Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay, 2ª época, 2011. 20: 34-56

ESSAY

PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Gustavo Bardier

There are many scientific theories proposed by different authors about the

evolution of living organisms. Due to its foundation and academic support, the most

popular theories are the Neo-Darwinian, Neutral, Neo-Lamarckian, Epigenetic and

Systemtic. From which Neo-Darwinian Theory is the most dogmatic and hegemonic of

them all. Regardless of its hegemony, this theory is nowadays being criticized by

evolutionary biology itself and most of its central arguments are being questioned.

Several authors make reference to this questioning of Natural Selection Theory. As an

example Rosen & Buth (1980) state: “…we eschew the use of the metaphor `Natural

Selection´ because that metaphor has now been used in many senses and contexts

that seem entirely divorced from the empirical world”. Similarly, Futuyma (1992)

states: “Both in popular literature and in academic literature… the Neo-Darwinian

Theory, that had its origin in the Modern Synthesis, has been criticized as

incomplete, inadequate as an explanation for the evolution or simply wrong”.

Recently, Doménech (2000) argues: “In spite of its overwhelming success, the Natural

Selection theory has never been able to impose in a clear and complete way. There

are increasing supporters of the idea that the Synthetic Evolutionary Theory is

incomplete and constitutes just a fraction of the evolutionary history”. Some authors

emphasize the need for an alternative explanation for evolutionary processes.

Thereby, Rosen & Buth (1980) write: “…the effort expended on applications of natural

selection would be best spent elsewhere - either in other research, or in the attempt

to formulate a more workable theory to replace Darwin’s speculation”. Blanc (1982)

says: “Many evolutionists are willing to abandon neo-darwinian rows and not few

wonder if we are not moving towards the emergence of a new evolutionary theory”.

Two years ago, Nogueira (2009) stated: “Observations in new fields, such as genomics

and epigenetics, find no parallel in Darwin’s line of thoughts. There are those who

propose that a new conceptual revolution may be necessary in biology”.

In response to these criticisms and the demand for a new explanation for

evolutionary processes, this essay is presented to the scientific community as a new

theory I denominated “Peaceful Coexistence Evolutionary Theory”. Coming as a

conceptual reinterpretation of the biological knowledge gathered so far, to explain

how the process of biological adaptation occurs through an evolutionary system other

than natural selection and/or any other mechanism known up to date. This is not an

“invention” from the author, it is an evolutionary system identified in wild populations

and not described so far, recognized through direct observation of animal behavior,

preliminary investigations (Bardier, 2001; Bardier& Santee, 1999) and founded in

diverse scientific data obtained from bibliographic references on the topic. Considering

this original explanation for natural evolution, we can comprehend how micro and

macro evolutionary changes occurred; how the great diversity of species, extinct or

not, evolved from a common ancestor of relatively simple organization through

geological time. Among the main points raised and defended in this proposal we

highlight: the systemic approach to explain the evolution of life; the description of a

new evolutionary system, denominated “neofitness amplitude”; and the conception of

a natural world evolving in peaceful and cooperative coexistence. Within the main the

records, we can cite “Mutual Aid” of Peter Kropotkin (1902) and “Peaceful

Coexistence”, chapter of Paul Colinvaux (1985).

A preliminary version of this proposal was attached to the Masters dissertation

carried out in Brazil (Bardier, 2001), in a 533 pages text with more than 150

bibliographic references, available in the university’s library.

The evolutionary system proposed in the theory, can be identified in natural

populations and is based in five statements: 1°neofit state or neofitness; 2° neofitness

tests; 3°neofitness amplitude; 4° success of the neofitness amplitude; 5° species

renovation.

First statement- NEOFIT STATE OR NEOFITNESS: Neofit individuals are those that

fulfill two biologic conditions: reproductive maturity (sexual or asexual) and physical

and behavioral health. The term refers to all the “healthy adults”. Therefore all

newborns, juveniles, old, sick or wounded organisms are not neofit.

Explanation: There is no problem to determine an organism’s age. Field biologists

usually work with this parameter and possess a wide variety of techniques applicable

to many species. The healthy state is, however, more difficult to establish, especially

behavioral health. In this proposal, health is defined as strictly related to the

organism’s adaptation to its ecological and social niche, that is, there will be named as

healthy those characteristics or traits that do not prejudice the organism’s adaptive

process. Unhealthy individuals are not adapted individuals. This is due to the fact that

all biological characteristics that do not adjust to the environment end up negatively

affecting the neofit state. In this statement it is important to highlight that, from a

reproductive point of view, all neofit individuals are potentially successful; differential

reproduction obeys to multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors of the individual and the

population (not only to genetic features evolved by natural selection). The neofit state

is independent from the selection coefficient: there are no individuals more or less

neofit, either they are neofit or they are not. All individuals that have not reached or

have passed reproductive age (too young or too old) and those that suffer from any

disease or have had an accident do not possess the neofit state necessary to

reproduce.

Second statement- NEOFITNESS TESTS: There are behavioral mechanisms that allow

individuals from the same species to differentiate neofit organisms from those that

are not. Only neofit individuals will pass the tests and gain access to the reproductive

context.

Explanation: Neofit are socially recognized in a sexual and agonistic context through a

behavior called “neofitness tests”. In such tests, individuals demonstrate their health

and sexual maturity. They do that during courtship through “physical” tests, as the

peacock’s tail; through “endurance” tests, as bees’ nuptial flight; or through “strength”

tests, as male moose lock their horns together and push during a fight. It is necessary

to overcome these tests to access reproduction and only adult and healthy organisms

are able to do so; young, old or sick organisms do not pass the tests, as they do not

have the looks, the strength or the endurance required. Courtship is the main

neofitness test in reproductive context. Its behavioral complexity, the energetic cost or

the investment in biological material needed to court, demonstrate who is neofit and

who is not. Species that do not present courtship have other mechanisms to

communicate their neofit state (e.g. physical or chemical). The resolution of social

conflicts through agonistic behavior also implies a neofitness demonstration. Such

resolution depends on the state of the organism that occupies the resource, if it is

neofit or not. Resources occupied by individuals that demonstrate being neofit are

naturally respected, continuing with the resource holding after the conflict (see

subtitle “Peaceful Coexistence” in page 8). If they do not overcome the tests, they will

be identified as not neofit individuals, and consequently would not be accepted in the

reproductive context, mating will be denied to them either in a sexual context or

because they do not possess the resources required to obtain it (e.g. Food or territory)

in an agonistic context. Observe that the proposal is not referring to the relation

between the more adapted, the more it reproduces, the more fitted it is; central

argument of Natural Selection Theory. It would be enough for an individual to

demonstrate that is a healthy adult in the neofitness tests to gain access to

reproduction. Noefitness tests in plants are more difficult to identify, although

agronomists and agriculturists are easily able to detect weather a plant is sick or

healthy. Furthermore, not neofit plants are not able to produce reproductive

structures. An important point from the second statement involves the genotypic and

phenotypic consequences on the frequencies of the different traits within the

population. As mentioned before, individuals only need to pass the neofitness tests to

reproduce, therefore all phenotypic features that do not prejudice the neofit state,

genetic, learned, stochastic, neutral, more or less adapted, would fix in the population.

