The Myth of Natural Selection

[Erasmus00]

Mutations are shown to be conservative, in that they almost always lose information.

 

Support this. Most mutations are essentially random. Truly random numbers have a much higher information density then ordered patterns. Therefore: in a purely theoretical way, mutations create information. They do not destroy it.

 

What you seem to doing is confusing information from MEANINGFUL information. It is true: random strings of numbers generated randomly rarely contain meaningful information. How then, we must ask, do mutations increase our level of meaningful information? The answer is that they don't, not acting alone.

 

The thing that creates meaning to the information is the natural selection process. The strings of genes less "fit" get culled, and the strings of genes more "fit" live to propagate. So it is the environment that gives meaning to the random gene patterns that mutations generate. In a sense, DNA is full of information about the environment that a species evolved in, just as tree rings contain information about the environment a single tree lived in, or ice cores contain information about the environment a glacier "lived" in.

 

For example, there are millions of cars on the road -- many of which which break down and die...never to get on the road again. But does this explain the origin of cars? I say no. Common sense says no. Physical reality say no....but evolutionists say yes....

 

Before you use an analogy or model, you need to consider: does this analogy/model capture all the important aspects of the system being discussed? In your model here, the answer is obviously no. Cars lack an important feature of biological systems: the ability to reproduce.

 

But that's not all. Somehow, evolutionists have tricked people into believing that natural selection is a pure non-random mechanism. Very occasionally this might this may be true. But common says that whichever animal within a population lives long enough to be able to breed is a mostly a matter of luck.

 

Again, how are you going to support this? To demonstrate by a very extreme example: if you place a camel and a toad in the middle of the sahara which is more likely to survive? Obviously the camel is more fit to the enviroment.

 

Have you ever seen a large school of fish or a flock of seagulls? They all look and act the exact same! Darwinists insist that there's slight differences, but who could really tell one apart from the other?

 

Here you are making an argument based on the idea that what looks the same must be the same. Consider the obvious flaws: animals of the same species very often (almost always) have slight coloring differences. In many pack animals, one is the "alpha" of the group,so there is obviously some degree of individuality, etc.

 

For example let’s look at frogs. If a frog happens to make a home in a stream or river that is not currently inhabited by snakes, then he is more likely to go on to breed because he’s less likely to be eaten.

 

Here you have made a model much better then the previous. However, it is a very crude model of a survival rate because it overlooks something: frogs have a tendency to move around, as do things that eat frogs. Lets say we have two frogs, one of which can hop faster then a snake and one that cannot. Which one is more likely to make it to frog adult hood? Which is more likely to make it to frog old age?

 

isn’t it just basically the luck of the draw if a worm happens to be plucked out of the ground by a bird?

 

Yes and no. Consider a worm that happens to be a color the bird cannot see.

 

Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?

 

No but the fittest will breed MORE.

-Will

[pgrmdave]

You know, supersport is right about the luck thing, to a degree. It is entirely possible that even the best meet with unfortunate ends, and the worst get lucky. However, by and large, the organisms best adapted to their environments are able to reproduce. I liken it to a fight in D&D. Simplified - you roll a 20 sided die, and if it's greater than your chance to hit you hit, otherwise, you miss. The lower a number you have for your chance to hit, the greater your chance to win a fight. So, the more fit you are, the lower your chance to hit. It is entirely possible for a more fit person to lose a fight simply due to the roll of the dice, and thus, on a small scale, it seems that the fittest do not always survive. However, with evolution we tend to be talking about large populations - hundreds of thousands, or millions. We can generalize and say that in the long run, the more fit will survive. Will it be perfect? No, the best might die and the worst might live, but overall the stronger will do better than the weaker.

[supersport]

You know, supersport is right about the luck thing, to a degree. It is entirely possible that even the best meet with unfortunate ends, and the worst get lucky. However, by and large, the organisms best adapted to their environments are able to reproduce. I liken it to a fight in D&D. Simplified - you roll a 20 sided die, and if it's greater than your chance to hit you hit, otherwise, you miss. The lower a number you have for your chance to hit, the greater your chance to win a fight. So, the more fit you are, the lower your chance to hit. It is entirely possible for a more fit person to lose a fight simply due to the roll of the dice, and thus, on a small scale, it seems that the fittest do not always survive. However, with evolution we tend to be talking about large populations - hundreds of thousands, or millions. We can generalize and say that in the long run, the more fit will survive. Will it be perfect? No, the best might die and the worst might live, but overall the stronger will do better than the weaker.

