It appears that the distance between sides in this discussion of genetic evolution is the talk regarding the lengthy speciation process vs the intraspecie variation which could occur rather quickly depending on the rapidity of environmental shifts.
Edit: Actually, speciation could occur rather quickly also depending on the severity and rapidity of environmental shifts. We just typically don't see shifts that severe/rapid.
The environment is very important, what is it exactly you are trying to claim?
because of where the sex cells are located, the mutation in the man's skin will not interfere with the genetic code in the man's testes, there will be no chance of the child inheriting the p53 mutation. In the second case the man dies before he can procreate, thus ending the quest of his genetic information.
Maybe in a million years they might turn black, but chances are they will assimilate with the native population far before that happens.
The fact is, we know quite a bit. You however know far too little about what is known to make such claims of your theories.
why not and what are the conventional/general theories? seems to be working in a different logical directionbut direct environmental triggers (that trigger associated genes) arent even in the conversation.
lol, Darwin didnt say it was up to chance.
and didnt really cover why they happened in the first place.
This is some obscure stuff. Maybe you could provide me with working links to this research, or are you using a school library? i
You are trying to sit on the fence between regular evolutionary theory and directed evolution. The environment either has a direct influence by some mechanism, or it doesnt.
yet our genetic information is relatively identical.
Again, you are looking at evolution from too small a window.
It appears that the distance between sides in this discussion of genetic evolution is the talk regarding the lengthy speciation process vs the intraspecie variation which could occur rather quickly depending on the rapidity of environmental shifts.
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.
The assessments, which were carried out on 18 females and 563 males, concluded that 442 individuals were deemed to be older than 18, a shocking 76% of cases!
Examinations are carried out by a forensic anthropologist who x-rays the individual’s wisdom teeth and takes an MRI scan of a knee joint. Their forensic opinion on the age of the individual is then sent to the Swedish migration board to be factored into their decision on whether or not to grant asylum.
Only 134 people (23%) examined were believed to be under 18. There were only 5 cases in which the examiner felt they were unable to make a judgement, which is broadly in line with the standard margin of error.
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.
mutations are random said:Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
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
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.
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).
I just see your theory as being very unlikely.
But the specifics are important, and show why your idea lacks precedent.
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)Evolution via natural selection is the conventional theory.
Just read the rest of the article, it is really short.
No, I'm in agreement with what EM is saying.
Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.
Indeed, some regions of the genome are more likely to sustain mutations than others, and various physical causes (e.g., radiation) are known to cause particular types of mutations.
However, this does not imply that all mutations are equally likely to occur or that mutations happen without any physical cause.
I have said, multiple times, that environmental factors CAN influence mutation.
The kinds of variability we find among organisms seems, to me, to be achievable purely through happenstance, which is then enabled or inhibited by environmental factors.
I don't think we can observe any greater degree of environmental infiltration in an organism's genome, and so I'm hesitant to admit it.
Environmental change didn't cause the genetic change, and the article isn't suggesting that.
This would be a causal relation, meaning that environment played some role in the manifestation of the mutation itself.
All the environmental change did was allow that mutation to continue because it enabled those apes to survive the migration.
The environment only required that apes use their hind legs. This might increase muscle mass and even affect the expression of a gene, but it has no impact on the genome itself, causing the actual mutation to become stronger, or some such.
The only way that environment leads to an increase in this mutation is by filtering out the apes who lacked this 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
as if exposure to harmful chemicals will result in the next generation being somehow immune to those chemicals.
being so dishonest right now
An organism doesn't mutate during its lifetime, unless radically invasive substances/chemicals are introduced into its environment (such as radiation).
how you got this anywhere in this conversation is strange
You are trying to sit on the fence between regular evolutionary theory and directed evolution. The environment either has a direct influence by some mechanism, or it doesnt.
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:You're trying to say that the environment can direct evolutionary adaptation toward beneficial mutation
your position seems to argue that any mutation can occur in any environment and we only notice those mutations because they are deemed better for survival in that space and time. I cannot imagine that is true
I understand, but it's a perfectly plausible explanation. I have difficulty imagining your proposed alternative if only because I'm not convinced we can observe that degree of environmental infiltration. The kinds of variability we find among organisms seems, to me, to be achievable purely through happenstance, which is then enabled or inhibited by environmental factors.
Climate change isn't the same thing as the introduction of volatile chemicals.
nahYou're simply making contradictory claims. There's no way around it.
Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.
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.
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.
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.