[WriterOfMinds]

I feel like I remember reading an article once that compared evolution to a learning process, and noted that it's a bad/inefficient learning process ... if only because it has no memory.  If some combination of genes proves to be a poor adaptation and dies out, there's nothing to prevent that combination from being "tried" again, if it happens to fall out of the genetic RNG a second time.  In other words, evolution preserves its successes but doesn't learn from its mistakes.

[ivan.moony]

If you have to pick randomly twice an element out of infinite set, what are the odds to pick the same element?

But on the other hand, I would be thrilled if Down's syndrome was more rare condition.

[Freddy]

I feel like I remember reading an article once that compared evolution to a learning process, and noted that it's a bad/inefficient learning process ... if only because it has no memory.  If some combination of genes proves to be a poor adaptation and dies out, there's nothing to prevent that combination from being "tried" again, if it happens to fall out of the genetic RNG a second time.  In other words, evolution preserves its successes but doesn't learn from its mistakes.

Is it so inefficient when you consider the amount of time involved though ?

And say the first branch failed due to lack of success in the environment, but a later branch (although the same) in a changed environment may work out better. So what I am saying is that it depends a lot on the environment for how well the mechanism works.

If you have to pick randomly twice an element out of infinite set, what are the odds to pick the same element?

But on the other hand, I would be thrilled if Down's syndrome was more rare condition.

Wouldn't the chance be one in infinity ? But wouldn't there be limited possibilities for evolutionary branches ? I mean an ant doesn't suddenly grow an elephant's trunk. It has to be capable of doing it.

[ivan.moony]

I have to admit, evolution doesn't pick from infinite set. One extreme is that a kid is exact copy of kid's only parent - in asexual reproduction (some snails can do that). In sexual reproduction it is a combination of parent genes - some deviation of parent genes in a certain degree.

But given that there is relatively low number of different genetic disorders, those disorders are pretty common (a few percents) along human species. Of all disorders our sick minds could imagine, the nature picks up just some few dozens of them. How to explain that? Could it be that some parents are simply not compatible? Or maybe it is an one parent deal? Or it has something to do with parents being family related? And why family related parents can't have healthy kids?

But it would be awesome if the nature would somehow learn from its mistakes too.

[Edit]
Thinking about mother nature mistakes... Who is to tell that some living being is a mistake? Call me naive, but I think that nature is has a gentle soul. It doesn't call anyone a mistake to dismiss him from evolutionary line. It gives us all a chance over and over again, until we make up to succeed in our environment. I find it very gentle and romantic.

[Freddy]

But it would be awesome if the nature would somehow learn from its mistakes too.

Genes are something like a memory though aren't they ?

Biology is not a strong area of knowledge for me, I only really studied it at school for a couple of years. I do see that people like the Nepalese living in high mountains have different genes that help them deal with the higher altitude. They will still suffer altitude sickness some times though, but are generally hardier than most in that respect I have learnt.

The way I see it, nature is both kind and hostile. When Darwin's Theory of Evolution came about many people just didn't like how unforgiving nature was when laid out that way. Probably many still feel the same way.

[infurl]

After a bit of googling I learned that all living things from bacteria to humans have about five hundred genes in common out of about one hundred thousand different possible genes. Human beings have about twenty thousand genes.

Now the interesting thing is that not all of our genes are actually expressed in any given organism. Most of them have no effect. A few decades ago it was thought they were redundant and for a while they were referred to as "junk DNA". In fact they're all there waiting until they're needed. Evolution doesn't throw out genes just because they're not needed for a while.

The actual genes that are expressed are selected by RNA which is created in the parent organism during its life and is influenced by environmental conditions. In this way, when the environment changes, organisms don't have to evolve lost characteristics all over again, because many of them were already stored in the library of genes carried by the parents.

[Freddy]

Ahh, we were heading in the right direction then