The evolution of species appears to be rapid, discontinuous and somehow directed towards survival within specific environments. Goal oriented behaviour implies adaptive biological feedback systems with specific aims, i.e. ‘cognition’; the organism actively participates in its own evolutionary development.
Interaction with the environment results in a new developmental goal for the next generation, a modification of phenotype or maybe a novel behavioural pattern. The entire template for the next generation is packaged up into an electromagnetic field complex and installed in the developing embryo.
Biological growth is teleological in nature with a conceptually fixed endpoint arising from apparently self-organising randomness. The appearance of randomness is purely superficial, however, with the actual reality being that a new bauplan is implemented with great accuracy at ‘run-time’ via a closed loop feedback system arising from the above mentioned bio-field.
Further activity as an adult generates further responses which then inform the whole reproductive cycle until some happy balance is achieved and the species stabilises.
Evolutionary processes are therefore not in any way random but, like other biological processes, exhibit the goal oriented behaviour and top-down causality of a fully developed cognitive system.
We need to describe some foundational ideas and to present some evidence for this.
Preparatory reading for neo-Darwinists:
Inheritance of a fear response
Scientists here conditioned mice to be afraid of a specific smell and found that their children exhibited a measurable fear response to the same odour.
Parental olfactory experience influences behaviour and neural structure in subsequent generations – Dias, Ressler
“Using olfactory molecular specificity, we examined the inheritance of parental traumatic exposure, a phenomenon that has been frequently observed, but not understood. We subjected F0 mice to odour fear conditioning before conception and found that subsequently conceived F1 and F2 generations had an increased behavioural sensitivity to the F0-conditioned odour, but not to other odours.“
So what has been inherited is:
- Recognition of a novel smell
- A specific and complex response associated with that recognition
A whole ‘cognitive’ pattern has been passed from one generation to another. The response of ‘fear’ has made the odour seem relevant to survival and therefore important for evolutionary development.
The odour itself is not a direct cause of the response, this is a creation of the cognitive system in response to an otherwise harmless trigger. ‘Cognition’ is involved in inheritance.
Independence of cognition and ‘matter‘
Retention of Memory through Metamorphosis: Can a Moth Remember What It Learned As a Caterpillar? – Blackiston, Casey, Weiss
This time caterpillars were trained to odour aversion and the resulting moths retained the both memory of the smell and an associated behavioural pattern whereby they would walk so as to distance themselves from the offending stimulus.
What is it exactly that has persisted throughout the biological changes?
Very little of the physical organisation of the neurons survives the metamorphic process and in addition, the physical aspect of the behavioural responses is different in each case. The larvae will use a completely different set of motor skills to the final moth; they don’t even have the same number of legs.
So the thing that is inherited isn’t a simple set of chemical reactions and nerve impulses but rather a novel goal oriented behavioural pattern, a new teleological survival tactic of recognition, aversion and response. The end aim is ‘survival’ and this transcends the physical arrangement of molecules in the organism.
Development precedes function
If an evolutionary novelty is to be ‘selected’ in any way according to some measure of ‘fitness’ then this novelty must first be developed fully in a sufficient number of individuals for it to survive and propagate.
For example, if an opposable thumb is to be tested for practicality in the environment then a functional opposable thumb must first be developed and this development procedure must obey both the laws of physics and the laws of biology. This is not going to happen as a result of random mutations of anything.
It isn’t just a thumb that develops but a whole development plan within the embryo. This plan must be feasible with respect to the general laws of biology but also with respect to the existing developmental process and the implicit laws therein.
So a half finished thumb must be created before the whole is completed and the partial thumb must consist of a viable biological structure at every stage of embryonic development. It must have a consistent blood supply for example and must be capable of piecewise construction.
Darwinist arguments for evolution will furthermore require that an incomplete thumb not only arise from random mutation but also confer some selective advantage at every stage of evolutionary development. This is a big ‘ask’ indeed.
Neo-Darwinists tend to gloss over this aspect somewhat, describing the evolutionary process as ‘gradual’ or in terms of ‘small increments’. This doesn’t help at all as development must still precede function and all the idea of ‘development by increment increment’ does does is to increase the number of intermediate stages that must be selected for before the final advantageous product is completed.
They try to give the impression that development and selection are somehow concurrent and even claim that ‘selection drives development’, thereby inverting cause and effect in order to excuse the failings of the idea.
If evolutionary development has random processes at its heart then development and function are causally decoupled from each other, with the developmental process having no ‘knowledge’ of its final goal.
Development is a teleological process
The development of embryo from egg to adult is clearly a teleological process. There is a clear and largely predictable end point which is reached via apparently random movements of vibrating molecules.
