Earlier I proposed that evolution is driven by a “Mutation Algorithm.” I said the Mutation Algorithm is the highest software layer in DNA and it explores evolutionary pathways by testing new features (fur, skin patterns, claws, limbs, wings) like switching out blades on a Swiss Army Knife.
I explained why Junk DNA is one of the most backwards theories in the history of modern science.
I said that the “random mutation” theory of evolution is an anti-scientific proposal which fails to presume underlying order and teaches us nothing.
Today I continue with the implications of turning Darwinism on its head and assuming evolution operates top-down not bottom-up:
1. Discoveries first made in DNA will trigger watershed advances in “Artificial Intelligence.” Because of this research, AI will finally move from futuristic dream to practical reality.
Most evangelists of Artificial Intelligence operate from a materialistic presupposition that intelligence automatically “emerges” from complexity.
Their line of reasoning is that if life somehow got started in the primordial soup and eventually gave birth to sentient humans, then surely computers will likewise become intelligent once they get fast enough or if the software gets good enough.
Occasionally there is even talk of the Internet itself someday becoming conscious.
All these beliefs presume that information is a bottom-up phenomenon, but I propose the exact opposite. Everything we know about digital communication states the opposite. The Darwinian theory is totally backwards.
The only reason evolution happens at all is that the genome is literally intelligent; that intelligence in some form is essential to the viability of life.
2. Random Mutations, far from being the driving force behind evolution, are universally detrimental to the survival of the organism. In a complete reversal of the former Darwinian theory, DNA research will definitively demonstrate that random mutation is not capable of producing “evolution of species” at all, but only destroys information.
Theodosius Dobzhansky’s failed fruit fly radiation experiments will finally be accepted as an example of irreversibly corrupted information. The reason of course is that random mutation has the same effect as noise in man-made communication systems: it causes irreversible damage.
Also, positive genetic changes previously attributed to random mutation will be understood to be the result of error correction mechanisms producing an acceptable or beneficial result, even as they resist accidental changes.
3. Birth defects are the result of random mutations of a defect-free ancestor. Mutation rate models will point to a zero-defect ancestor with birth defects accumulating over time.
DNA that is presently seen to have no function can also be shown to be a byproduct of random mutations and destroyed information. Random mutations cause cancer, tumors, aging, congenital abnormalities and death – not improved organisms or new species.
4. We will discover that the Human Genome can be repaired but not improved. The best human genetic engineering can do is, for example, repair birth defects, which are the result of random mutations. The only evolution of humans that is theoretically possible is already built into the genome (and thus may still be unfolding).
Humans cannot successfully “direct our own evolution” because we’re nowhere near as smart as the intelligence that created life in the first place and we do not have the ability to gather as much data as the Mutation Algorithm can gather.
Humans will not “take over” our own evolution in some triumphal Eugenics experiment of the future.
The very notion of engineering our own evolution is preposterous. It will continue to be preposterous until the genome is fully understood, an achievement that is at least several hundred years away.
5. This new view of evolution as an engineered process (i.e. the genome uses concepts comparable to Six Sigma, Kaizen and Quality Control to adapt to its environment) will lead to specific discoveries and systems in DNA that can be directly applied to man-made systems.
This is in stark contrast to Darwinism, which is virtually useless for teaching anyone how to design anything.
(After you learned about Darwinian evolution, what did you suddenly know how to do or build as a result? Nothing!)
Our cave-man ancestors knew that the fittest survive. There’s nothing profound about that; and Random mutation as an alleged path to improved designs is useless.
If Taguchi or other Continuous Improvement methods are the fastest way to improve a design, a random walk is actually the fastest way to destroy a design.
(Also notice that even in the best of circumstances, like Dawkins ‘methinks it is like a weasel’ program, Random Mutation still does not work without a pre-programmed selective goal.)
Genetic Algorithms that mindlessly grind through millions of permutations are notoriously inefficient, which is why their use in the software industry is so limited.
