PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Transcript of PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay, 2ª época, 2011. 20: 34-56
ESSAY
PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Gustavo Bardier
There are many scientific theories proposed by different authors about the
evolution of living organisms. Due to its foundation and academic support, the most
popular theories are the Neo-Darwinian, Neutral, Neo-Lamarckian, Epigenetic and
Systemtic. From which Neo-Darwinian Theory is the most dogmatic and hegemonic of
them all. Regardless of its hegemony, this theory is nowadays being criticized by
evolutionary biology itself and most of its central arguments are being questioned.
Several authors make reference to this questioning of Natural Selection Theory. As an
example Rosen & Buth (1980) state: “…we eschew the use of the metaphor `Natural
Selection´ because that metaphor has now been used in many senses and contexts
that seem entirely divorced from the empirical world”. Similarly, Futuyma (1992)
states: “Both in popular literature and in academic literature… the Neo-Darwinian
Theory, that had its origin in the Modern Synthesis, has been criticized as
incomplete, inadequate as an explanation for the evolution or simply wrong”.
Recently, Doménech (2000) argues: “In spite of its overwhelming success, the Natural
Selection theory has never been able to impose in a clear and complete way. There
are increasing supporters of the idea that the Synthetic Evolutionary Theory is
incomplete and constitutes just a fraction of the evolutionary history”. Some authors
emphasize the need for an alternative explanation for evolutionary processes.
Thereby, Rosen & Buth (1980) write: “…the effort expended on applications of natural
selection would be best spent elsewhere - either in other research, or in the attempt
to formulate a more workable theory to replace Darwin’s speculation”. Blanc (1982)
says: “Many evolutionists are willing to abandon neo-darwinian rows and not few
wonder if we are not moving towards the emergence of a new evolutionary theory”.
Two years ago, Nogueira (2009) stated: “Observations in new fields, such as genomics
and epigenetics, find no parallel in Darwin’s line of thoughts. There are those who
propose that a new conceptual revolution may be necessary in biology”.
In response to these criticisms and the demand for a new explanation for
evolutionary processes, this essay is presented to the scientific community as a new
theory I denominated “Peaceful Coexistence Evolutionary Theory”. Coming as a
conceptual reinterpretation of the biological knowledge gathered so far, to explain
how the process of biological adaptation occurs through an evolutionary system other
than natural selection and/or any other mechanism known up to date. This is not an
“invention” from the author, it is an evolutionary system identified in wild populations
and not described so far, recognized through direct observation of animal behavior,
preliminary investigations (Bardier, 2001; Bardier& Santee, 1999) and founded in
diverse scientific data obtained from bibliographic references on the topic. Considering
this original explanation for natural evolution, we can comprehend how micro and
macro evolutionary changes occurred; how the great diversity of species, extinct or
not, evolved from a common ancestor of relatively simple organization through
geological time. Among the main points raised and defended in this proposal we
highlight: the systemic approach to explain the evolution of life; the description of a
new evolutionary system, denominated “neofitness amplitude”; and the conception of
a natural world evolving in peaceful and cooperative coexistence. Within the main the
records, we can cite “Mutual Aid” of Peter Kropotkin (1902) and “Peaceful
Coexistence”, chapter of Paul Colinvaux (1985).
A preliminary version of this proposal was attached to the Masters dissertation
carried out in Brazil (Bardier, 2001), in a 533 pages text with more than 150
bibliographic references, available in the university’s library.
The evolutionary system proposed in the theory, can be identified in natural
populations and is based in five statements: 1°neofit state or neofitness; 2° neofitness
tests; 3°neofitness amplitude; 4° success of the neofitness amplitude; 5° species
renovation.
First statement- NEOFIT STATE OR NEOFITNESS: Neofit individuals are those that
fulfill two biologic conditions: reproductive maturity (sexual or asexual) and physical
and behavioral health. The term refers to all the “healthy adults”. Therefore all
newborns, juveniles, old, sick or wounded organisms are not neofit.
Explanation: There is no problem to determine an organism’s age. Field biologists
usually work with this parameter and possess a wide variety of techniques applicable
to many species. The healthy state is, however, more difficult to establish, especially
behavioral health. In this proposal, health is defined as strictly related to the
organism’s adaptation to its ecological and social niche, that is, there will be named as
healthy those characteristics or traits that do not prejudice the organism’s adaptive
process. Unhealthy individuals are not adapted individuals. This is due to the fact that
all biological characteristics that do not adjust to the environment end up negatively
affecting the neofit state. In this statement it is important to highlight that, from a
reproductive point of view, all neofit individuals are potentially successful; differential
reproduction obeys to multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors of the individual and the
population (not only to genetic features evolved by natural selection). The neofit state
is independent from the selection coefficient: there are no individuals more or less
neofit, either they are neofit or they are not. All individuals that have not reached or
have passed reproductive age (too young or too old) and those that suffer from any
disease or have had an accident do not possess the neofit state necessary to
reproduce.
Second statement- NEOFITNESS TESTS: There are behavioral mechanisms that allow
individuals from the same species to differentiate neofit organisms from those that
are not. Only neofit individuals will pass the tests and gain access to the reproductive
context.
Explanation: Neofit are socially recognized in a sexual and agonistic context through a
behavior called “neofitness tests”. In such tests, individuals demonstrate their health
and sexual maturity. They do that during courtship through “physical” tests, as the
peacock’s tail; through “endurance” tests, as bees’ nuptial flight; or through “strength”
tests, as male moose lock their horns together and push during a fight. It is necessary
to overcome these tests to access reproduction and only adult and healthy organisms
are able to do so; young, old or sick organisms do not pass the tests, as they do not
have the looks, the strength or the endurance required. Courtship is the main
neofitness test in reproductive context. Its behavioral complexity, the energetic cost or
the investment in biological material needed to court, demonstrate who is neofit and
who is not. Species that do not present courtship have other mechanisms to
communicate their neofit state (e.g. physical or chemical). The resolution of social
conflicts through agonistic behavior also implies a neofitness demonstration. Such
resolution depends on the state of the organism that occupies the resource, if it is
neofit or not. Resources occupied by individuals that demonstrate being neofit are
naturally respected, continuing with the resource holding after the conflict (see
subtitle “Peaceful Coexistence” in page 8). If they do not overcome the tests, they will
be identified as not neofit individuals, and consequently would not be accepted in the
reproductive context, mating will be denied to them either in a sexual context or
because they do not possess the resources required to obtain it (e.g. Food or territory)
in an agonistic context. Observe that the proposal is not referring to the relation
between the more adapted, the more it reproduces, the more fitted it is; central
argument of Natural Selection Theory. It would be enough for an individual to
demonstrate that is a healthy adult in the neofitness tests to gain access to
reproduction. Noefitness tests in plants are more difficult to identify, although
agronomists and agriculturists are easily able to detect weather a plant is sick or
healthy. Furthermore, not neofit plants are not able to produce reproductive
structures. An important point from the second statement involves the genotypic and
phenotypic consequences on the frequencies of the different traits within the
population. As mentioned before, individuals only need to pass the neofitness tests to
reproduce, therefore all phenotypic features that do not prejudice the neofit state,
genetic, learned, stochastic, neutral, more or less adapted, would fix in the population.
