Self Directed Mutation
It is possible for life to direct its own mutations.
(ScienceNouveau.com)
and
(Michael R. Rose's Mistakes)
January 6, 2006
Last update March 30, 2008
One of the great mysteries regarding the theory of evolution is found lurking behind
these questions: how many mutations does it take before one mutation can be reproduced?
And is a mutation called fit simply by something making a copy of it - is it "fit" by that definition alone?
Need the mutant copy even be helpful? The mystery of the fit mutation does not seem to matter to evolutionary theory.
Darwin said every individual is a mutation, so, given that all reproducing beings are mutants,
I suspect a large majority of mutations are easily passed on.
Is it not therefore possible
to find "imperfections" of every conceivable kind passed on to future
generations, even those which could eventually cause that species' extinction
and yet for a hundred generations it may have no survival effect whatsoever? Of course this happens and it
happens all the time; these are labeled innocuous factors so as not to deal with the issue.
What's worse is the huge amount of old DNA that gets passed on no matter how fit the host is.
What are all these freeloading genes doing riding on the "adaptive" gene's coattails?
According to today's evolutionists we are all just working for the genes, but genes seem to be too
lazy to be doing anything like "directing" their survival.
The whole situation also makes the idea of natural selection, as a designing process, irrelevant
and ineffectual: if there is no way to stop the "drift" from
freeloading and copying itself endlessly then there is not much point in waiting for all
malevolent genes to be weeded out. But evolutionists still think success is defined
by reproduction and the copying of genes (or, like Richard Dawkins miscomprehension of the drift problem, by
an obvious and immediate use of mutations) and this evolutionary definition of
success absurdly makes the fittest out of anything and makes the unfittest out
of countless individually successful beings who do not reproduce.
There is another problem: as mutation is such a persistent and regular
feature of life, how is it some beings often called
'living fossils'
(like horseshoe crabs) can remain entirely
the same in design over hundreds of millions of years with no mutant offshoot to speak of? The relevance of
constant random mutation would mean
no form of being could remain the same in design over any length of time - anymore than a rumour can
be passed around and remain the same. Something must be keeping it the same.
There is another possible way to have mutations and it is much
more useful: that is the effect of conscious thought on genetic inheritance.
Today there is enough evidence to conclude that
some effects of experience can be inherited.
Epi-genetic
research has shown that
the turning on and off of genes
can be manipulated by diet and chemicals and that these "genetic" changes,
these
learned genetic effects, can be passed on to future offspring.
However, what I propose -- that conscious thought too can effect the DNA of one's own next generation --
has only circumstantial evidence to suggest it, but it is strong.
I will add here that at
least it is a more fast acting and virile theory than random mutation with
natural selection alone. I will lead up to the reason why this concept is possible.
Unconscious direction of bodily functions is always with us; from digestion to
brain functions, we cannot participate
in the control of everything we consciously want to do, so we need unconscious
manipulations from our mind to make everything work.
The chameleon abilities is a superficial form of this
idea. The human face is another example - our emotions are expressed
exactly
by muscles we don't consciously control or understand.
In all kinds of ways an individual being cannot nor should
not operate every aspect of his own body. (Just think of the sports
figure in a slump. He is usually thinking too much. When he relaxes
and forgets about his tasks his skills improve.) There are things
out of everyone's conscious control that are better off that way.
There is also the phenomenon exemplified by hysterical symptoms. Just by consciously understanding
what physical symptoms are expected - under certain medical conditions - an individual can unconsciously control vast
numbers of cells and body parts in order to mimic the colour, shape and texture of the specific
expected conditions. Stigmata and hysterical pregnancy are such cases. How such minute control is
possible has never been explained scientifically, but this is further proof of an unconscious
power over the body that is influenced by conscious thought.
Clown fish change sex from male to female when it realizes that a female of in group is missing. There is also the
African Cichlid Fish
which changes genetically and changes its form significantly
when it consciously recognizes a change in its
political situation. It not only puts on a new "uniform" it changes into another being entirely; if we
were using DNA fingerprinting to identify a culprit we could not match up the before and after version.
The unconscious abilities to morph superficially
and genetically means organic selection and human engineering are not the
only ways to "evolve". Even though this case does not involve reproduction
there is no reason why it may not indicate such a possible method, as in the following example.
A lioness's conscious thought can turn on the reproductive system. Lionesses will receive
sexual advances only when they know they have no litter alive to care for.
Male Lions know this and so kill a litter so they can have the sexual
spoils that go with such murders.
An important factor that suggests the possibility of self-directing mutations is
the issue of
transposons,
or jumping genes. In mid-life a genetic mutation is very common with up to forty-five
percent of the human genome made up of them. In other words nothing says within the genome that
self-directing a mutation is impossible.........
continue....
Self Directed Mutation
It is possible for life to direct its own mutations.