Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Role of Mutations
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 16 of 62 (324510)
06-21-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jaderis
06-20-2006 11:43 PM


My thread didn't cover emotions, but it did go over what some see as contrary to "survival of the fittest"--morality, charity, altruism, that sort of stuff. Check out the thread for a further explanation as to how emotions could actually be essential for our survival.
To give you a quick run-down--being social is good for social creatures, because it helps increase our survival. And it's not so much that we are in competition against other animals for survival that we are . . .um, okay, so I screwed that part up. It's not like we're in a race. While the hare and the coyote may help drive each other's evolution (hare's turnign white being an advantage, coyote's increased smell, just as pure guesses), they aren't in direct competition. It's more like the hare is in competition with the rabbit, and the coyote with the wolf (in those areas where the same niche is covered by the two). Okay, so I botched the explanation, but the thread on "morality and charity according to evolution" might be able to help.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jaderis, posted 06-20-2006 11:43 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 06-22-2006 1:20 AM kuresu has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 17 of 62 (324692)
06-22-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kuresu
06-21-2006 5:31 PM


Kuresu,
I don't see emotions as contrary to "survival of the fittest," but I do think that they reside somewhere outside of the mechanism. I understand complately that the way we express emotion has ALOT to do with our social evolution and I also accept that it may have alot to do with our overall evolution as a species, but I also think that there might be some other explanation for why particular emotions developed. Of course, they may not have evolved separately, but as a result of one or two chemical changes in our brains that covered them all. I do not hold out for some supernatural explanation at all, but there has to be some definitive answer to "are emotions the byproduct of our intelligence and brain development which prompted our social development or did the chemical changes develop first and spur on the development of our brains and thus our social evolution?" And if the latter, why/how did they occur in the first place?
I will read your thread more thoroughy and ponder this a bit more. Thank you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kuresu, posted 06-21-2006 5:31 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 06-22-2006 11:44 AM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 20 by EZscience, posted 06-22-2006 10:14 PM Jaderis has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 18 of 62 (324843)
06-22-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jaderis
06-22-2006 1:20 AM


"are emotions the byproduct of our intelligence and brain development which prompted our social development
To this, it's mostly a yes. It's not so much intelligence--while we may have what is perhaps the greatest range of emotions and most complex social behavior, intelligence isn't a requirement.
or did the chemical changes develop first and spur on the development of our brains and thus our social evolution
I would say yes to this question. If I understand you correctly, the "chemical changes" are the mutations, right? If so, it would be mutations that improved our brain, allowing for an ever more complex social interactions (in our case. Unfortunately, we don't know of any other entities that have our level of intelligence, so we've no clue if this social behavior is the norm for all highly intellignet organisms).
As to your last question, we know how mutations happen. We also know why they happen, but this "why" has no intent. Hope that helps.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 06-22-2006 1:20 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Scrutinizer
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 62 (325009)
06-22-2006 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jaderis
06-19-2006 4:22 PM