At the same time, as the individuals that do not pass the neofitness tests do not have
access to reproduction, all phenotypic features that prejudice the neofit state (not
adaptive) would be eliminated from the population. Thus, a direct consequence of the
neofitness tests on the population the conformation of a great biodiversity and
biocomplexity of features adapted to the ecological niche of the species.
Third statement- NEOFITNESS AMPLITUDE: This concept represents all the neofit
organisms within the population, which would be all the organisms that were able to
stand the neofitness test including their social and ecological interactions.
Explanation: Neofitness amplitude as a whole, involves a diverse and complex
biological system, a network of healthy adult organisms adapted to a specific niche.
This group of neofit individuals in the population is directly affected by genetics,
anatomy, physiology and behavior, as well as, the social and ecological relations that
characterize the specie’s niche. All traits that do not prejudice the neofit are part of
this system, independently from the level of adaptation they carry (neutral, little or
very adaptive), their genesis (genetic, learned or stochastic) and its evolution (Neo-
Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, Epigenetics, Neutralism or Systemic). The genetic-
phenotypic composition of the neofitness amplitude is part of a diverse and complex
variety of characters, as it is demonstrated by looking at populations in nature. The
relative frequencies or each genetic, anatomic, physiologic and behavioral character
vary from one generation to the other, no by natural selection but by genetic drift in
epigenetic systems or through learning and culture in social systems. It is not about a
few selected traits, it refers to a great diversity of characters fixed in the population,
provided that none of them affects the neofit state negatively. The size of the
neofitness amplitude varies from one generation to the other according to the number
of individuals that enter and leave the population. Healthy individuals that reach an
adult age, sick individuals that regain health and neofit immigrants are those
organisms that enter in the neofitness amplitude. While the ones that leave the
neofitness amplitude are the organisms that have passed the reproductive age, that
die, become sick or have had an accident, are neofit emigrants. Like any open system,
its size is balanced by the number of inputs and outputs. Ecologically, the size of the
neofitness amplitude is limited by the amount of spaces or niches available in the
environment. Within the population not all the individuals that are able to stand the
neofitness tests necessary gain access to reproduction. Those that in fact reproduce
form the effective amplitude, while those that do not reproduce form the reserve
amplitude. When an individual leaves the effective amplitude, a neofit from the
reserve amplitude takes its place. Organisms from the reserve amplitude can
cooperate with the reproduction of the effective individuals (family groups or social
groups) or wait for an opportunity to reproduce (individual territories, lecks). This
evolutionary system allows and even favors the integrated evolution of all the
evolutionary mechanisms proposed so far. Natural Selection Theory is opposed to
several epistemological aspects of the Neutralist, Neo-Lamarckian, Epigenetic and
Systemic Theories. Whereas, the Peaceful Coexistence Theory integrates them
systematically, emerging as a “unifying” theory in evolutionary biology. A different
theory can be used to explain or interpret any character considered, as long as such
character does not prejudice the neofit state of the individuals in the effective
amplitude. Although exceptional, when natural selection acts through differential
reproduction, it accelerates the fixation process of very adaptive characters (with
reproductive advantages) in the neofitness amplitude. Consequently, all evolutionary
theories can be acting together and integrated within the same neofitness amplitude.
A relevant point from the third statement is that the neofitness amplitude operates as
a system. A wide variety of genetic, organismic, social and ecological factors works
together and influences the differential reproduction. Within these factors we can find,
for example, randomness; not genetically inherited characters; neutral characters;
Lamarckian characters; characters that do not affect reproductive success; genotype-
phenotype relation; behavior variability; affective behaviors; reproductive rate; neofit
state; survival and offspring reproduction; resource availability; gene flow; generation
time; neofitness amplitude size; peaceful coexistence; cooperation; competition;
aggression; life strategies; demographic variation; symbiotic interspecific interactions;
predation; environmental conditions; historical factors; ecological niche subdivision; a
species as an available niche for other species; diversity of niches available; primary
productivity; ecosystems emergent properties; and natural selection. The neofitness
amplitude is influenced by all the factors just mentioned and the result dictates the
evolutionary path of each species, and therefore its natural history. Not neofit
individuals also integrate an amplitude, but it is excluded from the reproductive
context. Even though they are not neofit they can cooperate with the reproduction of
the individuals from the effective amplitude (e.g. experience from the old, alarm calls
from the young).
Fourth statement- SUCCESS OF THE NEOFITNESS AMPLITUDE: Survival of the
population in evolutionary time depends on a social and ecological organization that
ensures neofitness amplitude renovation in successive generations. The renovationn
success is directly correlated with the evolutionary persistence of the population and
inversely correlated with its extinction probability.
Explanation: Specie’s biology is adapted to renew the neofitness amplitude of a
population from one generation to the other. The greater the neofitness amplitude
size on a generation, the greater the probabilities for renovation in the next
generation. The organization of interspecific interactions is based exclusively on the
neofit reproduction so that a group of them reproduces in every generation. When the
size of the group increases, the neofitness amplitude success would be greater, and as
a result, the population’s probability of survival and evolution increases. The smaller
the neofit group, the greater the probabilities for biological extinction of the
population. If the renovation does not occur, the population disappears. Rather than
differential reproduction between individuals, it is the number of reproductive units in
the effective amplitude what assures the persistence of the neofitness amplitude in
the next generation. Being the reproduction the means to do so. It is not about the
reproduction of the fittest exclusively, in detriment of the less fit individuals
(Darwinian point of view), it consists in assuring the reproduction of the greatest
number of neofit organisms, barely limited by the number and variability of niches the
environment can carry. Both organisms that reproduce the most and least cooperate
in the success of the neofitness amplitude renovation. Genotypic-phenotypic variation
it is adaptive because it favors the success of the neofitness amplitude in situations of
social and environmental stress. Neutral characters or characters that seem to provide
low fitness can be extremely adaptive and successful in unstable and/or new
environments. The social organization is adapted to the success of the group of neofit
individuals in the population, thus the autopoiesis of the social network (the “whole”)
is more important than the individual success (a “part”). Therefore, the proposed
evolutionary system works in advantage of social welfare. Being so, the peaceful
coexistence, cooperation, avoiding competition and aggression would be adaptive
behaviors as they favor the neofit state and increase the neofitness amplitude success;
whereas behaviors like aggression and competition would not be adaptive as they
prejudice individuals.
Fifth statement- REVOVATION OF THE SPECIES: The evolutionary continuity of a
species through time and space depends on the success of the neofitness amplitudes
of the populations that integrates it.
Explanation: For instance, it would be enough that one population renews its
neofitness amplitude for the species to continue its evolutionary path. However, as
many populations renew their amplitude, the better. As the probability of survival and
conservation of the species increases, while the extinction probability decreases.
Ecological changes generate alterations in the populations that affect the species
capacity to renew its neofitness amplitude. For all ecosystems to remain stable every
species in it have to renew through geological time to maintain the ecological
composition and diversity. The renovation of the species through this evolutionary
system allows the maintenance of trophic relationships, ecosystem properties and
macroevolutionary processes.
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND APLICATION IN BIOLOGY
The description of the five statements that define the evolutionary system of
neofitness amplitude is based on observable and quantifiable natural facts. It turns
into a useful tool for biologists to reinterpret Neo-Darwinian knowledge from an
alternative and original point of view.
This new concept can be applied to all biological fields, from genomics to ecosystem
ecology. However, this double exercise of reinterpretation and application demands
from the scientist a willingness to accept, even remotely, the possibility of new
explanations for the study object we work with nowadays.
