Evolution can not happen by chance, it must be driven by a communication at the cellular level. This would explain the development of the necessary mutations for survival. At the cellular level there must be an intelligent designer that detects a lack or need for improvement. This must be a common trait from the single cell entities. Am I wrong to believe this could be true?
Yes you are (IMHO) wrong except for the part: "driven by a communication at the cellular level" but that is strongly, if not entirely just chance failures a DNA information is copied and passed form one generation to the next. One reason some viruses are hard to kill, as I understand it, is that they have some sections of their DNA (or perhaps it is only RNA - not much of expert one this) which is easily "messed up" during the copying and other parts that are "well conserved." Most of what I know in this area is self taught by reading the details of various early stage drug companies research efforts. For example one company is working on an drug agent trying to make attack the skin of the virus, not the virus. You as I did probably think "is not the skin of the virus, part ot the virus and thus controled by the viral RNA, and hence can mutate to make a skin their drug will not attack? We I now know that when the new viral particles that the infected cell has made leave the cell ("hoping" to infect other cells) the take a small part of the skin of the host cell as their skin. Sort of like some bubbles of air passing up thru water which has and oil skin floating on top might become coated or provided with an oil film for a skin as they leave these liquids and eneter the air. \ Returning to the point: No intelligence is directing how the mutations take place so man could evolve. Man is the result of a lot of change events.
<< At the cellular level there must be an intelligent designer that detects a lack or need for improvement.>> Its called biochemistry..... when new metabolites are in sufficient concentration, ie the lower matrix of LIFE has set the environmental stage for a higher life form to be purposefully unfolded out of the existing DNA. Process Organism modifies the environment in a specific manner, then unfold new DNA instructions to allow organisms access to the new deliberately created food niche.... all under directional control,,,, no random mutations allowed, the whole family of LIFE is just one super-organism,,,,, so there is no chaos in this LIFE development. To try to argue that random mutations (as per Darwinian evolution) lead to a spectrum of co-operative individuals all filling different environmental niches, all with the same intent, all with the same biochemistry and basic mechanisms is to remain locked into the blinkered knowledge of past thinkers.
Organism modifies the environment in a specific manner, then unfold new DNA instructions to allow organisms access to the new deliberately created food niche. Would that hapen to the ever first cell ?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You as I did probably think "is not the skin of the virus, part ot the virus and thus controled by the viral RNA, and hence can mutate to make a skin their drug will not attack? .................................. When you talk about skin are you talking about cellular tissue ?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Starman, Yes you are wrong. The genes don't decide how to fit the environment better, there is always some natural variation as well as mutation. Those that provide a better "fit" to the environment of other genes, the body, and the world survive better, thus becoming more numerous. Negative variations soon fade away, neutral ones are preserved.
Yes, I understand natural selection. The DNA is a chemical cocktail. We know that the body communicates at the cellular level by chemical messaging. I was thinking someone would say life is a chemical reaction, driven by alkalinity. Acidic conditions cause week bonds allowing for pre-mature breaks of the DNA during replication. This could be understood to be one of the leading causes of cancer by creating improper cell generation. Could it be that nature is constantly looking for a ph balance? Could this explain chance mutation? Chance mutation is difficult to accept. There are just too many variables in the genetic code of DNA to allow for focused random mutations. This would be similar to buying a lottery ticket with a billion numbers on it. The odds of focused mutation would not be practical. Mutation is purpose driven. We see this in many species. It seems the brain quantum has little or no impact on mutation, the brain seems to be more a product of mutation. What I am trying to say is there must be a direction for mutation at the level of DNA and not by chance. There must be some predictable pattern for mutation. Is this intelligence or is it a chemical reaction? What leans me to intelligence is the fact that when DNA infractions occur they do not trigger direct effects. Instead they must use energy electrical in nature like the brain to communicate to the proper area of the DNA where the mutation is to take place. This has been proven in some fish that develop hind legs for survival, yet the same fish lives in two different environments, where the fish lives in the environment without natural predators the DNA turns off and the rear legs are not developed. When the same fish is moved to different environments the gene is switched on and off by the DNA as needed. This is amazing and must be at the cellular level, or even at the DNA level. What defines intelligence? I would define intelligence as organized communication by complex structures using non-chemical energy. Please point out my where I am in error. Thanks JQ
Chance mutation is easily to accept if your combine it with the idea of selection. Then there is nothing random about most of the important genotypic change.
Wow, so if I understand your statement; The life form modifies the environment? How can this be possible? Are you sure? Doesn't the life form adapt to its environment? What part of the organism communicates with the DNA? If the DNA can follow instruction would this not lead to intelligence of DNA. Are you referring to mainstream fundamentalistic science?
Selection is the result of mutation. Mutation is the result of direction. Direction at any level is intelligence. Chemical or Electrical. Chance mutation at the DNA level could not be focused enough to invoke focused mutations.
What you say about chance failures of DNA are not evident in nature. Mutation is focused. Necessity seems to be the mother of DNA mutation. This is not the product of chance. This would be similar to buying a lottery ticket with a billion random numbers and matching all of the numbers in a random generator. The odds are staggering. They have to be close to infinity. Chance could never be the answer to biological mutation.
No. Mutation is more or less random (some parts of the genome have higher mutation frequency). Selection is an independent mechanism. It only happens after random mutations occur. The selection part makes the process of evolution non-random.
Mutations are caused by errors in replication, mutagens in the diet, UV or cosmic radiation. There is some indication that genes have evolved in such a way that vital information to the formation of a body is preserved through a mechanism like redundancy. So, life has evolved so that some areas of the genetic code are allowed to mutate more than others. Mutation is not the only way there can be variation in a gene pool. When there is variation, there can be selection. Not really, it is random, but some areas of the DNA are allowed to mutate more than others. It's called the evolution of evolvability. Mutation alone is not responsible for the novel structures and forms of life.
Yes as it is all "cellular tissue" but not "cells" I am out of my field but as I understand it the cycloplasm is in a "bag" that I call "skin" I think that this skin usually (always?) is a double layer of large molecules, which are sort of like detergents - I.e. one end of the molecule is hydrophilic and other is hydrophobic. (not sure, but think the outer and inner layer bind together by having their hyrofilic ends "touching." The inner surface of the skin would then have a hydrophobic surface in contact with the cycloplasm of the host cell initially but after the viral leaves tha host and takes some "skin" with it, it would be in contact with the parts (fluids?) of the newly made virus. This can cause some "receptor sites" even on the out side to be changed and drug agents can be designed to attack only these changed receptors - why the drug agent does not kill your cells, only the virus. - or something like that. I do not understand all this.
slightly... it is not an "intelligent designer" per se.... but there is a communication at the cellular level. that communication is the presence of chemicals that end up in the bloodstream/cells. these chemicals get there from the surrounding environment, either by inhalation, ingestion, or some other way.
The only "message" directing evolution is wether a particular gene increases or decreases in number in the gene pool.
Yes, in my opinion you are wrong to believe this is true. The question is worded so that a false statement contains a truism. Cellular communication is a variable in the adaptive fitness of single-cell organisms.
wrong, unless you have a different meaning for the term 'intelligence.' direction at any level is force or motivation. intelligence requires force, awareness, and intent.
