Even if they were all random, I don’t know what difference that makes. Some algorithms arrive a solutions by spitting out random numbers and weeding some out with a survival function. This is interesting, nonetheless.
Using a novel method, a team of researchers led by Professor Adi Livnat have shown the first evidence of nonrandom mutation in human genes. In a statement in the announcement, Livnat said, “For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance.”
I have seen some commentators pointing to this as clear evidence of a designer, rather than evolution. but this is still a result of evolution: directing mutations to parts of the genome where it is most beneficial, and adding protection against mutation to those parts where it is least useful.
GMO yes, but only in the sense that all evolution involves genetic modification. that’s the point. Well, sometimes it follows from epigenetic modification, and fixes useful traits. that are introduced epigenetically. if it didn’t fix it (as in, stabilise and make it permanent), then it is amenable to loss and disappears again over time. I’m actually quite interested in the process of instinctive behaviour fixation by epigenetic to genetic transition.
not modified by some outside force, but a slow process of random modification where only the successful ones survive and the others are weeded out. if some area of the g4nome is more important, and mutations are more likely to be deleterious, then it is a simple truism that these areas are likely to evolve additional protection. conversely, if any changes to some other area of the genome lead to some selective advantage, then they are going to be more exposed and more able to mutate. a lot of this comes from things like epigenetic modifications but also from things like histone packaging into tight structures that are more protected as they are less often unwound for transcription, or located on more protected areas of the chromosome, which are less likely to be broken, duplicated, or swapped during sexual and somatic cell division.
I feel,that is somehow kind of an oxymoron. Outside forces are all we have, constantly in so many ways we likely dont even have an estimated number.
It seems forces would be fairly hard to describe being separated from evolving/changing/mutating/etc realities.
Its interesing to ponder, but a genetically engineered organism is an evolution as it is being mutated by another outside natural force. In this case an animal. although we like to pat our backs a lot, its not so different than a moth engineering eye patterns because birds eat them. Or fungi and algae engineer each other into a lichen etc. its pretty amazing, humbling and down right mind blowing!
There’s a chapter in Richard Dawkins’s Blind Watchmaker on arms races in evolution. It’s been a while since I read it, but right now I don’t see how there can be an arms race unless you can speed up mutations.