In the following parts, a reinterpretation of micro and macroevolutionary
phenomenon is done using the five statements proposed. Thus, it is necessary to work
with new approaches, such as the intra and interspecific peaceful coexistence; a new
conception of cooperative behavior; the comprehension of trophic relationship
sustainability through neofitness amplitude; the understanding of speciation processes
in a peaceful context; and the visualization of ecosystems as a socioeconomic system
of peaceful coexistence. This reinterpretation begins with a criticism of the concepts of
aggression and competition in biology, necessary to fully understand the peaceful
coexistence concept.
COMPETITION AND AGRESSION IN DARWINIAN BIOLOGY
Three concepts drifting from the central arguments of Darwinian and Neo-
Darwinian Natural Selection Theory are essential to comprehend natural world’s
vision: reproductive selfishness, competition and aggression. All three concepts were
criticized by biologists, since results from ecological, but mainly from ethological,
studies began to show inconsistencies with them. Detailed and objective observation
of wild animal behavior has led some ethologists and ecologists to position themselves
with certain skepticism towards these three concepts. For example, Pianka (1982: 229)
states: “…competition is the conceptual framework of great part of modern
ecological thinking. However, competition is impossible to study in the field and
therefore is not yet fully understood.” At the beginning of the twentieth century,
Kropotkin (1902: 67) wondered: “So that we again are asking ourselves, to what
extent does competition really exist within each animal species? Upon what is the
assumption based?” The Russian naturalist made his observation in an inhospitable
region of Siberia, where strong competition would be expected, and he observed that
the species overcame the freezing northern winters avoiding competition and helping
mutually.
Reproductive Selfishness- the most radical use of this concept was that of the
“selfish gene” proposed by Richard Dawkins and classic reference to the Neo-
Darwinism. Individuals maximize their reproductive success, and in this context, selfish
behaviors are adaptive and selected. Critic: The idea of “selfishness” does not follow a
theoretical postulation. There is no way of identifying selfish motivation in an animal
or plant, even less in genes; selfishness, an ambiguous and not well defined concept, is
not a quantifiable nor observable object for scientific experimentation in biology.
Competition and aggression- Competition or competitive behavior refers to, from
Darwin’s approach, an agonistic action between several organisms for the possession
and consumption of limited resources. Krebs & Davies (1993:102) state "When many
individuals expliot the same limited resources, they are competitors, and the
decisions made by one competitor may be influenced by what others are doing”.
Begon et al (1995: 205) define competition as: “…an interaction between individuals,
brought about by a shared requirement for a resource, and leading to a reduction in
the survivorship, growth and/or reproduction of at least some of the competing
individuals concerned”. There are two types of competition: competition through
exploitation and competition through interference or agonistic behavior.
1.- Competition through exploitation: When an individual consumes a certain resource
leaving less from that resource to other individuals. In mathematical population
models it is introduced as a negative factor. Critic: What is observed in this case is a
consumption behavior and not a competitive one. Individuals are consumers not
competitors. Results on the population are effects of the consumption and not of the
competition. There is no competition by exploitation; there is a false interpretation of
the observed behaviors (an epistemological artifact).
2.- Competition through interference or aggression: When a resource causes an
aggressive conflict in which an individual prevents another the access to the disputed
resource. Futuyma (1992: 32) defines it as: “Competition by interference occurs when
to individuals interact directly and one of them comes out defeated from the
encounter. They can fight got food or territorial space; an individual can poison
another (phenomenon called allelopathy)”. Critic: Real aggression is not observed:
aggression that results in reduced health or longevity. Social conflicts are resolved in
an agonistic communication context, through ritualized behaviors and harmless
postures. The famous ethologist Eirl-Eibestfeldt (1978) states in this regard:”…fights
between individuals of the same species hardly ever end up in death and rarely have
as a result serious injuries for any of the contestants. In fact, these fights are
frequently ritualized and seem more like a tournament than a battle to the death”.
Peaceful Coexistence Theory established a difference between “agonistic behavior”,
ritualized and harmless, and “real aggression”. The latter is not and adaptive behavior
as it prejudices the neofit state and reduces the renovation of the neofitness
amplitude success. Cases where real aggression in wild species was registered were
accidental, ie exceptional and unique.
PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
For this theory, the biologic evolution of the life system is organized naturally
based in the social success of a group of neofit individuals from each population from
each species. Behaviors that result in a collective advantage favor the proper
functioning of the neofitness amplitude as an evolutionary system, by favoring the
reproduction of the greatest number of neofit as possible. Such behaviors are the
peaceful coexistence and the cooperation, both liable to be observed and quantified in
nature. Moreover, as they are adaptive and benefit the neofit state, they will fix
rapidly in the population.
Peaceful coexistence is defined as “peaceful search and consumption of
available resources and natural respect towards those resources that are already
occupied”. Peaceful consumption and natural respect are the social and ecological
rules that allow intraspecific and interspecific peaceful coexistence.
This definition allows the use of this concept to be study object, especially in
ethology, as involves both observable and quantifiable behaviors. Basically there are
three different behaviors recognized in this definition:
Peaceful search of available resources: Includes scouting behaviors, relocating
to another place, forage, taxes, appetitive behavior and similar activities,
where all senses are used to detect feeding resources, shelter, sexual partners
or any other resource available (without being occupied or consumed by
another organism). Such behaviors are free from any negative interaction
(competition or aggression), even though they can be influenced by
cooperative behaviors, altruism or reciprocity, e.g. group scouting.
Peaceful consumption of available resources found: Includes behaviors such as
approaching, capture, manipulation and similar activities that are
corresponded with what ethologists call “consumption act” (Vaz-Ferreira,
1984). Behaviors such as feeding, nesting, marking a territory, hiding, courting
or mating are observed and, as it happens with the peaceful search behaviors,
negative interactions do not affect them while the resource is available,
leaving regulation to cooperative behaviors, such as sharing food.
Natural respect for the occupied resources: When an individual in its peaceful
search gets interested by an item from a limited resource that is being
occupied or consumed by a conspecific, a social conflict arises. Social conflicts
are natural and many times imminent. For the peaceful coexistence theory,
conflicts’ resolution is also peaceful; individuals go through neofitness tests in
an agonistic communication context. The result is natural respect for the
resources occupied by individuals that demonstrate their neofit state. Such
natural respect implies the display of smoothing behaviors from the intruder
when it retreats (wrongly interpreted by neo-darwinism as “submissive
behaviors”). Smoothing behavior has two purposes. On one hand, shows
natural respect and the motivation to retreat. On the other hand, prevents the
conflict from becoming truly aggressive. As a result, the occupant of the
disputed resource keeps it while is able to show its neofit state and the
intruder continues its peaceful search for available resources somewhere else.
Because of its theoretical novelty, it is worth insisting with the peaceful
coexistence concept. Even though a species consume the same type of resource,
individuals consume different items from that resource; those available. This
adaptive behavior guarantees the peaceful coexistence between individuals of the
same population. Clearly, the behavior observed is the locating, obtaining and
consuming of those available items. Competition through exploitation, as
described by Neo-Darwinian models, does not exist. Each time an individual
consumes a resource item, there is one less item available for others, which is the
result of “peaceful consumption” (observable behavior) and not from an invisible
math called competition (existent barely for neo-darwinian models). Neither
competition through interference or aggressive behavior occurs; intraspecific
conflicts are resolved in peaceful coexistence in an agonistic context through
ritualized postures and movements that do not prejudice the neofit state of
individuals. There is no real aggression, instead there are neofitness tests. No
individual loses health nor reduces its longevity after conflict resolution because
this resolution is peaceful.
