A point echoed in O’Malley’s Philosophy of Microbiology. Have you read? If not I highly recommend.

“casual misspelling on it’s own can not explain evolutionary change.”

By this I take it you are referring to random genetic mutations? The misspellings being changes in DNA sequence?

I think fundamentally you are on the right track but not sure I agree that “ It is the biological inability to incorporate emerging genetic material from distantly related organisms and onward from the time of ability, the failure to adapt with a purpose.” Firstly it’s not clear that the emergence of the eukaryotes via the theoretical symbiosis with another organism (what would eventually become mitochondria) is incorporation of genetic material from a distantly related organism. At the time of this coming together the two organisms were not distantly related at all, in fact nothing really was, life was still too (relatively) new. This is evidenced by sequence similarities between mitochondrial and nucleus bound DNA still observed in modern eukaryotes. Moreover I don’t think I would classify that event as a “incorporation” of genetic material as that implies some exchange of genetic material which does not appear to have happened instead the two individual microbial “beings” merged as one but each continued to “act” like they were alone. It was only fortunate happenstance that the life activity of the mitochondria ended up providing a major benefit in terms of cellular energy production for the host. I don’t see any purpose in that, just blind luck.

I take it you are referring to us humans as the species in the following “We now have a species that could have a purposeful and planned evolutionary path.” I am curious to get your take on how this might be achieved? Usually planned evolutionary paths end up as eugenics programs and we have seen how opening up that box can lead to all sorts of unpleasantries (e.g. Nazis).

Finally, to what purpose do you propose these planned evolutionary experiments be conducted? The betterment of mankind perhaps? Who defines better? One could argue that a forced genetic engineering program that targeted all fetuses and whose goal was to eliminate all primarily gene mutation driven disabilities would be for the betterment of mankind. The pregnant woman who is forced to submit might disagree.

Because of our intelligence mankind has arguably almost completed removed itself from evolutions influence. Any natural selection that goes on today is mostly sorting by superficial categories (e.g. Looks, wealth). Maybe we don’t need to know what evolution is for since we are no longer ruled by it. It holds no power over us and binds us no more.

Written by

Research scientist (Ph.D. micro/mol biology), Thought middle manager, Everyday junglist, Selecta (Ret.), Boulderer, Cat lover, Fish hater

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store