This essay was written many years before the genome study was finished mapping human DNA. You'll see that I predicted a need for a new science for understanding the deeper layers of information imbedded in our DNA. So pay attention to the Beauty problem. But what I call Darwin's Beauty Problem is also new, like almost all the stuff at my site. There is a problem with random mutation. It is this. They discovered there is a small clump of cells in our brains which determines which attributes we find attractive in the opposite sex. It doesn’t mean we can’t over-lay that information with experiences and fetishes. But in general people like people, dogs like dogs, fish to fish…you get the picture. Now we have a problem! A Beautiful One. If the DNA in our cells for making sure human males find human females attractive and not any other animal is a result of random mutation, as life is, we have a problem Houston! There must be two separate data systems in our DNA. The first one determines how our bodies grow. It determines our physical attributes and all the biological structures in our bodies. The other must be some sort of beauty DNA database for the information determining which attributes we'll find attractive in the opposite sex. Instinctually sensing aged attributes are bad, young ones good. Good for what? Mating and having babies of course to continue your form of life. Here is the Beauty Problem. Ironically the assumption of evolution itself gives it. If we are a result of just random mutations over the last few billion years in our DNA coding and nothing more, then every time there was a random mutation for a physiological change there must of being a corresponding one for the beauty database. As our bodies change so must the 'what we like to see in the opposite sex' information in our brains change to keep up with those physical changes in our bodies. I'll make it simple. A man from 40 million years ago wouldn't find a Homo Sapien woman attractive. A man from 80 million years ago wouldn’t find a woman from 40 million years ago attractive. There would be a mating problem if you tried to match up the men and women from all three ages. Why is that? What each male's brain would be wired to look for in a female would be different for all three males. As the females evolved over the last 80 million years, as they physically changed, the wired information in the male brain must keep in step with each biological change in the female's body to find it sexy. Sexy and pleasure must go together in the brain to make any animal allow another to get so close to it. So as the male and female bodies changed by random chance over millions of years so must have the wired brain information for beauty information have changed to keep up with them. All by random chance alone??? Do believe that? For every branch of life in order to sustain it with sex. For every random mutation for a DNA change resulting in a body change must of had a similar random mutation for changing the brain wired information for what we physically like in the opposite sex. Or else we never would have gotten here! We did! Evolution might be cruel, but its guided by more than random mutation. And if we have souls, then I’m betting it is the ideal candidate. Also don't forget another small problem with evolution named Punctuated Equilibrium. You see if just random mutation was the solitary driving force behind all Evolution [with survival of the fittest and dumb luck being the filtering screen leading to the illusion of a purposeful direction for life, from simple to complex, from dumb to intelligent] then changes from species to species should have been more spread out over time. And when you add the odds from species to species, it is a 'get the Hell out of here'. Unless you're a mathematical idiot in realizing odds. Evolutionary changes seem to have come in spurts. Rapid changes where one species seemed to evolve into another quite rapidly. It is this problem some creationists cling to, with a "show me the missing in-between form" attitude. They are usually laughed at with the usual scorn most reputable biologists have for these outsiders. But never with a "here it is" laugh. It is the laugh of an expert. You know, the kind of expert who laughed at Einstein for suggesting there is no ether. It is too bad a lot of theory can't be tested faster, and if wrong, they can shrug their shoulders and wonder why their theory or design didn't work out. Back to the drawing boards. If smarter engineers and physicists can fuck up so much. What about the usual biologist? But don't expect them to admit it. They are like people with mentally fixed cages, on both sides. They are trying to squeeze the answers into an all too limited theory of evolution or believe God used his breath. Eve came from Adam's rib. Suggesting Eve is somehow a sub-part of Adam. Less than? Grounds for submissive women? Is God a sexist? Oh no! Where were the feminists when they were needed in the Garden of Eden? Just kidding. If biological changes are somehow designed from some abstract reality where much of the information of an organism might lie then these rapid changes might be explained. And new worlds of biological complexity would be opened up. Perhaps even some rules for which types of adaptations are allowed for what types of chemistry in regards to what types of enviroments and to what sorts of information the life form will be allowed to process internally. What sorts of senses and mind it can have. All information in the surrounding physical and metaphysical reality are there to be picked from. From the physical information of the physical world throught senses to the metaphysical ideas of words and numbers and actual colors[preceived, not the photons]. This information would result in discovering new rules for how life forms generally change from where they already are to what they are becoming. When they can change from what they are to what they can be and when they become stuck into what they are. Another minor point. Look at regular DNA. Where and how is all the information for building a complex body stored? At first, when the first cell starts working inside, the first layer of information in the DNA react chemically with its chemical environment. As new biological structures are build physically, as the organism grows, each new biological structure expresses deeper latent embedded information unfolding itself. The Shapes and Properties of each structure was also embedded in that DNA strand. But you don't hear much of that talk. Know why? Good, tell me. I don't know why? Layer after later of further and deeper information is unraveled with growth. And all that information, almost all the connections, the functions, all the interactions necessary for a living body are embedded in those chromosome chains. And where are we in our understanding today? Not far. The journey towards understanding in this field has just started. It is well, "if this gene is here then this x trait or this medical problem or this..etc this happens", or "if this gene is missing then this medical problem or this trait". A very very long way to go! Too bad a theory can't be folded up like some paper plane. And when you throw it you can see if it flies or not. Darwin pilot to co-pilot Gould, "Radio Mayday. Mayday." So even with the human genome project for mapping all the human DNA you still have the problem of understanding all the deeper layers of biological information which seems to be programmed for the deeper and broader organizational structure of any organism. Noticing if this gene is here or not here with a particular trait is simple shit. The real test of probing the knowledge will come when they try to unravel the deeper layers of biological organization. Where sets of genes combine as units for deeper interactions. And this science will have to have the capability for reaching and tying together seemingly different functions all over the body. Then the question of how some biological changes seem to adapt a species to not only its physical environment but to also other living things. I believe that all this information will be found where math is found. On metaphysical plane. Not in any one cell or clump of cells. And if you can accept this. Can you? Just pretend for a while, will you? You can tackle a QUESTION which too many biologists don't seem to want to tackle. How did the group minds of ants and bees evolve? Try to find a theory for those questions. Just try. Most avoid it. Know why? They haven't got a clue. And that be all and end all theory, Darwinian evolution, guess what, doesn't have a thing to say. Well, I think….. Anyway,…more…Moses. "DAMN MOSES, WASN'T KILLING A NO NO?"