|
At the end of “Year One”, comparing the groups that have no potential (for the future biological structure in question) with groups that do have a potential, we have:
Those with IS=1 and PAES=0 number . . . . . 116 billion times 10e12 while those with IS=1 and PAES=1,2,3 number 1.08 billion times 10e12
Those with IS=2 and PAES=0 number . . . . 63,000 times 10e12 while those with IS=2 and PAES=1,2,3 number 1,179 times 10e12
Those with IS=3 and PAES=0 number . . . . . . . 213.9 times 10e8 while those with IS=3 and PAES=1,2,3 number 6.0153 times 10e8
In each of the three comparisons above, there is a strong dominance of the groups with no potential (for a major future change) over those that do have a potential. There is no sign of anything that would change this direction in future “years”. There is, however, a predicted increase of “baggage” that can only decrease the populations of the groups which have greater major evolutionary potential in the coming “years”.
Considering the “Third Level Totals Originating in ‘Year Two’”, those with IS = 2 and PAES = 0 outnumber all others by 52 to 1.
Even allowing a very low PAES for arriving at the target organism, the IS value of the general population will soon increase. As the competition level increases, the groups with highest PAES (and small populations) will not have sufficient populations to generate additional PAES. Thus the principle of survival of the fittest creates a boundary that prevents the formation of a biological structure that might otherwise result in an organism capable of using an alternate source of energy. There does not appear to be any mechanism available to cause the simultaneous increase of both IS and PAES sufficient to catapult any organism into the category of the target organism. Since continuous decline in population, over a long time, is practically synonymous with extinction, all groups which have accumulated much more PAES than average groups cannot survive long enough to attain a structure that would allow a fully functioning new structure to arise.
During this search for a means by which a major evolutionary shift in energy source may occur, I have come to better appreciate how survival of the fittest may actually hinder such a change from taking place. This is clearly apparent when we compare the attributes of “immediate survivability” with “long term potential”. In a world in which all organisms are very similar and competing with each other for survival, it becomes obvious that unique traits that enhance or amplify the efficiency of the energy conversion processes at hand will increase the population of the descendants, while unique traits that simply add to a structure that may, in future generations, create a new energy conversion system, will not give any advantage. In fact, innovation in evolutionary “progress” creates organisms that are less fit than their competitors during the time they’d need to make a major change in structure. Survival of the fittest is a cruel dictator to organisms that otherwise might evolve into a new type of organism.
Although the specific point in question is a change in energy source, since there are no biological details in this investigation, the results of this study could be applied to any major biological change. Assuming an increase in useful information content in DNA, over generations, is in fact possible, the principle of evolutionary boundary applies to any major addition of a biological structure, regardless of the timeframe. The reason for this is that organisms compete in immediate survivability terms, not according to only future potential through the formation of an additional biological structure.
These simulations have been done using the assumption that increases in the useful- information content of DNA might result in evolutionary creation of a multi-cellular structure absent in the ancestors. I know of no evidence for any such case in the real world. The simulations show that should such increases occur in nature, within a very large sample of competing organisms natural selection would eliminate those organisms that might show potential for major evolutionary change. Should any such potential changes occur in a smaller environment, the plausibility is even weaker.
Jonathan Whitcomb Long Beach, California |
|
Conclusions |
|
14 |