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 Biological Fitness: Is related to the neofit evolutionary theory, in general fittest are concept. Healthy individuals are fit those traits that favor the survival, individuals. Less fitted individuals are development and reproduction of the unhealthy. Adapted genotypic and individual that carries them. For darwinists phenotypic characters are those that favor, and neo-darwinists, fitness degree must be maintain or at least do not adversely affect directly related with reproductive success, the neofit state. Fitness is directly related otherwise there is no natural selection. A with the organisms’ health. 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). Darwinian fitness: The assumption that Neofit state or neofitness: Relative to two there is a causal relation between fitness biological conditions: health and variation and reproductive success. This reproductive age. All healthy adults (fit) justifies the different reproductive rates. have the potential to reproduce Individuals that reproduce more within the successfully; differential reproduction population are the fittest; the ones that depends on many individual, organic, social reproduce less are less fit and the ones that and ecological factors. It is not about more do not reproduce at all are not fit. 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 Neofitness Amplitude System: This is not a population with phenotypic variability, mechanism, but an evolutionary process of nature will select the fittest individuals, i.e. systemic characteristics acting over natural those that present certain variants of the populations. For this system, it is the success phenotype that allows them to reproduce of the group of neofit individuals of the more than others (individual success). population in renewing the neofitness Random mutations are the source of amplitude that matters (social success). The evolutionary novel traits that would be greater the number of reproducing neofit filtered by natural selection, fixing in the individuals in the population, the better population only the fittest traits. To do that, chance of neofitnes amplitude renewal for individuals carrying that trait have to leave the next generation and the greater chances the greatest amount of genes in the next of population survival. Through the generation as possible. The more reproduction of healthy adults, the traits reproductive success they have the faster its that allow at least "to maintain the neofit trait frequency increases in the population. state" get fixed; this includes very adaptive, This will, in time, substitute the traits of little adaptive or neutral traits, either individuals that reproduce less successfully. genetic, learned or as a result of chance. As This substitution capacity was many populations manage to renew its mathematically descripted as "darwinian neofitness amplitude, the more efficiency" and it is directly correlated with evolutionary potential would the species differential reproduction. If such have through geological time. 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. Reproduction’s Evolutionary Role: Natural Reproduction's Evolutionary Role: The main selection is inherent to differential purpose of reproduction is to renovate the reproduction; selects the fittest traits neofitness amplitude for the next through greater reproduction. To neo- generation. As many "reproductive units" darwinism the fittest is that individual who manage to reproduce, the greater manages to transfer the greatest number of neofitness amplitude success, and genes to the next generation (reductionist therefore, more chances for species vision) 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 Neofitness test: To gain access to sexual characters evolved specifically to reproduction individuals just have to attract the opposite sex. Individuals that demonstrate their neofit state. To do so possess the most conspicuous characters they stand strength, endurance or physical mate more, reproduce more and therefor health and reproductive maturity tests. Such are naturally selected. Males’ selfish interest neofitness tests occur both in a sexual for females establishes a conflict between context, through courtship and similar males who compete among themselves. behaviors, and in an agonistic one, resolving Conflicts in sexual contexts are resolved social conflicts peacefully. Reproductive through aggressive behavior (competition individuals are constantly standing through interference) where winning males neofitness tests, and will be naturally are the fittest and gain access to the respected as long as they maintain their greatest number of females. 