Amenoum 2022.02.21 2024.04.28 2024.04.28 article Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum) 108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia (amenoum.org) mljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com On the evolution of beings from a non-absolute reference frame biology evolution, beings, saltation, orthogenesis, mutation https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6250734 /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 of complex life (macromutation) 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 a phenotypic mean. Even the more recent discovery that horizontal gene transfer and de novo genes have 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, the story is not complete, and here, inherent randomness, absolute causality and limited saltation of the accepted theory of evolution will be challenged. Definitions Saltation Saltation is a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation. Mechanisms behind it are various forms of gene duplication and horizontal gene transfer. Orthogenesis Orthogenesis is a hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal due to some internal mechanism or driving force. Reductionism and absolute reference frames have led to ignorance or marginalization of orthogenesis. However, analysis in the framework of Complete Relativity (CR) suggests relative orthogenesis must be present on some level. Discrete scales of invariance of physical laws, postulated by CR, and self-similarity of universes predict reference frames in which evolution of planet Earth is evolution of a living being. Since development of organisms of standard scale (eg. life-forms inhabiting Earth) is coded it obviously has relative goals - even though the code is somewhat plastic, it is possible to predict with great accuracy what physical form an embryo will develop into. The theory of planetary neurogenesis then hypothesizes that life-forms inhabiting Earth represent large scale protein and cell equivalents and whose evolution thus must have relative long-term goals too, even though deviations of smaller scale in space/time are to be expected. Qualitatively thus, the large scale evolution and small-scale organismal development are relatively equivalent processes and ontogeny can be interpreted as a relatively coded evolution of particular scale, or a quantum of evolution of larger scale. 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 saltation dominated short period (pulse) of evolution during which species evolve significantly from one generation to the next, generally through lateral gene transfer and inheritable [epi]genetic changes. Strong evolution may be a global event affecting majority of species or more or less spatially and temporally localized, affecting one or more species. The soul In CR, I have equalized the soul with a graviton or a superposition of gravitons, which, in CR, exist on different scales and can have different nature correlated with different forces (eg. on relatively fundamental levels, a graviton may be dominantly correlated with electro-magnetic or gravitational potential). Generally, the soul is correlated with a maximum in a field of potential or a superposition of maxima of fields of potential of various scales. In some reference frames, the soul may be interpreted as a maximum itself, however, in reality, the two are coupled. The soul is a quantum of potential, its inflation to a larger scale will cause relaxation (decay of the maximum) on the smaller scale and compression of the field on another scale. An organized body of ordinary matter can be interpreted as one manifestation of correlated excitations, however, in order for the collective of quanta forming the body to act as an individual with distinct consciousness, the collective excitation (field maximum) must be represented by (or entangled with) a single quantum at some scale (or a reference frame from which constituent components, or micro-conscious entities, of the quantum are unresolvable). In this interpretation, consciousness represents a superposition of fields of potential of various scales (correlated with multiple layers of consciousness), while the soul represents the quantum correlated with its localization. Depending on interpretation, the soul may exist simultaneously on different scales or it may be oscillating between the different energy levels (if oscillation is unresolvable from a particular reference frame, the two are equivalent in that reference frame). Both interpretations are relatively valid. I argue that moments of conception and death should be correlated with soul oscillation between vertical energy levels (where the speed of decay of associated excitation is generally inversely proportional to scale), while reincarnation (which can be inter-species) should be correlated with horizontal oscillation. Obviously, however, reincarnation is relative, as conserved information is relative. A soul can be relatively naked. A naked soul is a soul not coupled to an excitation (body) of larger scale. Speed of souls (and the speed of information transfer between them) is generally inversely proportional to scale (note, however, that souls generally change scale with coupling to excitations), while their rate of evolution is generally proportional to scale (although there are periods of weak and strong evolution in any case). An absolutely massless soul would not evolve at all and is not possible according to CR. Relatively massless souls are. 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 on macro-level, 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) correlated with gradualism in biology, one can generalize saltation and validate orthogenesis. I have challenged both in the theory of Complete Relativity (CR) and 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 (reinforcing self-similarity) and hypothesized planetary neurogenesis. 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 organismal development and evolution of life on the planet. More specifically, evolution during Phanerozoic is hypothesized to be relatively equivalent to standard neurogenesis. Since development of living beings of our scale in coded and the outcome can hardly be changed to significant degree (with no code changes) - it can be stated that this quantum of evolution has a goal. And if that is true, then it must be true for its [relative] equivalent on larger scale. This is obvious if one compares living beings on Earth with proteins and cells (relative to Earth, humans are likely proteins). Both, 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 nor are their actions unnatural (certainly not absolutely) and any strong anthropogenic influence on evolution may be correlated with a 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 strongly suggest 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. One strong evidence for coded evolution would be apparent violation of causality on larger scale.
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, effectively replaced with correlation. Space and time are relatively equivalent and order of events in time is relative just as order in space.
