Amenoum 2022.02.21 2022.02.25 2022.02.25 article Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum) 108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia mljubicic99{EAT} On the evolution of beings from a non-absolute reference frame biology evolution, beings, saltation, orthogenesis, mutation /authors/Amenoum.html#credits Guided evolution: Development and organization of beings from a non-absolute reference frame Abstract The theory of evolution by C. Darwin is based on random mutation and natural selection, favours vertical gene transfer and gradualism over horizontal gene transfer and sudden big changes, respectively. Later, it has been shown that horizontal gene transfer has a bigger role in evolution and evidence emerged for saltation of non-complex lifeforms. Here, I argue it is time to revisit orthogenesis and saltation (macromutation) of complex life too. Intro The central tenets of C. Darwin's theory of evolution have been, for a long time, regarded as settled and beyond challenge. Even the Punctuated equilibria did not challenge the theory, at best it supplemented it with stasis - where changes between generations do not accumulate but oscillate about the phenotypic mean. Even the more recent discovery that horizontal gene transfer has a much bigger role in evolution than thought previously didn't refute Darwin's theory. However, it has required significant revision of the story of the origins of life, adding saltation of non-complex lifeforms as a viable alternative to gradualism (something opposed originally). Still, I don't find the story complete, and here, inherent randomness, absolute causality and limited saltation of the accepted theory of evolution will be challenged. Definitions Weak evolution Weak evolution is a period of evolution of species during which it evolves gradually in a specific direction or oscillates about the phenotypic mean, at variable or relatively constant rate. Vertical gene transfer dominates and there are no large changes between generations. Strong evolution Strong evolution is a short period (a pulse) of evolution during which species evolve significantly from one generation to the next, generally through lateral gene transfer. Strong evolution may be a global event (when lateral gene transfer becomes dominant gene transfer method) or more or less localized to one or more species. Revisiting saltation and causality Two dominant theories that preceded Darwin's theory of evolution were orthogenesis and saltation. Both were considered obsolete by Darwin's followers, however, saltation (a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next), was, with emerging evidence, eventually accepted as a viable alternative to gradualism, although still considered as reserved for non-complex organisms. Orthogenesis (hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal due to some internal mechanism or "driving force") is still considered obsolete, although its notion that evolution represents progress has been widely accepted. However, if one can challenge the absolute reference frame in Special/General Relativity and uniformitarianism in geology (notion that geological events occur at the same rate now as they have always done) one can generalize saltation and validate orthogenesis. I have challenged both in the theory of Complete Relativity (CR) and the analysis of the Solar System in the context of the same theory. What is relevant in this context - is the postulated existence of discrete vertical energy levels of invariance and hypothesized planetary neurogenesis. In CR everything is completely relative and physical constants differ between discrete scales while physical laws remain invariant as long as they are completely relative (ie. contain no absolute constants). Complete relativity implies self-similarity of universes (scales of energy, or existence) and requires processes to be replicated across different scales. This is the basis for the hypothesized equivalence of standard embryonic development and evolution of life on the planet. More specifically, the evolution during Phanerozoic is hypothesized to be relatively equivalent to neurogenesis. Since the development of living beings of our scale in coded and the outcome can hardly be changed to significant degree (without external gene manipulation) - it can be stated that this quantum of evolution has a goal. If that is true, then it must be true for its equivalent on larger scale - the orthogenesis is scale invariant, it must be generally true, not limited to quanta of one scale. This is obvious if one compares living beings on Earth with proteins and cells (relative to Earth, humans are likely proteins). Both, the development (synthesis) or cultivation of individual protein/cells and their organization into tissue, organs and networks is all coded. Some processes are relatively random (pseudo-random) and such events occur during slow gradual evolution (weak evolution) but these are punctuated by events of strong evolution. Strong evolution includes saltation, which, with scale invariance, cannot be limited to bacteria and other non-complex organisms. By this theory, humans are not special (certainly not absolutely) and any strong anthropogenic influence on evolution is unlikely to be random, rather coded strong evolution event. When this is coupled with hypothesized oscillation and periodic punctuations in decay rates of elements, equivalence between the current and other larger extinction events may not only be qualitative (in terms of associated events, although even equal triggers cannot be ruled out) but quantitative too (at least in terms of temporal periods during the event). Current accelerating changes in climate and environment correlated with accelerated human industrial and technological development are strong evidence we are in the midst of a strong evolution event. Synthetic biology is developing rapidly, it has already enabled creation of viruses that can transform DNA of living individuals. It won't take long before human induced horizontal gene transfer will transform one complex lifeform into new species (likely chimeras) in a single generation. Strong evidence for coded evolution would be precursors and apparent violation of causality. Obviously, precursor lifeforms exist even in Darwin's theory but, in reality, evidence exists for effects preceding the cause too.
In CR, cause and effect must be relative and causality can be relatively violated - unlike the causality in Special/General Relativity, it is not fixed (based on an absolute constant). Entanglement between past and relative future exists, this is the entanglement between different scales of equivalent phenomena, thus, the uncertainty in violation is proportional to distance between past and real future. In CR thus, causality is, like in Quantum Mechanics (QM), effectively replaced with correlation. Space and time are relatively equivalent and order of events in time is relative just as order in space.
