The problem with this argument though, is that the most puzzling transition in evolution was not beyond 100%. Rather, before sex evolved, duplicates passed on 100% of genes, but using sex, parents pass on only 50% of genes. Despite claims that this has been solved, no one has ever proven how a 50% loss of frequency was a gain over 100%, before sex evolved. The new model might not seem able to solve it either, but look again at the shape of the surface in Fig 0.2.
To explain, we suppose that if a gene ascends the first cellular peak to 100%, and then migrates into new populations that descend from the originating one, we assume that a gene at 100% in a first population stays at 100% in the next populations after that. As fact, some genes, such as for histones, or ubiquitin, descend that way. Another fact though (it needs verifying) is that all genes to descend 100% for their full length only do it after sex evolved. Prior to sex, only sub-genetic lengths of full genes can become 100% distributed, or ancient genes, mostly of RNA, which show evidence of being 'horizontally' transferred across life. It infers that full-length genes cannot migrate from 100% on the first peak and then across to the far slope of Fig 0.2, except via the use of sex.
Fig 0.2 might reveal the problem. In a standard model of evolution, in Fig 0.1, a gene can gain 100% frequency in 100% time, at no penalty. Yet in Fig 0.2, notice, with two pathways, there is a penalty. If a gene ascends 100% on the first peak it becomes trapped, and cannot migrate to the far slope without descending to cross a "valley" between the peak and the slope. Of course, no textbook admits there can be a valley, but a peak is unavoidable graphically (try it) from two growth curves, if one curve ends in a peak, and the other ends on in a slope. Besides, there are ways to cross the valley, which might solve several mysteries.
The first way that a gene can cross from the peak to the slope is by 'horizontal' transfer. This will appear in Fig 0.2, as if the gene leaves the surface and simply leaps across empty space (as if in hyperspace). I will later explain why it is this way, but it occurred extensively in early life. The other way across, is not to ascend the peak all the way up. Notice, a gene could avoid crossing the valley where it is deep, if the gene stopped halfway up to the cellular peak, and crossed on a flatter part of the slope. Later, I show another diagram of why a gene would stop at exactly 50% along the front curve. I will also propose tests of molecular distribution, from before until after the transition to sex, which can test independently if this is the correct explanation.
Even then, the peak, valley, and slope in Fig 0.2, is not intended to explain each biological detail of sex, or nullify other theories about its advantages. There were many steps to the evolution of sex, the book will explain. Instead, before we even come to sex, the first paradox to resolve in evolution is how the gene can gain frequency, and the model can keep running, beyond 100% limits. Without this, you cannot even prove how life evolved from non-life. The method of two pathways of selection can solve this puzzle. As correlation, this method also seems able to solve the paradox over the evolution of sex. It might also explain horizontal gene exchange, and other effects leading to sex.