In terms of cost/benefit, for an intruder it would be more advantageous to look
peacefully for an available resource in another place than engage in a violent
conflict in which he can lose its neofit state, and its access to reproduction. Only
when the valuable resource is occupied by a not neofit individual, recognized by a
neofitness test in an agonistic context, would the intruder be able to expel him
and occupy the resource. This behavior directly favors the neofitness amplitude
success, as the neofit individual is the one who remains with the resource. While
he manages to maintain himself as a healthy adult, the individual would remain
with the resource (sexual, spatial or nutritive) and would be naturally respected
by its conspecifics.
In an interspecific level, macroevolutionary processes of niche differentiation
and character divergence favor the peaceful coexistence between species or
divergent variables. Sympatric species close philogenetically (same genera)
manage to coexist in the same habitat as they consume different resources or the
same type but in different time or space, avoiding competition. For example, two
congeneric species of burrowing rodents, Thomomys bottae and T. umbrinus,
have an overlapped distribution in south Arizona. None the less, they inhabit
different types of substrate and vegetation; T. bottae prefers profound crumbly
soils from the desert, whereas T. umbrinus prefers more superficial soils
associated to forested areas (Orr, 1986: 159). Thereby, although they coexist in
the same geographic area, both species avoid competition. The seagulls Larus
argentatus and L. fuscus are separated by ecological and behavioral differences in
the niche overlapping area, reducing competition and hybridization probability
(Orr, 1986: 255). Two sympatric species of snake from the same genera Hemiaspis
are small sized with very similar phenotypes, however, they inhabit slightly
different environments and one of them feeds on lizards and the other one on
frogs (Shine, 1995: 159). Pelican species Pelecanus onocrotalus and P. rufescens
occur in the same African lakes, and feed on the same fish species, mainly Tilapia
and Haplochromis. Thus, they were supposed to be under strong competition.
However, detailed observations on their feeding habits shows that P. onocrotalus
feeds in groups far from the shore, capturing big fishes, whereas P. rufescens
feeds individually closer to the shore, capturing smaller fishes than P. onocrotalus
(Orr, 1986: 258). All this considered, they would not be under strong competition,
even though they inhabit the same lakes and feed on the same prey. Lack’s thesis
is very famous (Odum, 1988: 248; Colinvaux, 1985: 115), carried out in Great
Britain, it studies two similar species of cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo and P.
aristotelis. Both species feed on the same waters and nest on the same cliffs,
apparently competing between them. Lacks study showed that in fact they nested
in different places and that their basic diet was slightly different, being that P.
carbo feeds in deep waters, consuming benthonic animals, such as shrimps and
sole, while P. aristotelis captures fish and eels from more superior waters. Odum
(1988: 241) states about this example; “…these closely related species…could
have developed different needs or preferences that efficiently prevent
competition”.
TERRITORIAL BEHAVIOR
While a territorial individual stays neofit it would be respected by its
conspecifics. To remain in this position, territorial individuals frequently undergo
neofitness tests in an agonistic context. If they demonstrate their neofit state,
even after a conflict, it is advantageous for the population and the species,
because it assures that the individual has the resources required to reproduce,
favoring the successful renovation of the neofitness amplitude in the next
generation. Here lies the importance of the natural respect for resources taken by
healthy adults. If an individual does not stand the test it will be substituted by
another from the reserve amplitude, which is also adaptive, assuring that the
territory remains always in possession of a neofit individual.
As the permanence in a territory goes hand in hand with the neofit state,
nobody wins or loses the territory after the resolution of a conflict, therefore,
there is no competition through interference. Real aggression does not exist
either, as the neofitness tests involve harmless agonistic communication.
NATURAL RESPECT FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE STATUS
In several polygamic social groups reproductive function is privilege of one or a
few males, who neo-darwinism calls “dominant individuals” or “alpha males”. This
apparent “social hierarchy” is structured through aggression: alpha males impose
their sexual status “winning” aggressive conflicts. In this context, “loser” males
from neo-darwinian conflicts are called “subordinate individuals”.
To Peaceful Coexistence Theory, there is no social hierarchy but neofitness
tests through agonistic communication (without competition or real aggression).
Once the sexual resource is taken, reproductive individuals constantly undergo
neofitness tests, maintaining its reproductive status as long as they complete
them successfully. When they lose neofitness, they are rapidly identified and
substituted by a neofit from the reserve amplitude. Thus, individuals from the
reserve amplitude generally cooperate with the reproduction of the effective
individuals, favoring the success of the reproductive unit as a whole. Therefore,
both effective and reserve neofits favor the successful renovation of the
neofitness amplitude.
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS PERIODS
Many species inhabit environments with alternating periods of scarcity and
abundance, as it is common in temperate regions. In tropical regions, rainy and
dry seasons set the water abundance and flux along the year. The transition from
abundance to scarcity affects all natural populations increasing mortality rates.
Neo-darwinists sustain that in those stressful periods the fight to survive becomes
even more competitive and aggressive. Natural selection turns more rigid and
determinant: only the fittest survive. It is through these genetic funnels that
natural selection shapes organic evolution, a typical malthusian argument.
In fact mortality does increase in scarcity periods, however, before a concluding
synthesis, one may wonder: Are the survivors really the fittest individuals in the
population? Who dies? , who survives? and why? are fundamental questions
needed to understand stress socio-environmental situation and its evolutionary
consequences. A deeper analysis leads us to answer that it does not seem to be a
direct relation between neo-darwinian aptitude and survival through difficult
periods.
To Peaceful Coexistence Theory, even in this stressful context individuals
continue to coexist peacefully. Increases in mortality rates are an effect of
peaceful consumption and not of aggressive competitions. This means that, those
who die, neither die because they are genetically less adapted, nor because they
were engaged in a cruel battle for survival, but rather, because in their peaceful
search for the scarce resources available they were not able to find the amount
needed to maintain its neofit state. In the same way, survivors do not stay alive
because they are genetically superior or because they beatted all its opponents,
but because they peacefully found the amount of resources needed to maintain
neofit. In a scarcity context, the coexistence rule is still the search and peaceful
consumption of available resources and individuals only need to maintain healthy
enough to keep looking and consuming. In fact, mortality is due to old age,
disease, predation, starvation or an accident. Natural death factors do not include
competition or real aggression – except in humans (“Evolutionary Mistake
Hypothesis”- Bardier, 2001). Both in abundance or scarcity periods, mortality
always occurs within a peaceful and cooperative organization that rules the life.
At a social or ecological stress moment, invest valuable energy in aggressive
behaviors would not be an adaptive advantage. Real aggression risks and costs in
those circumstances overcome the benefits of obtaining, through interference,
the existing resources, considering that the stressful situation will continue after
the conflict. Insist in aggressive behaviors, reduces the possibilities that any
individual from the population survives healthy enough to renew the neofitness
amplitude in the next abundance season. The fact that resources availability is
low, does not imply that truly aggressive behaviors increase, as darwinsts state,
although the number of conflicts and of neofitness tests to solve them increases
too. Peaceful coexistence is not broken, in spite of social and ecological stress.
