Greatest Show from Darwin 17 Clarifying coefficien

To the beginning: http://proza.ru/2022/06/26/1108

17. Clarifying coefficient

If we ignore our fictional example of a sinking ship, then changes in living conditions can be very useful for natural selection, which will shift the uncertainty of choice towards the mutated individual. In the changed conditions, those advantages that previously gave more chances to survive may turn out to be less useful or even useless, and against their background, an imperceptible evolutionary sign turns into a guiding star, if, of course, he guessed the subsequent direction of change.

Of course, the factor of change could bring certainty, if not for the remarkable discoveries of genetics concerning the recessive state of genes. It is known that the gene of a trait may not undergo natural selection, being in a recessive state.

According to STE, natural selection does not act on individual genes, but on groups of genes that must accumulate over an indefinite number of generations. And while they are accumulating and a useful trait has not yet been formed - natural selection cannot recognize it, and the chances of survival for each carrier are no greater than for any other. That is, by the time natural selection notices a new trait and can begin the selection procedure, some (quite significant for several genes) generations must have passed.

Agree that this slightly increases the uncertainty. If, in the scheme proposed by Darwin, random changes are selected by the ability of their owner to survive, then now not one, but an integral group of genes appears on the court of natural selection, which turned out to be recessive (covertly).

How could everything work out so well without any selecting agent? Still, when a single mutation occurs in a living organism, which, after passing the control for survival, is fixed in the genome – this is understandable, but when, without any  selection , roughly speaking recessive, a series of random mutations pass one after another, then the probability of making at least something useful out of them decreases in proportion to their number. And at the exit, the number of mistakes will grow in an inevitable progression.

However, this is not even what makes the situation worse. We proceeded from the assumption that in order for natural selection to notice a smaller genetic trait from a set of more noticeable non-genetic ones, the living conditions, organic and inorganic, must change significantly. And in order for recessive genes to accumulate from generation to generation, living conditions must be stable all this time. After all, with increasing instability, mortality in the population increases sharply, and those who do not have the best equipment necessary for survival, even if they have a recessive partial set of genes, the inexorable statistics of natural selection are likely to be deleted from the lists of the living.

One can, of course, assume that recessive genes spread to the entire or almost the entire population before their cumulative effect manifests itself in any noticeable mutation. But since there is no advantage before leaving the recessive state, natural selection should not give carriers of hidden genes the green light to accelerated reproduction.

If we still assume that this is exactly what happened in nature, then we must admit that this scenario will require even more time of relative stability. That is, the probability of such an outcome is again no greater than in the case of the spread of recessive genes to an insignificant part of the population, since any change in the external environment will inevitably lead to a reduction or complete destruction of the population that is not prepared for such changes.
Even more exciting may be the assumption that there are so infinitely many recessive genes in DNA that there are enough of them for all occasions. But in this case, the accumulation by the population of such a huge stock of recessive genes leads to a dilemma: either the process is accidental and then recessive raw materials must inevitably overflow the bins of gene pools, since in addition to thousands of useful sets of genes, it is necessary to find a place for millions of harmful ones. Or there are exactly as many recessive genes as necessary, and then it is difficult to talk about the randomness of their formation.

Again, if the DNA still hides an infinite number of recessive genes, including not only useful, but also harmful, then how does this task differ from the general one? After all, instead of "natural selection investigating the smallest variations daily and hourly around the world, discarding the bad ones, preserving and composing the good ones...", he will have to select ready-made combinations of recessive genes that manifest themselves.

Only in this picture of the world, in order to consolidate the evolutionary change, it will take a coincidence in one generation of the factor of environmental change and those born with a combination of genes suitable for these changes. In other words, in order for such coincidences to occur, the population size should tend to infinity so that each generation can provide all the variety of combinations for the judgment of natural selection.

Perhaps it is, but then it is even difficult to imagine a mechanism to avoid duplication. Why should a complete set of mutations appear in the population? That is, how does each of a million individuals manifest only one of a million mutations that is different from all the others, instead of showing the same as, say, a second cousin of a rabbit, and at the same time all her distant relatives?

Let's not get confused further in all these assumptions, but let's summarize.
Over the course of many millions of years, evolution has overcome a huge path from unicellular to multicellular and so on up to its current achievement - man. One hundred and fifty years ago, a mechanism was found by which everything on our planet evolved. Charles Darwin framed this mechanism in the form of a theory. In his theory, random changes occur with living organisms, among which useful and harmful ones happen. Some organisms manage to pass on their genes to the next generation before their death and replenish the gene pool. Others don't.

It is believed that evolutionary genes replenish the gene pool, due to the better fitness of their carriers. At the same time, the evolutionary changes themselves are so imperceptible that no one notices them at the moment, except for natural selection. Natural selection itself is so good that it selects smaller evolutionary variations from larger non-evolutionary ones. In addition, it allows small evolutionary mutations to spread throughout the population, to be combined with others equally evolutionary and for the time being equally useless, until, finally, their total effect will bring a very noticeable benefit to the species.

This is the general formula for success. We must admit, firstly, that evolution works very well, and, secondly, in order for the desired formula of natural selection to be as effective as evolution itself, it may be necessary to introduce some correction factor or constant.

This is a fairly common practice in science. Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant, Rydberg's constant and many other constants are very helpful. The correction factor introduced into the formula of natural selection can become the missing link that will multiply the chances of evolutionary changes over non-evolutionary ones and turn the doubled uncertainty into a truly beautiful mathematical equation.

* - I apologizes for my English. I would be grateful for the corrections.

Next:http://proza.ru/2022/07/14/422