At the same time, as the individuals that do not pass the neofitness tests do not have

access to reproduction, all phenotypic features that prejudice the neofit state (not

adaptive) would be eliminated from the population. Thus, a direct consequence of the

neofitness tests on the population the conformation of a great biodiversity and

biocomplexity of features adapted to the ecological niche of the species.

Third statement- NEOFITNESS AMPLITUDE: This concept represents all the neofit

organisms within the population, which would be all the organisms that were able to

stand the neofitness test including their social and ecological interactions.

Explanation: Neofitness amplitude as a whole, involves a diverse and complex

biological system, a network of healthy adult organisms adapted to a specific niche.

This group of neofit individuals in the population is directly affected by genetics,

anatomy, physiology and behavior, as well as, the social and ecological relations that

characterize the specie’s niche. All traits that do not prejudice the neofit are part of

this system, independently from the level of adaptation they carry (neutral, little or

very adaptive), their genesis (genetic, learned or stochastic) and its evolution (Neo-

Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, Epigenetics, Neutralism or Systemic). The genetic-

phenotypic composition of the neofitness amplitude is part of a diverse and complex

variety of characters, as it is demonstrated by looking at populations in nature. The

relative frequencies or each genetic, anatomic, physiologic and behavioral character

vary from one generation to the other, no by natural selection but by genetic drift in

epigenetic systems or through learning and culture in social systems. It is not about a

few selected traits, it refers to a great diversity of characters fixed in the population,

provided that none of them affects the neofit state negatively. The size of the

neofitness amplitude varies from one generation to the other according to the number

of individuals that enter and leave the population. Healthy individuals that reach an

adult age, sick individuals that regain health and neofit immigrants are those

organisms that enter in the neofitness amplitude. While the ones that leave the

neofitness amplitude are the organisms that have passed the reproductive age, that

die, become sick or have had an accident, are neofit emigrants. Like any open system,

its size is balanced by the number of inputs and outputs. Ecologically, the size of the

neofitness amplitude is limited by the amount of spaces or niches available in the

environment. Within the population not all the individuals that are able to stand the

neofitness tests necessary gain access to reproduction. Those that in fact reproduce

form the effective amplitude, while those that do not reproduce form the reserve

amplitude. When an individual leaves the effective amplitude, a neofit from the

reserve amplitude takes its place. Organisms from the reserve amplitude can

cooperate with the reproduction of the effective individuals (family groups or social

groups) or wait for an opportunity to reproduce (individual territories, lecks). This

evolutionary system allows and even favors the integrated evolution of all the

evolutionary mechanisms proposed so far. Natural Selection Theory is opposed to

several epistemological aspects of the Neutralist, Neo-Lamarckian, Epigenetic and

Systemic Theories. Whereas, the Peaceful Coexistence Theory integrates them

systematically, emerging as a “unifying” theory in evolutionary biology. A different

theory can be used to explain or interpret any character considered, as long as such

character does not prejudice the neofit state of the individuals in the effective

amplitude. Although exceptional, when natural selection acts through differential

reproduction, it accelerates the fixation process of very adaptive characters (with

reproductive advantages) in the neofitness amplitude. Consequently, all evolutionary

theories can be acting together and integrated within the same neofitness amplitude.

A relevant point from the third statement is that the neofitness amplitude operates as

a system. A wide variety of genetic, organismic, social and ecological factors works

together and influences the differential reproduction. Within these factors we can find,

for example, randomness; not genetically inherited characters; neutral characters;

Lamarckian characters; characters that do not affect reproductive success; genotype-

phenotype relation; behavior variability; affective behaviors; reproductive rate; neofit

state; survival and offspring reproduction; resource availability; gene flow; generation

time; neofitness amplitude size; peaceful coexistence; cooperation; competition;

aggression; life strategies; demographic variation; symbiotic interspecific interactions;

predation; environmental conditions; historical factors; ecological niche subdivision; a

species as an available niche for other species; diversity of niches available; primary

productivity; ecosystems emergent properties; and natural selection. The neofitness

amplitude is influenced by all the factors just mentioned and the result dictates the

evolutionary path of each species, and therefore its natural history. Not neofit

individuals also integrate an amplitude, but it is excluded from the reproductive

context. Even though they are not neofit they can cooperate with the reproduction of

the individuals from the effective amplitude (e.g. experience from the old, alarm calls

from the young).

Fourth statement- SUCCESS OF THE NEOFITNESS AMPLITUDE: Survival of the

population in evolutionary time depends on a social and ecological organization that

ensures neofitness amplitude renovation in successive generations. The renovationn

success is directly correlated with the evolutionary persistence of the population and

inversely correlated with its extinction probability.

Explanation: Specie’s biology is adapted to renew the neofitness amplitude of a

population from one generation to the other. The greater the neofitness amplitude

size on a generation, the greater the probabilities for renovation in the next

generation. The organization of interspecific interactions is based exclusively on the

neofit reproduction so that a group of them reproduces in every generation. When the

size of the group increases, the neofitness amplitude success would be greater, and as

a result, the population’s probability of survival and evolution increases. The smaller

the neofit group, the greater the probabilities for biological extinction of the

population. If the renovation does not occur, the population disappears. Rather than

differential reproduction between individuals, it is the number of reproductive units in

the effective amplitude what assures the persistence of the neofitness amplitude in

the next generation. Being the reproduction the means to do so. It is not about the

reproduction of the fittest exclusively, in detriment of the less fit individuals

(Darwinian point of view), it consists in assuring the reproduction of the greatest

number of neofit organisms, barely limited by the number and variability of niches the

environment can carry. Both organisms that reproduce the most and least cooperate

in the success of the neofitness amplitude renovation. Genotypic-phenotypic variation

it is adaptive because it favors the success of the neofitness amplitude in situations of

social and environmental stress. Neutral characters or characters that seem to provide

low fitness can be extremely adaptive and successful in unstable and/or new

environments. The social organization is adapted to the success of the group of neofit

individuals in the population, thus the autopoiesis of the social network (the “whole”)

is more important than the individual success (a “part”). Therefore, the proposed

evolutionary system works in advantage of social welfare. Being so, the peaceful

coexistence, cooperation, avoiding competition and aggression would be adaptive

behaviors as they favor the neofit state and increase the neofitness amplitude success;

whereas behaviors like aggression and competition would not be adaptive as they

prejudice individuals.

Fifth statement- REVOVATION OF THE SPECIES: The evolutionary continuity of a

species through time and space depends on the success of the neofitness amplitudes

of the populations that integrates it.

Explanation: For instance, it would be enough that one population renews its

neofitness amplitude for the species to continue its evolutionary path. However, as

many populations renew their amplitude, the better. As the probability of survival and

conservation of the species increases, while the extinction probability decreases.

Ecological changes generate alterations in the populations that affect the species

capacity to renew its neofitness amplitude. For all ecosystems to remain stable every

species in it have to renew through geological time to maintain the ecological

composition and diversity. The renovation of the species through this evolutionary

system allows the maintenance of trophic relationships, ecosystem properties and

macroevolutionary processes.

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND APLICATION IN BIOLOGY

The description of the five statements that define the evolutionary system of

neofitness amplitude is based on observable and quantifiable natural facts. It turns

into a useful tool for biologists to reinterpret Neo-Darwinian knowledge from an

alternative and original point of view.

This new concept can be applied to all biological fields, from genomics to ecosystem

ecology. However, this double exercise of reinterpretation and application demands

from the scientist a willingness to accept, even remotely, the possibility of new

explanations for the study object we work with nowadays.

