evolution with no gene mutation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2011, 01:57 PM
evolution with no gene mutation
Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.

The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.

Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?

What if this IS exactly how everything happened? What if god did create everything, in its current state, but also created everything that went extinct, all at the same time, and it is just a coincidence that we don't find bunnies that are 200 million years old? Am I saying that I believe this? No. But just think about the endless number of possibilities that could be the explanation of how we get here... WHAT IF... one day, we find the fossil of a bunny we date to be 400,000,000 years old. Would this not be a possible explanation? Evolution without gene mutation?

Fight the system,

~~~but don't mute the opposition!~~~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2011 02:24 PM by Kikko.)
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
In your example, gene mutation was not needed in the beginning, because God had created the genetical diversity to begin with. But as they keep living and living, and worse genes get selected out of the pool, now where will they get their genetic diversity from without mutation? The best gene to a certain locus beats the other genes, so now it won't have to 'compete' anymore. The gene pool gets simpler, and you'll end up with very very similar individual genomes, and doesn't that cause the same kind of problems that imbreeding does (homozygotism)?
___________
I don't like too many what if sentences, although I too speculate in moderation. But it would be cool to find a 400,000,000 year old bunneh. It would be a shame if it existed, but nobody ever found it.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 02:38 PM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
In your model, you would also need a a total fixed ecosystem where there are completely no changes in eg. food supplies. Changes in environment would automatically be translated in population.
Assume that there would become less jungle and more grasslands. This would automatically mean more bunny's and moles but less apes. Except for some of the apes who like eating grass. Eventually you would end up with a bunch of grassland dwellers who happen to be apes, bunnies and moles. but they would all eat grass. Do you call a grass-eating ape still "ape"? If however, you cancel out environmental changes your population would remain the same.

Now, to be honest, I am pretty sure this is not what is going to happen. Your idea, however fun as "thought experiment", is not really realistic. It reminds me a bit of a saying: "If my cat was a cow, I could have milked her behind the kitchen stove" Wink

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 07:42 PM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
Suppose there was no gene mutation. Scientists would have found that genes remain the same over time. That means that there would be nothing like the evolutiion that we see on earth. How would something so alien manifest itself if it was real. We don't know. We don't know of a parallel system to use as a model for such a system. We cannot ensure a reasonable amount of accuracy.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 09:30 PM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
(28-01-2011 01:57 PM)latvianxave8 Wrote:  Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.

The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.

Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?

What if this IS exactly how everything happened? What if god did create everything, in its current state, but also created everything that went extinct, all at the same time, and it is just a coincidence that we don't find bunnies that are 200 million years old? Am I saying that I believe this? No. But just think about the endless number of possibilities that could be the explanation of how we get here... WHAT IF... one day, we find the fossil of a bunny we date to be 400,000,000 years old. Would this not be a possible explanation? Evolution without gene mutation?
I think that evolution is the drawn out process of characteristics changing within a particular species, not the redistribution of the number or percentage of a species. You seem to be describing survival of the fittest here, in an example that trends toward extinction for certain species, and not actual evolution, as the species themselves are not changing, just how many of each there are. It is still an interesting model though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 10:33 PM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
No, when we look at evolution we look at populations. That population underwent evolution.

Fight the system,

~~~but don't mute the opposition!~~~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 10:34 PM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
(28-01-2011 07:42 PM)No J. Wrote:  Suppose there was no gene mutation. Scientists would have found that genes remain the same over time.

That would make developing vaccines so easy.

To answer the question though, evolution is natural selection applied to random mutation(1% of the genome in our species case if I'm not mistaken) - I think you can't have evolution without mutation just like you can't have geology without rocks.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gaglamesh731's post
29-01-2011, 08:02 AM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
(28-01-2011 10:33 PM)latvianxave8 Wrote:  No, when we look at evolution we look at populations. That population underwent evolution.


No. When we look at evolution we look at genes, competing with their alleles in the gene pool. Individuals are only their tools, or "survival machines", and groups are only groups that make individuals (therefore their genes) more likely to survive. A population is something that evoulution goes in, but a population itself doesn't go through evolution. What is in the example, is the occuring of an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy), that is a state of a population, wich cannot be invaded by mutant individulas, species within the ESS, etc.

40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse was not an ESS, therefore the population changed in ways to become like 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse, wich is a stable state, and without mutations it would never-ever change. UNLESS (and very big unless indeed) enviromental changes come, and they are very likely to do so, in 200 million years. So in this case the state that would be an ESS changes, and the population changes too, old genes disappear, new ones arise. At least in a normal population. In the example the ape-mole-mouse population is most likely to go extint for thoose species are only capable of surviving in the particular enviroment they were created in. Without diversity (that is generated by gene mutation), they cannot adapt to their new enviroment. There is no way they could survive for 200million years.

So the problem with the "everything created and then some went extinct" lies in enviromental change. Let's say that in the moment of creation the enviroment was "A", and then it changed to "B". Species that were created to survive in "A" would be succesfull at first but die out when "B" state occurs. "B" species that were created at the beginnig (in state "A") would be driven extinct by "A" species. So when "B" state somes there would be no "B"-s to live.

Now, in actual nature what happen is that the "A" state is ruled by "A" species, but sometimes "B" variations are born, and altought during "A" state "B" individuals die, when "B" state comes, they will take over contol over the whole population. So genetic mutation is basically the potential of "A" individuals to give birth to "B" indiviulas. It is to mention that between "A" and "B" state and inividuals, there is only a slight differnce, but it cummulates over time.

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2011, 03:00 PM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
(28-01-2011 10:33 PM)latvianxave8 Wrote:  No, when we look at evolution we look at populations. That population underwent evolution.
It underwent density changes. My example would be the germs on your hands. Say you have 3 naturally occurring germs on your hands, X, Y and Z. The numbers break down to 40% X, 25% Y and 35% Z. Then you use one of those hand sanitizers, murdering many many germs on your hands. Let's say Z is not a strong germ, it is 100% wiped out, and y Is an extremely tough germ and most of them withstand the chemical salvo you have applied to the population. So you're left with a germ population of 10% X and 90% Y, with Z extinct on your hand (for the time being). This is a case of survival of the fittest, and in this case the survival MAY HAVE been due to evolution of Y in the past to be able to deal with the sanitizer, or it may just be a tougher SOB. But do you see how population changes/extinction do not equal evolution in and of itself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2011, 09:00 AM
RE: evolution with no gene mutation
(28-01-2011 10:33 PM)latvianxave8 Wrote:  No, when we look at evolution we look at populations. That population underwent evolution.

No, evolution is changes in phenotypes, not populations. The proportions of species in the environment is not Darwinian evolution. Evolution requires genetic change.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: