory the differences between both go further and also concern the limitations one trait can put on another trait to become a trait, which mutations could offer ‘the survival of the fittest’. Further on I will illustrate this by showing the influence of losing weight (trait 1) on the possibility of the development of wings (trait 2) to offer this ‘survival of the fittest’, which determines if birds as a flying species will arise or not.
If you read that human intelligence has not increased over the last 3000 years and even could have gone backward a bit, you may conclude that our focused trait is losing drive. So maybe random changes are getting more chance. That possible situation in combination with a very fast growing population, leads to the clear risk of a rapid growth of negative mutations that could implicate a threat to the health of humans. Could that be one of the explanations for the fast growing number of people getting cancer?