Violation of causality is regularly confirmed on standard quantum scale, but could also explain certain phenomena on larger 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? Extreme resistance to radiation of Deinococcus radiodurans could indicate it is an organism destined to survive a major mass extinction of a 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 magnetic 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 may not be different from long-term 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. Strong evolution event Horizontal transfer of genes between individuals and even between evolutionary distant species is a common source of genetic variation in bacteria. Genetic studies have shown that mitochondria and chloroplast in eukaryotic cells have evolved from bacteria that have been trapped in, or have colonized, a primordial host cell, establishing a [endo]symbiotic relationship with that host. Taking a holistic approach and looking at the whole collective of life in a particular ecosystem, it becomes obvious that a major driver of evolution is symbiosis - not the competition that, in some cases, may dominate intra-species. Within species, nature thus might be selecting those best fit to survive that competition, however, intra-species evolution is generally weak evolution. Symbiosis however, may generally be a [mental] precursor to large inheritable changes in organisms. We know that environments change, requiring adaptation for survival. However, there are thresholds - some changes may be too big and/or too fast for species to adapt, leading to extinction. During weak evolution, adaptation is achieved through sexual recombination. Asexually reproducing species, unless they can replace sexual gene shuffling, must then be more prone to extinction. However, research has shown that even multicellular asexual species (like bdelloid rotifers) can survive for tens of millions of years or more. They survive due to strong affinity for saltation (particularly horizontal gene transfer). But when do the genetic changes occur? Most likely, in a response to stress (or, more appropriately - synchronized with stress). Antibiotic stress in bacteria, for example, will, for some individuals be coupled with genetic changes enabling resistance. But this can be any stress leading to DNA damage - dessication, radiation exposure, toxic chemicals. Consider a damaged nuclear DNA in an eukaryotic cell. These cells are in a constant interaction with bacteria, but it is during the DNA repair that it becomes most likely that foreign DNA may be integrated into nuclear DNA (due to leaky cell membranes). This can even be a naked DNA strand (eg. coming from bacteria whose cell walls have been damaged in the same event). There, thus, exists a strong correlation between lack of sexual reproduction and affinity for horizontal gene transfer or saltation. But is this limited to microorganisms? Unlikely - given what is known so far, the question is - why would it be forbidden at all times, especially during strong changes in the environment when it could prove beneficial or possibly even required for survival? I hypothesize that, wherever strong environmental changes are synchronized with changes in fertility (possibly also increase in lifespan), these also signal the exchange of vertical gene transfer for horizontal gene transfer as the dominant gene transfer mechanism. And here, most likely transfers are, obviously, transfers between organisms in symbiosis. We are currently witnessing accelerating climate (environmental) changes but we are also witnessing diminishing fertility, decrease in intra-species sexual relationships and increase in relationships and mentalities which effectively inhibit vertical gene transfer (reproduction), at least in humans. Humans are also increasingly stimulating horizontal gene transfer, and not only between bacteria. Human genomes are being altered. With all taken into account, it appears it is not a question whether horizontal gene transfer will soon dominate, but will that transfer be stimulated solely by humans (eg. with diminishing fertility, desperately trying to ensure survival) or will it proceed in a more natural way, or both. And should the human way be interpreted as the relatively coded natural way? Everything's possible, after substantial research, my vote goes for superposition of solutions. Horizontal gene transfer and fossilization of symbiosis should not be limited to gene transfer stimulated by humans. This should be occurring in nature during any strong evolution event (usually correlated with mass extinctions). Evidence for this is emerging in nature. One example is the current evolution of nitroplasts (nitrogen fixing organelles derived from endosymbiosis), which has been discovered recently. And what are the environmental stressors in the current strong evolution event? Diverse, it seems. There are toxic chemicals in the air (already suspected to be correlated with loss of fertility) and water, there are droughts, there is increasing radiation - occurring with the decrease of Earth's magnetic field strength but there are also nuclear disasters and the apparently increasing threat of nuclear war. Who goes extinct? As I have hypothesized elsewhere, every species may contain relatively polarized and relatively non-polarized individuals (where one group may generally represent a minority). During strong evolution events, one group (sensitive to horizontal gene transfer) is evolving with environmental stresses at an exponentially accelerating rate while the other does not significantly change physically at all. This is how divergence and convergence in evolutionary trees occur during a strong evolution event, as shown in Fig. \fig1 (P represents polarized individuals or polarized subspecies of species, N represents neutral individuals or neutral subspecies).
