Volume13(2017) PROGRESSINPHYSICS Issue2(April) LETTERS TO PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Introducing a Theory of Neutrosophic Evolution: Degrees of Evolution, Indeterminacy, and Involution FlorentinSmarandache UniversityofNewMexico,705GurleyAve.,Gallup,NM87301,USA.E-mail:[email protected] Duringtheprocessofadaptationofabeing(plant,animal,orhuman), toanewenvi- ronmentorconditions,thebeingpartiallyevolves,partiallydevolves(degenerates),and partiallyisindeterminatei.e.neitherevolvingnordevolving,thereforeunchanged(neu- tral), or thechange isunclear, ambiguous, vague, asinneutrosophic logic. Thankto adaptation,onethereforehas: evolution,involution,andindeterminacy(orneutrality), eachoneofthesethreeneutrosophiccomponentsinsomedegree. Thedegreesofevo- lution/indeterminacy/involutionarereferredtoboth:thestructureofthebeing(itsbody parts),andfunctionalityofthebeing(functionalityofeachpart,orinter-functionality ofthepartsamongeachother,orfunctionalityofthebeingasawhole). Wetherefore introducenowforthefirsttimetheNeutrosophicTheoryofEvolution,Involution,and Indeterminacy(orNeutrality). 1 Introduction I have observed that the animals and plants (and even human beings) not only evolve, but also devolve (i.e. invol- During the 2016–2017winter, in December-January,I went ve back, decline, atrophy, pass down, regress, degenerate). to a cultural and scientific trip to Gala´pagos Archipelago, Some treats increase, other treats decrease, while others re- Ecuador,in thePacific Ocean, andvisited sevenislandsand mainsunchanged(neutrality). islets: Mosquera, Isabela, Fernandina, Santiago, Sombrero One also sees: adaptationbyphysicalor functionalevo- Chino, Santa Cruz, andRabida, in a cruisewith Golondrina lution of a body part, and physical or functional involution Ship. I had extensive discussions with our likeable guide, of another body part, while other body parts and functions sen˜orMiltonUlloa,aboutnaturalhabitatsandtheirtransfor- remain unchanged. After evolution, a new process start, re- mations. evaluation,andsoon. After seeing many animals and plants, that evolved dif- Inthesocietyitlooksthatthemostopportunistic(which ferently from their ancestorsthat came from the continental is the fittest!) succeeds, not the smartest. And professional land, I consulted, returning back to my University of New deformation signifies evolution (specialization in a narrow Mexico,variousscientificliteratureaboutthelifeofanimals field),andinvolution(incapabilityofdoingthingsinanother andplants,theirreproductions,andaboutmultipletheoriesof field). evolutions. I used the online scientific databases that UNM The paper is organizedas follows: some informationon Libraryhassubscribedto, such asMathSciNet, Web ofSci- taxonomy,species,ashortlistoftheoriesoforiginoflife,an- ence, EBSCO, Thomson Gale (Cengage), ProQuest, IEEE/ other list of theories and ideas about evolution. Afterwards IETElectronicLibrary,IEEEXploreDigitalLibraryetc.,and themaincontributionofthispaper,thetheoryofneutrosoph- DOAJ, Amazon Kindle, Google Play Books as well, doing ic evolution, the dynamicity of species, several examplesof searchesforkeywordsrelatedtooriginsoflife,species,evo- evolution,involution,andindeterminacy(neutrality),neutro- lution,controversialideasaboutevolution,adaptationandin- sophic selection, refined neutrosophic theory of evolution, adaptation,lifecuriosities, mutations,genetics, embryology, andthepaperendswithopenquestionsonevolution/neutral- andsoon. ity/involution. My general conclusion was that each evolution theory hadsomedegreeoftruth,somedegreeofindeterminacy,and 2 Taxonomy some degree of untruth (as in neutrosophic