Rammohan Shukla

And Back Again……!

2010-11-25T18:12:00.000-08:00

They were not of their kind but when the wisdom resigns they say that love is blind
Seeing the mermaid the self was left behind
New were their purpose new were the passion as new were their find
In the silence of the green the Infinity was now confined

Like an instance passed the days he was living the dreams not chased
To the passion he surrendered but the reasons were not all erased
Dreams were waiting in his boat which was anchored to the coast
Belongingness Beckons and summons the histories adore
Infinity is too vast to explore but dreams could be realized back on the shore

No one returns back from the infinity she knew
With infinity in her eye she bid him adieu
She gave him a small case which was not to open in any conditions he face
He departed her with a final embrace
Voyage of returns are never too late
The ride was fathomed but towards the unknown fate

In the story narrated maverick comes back to the shore where everything had changed neither he could recognize the place nor the people in that place were recognizing him. He could not search for his parents his relatives his friends…………..he found himself to be in a totally different place. Then he inquired about his name people said 300years ago there was a boy of this name he went for fishing in the forbidden area and never returned.

He sits near the shore and thinks of opening the box. (He had been doing all the forbidden things only after all) As soon as he opens the box he vanishes in to the thin air of infinity.

When I think of this story, I always wonder what was there in that small box that the mermaid gave to maverick. Probably the time line!

If the time line fails evolution would have been a fairytale!

Till infinity and back again

2010-11-14T17:10:00.000-08:00

It was English class for class IV ‘B’ but the teacher was absent, Renu Jain mam took our arrangement class and she told us a story. Story of a fisherman who explores the forbidden areas of the sea. But when he returns back he discovers that he has lost everything including his identity. Ten year after, I read “old man and the sea” story of an experienced fisherman who follows the largest catch of his life. There was one thing common in the two stories they get their catch but return to the shore without them. The poems are of the same story which I heard during that arrangement class. The evolutionary and developmental aspects of the story are totally subjective to my understanding of the story which I will mention after completing the second part “and back again”

Till infinity…

There was a fisherman near the silent sea.
Maverick was his name and man of dreams was he.
Like the waves near the shore
His dreams use to soar

Dreams were his self and self was his religion
Dreams were his integrity dreams were his son
They call him mad they said he is lost
He wanted his fish from the boundaries uncrossed
He didn’t wait for the tide
In his dinky boat he took the unfathomed ride

In the infinity of blue he sailed
In his every attempt he failed
Silence of infinity, betrayal of salinity dreams were losing self’s affinity
He saw some green in the horizon
Infinity above and infinity below and the speck of green was a divine trinity
Amid of the serene he reached the green

Alone he started and alone were the dream accomplish
Many here and more there the green was full of fish

Even the triumph is transitory and the delight was about to fade
The dreams were realized but infinity still had something to persuade

On cell and Society metaphor

2010-07-20T06:49:00.000-07:00

I don’t have my own definition of society but the society which is generally defined may be considered as collection of associated individuals and the type of associations between them is generally the considered identity of the society. In general we have identity based on our associations. (I am an Indian coz I am associated with India, I am student as I am associated with academics) I don’t want to argue with this condition rather I would appreciate it and would like to say that “our Association does matters”.

And the other type of identity which I observe in case of cell is the identity based on function. I often here from my professor “Okay, all this is fine but what is the function?” while answering his question and studying neuroantomy in detail I realized that Cell, which exemplifies uniformity and regulation, defined by clear and permissible boundaries; considered as the basic unit of life can symbolize the higher organizations of life, the human society. It makes us realize that not just association but your purpose (function) also matters in giving you an identity.

Here I wish to shows the cell as a metaphor of society.

Why metaphor?

Coz I am assuming that this can help us perceive both cellular and societal functions better rather than one explaining the other.

