Evolution of mutation!

J

John Connellan

Valued Senior Member
Obviously, environments change over time, predators change, climates shift etc etc. Because of this, mutation (along with NS) allows living organisms to adapt over time and become more efficient at surviving in their environment. Suppose there was a mutation which stopped any further genetic mutations. At face value it looks advantageous because mutations on their own are only errors in the replication system of life. This final mutation has made replication error free and quite efficient.

Now, as we know, any individuals with these genes would not last long in environments there has been over the past couple of billion years on earth as the environment has changed quite rapidly. Thus, mutations have ALWAYS occurred in ALL species there have ever been before those we are living amongst today. Suppose however, there was actually no significant change to the environment for the next 500 million years. Would a chance mutation like the one mentioned above enable that gene to spread in a population over time? Perhaps it would eventually completely eliminate the genes of organisms that have error-prone DNA.
Would this be the end of evolution?
 
Hi John, there are some interesting topics in your thread....could we define the term 'NS' please? Thank you.
 
Perhaps in the circumstances you mention 'biological' evolution would be affected - but many of the factors that select for fitness are now cultural rather than biological (in my opinion).
 
IMO, death and reproduction are facets of adaptation to a changing environment. If we ever discovered life in a completely stable environment (from abiogenisis to today), then I doubt that death from 'natural causes' or reproduction would exist.

On the opposite end of that sepctrum, I'd say yes to the OP; if you took life that evolved in a changing environment, and placed it into a stable environment, then there would be no driving force behind evolution, and population changes would, given enough time, cease.
I also think, that as an extention to this, healing would improve, lifespans of the individual would increase, and reproduction would eventually become detrimental to an individual's survival.
 
This already happened. Not perfectly, but there is a mechanism to mitigate mutations in some vital areas and allow it on others. Such a mechanism would survive, since it prevents disadvantageous mutations. There is still room for natural variation, evolution does not depend solely on mutations for variation.
 
Cats through domestication have multicolored fur. In nature, they tend towards a striped pattern for disguise, or all black for night hunting.
 
Dark moths were selected for in the pollution of the Industrial Revolution now the lighter allele is more commonly expressed.

New evidence suggests this may not be true.
 
Last edited:
I see what u mean Spider goat. There is still room for Natural Selection essentially?

What I'm saying is, with a very very stable environment, all phenotypes will probably converge through selection until there is nothing left to select.
 
Actually, the environment serves to keep a degree of uniformity in a gene pool, but it always retains the capacity for variation. Species should be much less stable than they are, which is probably why under rapidly varying conditions, rapid evolution is possible.
 
spidergoat said:
Cats through domestication have multicolored fur. In nature, they tend towards a striped pattern for disguise, or all black for night hunting.
Click to expand...
Both examples are caused by mutations. Different selective pressures.
 
Last edited:
"Suppose there was a mutation which stopped any further genetic mutations."

I think this is a problem as not all mutations are under genetic loci of control; also the mutation would need other mutations to stop mutations as there are many types of mutation and DNA can repair itself.

I still think evolution would chug along due to NS even if this mutation(s) were successful?
 
zenbabelfish said:
Dark moths were selected for in the pollution of the Industrial Revolution now the lighter allele is more commonly expressed.
Click to expand...

sadly, you have been let down by the biological field on this one. The moths in question do not hang out on the sides of trees, and certainly not during the day. The study was poorly designed to the point of uselessness.

There is enough good evidence for evolution; this example and the embryo woodcuts need to be excised from biological education ASAP to remove the biggest tools anti-evolutionists can use.

http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/Majerus_review.pdf
 
Last edited:
Excellent - many thanks for bringing me up-to-date with this. I will now revise my opinions based on this information.
I think any anti-evolutionists should note that I am making this revision on the best current evidence.
 
zenbabelfish said:
"Suppose there was a mutation which stopped any further genetic mutations."

I think this is a problem as not all mutations are under genetic loci of control; also the mutation would need other mutations to stop mutations as there are many types of mutation and DNA can repair itself.

I still think evolution would chug along due to NS even if this mutation(s) were successful?
Click to expand...

That's contradictory. If there was a mutation that stopped any further mutations then NS could not continue because NS depends on mutations. Further, the mutation would not stop any further mutations, per se; it would just be a climax mutation. Couldn't happen. Mutations are not under genetic loci control; they change the genetic loci and the genetic loci control. Two different aspects of genetics: the loci (the genome) and the genetic regulation of it. You're wording it like this said mutation would be an infectious virus.
 
I apologise if it appears that I have contradicted myself - please allow me to clarify my terms: What I mean by a genetic loci of control (re:above) is that the mutations are caused by faults in the replication of DNA (random errors); as opposed to mutations caused in a specific manner by viruses, chemicals or radiation.
This is the basis of the position that if hypothetically a mutation stopped any further genetic mutations - viruses, chemicals or radiation could still cause mutations as these are not under a genetic loci of control.
NS would continue at a population level due to: Selection, drift and gene flow.
Also mutations that offer no advantage are often selected against.

Look forward to learning more about this fascinating topic...
 
Sounds like you're attempting to distinguish between a polymorphism and a mutation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top