Just finished watching Master and Commander, which is an excellent movie that had a great segment that took place in the Galapagos. It got me wondering, we all know that species adapt to their environments over time. My question is, from a scientific standpoint, what causes DNA to change? How would an insect be able to camouflage itself, even if it takes millions of years? Basically, how and under what circumstances does DNA mutate? And is success random? Are there any theories that evolution oftentimes has failed or caused extinction?
Question about Evolution
- Thread starter Bumrush99
- Start date
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
beetles start living in dung. They come in all colors depending on on the genes of their parents. The white ones get pecked out by birds and dont' pass along their genes, the sh!t brown ones get missed and pass along their genes. After thousands of generations, dung beetles are the color of sh!t all the time.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
A lot of people mistake it as some kind of sudden chage. It takes thousands, if not millions, of years for us to "evolve". Slight variations, and isolations, allow for differences to become accentuated over time.
The ones who are best adapted to pass on their genetic traits (i.e. reproduce) survive, and ultimately they number more than those who are unable to reproduce as quickly. The "strong survive" is a bit of a misleading catch-phrase.
I guess that?s a given, unless some catastrophic event occurs.
But have scientist been able to figure out what causes these changes? Do the species have all these genes from the get go, and time simply weeds out the weaker ones, or does the DNA itself incorporate new characteristics?
Didn't take any science classes in college other than astronomy ones and human biology, so yes I probably do have a lot of misconceptions/forget most of it. 
Mo0o
Lifer
- Jul 31, 2001
- 24,227
- 3
- 76
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Didn't take any science classes in college other than astronomy ones and human biology, so yes I probably do have a lot of misconceptions/forget most of it.
Heres an example.
Lets say some bug has a gene that codes for the it's shell color. They originally lived near lush green fields so they have green shells. The gene is GATACAATCA (this is just a simplification). Now lets say some of the bugs living near the outskirts of this massive fields and its near muddy areas. Some time a random genetic mutation happens to a bug and its genes become CATACAATCA. And this new code turns the shell of the beetle brown. And as a result these beetles become better equipment to live near the outskirts of the field. And it can then reproduce much more successfully. This is also known as aspeciation as one species diverges.
would it be true to say that advances in medical science lead to a slower rate of human evolution? we are essentially allowing weaker specimens to live longer.
*nod* back in HS I had to correct my biology teacher when he mentioned that an example of evolution was the average person being taller now vs. a few centuries ago (better nutrition allows us to reach our potential, but it's not evolution)... Kinda sad, really. I think I got a 98 in that class.
Reality TV, 'nuff said...
its actually quite the opposite we a deevolving since the bad genes aren't getting weeded out. so one of two things are going to have to happen
A: nuclear war and were back to the stone age.
B: we perfect genetic engineering so we can get rid of the bad genes that way
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I personally feel that we have essentially eliminated biological evolution due to advances in technology. We have people living and breeding who, in a certain time in the past, would not have been able to reproduce and pass on those genes. Basically we are using technology to counter what biology dictates.
Granted, I do not want to be the person to look at somebody and tell them they should not live and sure as hell should not breed however I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Granted, I do not want to be the person to look at somebody and tell them they should not live and sure as hell should not breed however I think the evidence speaks for itself.
I do. Perhaps at some point in the future, technology will offer "brain implants" or somesuch, but for now the only thing that can stop the frighteningly fast drop we're experiencing would be restrictions on breeding.
shilala
Lifer
- Oct 5, 2004
- 11,437
- 1
- 76
On our own evolution...
The pool of genetic diversity that exists now because of medical advances is much greater than at any time in our evolution. That pool includes as many positive mutations as negative mutations.
The potential for our race becoming stronger as a result of cataclysm is therefore greater.
"Poor breeding" may leave us with less than desirable specimans on a societal scale, but on an evolutionary scale, it's a fabulous opportunity.
The pool of genetic diversity that exists now because of medical advances is much greater than at any time in our evolution. That pool includes as many positive mutations as negative mutations.
The potential for our race becoming stronger as a result of cataclysm is therefore greater.
"Poor breeding" may leave us with less than desirable specimans on a societal scale, but on an evolutionary scale, it's a fabulous opportunity.
Bateluer
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2001
- 27,730
- 8
- 0
Has anyone read up on a theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium? I think thats what its known as . . .
Basicly, the theory is very similar to Darwinian evolution, with some key differences. The major difference states that, while evolution will occur on a slow steady basis throughout history, there are periods of extremely rapid evolution. Usually after some sort of major natural disaster, the mass extinction at the end of the Creta. period, for example.
I was under the impression this was the major theory, over Darwinian Evolution, in biology today. Maybe I was mistaken.
Basicly, the theory is very similar to Darwinian evolution, with some key differences. The major difference states that, while evolution will occur on a slow steady basis throughout history, there are periods of extremely rapid evolution. Usually after some sort of major natural disaster, the mass extinction at the end of the Creta. period, for example.
I was under the impression this was the major theory, over Darwinian Evolution, in biology today. Maybe I was mistaken.
shilala
Lifer
- Oct 5, 2004
- 11,437
- 1
- 76
It's the collective thinking from the study of genetic "bottlenecks" that occur after major catastrophes. When a catastrophe occurs, the genetic pool is extremely depleted, and a "force driven" natural selection takes place.
A huge amount of dramatic changes take place in species that survive.
For instance, prior to the catastrophe an entire race of feral cats exists in 25 colors. Once the volcano erupts, only the black cats survive because their coats can collect enough heat from the sun. Of these black cats, it just so happens that one has an extra toe which is a dominant trait. In just a few years, this race of cats has gone from 5 toed cats of many colors to black cats with 6 toes.
The same thing happens over and over through all the flora and fauna that has managed to escape extinction.
In the fossil record it shows a huge leap for evolution and people get all amped about it. Once the geological record bears out a cataclysm that coincides with the fossil record everyone goes back to listening for radio signals from aliens
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter