ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION IN A GENERAL (PHILOSOPHICAL) APPROACH - 2018
ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION IN A GENERAL (PHILOSOPHICAL) APPROACH
by Sándor Búti
The question of sexual reproduction
Why sexual reproduction has become so common in the evolution of life – this question is considered as one of the mysteries of life and evolutionary organization, as sexual reproduction has a much higher "cost" than that of simple asexual reproduction. Is there any great advantage of this reproduction method that compensates for its high cost? What is that cost? Development of complex vital functions are required for sexual reproduction, i.e. to achieve the combination of the genetic material of two organisms. There are several smaller known benefits of sexual reproduction, but it is assumed that there should be even more advantages that explain the fact that more than 99 % of the existing species reproduce sexually as well, even though asexual reproduction also has advantages over sexual reproduction. “Sex is expensive, but there is hardly anyone who does not take advantage of it. This phenomenon is the paradox of sex.” In my opinion, as long as the knowledge available on this reproduction method is considered paradoxical, we only know partial correlations of sexual reproduction. We need a theory that explains the success of this reproduction method in the wildlife. Approaches that try to find an explanation for the extensive spread of sexual reproduction by assuming many small benefits do not tackle the problem at its source.
In case of sexual reproduction, combination of the genes of two organisms occurs randomly. This is trivially known. On this basis, the very important accelerating effect of sexual reproduction on development of the living world can be theoretically reconstructed.
The universal law of evolutionary organization (adaptation) is that genes and functions randomly generated in organisms are spread during the development in a tendency manner, in proportion to their adaptive value. This is fully substantiated by the actual knowledge concerning the development of the living world. Is it possible that genes and functions underlying sexual reproduction would be an exception in the evolutionary organization of the living world? Sexual reproduction would have been very common without a high adaptive value? This is very unlikely. It would be unexplainable. It is universal that the species belonging to the unicellular eukaryotes and more advanced taxonomical groups reproduce sexually as well.. This reproduction method must have a very high adaptive value, once it is so widespread in the living nature.
According to my own determinational approach, I began to put together the informations revealed to date by biological sciences on the genes and the correlations of mutations and natural selection. I have done a lot of thinking to find out what consequences of the sexual reproduction result its very high adaptive value. I suppose I found it.
As a result of analysis, I came to the conclusion that there is much more to it than the development accelerating effect. Knowing the role of genes and the correlations of rearrangement by mutation, I came to the conclusion that development of multicellular higher species (above the level of prokaryotes) would not have been possible without the appearance of the sexual reproduction method (this will be explained in more detail later).
Unity of the adaptation of living organisms
The following question arises: do we need to analyze more thoroughly the determination and nature of adaptation when studying the advantages and disadvantages of sexual reproduction? Is not it enough to know that there are differences between adaptive values of the genes of the organism, and it is possible to combine the advantageous genes of the organisms belonging to a population by random gene combinations, and the organisms have an opportunity to randomly get rid of their bad genes by these combinations?
It seems to me that researchers of the sexual reproduction have only come to this point in the examination of the problem. By referring to the paradox of sexual reproduction, it is actually recognized that the knowledge on sexual reproduction has not yet become a theory of the reproductive method in question. Is it possible to reach a substantial theory of the sexual reproduction by gathering further empirical data, or, based on our knowledge acquired so far, through a more thorough analysis of the adaptation and arrangement of the living world? We will come to the theory if we have so much knowledge on this issue that we do not consider this reproduction method as a paradox.
The starting points of our analysis are the same: the living organisms are multigenic and multifunctional. There are adaptive value differences between different (allelic) genes and functions of each organism. The genes of the population that have higher adaptive values can be recombined randomly by random gene combinations, and deleterious mutations can be eliminated. However, these advantages were not considered sufficient for justifying the broad occurrence of this mode of reproduction, so there is further a need for revealing its potential benefits. Until we find them, sexual reproduction can be considered paradoxical.
A random recombination of genes of two organisms occur in sexual reproduction. All advantages and disadvantages of this reproduction method are the consequence of this random recombination. If these consequences of the gene combinations do not justify the generalization of this kind of reproduction, then it is really paradoxical that sexual growth is so widespread. The consequences of gene combinations need to be analyzed more thoroughly. We have to analyze such contexts that are already known for the biological sciences, so that questions arising can be answered in principle.
What is characteristic for the determination of the gene arrangement? It is effected by mutations, random mutations, for each gene. From that, a very important thing can be concluded which helps to understand the role of sexual reproduction in the living world. Namely, each gene (the genes of organisms, genes of a population) are randomly and independently arranged.. It also follows that there are differences in the adaptive values of the individual genes. Very important: Therefore, the (adaptive value-related) relationship of the allele genes of the organism is unarranged. By that I mean that in a genome of a particular organism, genes with very high adaptive value, as well as genes with very low adaptive value may occur in a tendency manner. In my opinion, this is very important for understanding the role of sexual reproduction in the living world.