We have a process which is demonstrates a high degree of stability of purpose even when subjected to subject to a continuous stream of perturbations. This sort of structure implies a fixed aim and a feedback system designed to achieve that aim. In engineering terms we have a closed-loop control system and in philosophical language we have teleology.
Teleology v. emergence
Neo-Darwinism takes a determinedly reductionist approach to science, imagining that life forms are somehow outcomes of the random mutation of DNA interpreted via the random vibrations of tiny molecules. Causality here is bottom-up; small meaningless effects, given enough time, are claimed to result in extremely complex biological organisation.
The recognition of the existence of feedback systems, control loops and teleological aims however allows for much more credible explanations for the whole of developmental and evolutionary processes. Emergent effects exist for sure but are utilised by the control system in pursuance of aims that lie outside of the physical distribution of the matter they are organising.
We have bottom-up emergence but top-down causation.
The seemingly ‘directed’ nature of both development and evolution are surely more easily understood by thinking in terms of higher order goal oriented processes than trying to calculate the sum total of a trillion vibrating atoms.
Evolutionary change arises from developmental innovation
The diagram below from Mae-Wan Ho shows a transformational tree of the possible patterns of fruit fly bodies which can be obtained by successive segmentation during development .
Transformation tree of body patterns in fruit fly larvae – Mae-Wan Ho
“(The diagram) is a transformational “tree” of the range of segmental patterns obtained during development. The main sequence, going up the trunk of the tree, is the normal transformational pathway, which progressively divides up the body into domains, ending up with 16 body segments of the normal larva. All the rest (with solid outlines) are transformations in which the process of dividing up the body has been arrested at different positions in the body. The patterns with dashed outlines are hypothetical forms, not yet observed, connecting actual transformations.
This transformational tree reveals how different forms are related to one another;
how superficially similar forms are far apart on the tree, whereas forms that look most
different are neighbours. It is the most parsimonious tree relating all the forms.
More importantly, the ontogenetic transformation tree predicts the possible forms
that can be obtained in evolution (phylogeny), most likely by going up the sequence of successive bifurcations .. This is why phylogeny appears to recapitulate ontogeny (Gould, 1977), though actually it does not; ontogeny and phylogeny are simply related through the dynamics of the generic processes generating form.” – Mae-Wan Ho
The point here is that the observed phenotype is the result of a highly structured developmental process and minor evolutionary novelties are going to arise as end products of this process.
The evolution of phenotype is therefore going to reflect the evolutionary possibilities of the developmental tree. Evolutionary changes are not ‘random’, but result from changes arising from the developmental process itself and are subject to the emergent ‘laws’ of such a process.
Phylogeny and ontogeny
“Phylogeny is the representation of the evolutionary history and relationships between groups of organisms. The results are represented in a phylogenetic tree that provides a visual output of relationships based on shared or divergent physical and genetic characteristics.”
“Ontogeny is the origination and development of an organism usually from the time of fertilisation of the egg to adult.” – Wikipedia
“Ontogeny refers to the development of an organism while phylogeny refers to how the organisms have evolved.”
The idea that “ontology recapitulates phylogeny” comes from Ernst Haekel and supposes that the developmental stages of the embryo somehow follow the adult stages of an organism’s evolutionary ancestors.
This is a clear inversion of causality now as it is now obvious that evolutionary outcomes are the result of developmental processes and therefore must come after those processes and not before.
The segmentation tree though shows why the two processes, phylogeny and ontology, are so similar; because the one arises from the other.
A proposed model
The diagram shows a proposed model for the evolution of phenotype by a repeated alteration of the developmental goals of the organism.
Each modification to a teleological aim results in a phenotypic novelty which is tested against the environment for ‘fitness’ and a new adjustment is suggested to the next generation by the inheritance of such goals.
The children then inherit a new developmental aim which is then is executed as best as can be done with the current toolkit, with new strategies being developed as required and again passed on to the next generation.
All processes involved consist of closed loop feedback systems and are fully ‘cognitive’ with the ability to absorb, interpret and assimilate information of the relevant nature and to act upon such information so as to make intelligent decisions as to the setting of a goal for some other sub-system.
The system as a whole is organised as a hierarchy of largely autonomous modules which communicate via goal-setting, with the upper echelons setting the aims for the lower, more functional processes.
Evolutionary change therefore proceeds in a top-down fashion from the environment to the organism via the various cognitive systems in operation at the time. The idea that population stress drives evolutionary processes is now entirely appropriate as this is what is in fact happening.
This particular way of structuring a complex system is probably a good a definition of ‘life’ as will be found anywhere.