In the following parts, a reinterpretation of micro and macroevolutionary

phenomenon is done using the five statements proposed. Thus, it is necessary to work

with new approaches, such as the intra and interspecific peaceful coexistence; a new

conception of cooperative behavior; the comprehension of trophic relationship

sustainability through neofitness amplitude; the understanding of speciation processes

in a peaceful context; and the visualization of ecosystems as a socioeconomic system

of peaceful coexistence. This reinterpretation begins with a criticism of the concepts of

aggression and competition in biology, necessary to fully understand the peaceful

coexistence concept.

COMPETITION AND AGRESSION IN DARWINIAN BIOLOGY

Three concepts drifting from the central arguments of Darwinian and Neo-

Darwinian Natural Selection Theory are essential to comprehend natural world’s

vision: reproductive selfishness, competition and aggression. All three concepts were

criticized by biologists, since results from ecological, but mainly from ethological,

studies began to show inconsistencies with them. Detailed and objective observation

of wild animal behavior has led some ethologists and ecologists to position themselves

with certain skepticism towards these three concepts. For example, Pianka (1982: 229)

states: “…competition is the conceptual framework of great part of modern

ecological thinking. However, competition is impossible to study in the field and

therefore is not yet fully understood.” At the beginning of the twentieth century,

Kropotkin (1902: 67) wondered: “So that we again are asking ourselves, to what

extent does competition really exist within each animal species? Upon what is the

assumption based?” The Russian naturalist made his observation in an inhospitable

region of Siberia, where strong competition would be expected, and he observed that

the species overcame the freezing northern winters avoiding competition and helping

mutually.

Reproductive Selfishness- the most radical use of this concept was that of the

“selfish gene” proposed by Richard Dawkins and classic reference to the Neo-

Darwinism. Individuals maximize their reproductive success, and in this context, selfish

behaviors are adaptive and selected. Critic: The idea of “selfishness” does not follow a

theoretical postulation. There is no way of identifying selfish motivation in an animal

or plant, even less in genes; selfishness, an ambiguous and not well defined concept, is

not a quantifiable nor observable object for scientific experimentation in biology.

Competition and aggression- Competition or competitive behavior refers to, from

Darwin’s approach, an agonistic action between several organisms for the possession

and consumption of limited resources. Krebs & Davies (1993:102) state "When many

individuals expliot the same limited resources, they are competitors, and the

decisions made by one competitor may be influenced by what others are doing”.

Begon et al (1995: 205) define competition as: “…an interaction between individuals,

brought about by a shared requirement for a resource, and leading to a reduction in

the survivorship, growth and/or reproduction of at least some of the competing

individuals concerned”. There are two types of competition: competition through

exploitation and competition through interference or agonistic behavior.

1.- Competition through exploitation: When an individual consumes a certain resource

leaving less from that resource to other individuals. In mathematical population

models it is introduced as a negative factor. Critic: What is observed in this case is a

consumption behavior and not a competitive one. Individuals are consumers not

competitors. Results on the population are effects of the consumption and not of the

competition. There is no competition by exploitation; there is a false interpretation of

the observed behaviors (an epistemological artifact).

2.- Competition through interference or aggression: When a resource causes an

aggressive conflict in which an individual prevents another the access to the disputed

resource. Futuyma (1992: 32) defines it as: “Competition by interference occurs when

to individuals interact directly and one of them comes out defeated from the

encounter. They can fight got food or territorial space; an individual can poison

another (phenomenon called allelopathy)”. Critic: Real aggression is not observed:

aggression that results in reduced health or longevity. Social conflicts are resolved in

an agonistic communication context, through ritualized behaviors and harmless

postures. The famous ethologist Eirl-Eibestfeldt (1978) states in this regard:”…fights

between individuals of the same species hardly ever end up in death and rarely have

as a result serious injuries for any of the contestants. In fact, these fights are

frequently ritualized and seem more like a tournament than a battle to the death”.

Peaceful Coexistence Theory established a difference between “agonistic behavior”,

ritualized and harmless, and “real aggression”. The latter is not and adaptive behavior

as it prejudices the neofit state and reduces the renovation of the neofitness

amplitude success. Cases where real aggression in wild species was registered were

accidental, ie exceptional and unique.

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

For this theory, the biologic evolution of the life system is organized naturally

based in the social success of a group of neofit individuals from each population from

each species. Behaviors that result in a collective advantage favor the proper

functioning of the neofitness amplitude as an evolutionary system, by favoring the

reproduction of the greatest number of neofit as possible. Such behaviors are the

peaceful coexistence and the cooperation, both liable to be observed and quantified in

nature. Moreover, as they are adaptive and benefit the neofit state, they will fix

rapidly in the population.

Peaceful coexistence is defined as “peaceful search and consumption of

available resources and natural respect towards those resources that are already

occupied”. Peaceful consumption and natural respect are the social and ecological

rules that allow intraspecific and interspecific peaceful coexistence.

This definition allows the use of this concept to be study object, especially in

ethology, as involves both observable and quantifiable behaviors. Basically there are

three different behaviors recognized in this definition:

Peaceful search of available resources: Includes scouting behaviors, relocating

to another place, forage, taxes, appetitive behavior and similar activities,

where all senses are used to detect feeding resources, shelter, sexual partners

or any other resource available (without being occupied or consumed by

another organism). Such behaviors are free from any negative interaction

(competition or aggression), even though they can be influenced by

cooperative behaviors, altruism or reciprocity, e.g. group scouting.

Peaceful consumption of available resources found: Includes behaviors such as

approaching, capture, manipulation and similar activities that are

corresponded with what ethologists call “consumption act” (Vaz-Ferreira,

1984). Behaviors such as feeding, nesting, marking a territory, hiding, courting

or mating are observed and, as it happens with the peaceful search behaviors,

negative interactions do not affect them while the resource is available,

leaving regulation to cooperative behaviors, such as sharing food.

Natural respect for the occupied resources: When an individual in its peaceful

search gets interested by an item from a limited resource that is being

occupied or consumed by a conspecific, a social conflict arises. Social conflicts

are natural and many times imminent. For the peaceful coexistence theory,

conflicts’ resolution is also peaceful; individuals go through neofitness tests in

an agonistic communication context. The result is natural respect for the

resources occupied by individuals that demonstrate their neofit state. Such

natural respect implies the display of smoothing behaviors from the intruder

when it retreats (wrongly interpreted by neo-darwinism as “submissive

behaviors”). Smoothing behavior has two purposes. On one hand, shows

natural respect and the motivation to retreat. On the other hand, prevents the

conflict from becoming truly aggressive. As a result, the occupant of the

disputed resource keeps it while is able to show its neofit state and the

intruder continues its peaceful search for available resources somewhere else.

Because of its theoretical novelty, it is worth insisting with the peaceful

coexistence concept. Even though a species consume the same type of resource,

individuals consume different items from that resource; those available. This

adaptive behavior guarantees the peaceful coexistence between individuals of the

same population. Clearly, the behavior observed is the locating, obtaining and

consuming of those available items. Competition through exploitation, as

described by Neo-Darwinian models, does not exist. Each time an individual

consumes a resource item, there is one less item available for others, which is the

result of “peaceful consumption” (observable behavior) and not from an invisible

math called competition (existent barely for neo-darwinian models). Neither

competition through interference or aggressive behavior occurs; intraspecific

conflicts are resolved in peaceful coexistence in an agonistic context through

ritualized postures and movements that do not prejudice the neofit state of

individuals. There is no real aggression, instead there are neofitness tests. No

individual loses health nor reduces its longevity after conflict resolution because

this resolution is peaceful.

