Questioning The Evolutionary Process

The current theory does not suggest any benefits of mutations.
Evolutions doesnt have a purpose nor the mechanism involved claims any benefit over a large period of time. It is a zero sum game and any perceived benefit is local to evolution timescale.

No Sir there is no sense of opportunity involved.
According to current theory the local sense of opportunism can not be translated into Group opportunism.
The local opportunistic behaviour of mutation can lead to global catastrophy for the species.

I disagree.The mutations currently in existence in any population are opportunities for evolution to build on.
REP: There is nothing to build on from evolutionary prespective.
It is simply a case of random chance. The world is like big casino(including the owners of the casino).This analogy works from the point of view of gene and physicists.
Who wins and who looses is matter of chance.
===========================================
Organisms can take opportunity to move into new ecologies and expand.
REP:The chance which made them move into some favourable conditions
can also throw them back into the misfortune.
=============================================
When ecology changes around an organism it has to take the opportunity provided by the mutations currently in existence in the population to change to match or suffer.
REP:As I said no opportunity can guarantee success.
Humans and animals are gene carriers and any attempt to attach any MEANING to existence is useless and undesirable from scientific point of view.
The question is if there is no meaning then why to ask any question?
If there are some local advantages then what is the gurantee that the individual will remain in advantageous position.
It is purposeless existence with random consequences in everyday life.

Absoutely incorrect as per the current theory. There is no intention to survive on evolutionary time scale.
================================================ REP: The moment we assign a direction .. we attach a meaning.
Making survival the criteria is equivalent to defining a meaning to life and therefore a purpose.
============================================= REP:Increase of knowledge is meaningless. It serves no purpose for the propagation life or evolution. There is no meaning.
This what the current theory says.
We are random consequences in evolution and we are gene carriers ,
with no sense of Meaning or Purpose.
---------------------------------------------- REP: That individual can be species as well. You see it is a zeor sum game which does not guarantee anything.
------------------------------------------- REP: Thats not my belief .. thats not my opinion . Thats the conclusion derived using Replicating Genes theory.

[ps]
You seem to have invented a new theory of evolution of your own.
[/ps]
YES.
[ps]
Yours appears to be a mumbo-jumbo of sophomoric metaphysics, whereas the one in the science textbooks appears to be a collection of facts and laws of nature
[/ps]
Thats why I am here.To discuss and find out who is right?

REP: Ok.
In a population where there is a 50% chances of producing male or female cells or offsprings.
The uneven distribution can only be seen in a sample.
But overall there will be equal number of males and females. REP: Yes. In fact in humans the physical features belonging to X chromosome will get
easy representation in future whereas the Y specific genes will get less number of opportunities to express.
Those features includes Pennis or Ability to understand Maths, or breasts or blue eyes
...
Do we know why this is so?
If all genes were replicating like robots then this strategy turns to be unstable manifestation of algorithm. As the more tend to become more ... and few the fewer.
This biased behaviour can result in collapse of genetic heritage... since to do not assign
any purpose to mutation we can remain satisfied that atleast something evolved. REP:Indeed yes. If a species develops a "habit" or gene which drives the Group into greater reproduction then offsprings will also carry those genes and that will lead to further reproduction and so on.example rats .
BUT what is important to admit here is the fact which I mentioned above.
Differential change can be suicidal as well. e.g a cancerious gene which becomes part of X
choromosome can lead to permanent damage. I can share one well researched example of Native Americans... It is said that they suffered such a reduction in their population due to genetic diseases that they got reduced to minority in the same state where they once ruled.
Therefore overall there is no "selection" and it does not guarantee survival over evolutionary timescale.
We can discuss why this unstable or uneven distribution of genetic behaviour came into existence.
Is it possible that the one pool of gene took the greater responsibility of replicating than the other?(algorithmically it means a group of genes came together to neutralize another set of genes..why did this happen is debatable)
Both X and Y carry genes but X specific genes spreads faster.
And the contradiction is this: X can not survive without Y.
Therefore the if X goes down then Y goes down ... and hence X and Y goes extinct.
And as the carriers go out of circulation the genes go out of circulation.
(In this zero sum game no one wins .. not even the genes!!)
The speration of X and Y doid not encourage replication.Asexual was the better option for greater replication.
And the seperation lead to unstable configuration which we see today and it is is largely guided by X.
We dont know why we see this unstable genetic world with organised human species.
According to replication theory .. there was never any purpose at any point of time other
than to replicate locally. And it turned out that the most organised species are the most unlikely ones in the game.
I was expecting that the division algortihm would have worked out it favour of species which replciated with greater efficieny(using any means). But that is not case.Phenotype genes are guided by hereditary behaviour and environment
And the discussion applies to phenotype as well.
Certain characteristics were preferred becuase they were part of privileged pool of genes.
Most of the mammalian characteristics are part of this genetic pool.
(there are excpetions as well.. as I have already mentioned... snakes with no legs but give direct births.. bats which fly...whales which swim.. direct birth requires intenal mechanism to carry the baby )
BUT why ?
No reason can be given.WHere as
My theory explains Evolution more consistently.
Any kind of system which can be called life migrates towards sustainable pleasure.

