The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
What rms seems focused on has less to do with allelic distribution and more to do with how the environment can influence novel mutational change. I would say our disagreement comes more from our perception of the likelihood of positive genetic mutation under environmental stress.
These rapid environmental changes you speak of would most likely be accompanied by mass extinctions and major reductions in population among surviving species. Mutations that may have already occurred in a species that promote survival in this changing environment will be selected for, particularly so if they are critical for survival.
rms
Active Member
just that whatever the environment offers, whether that is purely ingested or other factors, has effects on foundational genome levels of all organisms that are there
the specifics weren't necessarily important, just the notion that the sun beating on you would force your skin cells to mutate(adapt) to protect yourself from it over some time. And if that same person ingested the same things (which would likely be impossible) in a cloudy environment, the cloudy person would not mutate in that way. since the skin mutation is apparently impossible, this can be substituted for something else.
this example was assuming there was no humans in the area and you sort of immigrate mates that would be 'equal' I guess
maybe, but I think i'm sort of up to date and haven't seen to much hit the mainstream. I don't think I am suggesting one cannot discuss anything because there isn't enough certainty for me, I just don't think one should be overly confident in proposing a theory without acknowledging how limited the knowledge is, to me.
why not and what are the conventional/general theories? seems to be working in a different logical direction
these two seem at odds with each other, but from the excerpt via Ein the author paraphrased/summarized Darwin as to assuming everything was random. Unless I misread it
it is my university library but I can email it if you give a hoot. small pdf
hmm I'm not trying to, but i am trying to carefully say the environment has a direct influence while also not proposing it has an agenda or conscience intent on forcing organisms to adapt in a certain way towards a certain goal that isn't just survival.
isn't our genetic information incredibly similar to a lot of things that are really different?
http://www.businessinsider.com/comp...tives--are-96-genetically-similar-to-humans-2
seems like these percentages are sort of misleading, no?
I also have another theory that mutation occurs at a much faster rate when you are able to manipulate the environment like humans, but that is for another day :8
think this is definitely in play
I would say that's a fair generalization thus far
CiG
Dimension Hatröss
rms
Active Member
CiG
Dimension Hatröss
I guess they just breed their women tough enough so that they don't need to flee civil war and mass violence. 
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
Well there are things like transposable elements and viruses that can alter the genetic information, but I dont find that these things would satisfy your proposition. It isnt like the genome within an organism is homogeneous anyways, the only mutations that are passed on are ones that occur in the germ cells.
But the specifics are important, and show why your idea lacks precedent.
Skin would stay relatively the same then on a generation to generation basis, but overtime darker skin tones may be selected for due to UV associated health complications.
You are the one proposing a theory, im the one presenting you with one that is already very well established. Like I said before, im not closing my mind to the possibility, I just see your theory as being very unlikely.
Evolution via natural selection is the conventional theory. As support, there are the various mechanisms and influences at work that are covered in subjects such as anatomy, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, etc. The body responds and adapts to the environment, but so far there isnt even a suggestion that any of this penetrates into the germ cell line.
In the context of genetics. Darwin's work predates the study of genetics, and even had his own theory which was wrong. Darwin's work on evolution was important, but on the subject of genetics I could literally care less what he had to say (he was wrong btw).
Just to clarify, I actually messed up the post from that first quote. I started talking about Mendel and made it seem like this was part of Darwin's experiments. Still, you get my point, works from both are extremely relevant, even now.
Nah, I dont care that much. Ive read hundreds of similar papers already.
It's kind of the same thing.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
mutations are random said:
Just read the rest of the article, it is really short.
Im talking about intraspecies variation, and yea genetic information among animals is pretty similar in a lot of ways.
lol, no.
Dak
mentat
I was thinking more of humans, which are relatively immune to "mass extinction" compared with many (not all) animals due to our access to technology which aids adaptability and travel. Furthermore, not all environmental changes caused by humans are considered "harmful", but may have evolutionary impact, positive or negative (ie, modern sedentary living).
THINK OF THE WOMEN A-oh...............ALL LIVES MATTER!
