Hi, Dash.
Bolder-dash writes:
The ToE is meant to deal with what mechanisms lead to that fitness. If it wasn't meant to deal with this, than Lamarck-ism would be just as compatible with your theory as would Darwinism.
The modern ToE, as you know, has two premises: (1) random mutations, and (2) natural selection. These are more accurately viewed as assumptions of the model than as actual components of the model. The ToE states that, if and when both of those premises are working in the system, evolution will result.
Each of the two premises is governed by its own set of related theories and studies.
Random mutations are random because their pattern of occurrence in nature is essentially unpredictable. Thus, any mechanism for mutations that results in an unpredictable pattern of occurrence is compatible with the ToE.
Natural selection is a collective description of many different mechanisms that result in differential survival of organisms. These mechanisms occur on the scale of individual organisms. So, once again, this is not evolution, but just a factor that contributes to evolution.
When a chemist or molecular geneticist studies the chemical mechanisms (such as
tautomerism or
deamination) that cause mutations, he is not studying the ToE. When an ecologist (such as myself) studies food web dynamics (e.g.
optimal foraging theory or
niche theory) or dispersal patterns (e.g.
island biogeography theory), he is not studying the ToE. However, they are both studying
evolutionary biology, which is a collection of theories and concepts that interrelates with the ToE.
ToE has very little to do with explaining these mechanisms or their effects (i.e. ugliness vs beauty, altruism vs evil, etc). These mechanisms deal only with the attributes and behaviors of
individual organisms. In Darwinian evolution, individual organisms do not evolve (contrast this with Lamarkian evolution, in which individual organisms
do evolve): so, Darwinian evolution is not happening on these scales.
Fitness describes the fit of an organism to its environment. So, mechanisms leading to fitness only deal with
individual organisms, and how those individual organisms fit their environment. Since individual organisms do not evolve in the Darwinian model, this is not part of the ToE.
The ToE comes into play when we compare multiple organisms to each other. Organisms that fit their environment well will generally survive and proliferate well, whereas organisms that do not fit their environment well will not generally survive and proliferate well. Since the traits that determine fitness can be passed on from parent to offspring, over many generations, we should see a relative amplification of those traits the increase the fit of organisms to their environment, and a relative depletion of those traits that decrease the fit of organisms to their environment.
Because evolution involves multiple different organisms, it is essentially one massive trial-and-error experiment. Many things that come up via mutation work, and many things that come up do not. So, we see a huge diversity of successful, living things; and a huge diversity of unsuccessful, extinct things. We also see the conditions for success changing somewhat over time, both locally and globally, such that more and more is required of organisms in order to survive and proliferate successfully.
Eventually, as selection puts exerts more and more unique pressures on organisms, we see an accumulation of fit traits, and a depletion of unfit traits. Thus, over time, organisms start to look like they were special-made for their ecologies, because, in a sense, they were. But, the necessity for intelligence in any of this is, at best, very uncertain.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
(1)