In terms of cost/benefit, for an intruder it would be more advantageous to look

peacefully for an available resource in another place than engage in a violent

conflict in which he can lose its neofit state, and its access to reproduction. Only

when the valuable resource is occupied by a not neofit individual, recognized by a

neofitness test in an agonistic context, would the intruder be able to expel him

and occupy the resource. This behavior directly favors the neofitness amplitude

success, as the neofit individual is the one who remains with the resource. While

he manages to maintain himself as a healthy adult, the individual would remain

with the resource (sexual, spatial or nutritive) and would be naturally respected

by its conspecifics.

In an interspecific level, macroevolutionary processes of niche differentiation

and character divergence favor the peaceful coexistence between species or

divergent variables. Sympatric species close philogenetically (same genera)

manage to coexist in the same habitat as they consume different resources or the

same type but in different time or space, avoiding competition. For example, two

congeneric species of burrowing rodents, Thomomys bottae and T. umbrinus,

have an overlapped distribution in south Arizona. None the less, they inhabit

different types of substrate and vegetation; T. bottae prefers profound crumbly

soils from the desert, whereas T. umbrinus prefers more superficial soils

associated to forested areas (Orr, 1986: 159). Thereby, although they coexist in

the same geographic area, both species avoid competition. The seagulls Larus

argentatus and L. fuscus are separated by ecological and behavioral differences in

the niche overlapping area, reducing competition and hybridization probability

(Orr, 1986: 255). Two sympatric species of snake from the same genera Hemiaspis

are small sized with very similar phenotypes, however, they inhabit slightly

different environments and one of them feeds on lizards and the other one on

frogs (Shine, 1995: 159). Pelican species Pelecanus onocrotalus and P. rufescens

occur in the same African lakes, and feed on the same fish species, mainly Tilapia

and Haplochromis. Thus, they were supposed to be under strong competition.

However, detailed observations on their feeding habits shows that P. onocrotalus

feeds in groups far from the shore, capturing big fishes, whereas P. rufescens

feeds individually closer to the shore, capturing smaller fishes than P. onocrotalus

(Orr, 1986: 258). All this considered, they would not be under strong competition,

even though they inhabit the same lakes and feed on the same prey. Lack’s thesis

is very famous (Odum, 1988: 248; Colinvaux, 1985: 115), carried out in Great

Britain, it studies two similar species of cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo and P.

aristotelis. Both species feed on the same waters and nest on the same cliffs,

apparently competing between them. Lacks study showed that in fact they nested

in different places and that their basic diet was slightly different, being that P.

carbo feeds in deep waters, consuming benthonic animals, such as shrimps and

sole, while P. aristotelis captures fish and eels from more superior waters. Odum

(1988: 241) states about this example; “…these closely related species…could

have developed different needs or preferences that efficiently prevent

competition”.

TERRITORIAL BEHAVIOR

While a territorial individual stays neofit it would be respected by its

conspecifics. To remain in this position, territorial individuals frequently undergo

neofitness tests in an agonistic context. If they demonstrate their neofit state,

even after a conflict, it is advantageous for the population and the species,

because it assures that the individual has the resources required to reproduce,

favoring the successful renovation of the neofitness amplitude in the next

generation. Here lies the importance of the natural respect for resources taken by

healthy adults. If an individual does not stand the test it will be substituted by

another from the reserve amplitude, which is also adaptive, assuring that the

territory remains always in possession of a neofit individual.

As the permanence in a territory goes hand in hand with the neofit state,

nobody wins or loses the territory after the resolution of a conflict, therefore,

there is no competition through interference. Real aggression does not exist

either, as the neofitness tests involve harmless agonistic communication.

NATURAL RESPECT FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE STATUS

In several polygamic social groups reproductive function is privilege of one or a

few males, who neo-darwinism calls “dominant individuals” or “alpha males”. This

apparent “social hierarchy” is structured through aggression: alpha males impose

their sexual status “winning” aggressive conflicts. In this context, “loser” males

from neo-darwinian conflicts are called “subordinate individuals”.

To Peaceful Coexistence Theory, there is no social hierarchy but neofitness

tests through agonistic communication (without competition or real aggression).

Once the sexual resource is taken, reproductive individuals constantly undergo

neofitness tests, maintaining its reproductive status as long as they complete

them successfully. When they lose neofitness, they are rapidly identified and

substituted by a neofit from the reserve amplitude. Thus, individuals from the

reserve amplitude generally cooperate with the reproduction of the effective

individuals, favoring the success of the reproductive unit as a whole. Therefore,

both effective and reserve neofits favor the successful renovation of the

neofitness amplitude.

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS PERIODS

Many species inhabit environments with alternating periods of scarcity and

abundance, as it is common in temperate regions. In tropical regions, rainy and

dry seasons set the water abundance and flux along the year. The transition from

abundance to scarcity affects all natural populations increasing mortality rates.

Neo-darwinists sustain that in those stressful periods the fight to survive becomes

even more competitive and aggressive. Natural selection turns more rigid and

determinant: only the fittest survive. It is through these genetic funnels that

natural selection shapes organic evolution, a typical malthusian argument.

In fact mortality does increase in scarcity periods, however, before a concluding

synthesis, one may wonder: Are the survivors really the fittest individuals in the

population? Who dies? , who survives? and why? are fundamental questions

needed to understand stress socio-environmental situation and its evolutionary

consequences. A deeper analysis leads us to answer that it does not seem to be a

direct relation between neo-darwinian aptitude and survival through difficult

periods.

To Peaceful Coexistence Theory, even in this stressful context individuals

continue to coexist peacefully. Increases in mortality rates are an effect of

peaceful consumption and not of aggressive competitions. This means that, those

who die, neither die because they are genetically less adapted, nor because they

were engaged in a cruel battle for survival, but rather, because in their peaceful

search for the scarce resources available they were not able to find the amount

needed to maintain its neofit state. In the same way, survivors do not stay alive

because they are genetically superior or because they beatted all its opponents,

but because they peacefully found the amount of resources needed to maintain

neofit. In a scarcity context, the coexistence rule is still the search and peaceful

consumption of available resources and individuals only need to maintain healthy

enough to keep looking and consuming. In fact, mortality is due to old age,

disease, predation, starvation or an accident. Natural death factors do not include

competition or real aggression – except in humans (“Evolutionary Mistake

Hypothesis”- Bardier, 2001). Both in abundance or scarcity periods, mortality

always occurs within a peaceful and cooperative organization that rules the life.

At a social or ecological stress moment, invest valuable energy in aggressive

behaviors would not be an adaptive advantage. Real aggression risks and costs in

those circumstances overcome the benefits of obtaining, through interference,

the existing resources, considering that the stressful situation will continue after

the conflict. Insist in aggressive behaviors, reduces the possibilities that any

individual from the population survives healthy enough to renew the neofitness

amplitude in the next abundance season. The fact that resources availability is

low, does not imply that truly aggressive behaviors increase, as darwinsts state,

although the number of conflicts and of neofitness tests to solve them increases

too. Peaceful coexistence is not broken, in spite of social and ecological stress.