Thus the most potentially productive hypothesis for evolution is that it follows an algorithm that’s pre-engineered for maximum improvement within the smallest possible number of steps. A program that starts with single cells and ends up with human beings in only 3 billion years is an engineering achievement of the highest order.
Reverse-engineering the Mutation Algorithm will be one of the most powerful future applications of applied science. To understand this 21st century view of evolution will be to know something that has immensely practical, real-world applications.
Eventually, unlocking the secrets of the Mutation Algorithm will be the “Holy Grail” of biology. It’s the secret to everything. The 20th century theory of random mutation will be seen as being just as foolish and detrimental to the practice of real science as the church’s opposition to Galileo.
6. The adaptive capabilities of DNA (the Mutation Algorithm) are best understood as a function of intelligence. This adaptive algorithm that makes evolution possible does not blindly plod forward the way man-made programs do, but makes remarkably fit choices in environments that it has not faced before.
7. DNA’s information storage is an optimal combination of physical data density, error-minimizing redundancy, and data compression.
Common sense observation: The entire human genome builds a 3-dimensional biological machine with a lifespan of 70-80 years and all the data necessary to do this can fit on a 750 Megabyte CD-ROM. A DNA molecule is thousands of times denser than a CD-ROM. Windows Vista can’t begin to fit on a CD-ROM, it has thousands of bugs and requires a never-ending series of software patches.
A man-made data storage program (i.e. CAD program) would require hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more storage space than DNA, to accurately represent the human body.
Hypothesis: DNA currently stores data at a higher density than any man-made digital information storage system, and as we approach or attempt to surpass the DNA benchmark we will encounter physical limitations that result in severe tradeoffs (i.e. greatly increased possibilities of long-term data loss).
The resources DNA devotes to error correction are extensive and absolutely necessary. In DNA a single sequence of data is used in more ways and does more jobs than researchers presently imagine.
In DNA, nothing goes to waste.
Coming in Part 4: An Information Theory application of the Anthropic Principle.
Perry Marshall
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Hi Perry
A very stimulating site, and I have enjoyed your podcasts. A few points on ‘Testable Hyp. for ID. pt3′, if I may:
1. You say evolution is driven by a “Mutation Algorithm”. I agree, sort of. One only? Is this shorthand for MANY hierarchical (OO) DNA programs/systems, probably one per phylum, and many finer-level objects/modules? Or is there one uber-program, descended from the first cell (we can assume, a prokaryote?), which perpetually unfolds itself, with as yet unknown potential? It seems to me that we need to allow for Lynn Margulis’ symbiogenesis theory (fact really, but v. awkward for Darwinists to fit into their views) – this allows for the acquistion of protoplasmic functions by one bacterium (prokaryote), engulfing another for food – or being invaded by the other as a parasite-host relationship – and the eventual adaptation of both to the new partnership – hence the mitochondria of all cells and the chloroplasts of plants seem to have been acquired this way. This would imply that the potential of the various prokaryote phyla to combine and share their ‘function libraries’. The animal cell gained a more efficient oxygen-using mitochondrion system when the unneeded parts of the engulfed genome were stripped out. (This is all in ‘Acquiring Genomes’ by Lynn Margulis.) It would also explain the differences in the DNA of mitochondria and their different neutral mutation rates – the mutation rate is approx. one per 10,000 years, faster than nuclear DNA, so forming a biological clock with a 10,000 year ‘tick’, according to Brian Sykes work, ‘The Seven Sisters of Eve’.
So it would be better to substitute something like ‘Genetic Adaptive Systemic Program’ for ‘Mutation algorithm’.
“Mutation Algorithm” is indeed shorthand for MANY processes. Including horizontal gene transfer, cellular genetic engineering, symbiogenesis, and yes I agree with the terms you use, like objects and modules.
I would tend to agree with the “uber program” idea you describe.
Great post, thank you very much.
