Since Darwin's early work 'Origin of Species' evolution has been linked with random processes. In the early evolutionary theory evolution was considered driven by random changes and this came to mean a random mutation to the genetics of life. It seems at large cosmological scales including solar systems resonance is involved. As we go higher the relationship to resonance is still there. Does this imply a process driven by resonance rather than random mutations? And how is cosmology linked to evolution?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289835965_Self-Field_Theory_Cosmological_and_biological_evolution_may_be_linked
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319875215_Self-field_Theory-biodiversity_May_Be_a_Resonance_Process
Article Self-Field Theory: Cosmological and biological evolution may be linked
Conference Paper Self-field Theory-biodiversity May Be a Resonance Process
I think that most of evolution is not random, but driven by the behaviour of the organism - niche selection, environmental modification, creation of culture, etc.
Dear Tony,
I agree with you. I observe the same thing.
See below three studies about various natural phenomena that apparently can be related to resonance states.
The first is about resonance interaction between QM stationary states and electromagnetic wave emission and absorption.
The second proposes a solution to the currently unexplained extreme heat in the solar corona based on resonance states involving electric and magnetic fields interaction.
The third proposes an explanation of electronic orbitals stability based on resonance states due to magnetic fields interaction.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3773v2
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.07225.pdf
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf
HI Anthony
Yes I agree, evolution as we see it and measure it from our scientific perspective can seem random; it takes a cosmological-scale examination to find it is partly deterministic. As the various processes take effect such as the factors you mentioned, there is more 'randomness' in what we see (the maths seemingly gets more random).
Environment seems a big factor.
Dear Andre
It's good to know you find the same resonance from a slightly different perspective, and others have too. I haven't had a chance to read those papers in detail, just the abstracts.
Nevertheless it seems resonance plays a role across the various scales of biology, since it is apparently also present at the DNA level, the chromosome, or the chromatid.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319618449_A_RANGE_OF_FIELDS_OVER_THE_SPECTRUM_IN_A_CELL_COLONY_MAY_CONTROL_THE_TIMING_OF_ITS_CELL_CYCLE
Conference Paper A range of fields over the spectrum in a cell colony may con...
Dear Tony,
I had been paying attention to resonance processes in inanimate matter and energy. How interesting that they seem to be involved with living material also.
That's convergence indeed.
Evolution is not driven by random mutation. Natural selection is the driver of evolution and is not by any means a random process. It is a stochastic process that depends on the random variability of DNA mutations (also a stochastic process), together with inheritance of DNA sequences and the selective pressures of environment, competition for limited food and space, mates, etc., etc. It is quite a directed process that depends on random variability, limited resources and inheritance. That is all that is necessary to explain highly complex beings.
Patrice
Then where did this 'randomness' concept come from? Is it incorrect to say evolution is based on random mutations?
I found the new scientist reported the following in 2008:
Evolution myths: Evolution is random
By Michael Le Page
No and yes. Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn’t, driving organisms to evolve in particular directions. However, chance events play a big role too.
So which is right? Is it random or not?
OK
Perhaps some might like to say that evolution and randomness were never intended to be related. But I think a quick look at evolutionary history, including Charles Darwin's early writings reveals they were littered with ideas of randomness (albeit as well as ideas about natural selection being the true driver of evolution) See http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663239.
We have had some very large political movements based on this incorrect notion of Darwin’s; many people in some extant communist systems have relied on this form of Darwinism. So this topic is a big deal and any correction via science is important; for too long ideas of evolution have been mired in 'political incorrectness'. If resonance is part of evolution then we should accept it as science and move on to a more synergistic picture of evolution one that involves BOTH molecular biology and the role of fields (such as gravitation and the endogenous fields) in this science.
I'm not so sure about where evolution currently sits on this question about randomness now but we read in Wikipedia “The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.”
Notice this is when molecular biology was becoming perhaps the main focus of biology and the structure of DNA was about to be discovered by Crick and Watson using X-Ray Diffraction (and Rosalind Franklin who was forgotten in the process of the Nobel Prize http://www.dnaftb.org/19/bio-3.html)
A recent paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319618449_A_RANGE_OF_FIELDS_OVER_THE_SPECTRUM_IN_A_CELL_COLONY_MAY_CONTROL_THE_TIMING_OF_ITS_CELL_CYCLE) has suggested that fields (EM and vibrational) play a large role in molecular biology.
I would like to suggest we have reason to modify our current ideas about evolution, one that seems a bit more deterministic than Darwin’s original ideas; the process still seems ‘random’ in part at least to our measurements but it is more a case of our ignorance of the overall process.
Conference Paper A range of fields over the spectrum in a cell colony may con...
I stand by my original response. The randomness in natural selection which drives evolution in that of random mutational change. But the randomness is simply one of the the necessary requisites for natural selection to proceed - the others being inheritance and competition for limited resources. It is as simple as that.
The modern synthesis has little to do with molecular biology which was not at all developed during the 30s and 40s when Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson and Dobzhansky were the primary movers in the "Modern Synthesis", and much more to do with the development of genetics at the time (not molecular biology).