History of the society the genome metaphor

Structural diversity possessed by a cellular structure is limited by the information content of the genome, thus; the genome is the unifying factor behind the functional heterogeneity in the cellular structures. In case of society out of the various factors unifying the societies the history remains an important consideration. By History here, I means that the present state of the society has arrived with some flexible time dependent change in its past state. The present state is not an independent occurrence. (The irrefutable fact, the lesson learned from evolution!) So, the history also gives an identity!

Yet another fact! Nothing is created new out of the blues! Only the change in history or the association or the function makes it new!

Traditions of the society the replication (process) metaphor

The cells during it replication spends lot of energy in the process of maintaining the replication fidelity. Unlike the viruses which does not have any fidelity towards its replication the cells have evolved various mechanisms to avoid any change in the genomic information during the process. This process of faithfully transferring the information to the next generation cell raises the question

Why does the cell invest so much to avoid any variations (change)?

Is it not paradoxical? Variations are the essence of life and the life itself is avoiding variation.

Is it to maintain its type? Or is it to maintain its commitment towards its function in the still higher level of organization?

Or probably the cell knows that Novelty not in accord with its associates is malignant.

In society the tradition is the process of faithfully passing on the values and the bylaws of the society to the next generation. The other important reason to follow tradition in societal living is to avoid chaos in the society and for the ease of the acquiring the knowledge. For instance, any laboratory works with a defined protocols and set of defined “good lab practices”, following these helps in avoiding the unnecessary confusion and disorder (I remember my professor telling me “maintain the tradition of the lab”). Traditions are defined orders which bring out order in the society; this point further strengthens the view that “Order comes out from order”.

Societal Bylaws the membrane metaphor

The cell came in to existence with the demarcation of its boundaries-the membrane. With the formation of membrane the cellular components evolved functional heterogeneity. The membrane regulates the convey of external environment to the cell. It protects the cell from the “unfamiliar” things.

Within the cell it segregates the various process components and thus defining their niche and heterogeneity, as well. The flexibility, selectivity and permeability of the membrane define the cells shape, growth, movements and various developmental aspects. Analogous to the membrane in the cell, society has ethological membranes made by its bylaws and regulations which defines it’s inter and intra level relations. Whereas the history, association and function as defined above gives an identity to the society the societal bylaws should give protection and a platform for development.

Here one thing which strikes my mind (after studying ecological system before and cellular system now) is that evolution is blind and random may be coz it works in an ajar or open system. But development is directed towards a goal may be cause it is within the limits of the membrane.

Whatever the case the selection should not be blind!

Unity & Identity

2009-12-24T23:43:00.000-08:00

“Unity & Identity” this theme was given for discussion in the student seminar held at Sokendai. There were students and professors from different countries and field of study, giving an ambience to an emerging thought over the theme. Prominent amongst the opinions was, “unity gives an identity”. Here I present few of my thoughts which came to mind during the seminar.

During the seminar I also observed that students were sitting according to their native belongingness (student from same country sitting together). Was that unity? Or were they in search of identity of being and belonging to a similar nation state? I agree that this is an accepted trend where in people of same belongingness get closer almost certainly to search an identity in that unity! This observation can be compared to one of the trend, “like attracts like” observed in neuroscience where in like neurons having similar computation are more likely to form synaptic connection with each other(Mitchison, 1992 & Dombeck et.al., 2009).

Unity of Identical! Accepted, (like peas in the same pod after all!) This unity based on identical might be constructive provided the individuals remain unbiased towards themselves and their unit as in the case of neurons (but Impossible in human context!) coz once you become biased you are no more a science.

Then how does diversity unite?

Well I don’t know how does they unite but I can guess one sole character in which they should.

“THEY SHOULD UNITE TO BESTOW AN IDENTITY RATHER TO SEEK ONE”

I wonder how it started...

2009-11-04T00:37:00.000-08:00

What may be the first step of evolution? Was the conurbation created first and then its map or the other way? First directive and then the civilization or the other way?

Mutable things can’t get the first position (But......! What I think is mutable may be called flexible, positive attribute! In this case they can get the first position)

Hummmmmm! Things may be circular no beginning no end!

First it was chaos and then came the order. (Or order out of equilibrium or order out of order, Donno!)

