a new paradigma in evolution theory

[Arete]

until the penicillin was encountered in the surviving population's environment.

 

This is exactly what the Lederberg experiment demonstrated back in 1951. Random mutation generates variation within a population, which selection then acts upon. Selection doesn't lead to new variants in of itself, it merely adds direction to the random generation of variation.

 

On the other hand, a population can evolve in the absence of selection via the action of genetic drift.

[Ten oz]

1. Due to my theory evolutionary changes are not random, because 1. some circles of self-replication are stronger, some weaker, 2. some new circles appear naturally as a consequence of possible solutions. As a result certain spectrum (of species) establishes itself.

2. Species sometimes fit to the environment just as a consequence of damping (nat.selection), sometimes they don't if damping is weaker

3. The evidence for my thesis are existing systems which evolve with neglecting selection presure or systems evolving completely without environment

4. DNA changes surely affect the construction of individual species, but not an evolution generally. Without DNA changes the evolution takes place too.

5. Selection certainly affect only the way organism are build up, but not an evolution itself. You just use the term "evolution" in double meaning: 1. as a process, 2. as this process output. 2. is touched by selection and DNA changes and 1. is not.

May I suggest you to consider a picture of a feedback. I noted it in footnote sup 10 in chapter 1.2.1 (power of self-reference). It allows to see easier why certain spectrum of species estabishes itself.

By definition anything that happens ranomdly does so without aim, reason, or pattern. The moment you conceptually apply an aim, reason or a pattern to evolution the idea of natural selection becomes confused. People make this mistake often. Whether by implying that evolution trends towards greater complexity, greater intelligence, or a balance with the natural enviroment people attach aim, reason, or pattern. That is not how natural selection works. Greater complexity is not a constant, greater intelligence has seldom resulted, and the majority of species die rather than fit into a changing enviroment. Move over not all species that survive even naturally into the enviroments they survive in. Some are force to transform their enviroments for survival.

If evolution served a purpose that move linearly that a new theory might be needed. It doesn't though.