How the rearrangement of the living organisms is achieved, i.e. how they become more viable? At the level of genes, by genetic mutations – ultimately only by mutations. Arrangement of the genes of the living organisms is the basic arrangement of life. (It will be discussed later that those rearrangements are also defined by genes and functions, for which the genes and functions altered by mutations do not directly have an adaptive value, but only create the condition for the rearrangement. Such genes and functions are the ones playing a role in sexual reproduction.)
What are the subjects of mutations? The genes, which are mutated independent of each other - once each mutation is random. What follows from this is that only the genes can be the units of adaptation. Adaptation is effected by changes in the genetic material. However, individual genes are unable to adapt on their own, that is, they can not achieve the continuity of their existence by themselves. Are the genes the basic units of adaptation even if they can only adapt together, as a part of a system? When something is mutated it is never the whole organism, only its specific genes (coding for the structure of a specific protein) are mutated.
The fact that in the living organisms, in many cases, multiple genes or multiple proteins produce a single function, does not contradict the fact that only the individual genes can be the basic units of adaptation. Only those units of the living organisms can be adaptation units that can be changed randomly, which may also have a consequence of a rearrangement. (Only genes meet this criterion.) This can be accomplished in two ways: either the resulting variable functions are of direct adaptive value, or the variable functions provide suitable conditions for finding a different level of adaptive value. Genes providing the basis of sexual reproduction belong to the latter category.
What does the viability and adaptability of a living organism depend on?
Obviously, it depends on the adaptive value of the genes of the organism. Individual organisms have genes with different adaptive values. How the individual genes with different adaptive value influence the adaptability of an organism? Better genes favourably affect the adaptive value of the organism, while worse genes exert an adverse effect on it. Accordingly, the adaptive value of the organisms is determined by the weighted average of adaptive value of the genes and functions of the organisms. (Using weighted average is reasonable, because there are significant differences in the adaptive value of the different allelic genes of the organism.) Adaptive value of the living organisms depends on its genes, as the organisms have many of them, which are independently arranged as a result of random mutations.
There are differences between the adaptive values of allelic genes of a plurality of organisms belonging to a given population due to the reason outlined above (i.e. due to the fact that they are independently and randomly arranged). There are a plurality of organisms that belong to a population. All of these organisms have a plurality of allelic genes. All allelic genes of the organisms belonging to a population are characterized by that there are (may) be differences between them in terms of their adaptive value. These differences form a comparative series (good genes, bad genes, genes with different adaptive value).
There are differences not only between the adaptive values of the same allelic genes of the organizations belonging to the population, but there are also differences between the adaptive values of the different allelic genes of each organism. What comparison can be carried out when we say that each organism of a population has allelic genes with different adaptive values? The difference can be compared to the comparative series of different allelic genes of the organisms belonging to the given population. In particular, the adaptive value of each allelic gene of the organisms depends on that which comparative series of the same allelic genes corresponds to the adaptive value in question.. The allelic gene of the organism that matches the "beginning" of the comparative series has a high comparative value, while the allelic gene that matches the end of the comparative series has low adaptive value.
1 Because of the random and independent arrangement of the genes, all allelic genes of the organisms belonging to a population are characterized by that there may be (there are) differences between the adaptive values of the same allelic genes. 2 It is also a consequence of the independent and random arrangement of the genes that there may be (there are) also (significant) differences between the adaptive values of various allelic genes of individual organisms.
Why did I enter into details to explain what is the reason for being differences between the genes of individual organisms in their adaptive values? I could have started from the fact that genes are characterized by differences in their adaptive values. The reason is to have more detailed knowledge on the matter. Nevertheless, we have informations not only about the differences of adaptive values of genes, but about how these differences are determined. During mutagenesis randomly (always randomly) arrangements (may) occur as well. During random changes, arrangement is achieved in mutants whose adaptive value is improved as a result of the change. (I just refer to the universal law of all kind of arrangements, that is arrangement is randomly realized through random changes.)
What is the consequence of the above facts? As genes are arranged independently of each other, in case of asexual reproduction, adaptive value related relationship of the genes of the genome can not be ordered. By the phrase “ordered” it is meant that the adaptive value related relationship of the genes of an organism has some level of unity or alignment. Relationships between the genes of an organism could be considered perfectly ordered with respect to the adaptive value, if there were no adaptive value differences between them. Adaptive value related arrangement of the genes of an organism can be realized through multiple gene combinations. How does it come about? Among gene combinations randomly generated by random recombinations, there are combinations with higher adaptive values than that of parental gene combinations. There are two ways for it: 1) genes with higher adaptive values are combined with each other, or 2) the difference between the adaptive values of the genes is decreased.
In my opinion, there can be no other advantage of combination of the genes of two parent organisms. If these benefits were not enough, the broad occurrence of the sexual reproduction would be incomprehensible.
The principle of evolutionary organization and damage in it: "parasitism", "aiding"
Genes that are unordered with respect to adaptive value, and having different adaptive values, will collectively determine the organism in the environment in which the organism lives, along with environmental determinants. For the life and growth of the organism, all of the genes encoding the various functions (allelic genes) are needed. It follows that the organism's continuity of existence of the organisms – through their offspring – can only be achieved by reproduction of all genes of the organisms in the course of reproduction (i.e. the reproduction of the genes with very high adaptive value and the genes with very low adaptive value as well. What is the effect of this consequence on the life of the organism, on the rearrangement of genes, and on the evolutionary organization, on development?