I find it astonishing that many who have posted on this site and the forum at Infidels would try to argue that DNA is not literal code. There are decades of published peer-reviewed science about DNA code and its information processing and computational properties.
I am a scientist who has conducted cancer research for over 25 years. I teach biology, genetics, biochemistry, and pathology at the graduate level. I have received national and state grant awards and have published in high profile science journals. I work with proteins, DNA, and RNA. I have cloned genes, made expression vectors for cDNA, mutated genes to study function, spliced genes to make fusion proteins, and purified proteins. I am also involved in proteomic studies to identify molecular pathways involved in the emergence of drug-resistant cancer cells which is a major killer in many types cancer.
I know what is good science and how to conduct the scientific method.
What Perry has stated here about DNA being code is right on.
A paper in the prestigious journal Nature describes DNA as digital code (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html) and Shapiro’s work is definitely far-reaching in how we think about genomic organization, replication, and information processing.
The more we learn about DNA algorithms the more we will revolutionize our own information technology.
A good scientific hypothesis is formulated from observations. Predictions are made from the hypothesis and experiments are designed to prove or falsify the predictions.
Perry’s hypothesis about an intelligent origin for DNA is based on solid peer-reviewed observations and it makes predictions that can be tested by observation and experimentation. His hypothesis is thus a valid scientific hypothesis.
For instance, it would be predicted from Perry’s hypothesis that reverse-engineering DNA would enhance our own information and computing systems. This is in fact turning out to be so.
Our knowledge of DNA has already enhanced our information systems. Do a Google search for Genetic programming, DNA computations, and dense information storage capacity of DNA.
The origin of DNA thus seems very likely to have an intelligent origin, since the hallmark of intelligence is information processing that is intended for a decoding system and translator to produce a specific function, action, or purpose.
Perry’s hypothesis predicts that more revolutions in information technology will emerge from reverse-engineering DNA. Since we have only begun to scratch the surface of our understanding of genome algorithms, it is a given premise that a creator of DNA would have greater intelligence than we do about information and computation. Thus, we will increase our own intelligence and information technology by studying the computational code and algorithms in the DNA.
The science that led me to atheism in my youth has brought me back to a belief in God. The scientific evidence arising from cosmology (fine tuning constants) to biology (DNA codes, molecular machines) provides the evidence for my belief in God. I find that science complements and strengthens my belief in God. Other atheists have also been converted to belief in God based on the scientific evidence. See Anthony Flew’s writings (wikipedia). Also check out the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins who sequenced the human genome.
Wikipedia has this to say about Anthony Flew: “In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his “growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe” and “my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”
Science is revealing the nature of God and how He created. My Christian faith provides an answer to why we are here and why the world is the way it is and harmonizes well with science.
As a scientist, I seek the truth and follow the evidence wherever it leads. I interpret the science as providing stronger evidence for a God than for atheism. Based on the scientific evidence, it requires too much faith from me to believe in atheism than to believe in God.
I have many colleagues in science who are believers in God for the reason that I stated above. One is a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
Atheism no longer has a monopoly over science. Science is now a strong ally and friend for those who believe in a Creator. A belief in God gives me purpose and an new perspective in my research. I am thankful for my faith that this life is not all that there will be when I die. The science provides evidence that leads me to God.
Thank you for sharing this. It seems proof-positive that the reason why there is such a backlash again the design argument/God is that many atheists are strongly (emotionally, certainly not rationally) committed to their bias only. (against the very idea of a God.)
After all all a-theism is the anti-thesis of theism, it’s in the name itself, this should have been the first clue that it is not a neutral “not believing” state of mind to adopt. We all believe tons of things we cannot and will never prove, the question is WHY and WHY NOT this or that OVER this or that?
Really, the objections have ZIP to do with science, because science doesn’t conclusively PROVE either viewpoint. It’s a philosophical question ultimately.
