A NEW THEORY ABOUT EVOLUTION.
NEURAL SYSTEM IN A NEW ROLE, AS AN EVOLUTION’S SUPERVISOR-MEDIATOR
From early beginning on species scale we see the appearance of primitive neural tissue. Up to now we think of this tissue as another one amongst other tissues of a living being, parallel evolved, and its function restricted to transfer informative staff from environment to inner organs and to regulate their functions. But exactly these functions are they who very clearly relate with some of basic mechanisms of evolution. Understanding what I mean by the above phrase, it is critical for understanding my theory. So I have to insist on it: Before any gradual changes in species under evolution, means that there are environmental changes that push organism to change. But of course this fact proposes that organism is knowing, feeling, understanding those changes first, before any mechanism towards changing is geared off. Exactly these functions of knowing, feeling, understanding, are all functions that take place inside neural system. So, environmental changes, which gradually influence organisms to evolve towards one or other direction, are sensed firstly and basically by neural system. At the same moment information reception and diffusion inside the organism is neural system main function. So it is easy to accept neural system as the vehicle of evolution process and its basic role to it.
As we know N.S, even primordial one, has memory, accumulated and classified, so it is logical to think that accumulated information-irritations of same nature, but always having the element of danger and discontent, when reaching a critical number, they press neural cell to take action towards basic cell systems, as DNA, or elsewhere, to start the process of adaption to final organ change. Learning and evolution are inexplicably intermingled .Learning is essential to the whole process and nervous tissue is the most appropriate place for this function and what does it happen to its territory, is in fact the first and crucial step for any phenotypic and genotypic change to come. As radical it may sounds learning is what changes DNA, It seems to me all these like self evident. From early time in species scale, to their development to more complex ones, neural tissue always searches environment, locates dangers, seeks for chances, finds or not solutions, feels security or insecurity. All these above, amongst others, are enclosed in the meaning of learning, form the basis for any change to, or not, follow.
This process to changes at the beginning can be only instability of DNA chain bonds at specific places, so incidental (?) breakings and mutations can take place later. This procedure of course does not preclude any changes on DNA, which are indented towards a specific, gradual, functional and anatomical organ change, in accordance of what N.S. had targeted for. It is obvious that relatively steady environments do not ask for many changes to creatures, at specific geologic periods.
It seems that acceptance of all above, means that a wide field of various branches of scientific search, on the levels of biochemistry, biology, physiology and so on, is opened to new knowledge.
.....So neural system role may be not only a passively reflecting, but a more complex one, and very active and substantial, as refers to species evolution. It seems that known or unknown processes, which regulate evolution, are defined by N.S. Very early in animal climax, N.S starts sensing and transferring feelings of pain, hunger, thirstiness etc, as well as, gradually of discontent, insecurity or security, uneasiness in front of threats etc., and these refer not only upper class animals. If environmental changes are continuous but not lethal, they will at the end lead to the process of evolution, thanks to nervous system. Gradually central nervous system is formulated and takes its central role. It can make more complex actions, as foresee threats, choose complicated defiance or attacking tactics, find solution in difficult situations, etc. This of course widens the scope and role of N.S (finding solutions by using animal’s own abilities, is a way of conserving existing phenotype or genotype, otherwise, not solving the problem, it gears on evolution mechanism).
So when we talk of species evolution, maybe we should mean neuro-genic evolution. (Use of a neologism, sometimes is a necessity, when an entirely new idea is introduced).
- With this theory of neurogenic evolution we can explain punctuated equilibrium introduced by Gould .Obviously during some geologic periods, environmental changes were frequent, strong and lasting, and neurogenic evolution was more energetically involved and changes were more often. On the other side evolutionary static periods refer to geologically quite periods (stasis). Also we can understand and explain how animals have developed such compound abilities and tactics about defiance, attacking, survival in general, where natural selection, Mendel’s genetics, and mutations are, in my opinion, very poor to give us convincing answers. How, for example, can they explain the ability of a species of crow to use special longish rugged leafs of special plant, with their incisions having the appropriate direction, so to take out insects from their deep hole-nests? Even if we accept that an individual had by chance discover this clever way and had shown it to other members, isn’t this compound action (e.g. discovering and showing it) an act made clearly by N.S, which of course leads to further evolution? This example makes clear that first act of evolution does happen on neural system, and neural evolution is the first and most crucial step in overall evolution, which gears off the mechanism of it. It cannot be any phenotypic or genotypic change, before a relative neuronal change takes place. But here a serious question-objection can be posed:
How all these informational staff ,mainly that which bears emotional burden, collected by nervous system of a singular being, during its life, could be transferred to next generations, so to be able to gear evolutionary process?( Otherwise the theory would seem as referred to individual evolving.)
a) Through heredity? It is not logical, except if we accept that neural tissue has its own way to inherit its life experiences.
b) Through behavioral teaching? It is not convincingly possible. After all teaching may involve only technical information, not emotions. Maybe we should need to resort to EMPATHY. Its presence is well established even in low scale living beings, and particularly between mother and offspring. Maybe we will have to revise our views about its width and depth, as well as its role. Maybe through empathy are formed teams of same emotional construction, as regards ways of feeling and reacting to specific environmental changes that makes it possible to interact and genetically couple to each other, so to inherit their characteristics, on the long way to their evolution.
I think that with this theory, we now maybe are entering a wide and exiting field of new knowledge. New problems to solve are arising in biology, biochemistry, physiology etc, as well as theological philosophy.
Surely evolution does exist, but by which terms? Who does put them?
Does neurogenic evolution make either evolution or Intelligent Design theory more easily acceptable by their opponents? Is it putting aside Intelligent Design theory, or complexity of neural system’s function makes High Intervention more probable, and thus it is simply changing the field of contest?
Neural system is itself subject to evolution. Which rules does it obey in its way to change? Does it auto-regulate its own evolution?
How neuronal excretions or electrical action may act on DNA?
How evolution does take place in plants, where seemingly there is not any neural system? Or maybe there is (?)
Z. K
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added more blank lines. This message is very similar but not identical to message 1.
™ Version 4.2