Let’s think about it! Our analytical work can also be put forward by a thought experiment: Evolutionary organization would be fastest if all genes were reproduced in proportion to their adaptive value. It is not possible because organisms are multigenic, and their genes can only "work on a single arm". All allelic genes, and therefore all functions, are required for the existence of living organisms. It would be advantageous – and could accelerate the evolutionary organization – if there were no differences between the adaptive values of the genes belonging to an individual organism, i.e., the adaptive value related relationship between the genes of the organism would be more organized. Failing that, a phenomenon appears that can be characterized as “parasitism” (or more precisely as a high level of parasitism). Good genes are parasitized by bad genes. Owing to co-adaptation of a plurality of genes, bad genes may remain in the organism “on the back” of good genes, with the help of them. In other words, good genes “help” bad genes. What matters is that genes are not multiplied according to their own adaptive value, but to the average adaptive value of plurality of genes of the organism. The unorganized relationship between the genes slows down the evolutionary organization. Good genes would allow rapid development, but it can not be achieved because the presence of weak genes reduces the average adaptation level of the organism. There is an infringement of the principle according to which each gene of the organism should reproduce in proportion to its adaptive value. This infringment is very serious in case of asexual reproduction. Evolutionary organization would be fastest if this principle could be realized.
Number of the genes of the organism and the probability of parasitism
What is very important is that in case of asexual reproduction, the degree of infringement of the principle that each gene of an organism should reproduce in proportion to its adaptive value depends significantly on the number of the genes of the organism. When more genes co-operate, existence continuity of a gene is less dependent from its own adaptive value. The principle of evolutionary organization is increasingly infringed. The contribution of an individual gene to the adaptive value of the organism is smaller and smaller, either in positive or negative way. In an organism with 10 genes, the proportion of the contribution of a single gene to the viability of the entire organism is 1/10, but in an organisms with 100 genes this ratio is only 1/100). This relationship, with more than one gene, has a key importance in the relocation of several genetic organizations at prokaryotes. With an increase in the number of genes of organisms, neither beneficial nor disadvantageous mutations have significant effect on evolutionary organization. The effect of adaptive value of individual genes is reduced with increase in the number of genes in the organism, and in higher multigenic organisms, that are more advanced than prokaryotic organisms, there is such a degree of parasitism of the genes on each other, that makes further evolutionary organization almost impossible to continue. In other words, increasing the number of genes take the evolutionary organization to a blind alley. This is the explanation for the fact that higher organisms (above prokaryotes) can only exist when they reproduce sexually as well. This makes it possible to significantly reduce the parasitism of genes of the organism on each other.
Two types of preferred mutations are mutations that create new genes and mutations that improve existing genes. In case of asexual reproduction, mutations that increase the number of genes take evolutionary organization to a blind alley.
The basic level of evolutionary organization is the rearrangement of the genes by random mutations. This is achieved either by the emergence of new genes by mutation or by the rearrangement (increasing the adaptive value) of existing genes. For a better understanding of the way through which the living world is organized, it is very important to study the consequences of these two types of mutation (that potentially lead to arrangement) separately.
Reorganization of life or the living organisms is realized by two types of mutation: 1) (random) mutations that create new genes and new functions, and 2) mutations that (randomly) rearrange the already existing genes. In other words, life develops and is reorganized in two ways: either by getting more and more multigenic and multifunctional, or by rearrangement of the existing genes (also by mutations).
With the increase in the number of genes, organisms will have newer and newer functions. For this reason, they (may) become more viable. On the other hand, the increase in the number of genes exponentially increases the likelihood of parasitism of genes with different adaptive values on each other. That is, the principle of evolutionary organization is increasingly infringed by the increase in the number of genes. What is that principle? Each gene of an organism should reproduce in proportion to its adaptive value.
Why do we examine such a context that – for reasons outlined above – can not really exist in nature? The reason is to elucidate the role of bad, unfavorable mutations in evolutionary organization at a higher reflective level. In this approach, it is revealed that with the growth of parasitism associated with the multiplication of the organism's genes, realization of the basic context of evolutionary organization (namely that each gene should reproduce in proportion to its adaptive value) is infringed in such an extent that there is no longer possibility for evolutionary organization of the living world by increasing the number of genes – until the development of sexual reproduction. The question is not whether sexual reproduction is worth the cost, but whether it is possible to achieve further development of the living world during which species higher than prokaryotes can develop.
What is the consequence of that? Above a certain number of genes, living organisms no longer gain advantage (i.e. they do not become more viable) by adaptation with more and more genes. Above this number of genes, the possibility and reality of parasitism may have a greater hindering effect than the benefit that is offered by the increase in the number of genes and functions.
For the advancement of the evolutionary organization towards higher organisms, the potential for parasitism of genes on each other should be significantly reduced. Development of sexual reproduction provided an opportunity for that.
