Intelligent DNA 2

Questions that lead to more questions result from the search for how an entity became what it is today. Take an ordinary watermelon for instance. What in the world inspired the watermelon to evolve? Think about it for a moment.

The watermelon we live with today fits nicely into a niche that keeps it thriving. There had to be a point in time that no watermelons existed. What brought it into existence? We can look at its current life cycle for clues, but the light we shine on the current life cycle only brings more questions.

Currently, the watermelon produces a tasty fruit that when ingested, its seeds travel through the digestive system of the animal that ate the fruit, then finally deposited in a dung heap that nourishes the seed into a new watermelon plant. It sounds easy up to this point, but my question is, how did the process start?

The seed knew that just popping out of a pod with seeds did not distribute the plant very well, and they might or might not have the proper conditions to grow. What the seed needed was distribution. It may be dry in its present location, but by moving to another location, the seed may find favorable conditions to grow. All sorts of methods for distribution evolved. Some, like the dandelion figured out that by making its seed light enough with hair like protrusions to catch the wind, it could distribute itself without the help of animals. But some plants, like the watermelon (and others), enlisted the help of animals.

In my mind's eye, I can just see the first seed (of another long gone plant) that made it through the digestive tract of an animal. The end of that journey left it deposited in the dung heap. The resulting plant flourished. The experience was so good for the seed that it started seeking ways to insure that its resulting seeds would be so lucky.

The seed at this point had two worries. The seed must coat itself to avoid digestion and attract an animal with an inefficient digestive system. (Where the animals with an inefficient digestive system came from is another question for another article.) Picking the proper animal group to distribute its seeds was a vexing chore. After all, the seeds didn't know what the animals wanted to eat. Biologists would tell us that natural selection solved the mystery, but I am not sure that natural selection initiated the process. The process for change started with a plant's need to reproduce itself. Natural selection only solved the dilemma after the DNA tried different strategies. New problems confronted the seed at every turn. Among its new problems was to figure out the best way to produce its seeds and how many to produce. Should it use a pod and make the pod attractive with odor or use many pods with the seeds bound together in a fleshy encasement.

An organism's DNA comes up with different strategies, but natural selection determines the winners and losers. You have to hand to the DNA structure; it realizes that a change would be beneficial so it starts the process of modification. The conditions that start the DNA to modify may be climate, predation, or competition with other organisms. The life structure seems self-programmed to succeed against a variety of obstacles. You can be sure that something in the inner workings of this life structure determines that a change is necessary. That is why I believe that DNA, because of its ability to self-program, is a creation of intelligence. DNA doesn't care what form it takes as long as that life form is successful. The dead-end life forms fail because the time to adapt is too short. Adaption time can be cut short because of severe climate changes, predation, or cosmic events. I'm sure there are other reasons but the idea is only to demonstrate some of the possible causes for extinction of different life form. But given ample time to adapt, the DNA will see to it that needed changes will emerge that can compete.

The opinions expressed here about DNA are mine. This is not a scientific document.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Send comments to: editor@robfg.com

Health Care Woes

The news is full of unoriginal clichés. We hear about the 43 million people who are uninsured and how medical costs are skyrocketing. Then we hear about all of the savings to be had if we just had universal coverage. Sitting in my small office, I wonder if the bureaucrats have actually looked at the problems surrounding our health care.

Nobody is denied emergency or basic care regardless of income. However, the quality of care is better for those with coverage. What you do not hear is that if everybody had insurance, quality of health care would not improve. To begin with, our health care system is already overburdened. Even with money to spend on health, it takes at least a week to get an appointment with a doctor. How would your accessibility change if everybody had good insurance? Our doctors can see no more people than they do already. Most work long hours and their patient schedules are full. The burden on the medical community is also the reason for the long waits in emergency rooms. Simply put, there are already more patients than the doctors can treat in a timely manner. Appointments can be as long as a month for a specialist, a week or more for your family physician, or several hours in the emergency room.

To become a doctor, it takes years of training. Some of these doctor want-to-be students go through the years of training because they just want to serve their fellow man, but what motivates most is the prospect of building a private practice and having financial security. Yes, it is the good old profit motive.

Health care is a market driven business. That means, if you have enough money, you can have access to the best care that is available. But the best care is in limited supply and not everybody can possibly get the best care. So would a change in that system be good for anybody? I go back to the years it takes to become a doctor. How do you think that removing the profit motive will affect the number of young people entering medical school? Removing the motivation to become a doctor would be disastrous and lead to even more mediocrity and health rationing.