Jaderis writes:
What is the role of neutral mutations in selection?
What kind of neutral mutations are we discussing? (I assume these are mutations which can be passed from one generation to the next.)
Different neutral mutations include the following:
  • those that only substitute one nucleotide for another, making no change in the resulting amino acid sequence (for protein-encoding genes)
  • those that alter one amino acid in the interpreted sequence without altering protein function
  • those that alter nucleotides in non-coding regions of the DNA which also do not affect gene expression
  • those that are only expressed after the maximum age for reproduction
  • those that add, take away, or noticeably alter a trait of the organism with no beneficial or deleterious consequences, at least for that particular environment
I'm guessing you want to talk about the last kind; am I right?
Of course, by definition, natural selection can never act on a neutral mutation. Until the environment changes in such a way that makes the mutation matter to the organism, it will be "invisible" to natural selection. Obviously, it also has to be expressed or must affect the organism somehow for it ever to matter, so it would have to be a neutral mutation of the fifth kind.
For a neutral mutation to be preserved in a population long enough for the environment to change such that the mutation is advantageous, then, it must occur in an organism that already has a selective advantage. Natural selection tends to get rid of traits that confer no advantage, even if they are not deleterious, since they are only a burden to form and maintain.
Jaderis writes:
Although I want to address the neutral mutations first, I suppose the same thing could be said about mutations that in previous generations would have been damaging, but eventually came along at a time where they became beneficial.
Actually, there is good evidence that this has happened. Take cave-dwelling animals, for instance. With no working eyes and unusually long and sensitive "feelers," as well as being largely albino, many of these creatures could not be expected to survive in the environment of their ancestors (i.e., outside the cave).
But in the cave, these traits are perfect: working eyes are not needed, so without any, the creature does not have to worry about maintaining them; larger, more sensitive antennae (or whiskers?), though unnecessary anywhere else, help the animal find its way through the dark; being albino is good for a cave environment since pigment is useless.
So yes, mutations which may have once been harmful in previous generations can become advantageous if the environment changes significantly.
Jaderis writes:
I guess I am trying to posit that the argument made by some that most mutations are harmful or neutral, and that that somehow negates evolution, could be erroneous because of the possibility of a constantly changing nature of mutations.
By "constantly changing nature of mutations," I will assume that you mean that the same mutations could be helpful, harmful, or neutral, depending entirely on the environment.
I do not think you could adequately refute that argument merely by showing that some "bad" or neutral mutations may be "good" under certain circumstances. The argument goes that the vast majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious and that the few beneficial mutations are only losses of genetic information, so the trend is for populations to deteriorate ("devolve"), not improve ("evolve").
To refute this, you would have to show that most mutations, or "build-ups" of mutations, can be advantageous in at least one plausible environment or to give a verifiable example of an increase in genetic information from a mutation (i.e., the addition of a new functional gene or set of genes which did not exist previously in the gene pool).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jaderis, posted 06-19-2006 4:22 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jaderis, posted 06-23-2006 1:53 AM Scrutinizer has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 20 of 62 (325059)
06-22-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jaderis
06-22-2006 1:20 AM


Emotions are neural phenomena
...and as such they have never been immune to natural selection, and most likely derive from 'gut-level' neural responses that had adaptive significance in survival and/or reproductive contexts.
You don't need intelligence for emotions, in fact emotions are far more primitive in nature than any form of abstract thought and appear to arise in the hippocampus, one of the most primitive regions of the brain that is present even in reptiles.
I think you have a few misconceptions about the nature of mutations in general that could use better clarification - Scrutinizer has covered some of this quite well, but I would say you need to work harder on understanding the basic mechanisms of mutation before you will be able to link them conceptually to higher level neural processes in a meaningful way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 06-22-2006 1:20 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jaderis, posted 06-23-2006 1:37 AM EZscience has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 21 of 62 (325123)
06-23-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by EZscience
06-22-2006 10:14 PM


Re: Emotions are neural phenomena
I wouldn't go as far as to say that I have "misconceptions." I have a passing knowledge of biology and genetics (I spent most of my childhood either tagging along with my mother in university labs or asking her detailed questions about her work in biology once I was older and I have taken a few classes of my own) and I am well aware of the how mutations arise and function, although I wouldn't say that I have anywhere near expert knowledge since I haven't done any advanced study. I asked you to point me in the direction of research on emotions so that I could learn more and answer my highly hypothetical questions and I did state in the very first sentence of my OP that my post was a question and very much an unsure thing. Just an idea. I know that what I was pondering might have very well been nonsense, but it was just an idea I had and I really wanted someone to just help me gain more knowledge. Yes, I may not have even thought of it if I had a more advanced knowledge of genetics, but I am prone to crazy ideas so who knows?
BTW, I never said emotions required intelligence. I was asking an either/or question that didn't specify what I thought about it ewither way. You've done that twice so far. Taking some hypothetical questions I put forward and assuming that I really believe in any of the "what ifs."
I will take your advice and read scrutinizer's threads and also finish poring over the "morality" thread. I really didn't know how to ask my question and I did the best I could, but I don't think I can get an answer if I don't know how to ask for it in the right way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by EZscience, posted 06-22-2006 10:14 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 06-23-2006 6:55 AM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 22 of 62 (325132)
06-23-2006 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Scrutinizer
06-22-2006 7:37 PM