Strong evolution event
Fig. \fig1: Strong evolution event The large scale strong evolution event of life on Earth lasts on the order of kiloyears (millennia), centuries or less (acceleration of evolution is exponential so the strong evolution event may last for millennia in total, but its symptoms may be apparent only during its peak). In the Fig. \fig1, P1N1 and P2N2 represent two different species composed of neutral (N) and polarized (P) subspecies. During a strong evolution event polarized subspecies converge into new species (P1P2), while neutral subspecies diverge into separate species. Another interpretation is valid as well - the P1N1 and P2N2 can represent individuals of different species, who both have polarized and neutral components (of which one dominates), the P1P2 then represents a chimera (ie. P3) of polarized components of individuals (with a negligible neutral component) in which polarized components dominated, while decoupled N1 and N2 represent individuals whose polarized component was subdued. Transformation of consciousness, a phenomenon some individuals experience during life, can be interpreted as a precursor for this. Transformation of consciousness can also be interpreted as a localized strong evolution event (or a quantum of a large scale strong evolution event), as during the event, one component is subdued while another is inflated, effectively, one is exchanged for the other (eg. polarization for neutrality). Transformation of consciousness is only relatively synchronized with the transformation of the body, generally it may precede body transformation in progressive evolution, however, the two may be strongly synchronized at the peak of strong evolution. With complete body transformation, diverged N1 and N2 can now be interpreted as new species, prior to that, their rising mental divergence from dominantly polarized individuals may not be recognized as speciation. I argue, however, that these should be formally recognized as different subspecies, as difference in function, interests and lifestyle can be enormous. The two interpretations of Fig. \fig1 are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they should generally both be valid, in some reference frames one will precede the other, in other they will be more synchronized. Note that in Fig. \fig1, transformation of the body of polarized individuals is relatively fast (synchronized with accelerated evolution), while neutral individuals are effectively physically unaffected by the changes in the speed of evolution. In other words, the former strongly evolve bodies while the latter strongly evolve consciousness. However, unless the changes are temporary, transformation of consciousness will follow in the former and transformation of the body will follow in the latter. But this transformation is likely to be slow. Thus, during weak evolution, in the former the transformation of the body effectively guides evolution of consciousness, in the latter, vice versa. This is accelerated in the next strong evolution event where, now, the former strongly evolve consciousness while the latter strongly evolve the body. Note that affinity for horizontal gene transfer may be [effectively] controlled by a single gene and once it is turned on (the probability for which is increasing with environmental stress), it enables saltation even in complex multicellular eukaryotes like humans. One of the most likely chimeras in the current strong evolution event are probably mixtures of human and canine DNA, as I've already predicted elsewhere. But other combinations are possible. Decrease in sexual interaction between individuals of the same species may be synchronized with increase of sexual interaction inter-species. This can be interpreted as a precursor for genetic fusion and increasing sexual compatibility between distantly related species (which are becoming less and less distant with increasing entanglement). When coupled with environmental stresses on cells, inter-species sexual intercourse significantly increases the probability of gene exchange between sexually interacting species, through bacterial and viral vectors. Not only that - it makes it more likely that germ cells will be affected. Gene exchange will be decreasing differences between the two species, and this should lead to compatibility enabling sexual reproduction eventually (assuming there are no inherited fertility issues at that point) for this new [chimeric] species. However, the question remains - is this a precursor phenomenon ensuring survival or is this a desperate but doomed attempt of life to find a way? It depends on the case, and in any case, free will is as relative as determinism. However, the symbiosis does not have to be(come) sexual to result in fusion (although, this depends on how one defines sexual interaction and whether it involves sexual reproduction). Probably neither the bacteria that became mitochondria nor the cyanobacteria that evolved into chloroplast did sexually interact with the precursor of the current host (although I wouldn't be so sure). Simply living (evolving) with a dog in the same house, for example, is the equivalent of bacteria and a primordial host interacting in the shared environment. Strong evolution then leads to genome changes for polarized symbionts and the symbiosis itself may get fossilized into a new organism - eg. through the addition of membrane enclosing the entangled symbionts into a new cell (coupled with mobility loss of individuals), capturing one of them into the other (in case of existing membrane) or simply producing a platypus-like chimera (which requires nuclear DNA changes in eukaryotes). While most likely candidates for fusion are mutually interacting species sharing the environment, DNA can come from other sources as well. Food, for example. In order to maximize absorption of proteins and other nutrients, cell walls of food cells are regularly damaged or modified by various ways of processing - before and after intake. DNA can survive all this processing intact (especially if there has been no thermal stress - dry DNA only starts to degrade at 130 °C). This exposes our cells to a lot of naked DNA. While gastric juice in the stomach, with its high acidity, will destroy (digest) most of this DNA, it can survive in other places. With the presence of certain microbes (eg. Salmonella bacteria) - which have the ability to create localized alkaline conditions, foreign DNA can survive even in the stomach. During weak evolution, what one eats may not strongly affect individual's evolution, however, during strong evolution this may not be the case. Thus, changing diet can literally change, or should be synchronized with the change of, the body of an individual. Changing diet from meat consumption to plant consumption is probably synchronized with exchange of extroversion for introversion, or exchange of body complexity/sensitivity for consciousness complexity/sensitivity. A balanced diet then indicates [evolution toward] a balance of extroversion and introversion. Divergence is thus synchronized with convergence (fusion of species, most likely symbionts). Survival, however, depends on the details. The collective whose individuals do not fuse (non-polarized individuals) with individuals of other species likely does not lose fertility either. Survival of such subspecies (now separate species) depends on the number of individuals mature for sexual reproduction and their fitness to survive in a changing environment (if not physical, they could have mental capabilities and adaptations fit for survival - eg. intelligence) or the ability to find non-challenging environments. As for the fusing subspecies, survival depends whether the fusion is fit more for symbiosis with the ecosystem or short-term competition and battle for remaining resources (which is probably the likely outcome if the fusion will be induced by polarized, short-term profit driven, humans). In any case, extinction should be relative. As hypothesized by planetary neurogenesis, major extinction on surface also represents a relative migration of life, where DNA (at least naked, if not possible otherwise) is transferred into the upper layers of Earth's mantle. 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 (eg. TGF-β equivalents, as I have suggested 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 [a collective of] 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, at least ≈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 (eg. 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 (eg. 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 or the driving force of orthogenesis? If one compares relative sizes, one letter of this code should be on the order of 10-2 m, for Earth. If humans and similar animals are large scale proteins, entire genome represents [the equivalent of] a single gene on this scale. Is physical organization of genes into a DNA equivalent necessary, especially in extremely introverted lifeforms with non-complex bodies? Or the code is on a scale invisible to us (unobservable)? Note that these large scale genes are effectively connected at some scale during information transfer with changes in entanglement, and these transfers always exist at some scale. 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 (eg. 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, even over many generations (although accelerating, during strong evolution) but 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 (fossilized) into DNA or DNA equivalents, with previous mental connections now represented by physical expression on an observable scale. Such fossilization should be happening during strong evolution events.
