How do Animals Evolve To Look Like Exact Replicas of Other Things in Nature?

[Dusty Bake Activate]

i think its a mistake to say, on one hand, that we have no idea what causes or influences genetic mutations, but yet on the other hand completely rule out the possibility of the external environment playing a part.

a HUGE part of our existence and evolution as an organism is based on a reciprocal relationship between our internal and external environment.

everything in our universe is cause and effect. so to say the mutations are completely "random" and that it has nothing to do with environment is 100% counterintuitive to the design of every other system in the universe.

everything effects everything, and everything is dependent on something else for its survival.

Nobody said we have no idea what causes mutations and nobody said it isn't cause and effect. As already stated, radiation and chemical factors can trigger mutations by damaging chromosomes, but most mutations are completely random and accidental and occur during meiosis and replication. Mutations are simply physical changes in the structure of chromosomes that occur during the complex process of cell division. It's like if someone is putting together a house and some pieces of wood get warped or chipped in the process, or some pieces of sealant or plastic are a little out of place or not in the right proportions. Or if a car is being put together on an assembly line and there's flaws in that process somewhere. There are no microscopic people sitting inside cells to say "Hold up, that hydrogen atom is out of place!" so it's not hard to see how these alterations in genes occur.

And as already stated, nobody said environment doesn't influence anything. Environment gives the selective pressures that shapes what proportions of gene mutations survive in organisms and which don't.

This is fact and it's not very difficult to instead if you decide to start learning about it objectively. But you have to stop being stubborn and letting what you want to think color your perspective. You spent I don't know how long asking me about this on the podcast and I suggested you read Origin of Species for a better understanding and you were like "Nah I ain't doing that" in like one second. So you want to postulate on natural selection ad nauseum, but you refuse to even consider reading the blueprint for our understanding of it.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

We absolutely have an idea of what causes mutations lol, everything from sunlight to replication errors can cause them. This is like core bio shyt...

 

[OsO]

Nobody said we have no idea what causes mutations and nobody said it isn't cause and effect. As already stated, radiation and chemical factors can trigger mutations by damaging chromosomes, but most mutations are completely random and accidental and occur during meiosis and replication. Mutations are simply physical changes in the structure of chromosomes that occur during the complex process of cell division. It's like if someone is putting together a house and some pieces of wood get warped or chipped in the process, or some pieces of sealant or plastic are a little out of place or not in the right proportions. Or if a car is being put together on an assembly line and there's flaws in that process somewhere. There are no microscopic people sitting inside cells to say "Hold up, that hydrogen atom is out of place!" so it's not hard to see how these alterations in genes occur.

And as already stated, nobody said environment doesn't influence anything. Environment gives the selective pressures that shapes what proportions of gene mutations survive in organisms and which don't.

This is fact and it's not very difficult to instead if you decide to start learning about it objectively. But you have to stop being stubborn and letting what you want to think color your perspective. You spent I don't know how long asking me about this on the podcast and I suggested you read Origin of Species for a better understanding and you were like "Nah I ain't doing that" in like one second. So you want to postulate on natural selection ad nauseum, but you refuse to even consider reading the blueprint for our understanding of it.

im not talking about causing mutations in general (i.e. radiation), i am talking about the specific causes of specific mutations. so radiation or whatever can cause the initial mutation but what causes the particular function of that mutation is what im after.

and according to what you all have been saying, the cause of specific mutations is unknown and completely random and has nothing to do with external environment, am i mis-stating your position?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

im not talking about causing mutations in general (i.e. radiation), i am talking about the specific causes of specific mutations. so radiation or whatever can cause the initial mutation but what causes the particular function of that mutation is what im after.

and according to what you all have been saying, the cause of specific mutations is unknown and completely random and has nothing to do with external environment, am i mis-stating your position?

The causes are not unknown. I already explained that mutations are random process errors in the physical structure of DNA that takes place during the complex process meiosis. Changes in the structure will result in changes in function obviously, as DNA is like a coding program that gives instructions on protein formation.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Leyet's reading comprehension abilities...

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Leyet's reading comprehension abilities...

