Questions on "Random" Mutations

I think (other than "extremities" being an odd wording) that MV is somewhat correct in this case. If he is talking about the genome at any one point then NS isn't adding to it. In that view it is conservative.Of course, another view is that NS is reshaping the gene pool over time. In that view maybe it's not so conservative.Maybe it needs a bit more discussion?

Two different numbers there:Do you know how many mutations that you may have? (somewhere between 10 and 100 apparently)How many natural mutagens are you subject to? (do you have a geiger counter? -- a few a second of just radiation maybe eh?)The diversity of life has been built up over 3 billion years. Let's just look at multicellular life:600 million years ago the more complex life would probably look like 'worms and bugs' to you. Let's say as each reproduced each offspring had 1 (not 100) mutation.How many living things have there been on the planet since 600 million years ago? Wanna make a WAG? How many are there now? I'm guessing there are something over a trillion multicellular animals alive now.I'd also guess that the average life span of an individual is 1 year.That gives us 10⁺¹⁷ individuals that have lived. Anything you don't like about the numbers so far?Our genome is about 3*9⁺⁹ base pairs long (IIRC). There have been 3*⁸ individuals for each of those base pairs. Seems like lots of chances to pick up a few changes don't you think?

Dawkins is not saying anything against what Jazzns wrote. He is not talking about the evolutionary nature of the development of technology. He is using this (as it says in the quote) of the "extension" of genes into things beyond what we normally call the phenotype.The genes we evolved for problem solving brains are, only in an indirect way, "expressed" as technology now. The technology does not reproduce with variation from within and selection from without. The changes only have the most passing of likeness to biological evolution. Jazzns is correct.However, maybe, in this century we will see that change. Greater use of evolutionary algorithms for the design of technology might make technologies more resemble living things. If we produce designs that we don't actually understand in detail (as has already happened) and we allow those to be jumping off points for the next technology and (since we don't understand them) we make more or less random changes then technology will indeed evolve and mimic life very well indeed.Edited by NosyNed, : spelling againEdited by NosyNed, : and dbcodes

I simply don't see it that way. I don't know if you can explain it so I will.The nature of the reproduction, the introduction of variations and the selection are very different in form. So I see different definitions.The evolution of technology differs in that:
1) a variation is chosen to meet a goal and the goal comes first.
2) the variation can come from anywhere it is not constrained by what the parents have, by having to produce a step that still gives a viable intermediate. I.e., IC an be overcome in one leap without "scaffolding" or "pre-adaption".
3) there is very little "trail and error" instead of the entire selection process being trail and error.I'm thinkin' there is more but I'm heading out. That is enough, for me, to demonstrate the large lack of similarity.