Abstract
A central tenet of standard evolutionary theory is that evolution requires variation upon which selection can act. While this theory provides a unifying explanation for how species have evolved, it does not as readily apply to the origin of life, or to cultural evolution. Here, we describe a means of attaining cumulative, adaptive, open-ended change that requires neither variation nor selective exclusion, and that can occur in the absence of generations (i.e., no explicit birth or death). This second evolutionary process occurs through the assimilation, restructuring, and extrusion of products into the environment by identical, inter-acting Reflexively Autocatalytic and Foodset-generated (RAF) networks. We refer to this more primitive evolutionary process as Self–Other Reorganisation (SOR) because it involves internal self-organising and self-maintaining processes within entities, as well as interaction between entities. Since there is no self-assembly code, it is more haphazard than natural selection, and there is no discarding of acquired traits (a signature characteristic of natural selection). In the extreme, it can work with just one entity but it differs from learning because it can operate in groups of entities, and produce adaptive change across generations. We suggest that this more primitive process is operative during the initial stage of an evolutionary process, and that it is responsible for the origin and early evolution of both organic life, and human culture. In cultural evolution, this ‘evolution without variation’ process can increase homogeneity amongst members of a group and thereby foster group identity and cohesion.
Some have erroneously jumped to the conclusion that this research is motivated by beliefs in creationism and “intelligent design.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It is as egregious to harbour irrational suspicions that a piece of work is motivated by creationist beliefs as it is to abuse science in the attempt to confirm creationist beliefs. Both are equally guilty of impeding science. (Moreover, what is proposed in this paper is as incompatible as the rest of science with intelligent design.) Views about scholarly work should be based not on unfounded preconceptions but on examination of scientific merit. As even a cursory reading of the history of science shows, science sometimes yields surprises. LG
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
The first revision clarified a number of issues that were either not explained, or not explained clearly, in the original draft. The second revision adds a few more minor clarifications. The third revision added a short note on the title page.
5 Conceptual closure is the focus of another paper [21].
11 We do not use the term ‘replicator’ here since it is often assumed that replicator evolution necessarily involves inheritance of germ-line material.
12 Note that communal exchange is not necessarily beneficial to the recipient. Transmission of useful plasmids through horizontal exchange among bacteria or protists may be beneficial, but transmission of viruses may be damaging. Similarly, transmission of useful technologies may be beneficial to the recipient, but transmission of misinformation may be harmful.