Sexual reproduction and decrease in parasitism of genes on each other
Sexual reproduction and the random combination of genes of two organisms belonging to a population in the progeny of them have consequences that may reduce the parasitism of the genes on each other, thereby, the adaptive value related relationship of the genes of an organism can become more ordered. In this way, evolutionary organization get rid of a hardly overestimetable parasitic load (mutation burden), leaving the door wide open for development of further higher order organisms. Evolutionary organization has been advanced and accelerated.
It should be noted here that those who deal with the issue of sexual reproduction query the rationale behind it with regard to its high cost (i.e. the energy usage of the numerous functions associated with sexual reproduction). They ask whether is it worth for the living world to replace asexual reproduction with sexual one in very high proportion. (This correlation is phrased as a paradox of sexual reproduction.) - What is the point of cost / benefit question with regard to this mode of reproduction, if the emergence of sexual reproduction is so important that without its development it would not have been possible for organisms that are more advanced than prokaryotes to develop (i.e. to continue the evolutionary organization).
Isn’t it so that organisms with the same arrangement and gene number can also develop through asexual and sexual reproduction, and it is to be determined which one has less cost? There is no such possibility. Therefore, those who think in a cost-benefit approach fail to see the big picture. This approach is invalid.
With an increase in the number of genes, due to the potential and reality of parasitism of genes on each other, two possibilities arise: either the potential and reality of random combination of genes of two organisms emerges (which will result combinations by which parasitism of genes on each other is reduced, making it possible to develop species that are more advanced than prokaryotes as a result of evolutionary organization); or evolutionary organization halts at the level of prokaryotes. The possibility for evolutionary organization was achieved by random development of genes and life functions that serve as a basis for gene combinations and sexual reproduction. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that nowadays we can not find such multigenic organisms that are higher order than prokaryotes. It can be assumed that after the development of sexual reproduction, the potentially still existing organisms that were higher than prokaryotes and reproduced asexually were overmatched in competition and died out. After the appearance of sexual reproduction, only prokaryotes with a few genes were able to realize the continuity of their existence.
There are two types of correlations by which it can be explained that there are differences in the adaptive values of genes
I have already mentioned that there are also differences in adaptive values between different allelic genes belonging to a population, and it is characteristic for the different allelic genes of the organisms as well.. However, I was dealing with one of the reasons of the difference between the adaptive values of the genes of organisms. What is that reason? Each gene is randomly and independently arranged. It would be very surprising if, despite that the genes of the organisms are randomly and independently arranged, it would still be found after examining the genes on the basis of the adaptive value that they are also arranged with regard to their adaptive value related relationship. The probability of this – considering that there is no difference between the probability of occurence of different mutations causing a change in adaptive values – is infinitely small.
If the difference between the adaptive values of different allelic genes of the organisms would be the only result of the above reasons, evolutionary organization could not have been arrested by the increase in the number of genes of the organisms. The fact that this has happened can be explained by that the difference between the adaptive values of the genes of the organisms has also increased for other reasons.
What is the other determinant for emergence of the difference between the adaptive values of genes? It is very important to know this other determinant for understanding the hardly overestimatable advantage of sexual reproduction. As I mentioned above, in case of organisms containing more and more genes, the continuity of existence of an individual gene within the organism basically does not depend on the adaptive value of that given gene, but on the average adaptive value of the genes of the organism. What’s that got to do with a (possibility of) increase in the adaptive value between the genes of the organism? It is that the adaptive value of the alleles of an individual gene joining an organism via random mutation may be significantly reduced (up to the limit of the minimum functionality), as the adaptive value average of the entirety of the genes may be still sufficient to ensure that the existence of the weak gene in question does not cause interruption of the continuity of the organism’s existence. The larger the number of the genes being in an organism, the smaller the effect of the individual strong or weak genes on the viability of the organism. Because of this, there is an increasing potential for accumulation of weak genes (i.e. parasitic genes), thereby increasing the difference between the adaptive values of the genes of the genome.
Thus, there are two reasons of the difference between the adaptive value of the organism’s genes: 1) genes are mutated and arranged independently of each other (the reason of slowing down evolutionary organization by the increase in the number of genes is not the differences formed this way); 2) parasitism of genes on each other has significantly rised by the increase of the number of genes.
With random combinations of genes of two organisms, combinations can be formed that reduce the differences (caused by both reasons) in the adaptive value of genes. What are the two reasons? One is that genes are arranged independently of each other, and the other is that, due to the compensating effect of the beneficial genes of the organism, genes with very low adaptive value do not destroy the organism.
The possibility and the reality of the recombination of genes with high adaptive value found by a plurality of genes of the population
In these combinations, not only the reduction of the possibility and reality of parasitism of genes on each other can occur randomly. Sexual reproduction (i.e. the random gene combination of two organisms of the population) has an other kind of consequence which is also very advantageous.
A population has a plurality of organisms, plurality of genes, and plurality of alleles. Genes with higher and higher adaptive values are being sought in a plurality of organisms, plurality of genes (that is, not in a single gene – and, allowing for the progenitors as well, not in a single line, as in the case of species reproducing asexually). Progenies may randomly acquire genes of high adaptive values which have been "sought" and "found" by plurality of organizations and plurality of genes of the population through random combination of genes of two organisms.
