The theory of evolution

We see evolution based on the trial-and-error process of diversity and natural selection of systems at all levels of complexity. 
The name "natural selection" comes from the Darwinian theory of biological evolution, which distinguishes "natural" selection from "artificial" selection, in which certain characteristics are preserved or disposed of depending on the goal or intention (such as the goal of livestock) the desire to obtain cows that produce more milk). 
The “implicit goal” of natural selection is to keep a composition or reproduce it at some level of abstraction. 
The choice is natural in the sense that no representative or purposeful system makes the selection. 
The option we are discussing is automatic or purely automatic, without plan or design.
Development usually leads to more complexity, although one must be careful in how complexity is defined.

Choice or self-regulation?

Many criticisms have been criticized against the Darwinian view of evolution.
We will not discuss the criticism that indicates here that there are designs or plans that direct evolution, but we focus on a recent increase in people, many of whom are related to the movement of systems, who say that natural selection must be supplemented by self - regulation in order to explain evolution. (See, for example, Jantsch, 1979; Kauffman, 1993; Swenson, 19).
However, we must not confuse Darwinian evolution with the general principle of natural selection.
A narrow or specific interpretation of Darwinism sees evolution as a result of choosing an environment that operates over a group of organisms competing for resources.
The winners of the competition will be chosen, and they are best suited for obtaining resources for survival and reproduction, and others are excluded.

 Even when we are stripped of the fact that we are talking about "living things", this view of evolution has strong limitations:

  1.  It is assumed that there are many "configurations" configurations that are subject to selection;
  2.  Selection is assumed to be made through their common environment.
As Swenson (19) points out, he cannot explain the development of "one society".
In our present interpretation, more generally, there is no need to compete between simultaneous present configurations.

 A formation can be identified or disposed of independently of the presence of other configurations: 

one system can pass through a series of configurations, some of which are preserved while others are disposed of (see selective retention principle).
 The only "competition" involved is between countries that follow the same system. This choice can be "normal".
More importantly, this choice does not in any way presume the existence of an external training environment subject to limitation.
It is easy to imagine stable or intrinsically unstable formations.
 A cloud of gas molecules will spread in a vacuum (that is, an "empty" environment) independently of any external forces. The crystal in the same vacuum will maintain its solid crystal structure.
The first configuration (cloud) is eliminated, and the second preserves.
The stability of the structure, which acts as a criterion of choice, is purely internal to composition: no external forces or pressures are necessary to explain it.
In such cases, the determination is inherent in the configuration itself, and an asymmetric transition from a variable to a constant may be called "self-organizing".
In the current presentation, "natural selection" includes both external and Darwinian choice and internal choice "self-organization."