In Nature, there is beauty, order and balance. There also exists within Nature a strong interdependence as different elements live off one another. One creature survives because another dies; one creature’s existence is inextricably linked to that of another.
In an established environment, everything fits together wonderfully.
Furthermore, as a self-perpetuating, enhancing force, there is a positive impetus to Nature’s operational performance. Sustained by its own energy, it feeds off its own creativity, with the adaptation process carrying an intrinsic bias towards advantageous development.
Fundamentally, evolutionary progress is achieved through genetic mutations that are assessed and valued for their potential benefits in the prevailing environment. Mutations that carry some appeal will be attractive and therefore adopted. The more advantageous a mutation, the more that mutation will proliferate.
Genetic success is geared toward reproduction. That is the moment when any improvements can be made to a species. That is when change happens; that is when mutation occurs. So, in order to be successful, a species must, first and foremost, reproduce effectively. The better a species’ reproductive capacity and capability are, the greater its opportunity to flourish.
Logically, the largest population with the optimal breeding programme will have the best chance of being genetically successful. This is because, through large-scale and astute reproduction, they will give themselves the greatest opportunities to acquire advantageous mutations.
The more times we go fishing, the more likely we are to catch something; the more rods we use, the more likely we are to catch something; the better our fishing knowledge and technique, the more likely we are to catch something.
Reproduction leads to genetic progress, but in order to ensure survival, progress in itself may not be enough. Our genes must ensure that their rate of genetic advancement is equal to or greater than the environmental forces acting upon them. They must stay in touch with or ahead of the environmental pressures they face.
Mathematically, this measure for genetic survivability can be represented as follows:
Size of Population
X
Fertile Efficacy
X
Level of Mutative Action
=
Rate of Genetic Advancement
≥
Rate of Environmental Change
To understand this mathematical formula in more detail we need to delve into its component elements:
Size of Population: This is the total size of the species population. It is the bank from which reproduction has to operate.
Fertile Efficacy: This relates to the effectiveness of the population in achieving reproduction itself and, also, the extent to which that reproduction is progressive. It is essentially comprised of two factors: the Reproductive Rate and the Reproductive Strength and Diversity.
The Reproductive Rate is a consideration of the level of reproduction in a species. How many offspring does each individual have? How many of those offspring are surviving to maturity? It is a measure of the quantity of reproduction that is taking place. It will vary between species and, possibly, even within a species.
Generally, the biology of a species will determine its Reproductive Rate – the length of fertility and the number of offspring per reproductive cycle being fixed. However, there is some flexibility in this.
The Reproductive Rate will be partially determined by the amount and quality of resources that are available to sustain a species. This is because the availability of the required resources is critical in determining whether an offspring can be successfully raised.
If the means of survival – such as food and shelter – are not available, then the Reproductive Rate of a species will decline. Similarly, when resources are abundant, Reproductive Rates will increase. This is evidenced by the fact that, given favourable environmental conditions (that is, when resources are plentiful), a species may actually adapt its biology to take advantage of additional reproductive opportunities.
This process may, in part, determine how many eggs a bird will lay. It may also be one of the reasons why animals have runts in litters – they’re gambling that it might be a bumper year for resources, which would give the runt a chance of survival.
A key aspect of this quantitative dimension is that offspring cannot be considered part of a species’ Reproductive Rate until they themselves reproduce. From a genetic perspective, this is when the individual acquires value and validity, so it is only then that they can be included in the calculations.
This generates a parental dilemma. Parents, recognising their genetic responsibility, will want to invest in the best possible genetic transmission vehicle they can produce. And yet, the great parenting unknown is that, for the most part, parents are unaware of their young offspring’s genetic traits and talents. Their offspring may or may not prove to be an attractive reproductive partner; they may or may not be a contributor to that species’ genetic advancement.
Given this uncertainty, parents have to decide whether to raise a particular offspring. Generally, they tend to approach this matter by considering that it is probably better to work with what they already have rather than forsaking any offspring in the hope that they can produce something better. Though this is not always the case – animals can sometimes reject their offspring. Even humans sometimes consider the value of their offspring in terms of their genetic investment – it may, for instance, be disabled, or, in some cultures, they would rather have a male offspring than a female.
Raising an offspring requires a substantial investment of time and energy. It also removes the parent from the reproductive process. Their gamble is that they are concentrating their resources on the investment they have already made, knowing that any further reproductive endeavours are not guaranteed to either be successful or to produce something better than what already exists.
In trying to maximise the Reproductive Rate, there is always the classic quantity-versus-quality dilemma – go for more or go for better. Do parents try to have more offspring (providing them with more carriers of their genes) or do they try to invest more of their energies into the raising of their offspring (giving them the best chance in life)?
The risk is that, by pursuing the former strategy, the parents’ resources must be spread more widely, meaning that any offspring will not receive the same level of attention or care, which could reduce their survival prospects. In contrast, pursuing the latter strategy of having fewer offspring but investing more heavily in them limits the number of genetic carriers.
The second factor in Fertile Efficacy is Reproductive Strength and Diversity. This is more of a performance quality measure. Is a species maximising its genetic potential? Is it making the most of the assets it has available?
Strength arises from the nature of the genetic materials being used. Are the elite of the species being the most reproductive? Is the mating process effectively ensuring that the best males are matched with the best females? The more that a population reproduces from the cream of its crop, the more likely it will be to go on to achieve higher levels of genetic excellence.
In terms of strength, the most desirable and therefore, in all likelihood, the most reproductive may be the biggest, the fastest, the most flamboyant, the best hunter, the best nest builder. It may be whatever a species considers its greatest evolutionary quality, whatever ensures its continued survival.
