Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,331 Year: 3,588/9,624 Month: 459/974 Week: 72/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Adaptation
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 6 of 115 (318210)
06-06-2006 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Damouse
06-03-2006 7:10 PM


Is adaptation to an enviroment possible? Lets say you move a group of a hundred people out to an island thats made of broken glass. Assuming they died natural deaths, would their feet harden over the years? In other words, would they adapt to their surroundings and pass that on to their children?
Rather than adaptation in line with natural selection what you are suggesting sounds more like acclimatisation followed by Lamarckian inheritance.
If the initial population develop harder feet then they are acclimating to the broken glass environment. Their children will not be born with hard feet however and will themselves have to acclimate. What you propose is that the offspring would inherit the acclimated traits that their parents have acquired through living on the island, this inheritance of acquired characteristics is Lamarckian evolution and while there are a number of accepted situations where it does apply most evolutionary studies focus on heritable genetic variation as a result of mutation.
If the broken glass environment was dangerous enough that it caused those with softer feet to die then you might have a situation where natural selection would operate. In such a case those individuals with a genetic trait predispoing them to harder feet might live longer and have more opportunity to reproduce and have more children, consequently the proportion of children with genes providing tough soles would increase.
By specifying that the broken glass is not lethal and the people die natural deaths, although on an island of broken glass bleeding to death seems pretty natural, you are effectively removing any selective pressure and making your scenario one in which we would not expect natural selection to be operating on the trait you have in mind.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 7:10 PM Damouse has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 18 of 115 (318601)
06-07-2006 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Damouse
06-06-2006 10:47 PM


how would the enviroment affect the DNA, in this position, would the mother have enough nourishment to give birth to larger kids? What im saying is could the mother be giving birth to smaller kids because she's underfed?
In the scenario Modulous described it would not be a genetic change, it would be the lack of sufficient nourishment for the child as you suggest.
There are examples of epigenetic factors such as DNA methylation and changes in histone acetylation/methylation which can be environmentally induced and produce heritable variation which is not due to the primary sequence of the DNA.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : added link to article on epigenetics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Damouse, posted 06-06-2006 10:47 PM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2006 8:41 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 23 of 115 (318977)
06-08-2006 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Crue Knight
06-08-2006 12:48 AM


It would be possible for Him to change anything He wanted in science, wouldn't He?
Which is precisely why 'God did it' is a useless explanation in a scientific forum. It doesn't explain anything it merely attributes the fact that it happened to God and then gives up and goes home for a bath. If we can't rely on somethings behaviot to be at least somewhatconsistent from one instant to the next then the opportunity to studying it scientifically is virtually non-existent.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Crue Knight, posted 06-08-2006 12:48 AM Crue Knight has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 43 of 115 (319444)
06-09-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:39 PM


The code of a fish doesn't have anything in it about legs. Now, even if a mutation happened, or millions of them, this would not change the code, the fish still doesn't have any code for legs, or for part of them, or to even start evolving them.
All this suggests is that you don't know the first thing about developmental biology. I could show you a number of genes specifically, though not necessarily exclusively, expressed in the legs which are also expressed in the fins, so at least part of the 'code' for legs is there.
This whole post is nothing but pure asserion, do you think you could actually support any of these claims with evidence? Even one?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:39 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 9:33 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024