COOPERATION NETWORKS

Cooperation is understood as a “social or ecological interaction which benefits

at least one individual and none is adversely affected”. This concept implies

behaviors easy to observe, identify, describe and quantify in nature. There are

many examples of cooperation where life favors life. Every natural system is

based somehow in some way of cooperation between its parts and at the same

time with other related systems. This is valid from biochemical and genetic

systems all the way to ecosystems and Planet Gaia.

Positive behaviors are expressed in diverse ways and levels. At an organismic

and behavioral level, cooperation can be social, among individuals of the same

species, or ecological, between species. All species that live in groups has some

kind of social cooperation. Considering the type of relations established between

them, cooperation can be reciprocal, through an immediate exchange of favors

(reciprocity and mutualism); through a mediate exchange (reciprocal altruism); or

altruistic, when there is no reciprocity (favors with no return). Interspecific

interactions such as proto-cooperation, mutualism, commensalism, epiphytism

and inquilinism are very common in a community.

Cooperative behavior, according to Peaceful Coexistence Theory, is fixed

rapidly in the population as it favors the maintenance of the neofit state and the

renovation of the neofitness amplitude. That is why cooperation is the most

common and evident interaction in nature, both at an intra and interspecific level.

In short, medium or long term cooperation always provides social benefits that

favor the neofitness amplitude success and increases biological adaptation.

Parental care, for example, a way of filial cooperation, increases fitness as soon as

it assures that offspring reach the neofit state. The greater the cooperation

between individuals, the greater benefits and renovation the species will have,

that is the reason why cooperation is so frequent in nature.

TROPHIC NETWORKS

Trophic cycle would maintain self-organized and self-regulated as long as the

species manage to renew the neofitness amplitude of their populations. Urine,

feces and necrotic bodies from all species favor the renovation success of

neofitness amplitude of scavenger and detritivorous organisms. They transform

residual matter in organic and inorganic molecules profitable by autotrophic

organisms, which will also increase their neofitness amplitude. Plant growing

turns into food for herbivores, and herbivores become food for carnivores.

Parasites nurture from all trophic levels. As a result, feedback and self-regulation

mechanisms are formed in order to organize and structure ecosystems trophic

networks. Through this process all species renew their populations’ neofitness

amplitudes either predator or prey.

PREDATION AS THE ONLY NEGATIVE INTERACTION OF LIFE SYSTEM

There is no competition through exploitation or interference, but rather effects

of peaceful consumption and agonistic communication to peacefully solve social

conflicts without real aggression. The only negative interaction within life system

is not at a social level but at an ecological one: predation. This interaction leaves

as a result, benefits for one part, predator, while prejudices another, prey.

However predators and preys have been affecting mutually through coevolution

along millions of years. Even under a strong predatory pressure, predatory species

do not extinguish its prey.

Predator/prey coevolution, under Peaceful Coexistence Theory, occurs because

predators do not affect the renovation of neofitness amplitude of their prey. Thus,

we have a sustainable natural relation that allows coevolution. Carnivores predate

almost always, if not always, over not neofit individuals (juvenile, old, sick or

individuals that had had an accident), as it occurs in great vertebrate predators; or

predating only part of neofit individuals as it is observed in medium and small

sized predators. Herbivores in turn, do not consume the whole prey, just a part of

it, allowing its regeneration. Parasites tend to coexist with its host long enough for

the latter to reproduce (therefore the host needs to maintain its neofit state). In

some species parasitism evolved to commensalism and mutualism. In this cases

prey also renew its neofitness amplitude.

SPECIATION UNDER PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Peaceful coexistence theory does not present any novel speciation model, but

rather reinterprets existing models in terms of success of neofitnes amplitude,

given that all macroevolutionary divergence occurs in peaceful coexistence.

New species appear through neofitness amplitude evolutionary system.

Macroevolutionary phenomena are possible only if phenotype modifications do

not prejudice the neofit state of individuals within the divergent population,

allowing the amplitude renovation in each generation involved in the process.

Probably epigenetic modifications appear affecting organisms, its populations and

its ecology. Natural selection is not necessary. It is enough that individuals

maintain its neofit state.

All speciation models proposed in biology are based in the same fact: the new

species will occupy a new available niche. Therefore, the divergent population

would avoid competing with its parental form by exploiting different resources.

They avoid this competition through character divergence and niche

differentiation, two phenomena well known by evolutionary biologists. Such

processes favor the peaceful coexistence and avoid both competition and

aggression, which benefits the success of neofitness amplitude along speciating

generations. It is a transition from an intraspecific peaceful coexistence to an

interspecific one. Peaceful coexistence existed before and continues to exist

during the new species formation. Furthermore, it is strengthened by this arousal,

the new species would adapt to a different niche available in the environment.

As a result from organic divergence and ecologic differentiation, sympatric and

phylogenetically close species differ in their ecology and/or behavior. They may

occupy different niches or, if overlapped, in the way to exploit it, for example

exploiting the same resource at different places or moments. To explain the latter

neo-darwinists appeal to the “ghost of competition past”, where present

coexistence is the result of competitive exclusion occurred in the past (an

assumption with no fossil support), ie today sympatric species coexist without

competing because they have already competed and excluded themselves during

speciation process. Begon et al. (1995) states: “As an alternative to present

competition we can always summon the ghost of competition past to explain

what we see nowadays. However, it can be used so easily that turns impossible

to observe and consequently to refute”. According to the peaceful coexistence

theory competition never existed, instead there was a transition from an

intraspecific peaceful coexistence to an interspecific one. Speciation generally

takes place in isolated populations, with no opportunities to compete with the

ancestral population. Even reproductive isolation occurs without competition or

aggression. During macroevolutionary phenomena individuals peacefully consume

the available resources and naturally respect taken resources. Peaceful

coexistence existed before speciation began and evolves with the ecological

differentiation process.

LIFE FAVORS MORE LIFE

This proposal considers that life is organized in a social and ecological network

that evolved based on collective benefits instead of individual success. Therefore

its vision of nature is opposite to Darwinian one. Instead of selfish, competitive

and aggressive individuals fighting for survival, life is organized in systems that

favor the renovation of species biodiversity, hence, the evolution of life.

Predation, peaceful coexistence and cooperation are behaviors that

characterize communities and establish the ecosystem’s socioeconomical

organization. Among the three, predation is the only negative ecological

interaction, and just for prey individuals. None the less, predation does not

prevent prey populations to renew their neofitnes amplitude, avoiding

coextinction and favoring coevolution. Moreover, predation is a vital ecological

interaction for the organization and stability of trophic cycles and therefore to

maintain biodiversity. Working with rocky shore fauna, Paine (see Begon et al.

1995) performed a classic experiment removing a predator from experimental

areas, the starfish Pisaster ochraceus. This is a generalist carnivore species that

predates over molluscs fixed in rocks (barnacles, mussels, limpets, chitons,

whelks). He demonstrated that the absence of this predator alters and reduces

local community diversity, which he called “coexistence mediated by an

exploiter”, where the exploiter is a carnivore. Paine found that mollusk

community reduced drastically: going from 15 species before remotion to 8 where

the carnivore starfish was eliminated. The mussel Mytilus californicus increased its

abundance until dominating the community; the other species abundance

decreased (due to emigration) and all limpet species but one disappeared.

