ISSN 1019-3316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008, Vol. 78, No. 6, pp. 514–516. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2008. Original Russian Text © A.N. Romashov, 2008, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2008, Vol. 78, No. 12, pp. 1068–1070.

Point of View In Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, No. 4 (2008), a paper by A.N. Romashov was published, proposing the idea and model of an active medium that embraces all natural realia. This concept, in the opinion of the author, helps overcome contradictions between the two leading theories on the origin of life. DOI: 10.1134/S101933160806004X

On the Origin and Evolution of Life on the Earth A. N. Romashov†* We specify in advance that this paper was written by a nonbiologist. This provides a formal basis for biologists not to take it seriously. However, specialization in general and in science in particular has, as is known, a considerable defect. If a science becomes very narrow and tight, confinement to a limited range of knowledge and activity inevitably leads to exhaustion of its opportunities with time. Therefore, a narrow specialization, which is now typical of natural science, causes loss of interest in a general world outlook and retardation of the process of cognition. This is why the view of a nonspecialist on any sphere of knowledge can be useful. In biology, the discussion between two opposite approaches to the understanding of life evolution has started (or intensified) again. The first approach follows classical Darwinism; it is reflected in textbooks, and whole generations have been educated on it. Now it is called the synthetic theory of evolution (STE). According to it, the movers of life development (evolution) are particular individuals: being subjected to accidental changes under the environmental effects, they assume new characters and abilities. In the course of their interaction (struggle for existence), it becomes clear which of them is stronger and more adapted under varying conditions. The latter become the parents of new and more advanced forms of life. The second approach asserts the reverse trend of development: from the general to the particular. This is how V.I. Nazarov [1] characterizes these approaches [1, p. 318]. According to STE, the spring of evolution begins to untwist from the lowest and elementary level—from accidental mutations that change the genetic composition of the population—and then as if gradually lead to species formation and the origin of groups of a higher systematic rank. This orientation of evolutionary causality can be called ascending, and the evolution that proceeds in this case, evolution from below. † Deceased. *Aleksandr Nikolaevich Romashov is Dr. Sci. (Eng.).

In the theory that reflects the principles of systematic nature, everything is reversed. The initial impulse for the evolutionary change arises in the highest Earth–Sun system; it is perceived by the biosphere as an underlying system and subsequently by its components, particular biocoenoses; they, in turn, induce the constituent species to change. Such orientation of evolutionary causality is expedient to call descending, and the process of evolution itself, evolution from above. In this case, naturally, the sphere of contingency is considerably narrowed. Numerous proofs of the first and second views are listed, in particular, in papers [2–5]. The adherent of ecosystems theory concludes [1, p. 321], We think that the review of the latest advances of science and their comparison with the postulates of the synthetic theory of evolution, undertaken here, should convince a competent reader that this theory has completely lost its empirical base. It should be brought into correspondence with the realia of today’s science, and, the sooner it occurs, the better it is for students and biologists. This theory is to be replaced by the ecosystems theory of evolution, although it still has many blank spots at present. Such categoricity is natural for humans who see only one side of the coin and do not even suspect that there should be another side. This other side in the problem of life evolution is just represented by synthetic theory. Our task is to see both sides of the object simultaneously, which we are attempting to do. The chronology of the origin of the theories under discussion is quite regular. First, there appeared Darwinism (STE), based on the study of particular individuals of various species with a subsequent attempt at generalization. Ecosystems theory is being formed in our time, when immense factual material has been accumulated and its partial generalization has been performed not only by various species but also by different

514

ON THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF LIFE ON THE EARTH

scale levels of living organisms. Ecosystems studies have clearly demonstrated that evolution is not a gradual development from one point via successive branching of the initial sprout and transforming it into a “tree of life” with many branches, as STE asserts, but a parallel, coordinated, and complementary development of all branches. STE is unable to explain such parallelism and coordination. Classical Darwinism undoubtedly needs revision and considerable specification. However, its basis as a thesis about the primacy of a particular individual must be retained, since any medium consists of some particles and an environmental change, if it is considered per se, finally takes place via such particles: particular individuals of various species. On the other hand, it seems to us that the explanation of evolution suggested by ecosystems theory is not exhaustive either, which is noted even by its most ardent adherents, “it still has many blank spots at present.” Let us try to “visualize” them. Therefore, from the point of view of ecosystems theory, the course of evolution is set by the highest Earth– Sun system, which generates the initial impulse. The biosphere as an underlying system perceives it and passes the baton further: the impulse is perceived by all its components—“particular biocoenoses, and they, in turn, induce the constituent species to change.” On the whole, this pattern agrees with the great diversity of facts accumulated by different sections of biology [1, 3]. However, what is the mechanism of the origin and transfer of the initial impulse? The geological record serves as evidence to justify the aforementioned scheme (evolution from above): “Paleontological findings documentarily support the assumption that drastic changes in biotas at the turning points of the Phanerozoic generally coincide with the periodicity of geological crises” [1, p. 318]. The above correlation actually exists; however, does it prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship between geologic and biological events? Multiple natural realia correlate between themselves, but they are not united by direct cause-and-effect relations. For instance, there is an obvious correlation between atmospheric winds and ocean currents, in particular, between the stable western winds in the southern hemisphere and the global ocean current around Antarctica. This correlation is now regarded as a cause-and-effect relation: air winds allegedly form ocean currents. However, in reality, as a more careful consideration of processes in the atmosphere and oceans shows, both phenomena (winds and currents) can be parallel consequences of one common cause—the natural active environment [6]. I think that the correlation between geological and biological events can also indicate only their parallelism, i.e., the presence of some common source of these phenomena of a higher rank than the Earth–Sun system. Here is another “trump card” of ecosystems theory: “It can be considered proven that initial life on the earth originated as communities, primitive prokaryotic ecoHERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

