mRNA Question

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Canute, Dec 13, 2003.

  1. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    I agree it seems straight forward. If a species was able to increase it's mutation rate during times of environmental change, then they would be more likely to survive.
    Although mutation is a risky venture (only a certain number of mutations are helpful; most are not), during times of high stress - esp. if you are heading down a path to destruction anyway - the risks of mutation are minimal. So if your environment changes such that you are going to die anyway, mutate the best that you can via normal evolutionary methods. Just stop checking for errors so often. You, at that point, *want* errors. you *want* your offspring to be diverse as possible, just in case one of them is able to survive the env. changes you are facing. That individual can then increase its error checking, and slow it's mutation rate again.

    It seems perfectly logical and within the bounds of normal evolutionary theory to me.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    No I was not agreeing to that, I know it make sense but do you have evidence? I don't think increase mutation is advantageous, just having more children would work better as mutation is already a facture the more you make the better the chances one will be successful. Too much of an increase in mutation would lead to many negative and lethal mutations.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Canute Registered Senior Member

    River wind

    Thanks for the link, I couldn't find anything.

    To me, with no theories at stake (and very little knowledge!) increased mutation rates under pressure makes sense. In fact it seems just the sort of fall-back mechanism one might expect.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page