I agree with the conclusion of this site/Perry however that design theory IS the best inferred explanation we have for the origin of complex specified (functional) information, it simply fits the data, and it’s common-sensible based on our uniform experience, hence it’s the best theory so far I believe.
Have you discovered what part of blood has retained inherited sin passed to humanity ? I would like to know specifically why God’s remedy for the act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden didn’t transfer to humanity as inherited sin did, supposedly. I have heard covered and removed…not really a biogenetic answer. Humanity wasn’t infused with animal’s blood of sacrific anymore than we are infused with the blood of Jesus.
To sustain the inherited sin nature Judaeo-Christianity doctrine . Their corner stone of their faith. Logically, no human has ever been infused with the blood of any sacrificial offering, animal or Jesus of Nazareth. God in I Samuel 15 makes it plain that obedience is better than sacrifice. The Old Testament was God’s remedy for the inherited sin problem of disobedience, slaying sacrificial lambs and placing their blood on the mercy seat, eventually and establishing the High Priestly Order of Melchizedek. The New Testament is an act of rebellion of God’s established laws. For me personnally any New Testament Christian has created their own god for their own good. So much for God of the OT. The NT god makes little to no sense, as for apologetics and the end times there is no proof Jesus hasn’t returned and taken the saints home already. The NT Church is keeping the fantasy alive for tax free monotery reasons.
To say intelligence created an intelligent algorithms is an altrusim. A combination of zeros and ones. The completed algorithm has been through beta testing before money is spent on any productive machine.
Reverse engineering is the key to understanding how things work.
I can’t see God of the Old Testament creating he human genome. I can believe the god of the New Testament ( man created) through lunancy has credit given to their created god.
To say God is the intelligence in the human gemone is to remove the intelligence of the evolved genome. You are not looking God in the face in the intelligent human genome. To be continued!
“So much for God of the OT. The NT god makes little to no sense,”
What OT god and NT God? There is only one God, the absolute. The Old testament is not easy to understand, I must admit. But to get a firm grasp of what is being said you need to get away from the times of today, the manner of men that walk today and realize that there was a spiritual evolution which took place over the course of time when man entered this plane.
There were men who walked the earth, who were like gods or referred to as gods. To an ant, you are a god. Dont be surprised if one day you uncover a nest with the dirt sculpture of a human with candles and a shrine around it. To a dog you are a God. A being whose abilities surpass those of the observer is refereed to as a “god”. Not the God, When you reach the height of man today, you would wonder are there higher beings which are beings which are looked upon as gods. In those days, the answer is yes. This spiritual evolution did not happen in one sweep. There was a gradual turning away into the depths of the tempest known as the material plane, its amenities, and off shoots. Naturally there were those who retained that higher level of consciousness where their abilities surpassed those of the common folk. They are what men supposed to be in this plane. When it was told to “subdue the earth” it meant subdue the earth. The elements themselves are at your command, the entire earth. The material plane, in its most basic substrate is built from pure consciousness. We are at the sub atomic level for now but we’ll get there.
The mind is consciousness. And when the mind is at that high frequency, and matches the template, on which all is built from, what is called nirvana, or the Christ consciousness or attunement or atonement (at-one-ment) or just god, then the mind itself or consciousness becomes one with all that is, and dissolves into existence, no different that a harp section in an orchestra playing at the same frequency (dont know much about music) or “key”. When one is “off key” it is instantly detectable. But when all are “in tune”, where does one begin where does it end? When you drop oil in water it always sits at the surface. Drop water in, where does that drop begin? Mind itself is motion, and the elements are built on mind. There is no seeing or hearing in the sense of sensory receptions but pure awareness from being a part of all that is. On earth, this is often depicted as just “god”.
In the old testament, you have to be careful. as to what you are referring to as god, whether its the higher mind of an individual intune, A higher being or beings, or just a ruler. In Psalm 82 there is a good clue as to just how deep this really is. God presides over the great assembly, he gives judgments among the gods. How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality for the wicked? They know nothing they understand nothing. They walk about in Darkness, all the foundations of the Earth are shaken. I said you are “gods”, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men. You will fall like every other ruler.”
