4.4 Process of biological evolution - more details

If the behaviour of any living object is a derivative of its evolutionary history, we must be able to fully understand the nature of this process. When understanding is reached, all vague issues will become clear.

4.4.1 What hinders understanding?

Let's start with the factors that hinder the understanding of biological evolution. There are many,

1. but the most important of these is the lack of appropriate concepts and their definitions. Even serious encyclopedias say that this is a process of slow or gradual change. The more precise ones note that the changes are related to subsequent generations, but others do not even mention this.

2. Not having appropriate means to convey their thoughts, even serious scientists simplifiy their speech or use various verbal tricks to attract readers. A good example of this is a trick used by Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) to spread his idea. He attributed sentience to a gene. ... he is talking about genes as if they were people: selfish, self-serving, optimizing their benefits, able to deceive and the murder of other genes.

3. Even serious scientists provide misinformation to support their claims or to receive grants. One example is, in a well-respected book about biological evolution, Therefore, individuals of each of these species need to constantly change their genetic design to keep pace with each other. I now challenge you to create a third eye to set the pace for humanity - you might find it quite difficult. Individuals cannot influence their genetic structure as they wish.

4. Another problem is the fallacy that the biological evolution is sentient. Such expressions as "evolution has developed" or "evolution has discovered" forces people to think that biological evolution is active and has its own agenda. Like the law of universal gravitation causes stones or raindrops fall, biological evolution unconsciously shapes the subsequent generations of living objects submitted to it.

5. Additionally, the understanding of biological evolution is hindered by its timescale - to the average observer, its processes are too slow to be perceived. The average conscious lifespan of a person is about 45 years, whilst biological evolution has gone on for about 4 500 000 000 years. These two numbers are comparable to three tenths of a second to a year. This ratio shows us that biological evolution is an extremely slow process for us. This has consequences: >Numerous examples from the history of science show that every new discovery was easily accepted by the public, if it was not contrary to conventional wisdom. Those that were inconsistent were met with disbelief, even if they were supported by unrefutable evidence [11, p. 47]. Therefore, because we don't see how biological evolution operates, we are forced to reconstruct its processes on the basis of existing knowledge and logically arrange it into a coherent whole.

So what to do in order to understand biological evolution? First: in physics we are taught that everything changes over time. Time, for changes made by biological evolution, is a somewhat secondary factor, its main role means that changes occur in cycles. Instead of saying that the skull of Homo sapiens has changed, we should say that the skull changed in the subsequent generations of the genus Homo. The evolutionary changes are the changes within iterative sequences of elements!
Secondly: you have to imagine how biological evolution operates. Close your eyes and run the "construction" of new objects in your mind. Then sift it through a sieve to select those that you want, and discard the rest, then modify the designs of those selected. Then restart the construction, sieving, modification ... and repeat. The objects do not have to be complex, they may even be balls with numbers, exactly as you will see in the next diagrams. With a little bit of effort, you will see the numerous consequences of this process.
Thirdly, if you ever hear "evolution" you should associate it with the infinite sequence of production, selection and the modification of designs operating over generations. Never associate this with the speed of change within an object! Time is time, changes are changes, and evolution is evolution! These are three entirely separate things!

An additional procedure to facilitate the understanding of biological evolution is to analyze the phenomena of optimizing the balance of losses and benefits, run almost continuously between living objects. It's a predominant feature of mathematical game theory.

4.4.2

4.4.3

4.4.4 Self-exciting, self-perfecting, self-enhancing

The processes that started four and a half billion years ago had to have had it's causative factors, which initiated the process and continue to sustain it to this day. So it had to have had its initiators and constructors, but it may also have had its destructors and, theoretically, its terminators¹⁰⁵.

The process of biological evolution was initiated by the phenomenon known in the technical sciences as self-excitation. I decided to build an intelligent lamp once, which was supposed to turn on at dusk and turn off at dawn. I connected a light bulb with a light-sensitive switch, which, when it is dark, closes the electrical circuit and, when it is bright, opens it. I plugged it into the power supply and waited until it got dark. When dusk came, the switch connected the circuit and the lamp turned on, but its light hit the sensor of the switch, which opened the circuit, turning off the lamp. Once it was in darkness, the switch connected the circuit and turned the lamp on again. Which led to light hitting the sensor of the switch, turning off the lamp again, ad infinitum.

I interrupted this light-show by removing the plug from the enery source, thereby cutting off the external source of energy. This system is an example of a self-excited system. Whether or not such a system will start to alternate - in our case, to turn on and turn off - depends on various parameters, such as the sensitivity of the sensor and whether it is illuminated by the lamp. In turn, when the process is running, other factors influence its behaviour. For example, a three-minute delay in the switch's operation will result in three minute intervals of light and then darkness, then light.