As stated, the best treatment is in limited supply. Do you remember when you were in school? There were the nerds who always made good grades, then there were the regulars who made satisfactory grades, and last were the dullards who just barely got by. Well, doctors are like that also. A third of all doctors graduated from the 'dullard' section, another third from the regular section, and then the elites of the class came from the top third of the class. It is literally and physically impossible for everybody to be treated by the top third of the class. So, only a fraction of patients has access to the smartest and most knowledgeable of our doctors.

It is also true that not all doctors treat the sick. There is a huge market for 'vanity' doctors. Vanity doctors are doctors that do the boob jobs, sexual reassignment operations and tummy tucks. Aesthetic cosmetic surgery, not to be confused with reconstruction plastic surgery, siphons off the supply of doctors who would otherwise treat our ailments. In 2007 there were 12 million cosmetic surgeries performed. The five most common were breast augmentation, liposuction, nasal surgery, eyelid surgery, and abdominoplasty.

Doctors doing vanity surgery specialize in that field and do not treat the sick. Not only does cosmetic surgery yield higher income, but only limited record keeping and insurance filings are necessary which drastically reduce office costs. Higher fees plus reduced cost makes cosmetic surgery highly attractive to doctors.

Some of the data available is revealing if people would take the time to inform themselves. Let's look a little closer at health care and health care dollars in the United States.

To begin with, basic health care is available to everyone. If you go to a state funded hospital or any emergency room, you will be treated regardless of your ability to pay.

Look at the statistics on the uninsured. In 2007, 45.7 million people did not have health coverage. 21% or 10 million of that total were full-time employees and 59% or 27 million were part time employees. 20% or one-fifth of the uninsured population could afford health coverage, but decide for their own reasons not to. 38% or 17.3 million of the uninsured lived in households making $50,000 or better.

According to the Census Bureau, 36 million or 78.7% of the uninsured were legal citizens while 9.7 million or 21.2% are non-citizens.

A large part of my writings have always been about solutions that are not well thought out. Americans are sold the glittering part of an idea but never the darker side. Computerizing our medical records may help with some costs, but there will also have to be staff enlargements at the doctor's office to put the data into the computers. Every visit has details that get recorded. Normally, the doctor would just write out the details of your visit and file your record. But by computerizing the data, we need yet another layer of personnel to enter the data into the computers. Office costs go up. That money has to come from somewhere, I wonder whom.

A doctor's office also has to retain a person(s) to do insurance filings. This person makes sure the codes are correct and that your provider is legitimate. There is no reason why we as patients and customers of our insurance companies can't file our own insurance claims. Doctors still take money for their services and it would reduce the health care cost if this added burden weren't added to the doctor's office expense. Insurance filing could be simplified with a method of verification so that you could file your own claims. By filing your claim, it would give more assurance to the provider that the doctor's office is not gaming the system.

By far the largest elephant in the room is lawsuits. Doctors are human and they make mistakes, some of them tragic and stupid. But I can't remember the last time that I met a doctor who wanted to make a mistake or hurt his patients. But for protection against lawsuits, doctors have to order unnecessary tests, pay huge insurance premiums, and regard every patient as a possible threat to his livelihood. Tort reform would help this situation but is not a part of the plan that congress is considering. Litigation and the threat of litigation substantially increase the cost of health care.

Another subject that I won't dwell on much is the rules and regulations of building a hospital that drive the costs up substantially. Local, state, and federal regulations that do nothing for patient safety or health, menace every part of the construction of new facilities. It is the little things like hospital grade sockets and plugs. Hospital grade outlets mandate that you need at least a four pound pull to dislodge the plug from it. Most sockets that you buy meets and exceeds this rating. But the contractor has to purchase 'hospital rated' outlets to comply with the code. That special rating comes with a special price.

There are literally thousands of other examples of rules that are written at the local and state level just for the benefit of certain individuals. All of which increase the cost of providing health care.

I want to say that I am for honest change but not political change that just redistributes how we pay and ration our health care. But sadly, the bill before congress does not accomplish anything useful, unless you do not plan on getting old.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Send comments to: editor@robfg.com

Nationalizing Lawyers

Perhaps the time has come to reign in runaway legal fees. Obama is in the act of nationalizing healthcare for our benefit, so while he's at it, maybe it's time to look at the legal system as well.