COOPERATION NETWORKS
Cooperation is understood as a “social or ecological interaction which benefits
at least one individual and none is adversely affected”. This concept implies
behaviors easy to observe, identify, describe and quantify in nature. There are
many examples of cooperation where life favors life. Every natural system is
based somehow in some way of cooperation between its parts and at the same
time with other related systems. This is valid from biochemical and genetic
systems all the way to ecosystems and Planet Gaia.
Positive behaviors are expressed in diverse ways and levels. At an organismic
and behavioral level, cooperation can be social, among individuals of the same
species, or ecological, between species. All species that live in groups has some
kind of social cooperation. Considering the type of relations established between
them, cooperation can be reciprocal, through an immediate exchange of favors
(reciprocity and mutualism); through a mediate exchange (reciprocal altruism); or
altruistic, when there is no reciprocity (favors with no return). Interspecific
interactions such as proto-cooperation, mutualism, commensalism, epiphytism
and inquilinism are very common in a community.
Cooperative behavior, according to Peaceful Coexistence Theory, is fixed
rapidly in the population as it favors the maintenance of the neofit state and the
renovation of the neofitness amplitude. That is why cooperation is the most
common and evident interaction in nature, both at an intra and interspecific level.
In short, medium or long term cooperation always provides social benefits that
favor the neofitness amplitude success and increases biological adaptation.
Parental care, for example, a way of filial cooperation, increases fitness as soon as
it assures that offspring reach the neofit state. The greater the cooperation
between individuals, the greater benefits and renovation the species will have,
that is the reason why cooperation is so frequent in nature.
TROPHIC NETWORKS
Trophic cycle would maintain self-organized and self-regulated as long as the
species manage to renew the neofitness amplitude of their populations. Urine,
feces and necrotic bodies from all species favor the renovation success of
neofitness amplitude of scavenger and detritivorous organisms. They transform
residual matter in organic and inorganic molecules profitable by autotrophic
organisms, which will also increase their neofitness amplitude. Plant growing
turns into food for herbivores, and herbivores become food for carnivores.
Parasites nurture from all trophic levels. As a result, feedback and self-regulation
mechanisms are formed in order to organize and structure ecosystems trophic
networks. Through this process all species renew their populations’ neofitness
amplitudes either predator or prey.
PREDATION AS THE ONLY NEGATIVE INTERACTION OF LIFE SYSTEM
There is no competition through exploitation or interference, but rather effects
of peaceful consumption and agonistic communication to peacefully solve social
conflicts without real aggression. The only negative interaction within life system
is not at a social level but at an ecological one: predation. This interaction leaves
as a result, benefits for one part, predator, while prejudices another, prey.
However predators and preys have been affecting mutually through coevolution
along millions of years. Even under a strong predatory pressure, predatory species
do not extinguish its prey.
Predator/prey coevolution, under Peaceful Coexistence Theory, occurs because
predators do not affect the renovation of neofitness amplitude of their prey. Thus,
we have a sustainable natural relation that allows coevolution. Carnivores predate
almost always, if not always, over not neofit individuals (juvenile, old, sick or
individuals that had had an accident), as it occurs in great vertebrate predators; or
predating only part of neofit individuals as it is observed in medium and small
sized predators. Herbivores in turn, do not consume the whole prey, just a part of
it, allowing its regeneration. Parasites tend to coexist with its host long enough for
the latter to reproduce (therefore the host needs to maintain its neofit state). In
some species parasitism evolved to commensalism and mutualism. In this cases
prey also renew its neofitness amplitude.
SPECIATION UNDER PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
Peaceful coexistence theory does not present any novel speciation model, but
rather reinterprets existing models in terms of success of neofitnes amplitude,
given that all macroevolutionary divergence occurs in peaceful coexistence.
New species appear through neofitness amplitude evolutionary system.
Macroevolutionary phenomena are possible only if phenotype modifications do
not prejudice the neofit state of individuals within the divergent population,
allowing the amplitude renovation in each generation involved in the process.
Probably epigenetic modifications appear affecting organisms, its populations and
its ecology. Natural selection is not necessary. It is enough that individuals
maintain its neofit state.
All speciation models proposed in biology are based in the same fact: the new
species will occupy a new available niche. Therefore, the divergent population
would avoid competing with its parental form by exploiting different resources.
They avoid this competition through character divergence and niche
differentiation, two phenomena well known by evolutionary biologists. Such
processes favor the peaceful coexistence and avoid both competition and
aggression, which benefits the success of neofitness amplitude along speciating
generations. It is a transition from an intraspecific peaceful coexistence to an
interspecific one. Peaceful coexistence existed before and continues to exist
during the new species formation. Furthermore, it is strengthened by this arousal,
the new species would adapt to a different niche available in the environment.
As a result from organic divergence and ecologic differentiation, sympatric and
phylogenetically close species differ in their ecology and/or behavior. They may
occupy different niches or, if overlapped, in the way to exploit it, for example
exploiting the same resource at different places or moments. To explain the latter
neo-darwinists appeal to the “ghost of competition past”, where present
coexistence is the result of competitive exclusion occurred in the past (an
assumption with no fossil support), ie today sympatric species coexist without
competing because they have already competed and excluded themselves during
speciation process. Begon et al. (1995) states: “As an alternative to present
competition we can always summon the ghost of competition past to explain
what we see nowadays. However, it can be used so easily that turns impossible
to observe and consequently to refute”. According to the peaceful coexistence
theory competition never existed, instead there was a transition from an
intraspecific peaceful coexistence to an interspecific one. Speciation generally
takes place in isolated populations, with no opportunities to compete with the
ancestral population. Even reproductive isolation occurs without competition or
aggression. During macroevolutionary phenomena individuals peacefully consume
the available resources and naturally respect taken resources. Peaceful
coexistence existed before speciation began and evolves with the ecological
differentiation process.
LIFE FAVORS MORE LIFE
This proposal considers that life is organized in a social and ecological network
that evolved based on collective benefits instead of individual success. Therefore
its vision of nature is opposite to Darwinian one. Instead of selfish, competitive
and aggressive individuals fighting for survival, life is organized in systems that
favor the renovation of species biodiversity, hence, the evolution of life.
Predation, peaceful coexistence and cooperation are behaviors that
characterize communities and establish the ecosystem’s socioeconomical
organization. Among the three, predation is the only negative ecological
interaction, and just for prey individuals. None the less, predation does not
prevent prey populations to renew their neofitnes amplitude, avoiding
coextinction and favoring coevolution. Moreover, predation is a vital ecological
interaction for the organization and stability of trophic cycles and therefore to
maintain biodiversity. Working with rocky shore fauna, Paine (see Begon et al.
1995) performed a classic experiment removing a predator from experimental
areas, the starfish Pisaster ochraceus. This is a generalist carnivore species that
predates over molluscs fixed in rocks (barnacles, mussels, limpets, chitons,
whelks). He demonstrated that the absence of this predator alters and reduces
local community diversity, which he called “coexistence mediated by an
exploiter”, where the exploiter is a carnivore. Paine found that mollusk
community reduced drastically: going from 15 species before remotion to 8 where
the carnivore starfish was eliminated. The mussel Mytilus californicus increased its
abundance until dominating the community; the other species abundance
decreased (due to emigration) and all limpet species but one disappeared.
