The Greatest Show from Darwin to Dawkins 18

To the beginning: http://proza.ru/2022/06/26/1108

18. In the order of delirium

If reading the previous arguments did not cause you complete rejection, then I suggest treating this chapter as nonsense. Incompetence in such sophisticated fields as genetics does not allow me to speak on this topic. Although, I have already shared so many misconceptions that one less, one more...

It is difficult for me to contribute to the hard work of finding a correction factor to the formula of natural selection, because this is a very serious work for big minds, which I do not consider myself to be. And while this work is not completed (or, more correctly, not started), why not reflect on evolution.
There are two variables in the desired equation: random mutations and natural selection. Nothing can be done about natural selection. That's why it's natural. You can't tame predators, you can't feed all the hungry animals. So the pressure of these self-evident factors will not go away.

Let's not take seriously that mysterious period in the history of natural selection, when predators in the world's oceans had not yet had time to begin their direct duties, and the abundance of nutritional resources did not give a chance to launch a competitive struggle for survival. Some pathetic few million years will not be a black spot on the impeccable reputation of natural selection, which faithfully "daily and hourly" serves for the benefit of evolution.

And what about mutations?
A mutation is an error in hereditary information. Today, along with the generally recognized polymerase model of mutagenesis, there are many approaches to explain the nature and mechanisms of mutation formation. All of them are based on the idea that the only reason for the formation of mutations are random DNA errors. What unites all approaches is that there are useful ones among the errors. So these "useful" errors are the raw material for evolution. It is possible with a high degree of confidence to call such a concept of evolution - the evolution of errors.

The first thing that catches your eye is the amazing ability of wildlife to self-organize. Randomness, of course, is a convenient thing, but for some reason chaos in inanimate nature does not often lead to such an amazing level of self-organization. In order for the chaotic movement of atoms, molecules, particles, planets or stars to lead to order, some kind of force is required. Stars gather into galaxies, and planets around the star under the influence of gravity.
What kind of force affects DNA, which leads to an endless stream of beneficial mutations? Moreover, not only mutations that lead along the beaten path from time to time, but each time it becomes more and more inventive, creating something new, unusual and truly amazing.

Mutations leading to the improvement of existing properties, although unlikely, are still possible because they do not create anything fundamentally new. But the creative mutations that arise as a result of the occurrence of new facets on the hexagon cube of randomness that did not exist before the moment of the throw require at least some understanding.

And what if we assume, of course, in the order of delirium, that changes in DNA are not errors at all? So I hear insulted exclamations, they say, if not a mistake, then is it the hand of God?

I will answer the question with a question. When we're cold, do we sweat, and when it's hot, do we shiver? With a cut, the blood begins to clot, and with infection, the body usually gives an adequate immune response. Is this the hand of God?

No, all this is sweating, muscle trembling, blood clotting, and the immune response - algorithms written in DNA. So why can't an algorithm for making changes be written in DNA? It's so natural, so self-evident.
To have thousands of prescribed mechanisms of the body's reaction to external factors and not to have an elementary mechanism for making changes to the body itself in response to new challenges of the external environment? On the part of the genome, you must agree, it would be very inconsistent not to have such a mechanism.

A living organism is an open system. Starting from the simplest forms, the body responds adequately to changes in external conditions. Why? Because all living things have a different set of sensors to get information about the world around them. It is thanks to the sensory system that animals usually respond adequately to any kind of threat. Living beings are open systems that receive information, process it to an extent accessible to their level of organization and respond adequately.

If the information coming from outside is processed, it is possible that under certain conditions this information can make certain changes to the DNA itself. Perhaps the trigger is stress - some kind of exorbitant load on the body. In any case, changes occur under the influence of stress or another reason, this process should be associated with the processing of information received from the outside.

One of the hypotheses about the causes of the Cambrian explosion is the theory of Andrew Parker, which claims that the evolution of the eye marked the beginning of an arms race, which served to accelerate evolution. You can add our piglet to the piggy bank of hypotheses.

Perhaps the reason that the earlier layers are extremely poor in biological remains and demonstrate the ubiquity of only the simplest single—celled organisms - bacteria and algae - is that all these hundreds of millions of years DNA has been working out the simplest mechanism for making changes. And since the Cambrian epoch, about 550 million years ago, a sudden rapid increase in the diversity of biological forms is a consequence of the development of this algorithm.

In genetics, such a term as "junk DNA" is known. This name rather characterizes the level of awareness of scientists than somehow characterizes the sections of the genomic code themselves. By the geneticists themselves, the term "junk DNA" has been questioned due to the fact that it raises the assumption of a complete lack of functions. Instead, it is recommended to use a more neutral term - non-coding DNA.

At the same time, "junk DNA" remains the name for that part of the genome for which no significant biological function has been found, serving as a sign that it can provide any adaptive advantage. Simply put, these are such sections of DNA in relation to which at least some benefit for the body has not been determined. There are still disputes about their functionality. It is possible that this part of the genome contains instructions for making changes.
If this is the case, then we can talk about non-random genetic changes that allow living organisms to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Then, like any errors, mutations must be eliminated. Natural selection (mostly sexual selection) is most likely fighting mutations, removing their carriers from the gene pool.

Of course, there are also a lot of questions about this hypothesis, but there is no need for any correction factors and other auxiliary conditions, and the timing of evolutionary changes becomes much more flexible. Some organisms may not have changes for millions of years, while others may take several generations for an evolutionary breakthrough. In addition, difficulties with synchronicity of changes in various organs disappear and, in general, much becomes natural and self-evident.

This is true when it comes to improving something that a living organism has, but when creating something new, even more questions arise than to the mutation theory. The case, in general, is a very convenient thing. Even with the lowest probability, it can still hypothetically happen. That's what he's for. For example, a cube can fall on an edge if it is tossed and tossed, and at the same time the surface is smeared with glue.

With regard to non-random changes, I would like to repeat and repeat after Charles Darwin: the assumption that environmental signals can make such changes in DNA, samples of which were not before, "may seem, as I can easily imagine, largely absurd."

However, finding the cause of the original changes is a much more exciting task for science than watching the dice being tossed and clapping your eyes every time you discover how a new face falls out, different from the existing ones.
For one hundred and fifty years of scientists' close attention to evolution, dozens of theories have been developed that are close and fundamentally different from Darwin's theory. What is described above has something in common with the concept of autogenesis in that it gives priority to internal factors, although it does not fixate on them, and with neo-Lamarckism in relation to the influence of the external environment and inheritance of acquired traits (mechanolamarkism).

* - I apologizes for my English. I would be grateful for the corrections.

Next:http://proza.ru/2022/07/18/1262