Lack of understanding of Evolution :
Evolution is said to have occurred if a set of differential changes become largely common or uncommon.Lack of Understanding of Biology:
Biology is the study of life and its processes.It has extended beyond that definition.Biology is talking about robots and information theory.Large scale formation of knowledge structures.But
Why the number of offspring that an individual leaves behind correlates very well with physical features that are hereditary?What is your answer?My answer is that becuase the environment remains largely static
we do not find phenotype changes.And my assertion is that these Phenotype genes are part of priviledged pool .. which are common to male and female.Is it possible to understand mutation as a sudden change?
No..Changes definitely occur but those changes are largely resilient when it comes to physical structure ... because these changes are environment dependent.Only if the environment changes slowly without killing the species such that it favours the new generation with "other" physical properties the new phenotype changes can take place. See this what I am saying .. If this phenotype genes belongs to a privileged pool of genes which is common to male and female then it will maintain greater visibility in the species e.g structure.
Once a change occurs in this pool it becomes a characteristics of the whole species. (But this is not we are discussing)What you are saying is that those Mutation of phenotype genes will get suppressed which are not hereditary or similar to the parent .
Those with similar physical properties will produce more descendants.
But the conclusion that genes which carry "other" physical properties will not be able to grow is not necessarily true.If the environment is such that it prefers those different physical characteristics then they should grow.
e.g Only then migration from Sea to Land is possible.
Moreover how do you explain the long neck of giraffe. The physical characteristics changed over a period of time. The security in terms of many offspring gives a wrong idea of future..
Because if environment remains constant then it "appears" that hereditary chain is getting carried (i.e the many offsprings of species are getting produced )
If the environment is changing then those with "other" physical properties might survive to produce many.In anycase the conclusion that only hereditary characteristics preferred is wrong .. if the environment supports the changes in phenotype genes they should outgrow the ancestors. (We dont find giraffe with short neck) But yes we know that Giraffe must have had a neck.Is there any misunderstanding?
Mutation is due to changes in the environment.The mammals will start swimming if the environmental changes are conducive over a very large period of time.
Elephants , tigers already know how to swim.But this doesnt solve anything.
Does it?
The changes are random guided by Nature or Environment.
The evoltuionary algorithm might reinforce replication but if the environment is not supportive then the populations will not grow.
At the same time iff the environment remains largely static then no diversity is possible.
The actual life involves genes and environment.And it is purely random.There is no non-random component to replication...there is nothing called as Natural selection...Since the evolutionary algorithm is constant:
The reasoning can be done the basis of environment.This happened because environment changed in such and such way..
Why birds developed wings?
Why Cheetah runs so fast?
Why fish developed fins?
Why Chimpanzee's and Gorillas look like human?Imagine a scenario when it was not possible to stand up.
Then becuase the environment started changing in such a way
that monkeys can chimpanzee came into existence.In a way the game of life suggests that all species tend to adjust to the environment.
If they fail they die as the algorithm does not guarantee that mutations will occur in favour of environmental changes.Its purely by chance that some of the mutation turned out to be favourable within the context of changed environment.Where is the natural selection?
There was a likelyhood of a giraffe growing a long neck.
It was not deterministic.When I say environment guides the mutation , it means that those mutations which are in sync with the changes environmental changes survive rest die.

REP:
What leads to these other physical features?
As I understand
Randomly a particular set of hereditary physical feature has greater ability to produce offsprings.While another set of offsprings carry physical features which lead to lesser number of offsprings.For example let us say that it turns out that a offsprings of Fat individual have the greater ability to reproduce.
Where as those offsprings which do not carry this fat gene produce less.As it is expected that in America 70% of the poulation will be fat in couple of years.
========================================== REP: Ok.Since it turns out that fat gene carrier are favoured for reproduction .. the future remains bright for these fat genes carriers.
============================================= REP: Ok. So selection favours those genes which reproduce the maximum.
============================================

Thank you very much.
You understanding has really shown me the path.