Darwin re-visited

[HydrogenBond]

One of the problems with evolution, as written, it is not open to discussion unless you stroke it. I am not saying Creationism is correct. But evolution is like a clever dogma that can nip all opposition in the bud. It can progress or regress relative to logical progress. It doesn't even to answer any direct questions in opposition, but can squish them with name calling.

 

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. I would like to hear some pro-evolutionists point out some problems. Or is this taboo? One can beat up on the big bang theory, without be called a creationists. But evolution may be too precarious to allow anyone to admit any flaw. It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect. If science can't be objective enough to be critical, then it needs someone like me to help then them out. I am not part of this religion but I like to visit because there are many good points. But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science.

 

How about a scientist risk excommunication and point of things that don't allow evolutionary theory to rise above theory status. Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

[Pyrotex]

One of the problems with evolution, as written, it is not open to discussion unless you stroke it.... It doesn't even to answer any direct questions in opposition, but can squish them with name calling.

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. ...It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect....But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science. ...Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

HB, I'm sorry my friend, but you have been seriously misled.

 

First of all, "theory" does not mean what you think it does. In science, "theory" means precisely and exactly this: an explanation that successfully explains the vast preponderance of evidence and successfully predicts future (or past) events. Theory is the highest level of scientific explanation. There is NO higher status for an explanation in Science. "Theory" and "Law" are essentially synonymous.

 

Second of all, Evolution is so rarely criticised by scientists because it is one of the most successful scientific theories ever formulated. It's up there with the "theory" of gravity and the "theory" of thermodynamics. The explanatory power of Evolution is humongous and profound--so far, there are no (repeat, no) instances of living creatures, ecosystems, fossils, or changes to same over time, that clearly cannot be explained by Evolution.

 

Despite this, there are documented cases where scientists question the particulars of just how Evolution could have done this, or produced that result. And sometimes, there are disagreements in the answers, or even cases where they throw up their hands and say they don't know yet. But these controversies have not attacked the core principles of Evolution. These scientists who raise these probing questions are not punished or banned -- quite the opposite, they are rewarded for their keen insight and probing intelligence. Their papers are published and frequently cited by others, a badge of honor in scientific circles.

 

I hope this information allays some of your concerns.

[CraigD]

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. ...It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect....But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science. ...Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

Pyrotex’s response to what I see as HBond’s misunderstanding of the scientific term “theory” is, IMHO, right on, so I’ll just add to it my own observation about sources of confusion associated with the term “evolution”.

 

It’s not unusual to hear biologists state “evolution is a fact, not a theory” then in the next sentence contradict themselves by beginning “the theory of evolution states ...”. The problem, as is so often the case in language, is the use of the same word to refer to two related but not identical referents.

 

A scientific fact is data that everyone agrees upon, either because they can reproduce it, or accept on trust that because others can, they could. One meaning of the term “evolution” is “change between generation in traits of a population”. With the exception of extremists who altogether deny hereditary connections between generations, everyone agrees that this occurs. So, in this sense, evolution is a fact.

 

“Evolution” is also used to refer to a theory explaining how changes in traits of a population occur. As such theories seek to explain observed facts with greater accuracy and detail, these theories undergoing constant testing and revision.

 

Within the collection of theories of evolution, there is a hierarchy connecting theories sharing features, and theories that focus on large population in less detail or with more detail on small population, individuals, or tissues, cells, or chemicals within individual organisms. Despite their differing characters and knowledge prerequisites, all are called theories of evolution.

 

At the top of this hierarchy is “Darwinian evolution”, a very high-level explanation that features the idea of natural selection, that less “fit” individuals die without reproducing. It wasn’t always at the top of the hierarchy, but shortly after its appearance in 1859, dethroned competing high-level theories, such as Lamarckian evolution, which featured the idea that less fit individuals change to become more fit, or to produce more fit offspring.