Soul seems to have become a 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. A reductionist, abusing Occam's razor, may see souls as obsolete, however, any genuinely holistic approach will find them required.
Added chapter The role of viruses. The role of viruses The role of viruses in evolution of life has likely been greatly underestimated. As RNA/DNA carriers and very effective and efficient mediators in DNA exchange between species, along with bacteria and archaea, they are the prime candidates for drivers of strong evolution. Given what is currently known about life, the Solar System and the observable universe, the outer space should be full of life and the Earth is probably constantly or at least periodically bombarded with viruses and other microbes (possibly even frozen eggs) since its conception - something others have suggested already, even if in a flawed paper with no provided credible evidence. And if conditions are right (and conditions have been right on Earth for a long time now), at least some of these will survive, multiply and affect local evolution. I am not sure, however, that these generally should be considered as salient components of orthogenesis - perhaps as epigenetic factors the role of which is to increase local diversity and, with that, increase the resilience of local life (similar to the beneficial effect of early exposure of human life to non-sterilized environments). If viruses have a role in orthogenesis it's probably more likely that such will come either from Earth's interior or will be manufactured in situ. However, it is the components of genetic material that will be generally coming from space. With hypothesized melting of permafrost/ice on the poles during neurogenesis events (major extinctions), new viruses will certainly be introduced to surface ecosystems. Similar to standard DNA transcription in humans, it cannot be excluded that species - large scale enzyme (protein) equivalents, exist in Earth's interior (possibly even at the bottom of oceans) which are manufacturing large scale messenger RNA molecule equivalents (viruses) which, when released on surface, affect differentiation of progenitor cells/proteins (eg. humans), guiding evolution into a specific (coded) direction. Another possibility is that the horizontal gene transfer (mediated by viruses) either between species in Earth's interior and Earth's surface or between extraterrestrial sources and species on Earth is driving orthogenesis. In any case, this does not imply conscious operation. Even humans could be, unknowingly, involved in the process. Small revision/update in Souls and orthogenesis. Souls and orthogenesis updated. Added chapter Souls and orthogenesis. Small updates elsewhere. Souls and orthogenesis Even if one does not believe that evolution of life on the surface of Earth is as coded as embryonic development of individual lives on it, it is useful to consider the concept. Similar is with the concept of souls. It might seem unnecessary, but if it is possible that a model of orthogenesis that includes souls would make predictions matching reality (and especially future) beyond what current models predict, why not consider it? We can argue later, whether the souls are physical (real) or just an abstract construct that proved useful but may not match reality - interpretations are always relative and some variables are beyond resolution, why then shouldn't one have a choice in which interpretation to believe? The CR implies evolution is relatively coded, but the question is how local - how much of it is the equivalent of genetic coding and how much of it is epigenetic?
Note also that what we consider epigenetic on our scale may be genetic from another scale.
Once one accepts that causality is relative and that evolution must be locally scripted to some degree, the concept of souls becomes particularly useful. Suppose the primary soul of an individual oscillates between two eigenstates (corresponding to expression of paternal and maternal ancestry). For this individual to evolve beyond the ancestry, it is necessary to include a 3rd component into this oscillation. And this 3rd component (soul) must correspond to one eigenstate of the [future] descendant of that individual. The existence of this 3rd component should generally significantly reduce compatibility with our ancestors and this can be interpreted as the cause why we stop living with our parents at some point in our lives. Of course, this change should be correlated with gene expression during the current incarnation, but some phase shift will generally exist between this expression and permanent effect on epigenome that will be passed on to descendants. During weak evolution, epigenome alteration may be lazy (minimal inheritance of epigenome changes) and it may take many generations before the epigenome reflects the soul expression of a current incarnation.
It is implied here that, during weak evolution, soul/gene expression does not significantly change between generations. This is in contrast to strong evolution when differences between generations should be growing exponentially.
Soul expression can then be interpreted as a precursor to [epi]genetic changes (relativity of causality however implies that sometimes vice versa will be true) and the soul itself is effectively guiding local evolution.
