Genetics, Mutations, and Evolution

[OsO]

the podcast last night really got me thinking (shout out to vic and zero for the explanations)... apparently academia's stance on genetic mutations is that it is strictly a random process initiated by internal factors, by which "good" traits survive and "bad" traits do not. the entities that possess the good traits pro-create making them better fit for survival, while entities who develop bad traits die off from natural selection.

first off, i want to be clear that this is not about disagreeing with the premise of "natural selection" being responsible for some mutations.

i think what i disagree with is 1) these mutations are random (although we would have to come to a consensus on how the term "random" is defined) and 2) that mutations do not, or cannot, arise due to the entities interaction with its outside environment.

i think this topic is fascinating, and admittedly there are many things concerning genetic mutation that science does not know and obviously a lot that i dont know... but i truly think this is a case that in the near future it will become unquestionably understood that genetic mutations arent random, and that they can and do occur as a result of the interactions with the environment. and i hold this opinion for reasons i would love to discuss in this thread, but first i would like to hear a few other opinions on the topic.

so what say you HL? Are genetic mutations COMPLETELY random and COMPLETELY driven by internal processes? and if so, what are the catalysts for the internal processes that bring about a genetic mutation?

 

[zerozero]

I'm kinda clueless about this too

I think most of the work happens here

Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mowgli]

You have to make this an evolution debate to get information. Please adopt trolling techniques to obtain the information you require. There are many google scholars here that are eager to assist you.

 

[zerozero]

yo I found something cool

DNA and Mutations

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07

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.

For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:

Hypothesis A:
Resistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death.

Hypothesis B:
Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

 

[The Real]

the podcast last night really got me thinking (shout out to vic and zero for the explanations)... apparently academia's stance on genetic mutations is that it is strictly a random process initiated by internal factors, by which "good" traits survive and "bad" traits do not. the entities that possess the good traits pro-create making them better fit for survival, while entities who develop bad traits die off from natural selection.

first off, i want to be clear that this is not about disagreeing with the premise of "natural selection" being responsible for some mutations.

i think what i disagree with is 1) these mutations are random (although we would have to come to a consensus on how the term "random" is defined) and 2) that mutations do not, or cannot, arise due to the entities interaction with its outside environment.

i think this topic is fascinating, and admittedly there are many things concerning genetic mutation that science does not know and obviously a lot that i dont know... but i truly think this is a case that in the near future it will become unquestionably understood that genetic mutations arent random, and that they can and do occur as a result of the interactions with the environment. and i hold this opinion for reasons i would love to discuss in this thread, but first i would like to hear a few other opinions on the topic.

so what say you HL? Are genetic mutations COMPLETELY random and COMPLETELY driven by internal processes? and if so, what are the catalysts for the internal processes that bring about a genetic mutation?

Yes, mutations during reproduction are completely random, but how are you defining random here? There is definitely a rate of mutation that is different for say, the HIV virus, than for the human population, so some of it is structurally constrained, but the actual mutations themselves are indeed random. Some mutation is also chemically triggered, such as when you are exposed to radiation, and those can't be called completely random because there is a clearer causal relationship involving probability at work, but that is different from what happens during reproduction.

 

[Angel On The Rag]

anyone who thinks mutations are random are fukkin idiots

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It's not really anything to debate through. This is hard empirical science. Natural selection occurs via random mutations that are selected over time. That's not academia's stance, it's cold hard fact. To learn about it's better to just read the scientific literature you can find in the library or online then to try and debate it with people here imo.

 

[Serious]

You have to make this an evolution debate to get information. Please adopt trolling techniques to obtain the information you require. There are many google scholars here that are eager to assist you.

moGAWDli is a top tier poster hands down.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

You have to make this an evolution debate to get information. Please adopt trolling techniques to obtain the information you require. There are many google scholars here that are eager to assist you.

I'd rather be a google scholar than someone who has absolutely ZERO idea about how anything in the world works, you just chalk it up to god and keep it moving in ignorance.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

thanks alot mowgli, I hope you're happy with yourself

 

[Mowgli]

I'd rather be a google scholar than someone who has absolutely ZERO idea about how anything in the world works, you just chalk it up to god and keep it moving in ignorance.

See. Look how eager this clown is to talk about mutations now.

 

[Mowgli]

thanks alot mowgli, I hope you're happy with yourself

I did it for for hiphop. I dont respect scientists that much when it comes to biology because they are sellouts. I respect engineers more then scientists.

 

[OsO]

You have to make this an evolution debate to get information. Please adopt trolling techniques to obtain the information you require. There are many google scholars here that are eager to assist you.

in some ways this is implicitly connected to the evolution debate. genetic mutations can = evolution.

yo I found something cool

DNA and Mutations

Mutations are random

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.

For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:

Hypothesis A:
Resistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death.

Hypothesis B:
Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

yea this is good. and i think its well established that some mutations can be categorized as "random" (but again, i think we need to come to a consensus on the term 'random' and what it implies), but what im trying to investigate is whether or not ALL mutations can be classified as "random." i think it's very possible that BOTH explanations (mutations are random, mutations are not random) can be correct depending on the circumstances.

and the bolded above seems to suggest there is not a scientific consensus on this issue and that more research is still being done.

Yes, mutations during reproduction are completely random, but how are you defining random here? There is definitely a rate of mutation that is different for say, the HIV virus, than for the human population, so some of it is structurally constrained, but the actual mutations themselves are indeed random. Some mutation is also chemically triggered, such as when you are exposed to radiation, and those can't be called completely random because there is a clearer causal relationship involving probability at work, but that is different from what happens during reproduction.

ran·dom/ˈrandəm/
Adjective:

1. Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: "a random sample of 100 households".
2. Governed by or involving equal chances for each item

do mutations really follow this definition tho?

do the infinite number of potential mutations in organisms ALL have the SAME probability of occurring?

anyone who thinks mutations are random are fukkin idiots

why do you say that?

It's not really anything to debate through. This is hard empirical science. Natural selection occurs via random mutations that are selected over time. That's not academia's stance, it's cold hard fact. To learn about it's better to just read the scientific literature you can find in the library or online then to try and debate it with people here imo.

i dont think we are debating whether the bold is true or not. like you said that seems to be factual.

what i am trying to investigate is whether these mutations can ONLY happen randomly.

so what i am hypothesizing is that mutations can happen randomly, yes... but that they can also happen in response to other factors, most notably, the environment.

 

[zerozero]

what's the relationship between mutation as in random 'odd' things happening to an offspring
vs
the gene combining that happens to make you different from your siblings?

does the latter not do anything for natural selection..? I was thinking that even with the same non mutated genes combining you can have successful vs non successful offspring who can pass on traits when the successful survive?

this stuff is confusing i'll need to read more

 

[Mowgli]

Beneficial mutuations dont occur often enough to prove evolution makes any damn sense. Especially when you consider the age of the human race.