Auto directive intelligent design

smegmar

I do like a snazzy title, thought it might grab some of your attention.

Firstly I am not a creationist I don't believe in intelligent design, by god at least.
but here's a theory I thought up that may have some truth and I want to see if any one can critique it of improve upon it. and it goes something like this...

"Charles Darwin postulated that in any population of self reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material which will cause defects and abnormalities, in the most case these will be a handicap the the effected organism, and increase it's chance of death but when the mutation is superior the organism thrives and spreads it's mutation to the next generation, thereby adapting the species."

Now it has always been supposed that these genetic mutation have been random and uncontrollable, granted there is a nature of chaos in any organic system, but I believe that the development of species is guided, not by "god" or other external force but by the nature of reproduction itself.

I propose that in the case of the male, DNA passed on during reproduction can be effected subconsciously to have a greater chance of the traits that are understood to help survival.

As a real life example, if I run to the point to exhaustion my muscles will build and grow, to adapt the the environment that caused the need to run. The more I run the more my muscles will build. As a male I am constantly producing new spermatozoa, is it possible in the act of my muscles building, the newly created sperm may be more lightly to have traits more adapt to running longer, farther just as my muscles had adapted?

In the case of female, most species have a set number of eggs at birth and none are produced, so it is my theory that males are exclusively engaged in genetic direction.

TL;DR
it isn't really that long just read the dam thing.

Tree

Your DNA won't change, no matter how much muscle mass you put on. So your sperm will be the same regardless (unless youlike to come in regular contact with mutagenic substances, but let's say you're wise enough not to).

It's more likely that a muscley son will be produced by a muscley father because of the father pushing the offspring to have the same values as they do (nuture effects etc.).

In the overall scheme of things, i think your theory will therefore only work for species where parenting plays an active role in shaping the young. (and not work on a DNA basis, but the parents being there to make them do the same things they did)

smegmar

Indeed raising of a child will be a much larger factor then DNA I agree with you, but each sperm produced is not an exact DNA copy of the man. Each one slightly different. In that way they can be produced with a tendency toward a superior traits.

it's not solely muscle mass it maybe how fast the brain develops or where hair grows, factors in development of height etc etc

an example maybe the giraffe, over thousands of years successive generations subconsciously realized, that their peers longer necks had the advantage of reaching better foliage. The subconscious drive to reach higher adapted the spermatozoa and so the chance that that trait was passed on was increased, and indeed it did flourish.

Tree

you can't subconsciously alter chemical bonds.

Each sperm isn't a copy of hte man, it's half a copy for a start. Small mutations will occur every once in a while, but any significant change generally causes more hassle than anything (genetic diseases etc). These small mutations are governed by chance, not by some subconscious desire.

norrie rugger

Tree wrote: »

you can't subconsciously alter chemical bonds.

Each sperm isn't a copy of hte man, it's half a copy for a start. Small mutations will occur every once in a while, but any significant change generally causes more hassle than anything (genetic diseases etc). These small mutations are governed by chance, not by some subconscious desire.

Now where do we all stand on "Genetic Memery" or "instinctive actions"

Tree

Genetic memory?

Instinctive actions-are a product of the biochemistry that builds an animal/plant/bug. Easier to see on the small scale, chemotaxins, phototropes etc. We do what we are programmed to do by the proteins encoded on the genome.

smegmar

Tree wrote: »

you can't subconsciously alter chemical bonds.

Each sperm isn't a copy of hte man, it's half a copy for a start. Small mutations will occur every once in a while, but any significant change generally causes more hassle than anything (genetic diseases etc). These small mutations are governed by chance, not by some subconscious desire.

and why do you say that. Surely as each strand of DNA is created for the spermatozoa to carry the more preferential traits can be favored or selected.
surely a process of chaos would be give much less chance of the best traits being passed on.

Tree

There is no directed design outside of agriculture and dog breeding.

Clearly chaos is how it is. The best trait is not always passed on, sometimes unfavourable mutations occur.