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 Social Success over Individual Success: What whole natural selection theory is based on matters is the renewal success of neofitness individual success, individuals reproduce to amplitude, achieved by the reproductive obtain reproductive success, the fittest are success of the greatest number of those individuals that get the greatest individuals per generation. Thus, collective reproductive success as possible. Society is a success is biologically more important than consequence of individual success as a darwinian reproductive selfishness. Natural result of competitive and aggressive societies organize socially and ecologically in relations and the exchange of favors terms of a common good, through a between selfish individuals. socioeconomic system of peaceful coexistence where life coevolves favoring more life. Competition and Agression: Natural Cooperation and Peaceful Coexistence: selection mechanism develops in a constant Behaviors that favor the neofit state and the "battle field" context where everyone neofitness amplitude renewal success are competes with each other for limited peaceful coexistence, cooperation and avoid resources. Here, competitive and aggressive competition and aggression. As they are behaviors are adaptive: those individuals adaptive they fix rapidly in the populations that "win" aggressive or competitive events amplitude, which explains its high frequency remain with the disputed resource in nature. increasing their darwinian fitness. Social Hierarchy: In many species, the Netural Respect for Reproductive Status: description of its social organization is based Many social species organize in a way that a in a hierarchical structure, where a few individuals reproduce and the rest "dominant individual" is that who "wins cooperates. Such social organization more fights" in interspecific competitions guarantees the success of the reproductive for resources, especially sexual resources. units in the particular conditions of the Through aggression, dominant individuals ecological niche they inhabit. Conflicts for impose themselves over "subordinate sexual resources resolve peacefully in individuals" and demands costly privileges, agonistic contexts, where individuals such as exclusive reproduction and priority demonstrate its neofit state by overcoming over feeding resources. As a result, those neofitness tests. The different reproductive individuals at the top of the hierarchy are units reach naturally a "social agreement" in the fittest. 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 Biological Diversity: This theory predicts the great variability of phenotypes in natural high levels of biological variability within populations, considering that it is expected, natural populations, together with a natural as a natural selection effect, to find only the tendency for biodiversity and biocomplexity fittest phenotypes. The great diversity and increase. Variation among individuals and biocomplexity of traits found between populations is easily explained in the individuals and populations are a practical context of neofitness amplitude problem that prejudices the action of evolutionary system, as all variations get natural selection in natural populations. As fixed in the population, either neutral, little diverse and complex the intraspecific or very adaptive, genetic, learned or result universe is, the more difficult it turns for of chance, unless they adversely affect the trait selective mechanisms to act along the neofit state. generations. Macroevolution through Exclusive Macroevolution through Peaceful Competition: As in the intraspecific level, Coexistence: There is no new speciation competition through exploitation or mechanism proposed, but it is argumented interference also takes place in the that this macroevolutionary process occurs interspecific level. Niche difference within under peaceful coexistence and not under sympatric and philogenetically close species competition. Peaceful behavior exists occurred because somewhere in the past before, continues during and perfects itself those species competed and one excluded with the arousal of new species. Peaceful each other. As a consequence of this coexistence is not lost in the process, it "competitive past" species differentiated transforms from an intraspecific interaction their niches and "today" they coexist to a interspecific one. Species occupy sympatrically. Speciation occurs, then, in a different niches as a result of niche competitive context. differentiation and character divergence processes. Atomist and Mechanistic Reduccionism: Holistic/Systemic Vision: Neofitness Specially neo-darwinism reduces all the amplitude is a system organized in a evolutionary process to the most elemental network of intraspecific relations, from parts of an organism: genes and inheritance. which natural populations organize. It is also Darwin considered each individual as a a network of interspecific relations from selection unit. Several neo-darwinian which ecosystems organize (socioeconomic proposals defend natural selection system of peaceful coexistence). All mechanic action at parental, group and systemic properties of living organisms are macroevolutionary levels, always with valid for the functioning and structure of mathematical descriptions of population neofitness amplitude. genetics and darwinian fitness. Opposite to Alternative Evolutionary Integrates all Evolutionary Theories: Theories: Central arguments of Natural Peaceful Coexistence Theory is presented as Selection Theory are opposite with those of a "unifying theory" within evolutionary the main alternative evolutionary theories: biology, as it integrates the main Neutralism, Neo-Lamarkism, Epigenetics and evolutionary theories accepted even Systemic Theory. Natural selection is not a darwinism and neo-darwinism. In the unifying theory within evolutionary biology, neofitness amplitude all traits that do not even though it is dogmatic and hegemonic prejudice the neofit state get fixed in the in scientific academic environments. 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.