Except for predation, the rest of the ecosystem is based on cooperation and

intra and interspecific peaceful coexistence. Competitive and aggressive behaviors

are occasional but tend to be avoided. As a result, the ecosystem is defined,

according to the theory, as a “socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence”. In

it the natural rule is “life bringing more life”, and not life attacking another life in

an eternal struggle to select the fittest individuals. Many natural phenomena fit in

this context and can clarify what it means, for this proposal that life brings more

life. In fact, several species from diverse groups favor the neofitness amplitude

success of other species through different ways of interspecific cooperation and

coevolution. The richness of species that coexist in tropical forests and in coral

reefs, biodiversity hotspots, can be understood through this natural rule. For

example, 456 tree species were found in one hectare of Mata Atlántica from

south Bahia (Thomas et al. 2008); if we add all non-arboreal plants, fungi species

and microorganisms we reach millions of species coexisting in time and space in

100mts by 100mts of forest. A more obvious example of how life favors life is the

Amazon rainforest where a similar biodiversity evolved from poor substrates

(Shubart et al, 1984). Given that aggressive and competitive behaviors prejudice

species coexistence, they cannot explain the coexistence of high biodiversity

indexes. The coevolution of such biological richness in simpatry can only be

explained through peaceful coexistence and cooperation. While competition

separates, cooperation unites.

Other examples are in favor of these arguments. In neotropical forests old,

enormous trees are very common and their branches sustain a great biodiversity

of microrganisms, fungi, lichen, orquids, bindweed and other epiphit and

commensalist species. Furthermore, an equally great vertebrate and invertebrate

biodiversity use those branches as permanent or temporal habitats. In other

words, a single individual from a population can favor the neofitnes amplitude

success of a wide variety of organisms that depend on it.

A similar case is observed in intestinal flora. Here, a single organism digestive

system maintains a micro-ecosystem of multiple unicellular organisms,

commensalist and symbiotic. Neofitness amplitudes from all population contained

in the micro environment reach their renovation success due to a unique host. At

the same time, hosts neofit state is also favored from the interaction, for example

when intestinal flora cooperates to assimilate indigestible substances as cellulose

in herbivores and omnivorous species. There are many species that serve as host

for these microorganisms, from ants and termites to birds and mammals,

including human beings.

Most plant species known grow due to a mutualistic interaction with fungi and

symbiotic bacteria associated to the plant roots, part of the plant where nutrient

exchange takes place. Mycorrhizae consist in mutualistic associations, common in

superior plants, between the plants root tissue and a fungus (Begon et al. 1995).

The fungus cooperates providing mineral nutrients to the plant, such as nitrogen,

and in exchange obtains organic resources, such as carbon, produced by its host.

Plants like ferns, gymnosperms, angiosperms, trees in the woods and grasses in

the fields are involved in this types of associations. Fungus such as Basidiomycota

and Ascomycota (Ectomycorrhizae) and species of the Endogone genera

(Endomycorrhizae) engage in this type of mutualistic interactions. Similar

associations occur between several nitrogen fixing prokaryotic and plant roots. A

famous example is the mutualism between bacteria from the genera Rhizobium

and leguminous plants. Lichen represents another case of symbiosis between

algae and fungus. In summary, cooperation of fungus and bacteria promotes the

renovation of almost all vegetation in most terrestrial ecosystems.

Flower pollination and seed dispersion by animals would represent more

examples. Flowering plants favor the survival and evolution of a great biodiversity

of pollinators such as birds, especially hummingbirds, micromammals, for example

bats, and a wide variety of insects, mainly butterflies, wasps and bees. In most

cases, one flowering plant species benefits several pollinator species, even though

we can find cases of great specificity (e.g. orquids). All species that participate in

this interaction renew and coevolve cooperating reciprocally. The same happens

with several animals that disperse the seeds from the fruits they feed on, given

that many plants depend on this cooperative interaction not only to disperse but

also to interrupt seed dormancy and grow.

The peaceful coexistence of a great number of species seems favored by the

ecosystems’ disturbs. For example, in a tropical forest, when strong winds knock

down a tree a new microenvironment arises. The new environment would be

colonized first by pioneer species, then secondary species and finally, wood

decomposers. Similar disturbs, enable all these species to renew its neofitness

amplitude, at a particular time and space, avoiding competition between them.

As diverse and complex the ecosystem, greater is the probability to find an

available niche and peacefully speciate. Even extinction favors speciation in

peaceful coexistence, as occupied niches become available and new species take

that place. Both facts explain the continuous increase in biodiversity and

biocomplexity after mass extinctions (Primack & Rodrigues, 2001). A famous

example is dinosaur extinction and the posterior adaptive irradiation of birds and

mammals.

Life, then, is organized through a socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence.

This system is self-regulated by ecological and social positive interactions that

favor collective success. Therefore, life would be a sustainability natural process

that allows the renovation of rich species diversity.

RECAPITULATING MAIN POINTS

Peaceful Coexistence Evolutionary Theory constitutes a new explanation of the

evolution of organisms through a novel evolutionary system that also promotes a

reinterpretation of present biology. The exposed arguments account for all main

phenomena known to biology, from population genetics to macroevolutionary

processes.

The five statements used to express the evolutionary system of neofitnes

amplitude, describe and explain five levels of biological analysis: the organic

condition of individuals (first statement); its social interactions (second

statement); the materialization of the evolutionary system in the population (third

statement); its evolution (fourth statement); species evolution and ecosystem

organization (fifth statement). This natural system is concrete, observable,

complex, diverse, dynamic and extremely flexible to evolutionary alterations. All

systemic properties in which holistic vision stands on can be analyzed in this

context. For example, emerging properties, such as benefits from cooperation

with the neofitness amplitude; self-organization processes. Like neoaptitude tests;

feedback mechanisms, as reproduction in the neofitnes amplitude renovation;

and sustainability relations, like the ones observed between predators and prey.

Peaceful Coexistence Theory predicts the evolution of high levels of

intraspecific variation and biocomplexity. In the neofitness amplitude evolutionary

system all characters, either genetic, learned, stochastic, neutral, very or little

adapted get fixed, as long as they do not adversely affect the neofit state. That is

why we observe great biodiversity levels. As all variations are fixed and

accumulate within the population, amplitude action results in an increase in

biocomplexity.

Within the same neofitness amplitude different characters can evolve through

diverse evolutionary mechanisms such as neutral, neo-lamarckian, epigenetic,

systemic and even neo-darwinian; the only condition is that through this

evolutionary path the neofit state is not adversely affected. Peaceful coexistence

theory would be then, a unifying role in evolutionary biology, as it comprehends

in its theoretical skeleton all theories proposed by the academy. In this context

natural selection would be an exception and not the main factor promoting

evolution, and it acts by fixating new characters extremely adaptive for the

neofitness amplitude.

While selfish, competitive and aggressive behaviors are adaptive for Darwinian

and Neo-Darwinian Theories, they are not for Peaceful Coexistence Theory. These

are all behaviors that prejudice both the neofit state and the success in the

neofitness amplitude renovation. Adaptive behaviors that favor such state and

success are cooperation, peaceful coexistence, avoid competition and real

aggression. The only negative interaction is predation; which in fact is only

affecting prey, being naturally sustainable at a population’s level, as predators do

not prevent pray to renew its neofitness amplitude.

