Are mutations part of evolution ?

I

IndianCurry2010

Registered Senior Member
Guys,

I am alittle confused over recent theories about evolution. Now someone wrote that mutations are not part of evolution. Is this not part of natural selection ? for example the cold virus mutates each time in order to survive therefore cannot be cured ?

Wasnt blue eyes a mutation ? which soon became common amongst europeans ? so from that blue eyes must have been part of natural selection ?

Thanks,

C
 
Sasquist thanks for taking the time to respond. I am gonna sound really dim here what do you mean by secondary agitator to evolution ?. Is blue eyes not a natural selection ? some say its a mutation ?
 
A mutation can set the ground for natural selection, with natural selection based on environmental parameters. For example, if we had two mutations, one for thick fur and the other for thin fur, a cold environment would select the thick fur mutation, while a hot environment would select the thin fur mutation.

Relative to blue eyes, since this is more of a cosmetic than a functional advantage, like thick or thin fur, i.e., blue eyes are more light sensitive, it selection could have been based on breeding selection, sort of analogous to the color of a bird.

One possible scenario is, since blue eyed humans would have been rare at one time, within civilization, anything rare would be worth more. This means the alpha of the group (king) would have first picks and would pick the rare; exclusive. Being alpha, also means his blue eyed offspring will have breeding advantages due to position. The blued eye prince, sowing his oaks, making his rounds with the maidens, who will find favor because of his rare eyes. Eventually it becomes more common due to human selection.
 
Mutations are random changes in the genotype (DNA) of an individual. When those mutations result in a change in the phenotype (physical appearance/makeup) of the individual, then selection forces can act on them. If the individual lives in a farm and humans consciously select for certain traits, we call it selective breeding. When the individual lives out in the wild and the traits play into the individual's success in survival and mating (i.e. w/o any conscious selection like with selective breeding taking place), we call it natural selection.
 
Yes, mutations are a part of evolution.

In the mathematical sense, they do result in altered gene frequencies, even if infinitesimal; and their behavior after mutation may not be so infinitesimal.
 
So is it possible in 30-40 years from now which I believe is one generation. All asians who live in western europe could end up looking cacasian ? as there is less sun in western europe and long winters ?
 
You're asking if in a single generation, random mutations in the Asian population living in a different geographical location would recreate the phenotype changes which took 50 thousand years to develop the first time around?
 
50, 000 years wow ? didnt realize that. I am curious because we apparently all evolved from africa and had the same colour eyes until some of our ancesters moved to europe and developed blue eyes hence me asking if that is possbility.
 
Here is a chart of human migration from Africa, mapped based on the known mutation rate of mDNA (bits of DNA in the mitochondria of cells, passed from Mother to child unaffected by the father). The key is in thousands of years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg

based on this map, from African to blue-eyed Europeans would have been roughly 120,000 years. Based on 30 years per generation as you mentioned, that's 4,000 generations for natural selection of the lower sunlight in Europe to favor depigmentation.
 
Now someone wrote that mutations are not part of evolution.
Click to expand...

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
 
IndianCurry2010 said:
So is it possible in 30-40 years from now which I believe is one generation. All asians who live in western europe could end up looking cacasian ? as there is less sun in western europe and long winters ?
Click to expand...


If the speculated reason for the eye-lids is correct, yes. But it's more likely that breeding will work faster to that goal.
 
IndianCurry2010 said:
So is it possible in 30-40 years from now which I believe is one generation. . . . .
Click to expand...
A generation is the average length of the reproduction cycle: the number of years between a person's birth and the birth of their first child. The human reproduction cycle is the longest of all mammals (we have so much more to teach our young), but still there is nowhere on earth where it is 30-40 years. In the developed nations it is around 25 years: 25.2 in the USA and 27.4 in the UK in 2004. But in many of the less-developed nations it is much lower, where women become pregnant shortly after reaching puberty. In the past, when human life expectancy was dramatically lower than it is today due to vaccines, antibiotics and public health measures, a generation was typically around 17 years.
All asians who live in western europe could end up looking caucasian ? as there is less sun in western europe and long winters ?
Click to expand...
It typically takes a population 2,000 years to change from light skin to dark skin or vice-versa due to migration to a region with more or less sunlight. The Lithuanians and the Bengalis are fairly close relatives, separated only by migration in opposite directions from the Indo-European Urheimat. Skin color is one of the most ephemeral characteristics of human appearance. The fact that we place so much emphasis on it would be humorous, if it weren't for the evil that emphasis inspires in our hearts.
 
Saquist said:
Mutation is the secondary agitator to evolution, the primary being adaptation/natural selection.
Click to expand...

I don't see how mutations are secondary. All variations are derived from mutations; Natural Selection simply acts on such mutations. It would seem if anything, Selection is a secondary process with respect to mutations. At least thats how I see it.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
It is my understanding that human genes are in a constant state of mutation - so much so that about 80% of them result in the spontaneous abortion of the pregnancy before birth. Of the mutations that make it alive out into the world, very few are advantageous to the individual possessing them. If they are advantageous, they are conserved by natural selection.

Large breasts are one such mutation. Human males prefer large breasts so human females with large breasts successfully attracted mates more often than females with small breasts, producing more offspring and thus increasing the chances that a given human female will be born with large mammaries.

The ability to digest milk came about in European human stock about 11,000 years ago if memory serves me right - a relatively recent, successful mutation that gave certain advantage to farmers who raised dairy animals.
 
786 said:
I don't see how mutations are secondary. All variations are derived from mutations; Natural Selection simply acts on such mutations.
Click to expand...
Natural selection operates on any population in which there is genetic variation among individuals. The variation does not need to have been caused by mutation. It can simply be the residual diversity of the original gene pool inherited from the ancestral species at the time of speciation.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Natural selection operates on any population in which there is genetic variation among individuals. The variation does not need to have been caused by mutation. It can simply be the residual diversity of the original gene pool inherited from the ancestral species at the time of speciation.
Click to expand...

And the diversity in the ancestral gene pool came from? :D

Peace be unto you ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top