It's deeper than that, a fundamental lack of understanding of central dogma to boot.

Props to VVD for explaining things clearly, btw.

im not talking about causing mutations in general (i.e. radiation), i am talking about the specific causes of specific mutations. so radiation or whatever can cause the initial mutation but what causes the particular function of that mutation is what im after.

and according to what you all have been saying, the cause of specific mutations is unknown and completely random and has nothing to do with external environment, am i mis-stating your position?

Mutated DNA creates a different mRNA than the wild type DNA, which ends up coding for a different protein than the original gene, which creates a "mutant" phenotype. As for the cause of specific mutations... Nobody can catch the moment when a gene ends up getting changed through various means. That's impossible. And no, we of course admit that environment influences genotype. We've already posted in here about mutations occruring through Radiation, for example.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

It's deeper than that, a fundamental lack of understanding of central dogma to boot.

Props to VVD for explaining things clearly, btw.

I swear dude just likes to argue, VVD explained it clearly and succinctly and leyet just quotes his post and asks the exact same question again in a different way

 

[OsO]

i think im being pretty clear.

according to what youre saying, the initial causes of a mutation are usually radiation and/or variations during cell division, correct?

but what determines the nature or function of said mutation is completely random and is not influenced by external environments.

in other words, the reason the bug turned out to look like a leaf has nothing to do with its environment, but rather is the product of a random internal mutation that occurred as a result of outside radiation and/or variation during cell division.

i dont even agree that this is the whole story, im just getting you guys' story straight.

 

[daze23]

but what determines the nature or function of said mutation is completely random and is not influenced by external environments.

huh? the external environment determines if the mutation is useful or not

evolution by natural selection really is a simple concept. once you grasp it, you can understand a lot about nature

 

[OsO]

huh? the external environment determines if the mutation is useful or not

evolution by natural selection really is a simple concept. once you grasp it, you can understand a lot about nature

im not talking about whether the mutation is useful or not. im talking about the actual function of the mutation itself.

back to the leaf bug example. the environment determines whether the leaf bug's mutation is beneficial, and the environment may or may not be the cause of the initial mutation, but the functionality of the actual mutation, which in this case is an alteration of the physical appearance of the insect that makes it blend in with leaves, is completely random and not influenced by the environment. thats what i understand you guys to be saying. not that i completely agree.

in addition, i find it quite convenient within this argument that 1) the environment causes these mutations 2) the environment decides which mutations are beneficial but 3) that the environment is somehow totally void of influence on the nature/function of said mutation, making the mutation completely random.

it seems as though there are both internal and external processes that produce a large variety of mutations, and through natural selection the best mutations survive.

the part i dont agree with is that the environment does not help determine the nature or function of these mutations and that they are completely random. i think the manner in which the mutations arise, in part, are directly due to the organisms interaction with its environment.

 

[daze23]

im not talking about whether the mutation is useful or not. im talking about the actual function of the mutation itself.

back to the leaf bug example. the environment determines whether the leaf bug's mutation is beneficial, and the environment may or may not be the cause of the initial mutation, but the functionality of the actual mutation, which in this case is an alteration of the physical appearance of the insect that makes it blend in with leaves, is completely random and not influenced by the environment. thats what i understand you guys to be saying. not that i completely agree.

in addition, i find it quite convenient within this argument that 1) the environment causes these mutations 2) the environment decides which mutations are beneficial but 3) that the environment is somehow totally void of influence on the nature/function of said mutation, making the mutation completely random.

it seems as though there are both internal and external processes that produce a large variety of mutations, and through natural selection the best mutations survive.

the part i dont agree with is that the environment does not help determine the nature or function of these mutations and that they are completely random. i think the manner in which the mutations arise, in part, are directly due to the organisms interaction with its environment.