Within Peaceful Coexistence Theory new species form by occupying new

available niches, this prevents competition (through exploitation or interference)

with parental species. Niche differentiation and characters divergence allow the

peaceful coexistence that existed before the speciation event to continue after

the process of divergence. The different paths energetic and material flux follow

defines the socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence, this system allows the

renovation of a wide variety of species in the same environment, coevolving

sustainably. Complex networks of direct or indirect, reciprocal or altruistic, intra

or interspecific cooperation characterize life. Millions of species live favoring the

success of neofitness amplitude of other millions of species. That is life favoring

life.

From an epistemological point of view, peaceful coexistence theory presents a

population system ready for scientific experimentation. The whole evolutionary

system described here is based in the neofitness concept, the biological condition

of “healthy adults”, condition easy to be observed, described and quantified in

natural populations. Field biologists usually work with sexual maturity as one

sanitary condition in wild life.

The new ideas presented here allow a synthesis of the natural world and its

spatio-temporal dynamics from a perspective other than the Darwinian. Instead of

a world of selfish individuals in a competitive and aggressive battle, a cooperative

world of individuals coexisting peacefully is described. This point of view is based

in Kropotkin’s ideas and also comes from an improved russonian way of

interpreting the living world and its evolution.

MAIN DIFFERENCES WITH NATURAL SELECTION THEORY

To clearly visualize the differences between both theories, arguments from

each proposal are compared in the following table. In this way, the reader has a

clearer, wider and more objective picture of both ideas, so that he comes up with

its own conclusions.

NATURAL SELECTION THEORY PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE THEORY

Biological Fitness: Independent of the evolutionary theory, in general fittest are

those traits that favor the survival, development and reproduction of the

individual that carries them. For darwinists and neo-darwinists, fitness degree must be directly related with reproductive success, otherwise there is no natural selection. A better adapted individual will reproduce

more, therefore would be fitter than others. Individuals that have less adapted

phenotypes or genotypes will reproduce less and would be less fit. Selected genetic

variation determines fitness (reductionist vision).

Biological Fitness: Is related to the neofit concept. Healthy individuals are fit

individuals. Less fitted individuals are unhealthy. Adapted genotypic and

phenotypic characters are those that favor, maintain or at least do not adversely affect the neofit state. Fitness is directly related

with the organisms’ health.

Darwinian fitness: The assumption that there is a causal relation between fitness variation and reproductive success. This justifies the different reproductive rates.

Individuals that reproduce more within the population are the fittest; the ones that

reproduce less are less fit and the ones that do not reproduce at all are not fit.

Neofit state or neofitness: Relative to two biological conditions: health and

reproductive age. All healthy adults (fit) have the potential to reproduce

successfully; differential reproduction depends on many individual, organic, social and ecological factors. It is not about more

or less neofit individuals; either the organism is neofit or not. This is decided in

sexual and agonistic contexts through neofitness tests.

Natural Selecion mechanism: Within a population with phenotypic variability,

nature will select the fittest individuals, i.e. those that present certain variants of the phenotype that allows them to reproduce

more than others (individual success). Random mutations are the source of

evolutionary novel traits that would be filtered by natural selection, fixing in the

population only the fittest traits. To do that, individuals carrying that trait have to leave the greatest amount of genes in the next

generation as possible. The more reproductive success they have the faster its trait frequency increases in the population.

This will, in time, substitute the traits of individuals that reproduce less successfully.

This substitution capacity was mathematically descripted as "darwinian

efficiency" and it is directly correlated with differential reproduction. If such

mechanism continues to function over the generations, it is expected that the

population will present only the selected traits. Moreover, if it repeats in all the

populations, it is expected for the specie to possess only the fittest traits.

Neofitness Amplitude System: This is not a mechanism, but an evolutionary process of systemic characteristics acting over natural

populations. For this system, it is the success of the group of neofit individuals of the population in renewing the neofitness

amplitude that matters (social success). The greater the number of reproducing neofit individuals in the population, the better

chance of neofitnes amplitude renewal for the next generation and the greater chances

of population survival. Through the reproduction of healthy adults, the traits that allow at least "to maintain the neofit

state" get fixed; this includes very adaptive, little adaptive or neutral traits, either

genetic, learned or as a result of chance. As many populations manage to renew its

neofitness amplitude, the more evolutionary potential would the species

have through geological time.

Reproduction’s Evolutionary Role: Natural selection is inherent to differential

reproduction; selects the fittest traits through greater reproduction. To neo-

darwinism the fittest is that individual who manages to transfer the greatest number of genes to the next generation (reductionist

vision)

Reproduction's Evolutionary Role: The main purpose of reproduction is to renovate the

neofitness amplitude for the next generation. As many "reproductive units"

manage to reproduce, the greater neofitness amplitude success, and

therefore, more chances for species renovation. In sexual reproduction’s case, a

second adaptive-evolutionary purpose arises, to produce great genetic-phenotypic

variability, which favors neofitness amplitude success over environmental

changes through time and space.

Sexual Selection: In many species, secondary sexual characters evolved specifically to attract the opposite sex. Individuals that possess the most conspicuous characters mate more, reproduce more and therefor

are naturally selected. Males’ selfish interest for females establishes a conflict between males who compete among themselves. Conflicts in sexual contexts are resolved

through aggressive behavior (competition through interference) where winning males

are the fittest and gain access to the greatest number of females.

Neofitness test: To gain access to reproduction individuals just have to

demonstrate their neofit state. To do so they stand strength, endurance or physical

health and reproductive maturity tests. Such neofitness tests occur both in a sexual context, through courtship and similar

behaviors, and in an agonistic one, resolving social conflicts peacefully. Reproductive

individuals are constantly standing neofitness tests, and will be naturally

respected as long as they maintain their neofitness, but they will be rapidly

substituted by the neofit from the reserve amplitude if they stop being so.

Individual Success over Social Success: The whole natural selection theory is based on individual success, individuals reproduce to obtain reproductive success, the fittest are

those individuals that get the greatest reproductive success as possible. Society is a

consequence of individual success as a result of competitive and aggressive relations and the exchange of favors

between selfish individuals.

Social Success over Individual Success: What matters is the renewal success of neofitness

amplitude, achieved by the reproductive success of the greatest number of

individuals per generation. Thus, collective success is biologically more important than darwinian reproductive selfishness. Natural societies organize socially and ecologically in

terms of a common good, through a socioeconomic system of peaceful

coexistence where life coevolves favoring more life.

Competition and Agression: Natural selection mechanism develops in a constant

"battle field" context where everyone competes with each other for limited

resources. Here, competitive and aggressive behaviors are adaptive: those individuals

that "win" aggressive or competitive events remain with the disputed resource increasing their darwinian fitness.

Cooperation and Peaceful Coexistence: Behaviors that favor the neofit state and the

neofitness amplitude renewal success are peaceful coexistence, cooperation and avoid

competition and aggression. As they are adaptive they fix rapidly in the populations

amplitude, which explains its high frequency in nature.

Social Hierarchy: In many species, the description of its social organization is based

in a hierarchical structure, where a "dominant individual" is that who "wins

more fights" in interspecific competitions for resources, especially sexual resources. Through aggression, dominant individuals

impose themselves over "subordinate individuals" and demands costly privileges, such as exclusive reproduction and priority over feeding resources. As a result, those individuals at the top of the hierarchy are

the fittest.

