Is genetic manipulation a part of evolution?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by w1z4rd, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    Im having a debate with a fundamentalist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I think you are correct. After all viruses have been adding genetic material to our genome for ages.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    Nice point, thanks.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    His response

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Bleh
     
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    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.
     
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Are viruses directing human evolution too then? Or is that natural selection?
     
  10. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    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?
     
  11. BlueExcelsior Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    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.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    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.
     
  13. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
  14. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    is glowing in the dark going to help the pig be better than the other pics at living?
     
  15. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    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.


    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2007
  16. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    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?
     
  17. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    I wonder if someone has done a thesis on this.
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    It doesn't have to be an advantageous change. Neutral is ok too in evolution, especially if it is linked to some other trait.
     
  19. CharonZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    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.
     
  20. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    if mutations didn't exist, would evolution eventually stop?
     
  21. CharonZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    No. It will only stop if in addition:
    no gene flow, genetic drift, selection (including sexual selection) exists.
     
  22. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    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.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Humans can effect the development of life in many way. Crack babies, channging sex before birth, IVF producing litters of babies- 9 births etc.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2007

Share This Page