logic), depend- ingonthetypesofspecies,environment,timespan,andother Let’srecallseveralnotionsfromclassicalbiology. hiddenparametersthatmayexist. The taxonomy is a classification, from a scientifically And all these degreesare differentfrom a species to an- pointofview,ofthelivingthings,anditclassifiestheminto other species, from an environmentto another environment, threecategories:species,genus,andfamily. from a timespan to anothertimespan, and in generalfrom a 3 Species parametertoanotherparameter. By environment, one understands: geography, climate, A species means a group of organisms, living in a specific praysandpredatorsofthatspecies,i.e. thewholeecosystem. area,sharingmanycharacteristics,andabletoreproducewith 130 FlorentinSmarandache.IntroducingaTheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution Issue2(April) PROGRESSINPHYSICS Volume13(2017) eachother. LamarckismorLamarckianEvolution. Insomecases, thedistinctionbetweenapopulationsub- If an animal repeatedly stresses in the environment, its group to be a different species, or not, is unclear, as in the bodypartunderstress will modifyin orderto overcomethe Sorites Paradoxes in the frame of neutrosophy: the frontier environmentalstress,andthemodificationwillbetransmitted between<A>(where<A>canbeaspecies,agenus,orafa- toitsoffspring. mily),and<nonA>(whichmeansthatisnot<A>)isvague, For example: the giraffe having a long neck in order to incomplete, ambiguous. Similarly, for the distinction be- catchthetreeleaves[4]. tweenaseriesanditssubseries. Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)used for the first time the term evolution in biology, showing that a population’sgene 4 Theoriesoforiginoflife pool changes from a generation to another generation, pro- ducingnewspeciesafteratime[5]. Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)developedin 1860 the theory of Charles Darwin (1809–1882) introduced the natural se- precellular(prebiotic)evolution,whichsaysthatlifeevolved lection,meaningthatindividualsthataremoreendowedwith fromnon-livingchemicalcombinationsthat,overlongtime, characteristicsforreproductionandsurvivalwillprevail(“se- arosespontaneously. lectionofthefittest”),whilethoselessendowedwouldperish Inthelate19thcenturyatheory,calledabiogenesis,pro- [6]. mulgated that the living organisms originated from lifeless Darwin had also explained the structure similarities of matterspontaneously,withoutanylivingparents’action. leavingthingsingeneraandfamilies,duetothecommonde- CarlR. Woese (b.1928)hasproposedin 1970’sthatthe scentofrelatedspecies[7]. progenotesweretheveryfirstlivingcells,buttheirbiological In his gradualism (or phyletic gradualism), Darwin said specificity was small. The genes were considered probable thatspeciesevolveslowly,ratherthansuddenly. (ratherthanidentical)proteins. The adaptation of an organism means nervous response John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (1872–1964)proposed change,afterbeingexposedtoapermanentstimulus. in1929thetheorythattheviruseswereprecursorstotheliv- Inthemoderngradualism,fromthegeneticpointofview, ingcells[1]. thebeneficialgenesoftheindividualsbestadaptedtotheen- JohnBernalandA.G.Cairns-Smithstatedin1966themi- vironment, will have a higher frequencyinto the population neraltheory: thatlifeevolvedfrominorganiccrystalsfound overaperiodoftime,givingbirthtoanewspecies[8]. intheclay,bynaturalselection[2]. Herbert Spencer also coined the phrase survival of the According to the little bags theory of evolution, the life fittest in 1864, thatthose individualsthe best adaptedto the isconsideredashavingevolvedfromorganicchemicalsthat