There is not a lot of difference, operationally, between Doctors and Lawyers from the viewpoint of the average citizen. When you need a doctor and have no money, it is mandated (at least in Texas) that hospitals cannot refuse to treat you. Then there are the tax supported charity hospitals that provide free service to indigent people in need of healthcare.

The legal system is not much different. People without the ability to pay can get help at any number of pro bono services in Texas. These services are especially available to illegal immigrants through many Catholic outlets, YMCA, and various Universities. The majority of free services depend on the politics du jour. Battered women, illegal immigrants, anti-conservative causes, matters pertaining to drug abuse, and abortion rights all make up political causes readily available to the poor. Both sides of the political spectrum are represented but comparatively speaking, more help is available for left wing causes than the pro bono offerings for conservative causes.

Legal services generally (but not always) avoided by pro bono groups include family law (child custody especially), divorce settlements, corporate and business law services, and quality criminal defense.

Most lawyers deserve to be the butt end of those jokes so often recited about them. But make no mistake, when you need the services of an attorney, there is no place to go except to an attorney. Lawyers hold the same club as do doctors. Doctors realize that when you are sick, you need a doctor. The same holds true for an attorney.

The government is working hard to bring about single payer healthcare, so while they are at it, why not single payer legal fees. A person should have the right to go to the lawyer of his choice just like his/her ability to choose a doctor. The difference would be national legal insurance that all lawyers would have to participate in, willing or not. Their fees would be negotiated with the government. Those fees for the different services would be all inclusive, avoiding those side charges that eat up a legal service. Travel, hearing cancellations, additional legal submissions, and meals/entertaining expenses would all be a part of their negotiations. Then the lawyers would have to answer to oversight panels to judge their diligence on a case with their law license in the balance. The lawyers would still make money, just not from their hapless clients who know little about the affairs of the legal system. Any financial beef from the lawyers would be with the government. Appeals about the money value awarded to a lawyer by the government would go to a panel of at least 50% non-lawyers with the chairmanship permanently held by a non-lawyer. No more percentage based claims for lawyers. The client's settlement would be the amount received by the client.

Yep, Obama would do the country a service by pushing through the Equal Opportunity for Lawyers Act.

If it works for Doctors, it will work for lawyers. With a clients right to choose, the good lawyers will have plenty of business. Remember, law schools not only turn out law scholars, but they also turn out the rest of the pack. Those lawyers that finish in the bottom third of their class rankings would be relegated to doing paralegal work instead of milling around the courthouse looking for easy tax dollars.

Tongue in cheek-

Cheers,

-Robert-

Send comments to: editor@robfg.com

Troubled Blacks

Before I get accused of swiping with too broad of a brush, I want to be clear that there is a minority of Black citizens working, contributing, and living upstanding lives. It is a sad fact though that this number is pitifully small. The majority of African American youths, driven by the perception that there isn't any other way, seem hell-bent on destruction. These misguided youths have adopted the 'shortcut' method for progressing in this society.

It is a disturbing fact that Blacks have the 'wants', but instead of utilizing the opportunities of this nation that allows a person to rise to the level of his ambition, young Blacks feel the need to shortcut the process. The shortcut methods include any activity that provides instant wealth using criminal means; including robbery, pimping, selling street drugs, home invasions, and scams. The shortcut method attempts to circumvent acceptable paths to success.

The alarming statistics of African Americans is not good. Seventy percent of their children are born out of wedlock. According to this statistic, a majority of Black children are raised without the influence of a father. While mothers are nurturing, they cannot provide the balance needed by a child. With few exceptions, children raised in single parent homes develop deficiencies that carry over into adulthood.

The majority white population feels responsible for the plight of Blacks. After all, the white population enslaved and discriminated against Blacks. Whites still think of Blacks as being inferior but at the same time, they feel guilty about the past. The accepted method for Whites to salve their conscience is to reward Blacks with undeserved status. The White population has done everything in their power to destroy the Black population with their kindness. Whites do not intentionally try to harm Blacks, because other than the Liberal elitists among the White population, the majority of Whites want to do right by Blacks.

