"Faustino Núñez Hernández" <faustnh from gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.687.1187726353.11350.mol-evol from net.bio.net...
| Sorry , you're right Steve , it hasn't been here ; the place where I
| emphasized the aspect of the theory being about a DIRECT influence of
| the sensory nervous system data on genome , rather than an indirect
| influence , was on
http://groups.google.com/group/Talk-Biology/browse_frm/thread/dca46171f356ff92
| , where I presented this theory too .
|| IMPORTANT NOTE : on that URL I also add another personal theory I've
| always been interested in , about nature itself of genome . This other
| theory is EVEN MORE CONTROVERSIAL than the one about relationship
| between genome and sensory nervous system .
but equally incorrect. and here:
"* I consider that to evolve is to change or mutate to adapt to new
environmental conditions"
is perhaps the key to understanding where you are coming from. this doesn't
seem to be mere symantic because both of your theories foster an entire
concept subtly hidden in the above quote. 'to change or mutate to adapt to'
requires decision-making. in reality, to evolve is the change *because of*.
imagine an air-hockey table - hundreds of tiny wholes through which air is
pumped, keeping the puck gliding over its surface without touching. in
reality, a genome is as maliable as sand. imagine each grain as encoding,
then imagine dropping a bucket of sand across the table. all the sand that
falls through 'survives'. if the surviving grains were to replicate,
*chances* are - because of their encoding - their progeny would likely be
the same 'successful' size as was required by the *table* to fit through the
air hole.
what you're suggesting is that somehow, as the grain falls to the table, it
choses what shape or texture is best suited for fitting through the hole and
thus surviving. now, imagine that the table keeps changing the number, size,
and position of the air wholes. how much more 'intelligent' would a grain of
sand have to be to master the complex maze of alternative?
i believe okham's razor would not favor your notions so well when there are
much more simple mechanisms in place as described by evolution over 100
years ago. we've progressed the premise by discovering, quantifying, and
qualifying genes. through all of the genetic research to date, there is
little to no proof that supports any idea of 'to change or mutate to adapt
*to*'.
i hope i've understood you correctly.
