Intelligent Goal Focussed Evolution vs evolution by natural selection

Has Arthur Koestler's book "The Act of Creation" been mentioned here yet? At least one third of that book handles this issue very convincingly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, not yet, but if you wish to elaborate feel free to do so.
The Act of creation.

Arthur Koestler sounds like one interesting thinker...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you two are teasers..
I clicked your wiki links..still do not know who the dude is..did find out he got high..("Koestler wrote about the drug culture and his own experiences with hallucinogens")

it should be a wiki rule that if its an author then a list of their books with links should be at the top of page..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh my 8 pages, huh? I thought the second post was plenty to end it....

 

Heck, I guess I shouldn't have brought it up, as it's been 37 years since I read it (and studied it). I'm not sure the wiki contributors actually read the book. :shrug: It was divided into three parts, and I recall the first part being a very sophisticated analysis of how the generally accepted view of pure random variation didn't really explain what was happening. I proposed that the theory be augmented by a more sophisticated version of Lamarckian concepts. It seemed at the time that our genetic structure really wasn't fixed, in that our species would always remain the same in the absence of random variations. He showed a lot of evidence that the type and direction of changes in a species is programed in from the outset. With each generation being a little farther down that path. Of course, that change might be great and it might be a bad "idea" and that's where the typical story picks up.

After 37 years that may have been disproven, but it sure sounded like what some of you were talking about in a round about way. But with advances in genetics, we should be figuring this out reasonably soon.

 

How can the direction of evolution be predetermined if the environment is not?

 

Are we going to feign misunderstanding again? Or do I have you confused with someone else? If I don't, then you have got me a little cranky.

The theory is that the DNA of a species not only determines what it is, but what it's progeny will be, and how they will differ. The changes are structured in the DNA. This is not to say that these preordained changes can't get wiped out by the environment if they are detrimental enough, but they sure resist it. The net result of what survives in the long run is a combination of the two. The key difference is that fish don't grow trunks and giraffes don't grow feathers. Some portion of the variations aren't random but predetermined by genetics.