School integration brought the first opportunity for Whites to help the Black population. A good education would have given Blacks the tools to succeed in our competitive society, but the Democrat elitists' leaders had other ideas. Instead of challenging these young minds, White politicians lowered the standards for students. Lowering standards for Black students was only an extension of the deeply held idea that blacks were somehow inferior and couldn't be educated to White standards. It is important to understand Liberal politics. The Democrats never intended for the Black population to succeed, all they wanted was to create the illusion of helping the Black Race. The last thing that Liberals want is for the Black population to succeed. Under the guise of helping Blacks, the Democrats quickly made them wards of the state. They destroyed any incentive for success that this segment of the population may have had. The Welfare State was born. Reverse discrimination became common in the zeal to make up for the bad treatment Blacks had endured at the hands of the Whites. The welfare state was an easy sell to the White community because of the mantle of guilt riding on their shoulders.

Subsisting on the welfare handouts and other crumbs from Washington destroys Black national pride. In the eyes of the Black person on welfare, there needs to be more crumbs. Their resentment is a manifestation of the rampant poverty that is so pervasive in their communities. Leadership from the Black pulpits is absent. Few if any, tell of the freedom and pride they would gain by standing on their own hind legs. Very few Black ministers preach self-worth and to quit blaming the Whites for all their problems. With the exception of a few, Blacks are not succeeding as a race.

Black athletes are heralded for their athletic skills as they perform for a mostly White audience. Their athletic heroes are in a unique position to set an example for the younger Black generation but alas, the majority of successful Black athletes do not. Most get caught up in consumerism that projects the 'I have arrived' mentality. There is a desperate need for more Black grass root enterprises to celebrate the 'reward for effort formula' to inspire younger Blacks to make the effort to win in life. Instead, these young Blacks are allowed to drift into the shortcut system. Embracing the shortcut system is also the reason for such a large Black population in our prisons.

Lack of Leadership

There are a few Black leaders trying to get the message to the Black community, Bill Cosby comes to mind. But Mr. Cosby's message is met with derision because the message is laced with the idea of taking responsibility for the sad conditions prevalent within Black communities. The voices that are heard the most within the Black community are from those pied pipers of 'blame the whites' like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson. We can only hope that the future will bring leadership to the Black community. A leadership that understands the value of family, hard work, and reward for effort. It is sad that successful Blacks are accused of being Uncle Toms, or Lackeys for Whites. Perpetuating the stereotype of victimization only works to empower the 'blame the whites' trumpeters and does real disservice to the Black population.

In conclusion, the sad state of the Black population in this country should be addressed without the shroud of political correctness. The American White needs to quit feeling guilty over past injustices and respect Blacks as equals, not a people needing their pitiful handouts. I leave this one last thought, whenever Black students do get challenged in school to a higher standard, they respond remarkably well. There are numerous examples of what these students achieve when they are not treated as if they were somehow inferior and in need of lower standards to get through school.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Antidote to Greed

Obama's answer to the financial problems forces more and more government intervention. Government handouts and subsidies only prolongs the problem and attracts more takers. When a business such as a bank gets careless and greedy, the one sure cure for over-leveraging and high executive compensation for non-performance is failure.

The executives at Enron experienced those results. What if we had bailed out Enron? They asked for government intervention but thankfully, the government refused their request. The courts dealt with the executives by sending them to prison. It was a fitting end for a crooked and ill run company. The customers, stockholders, and employees who suffered because of the shenanigans of the corporate office divided the spoils of that company. No, not made whole, but at least they shared in the proceeds of liquidation.

The government cannot be the side rails for a business. Only the honesty and character of the executive structure and the prospect of failure and disgrace can effectively control greed and avarice found in today's banking system. Yes, we have regulations but regulations can hurt as well as help. While regulations intend to prevent runaway fraud, they also prevent decisions that would be good for a business. Honest business decisions are frequently not made because of the prospect of running afoul of regulations. It is like the dog on a leash theory.

The leash theory goes like this. To prevent the dog from marauding through the neighborhood, we chain him to a tree. In this case, the chain represents imposed regulations and the dog is representative of a business. As long as the chain is long enough, the dog is happy. But more overturned trashcans in the neighborhood are upsetting the people, so we shorten the chain to prevent mischief. (As we impose stricter regulations, our chain gets shorter.) Now, the dog sees opportunities beyond the length of the chain and struggles mightily at the chain but the chain is unyielding. The dog runs around the tree searching for an avenue of freedom but with each trip around the tree, the chain gets even shorter. The chain finally strangles the dog. Of course, the moral of the story is that regulations have the ability to kill business if they are too restrictive. That is why we have to rely on the ethics and integrity of those in business.