How the giraffe got its neck
Short necked giraffes were eating leaves from the lower branches of the trees but still yearning for the sweeter leaves higher up. They ‘know’ what to do, they form an intention to stretch their necks upwards, a teleological aim in accordance with the reality of their physique and their proprioceptive system, and they make the requisite movement.
All this is planned and executed by a high level control system complete with feedback and real-time adjustment. To describe this in terms of the movement of molecules is clearly a waste of time; we have teleology; we have cognition.
The stretching movement comes with a reward and this behavioural pattern is passed on to the next generation as ‘innate’ behaviour; an ‘instinct’.
In times of drought, the giraffe will still yearn for higher leaves and a longer neck. This yearning together with the experience of urgency resulting from stress and the urge to survive is sufficient for an intention for a longer neck to be formed and passed onto the next generation.
A new phenotypic target has been set and will be inherited by the children. This target comes easily from the giraffe’s inherent knowledge of its own physical shape and the possibilities of stretching. It has nothing to do with the developmental process and nothing to do with transcription of DNA or the manufacture of proteins.
The new goal is adopted by the developmental processes of the child and it is these procedures that are now responsible for achieving the required end-point. This is after all what the developmental system is good at.
A modified giraffe is born and the new phenotype is assessed in the field for ‘fitness’; new information is acquired and again passed on to the next generation in a continuous feedback loop that will in due course either stabilise to the environmental conditions or revert to ‘breed average’.
If adaptation is successful then other giraffes will soon notice what is going on and will simply copy the new phenotype. If we agree that all these processes are fully cognitive then these assertions are no longer outrageous or even unusual but natural corollaries of the main thesis.
Natural selection plays no part in evolution
How Development Directs Evolution: Lamarck versus Darwin – Mae-Wan Ho
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260086416_How_Development_Directs_Evolution_Evolution_Lamarck_versus_Darwin
Similar ideas were explained by Mae-Wan Ho in her paper but without explicit use of the idea that specifically cognitive processes are at play.
Here is her diagram showing feedback of information to and from the environment. Such information is interpreted via the metabolic and epigenetic nets to be codified into DNA as the inherited substance and passed on to the next generation.
To include DNA in the evolutionary process is an unnecessary distraction (The DNA delusion) but even so, the idea of feedback and top-down information flow is seen as a necessary requirement to explain the observations.
Extracts from the paper:
Almost 35 years ago, Ho and Saunders (1979) proposed the then outrageous idea that the intrinsic dynamics of developmental processes are the source of non-random variations that directs evolutionary change in the face of new environmental challenges; and the resulting evolutionary novelties are reinforced in successive generations through epigenetic mechanisms, independently of natural selection.
The non-random variations are teleological in nature and arise from intelligent modifications of the developmental ‘goals’. No natural selection is involved.
There is no need to change the developmental process as such; the changes occur naturally as the teleological aims change. This simplifies the process greatly by decoupling the evolutionary aims from the details of embryonic development.
We showed that the same (non-random) developmental changes are repeatedly produced by specific environmental stimuli.
Because the organism makes the same intelligent decisions each time. Moreover, each organism makes the same decisions thereby allowing a whole population to evolve at the same time..
But random mutations—changes in the DNA—that generate hopeful monsters
must be hopelessly rare, and to make things worse, major taxonomic groups tend to appear suddenly in clusters, as “adaptive radiations” (Gould & Eldredge, 1972),
Of course they do!
Furthermore, evolution does seem to proceed top-down, from phyla to subphyla, classes, orders, and so on (Valentine, 2004), rather than the converse, as predicted by Darwinian and neo-Darwinian natural selection of small random mutations.
A significant evolutionary novelty leads to a new species which then is improved by successive refinements which eventually stabilise into discrete groupings to form sub-species.
Darwinism wants a breadth first development by random mutations followed by specialisation by selection. This predicts a completely different progression in the fossil record to the process described above, where major changes happen first followed by smaller adaptations to local conditions.
.. & crucially, all the evidence indicates that macroevolution is decoupled from molecular or microevolution.
Yes, high level developmental processes are coupled to survivability within the environment whereas molecular processes are driven by the laws of physics. The two processes achieve independence via the construction of closed-loop feedback systems.
There is still no recognition that the patterns themselves and the
biological forms need to be explained in their own right, independently of whether natural selection operates or not, and independently of the action of specific genes
Yes, natural selection whether it operates or not does not generate new forms.
The first distinctive feature of our epigenetic theory of evolution (Ho & Saunders, 1979, 1982, 1984) is that neo- Darwinian natural selection plays little or no role, based on evidence suggesting, on the one hand, that most genetic changes are irrelevant to the evolution of organisms, and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary change.
