1) Methodology

Biological sciences are characterized, historically, by a teleological tradition which impregnate all their concepts. The biological terminology entirely consists of words and concepts which underline a utility, i.e. a finality, and, in last analysis, a judgment of value. Organs, functions, advantages are not neutral terms on a scientific basis. They are made of a subjective and anthropomorphic a priori. If the biological phenomena are quite specific, it would be apparently a serious presumption to consider that they are of different nature from the other phenomena and thus to break the natural laws unit. To speak thus " about the production of the higher animals " (Darwin 1859) appears inadequate according to contemporary scientific criteria (Gould 1982). It seems more relevant and rigorous of speaking about more or less complex organisms. Would one say of a uranium atom that it has a higher organization than that of hydrogen? In the same way, it does not seem neutral to establish a finalist hierarchy between, for example, a procaryotic cell and a catarrhinian Primate. We thus endeavour to avoid, in our work, to interpret the biological data in an anthropomorphic direction and rather prefer to speak of material properties than of organs functions or roles. This view point is not new but it seems impossible to circumvent if one wants to escape the drift which results in regarding Homo sapiens sapiens as the biological evolution success (Teilhard de Chardin 1955). We thus postulate the need for the neutrality of the biological concepts.

2)     Biological evolution : report and causality

The biological evolution fact gathers today the near total biologists consensus, his current dominant explanation, the S.T.E. (Synthetic Theory of the Evolution), is not unanimously accepted. We will not enter in detail of this Darwinism contemporary theory and the various contributions which it integrated : the molecular genetics; populations genetics (Provine 1971); molecular biology (Monod 1970); the neutral theory (Kimura 1990); genetic drifts; punctuated balances (Elredge, Gould 1972); etc... We will retain only two fundamental elements of the theory: random genetic mutations and sorting, by the natural selection, among those which are favorable to gene or the species (Dawkins 1990). In spite of its partisans vigorous denials (Mayr 1993), the synthetic theory remains a finalist theory. The genes, the individuals or the species most suited survival, thanks to the favorable variations natural selection, even if it is the a random genetic variation result, is a utilitarian and finalist design.

We will not extend on criticisms addressed to the synthetic theory. They are summarized, in general, in the observation that, if this one can account for the microevolution, either by phyletic gradualism, or by punctuated balances, it is impotent to explain the macro one and the megaevolution. On another side, the independence preached by the theory between the genome and the cytoplasm are not satisfactory. The cellular core is in permanent interaction with the cytoplasm. Molecular (Genevès 1988) and cellular biology (Fain-Maurel 1991) indicates to us that the cell is a place of matter, energy and information permanent exchanges in which all the cellular organoids take part, as well nuclear as cytoplasmic (chromatin, nucleoles, mitochondries, Golgi apparatus, R.E.R. S.E.R., etc...). In addition, the fundamental concept of the purely random genetic mutations was amended, these last years, by a certain number of molecular genetics experiments or observations: colon bacilli abnormally high mutations able to metabolize lactose in a stock unable to be nourished some (Cairns, Overbaugh, Miller 1988), similar experiment on the bacteria Escherichia coli with respect to salicin (Barry Hall, Rochester), mitochondrial D.N.A. and mitochondrial mutations existence, probable interactions between D.N.A. mitochondrial and nuclear D.N.A. at the mitosis final stage (telophase) (Allorge-Boiteau 1991), transcriptase opposite transforming the R.N.A. of certain viruses in D.N.A., external factors action in the genes form (sex determination in many reptiles by the eggs incubation temperature), etc...

If we apply our neutrality necessary postulate of the biological concepts, we note immediately that the synthetic theory is in formal contradiction with this one. The organisms adaptation by the favorable variations, thanks to the natural selection, is a concept which does not have rigorous scientific neutrality. Indeed, to allot to a genetic mutation an " advantageous " character for an organism, perennialized by the natural selection pressure, is a judgment of value. A strictly scientific attitude cannot accept that. We will reconsider, in our conclusions, the objective interpretation that the probabilistic model proposes for the T.S.E " advantages " and adaptation. In accordance with our conceptual neutrality postulate, we cannot grant heuristic value to a theory which rests on judgments of value.

The synthetic theory and the Darwinism assets, to date, are nevertheless considerable. To deny them would be inconsiderate. The author proposes a neutralist interpretation of evolutionary phenomena highlighted by the Darwinism and modelized in a finalist direction. The probabilistic model suggested is not an anti-darwiniste model. It is a post-darwinist model.

3)    Living material environment and composition

Let us compare the current chemical compositions on the earth's atmosphere (on 20 km), the earth's crust (on 15 km), the hydrosphere and the living material (Roubault 1949):

Other sources (Watt, Bernice and Merrill, 1963) give slightly different figures for the living material. They indicate a 95 % percentage for elements O, H, C and N, the elements Ca, P, K and S would be the most widespread following elements.

