Evolution Without Randomness
Thesis: Nothing is truly 'random'. Therefore genetic change must be determined by some other mechanism.
The proposed mechanism is environmental feedback, derived from the perceptions of the parents, which informs the reproductive system on what type of offspring would be best suited to the environment...
In other words, I'm suggesting that Evolution is not a "Blind Watchmaker", it's a Partially-Sighted one...
This is a fundamental revision of Darwinianism which removes the anti-scientific notion of 'random' completely, and replaces it with a far more rational mechanism, which fits the available data better.
Natural Selection: Definition
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. Link
So: the individuals with the most 'fit' genes will produce most offspring, and so those genes would proliferate. Those with deleterious mutations would do less well, and produce less offspring, or none...
It requires: a) Large numbers of individuals, b) a variety of genotypes to select from (diversity), c) many generations & lots of time.
It states that the offspring of a union are a *random* combination of the parent's genes, and this is where I disagree because it goes against all we know about nature.
There is no evidence that any process in nature is truly random.
During meiosis, the pairs of homologous chromosome are divided in half to form haploid cells, and this separation, or assortment, of homologous chromosomes is random.
I have a BSc in Biology, so I've studied evolutionary theory, and I believed it fairly wholeheartedly until about ten years ago. But I started to doubt the official account of history, the circular methods used to date things, and other things the theory relies on...
I'm not going to go into the details here, maybe later...
Looking at all the evidence, and not just the officially-sanctioned, heavily-censored evidence, it seems the timescales Darwinian Natural Selection requires just aren't there.
The lack of fossil-record evidence for evolution is also a factor... Darwin proposed gradualism - a gradual change between forms, so there should be clear links between ancestral & modern species. But fossil evidence for this has never been found, so the current theory is "puncuated equilibrium". But this removes the foundational mechanism of Darwinism: Having plenty of time to weed out the bad mutations.
I don't doubt that Natural-Selection happens, but the theory as it stands is incomplete...
Can Randomness Be Creative Enough?
The mechanisms of horizontal-gene transfer, e.g. through viruses as a communication medium, are interesting... I came across a study on a spider which was the same colour as the plant it lived on, and when sequenced they found the genes it used for colouring it's skin were identical to those the plant used... (I can't find it now...)
So, how did the spider get the same genes as the plant?
I became uncomfortable with the idea that random mutations could actually create the necessary *functional* diversity necessary for evolution. I.e. random mutations tend to degrade the genome, not enhance it. They don't tend to create new functional structures. Some beneficial mutations require leaps of complexity that I felt randomness would struggle to produce.
It came to think it a bit odd, that the essential creative process of reproduction would rely on pure-chance to determine it's output. Random-chance is going to produce an awful lot of failures... Surely that's a terrible survival strategy, with a huge cost? Couldn't there be a slightly more intelligent process going on, that at least attempted to produce fit-offspring? That would waste far fewer resources, and thus make much more sense...
'Random' Isn't Science
I realised, one day, that the concept of "random chance" is not scientifically-valid.
The "scientific" term is "acausal", but it's actually the antithesis (the exact opposite) of science... The concept of acausality is a pure invention of ideological-atheists, created as a poor attempt to remove God from the reality-equation. Only atheists subscribe to this notion, and they do it for ideology, not for science. It's completely illogical.
“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
Evolution and Quantum Mechanics are both supposed to include acuasal phenomena: Random gene mutation, and radioactive decay are both considered acausal.
"There is no cause that triggers the nucleus of a radioactive atom such as uranium 235 to split apart and release energy in radioactive decay"
To have an effect without a cause is equivalent to getting something from nothing. We don't observe this happening in reality, in fact it's an axiomatic fact of reality that you cannot get something from nothing. In science it's called the First Law of Thermodynamics, or the principle of Conservation of Energy.
Science is founded on the assumption that all effects have causes. All science is concerned with cause-and-effect. If things were genuinely acausal, it would literally break science. It would mean the foundation of science is an illusion, and so all science is false and a mere vanity project of the human imagination. If acausality is true, it means science is false.
Acausality is unprovable. There could always be an underlying mechanism we don't know about, and science requires that there always will be... Science is the study of cause and effect. If you remove the cause, it's no longer science, it's magic.
Consider: Acausal = Unknowable.
If something has 'no cause', is unknowable, it's beyond the scope of science. It's where science stops. It can never be predicted, or studied, mapped, or described in any way whatsoever... Science is about obtaining knowledge, but if something has no cause, there is no knowledge to be obtained. It's a "black-box" - an eternal mystery.
"Random" has no place in science. It is the Antithesis of science.
'Random': The Blind God
'Acausal' is logically equivalent to an unintelligent God. If 'random' can somehow affect our universe, cause evolution, underly matter creation etc., but without being part of it (i.e. without being affected in return), then it is an external, supernatural ('above nature'), creative-principle that determines the fate of the universe. This is the definition of 'God': "the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit".
Random has no form, so it's a spirit. If it underlies physics and biology then it rules over all.
The only difference between Random and God is: Random has no purpose or intellect, no vision or plan for the universe, it's all just a pointless 'fluctuation' in the 'quantum foam'. Random is a Blind-God, a Stupid-God, but it would be a supernatural god nonetheless, if it were to exist.
The main problem with a Stupid-God is it's much less likely to exist than an intelligent one. Again it's something coming from nothing... A vast, complex, ordered universe created by intelligence, according to a plan, is much more reasonable than just a single Ferrari appearing by random-quantum-fluctuation in my driveway.