Oscillating solely between the two initial components, we might generally have problems with one parent at any time, but we'll still be compatible with the other, keeping us together as a family.
This also explains why some people stay with their parents until old age - without the presence of a 3rd component, they do not evolve further and they won't have descendants. One might involve cause-effect relationships here, but I argue that is the wrong approach, especially during strong evolution, when relativity in causality increases and underlying synchronicity becomes more evident. The fact that some of us leave their parents even before having children, while some leave after, could be interpreted as evidence for this relativity in causality. If we live in tribes voluntarily, the 3rd component might not differ very much from [one of] the ancestral ones, keeping ancestors and descendants together.
Note, however, that tribalism can be forced, but as such, it is unsustainable and may be correlated with decay of population rather than growth.
One might notice that, as the population grows, the 3rd component is becoming increasingly different from ancestral components and families increasingly get separated. This should be particularly evident during strong evolution when evolution is accelerated. In coded evolution (development) every population (even if cancerous) must reach its peak and will either:
As noted before, any population of particular species can be divided into subspecies (generally, polarized and neutral) which are likely to diverge into separate species, therefore the outcome (one of the propositions above) will differ between them. Note that prior to the event of strong evolution and stronger physical divergence, difference between subspecies may be largely in soul expression.
In this model it is obvious that population growth is strongly correlated with the rate of evolution.
Note also that existence of the 3rd component does not imply descendants in the future (even if it is coupled with increase in probability of descendants) but it should imply eventual separation from ancestors.
In any case, in this context, non-forced tribalism can be correlated with weak evolution while forced (short-term) one is the part of the pulse of strong evolution. The 3rd component is obviously necessary for orthogenesis, but also for progressive evolution. Modification of the epigenome is, however, limited, it does not expand the gene pool and may not be sufficient for creation of new species, rather hybrids of existing species (even though these may be classified as new species in some contexts). The Darwinian, or pseudo-random, mutation is a gamble that can result in new species but, as a potential driver, is probably limited to low populations of species where it will likely be correlated with extinction rather than with birth of new species. New functional genes used in formation of new species are de novo genes - physical manifestation on a larger scale of coding already present on the scale of the 3rd component.
Note that de novo genes may be the result of horizontal gene transfer even when that may not be apparent, eg. in cases where horizontal gene transfer occurs between planets. Retro-/DNA/RNA viruses may be common inter-planetary mediators of gene transfer, even if that may not be apparent due to phase shifts in habitability between planetary surfaces and intermittent bombardment with asteroids containing these carriers of change.
The question of whether evolution is pseudo-random (in CR, it cannot be absolutely random) or scripted becomes the question of randomness of de novo genes. I have previously hypothesized periodic asteroid bombardment and its correlation with mass extinctions and strong evolution. In that case, the influx of de novo genes is not randomly distributed over time (at least from that particular source, which may be dominant but not the only one). If the influx is not random, what it would take for genes not to be random either? According to my hypotheses, evolution of life between planets is relatively equivalent (planets/moons too can be categorized into species). In example, assuming humans evolved on Mars before they evolved on Earth, de novo genes that resulted in emergence of humans on Earth might have come from Mars.
Note that these genes, or microbes/viruses carrying them, are likely ejected into space during times of strong evolution (mass extinctions) when asteroid bombardments are common. Since larger asteroids are correlated with larger extinctions, when new larger asteroids may also be created, the complexity of genetic components in asteroids may generally be proportional to their size. Although, the reason for that, generally, may simply be the fact that greater complexity has a bigger chance of surviving in larger asteroids.
However, the question of how life evolved on Mars, through recursion eventually leads to a conundrum which can only be solved by pseudo-random (Darwinian) mutations or inflation/deflation of life from different scale where it is then implied that every possible life-form exists on some scale at any moment. I have hypothesized previously that the Solar System inflated from a single atom, did life on some of its components inflate with it? In any case, obviously, if one recognizes many different species over time (generally results of strong evolution) the Solar System alone cannot be enough to explain all that diversity of orthogenesis. Instead, what I find more likely, is the superposition of solutions. Periodic asteroid bombardment may bring abundance of frozen mediators (eg. retro-viruses), every time together with roughly the same set (pool) of a plethora of genes that cover most or all genes ever used over the planet's evolution (or evolution of life on its surface). Some of these genes will be compatible with current species on the planet and these will be used as de novo genes to advance their evolution. Subsequent weak evolution over millions of years (which may also include occasional input from space, but in less significant amounts) will create species compatible with different genes form the set which will be incorporated in a new pulse of strong evolution. Update in Souls and orthogenesis.
Note that viruses introduced from a distant eco-system (in space/time) are much more likely to pass the immune system undetected than viruses evolving locally. Is this a coincidence or not? In any case, it goes in favour of the hypothesis that such viruses drive strong evolution of species as this could enable massive and relatively silent horizontal gene transfers and modifications of inheritable epigenome (complex saltation).
