Well, before anything else, I want to say that I am an atheist(kind of) and this thread has absolutely nothing to with creationism and intelligent design. So I want to clear any confusion - the last thing that I want from this thread is for it to become a 'evolution vs creation' thread. This thread aims to discuss exactly what the title suggests. The currently accepted neo-darwinian theory can be summed up as: Evolution = random mutations + natural(and sexual) selection. Of course, Darwin never said anything about mutations- but that's another story. Over the past two decades or so there have been many studies that kind of challenge the idea of mutations being completely random and suggested that some organisms might be able to trigger new mutations under environmental pressure. For example, "adaptive mutations" have been observed in many single celled organisms- especially bacteria and yeast. The exact cause is not yet very well understood, but it seems that these microbes can increase the rate of mutation under environmental stress. Moreover, it seems certain parts of the genome are more prone to mutation than others. It also seems that there are "mutator genes" which makes way for quick mutations when they are turned on. Now, the turning on of mutations is governed by epigenetics- which continuously interact with the environment. So this again means that mutations itself are some what dependent on the environment. Also, some studies have suggested that the so called junk or non-coding DNA helps in evolution. Some scientists have also speculated that some of these non-coding DNA might actually contain coding information about future actions. I must point out again that none of these findings give any support to creationism - They merely suggest that evolution might be a little bit more complex than we initially thought it to be. Computer programs that evolve complexity from simple creatures based on nothing other than pure randomness seem to be hitting a platue after some time. So perhaps tweaking the nature of randomness by involving some interaction between the mutations and the environment may be able to produce better results. So I want your thoughts on this topic.
Everything is more complex than we think. I mean come on... The chief lesson of history as to science or discovery of any type is 'it was way more complex than they thought'. A perfect 100% track record. Yet in every generation the mundane intellects(overwhelming majority) think their 'modern' minds have almost all of it figured out, only the brightest(very rare) realize that their theories are probably all or mostly wrong, and are wise enough to realize how little they knew. Even today people get a degree and espouse how much we know, how advanced our current theories are, in their ignorance. We learn from history, that we learn nothing from history. We know very little - very, very little. About evolution, physics, space, medicine, etc. They are all much more complex than we think, this will be true in 100 years too. But in 100 years the majority will feel they have most of it figured out. It's kind of hilarious if you think about it.
Species control mutation through several mechanisms that I know of- redundancy of genes for important core functions, and by the ingestion of mutagens in the environment. It's called the evolution of evolvability.
Yes, I agree very much. I think it was Feynman who said that "Nature's imagination is so much greater than our own imagination. We have to try our best to not to fool ourselves." Yes. I also forgot to mention about horizontal gene transfer. Most computer programs that make use of evolutionary algorithms don't use this idea - rather they go for simple mating.