environmentarethemostlikelytosurviveandreproduce.Al- happenedtogettrappedinsometinyvesicles. fred Russel Wallace (1823–1913)coined in 1888 the terms Eigen and Schuster, adeptsof the hypercycle theory, as- Darwinism(individualsthemostadaptedtoenvironmentpass serted in 1977 that the precursorsof single cells were these theircharacteristicstotheiroffspring),andDarwinianfitness little bags, and their chemical reactions cycles were equiva- (thebetteradapted,thebettersurvivingchance)[9]. lenttothelife’sfunctionality[3]. One hasupwardevolution(anagenesis,coinedby Alph- Othertheoriesabouttheoriginoflifehavebeenproposed eusHyatt,1838–1902,in1889),astheprogressiveevolution in the biologyliterature, such as: primordialsoup, dynamic of the species into another [10], and a branching evolution state theory, and phenotype theory, but they were later dis- (cladogenesis, coined in 1953 by Sir Julian Sorell Huxley, missedbyexperiments. 1887–1975),when the populationdivergesand new species evolve[11]. 5 Theoriesandideasaboutevolution GeorgeJohnRomanes(1848–1894)coinedthewordneo- The theory of fixism says that species are fixed, they do not Darwinism,relatedtonaturalselectionandthetheoryofge- evolveordevolve,andthereforethetoday’sspeciesareiden- netics that explains the synthetic theory of evolution. What ticaltothepastspecies. counts for the natural selection is the gene frequencyin the Of course, the creationism is a fixism theory, from a re- population[12]. TheDarwinismisputtogetherwiththepa- ligiouspointofview. Opposedtothefixismisthetheoryof leontology,systematics,embryology,molecularbiology,and transformism,antecedenttotheevolutionarydoctrine,inthe genetics. pre-Darwinianperiod, which asserts thatplants andanimals In the 19th centuryGregorJohannMendel(1822–1884) aremodifiedandtransformedgraduallyfromonespeciesinto setthebaseofgenetics,togetherwithotherscientists,among anotherthroughmanygenerations[22]. themThomasHuntMorgan(1866–1945). Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet Lamarck (1749– The Mendelism is the study of heredity accordingto the 1829),in1801,aheadofCharlesDarwin, is associatedwith chromosometheory: thelivingthingreproductivecellscon- thetheoryofinheritanceofacquiredcharacteristics(oruse- tainfactorswhichtransmittotheiroffspringparticularchar- inheritance), and even of acquired habits. Which is called acteristics[13]. FlorentinSmarandache.IntroducingaTheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution 131 Volume13(2017) PROGRESSINPHYSICS Issue2(April) August Weismann (1834-1914) in year 1892 enounced Thefounderseffectorprincipleisregardedasa particu- the germ plasm theory, saying that the offspring do not in- lar case ofthe genetic drift (authoredby the same biologist, herittheacquiredcharacteristicsoftheparents[14]. SewallWright),whichtellsthatthechangeingeneoccursby Hugo de Vries (1848–1935) published a book in 1901 chance[21]. on mutation theory, considering that randomly genetic mu- ThemathematicianJohnMaynardSmithhasappliedthe tations may producenew forms of living things. Therefore, game theory to animal behavior and in 1976 he stated the newspeciesmayoccursuddenly[15]. evolutionary stable strategy in a population. It means that, LouisAntoineMarie Joseph Dollo(1857–1931)enunci- unlesstheenvironmentchanges,thebeststrategywillevolve, atedtheDollo’sprinciple(laworrule)thatevolutionisirre- andpersistforsolvingproblems. versible, i.e. the lost functions and structures in species are Other theories related to evolution such as: punctuated notregainedbyfutureevolvingspecies. equilibrium(instantaneousevolution),hopefulmonsters,and Inthepresent,thesynergetictheoryofevolutionconsiders