 

There are various conventions for distinguishing the various meaning of the term “evolution”, such as using the term alone to refer to the fact of change in traits of a population, and in phrases such as “Darwinian evolution” when referring to specific theories. However, there’s little consistency in the use of these conventions, so readers need to be careful to determine the sense in which a term is being used before considering what the writing containing it is saying.

[REASON]

One of the problems with evolution, as written, it is not open to discussion unless you stroke it. I am not saying Creationism is correct. But evolution is like a clever dogma that can nip all opposition in the bud. It can progress or regress relative to logical progress. It doesn't even to answer any direct questions in opposition, but can squish them with name calling.

 

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. I would like to hear some pro-evolutionists point out some problems. Or is this taboo? One can beat up on the big bang theory, without be called a creationists. But evolution may be too precarious to allow anyone to admit any flaw. It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect. If science can't be objective enough to be critical, then it needs someone like me to help then them out. I am not part of this religion but I like to visit because there are many good points. But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science.

 

How about a scientist risk excommunication and point of things that don't allow evolutionary theory to rise above theory status. Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

 

Since Pyro and Craig have responded to your post regarding the use of the terms "theory" and "evolution" in such a concise fashion, I will simply point out that your comments seem to be more about resistance to conformity than resistance to evolution - a theme that seems to be present in many that tend to reject aspects of accepted science.

 

Trust me, I'm no advocate of living one's life in mere conformity, but taking a non-conformist position in the face of such overwhelming evidence can make one appear foolish. What is necessary for the non-conformist in the world of science is a competing theory that can be demonstrated to be better at explaining a condition, or that can be used to strengthen an existing theory. Without that, you are left with resistance for resistance's sake, which is not useful in science.

[Michaelangelica]

I think it is about time we had a knock-down, 'no holds barded', 'knuckle skinning',argument on "What is a scientific theory"

Moderators PLEASE?

[Galapagos]

For those with access, the medical journal The Lancet will be having a special issue on Darwin:

Darwin's Gifts - Special Issue, The Lancet

The philosopher Daniel Dennett once wrote: "If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else." He is not alone in his praise for Charles Darwin. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and neuroscientist Steven Rose, to name but two, can also be counted among contemporary fans. This single best idea - evolution by natural selection - is the foremost contribution to science that has changed the way we think about ourselves, our origins, and the rich diversity of life forms with which we share this planet.

 

To mark in 2009 the bicentennial of the birth of Darwin - on Feb 12 - and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species - on Nov 24 - The Lancet has commissioned a commemorative book of essays about Darwin's life and work and the enduring legacy of his remarkable theory of evolution. These were Darwin's gifts to all of us; on the occasion of these anniversaries, this book is our gift to you.

 

 

Also of interest to fellow Darwin fans, I was browsing The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, specifically the part of his autobiography about religion, and the man seems ahead of his time. Of particular interest to myself was that in the footnotes, there are requests from his wife(bottom of page 87 & 93)), recorded after his death requesting that certain sentences about his disbelief be removed before publication as to not offend.

Darwin surprisingly lists many reasons to doubt and disbelieve that are still compelling to many(including myself) today. It is interesting to have such an intimate look at the mind of one of humanities greatest scientists and thinkers on such a deep subject:

[...] I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

 

And this is a damnable doctrine.

 

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

[...]

But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness;—whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever or at least often occurred.

[...]

Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances.

[...]

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

[Pyrotex]

Uhhh... Please what??

You want someone to moderate your new thread? Sure, I'll volunteer.

Do you need any help starting a new thread?

P

[Michaelangelica]

Uhhh... Please what??

You want someone to moderate your new thread? Sure, I'll volunteer.

Do you need any help starting a new thread?

P

My thought process are a continuing puzzlement to many.

 

No it's just some of the posts from here should go in it

and

where should

"What is a scientific theory?"go?

or

has it been done elsewhere?

