"It should be possible to model this mathematically, at least in an idealized and oversimplified manner. Let's go back to our rabbit example. Reduced to only one trait (fur) and a binary decision of black or white, the chance element of natural selection has a 0.5 probability of picking the "correct" choice: white.
Let's add a gene for thick (as opposed to thin) subcutaneous fat. The natural selection winner would have both white fur and insulating fat, and if we make the simplifying assumption that the fat layer is either thick or thin, with no intermediate alternatives, the probality of getting offspring with white fur AND good insulation in .5 x .5 = 0.25."
Ok, but now you're interfeering.
"there must be some processing capability in the DNA itself to link up associated traits so they can be tested against the environment as a group, not one at a time."
Aside from the luck issue, maybe compatability is the answer. Sorry to sound so unscientific here, but instict also plays a role and natural selections seems to be winning out.
Space/Science » in reply to One gene at a time
re: One gene at a time
The whole thread (31 posts)
- What if Evolution is wrong?
- Life's like that.
- habitats move during ice ages, they don't disappear and reappear
- Nothing in your statement suggests evolution is wrong
- So many traits, so much time, so many circumstances !
- re: What if Evolution is wrong?
- re: What if Evolution is wrong?
- It would be hard to call it "wrong". The driver is a puzzlement.
- Evolution isn't random mutations.
- re: What if Evolution is wrong?