**3. Coevolution in biology**

The term "coevolution" refers to the mutually reinforcing evolutionary changes brought about by encounters between different species, and can apply to both genetic and memetic replication. The strength of natural selection is proportional to the strength of the relationship between fitness and the value of the trait.

It is possible to keep the discussion of coevolution at the level of biological species and even expand it to include social areas. Coevolutionary insights have a hundred-year history. Kropotkin's theory of evolution [11], based on interspecies cooperation, provides a solid paradigmatic foundation for coevolutionary studies. To investigate coevolution in mutualistic networks, Guimarães et al. [12] integrated data from 20 plant-animal assemblages with a trait evolution model. According to his findings, species-rich mutualisms show three basic characteristics of coevolutionary significance. First, the coevolution of species within mutualistic networks accelerates the rate of evolution, which has an impact on the changing characteristics of these species. Second, coevolution causes traits of species within the same trophic level to converge and interact with one another more often. Thirdly, the presence of super-generalist species, or species that interact with multiple groups of species, is correlated with greater levels of convergence. These conclusions are similar to the conclusions of General Evolution Theory proposed by Csányi and Kampis [13], whose Dynamical Replicative Network Theory identifies a transition from the predominance of parametric information to the expansion of functional information of constituent parts of the interacting coevolutionary compartments.

Paleobiologists use phylogenetic analyses of extant species to probe long-term, macroevolutionary processes of coevolution. Population genetics, quantitative genetics, and optimality theory are all used in computational and mathematical models of coevolutionary processes within populations and species.

Eco-evolutionary research also focuses on more distant forms of coevolution, such as gene-for-gene and diffuse coevolution, in addition to more direct forms of coevolution, such as paired coevolution (or specific coevolution). Diffuse coevolution (sometimes called "guild" coevolution) refers to evolutionary reactions among groups of organisms that are mutually advantageous. This type of coevolution highlights how many species exert complex sets of selective pressures on most species, and how the evolutionary responses of certain species change the conditions under which other species evolve.

Correspondence between genes in different species is an example of gene-for-gene coevolution, sometimes known as "matching gene" coevolution. In his detailed paper,

Domingo [14] talks about the ways that organisms and their pathogens change each other and adapt as a result of their interactions as biological systems that have shared space for a long time. At the macroecological level, we also find coevolutionary rules guiding complex ecosystems, whereas host-parasitic, microbial, or viral interactions open the coevolutionary theater of the microworld.

Thompson and Cunningham [15] say that coevolution, which they define as the mutual adaptation of organisms that interact with each other, shows important processes that link the genomes of interacting species to organize biodiversity and make more diversity through coevolutionary selection, which makes memes and genes coevolve.

A single extended genetic/memetic coevolutionary framework could be used to explain both biological and cultural evolution if we apply these ideas from biological ecosystems to human ecological phenomena. We can employ Dawkins' [16] terminology to discuss memetic evolution. He stated that we "*need a word for the new replicator, a noun that expresses the idea of a unit of cultural transmission or a unit of imitation. Memes can be songs, phrases, catchphrases, trends in clothing, or even techniques for producing pots or constructing arches."* Memes, according to Blackmore [17], are "*anything that is repeated with variation from one person to another, including behaviors, talents, songs, stories, and other types of information*." Roland Barthes used the similar term "*narreme*" to describe the narrative of a memetic bundle.

Additionally, this replication process raises the possibility of variation, distortion, and other memetic "mutations." Theories, dogmas, and canonized conceptions may represent a form of climax state for meme complex constituents. Velikovsky [18], similarly to Kuhn's scientific paradigm model, thinks of the periods of consolidation and elaboration as part of the ongoing knowl¬edge evolution, where, according to DiCarlo, the consolidation of memetic patterns, a memetic equilibrium mirroring adapational success, emerges as a result of solving environmental problems, which might lead to rigidity and canonized orthodoxy sometimes [19].

Cultural change, the progress of discourses, and technological inventions are results of mutations of memetic evolution, emerging from repetitions and replications, memetic transfers. Nevertheless, the diverse memetic patterns at the level of personal memetic interactions generate a convergent order in the given culture [20]. Memes (embodied in the technological sector, social discourses and institutions, and art, science, and religion, among other things) emerge as a result of the interaction of three types: copies, variation, and competition for survival. Languages, scientific theories, technological know-hows, laws, religions, books, movies, songs, and other cultural artifacts might be seen as memeplexes, or co-adapted meme complexes, which are replicated and transferred together. According to the information provided, isolated, interbreeding, and local social subpopulations may carry spherical cultural meme patterns. If we borrow a phrase from biology, the so-called "*deme,"* they are selected as a group-level unit rather than at the level of an individual. Under intense pressure from the economy, technology, or politics, the memetic patterns (clothing, customs, belief systems, rituals, and religion) of such a local population unit (*"deme"* signifying the population of a village or a tribe) may change quickly.

Genetic and epigenetic transfers are also responsible for creating information interfaces between genes and memes. Issues of evolutionary psychology, like cognitive, affective, and moral abilities, might also be seen as consequences of the coevolutionary dynamics of genes and memes, where culture influences selection for genetic patterns and diverse pools of human genomes enable successful biological and cultural adaptation [20]. The evolution of speech physiology and face communication

#### *Coevolutionary Dynamism of Man-Environment-Organism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112881*

is a striking illustration of how genes and culture can coevolve in a natural and infospherical way. Genetic modifications that make speech easier to produce have been rewarded by the growing social significance of communication in human society. Early humans developed new areas of the motor cortex to help with speech production. The development of speech reflects a coevolution with the technosphere and sociosphere, and forming speech communities as demes, influences the evolution of different socio-biological communities, as well. This way, coevolution shapes the features of the particular M-E-Os.

In the era of genomics, Richerson and Boyd [21] provided a fresh perspective on the coevolution of genes and cultures. Various memetic areas, including the scientific infosphere, the technosphere, the sociosphere, and the environment itself, are all included in this framework. Their paradigm encourages us to update our interpretative framework and provides flexibility for the M-E-O notion to be adapted to coevolutionary discourse. Genes typically change more slowly than culture does, resulting in unique contexts that subject genes to fresh forms of selection pressure. As a result of the altered contexts that cultural innovations have generated, many human genes that have been demonstrated to be under recent or current selection are changing. One change caused by the rise of agricultural subsistence is the spread of sickle cell and G6PD deficiency genes that protect against malaria in local farmers who live in endemic zones of wetland areas full of insects that spread malaria. It is also conceivable that genetic change is happening in reaction to the unique social context of modern societies. In a similar way, some mother-child rearing practices might cause early traumatic experiences that influence adult attachment styles to significant others, including persons, organizations, or cultural patterns, leading to diverse social epigenetic consequences such as mothering style and stress-biological resilience [22].