Inheritance is not via ‘genes’, not via DNA.
It is both difficult and risky to become a new species when there is constant pressure to compete for food and outrun predators; best leave this until things have calmed down a bit.
There is no separation between development and evolution.
The scheme presented here actually postulates two separate, self-contained systems that are connected to each other by means of the intended phenotype. The evolutionary system presents a phenotypic change and this becomes the new aim for the developmental system.
The output of one system becomes the goal for another. This is a standard cybernetic principle and with both processes comprised of feedback systems, the whole system remains highly stable to perturbation.
Reversion to breed average
Reversion to breed average is a phenomenon known to breeders of pigeons, dogs and cattle whereby certain features can be attained by selective breeding but will only last a couple of generations before reverting to the breed average.
Darwin accepted in chapter 1 of On the Origin of Species that: “our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms.”
This is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution which is assumed to arise from a process that is directionless, without purpose and lacking in either foresight or memory.
The phenomenon is not inconsistent, however, with the idea of evolution-by-cognition. Various interpretations can be made, with just one possibility being that any modification to phenotype comes with an automatic expiry date. The new adaptation is given a trial period of three generations, say, for assessment and if, after that time, no advantage is perceived then the reversion occurs.
Another idea is that herd animals in particular will tend to copy the herd phenotype under the assumption that it is probably close to optimal and that ‘standing out’ from the rest of the animals is not a particularly good idea.
Arguments such as this are common amongst Darwinian theorists. Even though there is no direction or intent in Darwinian theory, the temptation to use such language is just too much for them. This says something about the nature of the phenomenon they are trying to describe, which is that it is obviously teleological in nature and they are in simple denial of this fact.
Here, however, we a quite at liberty to describe such processes as intentional and directed because this is the whole premise of the theory!
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance
“Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the proposed transmission of epigenetic markers and modifications from one generation to multiple subsequent generations without altering the primary structure of DNA” – Wikipedia
So a form of inheritance that is independent of meaningful changes in DNA is possible and can persist over several generations.
The article from Wikipedia is full of statements supportive of the ideas presented in this page:
- Feedback systems are involved at the molecular level
- Information from the environment results in meaningful changes to the organism
- Feedback loops persist cross several generations (are inherited)
- This has nothing to do with DNA
Epigenetic inheritance may only affect fitness if it predictably alters a trait under selection. Evidence has been forwarded that environmental stimuli are important agents in the alteration of epigenetic processes.
Positive and negative feedback loops are commonly observed in molecular mechanisms and regulation of homeostatic processes. There is evidence that feedback loops interact to maintain epigenetic modifications within one generation, as well as contributing to TEI in various organisms, and these feedback loops can showcase putative adaptations to environmental perturbances.
The feedback loops seen across multiple generations because of TEI showcases a spatio-temporal dynamic that is associated with TEI alone.
This is describing a cognitive feedback system but without using the word ‘cognitive’.
Examination of the specific reactions between molecules or even the feedback loops controlling them is not particularly useful, as the important factor is the overall organisation of such processes and the nature of such organisation. The activity of individual molecules is always subservient to the over-arching teleological aims of such a system.
Lamarckism
Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism, is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime.
Lamarck argued, as part of his theory of heredity, that a blacksmith’s sons inherit the strong muscles he acquires from his work.
What Lamarck claimed was the inheritance of characteristics acquired through effort, or will. – Wikipedia
This is interesting: What is meant by ‘use or disuse’ and why should this result in the inheritance of characteristics? Is there a record kept somewhere of the degree of usage of each characteristic?
One interpretation is that ‘usage’ consists of a collection of biochemical reactions that result in a permanent change to the muscle mass, say, and that this is then passed on to the next generation.
This doesn’t really help though, as we still need some way of encoding these changes to trillions of cells in order to pass them on and integrate them into the developmental process so that a modified adult can benefit from them. The encoding of volumes of complex information into a compact and meaningful format is otherwise known as ‘cognition’, so similar processes are at work here also.
A better way of describing ‘usage’ is to recognise that the physical action of wielding a hammer is preceded by an intention to uses and accompanied by an acquired cognitive pattern of movement, energy flow and recovery, involving preparation, action and feedback. It is proposed that it is precisely this ‘pattern’ that is passed on to the next generation. The response of individual muscle cells is irrelevant and all that matters is the workings cybernetic control system already programmed by the parent blacksmith.
“What Lamarck claimed was the inheritance of characteristics acquired through effort, or will”
This is more like it! The characteristics have been acquired through ‘effort and will’ through an encoded summary of ‘proprioceptive activity’.
