Correcting evolutionary mutations

O

Orleander

OH JOY!!!!
Valued Senior Member
What if this kid was the next step in evolution? Wouldn't he have a better ability at keyboarding, which is necessary these days? What if we have been surgically 'correcting' our evolutionary mutations?

NEW YORK - Jeshuah Fuller’s parents expected him to be born with extra fingers. The extra toes, though, were a surprise.

Jeshuah, healthy and weighing 7 pounds, was born in Brooklyn on Tuesday with 12 fingers and 12 toes. His rare condition, called polydactylism, is usually genetic.

His dad was born with an extra finger on his left hand. His mom, Quana Morris, said she’d had an ultrasound image taken during her pregnancy and knew the baby would have extra fingers. “We were counting them on the sonogram,” she told the Daily News.

She didn’t know he would have 12 toes, she said. He’ll have all the extra digits surgically removed in a couple of weeks, his mom said.
 
I am highly skeptical about the reproductional benefits of possibly being able to type text on keyboards faster. While it still remains a possibility, there is also the question of the short-time nature of this advantage. The computers have been a part of everyday life for less than a single generation, and at the rate of which technology is advancing, I don't see any way how keyboards will be an essential part of life for much longer.

This, of course, does not remove the deeper question in the post, about if and how would we be able to identify physical evolutionary changes in ourselves, and what should our response to that be, other than calling it a retardation and fighting against it.
 
Orleander said:
His rare condition, called polydactylism, is usually genetic.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a misleading statement. It might be mostly genetic in humans, but in frogs for instance polydactylism is mostly environmental.

There is a lot known on the genetic mechanisms of polydactylism. A huge amount of work has been done on limb development. Well, no point in going into details. Nobody would understand anyway. ;)
 
You posted only to give a few details and to tell that you are smarter than the rest of us? :confused:
 
fo3 said:
You posted only to give a few details and to tell that you are smarter than the rest of us? :confused:
Click to expand...

No, I just know what kind of reply a detailed reply gets on developmental and evolutionary mechanisms from experience.

None.

Hence it is not worth writing a long detailed essay on this topic.

Therefore I restrict myself to letting you know the information is out there. In fact once I heard the information was out there (in a lecture when I was a student) I went to the library of the university and started looking up the original publications on the topic, going from future to past with help of the references.

Nowadays it is much easier since the science search engines are much better.

Maybe this simple info of the original post didn't help you, but it would have helped me.
 
I think I need to respect your personal experience with detailed posts in that case. :eek:
 
You don't have to. Because the topic I addressed is slightly off topic.

The original topic was on the desire to correct 'evolutionary mutations'.

Polydactyli is an example of a macromutation. Not that the genetic mutation needs to be large, the phenotypic result is rather prominent. Extra digits.

Should you correct them?

Well, yes.

The extra digits are never really functional. The duplication of digits (usually it is a duplication) leads to structural changes that diminish the functionality of the entire hand.

This relates to my off topic tangent on the mechanisms of development and evolution. The mechanisms actually explain why these large mutations are usually detrimental.

But since these mutations limit functionality you should correct them.

After all, it is not as if the genetic component that caused the phenotypic change disappeared with the operation. It's still nicely present in the germline waiting for the next generation.

It's a win win situation. Or as I view it: a lose lose one.

You do not change the possibility of the mutation propagating in the population by having an operation. It's still there.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
The extra digits are never really functional. The duplication of digits (usually it is a duplication) leads to structural changes that diminish the functionality of the entire hand.
Click to expand...

As I understand, these mutations that cause very large structural changes in the body of their bearer are not quite the same as the mutations that generally drive the evolution anyway? The body plan and structure of most or all animals is predetermined a long time ago and is the result of gradual change, rather than extreme jumps like the described extra digits. Are there any documented/examined examples at all, where such structural changes are actually fixed in the phenotype of a species, instead of being local abnormalities?

Edit: "not quite the same" in the meaning of their scope and nature, not in the meaning of them being in any way different at the basic level.
 
fo3 said:
Are there any documented/examined examples at all, where such structural changes are actually fixed in the phenotype of a species, instead of being local abnormalities?
Click to expand...

No, since a large phenotypic jump would automatically reclassify them as a new species. ;)

Although this migth seem a joke it is actually not. People have for ages asked for transitional forms between species in the fossil record. They do not exist per definition. If they would differ enough they would automatically be renamed to a new species.

This does not mean there is not a series of gradual steps between species.

