Natural evolution will occur until it produces something intelligent
and self-conscious enough to do better, which in itself is natural enough I suppose. Artificial breeding dates back to the early days of food production, and was an inspiration to Darwin himself. On a more human level, random breeding has long been frowned upon, and though one is probably not thinking specifically about the same type of reproductive success when he chooses a mate that a molecular biologist is thinking about, one is, nevertheless, making a choice. And though I might not specifically have it in mind, when I play out my fantasy for an exotic foreign mate, I am promoting gene flow and hybrid vigor, thank you. Still I can’t help thinking that there might be a creative principle to evolution. Directionality has certainly not been ruled out. When my wife Tang started taking her antibiotic cocktails to overwhelm the TB virus which might develop a resistance to one, but not likely all four antibiotics, like a good little Darwinist I assumed that its long life-span must give it enough time to randomly mutate a resistant offspring, which would then thrive. Not so, according to a prominent source. It can produce an enzyme that specifically counteracts the effects of an antibiotic, but not likely four, the genetics behind this being a total mystery. Perhaps it’s just rolling the dice, playing the slots, spinning out new combinations of DNA to see if one works? If ultraviolet light, x-rays, drugs, etc. can easily produce mutations, similar natural phenomena certainly might, though not necessarily in a beneficial way. Given that the DNA in every cell in an organism is exactly the same, more needs to be known about its ability to ‘turn on’ in certain circumstances to account for different functions by different organs. God does not play dice with the universe; he plays DNA.