Evolutionary developmental biology
Wikipedia comes out as Lamarkist:
“Evolutionary innovation may sometimes begin in Lamarkian style with epigenetic alterations of gene regulation or phenotype generation, subsequently consolidated by changes at the gene level.” – Wikipedia
So evolution is via some form of Lamarkism .. but genes are involved somehow!
The gene is involved by ‘consolidation’; but what does this mean? The development did not need genetic alteration to start with so why does it need it for subsequent generations? The alteration of genetic information is described here as:
- Non-random
- Subsequent to phenotypic change
- As a consequence of phenotypic change not the cause
- As the end point of cellular activity, not the start point
In what sense can genetic changes of this type be considered ‘causal’? In what sense is it ‘consolidation’? This is deceptive language, an attempt to give prominence and salience to changes in genetic structure where no causal relationship has been established.
August Weismann
Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, repeatedly over 5 generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail. He stated that “901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormality in this organ.” – Wikipedia
What was he expecting? The slicing off of the tails by Weismann bypasses the cognitive system of the rats. They did not want this to happen and did not see any evolutionary advantage for it and so there is no reason for lack-of-tail to be inherited. The tails were just cut off and this gives no clue as to how this might be integrated into the developmental processes of the rat offspring.
Weismann should have checked to see if the rats had acquired a fear of knives – or of Weismann himself!
Strength is built by cognitive processes
From mental power to muscle power–gaining strength by using the mind
Ranganathan et al found that:
Participants increased muscle mass and strength by simply imagining that they were performing exercise. Similar effects were obtained from runners and weight-lifters.
Yes, muscular development, usage, maintenance and repair are all cognitive processes as opposed to simple chemical reactions. The details of a billion molecular interactions cannot be inherited, but the finely tuned parameters of a closed-loop repair system can.
The Cambrian explosion
If there is no direct feedback from the environment into the developmental processes of animals then we would expect evolutionary change to be slow and effectively random with respect to the needs of survival, with any meaningful structure arising only from natural selection.
If an interpretive cognitive system could somehow develop and manage to connect to embryonic development then we should expect a sudden increase in the speed, diversity and appropriateness of evolutionary development.
This is what we see about 540 million years ago with the Cambrian explosion.
Several other such ‘explosions’ exist and other factors provide obvious explanations, for example the development of eyes, nervous systems, locomotion and large brains. All these require the phenomenon described here as ‘cognition’.
Describing evolution as being driven by the ‘motor of ecological change‘ is an explicit admission of top-down causation as you will find.
“We’re inventing nervous systems, we’re inventing eyes and other sensory systems.”
“So you have a whole cascade of feedbacks and it’s really just a matter of trying to pinpoint the trigger versus all the other consequences that flow from that point”
“(An increase in oxygen) is not enough, you also need a mechanism to drive the system into a runaway situation. You need the system to work very fast .. and one of the ways is ecological feedback“
“A good part of what is happening in the Cambrian explosion must be the motor of ecological change.“
When did cognition develop?
Watch the neutrophil below chasing a bacterium.
This single celled animal has no brain, eyes or musculature and not even a nervous system but still seems to know exactly what it is doing.
It is aware of its own environment, has a sense of proprioception and engages in purposeful activity. It is sensing ‘food’, making decisions as how to go about getting it, making an intention to move and then chasing its quarry whilst responding to its efforts to escape at lightning speed.
All this activity implies feedback, awareness of self, formation of purpose and teleological causation; in short: ‘cognition’.
Evolution from bacteria to human should be relatively fast compared to what has preceded this.
Intelligent design vs. atheist Darwinism
The intelligent design lobby are consumed by the idea that complex organisms cannot arise from random changes and require an intelligent process and an informational template.
Neo-Darwinists seem likewise driven by a need, outside of any scientific consideration, to eliminate the requirement for a divine being.
The above hypothesis has the intelligent design reside within the organism itself rather than in the mind of an external creator. The design arises from a sort of bootstrapping process within the cognitive system itself, this is to say, within the organism itself.
Both atheists and ID advocates are therefore happy with this scenario.
The complex structure of phenotype that we see is only ‘apparent’ and not ‘fundamental’. What is fundamental is the cognitive structure that mediates between phenotypic requirements arising from interaction with the environment and the physical requirements of the developmental process.
The true evolution is therefore the evolution of cognition and evolution of development. An intelligent feedback system sits between the The Laws of Physics on the one hand and Environmental Reality on the other and tries to mediate between the two in an effort to survive and procreate.