A saltational jump as you propose is not unheard off. However, per definition this will not occur in a species. That is if you use the common garden variety definition of species.

After all, we started off with 8 fingers and not 5. Clearly you cannot go gradually from 8 fingers to 7 fingers. You either have 8 fingers or you have 7. If a paleontologist finds two limbs, one with 7 and one with 8 digits he will classify them as different species.

From a developmental view it's not really problematic. It isn't a major genetic change that will lead to duplication or reduction of digits. One gene is enough. One basepair on one gene can be enough.

It is just that this gene then happens to be an important member of a regulatory cascade whose effect is not diminished or checked by crosstalk and lateral pathways.

From a genetic perspective there is not a jump in this regard. The jump is in the form that is created.

Another example the the duplication of segments. Invertebrates often have dupicated entire segments of their body or deleted them based on simple genetic mutations. A large change in form caused by a small mutation.

The same is true for mammals. Although we don't look like it, we are indeed also segmented creatures. If I am not entirely mistaken even the human species made some large jumps by creating extra discs in the spine. If I venture to guess which ones I would say the ones near the hip, but to be honest I cannot remember.

And we finally come to my reply.

So yes, big structural changes are documented in species and the mechanisms are at least partly known.

sorry for the rant.
 
Ok, thanks for that, it answered my question pretty clearly.
However, in order for the mutation to be fixed in the population, it should not have the disadvantages of rendering the entire limb useless, as is the case with extra digits as you have said. If the large phenotype change would be entirely functional, its surgical removal would be questionable.
 
In a way this is an interesting discussion because we live in an age where cosmetic plastic surgery is common.

Cosmetic surgery is mostly aiming the the average idea of beauty resulting in remarkably similar results in different patients. That's because the beauty image portrayed in the media is rather uniform.

So you could postulate that these plastic surgeons are trying to diminish the phenotypic variation that naturally occurs in a population. And since they are only operating at the level of the phenotype they are figthing a Don Quichot'ish battle.

Or they are actually securing their salaries for the future because people that are made beautiful will still have offspring that might have the undesirable qualities.

Such an observation will only elicit a giggle from a nerdy scientist I'm afraid.
 
In the light of that, the natural mechanisms for choosing a better mate are becoming less and less efficient, as anyone can alter their physical appearance regardless of their genotype and, for example, age. In the nature, that should lead to a significant decline in the species fitness, but in the human society, the consequences are probably different.
 
Soon they will be altering the DNA before conception to remove or add any charastic they want.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Soon they will be altering the DNA before conception to remove or add any charastic they want.
Click to expand...

Not soon. Since we still don't know what we are doing. And doing what you suggest would basically mean experimenting on people. A big no no still in science and biomedical research.

So that's probably not going to fly. Or maybe if they do this kind of thing first in a nation which doesn't care about ethics.

Most of this kind of data where the influence of a gene is studied in humans is derived from researching human syndromes. Never from inducing genetic changes in the germline.

Hence I do not share your optimism for this kind of future.
 
Perhaps a breakthrough will occur in the near future to make it possible to do gene manipulation . That would then make it possible to alter the genes that cause cancer, mutations and other vile things that humans don't want to have. I think it is only a matter of time that this will happen for breakthroughs do happen almost daily nowadays. The amount of time that will be needed to do gene manipulation is really up to the funding that is being given to this type of research and I for one support it more than stem cell research but think that stem cell research is a worthwhile goal just not as great of a goal.
 
I think you are underestimating the complexity of how genes work and interact with each other and the environment. Doing gene manipulation is one thing, but knowing what to do is another. You may read the news headlines about how scientists discovered the gene that causes cancer or obesity or alcohol addiction, but in reality, they have found a gene that contributes to that problem, along with tens of other genes, and that also affects possibly tens of other features of the organism. The genes and the environment form an incredibly complex web, and the outcome of traits is rarely straightforward, although that is a possibility as well. Finding out all the mechanisms of how genes interact will be very very complicated without extensive human testing, which will inevitably include unwanted and unexpected and very dangerous side-effects in many cases. There is a limit of how fast and how far you can research by investigating naturally occurring mutations and the general populations gene pool, and possibly comparing the results with animal testings.
 
Last edited:
Giant blood.

Giants had 6 fingers on each hand and 12 toes. Two rows of teeth. Every now and then we get a little shot of the truth in a "defect" at birth. I am so sick of this being covered up.
 
But what if this is a good mutation? What if we are continuing to mutate and we just keep surgically fixing it to fit into what is aesthetically pleasing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top