Posted by Phil M on July 28, 2003 at 09:57:56:
In Reply to: Re: another suggestion for v2 posted by Phil M on July 28, 2003 at 09:49:36:
After...
: I like the idea that this is the case, as it
:potentially proves a lot more (if considered a
:success) than it would if we apply our own ideas
:of what consistutes a 'good' mutation.
...I also meant to say...
Mutation is unguided (apart from a few
biological tricks that mean junk DNA gets
disurbed more than the active stuff) and no
environmental pressures exists that act
directly on the genome to say "wouldn't you
rather have GACTCTATC instead of CAGTCTAAC? It
might help you out with that whole blood
pressure problem?"
...before
: At the level of molecular biology, DNA doesn't
:really care whether it's producing hair, scale,
:muscle, venom, venom-resistence, etc (or even, to
:be more accurate, the precursor molecules that
:eventually ause the creation of that kind of cell
:or enzyme or chemical product. As long as a
:particular bit of DNA keeps the organism alive
:(or at least doesn't kill it before it
:reproduces) it does not need to understand the
:world at large.