Structure and complexity arise, not just from the input of information from the environment but also from the need to reconcile this with the basic laws of physics and the emergent biological laws that arise from self-organisation of cellular systems.
This ‘intelligence’, then, ‘knows’ all about development, has a memory, is able to formulate plan, make decisions and recover from all sorts of perturbations and upsets as it pursues its teleological goals.
Cognition as a ‘connection space’
The schematic below is intended to show how information from the environment is able to affect events at the molecular level.
A system of top-down causation (here left to right) proceeds from macro-level reality via an interpretive, cognitive bio-field to direct events at the cellular level. The self-organising properties of the cells, so called ’emergent’ properties, are utilised to then regulate the actions of organelles, molecules and even individual atoms.
The inclusion of the emergent properties here is important. The cognitive system knows nothing about the nature of the atom and only interacts with the layer ‘above’ by means of biological laws which arise as a consequence of the self-organising properties of large groups of cells.
It is the cognitive layer that acts as an informational bridge, connecting the macro world to the micro in a meaningful way.
It is the cognitive layer that evolves, that persists across generations and adapts according to environmental conditions. This must be the case as the laws of physics are fixed and self-organisation happens via emergence, i.e. as an inevitable consequence of the lower laws; there is no room at this level for innovation.
‘Causation’ is different from ’emergence’ and is the result of signals from the cognitive layer acting upon the emergent layer; causation is proceeding from top to bottom. The cognitive system accepts feedback from the emergent layer itself and becomes a learning system, with the lessons learnt being passed on to the next generation.
The laws of physics are immutable whilst the laws of biology are common to all living cells and so neither need an inheritance mechanism. The only structure that needs passing down the evolutionary line is therefore the cognitive bio-field that will interpret information from the environment and use it to organise the development of a new organism. In computing terms this is an adapter class, mediating between the two separate worlds of external reality and internal development.
We are now entirely justified in saying that evolution is “driven by the motor of ecological change“.
Stability in biological systems
Stability in biological systems is maintained by means of engineering-style control systems at all levels of scale from the molecular to the ecological,
And end goal exists for each sub-system which continuously monitors its own performance using feedback mechanisms and performs corrective action as necessary to keep itself on track.
The schematic below is a nice illustration from the world of project management. A control system is shown taking input, delegating work to a subsystem and producing output.
Both the main system and the subsystem stabilise themselves via feedback and the main system accepts feedback from the subsystem. The two systems thus linked form a larger system which is itself a control system and is stabilised by its own internal feedback between the subsystems.
“While I think we can be certain that multi-level causation with feedbacks between all the levels is an important feature of biological organisms, the tools we have to deal with such causation need further development. The question is not whether downward causation of the kind discussed in this article exists, it is rather how best to incorporate it into biological theory and experimentation, and what kind of mathematics needs to be developed for this work.” – Denis Noble
The mechanism
Previous theories of evolution have floundered for want of a suitable mechanism.
We need:
- Some way of storing vast amounts of information
- A means of moving such information around
- A way of integrating new information
- Some mechanism for translating such information to molecular action
- The chosen mechanism will be stable and robust to physical, chemical and electrical influences
- Existing physics will suffice; no new fields or forces are required
Now since all forces at the level of biology are electromagnetic in nature and the only way to move charged particles around is an electromagnetic field, we can only consider such a field as a realistic candidate for a cognitive bio-field.
A toroidal ring vortex fits the bill. Watch these things flow through water to see how stable they can be and how energy is managed and conserved. Water loses energy owing to friction but an electromagnetic vortex has no such losses and will hence keep going forever.
Ring vortices can be seen to survive splitting into two (reproduction) and can merge together seamlessly (reproduction!). They can change proportions to pass through a narrow conduit and will survive minor perturbations in shape by simply re-stabilising to the original form.
Konstantin Meyl has proposed that such rings can absorb energy via transfer from the environment (Gibb’s energy) and even from the energy from solar neutrinos. We therefore have an energy structure that is arguably as stable as a molecule whilst at the same time more flexible and more amenable to the storage of information.
How information is stored on these rings is not exactly clear but it is easy to imagine several of these merging together with the result that their individual informational content is also merged by a natural physical process.
Such a merging could be used to integrate impressions within the brain and also to merge together information from male and female gametes. Darwin’s idea of gemmules now seems more reasonable; information from all over the body is packed into ring vortices which flow to the reproductive organs and is merged into a single wave complex for passing on to the next generation. (See: Telegony)
The image that springs to mind is as drawn by Nicholaas Hartsoeker (right), except that instead of a miniature homunculus we now have a complete representation of a bio-field template for a human being. The ‘shape’ is included somehow and the developmental process will work out how to attain the final form.