When a business goes astray and proves to be untrustworthy, that business should fail. Failure is the ultimate cure for greed and avarice. We should avoid shackling our businesses with regulations inspired by the failings of another company. It is the old saying that "One bad apple spoils the whole barrel." Well, there are a lot of bad apples out there and believe me; they will take notice of business liquidations and prison terms. But the opposite is happening because of the government bailouts. Businesses from all over, even the porn industry has their hands out seeking taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer dollars for badly run companies and scandalous executives is nothing but honey that is attracting flies. Everybody wants in on the act.

Contrast what is happening to businesses now. If those same executives were shamed and their companies liquidated, other businesses and boards would pay attention. Going through the pain of failure is not an attraction coveted by any business, not to mention the prospect of prison terms.

When does the nightmare stop? Already some of the banks that received government money decided that they didn't need the help after all. The only problem with the whole episode with the bailouts was that there was no pain for the gross mismanagement of these public corporations. Some got a temporary reprieve with the bailouts, but only time will tell if the boards of these companies will step up to the plate and clamp down on the self-serving behavior of the executives that perpetuated the collapse of the banking system.

Hopefully, I am wrong and the bailouts will not just prolong the agony. The short run does look promising, but we haven't even begun to pay the piper yet. Inflation and depression are still lurking for the longer term. Our national case of myopia is dominating our senses and preventing us from taking the steps that would actually help.

Please note that I did not mention the culpability of congress in this whole sordid affair. That is a topic for another day.

Cheers,

-Robert-

A Naive Obama

Obama paints the world through hopeful rose-colored glasses. Blatantly ignoring history and even getting it wrong, Obama seeks peace by sacrificing what this nation stands for. The speech was true 'Rodney King-ish' "Can't we all just get along." He might as well have been reciting Isaiah 11:6 --

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them."

Only who is the wolf and who is the lamb? Does he refer to the United States as the predatory wolf or the meek lamb? Does he think of himself as the 'small child'?

Obama was able to put his finger on most of the problems facing the world, but only edicts for solving them. Living with Jihad has been a problem for the United States since 1783. Then, it was the Barbary Pirates trying to earn their way into heaven by seizing American ships and enslaving their crews. Those actions created the trouble between the U.S. and the Muslims along the Barbary Coast. Obama failed to point out that before an American naval fleet existed that President Adams tried appeasement and making nice. It only made the matter worse. The same condition holds for the Somali Pirates of today. As long as their piracy pays off, they will continue their crusades against shipping.

Obama says we need a new beginning -- okay, but in his eyes and by his word, fault lies with what the United States is doing. We were wrong to have removed Sadam Hussein from power -- a war of 'choice' to use his words, and we are wrong to hold really bad people and keep them isolated from civilization at Guantanamo, we are not a Christian country, we still oppress women and minorities, it isn't fair for any country to have atomic weapons, and all good things have come from Islam, the 'peaceful religion'. Obama ignores the fact that Islam is the only religion to have spread by the forced conversions of non-Muslims. What do you think is happening in Darfur at the present? The genocide there is nothing but Muslims forcing non-Muslims into becoming Muslims.

The only thing standing between us and turning towards Mecca 5 times a day is our military. The only reason Iran hasn't struck out against others to establish the coming of the 12th Imam is the American military. However, as the U.S. weakens in the eyes of the Iranians, they will strike for purely religious reasons -- to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. It has nothing to do with diplomacy, statesmanship, or who likes whom, it is a religious concept held by the Shia. The president of Iran is a true believer; and Iran will not accede to punitive measures such as sanctions or other diplomatic measures.

Obama's mischaracterization of Jefferson in his speech was appalling. Isn't it amazing how politicians mischaracterize the words of famous and infamous people to bolster their own arguments?


I have two suggestions. Read the review of Victory in Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation By Joshua E. London John Wiley & Sons at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1626427/posts or get the book and read it.