The flood is used by atheists to denote a genocide by god. It is said that God sent the flood. But the flood was in fact caused by god. When men were men, intune with the creative forces, there began the descent into the material. And with that power came the use and its misuse. That higher mind whether used or misused is the power of god. And in that sense it was god, through misuse who sent the flood. It is said that god warned his people, told them to get away. How is this information obtained if not for men like Noah, a titan among men, who did use that power of god, that atonement of mind to penetrate time itself and see ahead. Time itself is rendered useless, in the face of the infinite in the power of that mind attuned, the power of god.. (In fact Jesus made several references to his death. He saw it coming all the way.) It is then depicted that god warned his people, and it is rightfully portrayed.
God was also depicted as angels, or the Cherubim, the next order after man in the earth. But thats how they spoke. Like I said you may need to get into the times given to understand. In John 10:34 we also find another reference to “god” that Jesus gave.
Some things were written as from god but wasnt from God or a “god” at all. Take note of the bracketed text in the following , John 7 21-22 “Jesus replied, “I performed one miracle and you are all amazed. However, because Moses gave you the practice of circumcision (not that it came from Moses, but from the forefathers). Also in the Gospel of Thomas we find he is asked “Is circumcision useful or not?”
He said to them, “If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect.” There we find the spiritual message through which the interpretation possibly arose and was altered and applied in law.”
Circumcisions was said in the old testament to be a law given by “god”. But now we know that not all the laws were given. Additionally, we do not just discard everything which Moses gave. We find that the Nazarene upholds some and refutes some, those which are said to come from the forefathers and not from god. He upholds the creation, the 10 commandments while discarding some like circumcision To prevent all the confusion we follow the teachings of Christ. Its called the New Covenant. Ive heard some Christians actually think of converting because of atheists bringing up the old testament. There are entire atheist websites dedicated to the old testament. You actually believe that God the creator of all that is, lives in the pages of the old testament. God, the source, also created these “gods”. And we do not worship these gods but the source itself.
There is no “god of the OT” and “god of the NT”. Gods are not fighting for ownership of man. This is absolutely ridiculous. The information is not bound to the medium. Neo Darwinism also speaks of natural selection, survival of the fittest, mutations and the continuation of the species. In that same book among all what is given you will find selective breeding, Nazism, Genocide all justified by the god in that book, natural selection. But you may go to your grave saying that this is not what natural selection is. Thats not what Darwin said. How do you know? Youve read other books. Youve studied the information outside of the book and are able to discern what natural selection and random mutations actually support. The same goes for God and the bible. You are told that God is good and God is truth. Therefore weeding out what is given and what could never come from good, is not cherry picking but common sense and study.
God was not created by man. It would be impossible for man, a physical being to create a being to create the physical universe. How does that work out? Do you guys listen to yourself. You cant see God creating the human genome because you hold the belief that mankind is the smartest thing in reality. Like a sprinter who is the fastest in his country believing that he is the fastest in the world. Wait till you get to the Olympics then speak. To link a code to intelligence is not based on faith. The only other codes we have are done by intelligence. Its an observable fact! Isnt science based on observability? Why is intelligent design not science. But random mutations, which has never been observed to create anything that makes any sense is science right? How’s that working out for you? Anytime somebody makes this point you retort “god is not testable. Who said anything abut God? This an observation. The code is testable. The results are repeatable. If there were beings before dna then it would long be accepted that they created the genome. A person given the functionality of the code its abilities and structure without being told that its dna will ask who created it? And thats what science is. Its innocent. We ask who created it? But there was no who before dna. So atheists are off their rockers. It implies intelligence. It just so happens that this intelligence has already been given.
And if adaption at the molecular level is not random what are the implications?
