Defining evolution

1) All species reproduce as a geometric series: 2 members, then 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and so on;

2) Despite of this, the number of members in a species varies around a constant;

1) + 2) a) There is struggle for life...

3) The members vary;

a) + 3) b) ...and the fittest survive;

4) The variations are inheritable;

b) + 4) c) In the course of time the species change.

This is the evolution of the species according to Darwin. It is a definition reasoning. What is the best species is concluded afterwards and not set on forehand. Even if there had been no evolution so far, up until now, the process works from now on. Without intervention this is the only possibility.

The more variety, the faster and more pronounced is the evolution. The Darwin evolution as described above strives for a reduction in variety, a convergence to what one can call the best variant. It suggests the final remaining of only one variant of a species - and in my opinion this suggestion is wrong.

Ecology

Let's take as example 4 different species, competing for survival. (So for the moment we leave the variants within the species for what they are.)

Take an environment and distribute 4 species there, called A, B, C and D.

Between the starting blocks at the beginning of the struggle for life are:

▒ A ▒ B ▒ C ▒ D ▒

but that isn't the complete picture! When these species look aside they are grinned at by still another row of competitors they hadn't noticed till then. All in all there are 16 of them:

Mark the white place in front of the first A, indicating no survivors.

All the combinations of species compete with them too! Every combination as a whole has a set of properties and the best turned out to be the one with the best fitting set for the accidental situation they are in. At the start - and that is the basic assumption in this storyline - all combinations are equivalent. Little chance - 4 out of 16 in this case - that one of the 4 single-combinations will be the best fit!

This suggests in the struggle for life the best combination of species survives. And thus arises ecology, the theory of fittest combinations.

Calculating 12 species

Take a group of 12 species. Every combination out of those 12 competes with the others. Mark every combination defines the rest of the 12 as a combination too: a group of 3 divides the group of 12 in those 3 plus the group of the 9 remaining species.

So all combinations join in with the struggle. All individual species (and all combinations of 11); all possible groups of 2 out of 12 (and all groups of 10 out of 12); all groups of 3 out of 12 (and all groups of 9 out of 12), and so on. The total number of all possible combinations is:

These are the binomial coefficients in the binomial of Newton. When you take the binomial of Newton

= (series expansion)

and set n = 12 and a = b = 1 then you get the binomial coefficients equation shown above.

Mark the possibility , pronounce twelve over zero, represents the possibility of no survivors.

Draw a graph with the values of (12 over 0) up to (12 over 12) on the vertical axis. Put the lower number 0 up to 12 on the horizontal axis. You obtain a relatively neat Gauss distribution.

Gauss distribution, appearing for n going to infinity

Three things call attention:

1) The 12 over 1 constitute the classic Darwinist struggling species from which the best one survives. Combinations around it do not differ much of order, (12 over 0) = 1, (12 over 1) = 12, (12 over 2) = 1/2 x 12 x 11 = 66, and so on.

2) Combinations around (12 over 12) constitute the Gaia-hypothesis. Its numbers equals those of 1).

3) Combinations around (12 over 6) are the most numerous, e.g.

(12 over 6)

= 12! / ( 6! x (12-6)! ) =

= 7 x 8 x 9 x 10 x 11 x 12 / (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6)

= 7/1 x 8/2 x 9/3 x 10/4 x 11/5 x 12/6

= 924

This means the combinations around 6 species are about 77 times as numerous as the 12 possibilities of 1 specie surviving.

When nature's selection of the fittest one is a blind grab (nature doesn't see how many elements the winning combination consists of) then usually a combination will survive of about half the total amount of species. This winning combination is an ecology of species by definition.

Conclusions

1) When 2n species are distributed over an environment and evolution blindly picks survivals then most likely to evolve is a stable ecology of about n species.

The reasoning so far is a general extension on Darwin evolution theory. It applies to all struggle-for-live & survival-of-the-fittest situations, although it is very general. Particular situation may yield a different outcome. E.g. when 12 species are distributed at too hard a place, no species at all might survive.

2) Survival of the fittest combination accounts for the remaining variety within one single species, a stable ecology of variants.

All those different people with all their different physical properties and characters, together they shape the fittest combination: civilization. See point 2 in paragraph Discussion.

3) One species can evolve by changing the quantity of species variants, the relative amounts of variants. There is no struggle between species, and no new variants are introduced, and still there is some evolution of the species. Same species at different locations can branch like this, evolve in different directions, the easier when there are more variants. And when separated, some variants can finally die out.

4) One can grasp why things are often complicated, that is, composed of other things. Because there are so many compositions and so few simple elements.