saltation(quantum)speciation(thatnewspeciessuddenlyoc- thatonehasanaturalorartificialmultipolarselection,which cur; by Ernst Mayr) have been criticized by the majority of occursat all life levels, from the molecule to the ecosystem biologists. —notonlyatthepopulationlevel. Butnowadaysithasbeendiscoveredorganismsthathave 6 Openresearch re-evolved structured similar to those lost by their ances- By genetic engineering it is possible to make another com- tors[16]. binationofgenes,withinthesamenumberofchromosomes. Lifeis... complicated! Thus, it is possible to mating a species with another closer Thegeneticassimilation(forBaldwinEffect,afterJames species,buttheiroffspringissterile(theoffspringcannotre- MarkBaldwin,1861–1934)consideredthatanadvantageous produce). trait (or phenotype) may appear in several individuals of a Despitethetremendousgeneticengineeringdevelopment population in response to the environmental cues, which in the last decades, there has not been possible to prove by would determinethe gene responsible for the trait to spread experimentsinthelaboratorythat: fromaninorganicmatter throughthispopulation[17]. onecanmakeorganicmatterthatmayreproduceandassimi- TheBritish geneticistSir RonaldA.Fisher (1890–1962) lateenergy;norwaspossibleinthelaboratorytotransforma elaboratedin1930theevolutionaryordirectionaldetermin- speciesintoanewspeciesthathasanumberofchromosomes ism, whenatraitofindividualsispreferredforthenewgen- differentfromtheexistentspecies. erations(forexamplethelargestgrainstoreplant,chosenby farmers)[18]. 7 Involution ThetheoryofspeciationwasassociatedwithErnstMayr Accordingtoseveralonlinedictionaries,involutionmeans: (b.1904)andassertsthatbecauseofgeographicisolationnew — Decay, retrogression or shrinkage in size; or return speciesarise,thatdivergegeneticallyfromthelargeroriginal toaformerstate[CollinsDictionaryofMedicine,RobertM. population of sexually reproducing organisms. A subgroup Youngson,2005]; becomesnewspeciesifitsdistinctcharacteristicsallowitto — Returning of an enlarged organ to normal size; or surviveanditsgenesdonotmixwithotherspecies[19]. turninginwardoftheedgesofapart;mentaldeclineassoci- Inthe20thcentury,TrofimDenisovitchLysenko(1898– atedwithadvancedage(psychiatry)[MedicalDictionaryfor 1976) revived the Lamarckism to the Lysenkoism school of theHealthProfessionsandNursing,Farlex,2012]; genetics,proclaimingthatthenewcharacteristicsacquiredby — Havingrolled-upmargins(fortheplantorgans)[Col- parentswillbepassedontotheoffspring[20]. lins Dictionary of Biology, 3rd edition, W. G. Hale, V. A. RichardGoldschmidt(1878–1958)in1940hascoinedthe Saunders,J.P.Margham,2005]; termsofmacroevolution,whichmeansevolutionfromalong — Aretrogradechangeofthebodyorofanorgan[Dor- timespan(geological)perspective,andmicroevolution,which land’s Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers, Saunders, means evolution from a small timespan (a few generations) animprintofElsevier,Inc.,2007]; perspectivewithobservablechanges[1]. — Aprogressivedeclineordegenerationofnormalphy- SewallWright(1889–1988),inthemid20thcentury,de- siological functioning [The American Heritage, Houghton velopedthefounderseffectofprinciple,thatinisolatedplaces MifflinCompany,2007]. populationarrivedfromthecontinentorfromanotherisland, becomes little by little distinct from its original place pop- 8 TheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution ulation. This is explained because the founders are few in numberandthereforethegeneticpoolissmallerindiversity, Duringtheprocessofadaptationofabeing(plant,animal,or whencetheiroffspringaremoresimilarincomparisontothe