Order by self, SELF ORGANIZATION! (The powerful concept of SELF would have started here)

What was important in this Organization?

Bylaws, Patterns, stability (away from equilibrium)

Okay! Organized, Then?

SUSTAIN........! (The toughest experienced thing I say!!!!)

Sustain what? The order!

Why to sustain? (Or else we will be in chaos again!)

How to sustain?

How is this order like?

Me and Dada

2009-08-07T22:58:00.000-07:00

Hi RMS,
Presently I am reading Watson's 'The Double Helix" (for the first time, surprisingly) and enjoying it. I was thinking if someone were to rework the same DNA structure discovery at the present time, what tools probably he/she would have used. And how quickly could have been the same validated again? Whats your opinion?
Rest is all going on as usual.
Take care
Dada

Dear Dada,

Sorry for replying it late.

Have you ever seen a carpenter making a wooden chips when he makes a furniture. They are coiled and look very much like a DNA structure. I guess any long structure in its relaxed form comes into coiled form which is its stable state (like telephone wire ) in which it can have a stored potential energy exploited to its best (All springs for example). I guess technologies were/are needed to have a rational and logical proof.We prove a theory using technology and we update a technology using some new theories........What do you say?rest is fine

Cheers

Ram

Hi Ram,
I am sorry I missed your mail completely as it came below my text. I thought by mistake you sent a blank mail.
You made a really interesting observation. You are right. Our theories and the technologies they are based on has to evolve to validate new observations. In this aspect wanted to share some things I felt when I attended last to last week an entrepreneurship workshop in bangalore. There you could see what is the business of science. There the charm is in making money out of innovation. That is an entirely new dimension for a scientist I guess. I really couldnt fit myself well in that. But thats a purely personal issue. But those who are into it they have a whole set of new outlooks and understand balance sheets with the same competence as they understand sequencing! Is this also a scientific evolution?
Ok that apart, tell me when are you coming to cbe? Send me the soft copies of the books you need printed, I shall keep them ready. Looking fwd to seeing you soon.
Yours,
Dada

Dear Dada

Recently I read the book fountainhead by ayn rand and presently I am reading selfish gene and bhagvat gita. my view may be biased towards what I have learned from this books so far.I too am against money making. but let us see what is the benefit of the same I guess there is no Indian scientist who really work on problems. scientist over here work for there livelihood and having publication is the key to there survival and promotion. I have not seen any Indian scientist having thirst to do something, having an area of interest which they want to explore. In this context working for money "spinning money through technology" as they say gives at least gives some competitive environment to them and coz of it they are giving some performance which may have some benefit to nation. one example is that till date govt of India was not having its own BT cotton for farmers but private company .....they are spinning money out of it. where scientist in developing countries who have no cause. spinning money is at least giving some cause to make them lively.and one cant expect more than this in any technology coz the investment given to develop any technology is huge!! kuch returns to milna jaroori hai na!!!Developed countries I guess do science and they dump the technology portion to developing countries we become happy as we get money and they get nice stastical data from countries like us to validate there scientific theories using these technogies. example we are busy in dissemination of BT technology and US gets a data to study the adaptation of insect against the transgenic in a very big land scape (as big as India). so they get the science and we are convinced that we are having the most contemporary technologies!!!! what do you say?I am planning to put these conversation between us in my blog. Rest is fine

Cheers

Ram

Hi RMS,
Yes you are right about the research components we in developing countries get to do. But the point you raised about the large amount of data generated being used by advanced nations as a lab is something I didnt know. Thanks for this. Really worrisome.
About Indian scientists working merely for survival is true and sad. That way the private sector has done something of value and scientific staff though often turned into mere technicians and businessmen (marketting/ sales person) still the results are for us to see.
Here in CSIR DBT ICAR,etc institutes, the amount of money spent is huge. At the same time the output is meagre (often). So my feeling is they have been reduced to employment agencies, where you get jobs, ra srf postions to feed yourself and your family. Thats all. But really thinking I wouldnt mind being part of it as the accountability is so less and i too have to get some job to feed myself and family. And as a trained biotech person i can do the job too. But reality is that we are not making scientists anywhere neither in pvt sector nor in the public funded institutes.
Had a very nice discussion on similar things with Maheswaran Sir on this yesterday evening at his place. Good news is that he and Malarizhi madam are transfered to coimbatore campus.
Bye for now
Dada