This is regularly confirmed on standard quantum scale, but also on human scale. Bacteria have been found resistant to antibiotics years before these were developed. In example, one strain was, in 1915, resistant to penicillin and erythromycin, which went into use against human infections in 1942 and 1952, respectively. One explanation for this is that antibiotics exist in the wild and resistance has evolved as bacteria fought with each other. Certainly, that is a possibility with certain probability but multiple true interpretations are common in nature and one of these is violation of causality. While resistance to antibiotics may exist in the wild, how to explain bacteria on Earth equipped for survival on Mars? The extreme resistance to radiation of Deinococcus radiodurans could indicate it is an organism destined to survive the major mass extinction of the strong evolution event (if this is the last strong evolution event of planetary neurogenesis, conditions on Earth's surface will likely become Mars-like, but even if it is not, temporary field collapse is possible with each major mass extinction and, with it, exposure to radiation). Some argue that protection from radiation here is a side-effect of protection from desiccation. However, radiation and desiccation are often coupled - as evident on Mars, and, again, multiple interpretations are common (even required with CR). While current Earth's magnetic field strength is not different from average, it is decreasing and magnetic dip poles are moving rapidly. It may not be strong evidence, but it goes in favour of the collapse hypothesis. In the analysis of the Solar System in CR context I have found strong correlation between Earth's mantle discontinuities and major mass extinctions, which is a strong evidence for coded development of Earth. Added Definitions. Small update in Relativity in hidden variables. Relativity in hidden variables Some might argue, as some have argued before, that orthogenesis requires some supernatural force as there is no apparent internal mechanism or large scale DNA code equivalent. However, the effects are apparent - inability to uncover hidden variables does not refute the hypothesis, otherwise Quantum Mechanics would be obsolete. But, are the variables hidden at all in this case? Even the non-intuitive reality in QM can be resolved with CR, and, here, it might only be a matter of proper interpretation of observable phenomena. Relative to Earth, humans may be precursors of protein (ie. TGF-β equivalents, as I have hypothesized in previous works) or bacteria Mycoplasma (at least when comparing size and association with cancer). Bacteria are known to organize into biofilms where individuals specialize and have different roles in a process equivalent to organismal development in animals, plants and fungi. Thus, biofilms may be considered as precursor organs (passive, or introverted organisms).
Mycoplasma forming biofilm may have been, to some extent, incorporated into human genome in a strong evolution event making cancer genetically inheritable, possibly manifested in TGF-β. This may have happened at the same time humans became cancer for the planet, ≈10000 years ago.
Human organizations are similar and may too be considered as precursor organs. This would, on our scale, require mental connections (or correlations) between groups to be a precursor to physical connections - although, in CR even mental connections have to be physical on some scale (ie. forming flexible channels of entanglement, used for subconscious communication). But one can see this on large scale too - freedom of human individuals is decreasing, they are increasingly becoming passive, replacing real with virtual, while communication between large organizations (ie. countries) is mediated by charged particles in physical wires. Movement between countries is increasingly being restricted, traffic is reducing to the transfer of goods between countries but also between smaller organizations and individuals in these countries. There are signs of differentiation in human species mostly reflected in mental polarization or its absence (which will become physical with synthetic biology or natural pandemics), but organizations in general appear to be transforming into organs. Shall we ignore it all because we cannot identify the large scale DNA code equivalent at the moment? If one compares relative sizes, one letter of this code should be on the order of 10-2 m. This could be a sequence of standard DNA (implying there are differences between individual but equal molecules or letters in standard DNA - hidden variables we do not or cannot take into account) or organization of cells and smaller organ[ism]s. But does the DNA code equivalent exist at all at this stage of evolution on this scale or the code is hidden? For example, biofilm formation is not DNA coded but there are numerous benefits of organization into symbiotic communities, which is generally assumed to be spontaneous or a response to stress. Similar are human organizations relative to the planet. But these processes cannot be absolutely spontaneous and are likely not from a larger perspective. Others have recognized that macro-consciousness is formed by resonance of micro-conscious entities and that everything has to be conscious or alive to some degree. I have gone further and hypothesized that macro-consciousness does not emerge from resonance of micro-conscious entities (ie. neurons), rather that macro-conscious entity exists separately, as a waveform which collapses to form a strongly localized consciousness with the organization of micro-conscious entities. A group of micro-conscious entities thus co-evolves with macro-consciousness. Some kind (species) of macro-consciousness could then be entangled with any organization. Indeed, analysis of human organizations over time often hints at conspiracies (to reach certain goals) which are proceeding gradually at a generally slow rate (but accelerating, during strong evolution) and no individuals seem to be consciously participating in them. This coupling of a macro-conscious entity (soul) with an organization of bodies (relative to the macro-conscious entity) is, in my hypotheses, what constitutes an individual lifeform. Sometimes, this will be a precursor to decrease (de-localization) of macro-consciousness when operation of this organization becomes hard-coded into DNA or DNA equivalents making this organization and its development more mechanical - in strong evolution events.
Soul seems to have become taboo in modern science, being considered obsolete. Nothing should be taboo in proper science and there should be no negative pressure on those who want to revisit old concepts and ideas, especially if these have the potential to advance our understanding of reality.
Conclusion History has taught us that we should be careful when declaring theories obsolete and that we should be open to different paradigms. Hidden variables are in everything and everywhere and we cannot reveal them all but CR implies they do exist. When we choose what to accept as natural (and therefore not ask for stronger evidence), our choices should not be based on convenience - if we are interested in truth. If we continue to slave to absolutism we will remain biased and ignorant. While it may have it's short-term benefits, some of us may be coded differently and would like to choose the other way. Humans in general may be selecting themselves for survival from their own perspective but this is still natural selection. Mutation preceding natural selection might be random from the same perspective, but neither it is random nor does mutation precede selection from the other. Humans may be fit, but not for survival on surface (as decreasing fertility, among other things, indicates), but for transformation and transfer to Earth's mantle layers, or, they might be simply fit for extinction - as cancer cells. It might be wise then to put the reintroduction and revision of orthogenesis and the concept of souls on the agenda.