Self Directed Mutation
It is possible for life to direct its own mutations.
HOME  PSYCHOLOGY HELP   PHILOSOPHY HELP  ETHICS   SCIENCE  MISTAKES   ECONOMICS   ESSAYS  SEX  SHAKESPEARE   ART  GALLERY   TOP TEN  HISTORY  MOVIES  STORIES  UFOs  PSYCHICS   VIDEO GAMES 


Geoffrey Hamilton
January 6, 2006
Last update March 30, 2008

One of the great mysteries regarding the theory of evolution is found lurking behind these questions: how many mutations does it take before one mutation can be reproduced? And is a mutation called fit simply by something making a copy of it - is it "fit" by that definition alone? Need the mutant copy even be helpful? The mystery of the fit mutation does not seem to matter to evolutionary theory. Darwin said every individual is a mutation, so, given that all reproducing beings are mutants, I suspect a large majority of mutations are easily passed on.

Is it not therefore possible to find "imperfections" of every conceivable kind passed on to future generations, even those which could eventually cause that species' extinction and yet for a hundred generations it may have no survival effect whatsoever? Of course this happens and it happens all the time; these are labeled innocuous factors so as not to deal with the issue. What's worse is the huge amount of old DNA that gets passed on no matter how fit the host is. What are all these freeloading genes doing riding on the "adaptive" gene's coattails? According to today's evolutionists we are all just working for the genes, but genes seem to be too lazy to be doing anything like "directing" their survival. The whole situation also makes the idea of natural selection, as a designing process, irrelevant and ineffectual: if there is no way to stop the "drift" from freeloading and copying itself endlessly then there is not much point in waiting for all malevolent genes to be weeded out. But evolutionists still think success is defined by reproduction and the copying of genes (or, like Richard Dawkins miscomprehension of the drift problem, by an obvious and immediate use of mutations) and this evolutionary definition of success absurdly makes the fittest out of anything and makes the unfittest out of countless individually successful beings who do not reproduce.

There is another problem: as mutation is such a persistent and regular feature of life, how is it some beings often called 'living fossils' (like horseshoe crabs) can remain entirely the same in design over hundreds of millions of years with no mutant offshoot to speak of? The relevance of constant random mutation would mean no form of being could remain the same in design over any length of time - anymore than a rumour can be passed around and remain the same. Something must be keeping it the same.

There is another possible way to have mutations and it is much more useful: that is the effect of conscious thought on genetic inheritance. Today there is enough evidence to conclude that some effects of experience can be inherited. Epi-genetic research has shown that the turning on and off of genes can be manipulated by diet and chemicals and that these "genetic" changes, these learned genetic effects, can be passed on to future offspring. However, what I propose -- that conscious thought too can effect the DNA of one's own next generation -- has only circumstantial evidence to suggest it, but it is strong. I will add here that at least it is a more fast acting and virile theory than random mutation with natural selection alone. I will lead up to the reason why this concept is possible.

Unconscious direction of bodily functions is always with us; from digestion to brain functions, we cannot participate in the control of everything we consciously want to do, so we need unconscious manipulations from our mind to make everything work. The chameleon abilities is a superficial form of this idea. The human face is another example - our emotions are expressed exactly by muscles we don't consciously control or understand. In all kinds of ways an individual being cannot nor should not operate every aspect of his own body. (Just think of the sports figure in a slump. He is usually thinking too much. When he relaxes and forgets about his tasks his skills improve.) There are things out of everyone's conscious control that are better off that way.

There is also the phenomenon exemplified by hysterical symptoms. Just by consciously understanding what physical symptoms are expected - under certain medical conditions - an individual can unconsciously control vast numbers of cells and body parts in order to mimic the colour, shape and texture of the specific expected conditions. Stigmata and hysterical pregnancy are such cases. How such minute control is possible has never been explained scientifically, but this is further proof of an unconscious power over the body that is influenced by conscious thought.

Clown fish change sex from male to female when it realizes that a female of in group is missing. There is also the African Cichlid Fish which changes genetically and changes its form significantly when it consciously recognizes a change in its political situation. It not only puts on a new "uniform" it changes into another being entirely; if we were using DNA fingerprinting to identify a culprit we could not match up the before and after version. The unconscious abilities to morph superficially and genetically means organic selection and human engineering are not the only ways to "evolve". Even though this case does not involve reproduction there is no reason why it may not indicate such a possible method, as in the following example.

A lioness's conscious thought can turn on the reproductive system. Lionesses will receive sexual advances only when they know they have no litter alive to care for. Male Lions know this and so kill a litter so they can have the sexual spoils that go with such murders.

An important factor that suggests the possibility of self-directing mutations is the issue of transposons, or jumping genes. In mid-life a genetic mutation is very common with up to forty-five percent of the human genome made up of them. In other words nothing says within the genome that self-directing a mutation is impossible.

It may happen that a life form, but not all life perhaps, can signal to it's own DNA to make a change in part of its makeup. When reproduction does occur, whether by cloning, or by sexual reproduction, or by the self knowledge that no partner exists that can produce a virgin birth , or by the newly discover direct transferring of genetic material (for example by Raffflesia micropylora Meijer ), then the individual life form can reproduce with some control, perhaps very marginal control, over what the next generation will turn out to be.

As a final, very significant point, it has been shown that, contrary to evolutionists' contention over the years (including those of Pinker and Gould) that human evolution has stopped (because selection pressure has stopped), instead human evolution has been increasing in speed. The idea of self-directed mutation as the primary mode of change makes sense of the increasing speed of human change today and, at the same time, explains the horseshoe crab's lack of change over millions of years (where selection pressures have never stopped).

The most obvious way to make mutations work better is by the directing of genetic code by the individual of the species on himself for future generations by way of an unconscious mechanism set in motion by a conscious appraisal. Many such unconscious mechanisms are available as a lead up to this idea. The chameleon and octopus self-direct but unconsciously know how to change shape and colour while other species can change sex and even genetic codes. Some mimicking species which are complete mimics, like the stick bug and metalmark moths, show signs in their precision that it was their conscious idea of what to mimic which directed there genetic evolution. If species self-direct changes in colour, shape, sex, genes and even gene expression for future generations - so why not their basic design?

Now there is proof that DNA can be repaired as we go about our business by our own bodies. Injured DNA is identified, cut out and repaired and the repair process is so exact that a one in three billion error is caught and fixed. This is something we don't order or control but the job is done very well even though timing is crucial. Feelings may by relevant to the work. One report indicates that DNA can be changed and feelings are connected to the process.

Whatever the objection that one raises to the idea of self-directed mutation, it comes back to one's own ignorance of the potential information that one, in effect, wants suppressed. If one wants to learn, then that which is new needs the least evidence in order to be entertained, while that which is already conventional needs the most. This idea needs to be entertained.

These discoveries, which suggest that self-directed mutation is possible, are only a few cases among the many that evolutionists have failed to account for and this failure has been happening for years. These observations point to many ways in which choice, not just organic or artificial selection, has an effect on change through descent. What evolutionists limit I expand and call simolution - change through choices and through an organic selection process, a process that eliminates concepts of progress.

GRH