Dear Dada,

The other important thing to discuss ever since I have joined wardha is the concept of equity. All are equals that is what Gandhi has taught over here. I believe equilibrium is death. and discrimination is the one which only few person with knowledge and enlightment possess. After all if every one will do science then You and I will not have any value in future. some times I am happy that others are not thinking in the same grounds in which we think.......let them earn money? These days I am developing interest in politics also.....!your opinion in this regard (equity) please.

Cheers

Ram

On Lamarkism

2009-07-18T00:22:00.000-07:00

Lamarckism: the path not followed
As science evolves we judge its new theories, with reference to its older theories, which it has proved wrong or has merged in itself as a part. Any new theory answering the specific details of relation between its subjects and encompassing the prior theories has to be complex with respect to the previous one as a general out-come of the increasing entropy of the universe and the knowledge it thus holds. Between Lamarckism and Darwinism, Darwin’s theory of natural selection got a positive reception as compared to Lamark’s law of inheritance of acquired characters for which the likely reason that Darwin’s theory answers inheritance at population level unlike Lamark who defined it at below population level (Jablonka et al).
A thorough understanding of living systems reveals the importance of pattern of organization, process of organization and structures in the maintenance of identity of the life form. In the process of maintenance of its identity, life creates novelty, which is governed by the cognitive ability of life to differentiate the environmental difference in its niche. In the present article we advance a new way to explain evolution by invoking the principles of the existing science of cognition as possibly a new theory for evolution and believing it to be an enclosure for the Lamarckism and Darwinism wherein we will also try to judge the two enclosed theories.

The present study has been presented under three sections. The first section will deal with various particulars and our own perception and related to the patterns of organization, process and structure with their interdependent interactions as a mechanism of inheritance. The Lamarckian theory will also be discussed in this section as the mechanism of evolution. Lot of work has been done by Jablonka et. al. with respect to epigenetic variation and lamarkism as their mode of inheritance we will be including the points covered by them in this section as a support to our comprehension of the perceptions made. Second section will be dealing with the genome as the self-referring cognitive system occupying the first level of organizational hierarchy of living system. The theory of natural selection as the cost for the individual’s selection will be discussed in the same. Followed by it in the light of above two sections we will see a case study of sudden behavioral change in the insect pest Helicoverpa armigera with the respect to the transgenic cotton developed and used widely against it.

BOX 1
Patterns
The configuration determining the characteristic of any discernable system based upon the intended interrelationship of the component parts. In case of living organism it is always embodied in the organism’s structure, in genome it is embodied in the network of genes sequences and in case of organisms niche it is embodied in the relationship established with the components of the niche. Autopoiesis (auto-self, poisis-making), the self-making of the network of relationship between the parts of the whole is the pattern of life and in this pattern function of each component (parts) is to participate in the production and transformation of other component of the network.
Process
The action involved in the repetitive embodiment of systems pattern of organization. Autopoiesis, the pattern of life can be defined by relationships between processes of production and any biologically observed structure is the expression of metabolic and developmental process thus a process forms the link between pattern and structure. Cognition is the process of life.
Structure
The structure is the physical embodiment of its pattern of organization, which can be described by its actual physical components. Any living organism can be described as structure, which is organizationally closed but open for the flow of energy and matter.
Circular identity
The characteristics of living system as described by Maturana are exergonic metabolism, growth and internal molecular reproduction. All these three are organized in a closed causal circular process in a way that allows evolutionary changes without loss of the maintained circularity. The circular organization of these three processes constitutes a homeostatic system and makes a living system a unit of interaction. All the peculiar aspects of different kind of organism are overlaid over the circularity and are consequent of it. We have used circular identity for our comprehension to annotate autopoisis as defined by maturana.