Netural Respect for Reproductive Status: Many social species organize in a way that a

few individuals reproduce and the rest cooperates. Such social organization

guarantees the success of the reproductive units in the particular conditions of the

ecological niche they inhabit. Conflicts for sexual resources resolve peacefully in agonistic contexts, where individuals

demonstrate its neofit state by overcoming neofitness tests. The different reproductive units reach naturally a "social agreement" in

which they establish who from the group will reproduce and integrate the effective

amplitude and who will cooperate with them and integrate the reserve amplitude.

As long as they demonstrate to have a neofit state they will be naturally respected

and maintain their reproductive status. Reproductive individuals have the

responsibility to lead, protect and orient the group, sometimes through social conflicts. It

is the leadership of the reproductive individuals together with the cooperation of the individuals in the reserve amplitude that guarantee the success of the reproductive

unit as a whole, favoring the neofitness amplitude renewal success.

Biological Diversity: It is difficult to explain the great variability of phenotypes in natural populations, considering that it is expected, as a natural selection effect, to find only the fittest phenotypes. The great diversity and

biocomplexity of traits found between individuals and populations are a practical

problem that prejudices the action of natural selection in natural populations. As

diverse and complex the intraspecific universe is, the more difficult it turns for

trait selective mechanisms to act along the generations.

Biological Diversity: This theory predicts high levels of biological variability within

natural populations, together with a natural tendency for biodiversity and biocomplexity

increase. Variation among individuals and populations is easily explained in the

context of neofitness amplitude evolutionary system, as all variations get

fixed in the population, either neutral, little or very adaptive, genetic, learned or result of chance, unless they adversely affect the

neofit state.

Macroevolution through Exclusive Competition: As in the intraspecific level,

competition through exploitation or interference also takes place in the

interspecific level. Niche difference within sympatric and philogenetically close species

occurred because somewhere in the past those species competed and one excluded

each other. As a consequence of this "competitive past" species differentiated

their niches and "today" they coexist sympatrically. Speciation occurs, then, in a

competitive context.

Macroevolution through Peaceful Coexistence: There is no new speciation

mechanism proposed, but it is argumented that this macroevolutionary process occurs under peaceful coexistence and not under

competition. Peaceful behavior exists before, continues during and perfects itself with the arousal of new species. Peaceful coexistence is not lost in the process, it

transforms from an intraspecific interaction to a interspecific one. Species occupy

different niches as a result of niche differentiation and character divergence

processes.

Atomist and Mechanistic Reduccionism: Specially neo-darwinism reduces all the

evolutionary process to the most elemental parts of an organism: genes and inheritance.

Darwin considered each individual as a selection unit. Several neo-darwinian

proposals defend natural selection mechanic action at parental, group and macroevolutionary levels, always with

mathematical descriptions of population genetics and darwinian fitness.

Holistic/Systemic Vision: Neofitness amplitude is a system organized in a

network of intraspecific relations, from which natural populations organize. It is also

a network of interspecific relations from which ecosystems organize (socioeconomic

system of peaceful coexistence). All systemic properties of living organisms are valid for the functioning and structure of

neofitness amplitude.

Opposite to Alternative Evolutionary Theories: Central arguments of Natural

Selection Theory are opposite with those of the main alternative evolutionary theories:

Neutralism, Neo-Lamarkism, Epigenetics and Systemic Theory. Natural selection is not a

unifying theory within evolutionary biology, even though it is dogmatic and hegemonic

in scientific academic environments.

Integrates all Evolutionary Theories: Peaceful Coexistence Theory is presented as

a "unifying theory" within evolutionary biology, as it integrates the main

evolutionary theories accepted even darwinism and neo-darwinism. In the

neofitness amplitude all traits that do not prejudice the neofit state get fixed in the

population, independent from the mechanism through which each of them is

evolving at that time. Natural selection is an exception in nature, a rare event that when occurs it "accelerates" the fixation process of new and very adaptive genetic traits in

the neofitness amplitude.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the attention and constructive criticism of professors

Paulo Terra, Max de Menezes, Binael Soarez, Rosana Magalhaes, Gustavo Bressan,

Raúl Maneyro, Fernando Costa, Carmen Viera, Carlos Altuna, Luis Acerenza,

Graciela Izquierdo, Gabriel Francescoli, Miguel Simó and Fernando Perez-Miles. I

am also grateful for the constant support of friends and family.

REFERENCES

Bardier G. 2001. Argumentos da Teoria Evolutiva da Coexistência Pacífica de

interesse para educação ambiental: a procura da “Paz Solidária” - Anexo:

Teoria Evolutiva da Coexistência Pacífica. Dissertação de Mestrado,

Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, BA.

Bardier G. & Santee D. 1999. Callithrix jacchus (L.1758): ¿competencia o

coexistencia pacífica? IX Congreso Brasilero de Primatología, Santa Teresa-

Espírito Santo, Brazil, p. 33.

Begon M., Harper J. L. & Townsend C. R. 1995. Ecología: individuos, poblaciones y

comunidades. Ediciones Omega, Barcelona, Spain, 876 pp.

Blanc M. 1982. Las teorías de la evolución hoy. Mundo Científico, 2(12): 288-303.

Colinvaux P. 1985. ¿Por qué son escasas las fieras? Biblioteca de Divulgación

Científica Muy Interesante, Ediciones Orbis, Madrid, Spain, 190 pp.

Doménech J. L. 2000. Evolución regresiva del Homo sapiens: una nueva hipótesis

evolutiva. Gijón, Asturias: Ed. J. L. Doménech. 231p.

Eirl-Eibesfeldt I. 1978. El comportamiento agresivo de los animales. Selecciones

Scientific American, “Comportamiento animal”, Blume, Madrid, Spain, p.

333-341.

Futuyma D. J. 1992. Biologia evolutiva. Sociedade Brasileira Genética, CNPq. 646

pp.

Krebs J. R. & Davies N. B. 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell

Scientific Publications, Oxford. 432 pp.

Kropotkin P. 1902. Mutual Aid: a factor of evolution.

www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist.

Nogueira P. 2009. O que nem Darwin imaginava. Unespciência. 3: 18-25.

Odum E. 1988. Ecologia. Guanabara Koogan, RJ, Brazil. 434 pp.

Orr R. T. 1986. Biologia dos vertebrados. Ed. Roca, SP, Brazil. 508 pp.

Pianka E. R. 1982. Ecología evolutiva. Ediciones Omega, Barcelona, Spain. 376 pp.

Rosen D. E. & Buth D. G. 1980. Empirical evolutionary research versus neo-

darwinian speculation. Systematic Zoology. 29: 300-308.

Schubart H. O., Franken W. & Luizão F. J. 1984. Uma floresta sobre solos pobres.

Rev. Ciência Hoje, 2(1): 26-32.

Thomas W, Carvalho A. M., Amorin A. M., Garrison J. & Santos T. S. 2008. Diversity

of woody plants in the Atlantic Coastal Forest of southern Bahia, Brazil. In:

W. Thomas (ed.), The Atlantic Coastal Forest of Northeastern Brazil.

Memories of the New York Botanical Garden. 100: 21-66.

Vaz-Ferreira R. 1984. Etología: el estudio biológico del comportamiento animal.

Secretaria General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, Programa

Regional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Washington, D.C., Serie de

Biología, monografía nº 29, 150 pp.