Maybe it is more of a Wiki article rather than a discussion topic

Yes,. . . mm. . . (muses). . . forget I mentioned it

 

Happy New Year- Hope you get your holiday

Cheap holidays in Oz at the moment. It is only 24 hours on the plane!

m

[Galapagos]

12 Elegant Examples of Evolution over on the Wired blog:

12 Elegant Examples of Evolution | Wired Science from Wired.com

 

In preparation for Charles Darwin's upcoming 200th birthday, the editors of Nature compiled a selection of especially elegant and enlightening examples of evolution.

 

They describe it as a resource "for those wishing to spread awareness of evidence for evolution by natural selection." Given the continuing battles over evolution in America's public schools — and, for that matter, the Islamic world — such a resource is most welcome.

[Galapagos]

Down House is being reopened to the public:

Britain’s Galápagos offers insight into evolutionary ideas - Times Online

The living laboratory where Charles Darwin developed much of his evolutionary thinking, described by scientists as “Britain’s Galápagos”, is to reopen to the public next month to mark the bicentenary of the great biologist’s birth.

 

A £900,000 revamp of Down House, the Darwin family home near Orpington, Kent, will give visitors fresh insights into the story of evolution, with a new exhibition and the opportunity to be guided around its grounds by leading intellectuals.

 

Reminder that the BBC's special Darwin programs are coming soon:

Radiohead: Radio 4 celebrates Charles Darwin - Times Online

The BBC's polymath of choice begins a special four-part series of In Our Time on Monday (9am), recorded in various significant locations in Darwin's life. In the first, recorded in Cambridge, Bragg discusses the significance of Darwin's three years at the university, where he trained for a career in the Anglican Church (in later years, after the death of his young daughter Anna, Darwin was to lose his faith).

 

Then, in Dear Darwin (Mon to Fri, 3.45pm) an eminent contemporary thinker a day writes a letter to the great man illustrating the ways in which his work has influenced their own - and fill him in on how things have progressed since his death in 1882.

 

Finally, Hunting the Beagle (Fri, 9pm) diverts from the scientifically academic to consider a practical matter - what became of the little ship that Darwin made famous.

[Michaelangelica]

When identical twins, gratefully, aren't.

New data announced on genetic events in identical twins with leukaemia - News

[HydrogenBond]

Some basic observations can demonstrate that "selective advantage" puts a limit on genetic diversity. Let me give an example. Say we assume humans evolved from apes. Humans and apes can not interbreed. If selective advantage preferred to maximize genetic diversity, allowing humans and apes to breed would increase the number of genetic variations. But selective advantage uses a wall that limits maximum genetic diversity. Within that species there may be a push to maximize genetic diversity, but there is a natural limit.

 

There has to be a logical explanation for this. The affect is analogous to loaded genetic dice with only certain rolls. If you look at the family tree of higher life on earth branches may occur when cross breeding walls appear, and selective advantage limits genetics.

[CraigD]

Say we assume humans evolved from apes.

We should not assume that humans evolved from apes, because this is utterly incorrect.

:computerkeys:

Humans and apes such as chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. Neither humans nor chimps are significantly more or less similar to their common ancestor.

 

This common misunderstanding is, I think, due to the use of the word “ape” to mean “any non-human tailless primate, living or extinct”. By this meaning, the common ancestor of Humans and Chimps was an ape. This meaning is biologically worse than simply wrong, however, and shouldn’t be used in biological discussion.

Humans and apes can not interbreed.

Although my guess would agree with this claim, this seeming certainty is surprisingly far from scientifically certain. Although normal humans are chromosomally significantly different from normal chimps (humans have diploid number/2=23, chimps 24, a pair of chimp chromosomes having fused into a single one in humans), this difference is about the same as among species that are know to be cross-breedable, such as horse and donkeys (horse diploid number/2=32, donkey 31), and no obvious mechanism that would certainly prevent a human-chimp cross breed is know.