Then, Obama defended the war in Afghanistan as being necessary and part of his strategy to stop the extremism of Al Qaeda. Okay, --we will agree to solving the problems there, but wonder why the use of force is necessary in Afghanistan but not appropriate to stop Iran and North Korea from causing global mischief. Iran and North Korea have set a course that is even more perilous than that of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Nor did Obama's speech address the hate coming from the Muslim Mosques and the Madrassas that teach the young to hate anybody who is non-Muslim or infidels. Does Obama seriously think that blaming America and praising Islam will bring peace? Jihad is the duty of all Muslims, the Arabic meaning for Jihad is 'struggle' and while all Jihad is not violent, the Jihad by Sword version of Jihad is 'Holy War' where killing infidels satisfies both duty and struggle for Muslims. Die or become Muslim is the choice given to the Christian refugees of Darfur. It is the classical way that the religion has spread over half the world. I would say to President Obama, "Why hasn't your criticism included the Muslim means of converting non-Muslims?"

Obama finds no reason to criticize the root problems we face with the Muslims. They are a docile people until their numbers increase enough to make demands upon the host countries that they establish themselves in. Their reproduction rates far exceed those of most Western societies and soon are able to dictate the terms of peace. Western societies who are accepting of Muslims find themselves forced to accept Sharia Law or face riots and other forms of violence. Muslims overtake countries that have been open and fair to them. It is scary that Obama is willing to go down that road knowing the outcomes of past dealings other countries have had with Muslims.

Yes, I too felt like singing cum-bah-ya to the tune of Obama's speech, but at some point, reality has to surface. His praise and courting of Muslims will only lead to a bad ending for all of us. The idealism and naiveté of Obama is putting all Christians and non-Muslims into serious jeopardy.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Intelligent DNA

Just the fact that life has to concern itself about reproduction means that life is a terminal condition, and -- that a life form is meant to colonize and occupy a niche in the fabric of life, and -- one could interpret reproduction as a method that life uses to adapt to a changing environment.

Lifespan periods today may be reflective of an Earth that has a continually changing environment. Nothing is ever as static as they seem. We have found evidence of ancient oceans on the highest mountains and old tropical forest in the frozen tundra. Through all of the environmental changes, life has remained tenacious in its habitation on Earth because the DNA that describes a life form is programmable. The ability of life to make changes and adapt to differing environmental situations has been a staple of Darwin's theory since its inception. But it is important to note that the changes come through the reproductive system. Once reproduced, the properties of that individual remain with that life form throughout its life. If you have big feet, you will have big feet throughout your life. But that doesn't mean that you automatically pass this trait on to your offspring.

DNA changes to a given environmental change usually do not happen in one life cycle of an organism. It may take several life cycles to complete the necessary changes to suit a particular environment. If the lifespan is too long, then the necessary changes may not occur to save the life form. This works well because the changing environment may be temporary in nature and full adaptation not actually required.

Rapid environmental changes can be too fast for an organism to adapt and in the process, dooming the affected organism. External forces such as cosmic collisions, volcanism, and changes in the Sun's output would bring about those rapid changes.

Evidence to support a slowing of the evolutionary process can be found by looking at the records of Earth's past. During the Precambrian/Cambrian period, there was a virtual explosion of life forms developed. But the Earth was in a state of rapid change and in order for life to stay viable, rapid changes to DNA was necessary to adapt to a changing world. In order to produce the changes fast enough, shorter life spans would have been necessary. The passing years have calmed the Earth's dynamism and mellowed out its widely varying environmental changes. These longer periods of stability have reduced the need for organism change due to environmental concerns. Translocation and predatory practices probably drive the slight changes in life forms we observe today.

Overall, the increase in stability means less demand for DNA changes and consequently, longer life spans become possible.

The larger question is how is it determined that a DNA change is needed. We know that certain pesticides trigger changes in how a life form deals with those chemicals. Is it the DNA making those determinations? You will notice that the change is always the appropriate response to the circumstance. The response isn't a guess, and after the change occurs, natural selection favors those organisms that made the necessary change. The rearrangement of the chemistry in a mosquito to make it immune to a certain pesticide is a remarkable feat, and to be able to pass the change to subsequent generations suggest more than just chance.

I would suggest that there is in every organism, whether simple or complex, a will to adjust to whatever ill that comes its way. Is this ability the workings of intelligence within the organism or just blind luck? If it is luck, then life has been very lucky to survive from its beginning so long ago. Yes, DNA and its attending retinues that maintain it are a marvel. It is as if there is a command post within our body that recognizes that it is getting warmer or colder and makes those necessary adjustments, or that there is a new chemical that needs to be dealt with.

Natural selection does the work after the changes are made but not before.

Cheers,

-Robert-