Intuitions for a New Evolutionary Theory

2026-05-12

There are two possible explanations for the problem of the origin of life. The first is the view that the biomolecules and nucleic acids were the product of a stochastic coincidence of ideal physico-chemical conditions, which then produced interactions that eventually gave rise to the first cells. The second and more interesting explanation is that biomolecules and the first nucleic acids were subject to a process of selection — that they were actually the result of iterative evolution by which their forms and functions were progressively refined until they found the probabilistic configurations necessary to begin implementing life as we know it.

In this manuscript I expand on evolution viewed from the second possibility and outline a series implications that arise from taking this hypothesis seriously.

1) Natural selection as a universal and continuous phenomenon

Natural selection would in reality be a continuous process (in matter) that shapes forms toward the adoption of new functions across all scales, regardless of the substrate or physical system in which they occur. This explanation extends and provides an evolutionary mechanism that gives rise to life as a consequence of the accumulation of functions and novel technologies that form from simpler substrates. A new evolutionary theory would need to recognize and explain the probabilistic accumulation of new functionalities, thereby effectively bridging physics and biology.

2) Redefining natural selection and its fitness function

Under the assumption of a continuous and multi-scale natural selection, selection would not be favoring organisms with greater reproductive capacity per se, but rather organisms that develop new functionalities in order to increase their probability of continued existence. This process (selection) would then be closely related to the classical scheme of natural selection described by C. Darwin. This means that reproductive success is not what is maximizing the fitness function; rather, reproductive success is closely correlated with the evolution of life as we know it, and natural selection is instead promoting a continuous search for new functionalities that precede reproductive success.

3) Elucidating the mechanisms of natural selection

If the true nature of natural selection is that which produces molecular configurations with new useful functionalities (in favor of extending existence), then the physical mechanism that makes this possible must be identified. This observation would also have to be compatible with what is known about the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), thereby understanding the role of the arrow of time in the evolution of physical systems. It would also need to explain why the evolution of these systems accumulates ever greater probabilities of self-implementation. Starting from the ccritical assumption that energetically efficient configurations are higher probability.

4) The scale of complexity

If natural selection is a process that favors the emergence of new functions, then there must not only be a cline of complexity, but also a metric with which to construct such a scale. It is plausible to think that if this cline occurs throughout the universe under the same physical laws, then other forms of complex organization (more or less developed) exist or have existed in the universe.

5) Overcoming the biology/environment paradigm

Under the assumption of continuous and multi-scale natural selection, it follows that selection operates at all levels of organization/complexity. This obviously includes aspects of biology (phenotypes) that still cannot be explained as a direct consequence of possessing a particular genomic configuration. In simple terms, a new evolutionary theory must elucidate the genotype-to-phenotype transition by viewing it as a multi-level selection process in which there are layers or levels of determination that remain hidden from our understanding. Once discovered, these layers would grant predictive and deterministic power of different aspects of phenotype. At this level of resolution, it becomes difficult to distinguish between environment and subject, since the layers of complexity of an organism (phenotypic space dimensionality) function as scaffolds that in turn determine other layers.

6) There is no evolutionary unit

If natural selection is a continuous process operating at all scales of organization, then we can conclude that there is no minimal evolutionary unit (e.g., a species, population, individual, genome, or gene). Instead, there exists a continuity of systems evolving in parallel. This continuity of systems appears to be arranged in a specific geometry in which less complex systems fit perfectly inside more complex ones (e.g., atom, molecule, protein, mitochondrion, cell, tissue, organ, organism .. universe). This interpretation forces us to rethink the limits of “unitary” organization and to see all forms as continuous deviations from a single cosmic origin. A new evolutionary theory would explain why certain configurations have been far more successful than others at accumulating significantly novel survival-useful functions.

7) Life independent of physical substrates

If natural selection is universal, then it also operates in corners of the universe with access to different chemical elements from the periodic table. If new functions arise through different chemical substrates, it is not difficult to imagine spaces where the emergence of complex systems results in organisms that could be considered “alive” (by today’s standards) — perhaps even convergent toward “genetic codes” (or different forms of determination) derived from molecular combinations not associated with the biomolecules necessary for life as we know on Earth (e.g., CHONPS). Given that the space of possible molecular combinations is so vast, the possibility of “life” with completely unpredictable substrates is highly plausible.

8) Definition of life

If life can be forged with different elemental substrates, then we would need to propose many new definitions of life (in addition to the many we already have) that do not revolve around the biomolecules found on Earth, but around functionalities. Perhaps we can begin to define the living as those systems that possess a code with which to execute their own design with the help of particular and stable environments.

9) Computation and artificial life

If natural selection is universal and is a process that produces new functions and quirks like human consciousness, then it is the most canonical form of learning that exists in the universe. If this is true, then classical computation is not the best model for symbolic work; instead, we could adopt “natural” schemes that appear to perform parallel computation across multiple scales to achieve computational systems capable of developing consciousness and that eventually introduce themselves into being alive.

10) The universal technological tree

If natural selection is universal and a process that produces new functions, then the classification of a possible cline of complexity would not necessarily have to revolve around evolutionary lineages as we currently understand them, but could instead be organized around functionality and groups of technologies discovered by different lineages. Just as we discovered classical computation, we can imagine that other civilizations also discovered it using different substrates. Just as our planet found biomolecules and DNA, other complex organisms may have also “found” these technologies. Despite functioning with different substrates, the functionality remains the same. Therefore, just like in video games such as Age of Empires or Starcraft, we can also begin to describe a technological tree to quantify the “learning” progress of different complex systems that we do not yet know. Such a system would be best described using energy as evolutionary fuel and learning as a by product.

11) The learning rate of complex systems

If we can build a universal technological tree, then we can quantify the rate at which different complex lineages navigate or traverse the different nodes of that universal tree. We can then construct a direct association — or rather, define complexity as that which allows traversal of the universal technological tree. This establishes a direct relationship between evolution and learning, where organisms with greater complexity have the capacity to explore the universal technological tree in a shorter time than organisms lower on the complexity scale. This creates a direct link between the cline of complexity and the ability to generalize or discover new technological nodes in less time.

12) Modularization, energy, and probability

If natural selection is responsible for the complexity scale, then we could expect a relationship between the modularization of a system (e.g., how many sub-processes it contains), the amount of energy used to maintain those sub-processes (energy efficiency), and an increase in the probability of sustaining itself independently. This view of life would thus connect with the predictions made by physicist Nikolai Kardashov, who cleverly positioned the level of energy utilization as the canonical measure of technological development of an evolutionary lineage (e.g., the Kardashov Scale).