During weak evolution, however, one might assume that the planet is generally not bombarded by complex components of life, but simple ones, such as amino-acids. Then one might assume that weak evolution generally does not have great influence on evolution of life overall and that complexity of extra-terrestrial components may be increasing prior to upcoming larger bombardment (through smaller precursor meteorites). The reason orthogenesis is not apparent is because it is a process that may be characterized as deterministic chaos. Determinism may not be obvious but the outcome was defined in the initial event of pairing (equivalent of conception), and this outcome depends on the species of a planet. Is the fact that we have discovered all building blocks of DNA in meteorites some of which fell recently (in cited study, two out of three meteorites fell less than 100 years ago, in years 1969 and 2000) a signal that this complexity is currently increasing? If the above hypotheses are correct, we might soon be discovering new meteorites with even greater complexity. Are souls real? Souls might be useful concepts in models of evolution and nature of life, but are they real? Although I have presented some evidence and testable hypotheses in my works that can reveal their presence indirectly, one might never have enough evidence to convince everyone in the existence of souls, or at least their equivalence to gravitons. Generally, it might all come down to the choice of interpretation. In the model above, however, how does one explain the case where an individual leaves its parents prior to the [probability of] appearance of descendants - or, before the loss of genetic compatibility and appearance of de novo genes? There must be some, to us invisible, precursor, one that effectively comes from future. In my hypotheses, standard soul is a particle or a superposition of particles forming quanta of space of larger bodies (eg. planets). These particles oscillate in mass, similar to oscillation of standard neutrinos. Oscillation evolves over time. Here, it might start as oscillation between two states but eventually the 3rd state might generally appear (at least that seems to be the case in the Solar System). The higher orders/states in oscillation (beyond the 3rd) should exist too but, generally, may not be significantly expressed (although even that can change with time).
Per CR postulates, there can be no absolutely sterile particles. For any weakly interacting particle there is a weaker one.
Drivers of evolution as drivers of morphogenesis The brain and consciousness (including deeper layers, or the subconscious) are entangled but they are not one and the same. Information transfer, being based on entanglement, thus does not have to be local. This will depend on species, subspecies and individuals. Even though the subconscious in the dominant subspecies of humans is generally short-sighted (in space/time), I believe this is not the case with the neutral subspecies. At least some of the neutral individuals will effectively possess a 6th sense, collecting information at greater distances (in space/time) and thus not necessarily experienced by the local individual. The boundaries of beings are relative and these boundaries are even more plastic for consciousness and its deeper layers (subconscious). Two highly correlated entities (eg. twins) may generally be considered as a single entity or a being. Similar to the gravitational fields, consciousness is best described by the fields of potential. A visible body or a brain can be interpreted as a highly localized high-energy manifestation (or excitation) of the associated field potential. It is correlated with deeper layers of the individual but, with decreasing energy, these deeper layers have a proportionally longer range (an individual is a superposition of fields of potential of different carrier energies and polarization). In any of these fields, information transfer occurs whenever/wherever there is a change in energy (entanglement), but since all these fields are mutually entangled as well, information transfer does not occur only horizontally, but vertically as well (eg. from deeper subconscious to consciousness). All "individuals" are bathing in this sea of information, but the amount, quality and type (range) of information collected, analysed and interpreted locally will depend on the individual. A body can be interpreted as an localized excitation of fields of potentials. But this excitation is the result of vertical information transfer (between different scales/species of potential), which is correlated with horizontal information transfer. On the level of the individual, this transfer is highest and least localized at conception (note that molecular twins exist all across the observable universe), it remains high during embryonic development (note that relatively the same tissues of cells/proteins are shared between different species, particularly during early embryonic development), while in the adult stage it reaches its minimum (most complex forms are most rare, note also that the speed of information transfer is inversely proportional to scale). This is why development of organ(ism)s is so robust and predictable (positive feedbacks between entangled entities exist - a snapshot of a more advanced remote development becomes a relative goal locally, guiding local development, more precisely, local development is guided toward the superposition of goals where stronger entanglements have stronger influence, note that this implies that for every egg these must exist a chicken somewhere, no matter how remote in space/time) but it also implies that a change in the development of one species can affect other species, more the more entangled the species are. In the adult stage, on the individual level, we're not usually as sensitive to changes in species, rather more to changes in subspecies and individuals. This is because, effectively, both vertical and horizontal range of information transfer is reduced. However, as noted previously, these limitations are relative, will differ between individuals and can even change dramatically during the adult stage (correlated with transformation of consciousness). Dreams, hallucinations or visions can thus be local, remote, or a relative superposition of both. Indeed, evidence exists for this, good examples include the works of R. Sheldrake, but others as well, including my own. In the adult stage, our hallucinations generally do not control our cells, rather the hallucinations or dreams are commonly interpreted as the effect of the experiences and states of our organs. I argue that the opposite is true during embryonic development. One interpretation for the drivers of morphogenesis are then the hallucinations of end-structure (based on information transfer correlated with [changing] entanglements). Cells are living beings, even if dominantly introverted. Dominance of introversion is reflected in dominance of hallucinations in the experience of reality. During embryonic development these hallucinations manifest through expression of relative gene equivalents in