 

Much of the reason for what species can and cannot interbreed (the terms become troubled here, as “ability to interbreed” is a common, but again not biologically correct definition of “species”) appears to be behavior. For example, nearly all members of the cat family can interbreed, and such breeding successfully done in captivity, yet such crossbreeding is rarely or never seen in the wild, even for cat species that have overlapping ranges, such as lions and tigers. The lack of interbreeding between humans and chimps may similarly be due to a behavior, rather than genetic mechanics.

 

Surprisingly, the rather simple experiment of attempting to artificially or invitro fertilize an egg of one species with the sperm of another has never been satisfactorily attempted with humans and chimps – though the failed attempts to carry out such experiments in the 1930s make for some strange but true reading.

If selective advantage preferred to maximize genetic diversity, allowing humans and apes to breed would increase the number of genetic variations. But selective advantage uses a wall that limits maximum genetic diversity. Within that species there may be a push to maximize genetic diversity, but there is a natural limit.

 

There has to be a logical explanation for this.

We often can making satisfying explanations of how a population thrived or went extinct due to their acquisition of a small or large collection of traits, but this does not mean that any of the biological machinery involved in the acquisition “knew what it was doing” or “had a reason” for doing it. That there must be a “logical reason” – logical typically meaning “one that appeals to someone” – is another fallacy common in discussion of evolution. As has been countlessly repeated in this and other threads, no reason nor explanation is required for change between generations – in short, the correct biological meaning of “evolution” – to occur as it does.

 

Sources: wikipedia articles “Humanzee”; “Liger”; “chromosome”; and a lighthearted ABC interview of Colin Groves.

[HydrogenBond]

Evolution in higher animals, in terms of selective advantage, is not only connected to genetics but also to the brain. This is easy to see in humans with culture allowing humans advantage in all environments even when genetic change has been slow in comparison. Most of the data for this advantage come from outside, places like science, and not inside from the genetics. I am not saying genetics is not a critical component, but even if it stopped changing, humans would continue to increase their selective advantage through education and the brain.

 

The argument that cats can interbreed, but don't, due to behavior, has the brain putting a limit on genetic variations even in species that can interbreed. Those that can't interbreed, use a different genetic wall. This does not refute evolution and the importance of genetics, but hints at adding others variable that are not fully taken into account in modern evolution. Darwin was version 1.0. Genetics evolved the theory to version 2.0. The next step is 3.0.

 

Let me give a simple argument to help everyone understand why there is room for an upgrade. Say we have a genetic change in a bacteria, which is consistent with version 2.0. Next, we transcribe this to make new mRNA and then translate that into a new protein, which will be an enzyme. The next logical question is, how does the cell decide where to place this new protein? If this was random, like the mutation, even a good change can cause a problem. Or it can end in a place in the cell where it has no ability to function. For example, a new and improved ion pump protein won't work well in the middle of the Kreb's cycle if that happened to be the random placement. The cell deals with this in a more orderly fashion.

 

With evolution 2.0, we get a mutation and then we get selective advantage, with the middle step of placement and integration sort of skipped in the analysis. The reason it is skipped, this is not the rate limiting step. The cell is organized enough to place the protein as fast as the DNA makes mistakes. After the placement, the DNA gets all the credit for the success.

 

Version 3.0 shares the limelight of the DNA, with the ability of cells to take advantage of opportunity. The brain is an extension of this. Say a new gene has the potential to make one taller. The cells need to take advantage of this gene and integrate it into an entire complex system with the proper placement. The brain sees the advantage of being taller, and further translates this into other forms of selective advantage in the jungle. The DNA only made a mistake but gets all the credit in version 2.0. In version 3.0, the placement dynamics is also critical and shares the limelight.

[Galapagos]

Evolution in higher animals, in terms of selective advantage, is not only connected to genetics but also to the brain. This is easy to see in humans with culture allowing humans advantage in all environments even when genetic change has been slow in comparison. Most of the data for this advantage come from outside, places like science, and not inside from the genetics. I am not saying genetics is not a critical component, but even if it stopped changing, humans would continue to increase their selective advantage through education and the brain.