Action of the bio-field upon emergent phenomena
In the video, a number of heart muscle cells beat in coordination. Each cell is capable of beating individually but here electrical signalling has enabled the cells to coordinate at a distance and a beating ‘muscle’ has formed.
This is an ’emergent’ property as far as we know. There is no central command structure controlling or coordinating the rate or synchrony of contraction.
If the muscle were to be shaped into a tube and twisted into a spiral then we would no doubt see a wave of propagation flow around the heart in the familiar pattern. However, this still isn’t a heart; what is needed is an extra cognitive layer on top to assimilate signals from the rest of the body and respond by triggering muscle contractions at the appropriate rate.
‘Cognition’ here does not interact directly with the physical stuff of the body but instead interfaces with the emergent features of biology via their local electric fields.
The energetic work of contracting heart muscles is implemented by the cells themselves and the coordination is via signalling between the individual cells but the overall pace setting is fine tuned by a somatic intelligence which knows nothing about the workings of a cell but everything it needs to know about the top-down requirements of the cardiovascular system.
A general principle
A general principle can be hypothesised whereby the high level cognitive aspects of biological systems have their effect, not by direct action upon the physical matter but by exerting subtle influences upon the emergent features by means of local bio-field interaction.
This will apply to beating hearts, vascular dilation, movement and proprioception, embryonic development, morphogenesis and even epigenetic feedback loops.
The inherited characteristics will consist of just this: a complete instruction set of all the high level knowledge needed to produce a new organism. In particular, phenotypic blueprints do not consist in any way of a physical shape to be attained but rather a complete set of cognitive instructions on how to achieve final bio-field stability by manipulation of the same features that will emerge from the development process itself.
Once this principle is understood the whole process above sounds much more plausible and the whole of biology simpler to comprehend. Formulations of Life as almost synonymous with ‘complexity’ now seem naïve. Instead, try to regard Life as having a very specific structure which actually reduces complexity to a bare minimum.
The face of a frog
In this short video from Tufts University shows an electromagnetic field emerging as if out of nowhere. The field assumes the shape of the face of a frog where brain, eyes mouth etc. are visible before the physical organisation of the cells has even begun.
One way to interpret this is that it is the field that is ‘causal’, it is the field that contains the relevant information for the organisation of the physical matter, that is to say, it is a morphogenetic field.
In accordance with the general principle above, the cells simply divide for a while, at first simply reproducing and accumulating energy, but soon self-organising to create an emergent bio-field which naturally acts as an antenna for the morphogenic field. See: Bio-field emergence
This field has been inherited from the parents and once it connects to the developing cellular mass will proceed to organise, via the emergent field, the development of the cellular collective into a complete frog shape.
The evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction
If a primitive organism, an amoeba for example, were to somehow absorb some bio-field information from another by transference of physical material, then our amoeba will be ‘enhanced’ somewhat; it has acquired some new cognitive capabilities. It passes on this information when it divides and the new abilities persist down the generations and are integrated into the ecology; the amoeba has ‘evolved’ as a species.
The propensity to engage in this sort of activity proliferates and very soon sexual reproduction is de rigueur in the amoeba community. Evolution now happens very quickly.
Once organisms have developed sufficient cognitive ability to recognise propitious adaptations in other individuals then they will actively try to acquire those abilities, by either mimicry or the sharing of bio-field fragments. Certain individuals now appear more attractive.
As complexity of phenotype increases then so does the complexity of the reproductive process which nevertheless retains a high salience within the cognitive system. The sharing of bio-field material may appear more ungainly in animals whose phenotype has evolved for other purposes, but has also become more efficient, with the packing of all relevant information into specialised gametes for the specific purpose of transfer between individuals.
Parthenogenesis in humans
It appears that the fertilisation of the egg by a sperm is not as necessary as one might think for human reproduction to take place:
“Although reproduction in most mammals occurs through mating between male and female, it has been hypothesized that presence of rare cases of parthenogenesis in humans that result in normal and viable individuals go unnoticed due to the absence of congenital anomalies”
“Parthenogenesis is not as rare as previously thought but can go unnoticed with an ovarian teratoma outcome or even a full-term birth, particularly, in the presence of a male partner.” – Hegazy et al
The peacock’s tail
An AI engine, presumably neo-Darwinist, gives a summary: “The peacock’s tail evolved through a process of sexual selection, where peahens chose mates with the most impressive tails. “
Neo-Darwinist evolution is supposed to be by random fluctuation but again the preferred explanation is one of evolution-by-cognition.