I would suggest getting a basic grounding in genetics, either through the internet, a decent text book or just some pop science books (i can highly recommend matt ridley's genome for a start.) then come back and reconsider your proposed directed design.

F.R.

I knew this sounded familiar

The inheritance of acquired characters

Jean-Babtiste Lamarck (1774-1829).

The theory states that:

1. Individuals lose or gain characteristics during their lives through use or disuse.

2. These acquired traits are transmissible to succeeding generations.
3. Changes in the environment can create new needs which elicit new traits the inheritance of which over time can lead to the appearance of new species.
Lamarckism is not consistent with modern embryology or molecular biology.
Only the germ cells of the gonads contribute to the embryo.

Calibos

Dammit. I was like a kid jumping out of his seat with his hand up hoping to impress the experts. "He's talking about Lamarckism!!" Someone beat me to it

In terms of directed evolution. If our evolution was directed by anything it was directed by Virus' esss...Virii...???

Aparently our genome has more integrated virus genetic material in it than the actual DNA that codes for a human. I read this somewhere the other day. 9% vs 30%+

Kevster

Tree wrote: »

you can't subconsciously alter chemical bonds.

Thanks for that comment, as it's the biggest flaw in the OP's theory. These things simply don't happen 'subconsciously', as much as he (the OP) likes to think. Sorry smegmar, but I'm siding with Tree here; and it really seems like you don't actually have a background in genetics. I'm not trying to 'attack' you here my friend, but that's how you've come across thus far.

Do you want to know why I am saying these things to you? - because I actually had the exact same theory as you, but it was before I became a researcher in the area of genetics and cancer (and before I had even started my biology undergrad).

Kevin

Somnus

Even a secondary school biology book would most likely give you a good basic understanding into how genes are passed on in sexual reproduction, and reading a chapter or two from one would be quicker than entire book if you just want a basic understanding.

While activities such as running might benefit you, that muscle development is a result of you exercising the muscles yourself. It's forced development (for want of a better way of putting it). It does not alter the DNA you already possess.

It would be different if you had a mutated gene which caused increased muscle development. In this case there would be a chance of it being passed on to the offspring.

It's easy to understand why you would think that it would affect your sperm. I used to think that someone who exercised etc a lot would have a better chance of having children who would be fitter than average. But hey that's why I love biology!! You get to learn about the amazing ways that you and every other living thing around you works

Bajingo

smegmar wrote: »

and why do you say that. Surely as each strand of DNA is created for the spermatozoa to carry the more preferential traits can be favored or selected.
surely a process of chaos would be give much less chance of the best traits being passed on.

Ye..this is were the term survival of th fittest comes from..some species become extinct, this is why. Evolution has no foresight..

I had this frame of mind on evolution when I was doing the LC but they soon knocked it out of me in college:)

Capt'n Midnight

In some bacteria under conditions of stress, like lack of food that they can use, DNA repair mechanisms don't work as efficiently. This means that there are more mutations and there is a possibility that some may be beneficial like being able to utilise a new source of food.

To an casual observer it might look like the bacteria have evolved to handle the lack of food, but what has actually happened is the vast majority of the died off and only random chance allowed the survivors to survive.

No amount of a bacteria being the best bacteria it could, or training would have influenced the outcome.

Oddly enough there was a recent survey about the effects of optimism on cancer, turned out there was no correlation , your outlook doesn't seem to affect the outcome

smegmar

ok I'll admit I was wrong, and I feel better for it. I confess I don't have college level education on genetics so it's nice to get that matter sorted now.
cheers boardsies

/thread

Tree

Scool

I really would recommend reading genome though. Pop science is great for a general introduction to interesting topics without doing serious amounts of learning.

Kevster

smegmar wrote: »

ok I'll admit I was wrong, and I feel better for it. I confess I don't have college level education on genetics so it's nice to get that matter sorted now.
cheers boardsies

/thread

No problem dude, but don't let any of this discourage you. Continue to use your brain to great effect and - who knows - maybe you'll be well ahead of all of us in this area some day.

Kevin