Thank you Scrutinizer. That was very helpful.
I am aware of the cases like the cave-dwelling animals and I knew that my comment about deleterious mutations "switching sides" was evidenced by such things, but I kinda just threw it out there to try and help explain what the hell I was asking.
Unfortunately, I am not as well-versed in the sciences as I would like. I am more interested in history and politics (International Affairs major), but I am the child of a biologist and I did very well in my science courses throughout HS and college. I know that I do not know hardly enough (but not nothing at all) to be able to answer detailed questions or apparently to even ask a coherent question, lol. So thank you again for sharing your knowledge with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Scrutinizer, posted 06-22-2006 7:37 PM Scrutinizer has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 23 of 62 (325204)
06-23-2006 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jaderis
06-23-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Emotions are neural phenomena
Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were holding any fixed beliefs. Just trying to share my own conception of emotions as products of natural selection rather than anything resulting directly from neutral mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jaderis, posted 06-23-2006 1:37 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jaderis, posted 06-23-2006 11:19 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 24 of 62 (325508)
06-23-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by EZscience
06-23-2006 6:55 AM


Re: Emotions are neural phenomena
That's OK EZ. If I sounded snippy, I apologize. I actually would love to learn more about how emotions came to be through natural selection. I will read the threads about this, but if you would ever feel up to answering direct questions about it, let me know. I have plenty to ask

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 06-23-2006 6:55 AM EZscience has not replied

  
PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 62 (326191)
06-25-2006 9:12 PM


If the voice box evolved using mutations would it not be reasonable to say that some humans would not have them? Just wondering why all humans have 'em? From a Biblical perspective that problem dissappears. Humans were created with the ability to speak. In fact all humans had the same language until the tower of Babel. In fact the use of mutations in evolution is unfounded because there has not yet been one positive mutation in the history of studying mutations. If you disagree try finding one. If you do come up with one I know exactly which one it will be. And it comes with a nasty side effect, so it doesnt really count as a positive mutation.

Matt G.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 9:39 PM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2006 10:46 PM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 30 by MangyTiger, posted 06-25-2006 10:58 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 62 (326196)
06-25-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PetVet2Be
06-25-2006 9:12 PM


!—
If the voice box evolved using mutations would it not be reasonable to say that some humans would not have them?
—, — —
In fact all humans had the same language until the tower of Babel.
?— —? ‘


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-25-2006 9:12 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 27 of 62 (326218)
06-25-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PetVet2Be
06-25-2006 9:12 PM


If you do come up with one I know exactly which one it will be.
Hi, Matt. Welcome to EvC!
Sorry to say, I'm not going to mention sickle-cell anemia. I might mention apolipoprotein Milano, or hemoglobin C, or urate oxidase pseudogenes, or the mutation that makes many people lactose-tolerant as adults, or the one that makes some people essentially immune to AIDS, but it's late, so maybe I won't. They've all been on this forum before, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-25-2006 9:12 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 10:50 PM Coragyps has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 62 (326219)
06-25-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coragyps
06-25-2006 10:46 PM


too late
you just mentioned all of those things that you just mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2006 10:46 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2006 10:51 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 29 of 62 (326222)
06-25-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by arachnophilia
06-25-2006 10:50 PM


Re: too late
I do that a lot when it's been a long day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 10:50 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 30 of 62 (326223)
06-25-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PetVet2Be
06-25-2006 9:12 PM


Welcome to EvC - I hope you enjoy your stay.
If you do come up with one I know exactly which one it will be. And it comes with a nasty side effect, so it doesnt really count as a positive mutation.
So what's the nasty side effect of the CCR5-delta-32 mutation that makes you immune from HIV/AIDS?
Oh wait - did you think I'd come up with the Sickle Cell Anemia mutation that provides increased resistance to malaria?
A rough definition of a positive mutation is one that increases the relative number and success of your offspring (or even if you have any offspring) in the species gene pool.
I've got news for you - in parts of Africa where malaria is endemic the increased resistance to malaria outweighs the downside of the mutation, so guess what?
It's a positive mutation after all in the right environment.
At the time of this reply I've seen two of the three messages you've posted (the other one was about star formation). These messages suggest you really have some major gaps in your education and understanding. Fortunately many of the folks here at EvC will be only to happen to help enlighten you

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-25-2006 9:12 PM PetVet2Be 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