My bank account is just stored as magnetic fields on a few thin disks covered in rust. But we all know no quantum-randomness is going to fluctuate a million quid into just those very few tiny parts of reality. And the entire banking system relies on that. We never, ever observe anything random. To believe in something you never observe is mere superstition.
The Missing Factor: Choice / Desire
In the standard theory of evolution, while creatures may choose their mates, the product of their union is determined by random chance. Each egg is a random selection of the mother's genome, each sperm a random selection of the father's. The fastest sperm wins the race, on average, it's fitness depending on it's randomly-mixed genome.
But we have no evidence that nature does *anything* randomly.
If creatures (largely subconsciously) choose their mates, why think they can't choose which eggs or sperm they release? Male sperm is constantly being produced anew, so there's every possibility that the genetic contents could vary over time, due to the choices or desires of the father...
E.g. If a group of creatures move to a colder area, the father might start producing sperm that codes for longer fur, or more body-fat. This would be linked to (sub-)conscious thoughts such as "I'm cold, I wish my fur was longer".
I would suggest that the female also has choice, even though her eggs were created during her gestation, firstly, she could theoretically choose which eggs to release depending on environment / partner.
Secondly the egg itself has choice over which sperm to accept. Eggs do select sperm, it's observable. What we don't know is what are their criteria?
I would suggest the mother has the ability to program her eggs - by her desire / inner vision - to instruct them what type of offspring is required, and so to choose a sperm which would best achieve this vision. This is perfectly feasible, and would be done by physical mechanisms.
So the genotype of the offspring is determined by two factors:
Yin / Matter: The available genetic material the parents have to work with.
Yang / Spirit: The desires of the parents for what offspring they would like to receive.
If the parents have no particular desire or need for their children, perhaps then it's then effectively a statistically-random process, but in the event of a strong environmental-pressure / need we should see very rapid and directed evolution in a particular direction.
I have personal, and anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon among people I know... They strongly desired a child with particular features, and got one just like it. They got exactly what they asked for.
I believe this is actually a common experience for people.
3rd Party Genes? New Genes?
If selection pressures are strong, and the parents desire features in ther offspring not available in their own genome, then I'd suggest they are able to integrate 3rd-party DNA from sources such as viruses, or food, or previous partners (in the female), in order to produce the desired result.
So perhaps this is how the spider can have the same color-genes as the plant it lives on, because it consciously desired to integrate that colour into it's genome, to survive. (Several possible physical mechanisms...)
Perhaps it's possible for the reproductive cells, under certain circumstances, to actually create entirely new, relatively complex genes or sets of genes to achieve a particular well-defined task (e.g. combating a new environmental toxin). The new genes don't need to be 100% perfect first time, but if the "reasoning" ability of the reproductive system is good enough, & it could get say 80% of the way to a solution in the first generation that would obviously confer a huge survival benefit.
Nature is famously economical in it's designs, it always has the best solutions to any problem. Why would science assume it was stupid?
The mother may store DNA from all of her previous partners, and offspring may be a mixture of some or all. Her body can choose from a number of sources, and put together a patchwork or 'photo-fit' of the offspring the parents desire.
This means our bodies, and our reproductive systems aren't just stupid machines, churning out random shuffles of DNA... At the cellular level, where the DNA is managed & copied, the cells actually understand what they're doing, and work to a plan. They are intelligent agents.
By some (as yet unknown) physical mechanism, the desires & visions held in the reasoning-center of the creature inform the reproductive system of what we perceive the next generation should look like in order to survive best, and the reproductive-system translates that into bio-chemistry and DNA.
This is their job, they don't do anything else, why would one assume they were doing it randomly when that would severely disadvantage the lifeform? Are biological systems really so dumb that reproduction cannot respond to the environment? It seems unlikely...
Choice Vs Random
Let's compare the two theories...
- Offspring are a random mixture of parental DNA. (Current theory)
Parental perceptions of the environment and their desires have no effect on gamete production.
Offspring will not be specifically adapted to their environment, therefore large numbers will be unviable.
- Offspring are constructed using available DNA to best fit the perceived environment.
Individuals collect DNA from various sources throughout their lives, and may incorporate it in germ-cells.
A patchwork of all available DNA is used by the reproductive-machinery, to match the image the parent has in-mind of their offspring.
The machinery weighs & balances the perceptions / directions of the two parents, to produce offspring which are as viable-as-possible.
Clearly the second system would confer a massive evolutionary benefit over the first...
The "blind-system", relying on random-mutation, simply could not compete with the "sighted-system". If the second system existed it would replace the first within a very short time.
I'm not aware of any studies specifically about this, but I'd suggest there's plenty of evidence that this occurs in humans, if it were to be looked-for. If it happens in humans, by 'Occams razor' we would predict it happens in all life. All life has choices, everything has free-will within it's context.
Obviously parents don't always get it right, and Natural-Selection will act on everyone in it's usual way. If parents desire maladaptive traits, they would be selected against.
This would provide a clear and simple mechanism for evolution to progress much faster, and be directed by those actually involved in it - i.e. all living things. No God of 'Random' is selecting your children for you, it's up to you and your force of will. If you focus and strongly desire particular traits in your children, your body will do the best it can to produce that.
This is a physical mechanism, by which the consciousness of the parent can direct the actions of the body... It's no different from how you use your will to lift an arm. Your will directs your body quite a lot of the time... There's no magic involved, just biology.
There's no advertising on this website.