Im having a debate with a fundamentalist :( about those glow in the dark pigs I saw posted earlier on on this forum: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4605202.stm

I posted this under the heading, "Should humans dabble with evolution"

The fundamentalist reply was:

"This is not evolution"

My reply to him:

It's not evolution.


In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation.

The glow in the dark pigs are going to have piglets which are surprise surprise, going to inherit the genetic changes of their parents.

A simple test to see if this is evolution. Did the pigs evolve? Yes, they now glow, they have evolved. Whether is man influenced or not, the new pigs have a different genetic makeup from normal pigs... hence, they have evolved. The theory of this evolution is that they had jellyfish dna inserted into their DNA..

The specifics in case of forumite nit picking:

Evolution consits of the following main mechanics:

- Selection and adaptation (Darwin)
- Recombination
- Genetic drift
- Gene flow and population structure
- Speciation and extinction

I highlighted Speciation because thats the bit I am going to use an example:

Artificial speciation

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation,[4] and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[5] Domestic cattle on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they willingly and readily reproduce, producing fertile offspring, with several related "other" species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

As you can see, man influenced speciation is a great example of man fiddling with evolution which has been done in this case.

It is evolution prom

Am I correct or is the fundamentalist correct? Do humans effect evolution and if so, in what ways?

I think you are correct. After all viruses have been adding genetic material to our genome for ages.

Nice point, thanks.

His response :(

In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation. ... During reproduction, these genes are copied and passed on to the offspring. Random changes in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms. Evolution then occurs when these modified genes become more common or rarer within a population.

I highlighted the bold part to show that it concerns random mutations in genes and not genes from a separate gene pool such as jellyfish in this case being implanted in pigs. There was NO mutation in this case and NO evolution. If you want to keep this thread on topic and honest then just admit to your LIE about this being evolution.

Bleh

I'd say no, it's not "evolution", but only by symantics. The commonly used word evolution tends to mean "evolution via natural selection", and this was not natural.


However, I'd say it is evolution in the most basic sense - not the common method we think of when we hear the word, but no different than the creation of dog breeds or corn, which could be considered a "directed" evolution. Whether the genetic changes occur due to mutation or genetic sharing such as occurs in plants and bacteria, the net effect is a change in the hereditarily passed traits of a population.

Are viruses directing human evolution too then? Or is that natural selection?

Whats the definition of natural? An otter smashing an oyster with a rock or a human using a particle accelerator? What do you class as natural?

If the resulting altered organism is capable of reproducing, then it is evolution, and it's even natural selection, because the modified organism (if it's a useful modification) will be further propagated for use by humans, and so it will be a beneficial mutation. In a sense, the mutation did occur naturally since humans are ourselves organisms and in a bid to enhance our fitness, we modified another organism. As such, I would say humans using a particle accelerator are natural.

It hasn't been an aspect of evolution until now, but I think genetic manipulation is certainly a part of how species now evolve here. Genetically engineered crops distribute their pollen and become hybridized with natural plants. Even robotics could be considered an aspect of evolution, call it the evolution of evolvability. Wether it's a good idea or not is a matter of some speculation.

I imagine the same speculation the first prokaryotic creatures may have pondered many billions of years ago given the oppertunity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory :)

is glowing in the dark going to help the pig be better than the other pics at living?

If the resulting altered organism is capable of reproducing, then it is evolution, and it's even natural selection, because the modified organism (if it's a useful modification) will be further propagated for use by humans, and so it will be a beneficial mutation. In a sense, the mutation did occur naturally since humans are ourselves organisms and in a bid to enhance our fitness, we modified another organism. As such, I would say humans using a particle accelerator are natural.

A wonderful point, and think I might change my view to this. While we are using our intelligence to modify the other animals directly, we are still partof the natural flow of things; trying to survive and modify our environement to assist in that quest. Just because we are overwhelmingly efficient at it doesn't remove us from the "natural" part of natural selection.