human)B,toanewenvironmentη, offspringoftheoriginalplacepopulation. — Bpartiallyevolves; 132 FlorentinSmarandache.IntroducingaTheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution Issue2(April) PROGRESSINPHYSICS Volume13(2017) — B partially devolves (involves, regresses, degene- 10 Several examples of evolution, involution, and inde- rates); terminacy(neutrality) — and B partially remainsindeterminate which means 10.1 Cormorantsexample neutral(unchanged),orambigous—i.e.notsureifitisevo- Let’staketheflightlesscormorants(Nannopterumharrisi)in lutionorinvolution. Gala´pagosIslands,theirwingsandtailhaveatrophied(hence Any action has a reaction. We see, thank to adaptation: devolved) due to their no need to fly (for they having no evolution, involution, and neutrality (indeterminacy), each predatorson the land), and because their permanentneed to oneofthesethreeneutrosophiccomponentsinsomedegree. diveonnear-shorebottomafterfish,octopi,eelsetc. Thedegreesofevolution/indeterminacy/involutionarere- Their avian breastbone vanished (involution), since no ferredtoboth: thestructureof B(itsbodyparts),andfunc- flyingmusclestosupportwereneeded. tionalityof B(functionalityofeachpart, orinter-functiona- But their neck got longer, their legs stronger, and their lityofthepartsamongeachother,orfunctionalityof Basa feetgothugewebbedisordertocatchfishunderwater(evo- whole). lution). Adaptation to new environment conditions means de- Yet,theflightlesscormorantskeptseveraloftheirances- adaptationfromtheoldenvironmentconditions. tors’habits(functionalityasawhole): makenests,hatchthe Evolutioninonedirectionmeansinvolutionintheoppo- eggsetc. (henceneutrality). sitedirection. Loosinginonedirection,onehastogaininanotherdirec- 10.2 Cosmosexample tioninordertosurvive(forequilibrium).Andreciprocally. Theastronauts,inspace,forextendedperiodoftimegetac- Aspecies,withrespecttoanenvironment,canbe: customedtolowornogravity(evolution),buttheylosebone — inequilibrium,disequilibrium,orindetermination; density(involution). Yetotherbodypartsdonotchange,or — stable,unstable,orindeterminate(ambiguousstate); ithasnotbeenfindoutsofar(neutrality/indeterminacy). — optimal,suboptimal,orindeterminate. 10.3 Exampleofevolutionandinvolution OnethereforehasaNeutrosophicTheoryofEvolution, Involution, and Indeterminacy (neutrality, or fluctuation Thewhalesevolvedwithrespecttotheirteethfrompig-like between Evolution and Involution). The evolution, the in- teethtocuspedteeth. Afterwards,thewhalesdevolvedfrom volution,andtheindeterminate-evolutiondependnotonlyon cuspedteethbacktoconicalteethwithoutcusps. naturalselection,butalsoonmanyotherfactorssuchas: ar- 10.4 Penguinexample tificialselection,friendsandenemies,badluckorgoodluck, weatherchange,environmentjunctureetc. The Gala´pagos Penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus) evolved from the Humboldt Penguin by shrinking its size at 35 cm high(adaptationbyinvolution)inordertobeabletostaycool 9 Dynamicityofthespecies intheequatorialsun. Ifthespeciesisinindeterminate(unclear,vague,ambiguous) statewithrespecttoitsenvironment,ittendstoconvergeto- 10.5 Frigatebirdsexample wardsoneextreme: TheGala´pagosFrigatebirdsarebirdsthatlosttheirabilityto — either to equilibrium/stability/optimality, or to dise- dive for food, since their feathers are not waterproof (invo- quilibrium/instability/suboptimalitywith respect to an envi- lution),buttheybecamemastersoffaster-and-maneuverable ronment; flyingbystealingfoodfromotherbirds,calledkleptoparasite — thereforethespecieseitherrisesupgraduallyorsud- feeding(evolution). denlybymutationtowardsequilibrium/stability/optimality; 10.6 ExampleofDarwin’sfinches — or the species deepsdown