 

I agree with that. Of course -- common sense says the strong in any population will be more likely to survive. My point though, is that virtually every animal in a population will be more or less the same exact "strongness" or "fitness". Think about a swarm of 20,000locusts. Do you really think there's that much difference in fitness amongst the group? How about Monarch Butterflies? Aren't they all pretty much the same? June Bugs? Spiders? Penguins? Scorpions? People? I mean we're pretty much all the same. And just because the parents are "fit" doesn't necessarily mean his kids will be "fit" as well. In fact, they could come out quite "unfit."

 

And my point is, if every animal within a population has the same fitness, then selection (ability to breed) boils down to luck.

 

Besides that, but I don't believe that mutations increase/decrease "fitness"....I suggest that beneficial traits are often not even formed by mutations, actually. Rather, by phenotypic plasticity. S

[ughaibu]

There is still no conflict with evolution, "luck" and evolution do not contradict each other.

[Michaelangelica]

A source would be good at this point. :)

Copy of post 60 Darwin re-visited

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/s...06/1732152.htm

Quote:

Party animal? Don't blame your genes

 

Jennifer Viegas

Discovery News

Tuesday, 5 September 2006

 

Genes shape our health and appearance more than they shape our personality, suggests a new study of thousands of people in a genetically isolated part of the world.

 

According to the study, published in the August issue of PLoS Genetics, genetics account for roughly 51% of a person's height, weight and body shape, 25% of cardiovascular function and about 40% of certain blood characteristics, such as sugar and cholesterol levels.

 

But genes only account for about 19% of many documented personality traits, such as neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness.

[Pyrotex]

Arrogant? Childish? How is that?

...What I also want you to do, since you don't believe me, is point me to a controlled experiment ... Prove me wrong.

Because we adults have seen your behavior time and time again--in the single minded arrogance of children, zealots and the simple-minded. Your responses are evasive. You declare without evidence. You demand proof when in fact the burden of proof is on YOU. You whine. You are petulant and obstructive.

 

Darwin wanted a controlled experiment, too. So, he went to English dog breeders, and researched dog breeding ("artificial selection"), its origins and its results. This proved absolutely that the phenotype of an animal can be altered RADICALLY in a few dozen generations. That was his "control" experiment.

 

Darwin then compared his control to the variations of beaks in the Galapagos finches, and demonstrated that the parallels were significant and convincing. If humans (artificial selection) can turn a "terrier" into a "yorkie" in 100 years, it was obvious that non-random natural selection could do similar tricks with bird beaks at a somewhat slower pace.

 

It is the nature of internally self-consistent beliefs that rely on emotions and wishful thinking, and that are unconnected to external evidence, that they cannot be PROVEN wrong. Even when they are obviously contrary to observed fact and rigourous reasoning. This is why preachers are never shouted down from their pulpits.

[Michaelangelica]

See, what I believe is that animals don't have to count on a random mutation -- nor do they have to go through the process of death in order to evolve new traits. In the case of the moth, moths have the ability to emerge with distinct wing-patterns based on background shades and colors.

Many developmental biologists may agree with you. That does not make NS any the less valid

 

 

 

See, what evolutionists want us to believe is that change in animals happens over thousands/millions of years. But do you want to know the truth? It happens instantly. It happens during development. Animals are shaped and molded from the moment of conception -- and the process will continue throughout their lifetimes.

 

It's the little secret that evolutionists don't want you to know.

You MAY get a change in traits but probably not a species

 

 

 

God did not create this earth so that animals have to die in order to change. He created this earth so animals could change

He /she did actually 99.99% of all life that has been on the planet is now extinct

This change is called phenotypic plasticity -- otherwise known as individual adaptivity. This is a result of inner intelligence that deciphers external conditions. It happens pre-development and it happens post development. And see....evolutionists choose not to TEST this because it would destroy their whole theory. Thus -- they don't. And this keeps the charade alive. Phenotypic plastcity is a phenomenon that happens all across the globe -- yet the evolutionist still stick to their story that these finches must have evolved through death.

This might be possible. However it does not make NS any less valid. It merely deepens our understanding of the complexity of the process of NS and life

 

But animals don't have to die to change or adapt to their enviornment. This is the Neo-darwin achilles heal. (ever notice that darwinists NEVER test animals to see how they react to a change in environment?....you think this is an accident?)

