The idea that conscience or experience controls genetics and
inheritance of traits was adopted prior to Darwin and championed by
Lamark. There is no evidence that it is true. As bizarre as it may
seem to some, random mutation coupled with selection does have the
power to select for traits that are adaptive like the butterfly wings
with eyes. There are lots of other traits every species carries that
are not adaptive, at least in the current environment. You argue
that mutation could not be the source of such variation because it
would be too "work consuming." But, given time in thousands of
generations, and selection, mutation would have enough time to do the
work. On a short time scale this cannot work, but on the long-term
it can.


--- In geneticsandevolutionclub@yahoogroups.com, "anna_rozlyn"
<anna_rozlyn@y...> wrote:
> --- In geneticsandevolutionclub@yahoogroups.com, "cristi_t.geo"
> <cristian.tota@v...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > What is the process that updates the genetic code of an organism
> in
> > order to increase its adaptability to the environment?
> >
> > This process is present in any living organism, but here are a
few
> > examples, to let you know what I'm referring to: a butterfly that
> has
> > eye-like circles on its wings, to give predators the impression
of
> a
> > snake / lizard. A snake that has the skin pattern/color of the
> > ground, to make it less detectable. An insect that has the
> appearance
> > of the plant it's living on. A fish that has a thorn on its
> forehead,
> > which prevents it from being swollen down by a bigger fish.
> >
> > I exclude the possibility of random changes in the genetic code
> that
> > eventually lead to the best configuration of genes. This theory
> > appears to be to inconsistent with any physical process in the
> > universe, that we know of. It seems too work-consuming.
> >
> > So, excluding randomness, it appears that for any given
> environment,
> > the genetic code of any organism "knows" to constantly update
> itself
> > to bring future organisms closer to the best body structure for
> > surviving that environmental conditions. This happens independent
> of
> > the _rational_ awareness of the organism. For the fish example,
it
> > seems that the genetic code knew how to modify itself so that a
> thorn
> > grows on the head of the fish, which will help him survive that
> > particular threat, of being eaten by a particular species of
> bigger
> > fish.
> >
> > It appears that the conscience of the creature it the one that
> > controls the genetic configuration (not its rational mind, but
> some
> > other form of its awareness). The fish _wants_ to have a defense
> > against this threat. As a result, over many generations, the
> genetic
> > code modifies itself according to its will. It's as if the
genetic
> > structure is directly subordinated to the necessities of its
> > conscience.
> >
> > How are you thoughts on this matter? I'd love to read debates on
> this
> > subject.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Cristian
>
>
> Cristian,
> We cannot extract randomness from the equation. Nor can we say
that
> genetic code modifies itself according to will. It is random,
> however one can expect genetic mutations at 'regular'
> intervals...some are adaptable, other's not. There is no rational
> motivation for the organism, any more than there is rational
> physical processes in our universe.
>
> ~anne rozlyn~