The more organisms or genes belongs to the population whose individuals reproduce sexually, the greater is the likelihood that a given organism acquires genes that have been “found” by a plurality of genes and therefore – most likely – having higher adaptive values. (I just point to the fact here that the correlation between larger population and greater possibility for the generation of alleles having higher adaptive values, as well as the faster evolution via gene combinations is realized only in a tendency manner. I will not give more detailed discussion here.)
As a result of the gene combinations, two types of development-accelerating effect are simultaneously realized
With random gene combinations, two types of development-accelerating effect occur simultaneously, and these effects collectively accelerate evolutionary organization. Among the organisms that have been emerged as a result of combinations, always the ones with a higher adaptive value will survive as a consequence of selection. Accordingly, as a result of combinations, it is randomly and simultaneously realized that the parasitism of the genes of organisms on each other is decreased, and the genes with high adaptive values "found" by the genes of a plurality of organisms belonging to a population are also get into one organism.
Sexual reproduction and random gene combinations of organisms belonging to a population make it possible to significantly reduce the parasitism of the genes on each other, and, on the other hand, provide an opportunity for genes that had been sought by a plurality of genes of a plurality of organisms belonging to the given population to combine with each other as well (which genes thereby have high adaptive values). The above explains that, through the emergence of sexual reproduction, evolutionary organization is also enabled in multigenic species, and, on the other hand, evolutionary organization is significantly accelerated by random gene combinations. 2008
Sexual growth makes possible a second level of evolutionary organization of life, as compared to the first, basic level of organization realized by mutations
In what respect has the correlation between genes become more organized within individual organisms, within a population? In respect to their adaptive values.
On the one hand, genes with higher adaptive values have been brought together in the same organisms, which genes had been found by the genes of the population in question, and, on the other hand, parasitism of genes of individual organisms on each other was reduced.
More arranged gene combinations occur randomly, in parallel with the more unfavorable, less arranged combinations. Selection "ensures" (of course only within strict selection conditions) that bad combinations do not continue. This only applies where selection works.
Organization throgh gene combinations is an unfinished organization
Sexually reproducing organisms have chromosomes. If we put aside crossing-over, there are actually no gene combinations, only combinations of groups of genes (i.e. chromosomes) occur. However, this entails that parasitism continues to exist within a group of genes, because genes with low adaptive value in the chromosome can only survive with the help of genes with higher adaptive values.
The principle that each gene should reproduce in proportion to its adaptive value can not be realized by combinations betwwen groups of genes. In sexual reproduction, chromosomes and groups of genes may be combined, and the generated gene combinations are selected by natural selection. Nevertheless, sexual reproduction has significant importance in the development of living world. Emergence of this kind of reproduction facilitated the development of species higher than prokaryotes, and, on the other hand, random gene combinations play(ed) a very important role in accelerating the evolutionary organization.
Why is it that only groups of genes are combined, why genes are not? It has a relatively simple explanation. Combination of genes or groups of genes can be realized only through reproductive events. In a given population, compared to the number of theoretically possible combinations, there are too small number of reproductive events. For this reason, the principle that each gene should reproduce in proportion to its adaptive value can not be realized, that is the evolutionary organization (or the rearrangement of genes) significantly advances, but does not stop. However, this few combinations between groups of genes are still sufficient to ensure that the highly arranged states realized thereby do not only allow multigenic organisms to develop. At the same time, this mode of reproduction results in a very significant acceleration of the development of life.
General conditions of further organization via gene combinations and determinations of the formation of these conditions
Our cognitive activities, in a significant part of cases, begins with asking those questions for which we seek explanations. Certain things do not need an explanation; these can be taken as given. Our analytical work can be performed at various levels of reflection. We can start from the fact that random gene combinations may occur, including those that are more preferred than parental gene combinations. However, we can also research at a higher level of reflection. In what ways do the conditions evolve for the occurence of gene combinations? What makes it possible that among the combinations can be ones that have a higher adaptive values than parental combinations? During the investigation at a higher level of reflection, these questions can also be asked or answered, respectively.
There is a chance for gene combinations in organisms only in the case when there are more organism belonging to the same species or population, and these organisms have the same allelic genes. This condition is given, that is we know the feature by which it is given. We can establish that this condition is spontaneously given by reproduction of the organisms. Another requirement for the arrangement of a gene by combination between group of genes is that there should be differences in adaptive values between various organisms and between their allelic genes. This requirement is also met by the fact that all genes are randomly and independently arranged, and, on the other hand, by that the difference in the adaptive value of allelic genes may change in each organism because of the reason that genes are not reproduced in proportion to their adaptation value, but in proportion to the adaptive value of the organism, so the highly adaptive genes of the organism also provide the opportunity for genes with low adaptive value to remain a part of the organism.
The relationship between arrangement through mutations and arrangement by gene combinations
Sexual reproduction is a specific type of organization, in particular of evolutionary organization, which was emerged through the basic organization level of life, in particular via arrangement by mutation. What characteristic of evolutionary organization creates the opportunity for such an organization? It is the multigenic characteristic of the organisms. Further reasons are: the multigenic nature of the organisms, the independent and random arrangement of genes, and the parasitism of genes on each other due to the co-adaptation of individual genes with other ones. Sexual reproduction can be interpreted as a kind of organization, as an arrangement of the relationship of genes to each other with regard to their adaptive values.