Another example of a self-excited process is the aeroelastic flutter phenomenon, which is a nightmare for aeronautic engineers. This phenomenon relies on the formation of wing and tail oscillations. This is not only restricted to aeroplanes. Built in 1940, in Washington, USA, the Tacoma Narrows bridge was vulnerable to aerodynamic flutter, which destroyed the bridge only a few months after its construction. This disaster was caused by a constant, strong wind blowing agains it at a speed of about 60 km/h. This wind constituted an external source of energy to the system, which made the entire bridge vibrate and oscillate.

Initially, at 7⁰⁰ o'clock, the bridge's transverse vibrations started reaching an amplitude of 45 cm. Three hours later, at about 10⁰⁰ o'clock, a complex wave motion of the deck started: vibrations reached 14 cycles per minute, at an amplitude of more than 8 m and twisting of up to 45 degrees. At about 10³⁰, the first plate of the bridge broke, and only half an hour later, the bridge collapsed completely.

When comparing the schematics of a self-excited system and an ecosystem it can be seen as very similar. The idea that our terrestrial conditions offered the conditions in which a cyclic process of biological evolution may spontaneously occur through self-excitation. This cyclic process can be considered, from a physical point of view, to be a specific oscillator. A living object comes to be, gains dominance, then, over time, passes away and is replaced by other, new, living objects, and so on. This process has its own characteristics and their influence has created various forms of life and their co-dependencies. The present state of our world may be equivalent to the situation of the Tacoma Bridge at around 10¹⁵. What will happen at 11⁰⁰? We cannot predict our future, only make educated guesses. Maybe there will be a new species (either smarter or more stupid than us) - evoluants of Homo sapiens or a new species of self-healing machines made of gelatinous biochips. It is equally likely that higher life forms will be made extinct due to a nuclear war, also a product of biological evolution.

Among the constructors of the biological evolution process are self-perfecting and self-enhancing. Interactions between living objects are not static, everything changes and interacts with each other. This is well explained in the Red Queen's hypothesis, by the American evolutionist Leigh Van Valen (born 1935). It says that evolutionary processes do not cease even when external conditions are unchanging, and that is due to the presence of other living objects change these conditions. Genetic designs of individuals within each species that mutually interact are constantly being transformed, over subsequent generations, by the process of biological evolution. This change is due to the replication of many imperfect designs and the selection of the most suitable ones. This is done by the selection function which becomes strong when there is competition between species. For example, when predator populations is more efficient at catching their prey than the prey poputaltion is to escape, the latter will be culled. Among the survivors are those who have a high ability to escape, this ability will be passed on to some degree to the next generation. Feasibly, the percentage of escapees will be higher than the previous generation. As more prey are able to escape, the more of the predators will die due to hunger. Again, only the best ones survive and multiply and the circle turns. Although both species are in constant conflict, they are cooperating with each other. The result of this cooperation is that their abilities of escape and capure are constatntly improving from generation to generation. These two populations constitute a pair of opposing factors which perfect their construction and capabilities over successive generations. The described model deals with conflict situations, but it can be easily expanded to cooperative situations. The title of the hypothesis comes from Lewis Carroll's novel "Alice Through the Looking Glass", in which the Red Queen says to Alice: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" [...] When we speak of changes in the properties of two conflicting species, the term "arms race" is often used [52, p. 250]. When two species cooperate instead, we can call it "aid race".

The history of hemorrhagic plague, seen in Europe from 1347 to 1670, confirms this constant struggle between species, proposed in the Red Queen's hypothesis. What made it disappear, despite the fact that medicine, at that time, was absolutely helpless? At the beginning of the epidemic, the mortality rate was 90% - in a family of 10 people only one survived. Some of the lucky ones succeeded because they had avoided contamination, while a few survivors avoided death solely through innate immunity. They owe it to a fragment of a genetic design responsible for the construction of white blood cells. If they had a sequence of information called the CCR5-Δ32 mutation, the white blood cells built by it had the physico-chemical properties that prevented the virus from entering the human body¹⁰⁶. Those who did not have this sequence were defenceless against the plague. In the fourteenth century only one in 40 000 individuals had this life-saving fragment. By contrast, in the seventeenth century, in epidemic-hit places, 2 out of 10 people had it and survived¹⁰⁷! This increase can be explained by the process of biological evolution: People who did not have the CCR5-Δ32 mutation (the majority) and who came into contact with an infected person were doomed to an inevitable death. In this way, the proportion of people with mutated genes increased dramatically. People who had the mutation could become infected with the hemorrhagic plague, but would survive and they passed this mutation onto their children [55, p. 183].

Improvements can be made not only through genetic but also memetic designs: Finding or imitating new ways to hunt, looking for carcasses, discovering other types of food or ways of fighting is very useful. The individuals who use these tactics are much better off to survive than their competitors. This gene-meme relationship can be considered to be a self-enhancing process, based on positive feedback. The smarter the animals become, the more they will have the opportunity to produce and/or learn valuable memes. And the more useful the memes they use, the more they can pass on to their offspring. [447 - changed by JF]. So improvement occurs on the same principle as acquiring resistance to hemorrhagic plague, but another type of of design is being used. Is there an end to these improvements? Of course, all changes have to respect the laws of physics. If the beak is too big, the head will not carry it.