gradually or suddenly by mutation to disequilibrium/instability/suboptimality and The13Gala´pagosspeciesofDarwin’sFinchesmanifestvar- perish. ious degrees of evolution upon their beak, having different The attraction point in this neutrosophic dynamic sys- shapesandsizesforeachspeciesinordertogobbledifferent temis,ofcourse,thestateofequilibrium/stability/optimality. typesoffoods(henceevolution): But even in this state, the species is not fixed, it may get, — forcrackinghardseeds,athickbeak(groundfinch); duetonewconditionsoraccidents,toadegreeofdisequilib- — for insects, flowers and cacti, a long and slim beak rium/instability/suboptimality,andfromthisnewstate again (anotherfinchspecies). thestruggleonthelongwaybackofthespeciestoitsattrac- Besidestheirbeaks,thefincheslooksimilar,provingthey tionpoint. camefromacommonancestor(henceneutrality). FlorentinSmarandache.IntroducingaTheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution 133 Volume13(2017) PROGRESSINPHYSICS Issue2(April) If one experiments, let’s suppose one moves the thick- 12 RefinedNeutrosophicTheoryofEvolution beakgroundfinchesbacktoanenvironmentwithsoftseeds, Refined Neutrosophic Theory of Evolution is an extension whereitis notneededa thickbeak, thenthethick beakwill oftheneutrosophictheoryofevolution,whenthedegreesof atrophyand,intime,sinceitbecomeshardforthefinchesto evolution/indeterminacy/involutionareconsideredseparately usetheheavybeak,thethin-beakfincheswillprevail(hence withrespecttoeachbodypart,andwithrespecttoeachbody involution). part functionality, and with respect to the whole organism functionality. 10.7 ElNin˜oexample Professorofecology,ethology,andevolutionMartinWikel- 13 Openquestionsonevolution/neutrality/involution ski,fromtheUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign,has 13.1. Howtomeasurethedegreeofevolution,degreeofin- published in Nature a curious report, regardingdata he and volution,anddegreeofindeterminacy(neutrality)ofaspecies histeamcollectedaboutmarineiguanassince1987. During inagivenenvironmentandaspecifictimespan? the 1997–1998El Nin˜o, the marinealgae died, and because 13.2. Howtocomputethedegreeofsimilaritytoances- the lack of food, on one of the Gala´pagosislands some ma- tors,degreeofdissimilaritytoancestors,anddegreeofinde- rine iguanasshranka quarteroftheir length andlost half of terminatesimilarity-dissimilaritytoancestors? theirweight(adaptationbyinvolution). 13.3. ExperimentalQuestion. Let’s suppose that a par- After plentiful of food became available again, the ma- tial populationof species S movesfromenvironmentη to 1 1 rine iguanas grew back to their original length and weight a different environment η ; after a while, a new species S 2 2 (re-adaptationbyevolution). emerges by adaptation to η ; then a partial population S 2 2 [J.Smith,J.Brown,TheIncredibleShrinkingIguanas,in movesbackfromη toη ; willS evolveback(actuallyde- 2 1 2 Ecuador&TheGala´pagosIslands,MoonHandbook,Avalon volvetoS )? 1 Travel,p.325.] 13.4. Areallspeciesneededbynature,ortheyarrivedby accident? 10.8 Batexample 14 Conclusion The bats are the only mammals capable of naturally flying, duetothefactthattheirforelimbshavedevelopedintowebb- We haveintroducedforthefirst timethe conceptofNeutro- edwings(evolutionbytransformation). Butnavigatingand sophic Theory of Evolution, Indeterminacy (or Neutrality), foraging in the darkness, have caused their eyes’ function- andInvolution. ality to diminish (involution), yet the bats “see” with their Foreachbeing,duringalongtimespan,thereisaprocess ears(evolutionbytransformation)usingtheecholocation(or of partial evolution, partial indeterminacy or neutrality, and