Gene combinations create a new level of organization, as compared to the rearrangement of genes by mutations. Arrangement by gene combinations is the organization of the organism's genes with regard to their adaptive values. How is it accomplished if life can improve only through further organization via gene mutations? It is accomplished in such a way that new functions develop in the organisms via gene mutations, which functions provide opportunity for random combination of the genes of two organisms. Until the appearance of sexual reproduction, evolutionary organization did not have a function by which the genes of an organism could have been arranged with regard to their adaptative values. This second level of organization could only be achieved when new functions have been evolved during the basic level of organization (i.e. arrangement by genetic mutations), which new functions enabled random combinations of genes of two organisms. Thus, arrangement of the relationship of the genes with regard to their adaptive value could be started and could be continued – randomly. The main point is: new functions that enabled the possibility and reality of the rearrangement of genes of the organism were developed during organization by mutations. Any change resulting further arrangements occurs randomly. What is more natural than that this universal law also applies to further arrangement by means of gene combinations.
Below I will try to answer the problems arising in connection with sexual reproduction
Based on the above-described determinational model of sexual reproduction, questions related to sexual reproduction can be answered which – to the best of my knowledge – have not been answered so far. Arguments of those questioning the benefits of sexual reproduction can be confuted. Based on my own specific determinational model, in my opinion, it is possible to give a meaningful explanation to the question of where is the place of sexual reproduction in the organization of living world. Based on this theory, it is also possible to answer that what is wrong with those approaches that do not see the significant and hardly overestimatable benefits of this mode of reproduction.
Half of the gene combinations of the offspring originated from sexual reproduction is disadvantageous. Where's the big deal?
During random gene combinations, arrangement (i.e. arrangement of genes and groups of genes to each other) is also effected randomly as in the case of mutational arrangement. Further organization through these genetic changes is only effected when bad mutations and gene combinations are eliminated by selection. The expectation that organisms thus created should have higher adaptive value than that of its parents can not be met theoretically because of the law of "all arrangements are randomly implemented". Thus, the expectation can also not be met that sexual reproduction accelerates development without selection. Those, who had expected the above features of the sexual reproduction, were disappointed. For this reason, some are surprised at the great career of this reproduction. (cf. S. I. Karin, 1984). Mutations as well as gene combinations occur randomly. Among these, there are also randomly occuring ones that have adaptative values. In living organisms, arrangement or further arrangement either by mutations or gene combinations is realized only with the elimination (by selection) of disadvantageous changes occurring during the random events in question. It also follows from the above that, due to the random gene combinations occuring in sexual reproduction, there is a greater difference between the adaptation values of the offspring than that of the parent organisms. Further arrangement will be realized only if selection works. If it does not work, offspring with weaker genes will also survive.
The gene combination of organisms contradicts with the approach that defines life by the selfishness (self-propagation) of genes. What is wrong with this approach?
Approaches that consider the essence of life in selfishness assume that the basic definition of life is based on the fact that genes reproduce themselves (cf. Dawkins 1986, page 61). Upon further thinking about this relationship, it looks that selfishness of genes is continued in selfishness of organisms. The organisms are those that "implement" spreading of their genes, i.e. their selfishness. This correlation is markedly emerged, for example, when male animals displace their rivals. Those who identify the essence of life with selfishness are baffled by the continuation of the events, as these selfish organisms discard half of their genes in sexual reproduction.
Selfishness (manifested in copying genes and gene combinations) is not the only fundamental element of determinism that promotes continuity of existence. It is only one of the deterministic trend or capabilities of genes (and indirectly, of organisms) that they are able to reproduce and distribute themselves. There is also another universal capability of determinism, which is also a universal feature of life, organisms, and genes. This is the capability of rearrangement (further organization), i.e. the determinism that results in further arrangement. It is the capability that genes can be mutated, and, in case of sexual reproduction, the ability of gene combination. If there were no ability for rearrangement, only copying capability, evolution of life could not be achieved in a specific way, through almost endless chain of steps, and there would be no evolutionary organization.
How can we define the deterministic trend of life or evolutionary organization in one phrase? Well, it is the materialization of continuity of life in genes and organisms. That is, the ability for duplicating, the ability for rearrangment, and, therefore, duplication and rearrangement. One aspect of determinism is merely duplication, the other is the determinism providing further arrangement, the mutation or gene combination, respectively.
The continuity of life would not exist without either the duplicating ability of the genes or the mutational ability of the genes (this latter ability will lead to further arrangement). Continuity of the existence of genes, organisms and life itself is effectuated by many steps of accidental appearance and spreading of genes with higher adaptive values, and formation and spreading of gene combinations with higher arrangement levels. In sexual reproduction, more arranged gene combinations are “sought” by the random gene combinations, in the same way as genes with higher adaptative values are “sought” by mutations.
If sexual growth is more preferred, why is it that numerous species can reproduce sexually and asexually as well?