In fact, no different than aphids producing more dew over time due to ant care focusing on individuals who naturally produce more dew than others.


is glowing in the dark going to help the pig be better than the other pics at living?
since passing on of genetic material is the measure of success in this contex, it doesn't matter. What's important is if it allows the genetic material a better oppurunity to continue on. If people keep breeding glow-in-the-dark pigs, then it is a successful change to pig genetic structure. (for now, until it turns out that the change causes cnacer in humans, and we all act shocked :p )

is glowing in the dark going to help the pig be better than the other pics at living?

Whats more valuable than a glow in the dark pig or a pot bellied pig? A glow in the dark pot bellied pig. Do you not think the scientists are going to take extra special care of them? They have already indicated in breeding them further. Now one has to think, would those pigs have been given the plush treatment they are receiving now if they didnt glow? And would the scientists go through extra care to look after their glow in the dark pigs?

It hasn't been an aspect of evolution until now,

I wonder if someone has done a thesis on this.

It doesn't have to be an advantageous change. Neutral is ok too in evolution, especially if it is linked to some other trait.

I highlighted the bold part to show that it concerns random mutations in genes and not genes from a separate gene pool [...]There was NO mutation in this case and NO evolution.

This simply wrong. To reiterate: the given definition of evolution is simply not correct.
For one, a gene pool is not equal to species (as it is implied), gene pools can also be distinct populations.
Moreover, incorporation from genes from one species to another does happen and it clearly is an evolutionary process.
In addition to the above mentioned phages, some species might have arisen due to hybridisation. Also, especially in bacteria horizontal gene transfer is an extremely important evolutionary element.

if mutations didn't exist, would evolution eventually stop?

No. It will only stop if in addition:
no gene flow, genetic drift, selection (including sexual selection) exists.

if mutations didn't exist, would evolution eventually stop?

Without mutations there would be no new genetic variation. Evolution would have to work with the existing variation and recombine it in different ways. But you could argue that this is also mutation.

Im having a debate with a fundamentalist :( about those glow in the dark pigs I saw posted earlier on on this forum: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4605202.stm

I posted this under the heading, "Should humans dabble with evolution"

The fundamentalist reply was:

"This is not evolution"

My reply to him:



Am I correct or is the fundamentalist correct? Do humans effect evolution and if so, in what ways?

Humans can effect the development of life in many way. Crack babies, channging sex before birth, IVF producing litters of babies- 9 births etc.

Do humans effect evolution and if so, in what ways?

That would be INTELLIGENT DESIGN! of course intelligence is relative, maybe just design.

Sounds like you just want to be part of a group, lets all be a part of an organization and argue over semantics. Dont stray from the herd.

That would be INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Sounds like you just want to be part of a group, lets all be a part of an organization and argue over semantics. Dont stray from the herd.

Would viruses altering evolution also be intelligent design?

Would viruses altering evolution also be intelligent design?

That would depend on how the virus came to be.

The same as humans. They evolved.

The same as humans. They evolved.

They could have come from space too.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html

They could have come from space too.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html

That doesn't change anything in the assumption that they evolved.

and about the article. Shame that they don't consult the specialists: biologists.

That doesn't change anything in the assumption that they evolved.

and about the article. Shame that they don't consult the specialists: biologists.

It only shows that microbes can survive impacts with the Earth, once thought
to kill everything. Seeding?

It only shows that microbes can survive impacts with the Earth, once thought
to kill everything. Seeding?

It actually only shows that one scientist thinks he has found some alien microbes that are completely unlike life on earth. But it isn't published yet, nor do they know what they are looking at.

No. It will only stop if in addition:
no gene flow, genetic drift, selection (including sexual selection) exists.

Without mutations there would be no new genetic variation. Evolution would have to work with the existing variation and recombine it in different ways. But you could argue that this is also mutation.

but wouldnt it eventually reach equilibrium?

but wouldnt it eventually reach equilibrium?

Maybe if the environment would remain the same and there wouldn't be a chaotic element to the system.

theoretically speaking, genetic modifications could be considered similar to mutations, but in the way we want.