thebiosonar)inthefollowingway: thebatsemitsoundsby partial involution with respect to the being body parts and mouth (one emitter), and their ears receive echoes (two re- functionalities. ceivers); the time delay (between emission and reception of The functioncreates the organ. The lack of organfunc- thesound)andtherelativeintensityofthereceivedsoundgive tioning,bringsatrophytotheorgan. tothebatsinformationaboutthedistance,direction,sizeand Inordertosurvive,thebeinghastoadapt.Onehasadap- typeofanimalinitsenvironment. tation by evolution, or adaptation by involution — as many examples have been provided in this paper. The being par- 10.9 Moleexample tially evolves, partially devolves, and partially remains un- changed(fixed)oritsprocessofevolution-involutionisinde- For the moles, mammals that live underground, their eyes terminate. There are species partially adapted and partially andearshavedegeneratedandbecomeminusculesincetheir strugglingtoadapt. functions are not much needed (hence adaptation by invo- lution), yettheir forelimbsbecamemorepowerfuland their References pawslargerforbetterdigging(adaptationbyevolution). 1. Barbieri M. The Semantic Theory of Evolution. Chur, Switzerland, 1985. 11 Neutrosophicselection 2. Cairns-SmithA.G.TheOriginofLifeandtheNatureofPrimitiveGene. Neutrosophicselectionwithrespecttoapopulationofaspe- JournalofTheoreticalBiology,1966,v.X,53–88. ciesmeansthatoveraspecifictimespanapercentageofitsin- 3. EigenM.andSchusterP.TheHypercycle.APrincipleofNaturalSelf- dividualsevolve, another percentageof individualsdevolve, Organization.Naturwissenschaften,1977,v.LXIV,541–565. and a third category of individuals do not change or their 4. LamarckJ.B.ZoologicalPhilosophy.1809. changeisindeterminate(notknowingifitisevolutionorin- 5. ReaderJ.TheRiseofLife.NewYork,1988 volution). We may have a natural or artificial neutrosophic 6. SoberE.TheNatureofSelection.Cambridge,MA,1984. selection. 7. KohnD.TheDarwinianHeritage.Princeton,NJ,1985. 134 FlorentinSmarandache.IntroducingaTheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution Issue2(April) PROGRESSINPHYSICS Volume13(2017) 8. EldredgeN.LifePulse:EpisodesfromtheStoryoftheFossilRecord. 18. EldredgeN.UnfinishedSynthesis.OxfrdUniv.Press,Oxford,1985. NewYork,1987. 19. EreshefskyM.TheUnitsofEvolution:EssaysontheNatureofSpecies. 9. WallaceA.R.Darwinism:AnExpositionoftheTheoryofNaturalSe- Cambridge,Massachusetts,1992. lectionwithSomeofitsApplicationsMacMillan,London,1889. 20. JoravskyD.TheLysenkoAffair.Cambridge,Massachusetts,1970. 10. BrownJ.Biogeography.St.Louis,MO,1983. 21. MagillF.Magill’sSurveyofScience: LifeScienceSeries.Englewood 11. DelsonE.Ancestors:TheHardEvidence.NewYork,1985. Cliffs,NJ,1991. 12. Bowler P. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley, California, 22. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia. 3rd Edition, The Gale Group, Inc., 1984. 2010. 13. OlbyR.TheOriginsofMendelism.London-Chicago,1985. 23. LinfanMao.Biologicaln-SystemwithGlobalStability.International 14. WeismannA.TheGermPlasm:ATheoryofHeredity.London,1893. ConferenceonApplicationsofMathematicsinTopologicalDynamics, Section: “Physics,BiologicalandChemicalSystems”,Kolkata,India, 15. deVriesH.Mutationstheorie[MutationTheory].Leipzig.VeitundCo. December9–11,2016. 1901&1903. 24. SmarandacheF.Gala´pagossauTinutulBroastelorTestoaseGigantice: 16. MilnerR.TheEncyclopedia ofEvolution: Humanity’sSearchforits , , , TeoriaNeutrosofica˘aEvolutiei.EdituraAgora,Sibiu,2017. Origins.NewYork,1987. , 17. HitchingF.TheNeckoftheGiraffe:WhereDarwinWentWrong.New Haven,Connecticut,1987. FlorentinSmarandache.IntroducingaTheoryofNeutrosophicEvolution 135