Examine a virus . . . it’s fairly obvious how a virus grows and reproduces. Yes it mutates, but it’s a survival of the fittest situation, and thus viruses and bacteria (less so in my opinion) are perfect subjects for applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. Whole populations come into being do their simple one way ‘script’ of infecting or whatever and then die. But it’s a kind of xerox machine where the copy has a coat.
But a more complex machine than that will evolve many programs with steps, just as our cells and organs have many well learned programs that they run continuously that keep us alive.
How the hell science ever thought that the simplest bit of science applied to a virus could account for all the rest of life . . . no way.
That is why the defense of Darwin in itself is sounding like a religion.
Complex organisms have achieved some amazing and breathtaking evolutions, that I don’t believe Darwinian mechanics, ie theory of natural selection, fully describes the evolutionary process.
The red flag to Darwin, is the exceptional evolutionary speeds of consciousness/costume/charisma . . . . and by that I mean consciousness is a paradigm that simply CANNOT be produced computationally by a one way kluge like the virus, that simply reproduces dies reproduces according to a one-way script without feedback loops.
I’m suggesting that according to POTTER MECHANICS our DNA represents the code for a truly complex biological computer that is calculating, yes calculating outcomes by changing our metabolisms, our conscious and cognitive abilities, as well as the composition of our gametes.
Another example: The incredible SPEED with which birds evolved feathers and very unique feather and behavioural displays that are intrinsically linked, suggesting in some way that behavior has some mechanism by which it effects our offspring’s genome.
We just assume that our gametes reflect in a Medelian sort of fashion, our DNA. But who has counted the genes in our sperm, not just one, but millions to see if the percentages are the same as they would be with a virus. I don’t believe they are, and I think the only way our bodies could computationally ‘favor’ a mutation on one area rather than another is by some trick of protein folding, and that that process, viewed from the perspective of the entire organism, is a computer.
There have to be other computational functions performed by our DNA other than the protein production and reproduction mechanisms of classical genetics. Our DNA is funtioning as a computer, and all that junk . . . . is code.
See the virus represents a one way machine. It is a bot making more bots. But even in the virus there has to be some bio-feedback mechanisms at play. They just have to be discovered.
I’m saying that if we admitt our DNA to be a computer of sorts, if we accpt a data model of biological life, then that model has to admitt that complexities of a very high order are at least going to be many magnitudes more complicated than the most advanced computers.
Yet to be more complicated, to respond to the environment, to environmental change particularly quickly enough to sustain the high cost of a brain and a conscious mind, that to do that our organisms need an ability to change themselves far more quickly than Darwinian Mechanics would predict.
In short I’m saying that evolution is too simplistic, and too mechanistic to be able to evolve a species at the rates we see. Billions of years to get photosynthesis and then all this in just microseconds, off a mechanism that relies entirely on such simplistic mechanisms as those proposed by Darwin.
Yes they are there but our bodies have to have a way of recieving data from the environment and making changes to the genenome, or essentially speeding up the process in the same way that a breeder speeds up the acquisition of certain traits.
Yet more complex organisms have the opportunity that only complex organisms have, and that is to run a kind fo full feedback loop between the environment and mechanisms of reproduction.
. . . but there have to be some ‘tricks’ of protein folding that essentially use the ‘data’ in our genome run a script. This is logical, because that’s what happens when proteins are made. The script I’m talking about is something much more fundemental and is exploiting the computational protential of all our DNA to essentially ‘stack the odds’ when it comes to gamete creation. I’m not sure how this is happenening, but something like it has to be happening. In other words our DNA is a form of computer, more advanced than we’ve credited it to date, that using the body as a host machine. I don’t need to be proven wrong, because if this is not in the news in the next few years I am wrong, because definititionally for my idea to work there’d have to be bio-feedback from the environment to the computational potential in our DNA. I’m not saying genes because we haven’t mapped genes everywhare on our DNA. And nor have we taken into account what happens when proteins and DNA folds, unexpectedly.
IIf a simple automobile can have a status report printed out at the dealer, then from an organism as complicated as a human being you would expect something more than just assembly line evolutionary methods.
f you had a car, that was as complex and incredible as say a human being . . . it would certainly be able to run a status report on itself at any time. This is logical. No organism of such complexity can emerge without information flow back from the enviornment. Yes we have it in ‘Mommy I feel sick’ and those sort of system notices. But what happens to our gamete production when we actually get sick. And what happens when we exhert ourselves in long distance running. Wouldn’t it be absolutely logical for the gamete production logic to get a message that ‘whatever you’ve got in the metabolism improvement category time to run that one now!” and this doesn’t just speed sugar uptake, but rather it changes, albeit slightly the gamete composition. It is not random and Medelian.
That’s my theory. . . . . and all I have to suggest it is the incredibly rapid evolutionary progress of complex organisms. How is it that humans evolved much more quickly than the reptiles . . . . in an extinction event it’s the survivors of those that can change the characteristics of their offspring that have the best chance of passing on yes I’ll say it . . . . genes and much more than genes.
