DescentBB

Stumbled on this today:

link (feel free to look for your own sources if you wish to question the source's bias: maybe thing like this)

Research seems to be indicating that genetic mutation isn't merely a random event - but that cells display a feedback loop of sorts which control genetic mutation - where mutation is greatly accelerated when an organism is thrust into a situation where it isn't well adapted. The implication of this is that purely reductionist natural selection doesn't seem adequately explain this behavior, bringing into question dogma concerning the evolution of the species.

umm, genetics dictated the ultimate production of the cascade mechanism. In other words, those proteins controlling gene expression or mutational tendency are still the products of the genetic code. Hard to stretch to the idea of some sort of 'planning' of evolution, but along the way of random mutations, certainly the ability of an organism or species to react quickly to environmental pressures would be an advantage, leading to promulgation of the gene conferring that ability.

So are you saying that you think there's a gene sequence that dictates/creates a "rapid mutation" capability in cells? I can see that being plausible.

Well, if your weight on Earth, for example, 90 kg, on Mars your weight is 30 kilograms. Other atmospheric pressure, a different level of radiation, etc. Of course, sooner or later will happen mutations in the DNA.

snoopy wrote:So are you saying that you think there's a gene sequence that dictates/creates a "rapid mutation" capability in cells? I can see that being plausible.

if you dig into it, it isn't so much that mutation occurs any faster, the mechanism merely allows for the expression of mutated traits more readily, as I understand it.

now, I just finished a traipse through Shapiro's tome, and some of the background work. It is utter scientific garbage, in terms of drawing conclusions with no foundation or actual proven data to support them, nor even any proposed tests or research plan to explore if there is any merit. Mostly, it seems like some sort of wishful thinking that plays upon end stage development with no regard for the number of mutational events over millions of generations of organisms from millions of species. Weak, weak stuff, intellectually. The original link is a pure shill for a certain point of view, amplified by the track of ads one is forced to uncheck to read the article.

Fascinating idea, but I’m a little skeptical.

The plant thing can be explained with environmentally triggered gene expression, and the bacteria thing could simply be the ability to repair damaged genes. (relatively simple)

If plants didn’t have so damn many genes to begin with, or the bacteria had developed a different mode of movement I would be more impressed.

you still aren't quite grasping how many reproductive cycles have taken place prior to current observation points.