Except for predation, the rest of the ecosystem is based on cooperation and
intra and interspecific peaceful coexistence. Competitive and aggressive behaviors
are occasional but tend to be avoided. As a result, the ecosystem is defined,
according to the theory, as a “socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence”. In
it the natural rule is “life bringing more life”, and not life attacking another life in
an eternal struggle to select the fittest individuals. Many natural phenomena fit in
this context and can clarify what it means, for this proposal that life brings more
life. In fact, several species from diverse groups favor the neofitness amplitude
success of other species through different ways of interspecific cooperation and
coevolution. The richness of species that coexist in tropical forests and in coral
reefs, biodiversity hotspots, can be understood through this natural rule. For
example, 456 tree species were found in one hectare of Mata Atlántica from
south Bahia (Thomas et al. 2008); if we add all non-arboreal plants, fungi species
and microorganisms we reach millions of species coexisting in time and space in
100mts by 100mts of forest. A more obvious example of how life favors life is the
Amazon rainforest where a similar biodiversity evolved from poor substrates
(Shubart et al, 1984). Given that aggressive and competitive behaviors prejudice
species coexistence, they cannot explain the coexistence of high biodiversity
indexes. The coevolution of such biological richness in simpatry can only be
explained through peaceful coexistence and cooperation. While competition
separates, cooperation unites.
Other examples are in favor of these arguments. In neotropical forests old,
enormous trees are very common and their branches sustain a great biodiversity
of microrganisms, fungi, lichen, orquids, bindweed and other epiphit and
commensalist species. Furthermore, an equally great vertebrate and invertebrate
biodiversity use those branches as permanent or temporal habitats. In other
words, a single individual from a population can favor the neofitnes amplitude
success of a wide variety of organisms that depend on it.
A similar case is observed in intestinal flora. Here, a single organism digestive
system maintains a micro-ecosystem of multiple unicellular organisms,
commensalist and symbiotic. Neofitness amplitudes from all population contained
in the micro environment reach their renovation success due to a unique host. At
the same time, hosts neofit state is also favored from the interaction, for example
when intestinal flora cooperates to assimilate indigestible substances as cellulose
in herbivores and omnivorous species. There are many species that serve as host
for these microorganisms, from ants and termites to birds and mammals,
including human beings.
Most plant species known grow due to a mutualistic interaction with fungi and
symbiotic bacteria associated to the plant roots, part of the plant where nutrient
exchange takes place. Mycorrhizae consist in mutualistic associations, common in
superior plants, between the plants root tissue and a fungus (Begon et al. 1995).
The fungus cooperates providing mineral nutrients to the plant, such as nitrogen,
and in exchange obtains organic resources, such as carbon, produced by its host.
Plants like ferns, gymnosperms, angiosperms, trees in the woods and grasses in
the fields are involved in this types of associations. Fungus such as Basidiomycota
and Ascomycota (Ectomycorrhizae) and species of the Endogone genera
(Endomycorrhizae) engage in this type of mutualistic interactions. Similar
associations occur between several nitrogen fixing prokaryotic and plant roots. A
famous example is the mutualism between bacteria from the genera Rhizobium
and leguminous plants. Lichen represents another case of symbiosis between
algae and fungus. In summary, cooperation of fungus and bacteria promotes the
renovation of almost all vegetation in most terrestrial ecosystems.
Flower pollination and seed dispersion by animals would represent more
examples. Flowering plants favor the survival and evolution of a great biodiversity
of pollinators such as birds, especially hummingbirds, micromammals, for example
bats, and a wide variety of insects, mainly butterflies, wasps and bees. In most
cases, one flowering plant species benefits several pollinator species, even though
we can find cases of great specificity (e.g. orquids). All species that participate in
this interaction renew and coevolve cooperating reciprocally. The same happens
with several animals that disperse the seeds from the fruits they feed on, given
that many plants depend on this cooperative interaction not only to disperse but
also to interrupt seed dormancy and grow.
The peaceful coexistence of a great number of species seems favored by the
ecosystems’ disturbs. For example, in a tropical forest, when strong winds knock
down a tree a new microenvironment arises. The new environment would be
colonized first by pioneer species, then secondary species and finally, wood
decomposers. Similar disturbs, enable all these species to renew its neofitness
amplitude, at a particular time and space, avoiding competition between them.
As diverse and complex the ecosystem, greater is the probability to find an
available niche and peacefully speciate. Even extinction favors speciation in
peaceful coexistence, as occupied niches become available and new species take
that place. Both facts explain the continuous increase in biodiversity and
biocomplexity after mass extinctions (Primack & Rodrigues, 2001). A famous
example is dinosaur extinction and the posterior adaptive irradiation of birds and
mammals.
Life, then, is organized through a socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence.
This system is self-regulated by ecological and social positive interactions that
favor collective success. Therefore, life would be a sustainability natural process
that allows the renovation of rich species diversity.
RECAPITULATING MAIN POINTS
Peaceful Coexistence Evolutionary Theory constitutes a new explanation of the
evolution of organisms through a novel evolutionary system that also promotes a
reinterpretation of present biology. The exposed arguments account for all main
phenomena known to biology, from population genetics to macroevolutionary
processes.
The five statements used to express the evolutionary system of neofitnes
amplitude, describe and explain five levels of biological analysis: the organic
condition of individuals (first statement); its social interactions (second
statement); the materialization of the evolutionary system in the population (third
statement); its evolution (fourth statement); species evolution and ecosystem
organization (fifth statement). This natural system is concrete, observable,
complex, diverse, dynamic and extremely flexible to evolutionary alterations. All
systemic properties in which holistic vision stands on can be analyzed in this
context. For example, emerging properties, such as benefits from cooperation
with the neofitness amplitude; self-organization processes. Like neoaptitude tests;
feedback mechanisms, as reproduction in the neofitnes amplitude renovation;
and sustainability relations, like the ones observed between predators and prey.
Peaceful Coexistence Theory predicts the evolution of high levels of
intraspecific variation and biocomplexity. In the neofitness amplitude evolutionary
system all characters, either genetic, learned, stochastic, neutral, very or little
adapted get fixed, as long as they do not adversely affect the neofit state. That is
why we observe great biodiversity levels. As all variations are fixed and
accumulate within the population, amplitude action results in an increase in
biocomplexity.
Within the same neofitness amplitude different characters can evolve through
diverse evolutionary mechanisms such as neutral, neo-lamarckian, epigenetic,
systemic and even neo-darwinian; the only condition is that through this
evolutionary path the neofit state is not adversely affected. Peaceful coexistence
theory would be then, a unifying role in evolutionary biology, as it comprehends
in its theoretical skeleton all theories proposed by the academy. In this context
natural selection would be an exception and not the main factor promoting
evolution, and it acts by fixating new characters extremely adaptive for the
neofitness amplitude.
While selfish, competitive and aggressive behaviors are adaptive for Darwinian
and Neo-Darwinian Theories, they are not for Peaceful Coexistence Theory. These
are all behaviors that prejudice both the neofit state and the success in the
neofitness amplitude renovation. Adaptive behaviors that favor such state and
success are cooperation, peaceful coexistence, avoid competition and real
aggression. The only negative interaction is predation; which in fact is only
affecting prey, being naturally sustainable at a population’s level, as predators do
not prevent pray to renew its neofitness amplitude.