Evolution is basically a collection of successful mutations that lead to the survival of a species

Hence, genetic modifications that is crucial to the survival of a species is evolution, but it might be hard to meet that criteria

---

Basically, it doesn't matter how the genetic variations occur, either by random mutation, non-random mutation, genetic manipulation, or whatever. If the genes are passed down and subject to selection, then that can be called evolution. Simple genetic manipulation alone could only be called evolution in the sense that evolution led to humans who are able to manipulate genes.

Evolution by unnatural selection (of genes)

It hasn't been an aspect of evolution until now, but I think genetic manipulation is certainly a part of how species now evolve here.Genetic manipulation at the molecular level the way we're doing it now has not been an aspect of evolution, but we have been manipulating the DNA of domesticated animals since we invented the technology of animal husbandry somewhere between eight and twelve thousand years ago. Look at what we've done with the dog. It's now a separate subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familiaris. Their gene pool has been so manipulated that it's questionable whether they could survive in a world without humans. They have smaller brains, teeth more suitable for scavenging our garbage than tearing flesh, and the instinct to form huge multi-species packs that's more suitable for birds.

Still, I take the position that "evolution" was originally meant to mean only natural selection, since only a fraction of a micropercent of it has occurred under human guidance.Would viruses altering evolution also be intelligent design?Viruses are not intelligent by anybody's definition so I think we can safely say no. The whole point of "intelligent design" is conscious control over the process to achieve a consciously defined goal.It actually only shows that one scientist thinks he has found some alien microbes that are completely unlike life on earth. But it isn't published yet, nor do they know what they are looking at.Boy if, A. those are really alien microbes and, B. they really resemble life on earth so closely that they're not only carbon-based but have recognizable double-helix DNA... that will be one hell of a discovery! It will be immensely strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that the type of abiogenesis that gave rise to the first lifeforms on earth is the only viable type there is.

I'm not sure how the religionists would take to that. If there really is a supernatural creator, you'd think he would have the resources to be able to create life in another environment whose structure is correlated more closely with the peculiarities of that environment. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be boring to do the same thing all over again? Wouldn't you just love to mess with silicon-based life, or life that evolves in a totally gaseous environment, or even interstellar space? Did Gene Roddenberry have a better imagination than God? :)

Human selection is just another kind of environment.

Wild dogs revert to a standard type.

Genetic manipulation at the molecular level the way we're doing it now has not been an aspect of evolution,

Well I wouldn't really say that. Many of the molecular tools employed to conduct genetic manipulations are in fact adapted from nature. E.g. creation of transgenic plants relies on a Agrobacterium plasmid, with which the bacterium introduces DNA into plants. Or the already mentioned viruses, which are used as transfecting agents, or transposons, and so on.
Of course, nature did not use targeted manipulations, as we can do today, however the mechanisms of genetic manipulation are ancient and had already played significant roles in evolution.

Just thought I'd step in here: the refusal to consider this evolution is, in a way, semantic, and so is its inclusion. Evolution is merely change in gene frequencies: this clearly has occurred, although the change is necessarily slight. So it's evolution, but not much, really.

Its evolution, because everything we (all living and non living things) do here on this earth affects it and causes it to change.

More the change in gene frequencies thingy. Classical def.

Human selection is just another kind of environment. Wild dogs revert to a standard type.Yes but they don't revert to wolves. They remain a distinct subspecies, with smaller brains, a scavenger's teeth, and a quasi-human social instinct.Well I wouldn't really say that. Many of the molecular tools employed to conduct genetic manipulations are in fact adapted from nature.Well sure. I assumed that the topic was, implicitly, genetic manipulation by humans.

Nuclear war is evolution.

The naysayers are just fussy.

is glowing in the dark going to help the pig be better than the other pics at living?

If glowing in the dark is something humans will value in pigs, and ensure the trait propagates, then yes.

A lot of domestic animals, if not most of them, are completely unsuited for life in the wild. Yet they are far more numerous, i.e. successful, than their wild relatives. In terms of evolutionary biology, they are symbiotic with humans. Traits humans find useful or attractive are the ones selected for.