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,840
- 668
- 113
Being immune to adaptable pressures just makes the current state of the human race less adaptable from a genetic standpoint. Focusing basically on first world countries, the evolution of the human race in the future will be directed almost entirely from a social standpoint. Honestly the environment really has nothing to do with human evolution at the time being. The social factor of evolution has been neglected in this conversation, but was still noteworthy enough that Darwin brought it up in the form of sexual selection.
rms
Active Member
that's cool, but it doesnt sound like im far off from what is already established
substitute skin with creation of an enzyme, just because skin isn't transferable like I would want it to be, doesn't mean the idea is all jacked..unless nothing passes on like I argue
I just don't see how I am disproving or destroying the natural selection theory. Natural selection seems to argue that fitness is temporally designated, but not necessarily influenced by the environment (outside of fitness selection)
I enjoy this definition of random more, it's much more passive than what I think Ein has been arguing for many many replies now. Got no problem with that excerpt
Einherjar86
Active Member
No, I'm in agreement with what EM is saying. Stop trying to make this out to be some weird triangular opposition.
According to your argument, exposure to toxic chemicals would tend to make an organism resistant to those chemicals. The article that EM cited says exactly the opposite.
According to your argument, exposure to toxic chemicals would tend to make an organism resistant to those chemicals. The article that EM cited says exactly the opposite.
rms
Active Member
you are definitely not arguing this. to say that you are for anything but pure randomness and chaos would be misleading to say the least. you have consistently argued an idea that two exact same species, one in alaska and one in the galapagos, would mutate the same way but their outcome would only be different because of the way the environment selects what lives and what dies. your Darwin excerpts demonstrate this and reading more of Merlin.
whether it's adaptive or just facilitates new and specific mutations is rather irrelevant to me. my point is that outside factors directly influence mutations, yours is the outside does not.
disproves all the stuff you've said but i'm sure you'll read this and concede your idea of non-influence-chaos-mutation
and I just cited an article about how yeast adapted to copper in its environment and how EM found that interesting and possibly would challenge his preconceived notions about it, but whatever. i'm sure you'll reply with "I didn't bother to read everything because i'm busy blah blah blah"
Einherjar86
Active Member
NO.
I have said, multiple times, that environmental factors CAN influence mutation. You've ignored this. I've mentioned chemicals, I've mentioned radiation. Go back and read my original responses. I know full well that the environment can have an influence on mutation--the point is that the environment doesn't have a determinate effect on the beneficial effect of mutations, which thereby pass on to future generations.
That has always been my argument. You've just been too stubborn to realize it.
You, on the other hand, believe that the environment can somehow have inspire beneficial mutations--as if exposure to harmful chemicals will result in the next generation being somehow immune to those chemicals.
I have said, multiple times, that environmental factors CAN influence mutation. You've ignored this. I've mentioned chemicals, I've mentioned radiation. Go back and read my original responses. I know full well that the environment can have an influence on mutation--the point is that the environment doesn't have a determinate effect on the beneficial effect of mutations, which thereby pass on to future generations.
That has always been my argument. You've just been too stubborn to realize it.
You, on the other hand, believe that the environment can somehow have inspire beneficial mutations--as if exposure to harmful chemicals will result in the next generation being somehow immune to those chemicals.
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
being so dishonest right now
passive, but i think this statement is a defense of your position. if not, omit.
yeah, now you think the environment influence mutation.
except you've gone farther to say there is no effect and that it's all chance at the genome level and then the environment chooses what lives and dies, which isn't a foundational process.
how you got this anywhere in this conversation is strange
Einherjar86
Active Member
I said this on May 8:
So fuck you.
In every comment you quoted above, I'm saying that the environmental change is not of the variety that would have that degree of influence over genetic mutation (based on what we can observe). Climate change isn't the same thing as the introduction of volatile chemicals.
Of course, because you're basically being inconsistent in what you're saying:
This.
You're trying to say that the environment can direct evolutionary adaptation toward beneficial mutation (i.e. that it can cause organisms to evolve immunity to harmful chemicals by being exposed to those chemicals), and in the next breath you say that the environment can't direct mutation.
You're simply making contradictory claims. There's no way around it.
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
get mad at yourself for being all over the place. how the hell am I going to remember a quote from 3 weeks ago when we've had 50+ replies on the topic? Recalling the overall theme is essential in persuasive writing yet you didn't do it, unless it was about the lack of control over environmental change. When I even made sure I had your position right in this last iteration, you still didn't correct me or clarify:
these are in consecutive order, from the 24th of May, yet you didn't say my summarization of your point is wrong. so you wasted all of our time and already agree with my side, that the environment does more than just choose what lives and dies. Not once have I suggested that your position is worried about to the degree to which the environment influences, you have been the one saying "since we cannot observe anything, there is no influence" -- not me.
only in the degree and rapidity to which change occurs. Neither are different in terms of infiltrating the organism, as the organism has to ingest things offered by the environment. Whether what they ingest has toxins in it or not is only relevant to which the rate of (negative) mutations occur.
nah
I challenge this view by saying it does influence the direction of mutation but also being careful in arguing it's not some sort of conscience entity. The copper + yeast thing is a clear opposing piece to this and I barely spent any time on my library search engine, so I imagine there are more examples.