Within Peaceful Coexistence Theory new species form by occupying new
available niches, this prevents competition (through exploitation or interference)
with parental species. Niche differentiation and characters divergence allow the
peaceful coexistence that existed before the speciation event to continue after
the process of divergence. The different paths energetic and material flux follow
defines the socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence, this system allows the
renovation of a wide variety of species in the same environment, coevolving
sustainably. Complex networks of direct or indirect, reciprocal or altruistic, intra
or interspecific cooperation characterize life. Millions of species live favoring the
success of neofitness amplitude of other millions of species. That is life favoring
life.
From an epistemological point of view, peaceful coexistence theory presents a
population system ready for scientific experimentation. The whole evolutionary
system described here is based in the neofitness concept, the biological condition
of “healthy adults”, condition easy to be observed, described and quantified in
natural populations. Field biologists usually work with sexual maturity as one
sanitary condition in wild life.
The new ideas presented here allow a synthesis of the natural world and its
spatio-temporal dynamics from a perspective other than the Darwinian. Instead of
a world of selfish individuals in a competitive and aggressive battle, a cooperative
world of individuals coexisting peacefully is described. This point of view is based
in Kropotkin’s ideas and also comes from an improved russonian way of
interpreting the living world and its evolution.
MAIN DIFFERENCES WITH NATURAL SELECTION THEORY
To clearly visualize the differences between both theories, arguments from
each proposal are compared in the following table. In this way, the reader has a
clearer, wider and more objective picture of both ideas, so that he comes up with
its own conclusions.
NATURAL SELECTION THEORY PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE THEORY
Biological Fitness: Independent of the evolutionary theory, in general fittest are
those traits that favor the survival, development and reproduction of the
individual that carries them. For darwinists and neo-darwinists, fitness degree must be directly related with reproductive success, otherwise there is no natural selection. A better adapted individual will reproduce
more, therefore would be fitter than others. Individuals that have less adapted
phenotypes or genotypes will reproduce less and would be less fit. Selected genetic
variation determines fitness (reductionist vision).
Biological Fitness: Is related to the neofit concept. Healthy individuals are fit
individuals. Less fitted individuals are unhealthy. Adapted genotypic and
phenotypic characters are those that favor, maintain or at least do not adversely affect the neofit state. Fitness is directly related
with the organisms’ health.
Darwinian fitness: The assumption that there is a causal relation between fitness variation and reproductive success. This justifies the different reproductive rates.
Individuals that reproduce more within the population are the fittest; the ones that
reproduce less are less fit and the ones that do not reproduce at all are not fit.
Neofit state or neofitness: Relative to two biological conditions: health and
reproductive age. All healthy adults (fit) have the potential to reproduce
successfully; differential reproduction depends on many individual, organic, social and ecological factors. It is not about more
or less neofit individuals; either the organism is neofit or not. This is decided in
sexual and agonistic contexts through neofitness tests.
Natural Selecion mechanism: Within a population with phenotypic variability,
nature will select the fittest individuals, i.e. those that present certain variants of the phenotype that allows them to reproduce
more than others (individual success). Random mutations are the source of
evolutionary novel traits that would be filtered by natural selection, fixing in the
population only the fittest traits. To do that, individuals carrying that trait have to leave the greatest amount of genes in the next
generation as possible. The more reproductive success they have the faster its trait frequency increases in the population.
This will, in time, substitute the traits of individuals that reproduce less successfully.
This substitution capacity was mathematically descripted as "darwinian
efficiency" and it is directly correlated with differential reproduction. If such
mechanism continues to function over the generations, it is expected that the
population will present only the selected traits. Moreover, if it repeats in all the
populations, it is expected for the specie to possess only the fittest traits.
Neofitness Amplitude System: This is not a mechanism, but an evolutionary process of systemic characteristics acting over natural
populations. For this system, it is the success of the group of neofit individuals of the population in renewing the neofitness
amplitude that matters (social success). The greater the number of reproducing neofit individuals in the population, the better
chance of neofitnes amplitude renewal for the next generation and the greater chances
of population survival. Through the reproduction of healthy adults, the traits that allow at least "to maintain the neofit
state" get fixed; this includes very adaptive, little adaptive or neutral traits, either
genetic, learned or as a result of chance. As many populations manage to renew its
neofitness amplitude, the more evolutionary potential would the species
have through geological time.
Reproduction’s Evolutionary Role: Natural selection is inherent to differential
reproduction; selects the fittest traits through greater reproduction. To neo-
darwinism the fittest is that individual who manages to transfer the greatest number of genes to the next generation (reductionist
vision)
Reproduction's Evolutionary Role: The main purpose of reproduction is to renovate the
neofitness amplitude for the next generation. As many "reproductive units"
manage to reproduce, the greater neofitness amplitude success, and
therefore, more chances for species renovation. In sexual reproduction’s case, a
second adaptive-evolutionary purpose arises, to produce great genetic-phenotypic
variability, which favors neofitness amplitude success over environmental
changes through time and space.
Sexual Selection: In many species, secondary sexual characters evolved specifically to attract the opposite sex. Individuals that possess the most conspicuous characters mate more, reproduce more and therefor
are naturally selected. Males’ selfish interest for females establishes a conflict between males who compete among themselves. Conflicts in sexual contexts are resolved
through aggressive behavior (competition through interference) where winning males
are the fittest and gain access to the greatest number of females.
Neofitness test: To gain access to reproduction individuals just have to
demonstrate their neofit state. To do so they stand strength, endurance or physical
health and reproductive maturity tests. Such neofitness tests occur both in a sexual context, through courtship and similar
behaviors, and in an agonistic one, resolving social conflicts peacefully. Reproductive
individuals are constantly standing neofitness tests, and will be naturally
respected as long as they maintain their neofitness, but they will be rapidly
substituted by the neofit from the reserve amplitude if they stop being so.
Individual Success over Social Success: The whole natural selection theory is based on individual success, individuals reproduce to obtain reproductive success, the fittest are
those individuals that get the greatest reproductive success as possible. Society is a
consequence of individual success as a result of competitive and aggressive relations and the exchange of favors
between selfish individuals.
Social Success over Individual Success: What matters is the renewal success of neofitness
amplitude, achieved by the reproductive success of the greatest number of
individuals per generation. Thus, collective success is biologically more important than darwinian reproductive selfishness. Natural societies organize socially and ecologically in
terms of a common good, through a socioeconomic system of peaceful
coexistence where life coevolves favoring more life.
Competition and Agression: Natural selection mechanism develops in a constant
"battle field" context where everyone competes with each other for limited
resources. Here, competitive and aggressive behaviors are adaptive: those individuals
that "win" aggressive or competitive events remain with the disputed resource increasing their darwinian fitness.
Cooperation and Peaceful Coexistence: Behaviors that favor the neofit state and the
neofitness amplitude renewal success are peaceful coexistence, cooperation and avoid
competition and aggression. As they are adaptive they fix rapidly in the populations
amplitude, which explains its high frequency in nature.
Social Hierarchy: In many species, the description of its social organization is based
in a hierarchical structure, where a "dominant individual" is that who "wins
more fights" in interspecific competitions for resources, especially sexual resources. Through aggression, dominant individuals
impose themselves over "subordinate individuals" and demands costly privileges, such as exclusive reproduction and priority over feeding resources. As a result, those individuals at the top of the hierarchy are
the fittest.