Inheritance: A Dynamic interaction between pattern process and structure

The acquired character is the outcome of cognitive process. The system recognizes the difference in the environmental pattern as information and to maintain its circular identity (Autopoisis) in the changed environment it undergoes adaptation. The inheritance of the acquired character depends on the longevity of the change and the organism’s ability to maintain its identity; the adaptation for a short-term change is not inherited.
The information for the changed environmental pattern in the systems level is perceived by the sensors present in the living system (sense organ) and the action for the perceived information is taken by the dynamic interaction between patterns of organization, process and structures of living system which themselves get changed and inherited depending upon the changes. (Hereafter the abbreviation PPS will be used for the Pattern of organization, process and structure for the sake of convenience).
The living organisms depending upon the information (difference in the environment pattern) received possess two kinds of PPS response (BOX 2), the Primary or the noninherited PPS, which starts with a structure and ends with a change in the pattern governed by a simple regulatory process. The visible response exemplified by the on-off response in heat shock protein as mentioned by Jablonka et. al., 1989 can be considered same as the primary PPS. The secondary inherited PPS which acts with pattern first process the second and structure as the final outcome, (as explained in the box) works in the normal environmental conditions (continuous and same information flow).

Box 2

Fig 1 The primary PPS response

Fig 2 The secondary PPS response

The primary PPS response as shown in fig 1 starts with structure responding to the sudden change in the environmental pattern here the structure is the organism it self in the macro evolutionary level responding with a process like migration, resistance etc. In the microevolution level the genome may respond with the process like transposition of a gene and the individual may respond with immunological and hormonal process with antibodies and peptide structures respectively. The cost is not paid in the primary PPS response, as the individual can’t put forth its own selection. The primary response switches over to secondary if the difference in the environmental patterns gets a stable establishment.

The secondary PPS response is supposed to trigger from the established difference in the environmental pattern; here the pattern responding to the difference is the network of relationship established between the components of niche in the macroevolution level and the network of genes in the genomic or the microevolution level. The process here defines the process of cognition, which recognizes the difference of the pattern, and selection as such is the individuals own response based on the undergone cognitive process. The structure here is bracketed separately in the figure showing it to be the manifestation of the process of selection and the cost is the cost paid by the level of hierarchy for its process of selection.
Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired character) failed to survive as it was not fit enough to answer inheritance of acquired character as the cause for evolutionary changes (Jablonka et.al., 1998). Considering population as the instigator of evolution supports Darwinism. But realizing individuals as the cause for evolution (as seen in the next section) will surely reveal Lamarckism as the cause of evolutionary change. Jablonka et.al in their work have shown inheritance of acquired character (Lamarckism) as an out come of instructive process and have suggested epigenetic inheritance system (EIS) as the cause for the Lamarckian inheritance.
We in the present article advocate Lamarckism as an out come of cognitive process and the epigenetic inheritance systems suggested by Jablonka et.al as dynamic PPS interactions taking action for the same. We base our arguments upon the perception that evolution starts at individual level and inheritance is an outcome of those functions of the change in the environmental patterns which are stable and thus trigger the secondary PPS.
The epigenetic inheritance system accounting for the stable inheritance of functional state is of three kinds namely chromatin marking systems, steady state system and structural inheritance system (jablonka et. al.,_____). The chromatin marking system, which mainly deals with the gene expressions and its modifications, can be considered as inheritance of patterns of organization in genome. The steady state system which deals with the positive feed back loops can be considered as the process and finally the preexisting structure which is used as the template for the new structure in daughter cells can be considered as inheritance of structure. Thus far the structural inheritance is reported in the lower eukaryotes (Beisson & sonneborn, 1965) but the carry over of the high concentration of metabolic products and gene products (structures) from one generation to the next can also be considered as structural inheritance in case of higher eukaryotes. In addition to this as the process of cognition deals with the nervous structure we would mention the importance of nervous system as a structure in the process of inheritance. But explanation of this is beyond the scope of the present work.
The further discussion will be based on our perceptions for the importance of interaction between PPS in the maintenance of life forms and its identity.