It is noted that the nine chemical elements which are most widespread in the composition of living organisms are, roughly, the most abundant elements, that is to say in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere or the earth's crust (in particular O and H), except for phosphorus. This observation, far from being fortuitous or commonplace, has a major significance and is not without consequences. Among the chemical elements, some play a role whose importance is not measured with the mass. They are, for example, mineral salts, trace elements, as iodine, boron, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, etc... or phosphorus in the nucleic acids. From these fundamental bricks, the living material works out complex organic compounds, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleotides, amino- acids, D.N.A., R.N.A., etc... One can observe, on this subject, that the marine Invertebrates majority and some marine Vertebrates (Myxinidae, Coelacanths, Chondrichthyes) are osmoconform (Turquier 1994).

If one observes a convergence, if not a parallelism, between the chemical elements presence and abundance on the ground surface and the current composition of the living beings, many other factors intervene in the biomass structure and evolution, the temperatures (with the glaciations and the drynesses), the oceanic levels and communications, the continental drift and orogeny, the maritime transgressions and regressions, the numerous ecological factors (terrestrial, lake, fluviatile, neritic, benthic, marshy ecosystems etc...), the aerobic or anaerobic media. The chemical or physical medium parameters, with the more or less intense action, can be regarded as stimuli to which correspond the histological, physiological, biochemical answers, etc... specialized in the organisms: electromagnetic waves/vision, chlorophyll, chromatophores, pigments (melanin, retina purple...); pheromones and olfactory molecules/sense of smell; vibrations and soundwaves/hearing; chemical savours/papillae, tarsus, barbels, contacts/touch; but also calcium/endoskeleton and exoskeleton; hydrospheric oxygen/external or internal gills; atmospheric oxygen/lungs, tracheae; etc... This list is not exhaustive. One can add to it, inter alia, terrestrial magnetism and gravity, the hydraulic pressures, the electric fields, etc... One can define the whole of all these factors by the environmental conditions or more simply environment terms.

The organisms are in phase with their environment various components, as we noted for their chemical composition. The fact that the human eyes are most sensitive to the light waves located between 400 and 800 nms whereas the solar radiations maximum intensity, on our planet, is within this limit, is not fortuitous. This parallelism between environment and biomass, if it is constant, is not univocal. If the living material has properties in connection with the environment (pulmonary or gills tissues, sensory tissues...), it has others without direct connection of them (reproductive, support, nervous tissues...). It is noted that the biodiversity is at the same time very dependent in its structure and its composition of its environment (chemical, physical, biochemical, ecological, etc...) and relatively autonomous in certain great properties (tissue systems specialized in the locomotion - podal or apodal -, internal communication system, reproductive system, excretion, defense system ), etc...

4)    A probabilistic interaction environment / organisms model

Between the environment complexity and that of the organisms, the interaction is permanent. A nascent discipline, the geobiology, studies the organisms influence on the environment and vice versa (A.H. Knoll and J.M. Hayes 1997). We pointed out that the chemical, physical, biological, morphological constitution... of the organisms reflects, more or less accurately, the characteristics of the environment. The interaction organisms/environment thus depends at the same time on the first specific properties and the second various parameters. All the sciences of the earth (geology, paleontology, volcanicity, magnetism, etc...) testify to the environment evolution, concretized by the great geological eras. Correlatively, the living material evolved from the Precambrian to nowadays. This evolutionary diagram receives the consensus of the whole scientific community. Where the opinions diverge, it is on the biological evolution cause or mechanism. We saw the reason why we oppose the predominant theory , the S.T.E. We propose a different approach, founded on objective, neutral criteria, without anthropomorphic or finalist presupposes. We call, for that, upon the mathematical probability concept.

It is not the place here to discuss the probability concept, defined sometimes like subjective, sometimes like objective. We will retain only the application of the theory of probability as a mathematical model of the production chances of an " event " and its base, the Jacques Bernoulli law of great figures(1680) (Dupont, Fleury 1985). Summarily translated, this law expresses that the events, whose probability or chances are very weak, do not occur and, vice versa, those whose probability or chances are high occur (Emile Borel typists monkeys example, Boursin 1986). If one takes the example of a coin thrown in the air, the chances to see the pile side appear are 1/2. In a dice case , the probability of seeing each face appear is 1/6. The physical or chemical constitution of the coin or the dice , the jet height and duration, etc..., play a negligible role in the jet result. The probability thus arises, among the whole causes or conditions, like a strong but nonabsolute causality factor. Applied to the biology problem, the probability theory singularly clarifies the correlations which we noted between the environment various factors and their organic correspondence (biochemistry, morphology, sensory tissues, etc...). According to the probability theory, the most probable " events " occur. We thus propose, in accordance with the preceding observations, that the current constitution of the living organisms is the most probable interaction result, statistically, between the environment stimuli and the living matter specific properties (biochemical, anatomical, behavioral, etc...). As the environment has evolved, in its complexity, since the Precambrian one, the most probable interaction result would also be the evolution of the living organisms.