a specific dimension (scale) of space, which probably should be interpreted as [a species of] a time dimension. This code is evolvable, and, during weak evolution at least, may be interpreted as inheritable, although information sources for the code (hallucination) may not be well localized. Hallucinations may exist on the scale of a cell, but on other scales as well. Large scale hallucinations may affect individual cells just like individual cells can affect the hallucination. During development, however, significant asymmetry exists between the two. These hallucinations are equivalent to hallucinations on bigger scales, eg. guiding the organization of the flock of birds or a school of fish. What one interprets as spontaneous action or spontaneous self-organization must be, by the theory of complete relativity, only relatively spontaneous action. With causality being relative as well, hallucination can be interpreted as an echo of future, a field of attractor potentials in time. In nature, mediation of forces involves feedback processes between different entangled fields (eg. electric and magnetic) which could be interpreted as different dimensions of space. Gravity as well involves feedback process between entangled dimensions of space (one of these dimensions is commonly referred to as time). With relative causality, however, and no absolutely instantaneous reactions, hysteresis in interactions is omnipresent and so is memory. Thus, space curvature can precede clumping of ordinary matter. Such curvature is commonly interpreted as dark matter. This dark matter represents a field of attractor potentials, an echo of future (or past), or a hallucination. Note that hallucinations are relative themselves and they're not necessarily echoes of future, but can be echoes of past as well, eg. in regressive evolution. Such fields evolve and exist on different scales. A complex organism is an example of complex entanglements between dimensions (species) of space. Evolution requires such entanglements, on different scales. Therefore, evolution involves memory retention of both past and future events existing as hallucinations or echoes of these events. Hallucinations may guide organization of ordinary matter but vice versa is possible as well. During embryonic development the former dominates, in the adult stage of an organism, the latter. This is equivalent to gravitational wells. In an empty gravitational well of a naked graviton, dark matter dominates - it guides (drags) acquired ordinary matter, however, once the clumped ordinary mass becomes greater than dark matter mass, the ordinary matter will be dragging (and morphing) the hallucination. In my theories, I associate dark matter with gravitons which may also be referred to as souls. Generally, the souls can decouple from coupled bodies with inversion of spin momenta, breaking the strong entanglement. However, some memory of the previous incarnation must be preserved at some scale. Once decoupled (at point of death) the soul is delocalized, it is localizing with the new coupling (conception) and progress of embryonic development. The guidance of morphogenesis is thus a superposition of [local interpretation of] guidance in the previous incarnation (the memory of which can change even during the incarnation, especially during strong evolution) and information collected during the soul localization (which can be interpreted as information exchange due to changing entanglements between the remote entities and the soul). Note that this supports inter-species soul oscillation. Early development is similar between various species, only as the soul is localizing, the similarity is decreasing and the more local entanglements (eg. correlated with local DNA, and not necessarily local in space but in time), become more important or dominant drivers of development. The range of inter-species oscillation will then depend on the conditions and is proportional to the range of soul de-localization. In any case, an organism is initially a superposition of species (or, an undifferentiated organism) converging or localizing to a form of species and that of close ancestors. Note that this implies that the development is correlated with the size of population of species as this size is proportional to the positive feedback in the guidance of development. Deviation or success in development may depend most strongly on the [entanglement with] parents or parental DNA, but is not limited to parents. Everything is entangled. And this is why species extinct, or close to extinction, may be hard to bring back and develop to adulthood or sustain for longer periods. However, if the order of information collection is irrelevant and the mass of information carriers sufficiently small (implying long range), local extinction may not influence the outcome as long as the species exists somewhere within the range. On the other hand, information loss/mutation is expected to be proportional to distance. By my hypotheses, and evidence provided, the range of souls coupling to atoms is the radius of observable universe, for the souls coupling to bodies of complex life-forms in the Solar System the ranges vary, for souls coupling to life-forms on Earth these ranges are roughly between the Earth radius and the Earth-Sun distance (but these are dependable of the energy level of a large scale graviton coupled with Earth), with the probability for coupling at full capacity greatest at the range itself. Therefore, if long extinct species from Earth's surface can be brought to life, the other individuals of the species or their close relatives (or at least the associated DNA) must exist somewhere within the Earth radius. If one, for example, wants to [relatively] bring back mammoths from extinction, this will get harder and harder with less elephants around. Gravitons (souls) or superposition of gravitons can oscillate in mass (scale) so reincarnation between differently scaled bodies is possible as well. In my theories, all gravitons in the local universe oscillate between 3 mass eigenstates and the ratio between these is the same as the ratio between electron, muon and tau eigenstates in leptons of the standard model of quantum mechanics. For example, the electron/tau ratio is equal to the ratio of mass between humans and blue whales. While graviton mass is not equal to adult body mass (for species of life on Earth, it is lower by multiple orders of magnitude) it is proportional to that mass. Therefore, oscillation of souls between human and whale bodies is possible. Interpretation of memories (hallucinations), however, is not the same between scales. For example, in case of elementary entanglements, gravity-time entanglement on one scale can become electro-magnetic entanglement on the other scale. One (universal) code can be interpreted differently in development of different species. Of course, the environment can significantly affect development (evolution) as well. One may typically correlate hallucinations with brains, but, in general, hallucinations should be correlated with [evolving] memories and these can exist independently of brains or