I don't think this is true of modern biology

 

 

And this is why no intermediate fossils have been found -- because there aren't any.

That is a creationist myth.

 

In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Anthropologist, Tom Kemp

Another creationist myth

 

 

The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense. Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex

Not true. look up retro-virus in Wikipedia. They go backwards from RNA to DNA

 

to me, NS is just a tautology that tries to explain the origin of life via "appearance through disappearance."

It does have the problem of being a model without much predictive ability but few models can predict the future adequately. Especially when we are looking at something as complex as life. As two economists waht is going to happen to the economy next day/month/yer/eon

 

evolutionists have tricked people

Your language seems to display a feeling that a Conspiracy is in place here.

That is not the case. Just scientists trying to understand life.

Conspiracy theories might better be applied to neo-conservative fundamental Christian groups. I refer you to the "wedge" document for example.

pure non-random mechanism. Very occasionally this might this may be true. But common says that whichever animal within a population lives long enough to be able to breed is a mostly a matter of luck. Ultimately, it's all about luck.

Luck plays a big part in NS yes.

 

Have you ever seen a large school of fish or a flock of seagulls? They all look and act the exact same! Darwinists insist that there's slight differences, but who could really tell one apart from the other?

Their mother?

 

And it’s not just birds and fish…..squirrels, rabbits, worms, deer, crickets, ants, sparrows, snakes, Etc…..they’re all basically the same! In otherwords, populations of animals are made up of individuals that are strikingly similar.

Similar yes, but not exactly the same

.

 

luck.not tied to randomly occuring genetic mutations -- or that indiviudual nucleotides never break apart.

Can you back this bold statement up?

 

Ironically, my evolutionist friends have the gall to call these lucky events non-random!

Do they?

Personally, I would think many would be random, but not all

 

Personally, I believe that natural selection is only a non-random phenomenon on the level of the population -- not on the level of the individual.

I would agree with you NS acts on populations

 

And speaking of selection……think about sexual selection for minute.

How exactly is it that evolutionists’ sexual selection hypothesis could be correct when there are just as many females in the animal kingdom as males? Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?

 

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here

 

 

..are you telling me that only the strongest of the deer will ever breed?

Yes, not EVER, old bucks retire

]The fact is these mating games that the males play are generally just rituals. Rarely does an animal actually die as a result of a struggle for a mate. In fact, the loser will almost certainly go on to breed with some other female….and thus have offspring

it is true that many mating behaviours that could kill have been ritualised- but not all some do kill. Strong, powerful or clever males do get the pick usually. Although some females sometime subvert this process by selecting males for other traits. I don't understand how You feel this process makes NS less valid as a theory? ?

 

Remember Darwin did not propose NS as a mechanism for Evolution. It was only later that the work of Mendel suggested a genetic basis. Perhaps over the years we have tended to think of genes as ruling the whole process without proper regard for environmental and other factors. That is not Dawrwin's fault. I feel modern biologists are showing that the process of life are more complex than genetic determinism

 

Sorry about the "Quote unquote" bit. That hypography function does not seem to be working too well today (or I am not working too well today? Hope you all can follow who says what!?

[Tormod]

Copy of post 60 Darwin re-visited

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/s...06/1732152.htm

Quote:

 

Thanks for posting that, Michael. I still think arguing that "most people now tend to say" is a bit strong. :)

[Tormod]

And this is why no intermediate fossils have been found -- because there aren't any.

 

Funny. The front page cartoon was about this just last week.

 

"So, you want proof for something biology claims does not exist?"

[Michaelangelica]

Thanks for posting that, Michael. I still think arguing that "most people now tend to say" is a bit strong. :)

Yes

I guess it depends on which biologist you are talking too.(like economists?)

 

Certainly the developmentalists see environmental gene expression as being much more important. They are moving away from the "Gene causes this or that" position and looking at life as a more interesting, interactive, dynamic, ecological, even quantum dependent system.

 

It makes a mokery of the ban on stem-cell-research as without a uterus germs cells are just mere frozen blobs of protein.

[supersport]

Many developmental biologists may agree with you. That does not make NS any the less valid

 

If every animal within the same population has the same traits and the same basic "fitness" then it does make a difference. The theory of evolution assumes that there are varying levels of fitness within a population of animals. I disagree with this for the most part.

