Posted: Aug 20, 2010 2:51 am
In reading over your posts it seems that we are dancing around the same issues, and talking about the same thing. The fish analogy is sound and I’ve been scratching my head wondering how you see it differently than what I’m writing, perhaps I should have been clearer. My point in mentioning Lamarck is that the physiological change in a species would have begun as a behavioral change in adaptation to an environmental impact. His hypothesis was that a physiological change would happen in the next generation, and as we know that is not the case. That is the meaning of my statement. The chemical processes of genetic expression and behavioral adaptation toward environmental impacts promotes this logic. Evolutionary changes would be slow or non-existent for species living in an environment in stasis, and faster in environments with high impacts, this is known as adaptive evolution, yet in any circumstance a behavioral change would be the initiator of a physiological change. Random genetic mutations aren’t really random from this perspective.
What are the contributory circumstances for mutating genes? Is there really randomness? There is always causation for any reaction in the body. Any genetic mutation is the result of a specific event or series of specific circumstances. Genetic expression is not random it is a direct causal response to an effect. Darwin’s survival of the fittest, or survival of the most likely to propagate, is not dependent on randomness. It is usually the healthiest of a species that passes their genes on to the next generation, and the ones that are most healthy are the ones that express behaviors that offer the greatest chance for success. As in my example of the fish foraging in shallower water, it went were the food was most plentiful and easiest to obtain. No random swimming direction dictated the choice, rather a need for survival, drives species toward a behavioral necessity.
Behavioral genes are fluid; they are so because of the need to be adaptive to changes in environment. Fluid behavioral genetics are the cog in the wheel of survival and evolution of species. If a species does not adapt it will not survive, and behavioral genes are what adapt to an environmental impact.
It seems we may be discussing semantics to some degree, but also perspective.
What are the contributory circumstances for mutating genes? Is there really randomness? There is always causation for any reaction in the body. Any genetic mutation is the result of a specific event or series of specific circumstances. Genetic expression is not random it is a direct causal response to an effect. Darwin’s survival of the fittest, or survival of the most likely to propagate, is not dependent on randomness. It is usually the healthiest of a species that passes their genes on to the next generation, and the ones that are most healthy are the ones that express behaviors that offer the greatest chance for success. As in my example of the fish foraging in shallower water, it went were the food was most plentiful and easiest to obtain. No random swimming direction dictated the choice, rather a need for survival, drives species toward a behavioral necessity.
Behavioral genes are fluid; they are so because of the need to be adaptive to changes in environment. Fluid behavioral genetics are the cog in the wheel of survival and evolution of species. If a species does not adapt it will not survive, and behavioral genes are what adapt to an environmental impact.
It seems we may be discussing semantics to some degree, but also perspective.