brain equivalents. Correlation of brains with hallucinations only leads to specific interpretations of these hallucinations (brain itself is just one interpretation of a particular hallucination). But the same hallucinations (or information used to construct them) can be interpreted differently elsewhere. Our adult dreams are interpretations of hallucinations correlated with relative past, present or relative future (or a superposition of these), usually strongly influenced by the experience of the local neural system, but this is not always the case and information on which hallucinations are based is not always dominantly local. If not for other reasons, due to finite speed of information transfer and scale variance of that speed, a hallucination can exist independently of bodies or even souls - just like souls, hallucinations can be relatively naked as well. Note that who or what is naked of what or who is relative. At time of death, soul may become naked of the body while the body becomes naked of the soul. Naked bodies usually decay fast over time but delocalize slowly over space, naked souls vice versa. Thus, the phenomenon of tukdam, assuming delayed body decomposition is real, can be interpreted as evidence for soul-body coupling. Reality is relative. What we consider our reality (coherent and consistent experience of the [external] world and its experience of us) could, at the same time, be a solid (embodied) hallucination or a dream of an extremely introverted organism, eg. planet Earth. In that case, the Earth is, at this point, obviously having a nightmare. Hallucinations can exist within hallucinations. Relative self-organization of a flock of birds, or a school of fish is a temporary embodiment of a hallucination, or unstable coupling of a hallucination and a body, and this hallucination exists within a larger one. The collective of polarized human society seems to be strongly influenced (guided) by a specific hallucination, which in its embodied form (coupled with humans) can be interpreted as a disease (cancer, obviously). But this disease may be part of Earth's embryonic development just as various diseases are part of our embryonic development (eg. diseases domesticated and integrated in the body through evolution, diseases which we now may not even recognize as diseases). Development and organization of human species is thus guided by hallucination, although some feedback always exists - it can be positive, where human individuals are reinforcing certain development (toward a specific memory of the hallucination), or negative, where human individuals are working against the coded future (past). If this is, however, embryonic development (where plasticity of memories is low), is resistance effectively futile? From what we are witnessing currently on Earth, the resistance seems to be extremely hard, suggesting indeed that this development is the equivalent of standard embryonic development. Note that, in general, the attractor potential of fields is not necessarily mass (or, not necessarily interpreted as mass) and should be, in general, referred to as attractor energy which could have various degrees of polarization resulting either in attraction or repulsion for entangled bodies. In general, gradients of potential exist which can be correlated with gradients of expression of certain phenomena in, what is considered, ordinary matter or physical world (eg. expression of genes correlated with morphogen gradients in extracellular matrices during standard embryonic morphogenesis). Humans are not equally polarized toward the guiding hallucination, just like standard cells/proteins are differently polarized in different morphogenesis events. Different humans can have different roles in the development of the collective (toward a specific memory) and the roles can change. Some can have a bigger role, some smaller, but some humans may have no significant role at all (they may be entangled with a different hallucination). In any case, as we are guided, our subconscious must be aware of the local future to some degree, future whose relativity is proportional to plasticity of the hallucination. Telepathy and precognition are both possible in this reality, enabled by relative entanglements and relative causality predicted by Complete Relativity. In fact, telepathy and precognition are probably both vital in evolution. Just like dark matter can precede clumping of ordinary matter, mental connection and communication (part of hallucination) can precede physical connection and communication, but localization of this entanglement is relative. One can consider physical communication as embodiment of telepathy, but entanglements between souls are possible over distance. Even what one considers as mental connection/communication is interpreted as physical on some scale. Telepathy is, like any physical communication, omnipresent, it's just not observable/resolvable for all observers. Note that substantial evidence for both telepathy and precognition exists (consider, for example, the works of R. Sheldrake), it's just hard for general mainstream science to accept it as fact. Why? Probably because the acceptance would lead to deviation from subconsciously imprinted short-term goals. This high susceptibility for particular subconscious guidance and lack of resistance potential is the reason why most people (including most in mainstream science) are fundamentally religious. Once their short-term goals are achieved, such minds can become more open. Many mainstream scientists do become more open after they retire or win a Nobel prize. Unfortunately, their minds also generally do not transform from reductionistic to holistic ones. Thus, they may become more open but also become more delusional. Reality is not limited to one scale, only its interpretations are relative to scale and differ between the scales. Conclusion History has taught us that we should be careful when declaring theories obsolete and that we should be open to consideration of non-conventional paradigms - if we are interested in advancement of science. 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 or intrinsic reality (and therefore not ask for stronger evidence for or against it), 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 that may have its short-term benefits, some of us may be coded differently and would like to choose the other way, the path that was, as this paper suggests, already chosen for us on some scale. If we are to diverge from cancer, we must not only think differently, by now we should do differently. Humans in general may be selecting themselves for survival from their own perspective but this is still natural selection from the other perspective. Events preceding natural selection might be random from one perspective, but neither they are random nor do they 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. Those of use who do so might effectively have a choice – to evolve, to get extinct, or to remain here for awhile even if a precursor of that choice coded for the very wish (choice) somewhere. Paper revised and updated. Paper revised and updated.