 

 

 

 

You MAY get a change in traits but probably not a species

 

Evolutionists only admit that traits form through random mutations and natural selection -- this is not a rapid progress. Thus if I can show a mechanism that can accomplish forming traits in a rapid time-frame then neo-darwinism is in trouble because who's to say by looking at the fossil record HOW animals changed?

 

 

He /she did actually 99.99% of all life that has been on the planet is now extinct

 

Extinction does not disprove my premise...which is that every genome was set up to be adaptive.

 

 

I don't think this is true of modern biology

 

If you are telling me that science tests animals to see which traits arise in different environments, then please give me a link.

 

 

 

The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense. Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex

Not true. look up retro-virus in Wikipedia. They go backwards from RNA to DNA

 

wow...this is a terrible example. My point was that a simple animal cannot build up to a complex animal via 2 mechanisms that are degenerative or conservative.

 

 

 

Luck plays a big part in NS yes.

 

OUCH!...you obviously do not know your evolutionary thoery. You've just committed a mortal sin. Evolutionists believe that mutations are random and that NS is completely and totally non-random. You've just proven my point that your theory is very shaky on a common sense level. I hope you do not underestimate how lethal this comment is to your theory.

 

 

or that indiviudual nucleotides never break apart

Can you back this bold statement up?

 

Yes I can....

 

"Nucleotides only have meaning in the context of other nucleotides. We now know that human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to 1 million. These linkage blocks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart. This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists." Dr. J.C. Sandford, Genetic Entropy

 

Personally, I would think many would be random, but not all (referring to natural selection)

 

You did it again.....you've undermined your whole theory. You seem to agree with me that natural selection is a random phenomenon.

 

 

I would agree with you NS acts on populations

 

me too :fly:

 

 

Take care...S

[Michaelangelica]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Many developmental biologists may agree with you. That does not make NS any the less valid

If every animal within the same population has the same traits and the same basic "fitness" then it does make a difference. The theory of evolution assumes that there are varying levels of fitness within a population of animals. I disagree with this for the most part.

 

Nothing is the SAME even identical twins or clones. All have different gene expression depending on their environment

You MAY get a change in traits but probably not a species

 

Evolutionists only admit that traits form through random mutations and natural selection -- this is not a rapid progress. Thus if I can show a mechanism that can accomplish forming traits in a rapid time-frame then neo-darwinism is in trouble because who's to say by looking at the fossil record HOW animals changed?

TRAITS seem to be more rapid that first thought.

But the change to a species where sexual reproduction is impossible between species takes a long time.

Then again some are suggestion that sexual liaison between Chimps, Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man MAY have happened.

 

 

He /she did actually 99.99% of all life that has been on the planet is now extinct

 

Extinction does not disprove my premise...which is that every genome was set up to be adaptive.

Yes amazing isn't it!

Incedibly wasteful too unless our (97% "Junk DNA") contains an evolutionary record of life on this planet?)

I don't think this is true of modern biology

 

If you are telling me that science tests animals to see which traits arise in different environments, then please give me a link.

 

Please read the links I have given

You need to read some cutting edge psycho biology See Darwin Re-Visited thread.

I only have access to my local Council Library. You must have better university library refences than mine.

 

The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense. Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex

Not true. look up retro-virus in Wikipedia. They go backwards from RNA to DNA

 

wow...this is a terrible example. My point was that a simple animal cannot build up to a complex animal via 2 mechanisms that are degenerative or conservative.

 

Don't understand

 

 

Luck plays a big part in NS yes.

 

OUCH!...you obviously do not know your evolutionary theory. You've just committed a mortal sin. Evolutionists believe that mutations are random and that NS is completely and totally non-random. You've just proven my point that your theory is very shaky on a common sense level. I hope you do not underestimate how lethal this comment is to your theory.

It is not MY theory. Please read my posts.

I am not your enemy just someone trying to unravel the tangled fishing lines of life.

I do object to Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians insisting that the Bible is the last and Only word of God

Surely God is more complex than we can know. Why wouldn't She devise a system like NS+ that creates new life?

 

or that individual nucleotides never break apart

Can you back this bold statement up?

 

Yes I can....