What is meant by ‘most impressive tails‘? Why are some tails more impressive than others and how did the idea of ‘preference’ in this context arise from random fluctuations in the first place? Both concepts require the idea of ‘cognition’ as a prerequisite.
If we accept the idea that cognition and preference contribute to phenotypic change then we can think that in addition to the females preferring exhibitionist males, the males themselves will soon catch on to the idea and start to produce more and more outlandish plumage as a result.
The urge to reproduce is strong and males, being males, will only stop when they get eaten by predators or fall over owing to the weight of their own tails.
This development now has nothing to do with randomness but can legitimately be said to be driven by a combination of cultural norms and the more fundamental need to reproduce.
Developmental plasticity and the origin of tetrapods
Scientists raised bichir, a type of fish with lungs, exclusively on land to see what would happen:
The researchers discovered the bichir raised on land were dramatically different than those raised in water. The land-raised fish lifted their heads higher, held their fins closer to their bodies, took faster steps and undulated their tails less frequently and had fins that slipped less often than bichir raised in water. These land-based fish also underwent changes in their skeletons and musculature that likely paved the way for their changes in behavior. All in all, these alterations helped bichir move more effectively on land.
These findings reveal the bichir is more plastic — that is, malleable — during its development than previously thought. This plasticity is what made this fish capable of growing up very differently depending on its environment. – LiveScience
So functional behavioural and structural changes have been implemented by the fish themselves in response to environmental challenges.
The adaptations were certainly not random though; they were specifically directed towards a certain goal. This now paves the way for a selective process to occur.
The problem with neo-Darwinian selection is that development must precede selection, i.e. a feature must arise somehow before it can be tested for ‘fitness’ and the only solution presented by the neo-Darwinists is via random mutations. With these fish, however, we see that a certain degree of adaptation takes place as a direct response to environmental challenges and is immediately tested for suitability in the real world.
If, now, some fish do not survive to reproduce but others do, we may say that some sort of selection has taken place.
Unfortunately, these researchers did not have enough time to see if these changes were inherited.
Summary
The process of evolution presented here is one of a very specific relationship between the developmental processes and evolutionary. The central hypothesis is that evolutionary cognition is responsible for interpreting environmental information and setting a new teleological goal for the developmental processes.
Many authors have described similar schemes but have been missing a few key ingredients:
- Recognition of the feedback system as fully ‘cognitive’
- An electromagnetic field as the substrate for that cognition
- The specific relationship between developmental and evolutionary processes
- Rejection of DNA as the mechanism of inheritance
What we would like to see is that an organism such as a fish, is able to set a new phenotypic goal in response to environmental pressure and produce offspring that in some way have evolved towards that goal.
We don’t quite have this unfortunately but we do evidence for every part of the process separately:
- The obvious existence of feedback systems at all physical scales
- The inheritance of acquired characteristics is demonstrated
- An induced fear response is inheritable
- Goal oriented behavioural patterns are inheritable
- Phenotypic changes (increased muscle mass) can be induced at will
- Phenotypic changes induced by selective breeding can persist across generations
- Memory can be inherited and is independent of physical order
- Phenotypic changes arise from modifications to the developmental process
- Induced changes to the developmental plan can be passed to the next generation
- The fossil record seems to support the rapid emergence of new species
And finally: ‘All’ evolutionary theorists talk about evolution as if it were directed and as if adaptations arise as a necessary consequence of environmental pressure. This is true even of neo-Darwinists, who, whilst insisting that evolution has no direction at all, nevertheless cannot resist the temptation to talk about it as if it does!
References:
Parental olfactory experience influences behaviour and neural structure in subsequent generations – Dias, Ressler
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3923835/
Retention of Memory through Metamorphosis: Can a Moth Remember What It Learned As a Caterpillar? – Blackiston, Casey, Weiss
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5532337_Retention_of_Memory_through_Metamorphosis_Can_a_Moth_Remember_What_It_Learned_As_a_Caterpillar
How Development Directs Evolution: Lamarck versus Darwin – Mae-Wan Ho
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260086416_How_Development_Directs_Evolution_Evolution_Lamarck_versus_Darwin
The developing genome : an introduction to behavioural epigenetics – David Scott Moore
From mental power to muscle power–gaining strength by using the mind – Ranganathan et al
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14998709/
What caused the Cambrian explosion?
https://youtu.be/qNtQwUO9ff8
Praxis framework: cybernetic control
https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/cybernetic-control
A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation – Denis Noble
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3262309/
Developmental plasticity and the origin of tetrapods – Standen, Du, Larsson
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25162530/
A new hypothesis may explain human parthenogenesis and ovarian teratoma: A review study – Hegazy et al
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227352/
