Monod relied on the explanations provided by the official paradigm of ToE (geneticmutations, natural selection...). So, the central point of the discussion has to do withmutations. Monod, and the paradigm, say they take place according to random processes. Thisis true of many verified cases of mutations.
But, what if mutations also took place, in somespecific situations, not in a random way, but in an organized way, according toinstructions which exist in the genome, and which come into play when some factorsappear
(in the same way that adaptation to a new environment takes place, according toaccepted scientific explanations of ToE)?If that were the case, there would be no need, anymore, for a magical explanation like« teleonomy ».
Design would exist in Nature, in living beings, not as the product of random mutations, but as the result of organized mutations, based on the geneticinstructions in the genome, which come into play when some specific factors exist in theenvironment which activate some specific set of instructions.
This would be in line with Monod's intuition that
« living beings have a built-in capacity toevolve along more and more complex life forms and systems. »
As can be seen, this explanation is not very different from the official explanation of the paradigm, since both are centered on the instructions in the genome. But,
I substitute"organized mutations" to "random mutations" to explain the appearance of design,because it makes more sense, when one takes all the relevant data and explanations intoaccount.
In theory, this explanation could be analyzed, tested and verified by bona fide researchers inthis field. If it is wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate its fallacy. This would reinforce theexisting paradigm with regard to this alternative.On the other hand,
if it can be scientifically established that mutations take place, in somesituations, in an organized way, and and in other situations in a random way, this wouldmodify in a significant way our understanding of what evolution is, and how it works.The ToE paradigm would then accept the two processes as equally valid, equally atwork, depending on the context.
When I wrote the preceding ideas, I was not aware of the existence of cases of very rapidevolution, which would confort my approach. I have since read the following article in National Geographic, about the rapid evolution of some Croatian lizards, whose specificschanged considerably over a period of four decades:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
Should we attribute the rapid evolution of these lizards to chance and necessity, randommutations, natural selection, genetic drift and the like? Or should we explain this rapidevolution by a rapid adaptation of these lizards to a new set of conditions in theirenvironment, thanks to the existence in their genome of a built-in capacity to adapt tosuch a change?
That's the question. The answer is easy to obtain, based on the thoroughanalysis by biologists and researchers of this concrete case of evolution.