 

"Nucleotides only have meaning in the context of other nucleotides. We now know that human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to 1 million. These linkage blocks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart. This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists." Dr. J.C. Sandford, Genetic Entropy

I don't think this is correct in that the DNA

G: Guanine

A: Adenine

T: Thymine

C: Cytosine

U: Uracil

can get up to all sorts of tricks - swapping and mistakes

 

Personally, I would think many would be random, but not all (referring to natural selection)

 

You did it again.....you've undermined your whole theory. You seem to agree with me that natural selection is a random phenomenon.

Again it is not MY theory. Have you READ my posts? Are you seriously going to suggest that the Bible is abetter source? (see also the link to Darwin re-visited thread. NS is a good theory but in my opinion not the total story. I think we will find that god/life is much more ingenious than we can imagine.

 

I would agree with you NS acts on populations

 

me too

 

 

Take care...S

You too

m

[ughaibu]

Increasing complexity of organisms is addressed by endosymbiosis.

[supersport]

Nothing is the SAME even identical twins or clones. All have different gene expression depending on their environment

You MAY get a change in traits but probably not a species

 

This may be true. No animal is the EXACT same. However, evolutionists claim the differences are enough to decide which animal goes on the breed and which doesn't. I'm merely suggsting that the traits -- since they all arise at the same time from the same environmental cue -- basically create the same basic fitness among animals in a given population.

 

Please read the links I have given

You need to read some cutting edge psycho biology See Darwin Re-Visited thread.

I only have access to my local Council Library. You must have better university library refences than mine.

 

You've given me nothing.

 

 

 

Not true. look up retro-virus in Wikipedia. They go backwards from RNA to DNA

 

what does a virus have to do with evolution?

 

 

It is not MY theory. Please read my posts.

I am not your enemy just someone trying to unravel the tangled fishing lines of life.

 

It may not be your theory -- but what you are putting your faith in depends on NS being non-random....which you just admitted it's not.

 

I do object to Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians insisting that the Bible is the last and Only word of God

Surely God is more complex than we can know. Why wouldn't She devise a system like NS+ that creates new life?

 

I'm not here to prove Creationism -- only to dismantle Neo-darwinism.

 

I don't think this is correct in that the DNA

G: Guanine

A: Adenine

T: Thymine

C: Cytosine

U: Uracil

can get up to all sorts of tricks - swapping and mistakes

 

Well I gave you a quote from a geneticist. He says that individual nucleotides never break apart or are passed down individually. Can you show me a site that proves otherwise?

 

 

Again it is not MY theory. Have you READ my posts? Are you seriously going to suggest that the Bible is abetter source? (see also the link to Darwin re-visited thread. NS is a good theory but in my opinion not the total story. I think we will find that god/life is much more ingenious than we can imagine.

 

who said anything about the Bible?

 

I think what you are getting at is merely that life was created naturally. But the problem is Neo-darwinism is the best explanation for this -- yet it fails.

 

Take care, S

[Boerseun]

I think what you are getting at is merely that life was created naturally. But the problem is Neo-darwinism is the best explanation for this -- yet it fails.

Neither Darwinism nor "Neo-Darwinism" says anything about the origins of life.

They merely state how the complexity of the life we see around us could have formed from a very small sample of original life.

There are to date nothing in evolutionary theory regarding the origins of life.

[Michaelangelica]

Nothing is the SAME even identical twins or clones. All have different gene expression depending on their environment

You MAY get a change in traits but probably not a species

 

This may be true. No animal is the EXACT same. However, evolutionists claim the differences are enough to decide which animal goes on the breed and which doesn't. I'm merely suggsting that the traits -- since they all arise at the same time from the same environmental cue -- basically create the same basic fitness among animals in a given population.

Your main objection to NS seems to be

Somehow, evolutionists have tricked people into believing that natural selection is a pure non-random mechanism.

Which is just not a valid assumption. There is no reason why evolution or even NS cannot be non-random

 

Please read the links I have given

You need to read some cutting edge psycho biology See Darwin Re-Visited thread.

I only have access to my local Council Library. You must have better university library refences than mine.

 

You've given me nothing.

I referred you to the Darwin Re-visited thread

If you can't find it it starts here

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/7372-darwin-re-visited.html?highlight=darwin+re-visited

Not true. look up retro-virus in Wikipedia. They go backwards from RNA to DNA

 

what does a virus have to do with evolution?

You said

Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex

My example shows the opposite is true.

 

Virusus may have a great deal to do with evolution.

look at the way they are being used in genetic 'Enginering'

 

 

It is not MY theory. Please read my posts.