Perception 1: The process is involved in the embodying systems pattern of organization and structure is the embodiment of the pattern of organization we see that pattern poses/establishes its universality even in process and structure.
Perception 2: The patterns possess the differences and these differences guide the occurrence of a process; structures are always the manifestation of processes (fritjof).
Perception 3: Similar patterns guide similar processes in other words two processes are similar if they have same organizational pattern of their maintenance.
Perception 4: A process forms the basic organizational or fundamental unit of any system. And structure (new or change in the existing one) is either an outcome (new structure) of the process or is influenced (change in the existing one) by the process.
Perception 5: Structures have the property to store memory and this helps to repeat and maintain the similarity of the organizational pattern in the repeated occurrence of a process.
Perception 6: In general a pattern confines another pattern; a process confines another process and likewise a structure confines another structure. The genome, which acquires its specificity for a particular species by the specific genomic pattern, confines yet another pattern of methylation. Feedback, which is a process, confines itself to any other process. Likewise any structure possesses internal structures (which may of course be its internal structural pattern), which imparts its specificity.
Perception 7: The primary PPS can be switched over to secondary PPS in the future generation if the environmental difference is maintained same for the upcoming generation. In the absence of the same environmental difference the effect is just a carry over.
Perception 8: Variations amongst organisms is caused by the varying cognitive abilities of the organisms (and their genome) to respond towards the change in environmental pattern.
Perception 9: Ecologically every living organism represents a structure. Their activities (both social and personal) represent the process and their relationship with other organism that is established with the help of this process represents the pattern.

In the light of Perception 6 and 7 introduced above we assume the epigenetic inheritance system as the PPS response, which is solely guided by the differences in environmental pattern of organization. The similarity within the species lies in possessing similar PPS but as the ability of the organism to perceive and respond towards the given environmental change differs; (based on perception 9) it creates variation within the species. A further out come of this perception is that evolution occurs in the individuals who have the most able cognitive abilities with in the population. This ability of those individuals further creates a difference within the population and guided by that difference the other members of the population follows that individual by the process of learning. Variation still remains as again the ability to learn and respond for the difference once again differ among the individuals of the population.

Cognitive genome
Genome maintains the blue print of all the process and structure involved in the maintenance of organism’s identity. There is either an individual gene or set of genes present in the genome for any structure or structural combination respectively. The metabolic process, which further involves many combination of structures for its regulation and maintenance of the organisms identity is thus having network of genes working in combination. With a particular kind of difference setting in the environmental pattern an organism’s genome can undergo two types of changes.
The first change is from structure to genome, immunological activities are characteristic example for this. It utilizes the primary PPS response and is a sort of immediate response with respect to the sudden change in environmental pattern (niche), which may be unfavorable and quick; this response depends upon the ability of the individual’s genome to resist the change. The second type of response is from genome to structure and depends on long-term setting of the difference in the environmental pattern, this type of response is totally inherited.
All three i.e. pattern, process and structure work in present and they don’t have any cognition of there own. Cognition comes when these three work in combination in a synchronized way. The synchronization of these three makes the process of living a dynamic one and dynamicity is the rule for cognition. Genome is a dynamic system, which comprises of its own pattern of organization process and structure. The pattern of organization in the genome consists of network of gene sequences working for a particular expression. The genomic process consists of replication, transcription, translation, recombination, transposition and repair of the mutational sites. All these processes help in maintenance of genomic identity and thus maintaining the identity of the individual. The structures within the genome are defined by the gene sequences and the repeat sequences, the difference between the two lies on their information contents and pattern of major and minor grooves defined by them where other protein comes and bind. (It is important to understand here that a gene represents a structure in the genome and the pattern of genomic organization is the network of relation a gene makes with other gene for a particular expression). Against the more popular idea of denominating the cell at the first level of organizational hierarchy, our argument based on the cognitive ability of the genome would place it higher in the first place over the cell in the organizational hierarchy. The circular nature of this organizational hierarchy brings genome to the direct contact with the biosphere. This means that we are making genotype rather than the phenotype (cell) directly responsible for perception of any differences present in the environment. Indirectly this also means that there is an inheritance of the acquired character.

