I think also that evolution is chaotic, and Darwin's theory of evolution, is too simpliste...

The relationship between all organisms and its environment are sporadic, for example, the formation by endosymbiose ... chloroplasts and mitochondria

See

https://wikivisually.com/lang-fr/wiki/Dimitri_Merejkovski

What you are proposing is not really new. This is a pretty well studied phenomenon in population genetics and evolution. The Origin of Species doesn't really comment on genetics at all because at the time genes weren't a known concept to Darwin. There is a vast array of population biologists today (and in the past 90 years) that study the interplay between genomics and phenotype to understand what forces drive evolution, and yes, responses to environmental pressures are a big part of it. Selection, drift, mutation and migration are known to shift population phenotypes and genotypes. So are intergenic interactions, population demography, genotype-phenotype relationships and many others.

article's 3rd paragraph

-----------------------

That is not to say that evolution is random – far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Subheading Die Hard - 6th paragraph

------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest that the true source of macroevolutionary change lies in the non-linear, or chaotic, dynamics of the relationship between genotype and phenotype – the actual organism and all its traits. The relationship is non-linear because phenotype, or set of observable characteristics, is determined by a complex interplay between an organism’s genes – tens of thousands of them, all influencing one another’s behaviour – and its environment.

With some changes and some addition

Source-https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821-000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution/

I think this popular, non-peer reviewed article does actually an ok job summarizing some of the trends in evolutionary research, but it way overstates in it's assumption that it is one of the first places that non-linear relationship between environmental change and phenotype are suggested. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that Darwin had all the right answers. Was he a fantastic naturalist who was one of the first to grasp the concepts of evolution - yes! I'm not sure what you intend by quoting the article, but I would agree that Darwin's observations were incredible for their time, but the relationships between environment and organismal responses have been way advanced past that point.

@Artur, thank you for the clarification!

hope this link is useful

www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v15i2n.htm

regards

Following

@Artur You are probably right, this is a top level of stupidity, fraud and plagiarism. The original and further posts are generated by picking few lines from different webpages over the internet.

first para - https://www.britannica.com/science/adaptation-biology-and-physiology

page 373 - https://books.google.se/books?id=ea-bAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=The+apparently+random+or+unpredictable+behavior+in+systems+governed+by+complicated+(nonlinear)+deterministic+laws+is+the+result+of+high+sensitivity+to+initial+conditions&source=bl&ots=OIprkH-d8_&sig=r3hwdvpV-fT_tE1VJvXMarp0DrU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8zbq494fbAhXmE5oKHSwaAEgQ6AEIRTAE#v=onepage&q=The%20apparently%20random%20or%20unpredictable%20behavior%20in%20systems%20governed%20by%20complicated%20(nonlinear)%20deterministic%20laws%20is%20the%20result%20of%20high%20sensitivity%20to%20initial%20conditions&f=false

trimmed last para of https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/

Dear Sing

Few people are able to express opinions that dissent from the prejudices of their social group. The majority are even incapable of forming such opinions at all. Albert Einstein (from:https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/P_Cat/Prejudice-Quotations.htm)

Just goodbye won't work, it would be a very big favour to the scientific community if you kindly delete this ResearchGate account.

Regarding the opinion, sure you can express opinion, unless it is yours. But you are just a stupid fraud here.

goodbye

Heat the curiosity in a large pan. Add the dogma free knowledge and to leave simmer for years, please add plenty of tolerance, eat with humility spoon, may be you can get the taste of science.(MT)

best

Wow. That was intense. Anyway, here is my take on “chaotic selection”.

If evolution where to take place purely through ‘chaotic selection’, how would we explain the emergence of complex traits? (How would organised structures such as catalytic center of a protein evolve? How would limbs evolve, complex behavioural algorithms and insanely complex systems such as the immune system?) So, though genetic drift plays a major role in evolution, the noise does not mask the signal- there is a clear evolutionary signature in the complex traits. Evolution act as a “ratchet” that harness chaotic events via natural selection (just like a combustion engine harness the random motion of heated gas molecules to induce the vectored motion of a car).