The modern synthesis was thoroughly Darwinian and Darwin's concept of natural selection is still the very best most elegant explanation of the evolutionary process. None of your statements lead either to a more "deterministic" process nor to a new thinking about the role of randomness.
Agreed. But the facts are in front of you; I suggest you lift your gaze and look at the bigger picture. The resonances are as plain as the nose on your face. There's more than that simple picture you want to shove down my throat, and which I agree with you btw. Natural selection is part of the process as you rightly say. But it's not the whole picture.
Molecules are about the short distance chemical bonds, while fields are long distance giving another dimension to molecular biology and to natural selection. It was Linus Pauling from the early days of quantum theory who was the 'father' of molecular biology. Linus Pauling became known as the founder of molecular biology due to his discovery of the spiral structure of proteins (Taton, 1964). Pauling's discoveriescontributed to Watson and Crick's breakthrough of the DNA double helix.
Also you are talking about something that was much bigger than either evolution in the '30s and '40s OR molecular biology.It was a psychological phenomenon that was inherent across society, e.g the Nazis. It was very much related to the mathematics of quantum theory which was being used by for example Linus Pauling to understand molecules which had not been understood prior to the mid-30s. But there was seen by many (including many scientists) a connection between the probabilities of quantum mechanics and the probabilities in evolution, and in particular the probabilities seen inherent in the structure of the DNA. Hence the phrasing of the question.
So evolution may need to accommodate a bigger picture of biology, one that has, if you like, a God's eye view of the overall process. It is when you get to galactic scales that the determinism is able to be discerned; at lower orders of the overall fractal of biology, it seems to be there too; have you read that paper I referred you to, about the cell cycle? It seems that there is a deterministic process at work within evolution perhaps at the levels of fields both at the large (gravitational), microscopic (cell cycle) and possibly at the nanoscale (chromosomes) that there are resonances at work.
Could it be that natural selection is nothing more than a choice of a resonance condition as the optimal natural choice of the evolutionary process? I think you'll find your small picture of evolution must be expanded and synergised to explain the effect of the resonances; and btw I certainly don't have any truck with a FULLY deterministic process (e.g. fatalism) but I'm comfortable with a degree of randomness that is inherent in the process.
Finally do a search on Linus Pauling 'resonance'
Looking at the writings of Andreas Wagner on this topic I tend to agree with him.
The Role of Randomness in Darwinian Evolution
Andreas Wagner
Historically, one of the most controversial aspects of Darwinian evolution has been the prominent role that randomness and random change play in it. Most biologists agree that mutations in DNA have random effects on fitness. However, fitness is a highly simplified scalar representation of an enormously complex phenotype. Challenges to Darwinian thinking have focused on such complex phenotypes. Whether mutations affect such complex phenotypes randomly is ill understood. Here I discuss three very different classes of well-studied molecular phenotypes in which mutations cause nonrandom changes, based on our current knowledge. What is more, this nonrandomness facilitates evolutionary adaptation. Thus, living beings may translate DNA change into nonrandom phenotypic change that facilitates Darwinian evolution.
I would perhaps write this as
"Evolution is a complex (multi-variable) phenotype in which natural selection may be composed of analytic process and random processes. These analytic processes may depend on resonances and perhaps other closed form solutions across the fractal biology present in nature, although other processes are known which are more stochastic in their effect that randomize the overall result of evolution.
"Rosalind Franklin who was forgotten in the process of the Nobel Prize"
This is a classic example of an alternative fact. She did not get the DNA Nobel since
Well certainly 1 is indeed correct; she had died in 1958, of ovarian cancer poor woman, four years before the prize was awarded .
I just wish evolutionary theory was as simply corrected as this case of mistaken Nobel history. But it seems not.
If you read the work I cited of Andreas Wagner about probabilities and their relationship to three different classes of molecular phenotypes you see how evolutionary science currently belabours to understand mathematical theory as applied to this 'complex' science (one of very many, but not infinite variables); not to mention the historical harm that was done over the past century by the misapplication of Darwin's work within social history. There were about six million Jews for a start who could have done with a new definition of evolutionary theory and its connection to fields (electromagnetics and vibrational) and determinism. ( I don't think this is an 'alternative fact'.)
Certainly we see 'determinism' such as 'deterministic chaos' mentioned within evolutionary theory so that's a step in the right direction but it seems that the conditions for deterministic chaos may only apply to our macroscopic domain ( to the best of our knowledge). Not perhaps at other levels of the fractal organization of matter and life across the Universe, not to mention the Multiverse.
We have all heard the description of atomic fields as 'bizarre' and 'quirky' just as quantum theory predicts. And this knowledge of quantum theory carried across into evolutionary theory. But it turns out that quantum theory is indeed deterministic and not bizarre and quirky.
I would like to see a science of evolution that includes less semantics and more mathematics, it's rubbery at the moment, not enough spine.
- Badges
- Science topic