Let's now look at self-enhancing. Biological evolution does not accept the existence of empty niches, such as, for example, the one left by the extinct dinosaurs. As we know, it was filled by small mammals. "Resovorousness" - the absorption of resources by living objects - ensures that nearly all organic resources are in use, constituting living objects. In tropical jungles, the soil of dead organisms is only a few centimeters thick - in warm and humid climates organic substances are rapidly used by other living objects. No matter how big a tree is, the decomposers will immediately recycle it. By doing this they sustain their existence and their waste productc will be a valuable resource for plants. Everything is revolving, as the ecosystem diagram shows.

A popular saying is: In nature, nothing is lost, only the owner changes. Biocomponents belonging to one living object, passes to other after it dies. In Eastern philosophies this is called reincarnation¹⁰⁸.

---

 

4.4.18 Speculations regarding the creation of life

The Physics of Life can not help but comment on the often-cited speculation regarding the probability of the emergence of life, such as, for example, described by F. Hoyle (1915-2001) and NC Wickramasinghe (1939-) in "Evolution from space": Proteins, necessary for life, are built of very complex molecules. What is the probability of an accidental creation of even quite simple protein molecules in the primordial soup? Evolutionists acknowledge that this probability is 1 in 10 to the power of 113 (1 in 10¹¹³). Meanwhile, mathematicians state that an event, which the probability of occurrence is lower than 1 in 10⁵⁰ WILL NEVER HAPPEN. One can be convinced about the unprobability of such an event knowing that the number 10¹¹³ is greater than the estimated number of all atoms in the universe. Some proteins serve as building blocks and the others for the enzymes. The latter speeds up chemical reactions in the cell, without which it would die. To operate this process, it needs not a few, but up to 2000 different protein enzymes. What is the probability of an accidental origin of such proteins? It is one in 10^40 000! "It is such an extremely small probability," says Hoyle, "that such an event would have been unthinkable even if the whole universe consisted of the primordial soup." Then he adds: "Even though one's belief or education, without prejudice, allowed him to accede to the notion that life arose on Earth [spontaneously], this simple calculation totally negates the concept."

It doesn't negate anything! Indeed, the calculated likelihood of such a protein is extremely small, but the assumption that each particle combination is equally likely is wrong. That is the first thing. Second, the process of evolutionary improvement is not a linear process, it has its accelerator characteristics (like the exponential or logarithmic), which in our terrestrial, sufficiently stable, conditions quickly (e.g. "only" a few billion years) brought into existence, and still shapes, not only proteins but also plants, animals and humans. The process of evolutionary improvement acts on all living objects and is not subject to discussion. However, that life arose on Earth or was accidentally brought here by a cellestial collision is not important for us. To reiterate: the mechanism of life seeks for an opportunity for an improvement over a long time, the solution is found by chance and quickly perfected. As we will show, life from outer space is much less probable than its emergence here on Earth and on any other, Earth-like, heavenly body.

To embarrass the quoted professors from the University of Cardiff, who have stated that the likelihood of the emergence of life on Earth is "a totally negated concept", let us respond to their simple calculation with an equally simple calculation of our own. Let us calculate the number of bacterium there would be in four and a half billion years, assuming that they reproduce once a day¹²⁰. So, the first day there are two, the next - four, the third eight, and so on. The general formula is known even by schoolchildren: where n equals the number of days, their number should amount to 2ⁿ. So how many of them should there be, lets say after 1 642 500 000 000 days (equivalent to 4.5 billion years times 365 days)? The answer¹²¹ should amaze and give food for thought: 10^{500 000 000 000}! It makes the "extremely small probability" (10^40 000 to remind you) shown by the quoted professors pale into insignificance. Our simple calculation shows that with such a rate of reproduction (remember - one division per day, and the bacteria under favorable conditions - when all the necessary resources are available - can multiply up to seventy times faster) nature has 10^{500 000 000 000} trials to build "a totally random" chain of particles, such us human DNA. So, gentlemen professors, you calculated your probability wrong! We came to our results assuming total randomness of the event, but biological evolution has a powerful booster¹²² in the form of natural selection! To realize the speed of this process we need to do another calculation.

The average weight of a single bacteria is estimated to be about 1*10^-12 of a gram, and the mass of the Earth is 6*10²⁷ grams. A simple calculation shows that only 133 divisions are required, from one bacteria, to found a colony in excess of the mass of the Earth! Obviously this is not possible because the Earth does not have as many free resources as required. Let's imagine that we have a great tissue culture with the volume of Lake Baikal - the lake with the most volume in the world. In this arena, only 100 divisions are required to force bacterium to "struggle for existence". It could happen in less than two days.

---