Among arguments that question the benefit of sexual reproduction, the arguments of those seem to be most reasonable who try to prove that none of the two (sexual and asexual) reproduction ways is more advantageous than the other by that there are many species that reproduce sexually and asexually as well. According to the argumentation of representatives of this theory, if sexual reproduction were more advantageous, the organisms would reproduce only sexually. (See Edward O. Wilson and Williams H Bossert, 1981, p 48, and G.C. Williams 1997, p 80-81).
Representatives of the above theory would be right if the combination of genes were also sufficient to spread the good combination and to displace the weak combinations. However, this does not happen, it can not happen directly. This requires a different kind of determinism, a specific continuation of this determinism.
Organism are generated based on the genome formed from gene combinations. These organism leave offspring in proportion to their viability. It is also conceivable that the adaptive value of the various gene combinations is only apparent after that the organism has reached its full maturity and leaves more or less viable offspring. The gene combination has a higher adaptive value which – after reaching its full maturity – leaves more viable offspring under given environmental conditions. It is very important to also focus on this context, because we can understand the adaptive value of the alternation of sexual and asexual reproduction by virtue of this knowledge.
The adaptive value of the genomic combinations is realized by the life success of the organisms owning them, via leaving viable offspring. (Gene combination - a given viable organism being generated by that – leaves a given number of viable offspring.)
Those gene combinations have higher adaptation values that leave more viable offspring.
The possible number of offspring of organisms that reproduce only in sexual way is also affected by the length of reproductive life of an organism. For a better understanding of this, let’s assume generation of a gene combination very high adaptation value. The number of viable offspring of an organism belonging to a given species and having high adaptive value can not be much more higher than the number of offspring of organisms belonging to the same population but having lowe viability, because the length of their reproductive life is the same.
The gene combination with high adaptive value that “had been found” would be more predominating if it were present not in just one but several organisms. Thus, these highly adaptive genes would have a greater reproductive space for their spread. If this were the case, organisms carrying the more preferred genes within the population would spread faster, while displacing individuals carrying genes with lower adaptive values. This option has been realized in species that can reproduce sexually and asexually as well.
In order to achieve the near optimal accelerating effect of the sexual reproduction, it is necessary to have as many random gene combinations (i.e., sexual reproduction event) as possible within a given population. On the other hand, it is necessary to have the greatest possible potential for spread of the gene combinations effected by sexual reproduction. The latter grows when the individuals of a given species also reproduce asexually.
If there is only sexual reproduction, there will be less chance to gain advantage from genetic combinations. If proportion of asexual reproduction is disproportionately high among reproductive events, the evolutionary organization of a given population will slow down due to the low number of gene combinations.
In addition, in the case of species that are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually, these two reproductive methods usually "compete" with each another in a specific way. If a gene combination with high adaptive value is formed, the asexual reproduction will be preferred as long as the adaptation value of the gene combinations formed via sexual reproduction does not exceed the adaptation value of the gene combination of said sexually replicating organisms. If a more viable organism is created as a result of the sexually reproducing new combinations, this more viable organism, while reproducing asexually as well, will displace its parent organisms that also reproduce asexually.
In plants reproducing both sexually and asexually, the two reproductive modes take place simultaneously. Individuals reproducing asexually also yield flowers, by means of gene combination, i.e. sexually, but also reproduce asexually, for example, with offshoots or tubers. As long as sexual reproduction does not result an individual that has higher adaptation value than that of an individual reproducing asexually, organisms will reproduce primarily asexually, thereby effectively suppressing individuals of the same species having lower adaptation value. If an organism with higher adaptive value emerges as a result of random combinations, the previously randomly generated (asexually reproducing) gene combination will be conquered. And so on.
Organization via gene mutation is the basic level of organization of life. Correlation of organization by mutation and organization by gene combination
Evolutionary organization is a multigenic arrangement. In the case of asexual reproduction, it was slowed down by the growth of the number of genes, because the correlation of plurality of genes in relation to their adaptation value was characterized by parasitism. Further organization was potentiated by the development of life functions through gene mutations that enabled the second level of evolutionary organization. This was achieved through the development of sexual reproduction.
Organization via gene mutation is the basic level of organization of life. Building up of a higher order level on this basic level can happen only if the basic evolutionary organization level (gene mutation) produces such genes, proteins, and life functions that create the possibility of higher levels of organization. This is the case with the appearance of sexual reproduction.
The universal law of all kind of arrangements (organizations), that a variant resulting the possibility of further rearrangement occurs randomly. It is demonstrative that this relationship is also valid for sexual reproduction. Similarly to mutations, gene combinations are also random events.
During my analytical work, I also dealt with knowledge-based organization of life. Here, I just refer to that adaptation by means of learning, as a new level of adaptation, has also evolved through basic evolutionary organization (i.e. through genetic mutations) in such a way that genetic mutations resulted genes and functions that enabled learning as a new level of organization. Improving knowledge (the organization of knowledge) has resulted in higher and higher levels of adaptation by supporting more and more successful activities of the organisms.
I am willing to pay one million forints ($ 4,000) to a person who demonstrates by arguments that the increase in parasitism resulting an increase in the number of genes can not be the explanation for the fact that we can not find an organism among organisms higher than prokaryotes which reproduces only asexually.
