One of the biggest problems I have with a lot of current genetic research is the fairly consistent assumption of constant (or relatively constant) rates of mutation as an environmental factor.
There are other experiments where the rate of mutation has been shown to encrease in response to stress, as if stress turns on a mutation switch.
We also know that some parts of the genome are much more susceptible to mutation than others -- that some mechanism is {protecting?} the sections with less mutations.
It could be something as simple as a coiling in the DNA that leaves some sections less {available/visible/exposed} than others, and stress causes an uncoiling.
We also know that environmental conditions have changed enough at different points in the past to have a significant effect on some of the environmental causes of mutation (production of
14C variation with climate is one {measure\example}).
It seems to me that the {rate of mutatability} has also evolved to ensure that not too much and not too little occurs in similar generations, that there is a {number of} mechanism{s} that can turn up or turn down susceptability to adapt -- after all, all the DNA that is around today is {highly?} evolved compared to ancestral DNA.
After all, a species that mutates too fast generates a lot of variation away from a known survivor and in it's extreme makes the creationist caricature hopeful monster with no siblings for mates, while a species that mutates too slowly doesn't adapt fast enough to survive.
Thus not only does Goldilocks find that the rate of mutation causing events is "just right" for adapting to changes over time, but the evolvability of Goldilocks has evolved to be "just right" for the current rate of mutation causing events.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}