Netural Respect for Reproductive Status: Many social species organize in a way that a
few individuals reproduce and the rest cooperates. Such social organization
guarantees the success of the reproductive units in the particular conditions of the
ecological niche they inhabit. Conflicts for sexual resources resolve peacefully in agonistic contexts, where individuals
demonstrate its neofit state by overcoming neofitness tests. The different reproductive units reach naturally a "social agreement" in
which they establish who from the group will reproduce and integrate the effective
amplitude and who will cooperate with them and integrate the reserve amplitude.
As long as they demonstrate to have a neofit state they will be naturally respected
and maintain their reproductive status. Reproductive individuals have the
responsibility to lead, protect and orient the group, sometimes through social conflicts. It
is the leadership of the reproductive individuals together with the cooperation of the individuals in the reserve amplitude that guarantee the success of the reproductive
unit as a whole, favoring the neofitness amplitude renewal success.
Biological Diversity: It is difficult to explain the great variability of phenotypes in natural populations, considering that it is expected, as a natural selection effect, to find only the fittest phenotypes. The great diversity and
biocomplexity of traits found between individuals and populations are a practical
problem that prejudices the action of natural selection in natural populations. As
diverse and complex the intraspecific universe is, the more difficult it turns for
trait selective mechanisms to act along the generations.
Biological Diversity: This theory predicts high levels of biological variability within
natural populations, together with a natural tendency for biodiversity and biocomplexity
increase. Variation among individuals and populations is easily explained in the
context of neofitness amplitude evolutionary system, as all variations get
fixed in the population, either neutral, little or very adaptive, genetic, learned or result of chance, unless they adversely affect the
neofit state.
Macroevolution through Exclusive Competition: As in the intraspecific level,
competition through exploitation or interference also takes place in the
interspecific level. Niche difference within sympatric and philogenetically close species
occurred because somewhere in the past those species competed and one excluded
each other. As a consequence of this "competitive past" species differentiated
their niches and "today" they coexist sympatrically. Speciation occurs, then, in a
competitive context.
Macroevolution through Peaceful Coexistence: There is no new speciation
mechanism proposed, but it is argumented that this macroevolutionary process occurs under peaceful coexistence and not under
competition. Peaceful behavior exists before, continues during and perfects itself with the arousal of new species. Peaceful coexistence is not lost in the process, it
transforms from an intraspecific interaction to a interspecific one. Species occupy
different niches as a result of niche differentiation and character divergence
processes.
Atomist and Mechanistic Reduccionism: Specially neo-darwinism reduces all the
evolutionary process to the most elemental parts of an organism: genes and inheritance.
Darwin considered each individual as a selection unit. Several neo-darwinian
proposals defend natural selection mechanic action at parental, group and macroevolutionary levels, always with
mathematical descriptions of population genetics and darwinian fitness.
Holistic/Systemic Vision: Neofitness amplitude is a system organized in a
network of intraspecific relations, from which natural populations organize. It is also
a network of interspecific relations from which ecosystems organize (socioeconomic
system of peaceful coexistence). All systemic properties of living organisms are valid for the functioning and structure of
neofitness amplitude.
Opposite to Alternative Evolutionary Theories: Central arguments of Natural
Selection Theory are opposite with those of the main alternative evolutionary theories:
Neutralism, Neo-Lamarkism, Epigenetics and Systemic Theory. Natural selection is not a
unifying theory within evolutionary biology, even though it is dogmatic and hegemonic
in scientific academic environments.
Integrates all Evolutionary Theories: Peaceful Coexistence Theory is presented as
a "unifying theory" within evolutionary biology, as it integrates the main
evolutionary theories accepted even darwinism and neo-darwinism. In the
neofitness amplitude all traits that do not prejudice the neofit state get fixed in the
population, independent from the mechanism through which each of them is
evolving at that time. Natural selection is an exception in nature, a rare event that when occurs it "accelerates" the fixation process of new and very adaptive genetic traits in
the neofitness amplitude.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the attention and constructive criticism of professors
Paulo Terra, Max de Menezes, Binael Soarez, Rosana Magalhaes, Gustavo Bressan,
Raúl Maneyro, Fernando Costa, Carmen Viera, Carlos Altuna, Luis Acerenza,
Graciela Izquierdo, Gabriel Francescoli, Miguel Simó and Fernando Perez-Miles. I
am also grateful for the constant support of friends and family.
REFERENCES
Bardier G. 2001. Argumentos da Teoria Evolutiva da Coexistência Pacífica de
interesse para educação ambiental: a procura da “Paz Solidária” - Anexo:
Teoria Evolutiva da Coexistência Pacífica. Dissertação de Mestrado,
Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, BA.
Bardier G. & Santee D. 1999. Callithrix jacchus (L.1758): ¿competencia o
coexistencia pacífica? IX Congreso Brasilero de Primatología, Santa Teresa-
Espírito Santo, Brazil, p. 33.
Begon M., Harper J. L. & Townsend C. R. 1995. Ecología: individuos, poblaciones y
comunidades. Ediciones Omega, Barcelona, Spain, 876 pp.
Blanc M. 1982. Las teorías de la evolución hoy. Mundo Científico, 2(12): 288-303.
Colinvaux P. 1985. ¿Por qué son escasas las fieras? Biblioteca de Divulgación
Científica Muy Interesante, Ediciones Orbis, Madrid, Spain, 190 pp.
Doménech J. L. 2000. Evolución regresiva del Homo sapiens: una nueva hipótesis
evolutiva. Gijón, Asturias: Ed. J. L. Doménech. 231p.
Eirl-Eibesfeldt I. 1978. El comportamiento agresivo de los animales. Selecciones
Scientific American, “Comportamiento animal”, Blume, Madrid, Spain, p.
333-341.
Futuyma D. J. 1992. Biologia evolutiva. Sociedade Brasileira Genética, CNPq. 646
pp.
Krebs J. R. & Davies N. B. 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford. 432 pp.
Kropotkin P. 1902. Mutual Aid: a factor of evolution.
www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist.
Nogueira P. 2009. O que nem Darwin imaginava. Unespciência. 3: 18-25.
Odum E. 1988. Ecologia. Guanabara Koogan, RJ, Brazil. 434 pp.
Orr R. T. 1986. Biologia dos vertebrados. Ed. Roca, SP, Brazil. 508 pp.
Pianka E. R. 1982. Ecología evolutiva. Ediciones Omega, Barcelona, Spain. 376 pp.
Rosen D. E. & Buth D. G. 1980. Empirical evolutionary research versus neo-
darwinian speculation. Systematic Zoology. 29: 300-308.
Schubart H. O., Franken W. & Luizão F. J. 1984. Uma floresta sobre solos pobres.
Rev. Ciência Hoje, 2(1): 26-32.
Thomas W, Carvalho A. M., Amorin A. M., Garrison J. & Santos T. S. 2008. Diversity
of woody plants in the Atlantic Coastal Forest of southern Bahia, Brazil. In:
W. Thomas (ed.), The Atlantic Coastal Forest of Northeastern Brazil.
Memories of the New York Botanical Garden. 100: 21-66.
Vaz-Ferreira R. 1984. Etología: el estudio biológico del comportamiento animal.
Secretaria General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, Programa
Regional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Washington, D.C., Serie de
Biología, monografía nº 29, 150 pp.