LITERATURE
Dawkins, R. (1986), Az önző gén (The Selfish Gene), Gondolat Publisher, Budapest, p 61.
Karlin, S. (1984), Mathematical models, problems and controversies of evolutionary theory. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 10, 317-349.
Williams, G.C. (1997), A pónihal lámpása (The Pony Fish's Glow), Kulturtrade Publisher, Budapest.
Edward O. Wilson and William H. Bossert (1981) Bevezetés a populációbiológiába (A Primer of Population Biology), Gondolat Publisher, Budapest.
How did this study come about? EPILOGUE
After describing my brief study, I think it is important to mention the following in order to promote its meaningful understanding. I have graduated in Philosophy in 1972. I consider myself a philosopher. I did not join any of the current philosophical trends. I consider myself a materialist. I assume the world is unitary. All phenomena (from particles to humans, to human consciousness) are material phenomenon. I consider the world coessential.
Philosophies research the phenomena of the same material world as sciences do. The only difference is that philosophers analyze the more general, most general characteristics and correlations of the world, while scientists examine the more specific general features of the sciences, the general characteristics and contexts of different levels of the world (physics, chemistry, biology, human sciences).
Material world is characterized by hierarchical general features and correlations, leading to the conclusion that the most common features and contexts are included in the phenomena studied by the sciences. It can also be said that more specific features and correlations are manifestations of most common and more general features and correlations. In this approach, philosophy and the sciences can be equalized. A world theory can be created in which features and correlations of different generalities are interlinked accordantly. If the world is actually unitary, and humans are ultimately organized from particles, then philosophy and sciences must have integrated into a unitary world theory. I had started out from the above when analyzing the most general features and correlations of the world over 45 years ago.
I have been looking for a rule, a hierarchical general rule in the world. I have come to the conclusion that examination on the side of determinism will have a meaningful opportunity, since investigating from this side, I can not only come to know what do the things look like, what kind of (hierarchical general) rule is there, but also that what (hierarchical general) temporal rule prevails when past phenomena are followed by present ones.
In the analysis of material determinism, I have come to the conclusion that it’s accepted interpretation has a major deficiency, since it only deals merely with determination and causes of the changes, although relatively stable phenomena are relatively stable by cause and effect relationships. I've been researching this approach for over the past 45 years, not only the most general questions, but more concrete, more specific features and correlations as well. (New Deterministic Theory, New Deterministic Approach, New Deterministic Paradigm.) My research work has proved to be very productive. I have tried to learn more about the determination of the material arrangement.
Philosophies and sciences are always evolving within the framework of some approach and paradigm. In the vast majority of cases, those questions are of interest to scientists and philosophers which are generally accepted in a given period. Certain phenomena and correlations can not be explained by searching for a particular theory or paradigm. These phenomena and correlations can be interpreted on the basis of a more heuristic, new-minded theory. A new theory has to be found, then it has to be accepted by learned societies. In this case, however, it is difficult, because it can only be achieved through a change in attitude of mind. The approach generally accepted by scientists and philosophers should be denied and replaced with the new approach.
In researching of the most general features and correlations of the world (particularly in the analysis of determinism), I came to the conclusion that a new deterministic theory and therefore a new approach is needed. This represents a significant change of theory, approach and paradigm not only in philosophy, but also in the sciences. However, my determinism theory has not met with acceptance. The new theory and approach has proved to be very heuristic. I've been doing research work since I discovered that the generally accepted theory of determinism needs to be replaced by a new deterministic theory. Publication of my studies and monographs was not followed by a meaningful assessment.
However, it did not discourage me from looking for and exploring more specific features and correlations by using new philosophy based on new deterministic theory in studying determinism of the arrangement of material world from particles to human, to human consciousness. In my analytical work, I have managed to theoretically reconstruct the living world's cognition-based adaptation and organization from a general approach. Humans have the highest level of cognitive ability. Based on the organization by that high level cognitive ability, transmission of knowledge to other members of the same species (and accumulation of it) had been best achieved in the case of our species, leading to a more effective second-nature construction. According to my approach and my new philosophical theory, All of the above are the product of the determinism of organization.
But what will be with this theory that had been refined for a long time, if there is no receptivity for that, neither on the part of sciences, nor of the philosophers? It will help to accept my theory if I could give a meaningful answer to a question that emerged in sciences disciplines, but which have remaind unsolved so far. Sexual reproduction is proved to be a question of this kind.
Sexual reproduction results in a special evolutionary organization (of higher level than mutational level). In my opinion, during investigation according to my theory, I have been not only able to clarify that this mode of reproduction significantly accelerated the evolutionary organization, but also that evolution of life would have almost stopped at the level of prokaryotes without sexual reproduction.
I hope that if my theory relating to sexual reproduction helps to understand why sexual reproduction is so widespread in the living world, then my new philosophical theory based on determinism will be turned out to be also valuable. My theory of sexual reproduction is the product of an analytical work based on this new deterministic theory. I would like to have an opportunity for the presentation of my philosophical theory and to get some assistance to publish my theory in the form of a book.