I am not your enemy just someone trying to unravel the tangled fishing lines of life.

 

It may not be your theory -- but what you are putting your faith in depends on NS being non-random....which you just admitted it's not

.

No it doesn't. I don't know where you picked up that idea from?

NS is very random and unpredictable

 

I do object to Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians insisting that the Bible is the last and Only word of God

Surely God is more complex than we can know?

Why wouldn't She devise a system like NS+ that creates new life?

 

I'm not here to prove Creationism -- only to dismantle Neo-darwinism.

Really?

I don't think this is correct in that the DNA

G: Guanine

A: Adenine

T: Thymine

C: Cytosine

U: Uracil

can get up to all sorts of tricks - swapping and mistakes

 

Well I gave you a quote from a geneticist. He says that individual nucleotides never break apart or are passed down individually. Can you show me a site that proves otherwise?

I am confused. How does DNA transcribe to RNA without the DNA bonds being 'zipped' apart?

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

 

Again it is not MY theory. Have you READ my posts? Are you seriously going to suggest that the Bible is abetter source? (see also the link to Darwin re-visited thread. NS is a good theory but in my opinion not the total story. I think we will find that god/life is much more ingenious than we can imagine.

 

who said anything about the Bible?

You did

Quote:

Originally Posted by supersport

But the reality is God created each animal so that a changing environment can trigger phenotypic changes.

Originally Posted by supersport

God did not create this earth so that animals have to die in order to change. He created this earth so animals could change -- so they don't have to die!

 

I think what you are getting at is merely that life was created naturally. But the problem is Neo-darwinism is the best explanation for this -- yet it fails.

So what are you proposing to take its place?

You might like to read some of the new developmental biologists.

I would recommend "The Dependent Gene" by a professor of psychology Dr. David S Moore. You would enjoy his book.

NS may not be the last word on evolution; but don't throw out the "Baby with the Bathwater"

Take care, S

I hate Americanisms like this; as meaningless as "Have a nice Day"

 

Have a nice day

m

[paigetheoracle]

You're thread made me laugh out loud, which no recent post has done. You bring up some intelligent points and others less so but your attack on the castle of belief is necessary to see if it is still dominant and correct in its assumptions.

 

What you say about breeding is true. I remember a program on BBC television that stated, that the thickest male blackbird was also the most dominant when it came to breeding (British bird not American bird of the same name.

 

Individual luck and being in the right place at the right time, to survive? Now that really is an interesting point. Is it luck or sensory awareness? Perhaps the less intelligent breed but are they the best at survival? Maybe there is a mechanism at work, socially, that needs survivors and breeders but not necessarily within the same being?

 

Everyone wants the best, not the caste off or local bicycle but when it comes to breeding that is what you may end up with (horses for courses).

 

Simple to complex? You bring up the analogy of cars. They change inside the factory usually, to bring out new designs (The womb): It's mind that designs new models and that is based upon experience, and that in turn on awareness. The model improves in performance through the years - compare the Model T with cars now: Faster, more efficient, more complex. Then there is the competition element - other 'breeds' fighting for survival in the automotive industry.

 

Personally I believe that eventually things become so complex, they collapse from being too complex (difficult to maintain as they have too many functions or are too specialised: Cars will become extinct as we know them when oil runs out (food source). Perhaps this explains the great extinctions of the past - not disasters but overabundance leading to resources running out?

 

As for breeding - how about boredom as infertility agent? (Think of animal breeding and how specialisation leads to deformity i appearance and character - outside blood is always needed to restore the balance and stimulate interest as with your thread here for instance?).

 

Another thing as I mentioned in another thread, geneticists have (at last) decided that external environment alters the gentic code. It's a new theory and is still trying to gain credence but if this were not so, then the world would be full of Model T equivalents as the gene bank would be pumping out the same thing into infinity. Without learning (mental evolution), the world world would simply stagnate.

 

By the way I've never subscibed to the materialist belief that there is a car (body) with no driver (somebody at home: The ghost in the machine as Arthur Koestler put it). Science talks of cause and effect with regards to everything but human personality (automatic responses/genetic programming) as though it doesn't want to admit there's actually somebody actually in charge, making the decisions in its life (mind but no minder).

 

As I haven't read the thread as thoroughly as I would like, I may come back to it with more points, if I find any worth commenting on. Good post! Hope to see more from you.