Evolution by Definition

Tesla, there is a two word term, Emergent Property, in biology that refers to the vertical organization of life on this planet.by vertical, I mean, of course, the successive levels of organization that life takes. These are:atoms-->molecules-->organelles-->cells-->tissues-->organs-->organ systems-->organisms-->populations-->communities-->ecosystems-->the BiosphereEach successive level of organization has properties that the previous level lacks. These properties are called "Emergent Properties". For example, cells are the smallest unit that can carry out all the necessary functions of life, while organelles, molecules and atoms cannot by themselves do so. An organism is motile, can respond to stimuli, while the levels below it can't (with little exception).The process of biological evolution is an emergent property at the population level, and the population level and those above it are the only organization levels of life at which evolution can take place.Atoms and molecules don't evolve, they simply change. the evolution we are trying to get to the bottom of is not simply change, but change and thereby optimization for the environment. Atoms and molecules and organelles don't evolve in the biological sense, and it is the biological sense we are talking about.Your argument about the different types of evolution is misplaced. Simply because the word evolution means multiple things depending on the context it is used in, for example: the evolution of heat in an exothermic reaction, the evolution of language, and evolution in a biological sense, it does not mean that biological evolution is inaccurate. It is perfectly accurate. We just use the term "evolution" to describe it because it has to do with change.

DNA is not an emergent property, although it is a novel level of organization. the DNA molecule has the ability to repair itself, replicate itself and direct the synthesis of proteins along with a host of other organelles in the cell. An atom of DNA alone could not do these things. Therefore, the properties of DNA are emergent properties.So if I understood what you were saying correctly, then yeah, you're understanding what I'm saying.

Emergent Properties are just that, properties, and because they are emergent, they do not affect the levels below the ones with those properties. However, that is not to say that Emergent Properties of a higher level cannot evolutionarily affect the fate of the levels below them. The fact that organisms can move around and eat and drink and think while DNA itself can't does not mean that evolution works on the organism itself. The mutations at the lower level of DNA cause the higher up levels like the organism itself to have its Emergent Properties affected in some way. That's how a change in one base pair of a DNA sequence can cause sickle cell anemia in the blood of the organism, even when DNA itself cannot become sickle shaped or diseased in the traditional sense.

You're completely correct, except for one major flaw.you say that DNA will "make changes to compensate." This is wrong. DNA can't consciously do anything. It can't "make" anything. But a chance change in the DNA might allow the bird to survive without the salt or vitamin. This would of course, constitute biological evolution.The changes in the DNA level of organization could effect the emergent properties at the higher levels to help the future generations of birds to survive eating this plant.

Yes, yes they would, if by react you mean degrade and denature.But if you mean if we put it inside two identical cells, then also yes, they would react the same way.Think about identical twins.

First of all, mitochondria are energy factories of the cell, and have nothing to do with genetics.And yes, for a given strand of DNA, there are only a set number of proteins it can make and set number of amino acids it can code for. For a given sequence of DNA, only one set of immediate outcomes is possible.

The wood doesn't "decide" anything. The fact that it will not burn traditionally if it is wet has nothing to do with what the wood "wants". In fact, the wood can't want anything.Mutations in DNA are independent of its coding. Mutations are random. They are not variables in the same equation as that of DNA. They are variables that are introduced randomly into the equation that change how the equation looks, and thereby, works.And blanket statements like "who, after being married for 25 years does not know the routines of their mate," aren't at all relevant to the topic at hand. Humans are sentient, DNA is not, and most of us, at least in America, don't know anything about our mates, even after years of marriage (just look at our divorce rates).The reasons for the glitches are mutations, which are random, and do not factor into the equation until after they are randomly introduced.So, what is really your point? We are getting farther and farther off topic.

I don't mean apparently random, I mean absolutely random. Random is random, especially in mutations. If you knew how mutations come about, you'd realize what a fool you're being.

Let me spell it out for you. DNA does not have a mind of its own. DNA IS NOT SENTIENT. It can, however, act differently in different situations. There are other variables in play besides simply the nature of the DNA strand. Just because two identical strands of DNA act differently in the same situation, it does not mean that they are sentient. Every single DNA strand in your body is identical to each of its counterparts, not counting its compliment strand. However, not each strand behaves in the exact same way when placed into a cell. Not even in the same cell do identical strands of DNA behave in the exact same way. Seriously, stop making half-assed philosophical arguments that you think refute the basis of the science. Understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Believe me, it's better that way for everyone. How is the randomness of mutations illogical? Mutations, by definition, are random.

So, by your logic, either a game of dice is non-random, or dice are sentient. Right?

If you're making reference to Pascal's Wager, it better be a joke.

Indeed. But the question remains, will one ever be able to take into account ALL the factors? If not, which is probably the truth, then the outcome of a dice roll is, for all intensive purposes, random, as are mutations, which would have an infinite number of variables, by your argument.

You have only said what we have all known to be true. Yet you have gone about it in such a roundabout way that it has been impossible to truly figure out what you wanted to say. Yet the fact remains, what you have said, and what I have said has not changed anything. Mutations are still random in their appearance and effect, and evolution will continue. Your work will never be over. It is your burden to provide your evidence, which you have failed to do countless times.

Ah yes. Pascal's triangle. I'm familiar with that one. But what does it have to do with this?

What? Because there are an actual infinite number of variables we haven't addressed yet, we must redefine evolution? Perhaps that's why it's called the theory of evolution, and perhaps that's why science is open to revising it, provided of course, that evidence against its tenets is uncovered.Uncover some actual evidence, not some philosophy. The current definition and science of evolution is perfectly suited for our understanding today. Simply because science cannot physically take account of every variable, it doesn't mean that science must redefine its boundaries.