Saturday, December 02, 2006

Darwin was wrong, kindof

Don't get me wrong, Darwin's theories are brilliant. I just think he didn't get it quite right.

Darwin thought of DNA as a blue-print to create a specific creature. I believe that DNA is more like a computer program, with variables. When you run that program, the value of the variables (which are impacted by the environment) impact the execution of the program. Public school education might imply that the DNA is used to "initiate" the development and that by the time a child is born, they are pretty well defined. After which, they just simply grow-up... Wrong! Program execution is a life long process. And since execution is a life long process the impact of the environment becomes profound (think twins). More importantly, the process is recursive. These changes impact the creation of new cells and new DNA... Yes, the program itself changes.

My prediction is that we will find that a person's DNA before/at/near birth will be different from the DNA they pass on (their reproductive DNA). This would mean that evolution is not purely a function of random mutation. Instead it is a much more elegant reaction to our environment.... Admittedly, my problems with random mutation probably stem from my inability to comprehend vast timescales. I simply find the ability of life to adapt to be too powerful to be dependent on random mutation, especially when you look at the many symbiotic relationships that exist.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Steroids use in sports

Since we are not able to determine who has or has not cheated in the past (or currently in most cases), I say we simply take blood tests from everyone in professional sports each year.
As new methods are developed to test for illegal drug use, say 5 or 10 years later, we test those samples and strip those found guilty of abuse of any records or titles. Including removing them from the hall of fame.