If DNA is coded for adaption then that would mean that it is more complex than before. Leaning even further to intelligence. If DNA formed randomly, then then why is there a mechanism which repels random acts in the code? How does random develop a random checker. How does a random process know that it is detrimental to the state of the code? At which part of the random assembly of the random checker does the random checker stop its assembly which is being done through random acts? Why would random acts kill themselves? You cant say evolution as it is not random. How does the rest of the code get assembled through random processes? It must have came last. But here is no order. No first and last. There are some more questions here
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCB-4DTKB55-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3ea74b7390980e9d8795e4b731399ed1
There s also a question here at 04:45 in this video regarding non somatic germ cells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGN2dcjNUY&feature=related
Perhaps you can shed some light on the issue
“even in the best of circumstances, like Dawkins ‘methinks it is like a weasel’ program, Random Mutation still does not work without a pre-programmed selective goal”
Of course, in a computer program, the selective goal is artificial, as is the program itself. What is the problem with that?
Given a program to model natural selection of random mutations, with hardware much more powerful than feasible today, what kind of complex and apparently intelligent features would you predict to be unable to develop that way, based on your claim that “random errors don’t make a code”?
And about “junk DNA theory”, there is no such theory. There is a working hypothesis, sill working in general, but without obligations. And it is not intended as a case against creationism.
Evolution builds over what is already in place. If at a moment there is a true “junk DNA”, even engineered one, after long evolutionary time it may become nonjunk just because other DNA will have evolved in in its presence. It’s like a town built over some relief: the relief becomes important because the town is already built on it.
The problem with Dawkins’ computer program is that it does not model neo-darwinism, it models intelligent design. It proves my point, not his.
Show me just one genetic algorithm that produces useful computer programs with absolutely no pre-programmed goals or criteria at the outset.
Junk DNA is cited all the time as a case against creationism. It was in the TalkOrigins article I just cited to you.
If you wish to propose that evolution can take junk and turn it into useful code through natural selection then empirically demonstrate that this is so. I say you can’t do it without a pre-programmed goal – like programming a computer to converge towards ‘methinks it is like a weasel’. That’s intelligent design.
“Junk DNA is cited all the time as a case against creationism. ”
It is, but it doesn’t mean that there is “Junk DNA theory” developed for that purpose.
“Show me just one genetic algorithm that produces useful computer programs with absolutely no pre-programmed goals or criteria at the outset.”
To be precise, genetic algorithm isn’t necessarily Darwinian. And Darwinian ones probably are not the best for practical purposes. Motives to develop them may be purely scientific.
What is the problem with “pre-programmed goals or criteria”? What would be wrong to have pre-programmed is solution, not goal.
Is it OK if there are virtual entities playing kind of copmputer game where reproduction is the prize?
In this case, no information goes from the game to the genome, all that the game defines is which virtual player to reproduce. Is it adequate model for Darwinian selection? Do you predict it to develop no apparently intelligent behaviour?
My point is precisely that genetic algorithms are never isomorphic with Darwinism.
My contention is that living organisms operate much the same way GA’s do – with pre-programmed goals and attempts to reach those goals as efficiently as possible. Not randomly.
Thanks for responding ( on faceBook).Have you had a chance to review the book by Kryon: The 12 Strands Of the DNA?
Raphael
Hello Perry,
I’m really enjoying your work. Please keep it up.
First a question, then a comment:
Your third installment, item 7 states:7. DNA’s information storage is an optimal combination of physical data density, error-minimizing redundancy, and data compression.” Question: along what axis is it optimal? Energy, physical size, least “dollar” cost?
