Evolution!! Coolest mutant you'll see today

Watermark said:
But for a lot of changes mutation can provide a spark needed to change into something completely different.

Otherwise we'd all just be very, very advanced single celled bacteria.
Click to expand...

As ib1 said, most of the time mutations kill the offspring so that they don't have a chance to procreate. Evolution takes a long, long time. Mutations tend to be more abrupt. Genetic drift bears far more responsibility for changes; survival and procreation are key.
 
Watermark said:
I think it's a hoax. Or maybe some inheritable disease (some very, very bizarre inheritable disease). The probability of a random mutation creating something so different from a dog yet still able to live is so infinitesimal it's not even worth considering. And dogs and humans can't breed. It's physically impossible for all but the most related species to breed (we probably couldn't even breed with neanderthal's).
Click to expand...
Well, it is the Pravda, which is no longer any better than the "Weekly World News" so yeah, it probably is a hoax.
 
Watermark said:
Oh. I'd never heard of Pravda so I didn't know how credible it was.
Click to expand...
Pravda, which means "Truth" and Izvestia which means "News" were the official news and propaganda machines of the USSR, when the USSR collapsed, it simply became one crappy "news" source.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Mutation is a very, very small part of the evolutionary process. 99.9 percent of the time mutation is detrimental to the resulting animal, as evidenced above.
Click to expand...
Actually you're wrong. Mutation is about 99.99999% of evolution. Changes in allele frequency are almost wholly dependant on genetic mutations.

Besides, you're making an assumption that the condition of the dead pup was a result of mutation where, to be honest, it looks to me as if it's swollen from some sort of systemic infection.
 
tinfoil said:
Mutation is a very, very small part of the evolutionary process.

huh? I thought mutations were what caused changes... we call the changes evolution, right? Traits are passed on from generation to generation.

Puhlease expalin how mutation is such a tiny part.
Click to expand...

You're close to being correct. We call the accumulative genetic changes caused by mutations to the DNA, within a given population (species or subspecies), over time, that cause an allele (the sequence of DNA codes responsible for a genetic expression) to be expressed at an increased rate (frequency), within that population, "evolution".

Or more concisely the modern definition of biological evolution is "The change in allele frequency within a population over time."

The process by which these allele changes occur, within a species (population) is called "natural selection".
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
Mutation is a random change (read: error) in the genetic code that alters a trait of an animal spontaneously. For instance, being born with six fingers or a third arm. Mutation is not the driving force of the evolutionary process. That's natural selection. Mutation is a very, very, very small part. Most of the time mutations kill the offspring, they don't give it some sort of trait that helps it survive and procreate.

Natural selection causes changes gradually over generations.
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong. Mutations to DNA are the fundamental driving force behind biological evolution. The process by which these mutations are passed on and expressed, with in a given population (species), is natural selection.
 
Thorn said:
Genetic drift, that tiny change or set of changes that take place over time also play a role, but you're right, it's natural selection, or the successful procreation of those organisms that survive to pass on their genes, that determine the process of evolution. That's also why it takes so long in species with long procreation cycles and why so much basic research uses bacteria and drosophila (fruit flies) to study genetics.
Click to expand...

You're both partially correct. Genetic mutation is the fundamental force that causes evolution. Natural selection is the process by which biological evolution occurs.

As the photo demonstrates (assuming it's a genetic mutation) not all genetic mutations provide a survival or reproductive advantage and those that don't are evolutionary dead ends (in this case literally). The genetic mutations that do provide a reproductive or survival advantage have a greater probability (frequency) of being passed on to progeny. That is natural selection or, more correctly, that is how process of natural selection works.
 
Mottleydude said:
Actually you're wrong. Mutations to DNA are the fundamental driving force behind biological evolution. The process by which these mutations are passed on and expressed, with in a given population (species), is natural selection.
Click to expand...

Not according to the guy who taught my anthropology class. Spontaneous mutations of the genetic code aren't a significant part of the evolutionary process precisely because most of the time the mutation is detrimental. It's so unlikely that a mutation is going to help the survival of the offspring that it's almost not worth considering.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Not according to the guy who taught my anthropology class. Spontaneous mutations of the genetic code aren't a significant part of the evolutionary process precisely because most of the time the mutation is detrimental. It's so unlikely that a mutation is going to help the survival of the offspring that it's almost not worth considering.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to your anthropology instructor, he's not entirely correct. Most mutations cause no change. They occur within codon sequences that do not cause physical expressions. Those mutations that are expressed detrimentally tend not to be or cannot be selected. Those that cause reproductive or adaptive advantages are selected. With out mutative changes, with out shifts in allele frequencies in populations, natural selection comes to a dead stop (pun intended).
 
How on earth does a mutation account for the production of something complicated like an eyeball? Natural selection certainly does, but I can't imagine random mutations producing it.
 
Because as paradoxical as it seems mutations, that is changes in DNA, are the only way in which new alleles can be created. Mutations, genetic shift, changes in allele frequencies, there all food for the process of natural selection.
 
Mottleydude said:
Because as paradoxical as it seems mutations, that is changes in DNA, are the only way in which new alleles can be created. Mutations, genetic shift, changes in allele frequencies, there all food for the process of natural selection.
Click to expand...

Let me revise that statement. Mutations and genetic recombination during meiosis are the only way in which new alleles can be created. That's really rather a parsing of words cause, technically speaking, genetic recombination is really just another form of mutation.
 
I guess my understanding was that changes in DNA came about through natural selection primarily and occasionally through random mutation.
 
Mottleydude said:
It's the other way around. Genetic change is what fuels natural selection.
Click to expand...

Aren't mutations the choices that nature uses to select from ? If the mutation is viable or proves to be even superior to the original won't it be more likely to become more prevelent ?
 
No dillo, gene mutations are just what happens when copies of the gene are not exact.

Natural selection is when a certain trait has more successs in a particular enviroment allowing those that possess that trait to procreate more successfully and thus carrying the trait into the next generation. Rinse, lather, repete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top