But again, there definitely exist some level of noise in the “engine of speciation”: “Chaotic selection” may refer to what is known as genetic drift. Evidence for chance events and ‘random selection’ is well established. As an example, political events lead to the migration of a population, introducing new genetic material into an ecosystem: E.g., Evolution did not ‘scrip’ the religious feud between Catholics and Protestants that resulted in the emigration of French Huguenots to South Africa (which in turn acted as a genetic bottleneck –the chance fixation of certain alleles in the South African population). Similarly, meteors struck and the earth and volcanoes erupt. These chance events have undoubtedly played a formative role in the evolutionary history of life. But it does not mean evolution is chaotic.

Dear Gustav

First of all, thanks for your kindly answer.

I think that adaptation is based on evolution. If a system is flexible, it adapts as easily as ever. Chaotic systems are very flexible systems and they can easily adapt to environment(especially previously unknown/unforseen environments)

I think nature will choose chaos for this reason, nature does not leave work to chance.

My understanding of chaotic systems is that they take shape via stochastic processes -that there is no predictable outcome. My feeling is that evolution, though being driven by random events such as change mutations, can not be chaotic as purely stochastic processes would only generate white noise. As an example, when there is no selective pressure on maintaining gene function, the gene becomes a pseudo-gene. Mutations accumulate randomly in the gene because there is no selective force that acts against the decay of information.

So, for me the question is: How could something purely chaotic give rise to something that is ordered? Could you perhaps provide and example? (It will give me more traction on your line of thought.)

Also, why do you say that chaotic system is more flexible? I guess I could imagine that a chaotic system is more flexible, but that such flexibility would come at a price, namely, a diminished ability to predict HOW the system would 'adapt'. I don't feel that this is the case with evolution: I strongly suspect that the outcome matters, and therefor, is in some way predictable. For instance, if an organism evolve in a thermal vent, we would expect the enzymes of the organism to be tolerate to high temperatures. There are sort of 'evolutionary trajectories' which imply a predictable outcome. But in a chaotic system, the outcome is random.

Dear Gustav

I think that chaotic systems are not stochastic , they are deterministic, they have an aim such as survive. Another characteristic of chaotic behavior is that they have memory and then chaotic behavior may explain evolution more clearly than chance.

If you read my preprint, I will be very happy"Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Best

(Done!) In all honesty, I prefer the systems biological view: biological systems complex, not chaotic. Specifically, another concept from systems biology is that of robustness: the ability to maintain internal function despite perturbations from external environment. (see: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg1471). For me, chaotic events provide the raw-material for natural selection. Organisms evolve as robust systems.

Dear Gustav

Thanks for your valuable comments

Best

Interesting!

The prevalence of chaotic dynamics in games with many players

• James B. T. Sanders,
• J. Doyne Farmer &
• Tobias Galla
• Scientific Reportsvolume 8, Article number: 4902(2018)
• doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22013-5

Received:07 April 2017Accepted:23 January 2018Published:20 March 2018

Abstract

We study adaptive learning in a typical p-player game. The payoffs of the games are randomly generated and then held fixed. The strategies of the players evolve through time as the players learn. The trajectories in the strategy space display a range of qualitatively different behaviours, with attractors that include unique fixed points, multiple fixed points, limit cycles and chaos. In the limit where the game is complicated, in the sense that the players can take many possible actions, we use a generating-functional approach to establish the parameter range in which learning dynamics converge to a stable fixed point. The size of this region goes to zero as the number of players goes to infinity, suggesting that complex non-equilibrium behaviour, exemplified by chaos, is the norm for complicated games with many players.

It seems that the discussion took an unexpected direction. Anyway, I leave here a brief comment.

Macroevolutionary patterns (e.g., adaptive radiation and speciation) are extrapolations of microevolutionary processes (e.g., mutation and selection). But to what extent biotic factors (Red Queen model; see Van Valen 1973) or abiotic factors (Court Jester model; see Barnosky 2001) would be responsible for shaping the evolutionary process? According to the first model, the interactions between living beings would be the main drivers of evolutionary change. On the other side, the second model stresses the evolutionary role of disturbances promoted by abiotic factors (e.g., climate change and uplift of mountains).

Which of these two models would be able to explain better the origin of biological diversity, the Red Queen or the Court Jester? The fact is that the two models are not necessarily exclusive. They just seem to operate on different scales (spatial and temporal). So while the interactions (e.g., competition and predation) drive evolution within local ecosystems and over short time spans, from further away, the evolutionary process is modulated by physical changes.

(For references and detailed comments, see Benton. 2009. The Red Queen and the Court Jester: Species diversity and the role of biotic and abiotic factors through time. Science 323: 728-32.)