Comment:
I lean toward a model of biology along the lines served up by Rupert Sheldake, even though his model is not well defined or developed. It seems to me that even with the efficiency of DNA there needs to be some other agency, unseen perhaps and not part of the junk DNA unknown, but one that takes the overview in all this “construction” occurring in living cells. I’ve read that a cell has 40K different compounds in it, all dodging and weaving around each other until they find just the right component to mate-up with and continue the life process. Holy Cow! this is Maxwell’s Demon to the tenth power. I’m with you: randomity cannot explain this, there’s more complexity that we can even imagine going on here. There has to be an agency directing all this that is capable of intention and purpose and of course intelligence to hold it all together.
Have a great holiday season.
Ciao,
Dennis
Dennis,
Re: your question, Perry says that as he can tell it’s near optimum for just about any criteria you can think of.
—
Lorena Ybarra
Assistant to Perry Marshall
“3. Birth defects are the result of random mutations of a defect-free ancestor. Mutation rate models will point to a zero-defect ancestor with birth defects accumulating over time.
DNA that is presently seen to have no function can also be shown to be a byproduct of random mutations and destroyed information. Random mutations cause cancer, tumors, aging, congenital abnormalities and death – not improved organisms or new species.
4. We will discover that the Human Genome can be repaired but not improved. The best human genetic engineering can do is, for example, repair birth defects, which are the result of random mutations. The only evolution of humans that is theoretically possible is already built into the genome (and thus may still be unfolding).
Humans cannot successfully “direct our own evolution” because we’re nowhere near as smart as the intelligence that created life in the first place and we do not have the ability to gather as much data as the Mutation Algorithm can gather.
Humans will not “take over” our own evolution in some triumphal Eugenics experiment of the future.
The very notion of engineering our own evolution is preposterous. It will continue to be preposterous until the genome is fully understood, an achievement that is at least several hundred years away.
”
You really believe these two statements? I have no intention to be insulting but you’ve got to be kidding me. It is so obvious that you are biased by your Christianity when you say this. Unless you can show me your logical derivation pathway that has zero Christian indoctrination in it. No there is not a defect free human ancestor. That makes no sense with what we know about evolution. My prediction is that when we examine genomes of different animals we will find a scaling increase of efficiency of the genomes with humans possibly at the top. Although i do not think this is necessarily true, some bacteria have had ages to evolve and may do far less complex tasks in a more energy efficient way. The point is, we won’t see an original superior DNA molecule as that contradicts everything about evolution, species improve over time and become more efficient. For example if you go from 4 footed animals to gorillas which can use front knuckles all the way to humans who can stand on two legs you will get an increase in energy efficiency for walking. It contradicts the entire nature of evolution for the genome to not improve over time, this is what these evolutionary mechanisms such as transposition, HGT, etc accomplish. The moment you accept your hypothesis that evolution is self directed by animals you have to realize that this statement you added on contradicts that and is just something you jam in from the Bible to try to make it fit the Christian paradigm.
There is no superintelligence which created life, i’ve went over the reasons why in other threads. Please realize once again that you have literally said the exact opposite of this idea and said that evolution is directed by animals. IE, that they directly improve their genome with their actions. If that is an improvement of the DNA there is no reason Genetic Engineering is not theoretically capable of doing so, evolution would just be a natural form of genetic engineering in the first place and forms of genetic engineering like CRISPR as you have argued yourself use natural biology in the first place to be effective. Do you have an arbitrary belief that CRISPR is incapable of improving the genome by adding new function? CRISPR is just induced HGT as far as i’m aware. So once you admit HGT can do it there’s no reason CRISPR can’t. Humans don’t have to fully understand the genome to change it in a positive way and if it’s not safe enough now that’s all the more reason to understand it so it becomes safe. You are just arbitrarily saying it is 100s of years away to preserve the dogma that only some superintelligence could understand how it works. A lot of its mechanics have already been discovered as you have said yourself. Please reconsider these two hypotheses as they are already debunked and seem to be obvious Christian Indoctrination.
Last point, i know this is a long post. But I also want one clear answer of yes or no, on whether any of your thinking here is biased and based on your desire to make Evolution fit your Christianity. Please be totally honest here.