I'm assuming you are speaking in terms of fitness as defined in modern biology when you say 'selective advantage', though it is not completely clear to me that this is what you mean.

There are already several fields related to evolutionary biology exploring the role of culture in evolution:

Dual inheritance theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dual Inheritance Theory (DIT), also known as Gene-Culture Coevolution, was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to explain how human behavior is a product of two different and interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution and cultural evolution. DIT is a "middle-ground" between much of social science, which views culture as the primary cause of human behavioral variation, and human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which view culture as an insignificant by-product of genetic selection. In DIT, culture is defined as information in human brains that got there by social learning. Cultural evolution is considered a Darwinian selection process that acts on cultural information. Dual Inheritance Theorists often describe this by analogy to genetic evolution, which is a Darwinian selection process acting on genetic information. [1] Because genetic evolution is relatively well understood, most of DIT examines cultural evolution and the interactions between cultural evolution and genetic evolution.

Cultural selection theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultural selection theory is a scientific discipline that explores sociological and cultural evolution the same way that Darwinian selection theory is used to explain biological evolution.

 

This theory is a logical extension of memetics. In memetics, memes, much like biology's genes, are informational units passed through generations of culture. However, unlike memetics, cultural selection theory moves past these isolated "memes" to encompass selection processes, including continuous and quantitative parameters.

 

 

The argument that cats can interbreed, but don't, due to behavior, has the brain putting a limit on genetic variations even in species that can interbreed. Those that can't interbreed, use a different genetic wall. This does not refute evolution and the importance of genetics, but hints at adding others variable that are not fully taken into account in modern evolution. Darwin was version 1.0. Genetics evolved the theory to version 2.0. The next step is 3.0.

CraigD gave one example of what is known as an isolating mechanism. There are many ways in which species are kept distinct. They are split up into what is known as prezygotic (eg habitat isolation, seasonal/temporal isolation, mechanical/anatomical isolation, gametic isolation) and postzygotic barriers(weak hybrids, infertile hybrids, incompatible hybrids).

Note that there is much more taken into account than just genetics.

 

Let me give a simple argument to help everyone understand why there is room for an upgrade. Say we have a genetic change in a bacteria, which is consistent with version 2.0. Next, we transcribe this to make new mRNA and then translate that into a new protein, which will be an enzyme. The next logical question is, how does the cell decide where to place this new protein? If this was random, like the mutation, even a good change can cause a problem. Or it can end in a place in the cell where it has no ability to function. For example, a new and improved ion pump protein won't work well in the middle of the Kreb's cycle if that happened to be the random placement. The cell deals with this in a more orderly fashion.

 

With evolution 2.0, we get a mutation and then we get selective advantage, with the middle step of placement and integration sort of skipped in the analysis. The reason it is skipped, this is not the rate limiting step. The cell is organized enough to place the protein as fast as the DNA makes mistakes. After the placement, the DNA gets all the credit for the success.

 

Version 3.0 shares the limelight of the DNA, with the ability of cells to take advantage of opportunity.

This is also already covered in modern biology, in the field known as evo-devo:

Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary developmental biology (evolution of development or informally, evo-devo) is a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different animals and plants in an attempt to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved. It addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development; how modifications of development and developmental processes lead to the production of novel features; the role of developmental plasticity in evolution; how ecology impacts in development and evolutionary change; and the developmental basis of homoplasy and homology.[1]

 

The brain is an extension of this. Say a new gene has the potential to make one taller. The cells need to take advantage of this gene and integrate it into an entire complex system with the proper placement. The brain sees the advantage of being taller, and further translates this into other forms of selective advantage in the jungle. The DNA only made a mistake but gets all the credit in version 2.0. In version 3.0, the placement dynamics is also critical and shares the limelight.