515

systems, rather than individual protoorganisms” [1, p. 318]. In our opinion, this evidence cannot be regarded as direct proof of evolution from above. According to this, both lines of evolution (from below and from above) are inseparably linked, supplementing each other via the aforementioned second stage of evolution. One can safely assert that paleontology is unable to record the fact of emergence of an individual firstling-protoorganism (and all other protoorganisms), since the communities of organisms appear immediately after the first of them. In order to be certain how difficult it is to determine what is primary—an individual organism or a population—it is sufficient to recollect the process of salt crystallization in an oversaturated solution: this process develops “instantly” if only one crystal of a substance is added to the solution. Without noticing the “throw-in moment,” an observer will immediately see a “population” of crystals and recognize it as “primary.” Critical remarks toward the ecosystems theory of evolution do not mean its negation. The essence of remarks is that it is necessary not only to rely on this theory but also to consider the conclusions and generalizations of STE. The separation of the mentioned theories, in fact, means an attempt to explain evolution either by struggle (STE) or by the unity of all (ecosystems theory). The incompleteness of ecosystems theory is predetermined by an unhappy choice of the higher system, the point of count, from which the movement downward begins. As was already mentioned, this is the Earth–Sun system. However, it is quite obvious that such a system cannot be the highest in nature. It itself, as other stars and planets, is only an individual “organism” that is a component of the space “population” of stars and galaxies. If one proceeded only from evolution from above, the Earth–Sun system would, in turn, require some higher system. There is only one way out: it is necessary to determine a higher system that could become the starting point for living organisms on the earth, as well as for all in nature: from elementary particles and atoms to Homo sapiens. If the Earth–Sun system is taken for the beginning and no particular physical mechanism of its effect on all the underlying subsystems is suggested, then neither the “initial impulse,” nor the way of its transmission, nor the ultimate “addressee”—the one who perceives this impulse in the biosphere—remains clear. Its translation to the biosphere as a whole (as an underlying system) or to its components is possible only via the simplest components of all systems, i.e., via particular living organisms. Without discussing the physical mechanism of the observed transmission of the initial impulse from top downwards, ecosystems theory becomes, in fact, similar to religion and a variant of creationism: a “deity” (the Earth–Sun system) is designated and asserted to create in some unknown way everything that is below (within) this system. This is a Vol. 78

No. 6

2008

516

ROMASHOV

kind of revival of paganism: a neopaganism without a god. The point is that Darwinism once emerged as an opposition to religion and as its negation [2]. It attempted to explain the world by proceeding from the world itself and by developing diversity from an individual only from below, which is impossible. Our criticism equally extends over ecosystems theory and STE. The imperfection of Darwinism is in taking a particular living organism as the lowest step of development. We may say that living individuals, which STE considers the lowest step, are, in fact, the highest system, which, according to the ecosystems principle, should dominate the process of evolution in the inanimate (underlying) natural system. The contrast between the synthetic and ecosystems theories is, in essence, determined not only by the direction of evolution (from below or from above) but also by selection of the main factor of development: the former takes as the initial postulate the origin and complication of individual organisms, and the latter, the functional interactions of organisms with one another and with the environment, i.e., systemic relations not only between the individuals of a given species but also between other species. It is easy to note that both theories attempt to model development using one type of interactions: STE, vertical, and ecosystems theory, horizontal. More precisely, the mentioned types of interactions are considered in a peculiar combined form. Darwinism postulates the presence of horizontal interactions (natural selection among equals during the struggle for existence), but, actually not proving the determining role of the struggle, attempts to explain changes along the vertical ones (the actually observed

ascent from the simple to the complex). Ecosystems theory, on the contrary, proclaims the supremacy of vertical interactions between systems (from top to bottom), being, in fact, based on the study of parallel horizontal interactions within and between individual systems, without explaining how signals are transmitted from top to bottom and from a complex system to a simple one. As we have already shown [6], such separation of types of interaction is admissible and even inevitable at the initial stages of the study of natural processes. As a result, they should necessarily be united into an integral theory, in which both competing concepts supplement each other, and, of course, each concept must be clarified. REFERENCES 1. V. I. Nazarov, “Modern Science for a New Theory of Evolution of the Living,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 77 (4) (2007) [Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 77 (2), 144–149 (2007)]. 2. A. M. Gilyarov, “Ariadne’s Thread of Evolutionism,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 77 (6) (2007). 3. G. A. Zavarzin, “Does Evolution Make the Essence of Biology?,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 77 (6) (2007). 4. G. A. Zavarzin, “Ariadne’s Thread or Arache’s Cobweb?,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 77 (6) (2007) [Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 77 (3), 244–246 (2007)]. 5. G. A. Zavarzin, “Genesis and Development: Evolution, Succession, and Haecceitas,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 77 (4) (2007) [Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 77 (2), 131–136 (2007)]. 6. A. N. Romashov, “Types and a General Model of Interactions,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 78, 719 (2008) [Her. Russ. Acad. Sci., 78, 383 (2008)].

HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Vol. 78

No. 6

2008