Discussion

1) Conjecture: the fundamental difference between man and woman is that woman get the children and man do not. All other differences sprout from this single one.

2) The human genome consists of 46 chromosomes: 23 pairs where each pair is two times the same chromosome (coding for the same properties) but with often different values for each property. In one such chromosome pair two genes coding for the same property, are called alleles from each other. Consider now a different possibility of organizing sex.

Imagine that the typical female and male genes both are completely present in each genome, I mean in just the 23 chromosomes when all doubles are imagined to be removed. One might need a 24th chromosome to actually do so. Now two egg cells of one single woman, each of 23 (or 24) chromosomes - all doubles are now indeed left out - merge into one fertilized egg cell. *) The process includes DNA recombination.

Subsequently sometimes are activated the typical female genes and the male genes are switched off and then the fertilized egg cell becomes a woman. And sometimes the male genes are switched on and the female genes switched off and instead of vagina and breasts and womb there are grown male genitals and muscles and no ability to get children. There is only one sex that simulates two sexes, and asexual proliferation that simulates sexual proliferation.

The jump from sexual mixing of genes as it is today in humans, into asexual propagation can be made without changing situation. Advantages from both sex and asex - except for that making love (sexual intercourse) is no longer necessary.

Now imagine a breathing mechanism or kissing mechanism: in everybody's lungs there is an organ that releases encapsuled chromosomes of you. **) When a woman inhales someone else's capsules (when kissing) then the same organ that releases her capsules now catches the capsules with the genes of the other person and put them on transport to her egg cells that incorporate them instead of chromosomes of her own. In first occasion only one of the two alleles are replaced in one egg cell, but in a next kissing the other allele can be replaced too. In this way a woman collects (a part of) the entire genepool in her set of egg cells. Subsequently there is asexual proliferation as just described. This looks like just asexual proliferation - there is only kissing and no sexual intercourse between two partners - but the entire process is sexual on cellular level.

The kissing doesn't immediately lead to the growth of a baby. The gene pool starts to form as soon as egg cells and the lung-organ are present, that can be in the childhood already. Years later, when the woman is mature enough to have a baby, a pulse of some kind incites two egg cells to start the merging procedure that yields one fertilized egg cell. That pulse might be conscious: babies at will.

When two egg cells are randomly chosen for merging and to become a baby, then in principle is not directly clear from who the baby is, which man or woman or she herself. DNA-sequencing can decide as soon as that is feasible.

I wonder whether this was the case millions or billions of years ago and that only later the splitting into the two species male and female became effective. And I wonder whether in the future something like this will come to existence.

The selfish gene seems to be replaced now by the selfish gene pool. When I consider wars in nowadays world, I should say that that is often struggle between gene pools.

*) It is observed that parasites that infect a cell can wake up dormant parasites of another kind already present in the same cell. So when two egg cells merge this might wake up dormant parasites. This kind of things indicate that support from nanorobots might be necessary, see A brain part copying procedure at page 1 of the EXISTENCE storyline. The nanorobot in each egg cell should remove all parasites and also would clip out too selfish genes from the genome, in any case the all-too-selfish parts of it. Observed is there are genes that kill the other allele from the chromosome pair they are in.

**) It is suspected that the sperm consist of only the chromosomes (no organelles etc) in order to prevent parasites in the sperm to invade the egg cell. If the sperm cell was larger it could host parasites, now there is no place for them. So the capsules may be sperm-like cells, only chromosomes that is.

3) Within one society there are a lot of different people, stronger ones and weaker ones, more intelligent ones and more stupid ones, emotionally more sensitive ones and more blunt ones, and so on.

When I look at history this doesn't seem to change. If we regard theater plays and all kinds of historical reports, the character of men seems not to have changed over the last 2000 up to 6000 years. There still is the same distribution of properties as there was 2000 up to 6000 years ago, that is my perception.

If I look at nowadays society I see a lot of competition. Evolutional pressure is high and should select the stronger and more intelligent and more sensitive ones quite quickly, certainly within 2000 up to 6000 years, is my guess. Merging to a single best fitting variant is expected everywhere.

Regarded the observed spread of properties, it looks as if there is a force acting that keeps the spread of properties at observed values, taking measures when a variant is on the edge of disappearing.

The reason for that force to be present can be that the societies with the properties spread survive better than the society of that same properties all optimized. This is an application of ecology, the theory of fittest combinations.

The best spread one gets when every possible allele of a property (e.g. eyecolor) can combine with every possible allele of each other property (lungs, legs, skin color, and so on). All possible routes from up down the allele-scheme in the column at the right. And that means sex, or at least the sexual mixing of all properties.