Diversity refers to the variety of the mix. We only need to think about our own species; we are all human, but there are substantial differences between us depending on our origins. It is important that reproduction fully exploits the available genetic diversity. The more genetic combinations there are, the more genetic mutations that are possible.
And, of course, the more a species can avoid any inbreeding, the better its prospects, as it will ensure greater gene diversity.
In terms of diversity, at some point, offspring must leave their parents. Where they go will significantly affect the diversity of their reproductive fruits. An example of a species actively encouraging diversity is when a mother elephant expels the young male from the herd, so that he must wander the plains until he finds another elephant herd where he can take a mate.
Level of Mutative Action: Given that a species’ development relies on mutations to occur, which, when judged to be beneficial, can spread throughout the population, the notion of a level of Mutative Action relates to the likelihood of a mutation occurring in any given reproduction.
What propensity is there to mutate? Does that vary within a single species? Are there different degrees of mutation that can take place, some being more significant than others? Are there different levels of viability with mutations? Do these mutative variables differ between species, or are they a constant and can be applied equally to all species?
Unfortunately, many of these questions are very difficult to quantify genetically.
Rate of Genetic Advancement: By combining the above factors, it may be possible to calculate the Rate of Genetic Advancement. This figure shows the progress a species is making in its development. Once we have this figure, it can also be used as an effective tool for comparing species or for comparing species populations at different historical times.
It should be noted that the nature of the evolutionary system means that genetic retreat or decline is not a realisable, sustainable outcome. Mutations that don’t add to the worth of a species just disappear. Hence, the use of the term “Advancement”, rather than using a more general reference to change.
And of course, the Rate of Genetic Advancement is not always something that we can visually observe in the present. Most of the time, we don’t know whether particular actions will or will not be genetically enhancing. As a reproductive individual, we can only do what we feel is right. Quite often, this is what we are genetically programmed to do. It explains why male lions will kill the cubs of rivals – they are doing what they need to do to advance their genes.
Rate of Environmental Change: Our environment is constantly changing. It is never static. Change can occur in a couple of ways:
Firstly, due to the effect of Nature’s forces – geological changes (volcanoes, rivers, oceans, earthquakes) and meteorological changes (weather patterns).
Secondly, changes in relation to a biological species with which another particular species may have some interaction. The fact that all living things are subject to genetic mutation means that change is endemic to the system. Those changes have consequences. Any change for one living thing will have implications for others.
Species A has acquired a new skill. Species A’s new ability impacts species B. Species B must learn its own new skill that either protects itself from species A’s new skill or negates any effect of that skill.
The success of a species is ultimately measured by whether or not the Rate of Genetic Advancement matches or exceeds the Rate of Environmental Change.
In practical terms, success can be observed in changes in population size, death rates, stress levels within a species, and the proportion of time the species must devote to survival activities such as finding food, shelter, and procreating.
For example, contrast pandas, with their low population size, low reproductive rate, and low reproductive strength and diversity, with mice, which score high on all three counts. It explains why mice have a better Rate of Genetic Advancement and are successful in their environment.
If we consider the human species, we can regard ourselves as highly successful. We have stayed ahead of the game. We have a substantive base to work from, given our population size. And although our reproductive rate tends to be low, this is compensated for by the strength and diversity of our reproductive activity.
In the past, the focus tended to be upon maximising genetic strength – the Alpha male would be the most successful reproducer. He would have his pick of the female population. More recently, as society has developed, we have shifted towards reproductive diversification as the primary driver of genetic improvement.
This is apparent in several ways: changes in social mobility, geographical spread, cultural mixing and the breakdown of racial exclusivity. We are therefore reproducing from a wider spectrum. We are adding to the genetic mixing pot.
A conclusion to draw from this mathematical understanding is that if we believe human beings are the most advanced creatures on the planet, we should really think again. This is not necessarily so. To reach this conclusion, we are probably measuring Genetic Advancement incorrectly.
Advancement is not an assessment of our way of life or our richness of being. Correctly measured, Advancement is, instead, a measure of our genetic position relative to that of our environment.
In reality, from a genetic perspective, it may well be that mice or some other unrecognised, unacclaimed insect is superior to us. They are more attuned to their environment than we are to ours.
There is one other lesson that we should learn from this analytical assessment of evolution.
In normal circumstances, as long as a species adapts to or outperforms environmental changes, it will continue to survive and prosper.
However, there may be times when an environmental spike occurs. Disease, virus, a new predator, weather change, meteor strike or some other catastrophe – these events may dramatically change the environment. It is the ability of a species to adapt and thrive in that new environment that is the real challenge and test for its Rate of Genetic Advancement.
Dinosaurs are a classic example. They failed to adapt sufficiently and in time to a new environment. They were slow to reproduce, and the numbers weren’t there to give them a sufficient base to ensure that the reproduction that did take place produced enough effective mutations to enable them to adapt to the new environment. Hence, they were destined for extinction.
During that time, those species that did successfully adapt – birds, some amphibians, and insects – did so because they were either mass producers (had lots of offspring and therefore, by sheer weight of numbers, had the chance to acquire an effective adaptation) or were able to tap into some genetic strength and diversity within their species.
The implication of this assessment is that, if threatened by a detrimental environmental factor, a species may need to change its reproductive behaviour to ensure its genetic survival.
Failure to do so could put it on a downward spiral towards extinction.
Currently, humanity continues to be successful because, with society as our evolutionary tool, we have developed – through technology, communication and social relationships – the requirements to tap into the full genetic resources available to us. It means we have continued to outpace changes in our environment.
Of course, there are no guarantees. Things could change and, if they did, we would have to adapt accordingly.
We should never presume any superiority over other forms of life. Nor that our position is sacrosanct. So far, we have made the right genetic advances. It could have turned out very differently. It may still do so.
For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index
Genetically Wrapped 
Leave a comment