I'm not sure I understand this part. Perhaps you are thinking of something like this:

Baldwin effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Galapagos]

Author Matt Ridley has a wonderful new article in the spectator. Best Darwin article of the new year so far, I think:

The natural order of things | The Spectator

Matt Ridley says that Darwinian selection explains the appearance of seemingly ‘designed’ complexity throughout the world — not just in biology but in the economy, technology and the arts

 

Charles Darwin, who was born 200 years ago next month, has spent the 150 years since he published The Origin of Species fighting for the idea of common descent. Though physically dead, he is still doing battle for the notion that chimps are your cousins and cauliflowers your kin. It is a sufficiently weird concept to keep Darwin relevant, revered and resented in equal measure. But in some ways it is less radical and topical than his other, more philosophical legacy: that order can generate itself, that the living world is a ‘bottom-up’ place. On the internet, Darwinian unordained order is now ubiquitous as never before.

[HydrogenBond]

Let me present some additional logic as to why we need evolution 3.0. Replicators were an important step in evolution. They define maybe the most important distinction for life, which is the ability to reproduce. Say we start with replicators that have just enough equipment to work.

 

Even if the new genes forming have the future potential of selective advantage, when they are only replicators, any sequence of four bases is just another sequence, since it can be duplicated just as easy, as any other. The genetic material has potential, but if we have only replicators, it is unused potential. All it does is replicate, make mistakes, end of story.

 

To get anything out of this, we need additional tools in place, or a simple integrated system to make use of the genes. Without that system, all we have are replicators that are not going anywhere, fast. Let us add a system, such as the ability to transcribe and translate to make proteins. This system is of little value if it is randomly placed in space. If the ribosome diffuse, away they are useless to a given replicator. The DNA can generate the hardware, but it can't hook up the positional network. Making the hardware alone is not enough.

 

If look at a modern cell that is dividing, the system is already in place. If we took out the DNA and replicated it in isolation, it will go nowhere, fast, even though it has all the genes to go somewhere. It is all potential of what can be. But it only works reliably with a system in place. We can take the DNA out of cell blood cells and the system continues to function. It will only last a moderate amount of time, because it begins to recycle and doesn't have access to the DNA to replace the parts. On the other hands, the DNA without support will just sit there, unless scientist acts as a surrogate to help it out. The DNA needs a surrogate.

 

The DNA has the easy job in evolution. A mutation is essentially a mistake relative to perfect base pairing. Anyone can make a mistake. The hard part is turning that mistake into something useful. This is where the cell body has to use skill. An analogy is a mother (cell body) is making her favorite stew for supper that she always makes. Her child is analogous to DNA, who is trying to help randomly, and dumps the wrong ingredient in. The mother has to scramble to save supper. She tries to tweak this mistake and successfully forms a new recipe. The child's mistake gets all the credit in evolution 2.0, but in 3.0, the mother shares the credit. She turned lead into gold for the selective advantage. Junior sort of helped make it possible.

 

Nature has taking steps to keep junior out of the kitchen, without supervision, since not all mistakes can be saved this way. Nature developed proof reading enzymes to screen what is in junior's hand to make sure it is not putting crayons in the pot. This sort of limits mistakes so the bulk protein shape is close to what is already there, so it have a place close to where the original would have gone.

 

There is also the wall to cross breeding to make sure junior doesn't add too many ingredients, since mother is only human and may not be able to pull that one out of the fire. But still she likes the challenge and keeps the door open, just enough to make it interesting. Evolution 3.0 will address how mother keeps an eye on junior and helps to push junior into the direction so need for change is satisfied by a given bandwidth of mistakes.

 

In this analogy, mother is within an environment where chicken is on sale. She needs junior to mess up the recipe in a way that will allow a better chicken dish. Junior has flexibility but it has to be do-able. With the wall to cross breeding mother locks most drawers. During genes shuffling, mother is keeping an eye on junior as he chops. She sort of holds the knife with him to make sure the texture is correct. But if it is not perfect, that is OK.