Based on the positioning of genome on the organizational hierarchy we now question Darwinism or more specifically natural selection. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is based on the assumption that in the population, for a particular trait there exist both fit and unfit individuals and the difference encountered with the change in environmental pattern is treated as a filter through which the one with the maximum fitness is selected. Darwin’s natural selection acted in the population level and according to Darwin any change in the environment triggers the filter (natural selection process). In the light of cognitive science any difference may trigger the cognitive capabilities of an individual rather than by the force of natural selection. The cognitive capabilities of an individual enable this distinction and thereby foment the process of selection.

The organisms have to pay a cost for primary and secondary response and also for its interaction with other components of the niche. The cost paid for the primary response is the maintenance cost, which is generally paid by cells, tissue, organ and organ system of an individual. In the secondary PPS response the cost paid is the cost of inheritance; here as the metabolic resources are limited the organism has to pay a cost for the changed process in terms of loss of any other process. The selected or rejected structure (which is the manifestation of the process) again creates a difference which if economical for the maintenance of organism’s identity in the changed environmental pattern is passed on to the next generation. The third cost, which the organism has to pay to, its niche and the other levels of hierarchical organization may be known as cost of survival and is borne by the individual and the species together. These three costs are endured either by pattern of organization, process, structure or any combination of the three. Evolution is thus the least cost combinations of all the three costs that the whole level of organization has to pay for the maintenance of its own identity.
The higher levels in the organizational hierarchy, with their biotic and abiotic components once again creates a difference, which is recognized by the genome of an organism, and this makes the whole process a circular one (fig1). The involvement of the biotic components for creating the difference necessitates the co evolutionary studies of different organism inhabiting the same niche. Based on the endured cost we would also like to resolve the process of speciation, which lies in the junction between the microevolution and macroevolution. Organisms possessing similar PPS makes the species, the individuals within the species evolves themselves as a cognitive process and finally pass on a difference which they have created with respect to the past and the present mode of its being if the cost endured by the individuals is economical in maintaining their identity the other members of the species encountering the same difference in the environment follows the individual and form the new group, the genera. The flexibility of individuals for understanding and overcoming the environmental difference and establishing a pattern of relation with other individuals of either same or different species present in the environment in order to maintain its identity determines their intelligence. This means that environment just induces for a behavioral response but the response comes from individual’s own selection depending upon its intelligence and cognitive ability. The survival of the fittest in true sense is the survival of the intelligent. The act of following the few intelligent individuals by a group does not require the same amount of intelligence as is required by the individual to reach its new identity and this helps in the maintenance of the species. The process of speciation can also be visualized as the process of secondary PPS where in the resultant new structure is the new species itself.
Adaptive Inheritance is the process coupled with genomic cognition and the individuals’ intelligent selection in which the individual should not only recognize the difference and maintain its identity in the changed environment but they should also pass it on to its subsequent generation. Based on this perception we see that parthenogenesis or asexual reproduction would have been an economical mode of reproduction among the multicellular organisms in the sense that it does not waste any gamete in production of male and thus ensuring twice the fertility of the individual that produces both kinds of gametes. But this condition is always preferred as a secondary condition and is restricted to an isolated species of genus. The reason for this is the inability of this condition to pass on a difference (variation) to the subsequent generation. For adopting mechanisms for this condition the species following it had to pay heavy cost to the population (the immediate level of hierarchy after species) and the inability of the species to pay this cost made them an isolated genus.

Figure 1 represents the organizational hierarchy level

Genome

Cell

Tissue

Organs

Organ system

Individual

Species

Population

Community

Ecosystem

Biome

Biosphere