Ingesting toxins, to me, clearly influences direction of mutation, but that direction does not necessarily mean it will transform organisms to positively adapt to the toxin, rather the toxin will cause mutations that otherwise would not occur without ingesting that toxin.
I do not see this on sitting on a fence and I think after clarifying this for EM he doesn't think I still am on the fence, or at least hasn't had time to tell me I still am. It's clear you haven't read the response to his original reply because you didn't counter that, you countered the initial claim by EM, which was already addressed.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I apologize.
I do not believe that absolutely any mutation can occur in any environment. But I do think the mutations that occur can occur (and likely do occur) according to a mechanism that we cannot observe or predict, and that may not be consistent or stable in any sense that we would understand. This is what I mean by chance, and what I think Darwin meant; and I agree with EM that we can't jettison Darwin from the discussion.
Yes, but this has an effect on the transmission of genes. Somatic mutation, which can occur by exposure to chemicals, can have either a negative or positive effect (although likely negative). This is an example of the environment altering an organism's genes, but it cannot be passed on to future generations.
As organisms evolve over the course of several generations or more, and experience environmental shifts such as climate change, it's likely that some element of the species will develop a mutation that enables it to survive the environmental shift. The mechanism in the case of somatic mutation can be observed (e.g. harmful radiation); the mechanism in the case of the latter cannot. It's fine if we want to pose some possible feedback that occurs at the level of an individual organism, or its immediate progeny--but it's also true that chance can account for the appearance of successful mutation.
Your argument, as I understand it, has changed (albeit slightly).
In multiple cases it has seemed to me, and I think to others, that you were suggesting that exposure to certain environmental factors will encourage mutative effects toward combating those environmental factors--or rather, toward increased chances of survival. You've said in the past that you cannot imagine that organisms develop beneficial mutations without somehow being encouraged to do so by their environment. I think that the environment weeds out for beneficial mutations, but it does't actively participate in giving rise to them.
Now you seem to be saying that exposure to an environment simply causes some mutation to occur that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. In the case of toxins or radiation, I would agree completely (and say that this is rather obvious, which is probably why I've been ignoring it).
In the case of environmental shifts that don't involve invasive substances, it's true that we still cannot observe the mechanism at work. Chance still looks to be the only way we can relate epistemologically to the appearance of germline mutations. The yeast experiment suggests something (I wasn't aware of it until you posted it), but it's not proof. It's evidence. It's a possible observation of some function at work, but not a window onto what that function is. The modern evolutionary synthesis argument is still the most convincing model, but this is liable to change.
Finally, a comment on randomness: it doesn't need to be a scary or unsettling thing. We live in a contingent universe, and it's perfectly plausible that evolution is a contingent (i.e. accidental) process. This doesn't mean we can't know anything about it. Chance isn't pure randomness--it's simply not susceptible to pattern according to our current methods of epistemology and observation.
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
this is tricky, I should want to say I don't think the environment is like "let me add some lead here and see which organisms can mutate quick enough to drinking lead so they don't die off" or something.
the ones that survived such negative elements obviously had positive mutations towards it. and with exposure comes mutative effects, and I would say the vast majority are negative to the organism. So would we say the new challenges from the environment encourage negative mutations? I don't think we/academics would, they would just say they encourage negative, positive and probably some neutral ones that aren't in either camp (at the present time).
to summarize, I would say that environmental factors do encourage mutations, but to single out negative, positive or neutral mutations would be a mistake. I think the correct assumption is that most mutations would be negative (as in they do not improve the current survival ability of said organism), but there are obviously neutral and positive ones. When these mutations occur likely seem random at best (negative seems to have more specificity but not precise enough from my understanding), but these mutations are driven by these factors we are talking about.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,744
- 1,442
- 113
Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Accord, it was more about killing American industries (while letting other major polluters like India and China continue as normal) and redistributing billions of dollars of taxpayer money to poor countries than about the climate.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,848
- 113
When it comes to greenhouse emissions, America pollutes more than China and India combined, on a per capita basis.
Similar threads