I'm really not sure what you're saying, but let me reiterate a couple points:

it doesn't need to be 'mutation'. genetic diversity can account for many of these changes. Mike Phelps isn't a "mutant". it just so happens that genetics gave him the qualities needed to be a superior swimmer

a few people have explained that none of this is really "random". it may seem random, given the complexity of the systems involved

I don't understand this distinction you're making between internal and external environments. it's all 'nature', and it all must follow the same rules

there's also the issue of how natural pressures can keep certain gene dormant. but how when those pressures are removed, many of these traits come out

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

im not talking about whether the mutation is useful or not. im talking about the actual function of the mutation itself.

back to the leaf bug example. the environment determines whether the leaf bug's mutation is beneficial, and the environment may or may not be the cause of the initial mutation, but the functionality of the actual mutation, which in this case is an alteration of the physical appearance of the insect that makes it blend in with leaves, is completely random and not influenced by the environment. thats what i understand you guys to be saying. not that i completely agree.

in addition, i find it quite convenient within this argument that 1) the environment causes these mutations 2) the environment decides which mutations are beneficial but 3) that the environment is somehow totally void of influence on the nature/function of said mutation, making the mutation completely random.

it seems as though there are both internal and external processes that produce a large variety of mutations, and through natural selection the best mutations survive.

the part i dont agree with is that the environment does not help determine the nature or function of these mutations and that they are completely random. i think the manner in which the mutations arise, in part, are directly due to the organisms interaction with its environment and not completely random.

The mutations are random errors that occur during meiosis. It doesn't matter what you agree with or not because this is indisputable fact. You might as well be saying that you don't agree with the argument that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Types of mutations that occur randomly during meiosis are already documented. Examples.

Spontaneous mutation

Spontaneous mutations*on the molecular level can be caused by:[

21]Tautomerism*– A base is changed by the repositioning of a hydrogen atom, altering the hydrogen bonding pattern of that base resulting in incorrect base pairing during replication.

Depurination*– Loss of a purine base (A or G) to form an apurinic site (AP site).

Deamination*– Hydrolysis changes a normal base to an atypical base containing a keto group in place of the original amine group. Examples include C → U and A → HX (hypoxanthine), which can be corrected by DNA repair mechanisms; and 5MeC (5-methylcytosine) → T, which is less likely to be detected as a mutation because thymine is a normal DNA base.

Slipped strand mispairing*– Denaturation of the new strand from the template during replication, followed by renaturation in a different spot ("slipping"). This can lead to insertions or deletions.

The problem is you are arrogant enough to believe you can intuit and guess your way into conclusions regarding the most fundamental aspects of genetics and molecular biology that somehow went over the head of a couple of hundred years of scientific research just because you want to believe something that has zero evidence or logic behind.

Mutations can occur due to errors in DNA replication, radiation, viruses, or exposure to chemicals with mutagenic properties. But there is no systemic rhyme or reason to it by the "consciousness of mother Earth" or whatever you're telling yourself.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

People always look at adaptations, perfect for an environment like the leaf bug example or some kind of mimicry and then they say "look theres a planner! It's not random" but they fail to notice all the mutations that arise that are negative or hold no significant effect on the subject's fitness whatsoever. READ the goddamn science.

The environment DOES help determine functions, in that adaptations will work in some environments and populations and not in others. You may see a mutation become more pronounced in a population or environment because of that. But that's just another manifestation of selection pressures. Not some implied planner in the environment or some shyt.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

People always look at adaptations, perfect for an environment like the leaf bug example or some kind of mimicry and then they say "look theres a planner! It's not random" but they fail to notice all the mutations that arise that are negative or hold no significant effect on the subject's fitness whatsoever. READ the goddamn science.

The environment DOES help determine functions, in that adaptations will work in some environments and populations and not in others. You may see a mutation become more pronounced in a population or environment because of that. But that's just another manifestation of selection pressures. Not some implied planner in the environment or some shyt.

I know. Some people don't seem to understand that for every seemingly perfect adaptation, there are plenty more you never noticed because they have bearing on their evolutionary fitness. The vast majority of mutations are neutral toward an organism's survivability.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

the part i dont agree with is that the environment does not help determine the nature or function of these mutations and that they are completely random. i think the manner in which the mutations arise, in part, are directly due to the organisms interaction with its environment.

Adaptation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also from wiki: Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral