Stop right there. You couldn't even make it half-way through the first sentence without being wrong about something, impressive...
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is the concept that organisms change over time due to external forces/stimuli (be they natural or artificial). It has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever, period, end of story.
I'll say you're wrong.
Evolution comes into play even before there are biological organisms. Galaxies evolve, solar systems evolve, the chemical composition of the primordial soup evolves. At some point, that soup evolved complex molecules, which in turn gave rise to the single-celled organisms from which we all evolved.
The evolution of long molecules in the soup allows for some molecules to endure their environment while others fall apart too rapidly. When some molecules are able to self-replicate, they endure even better. That's all evolution, in the general sense, and fitness-based evolution in the specific sense.
genetic mutation comes in several forms, some are more common than others and sometimes the sequence being mutated can affect the rate of its own mutation (and even this can happen either biochemically or by following genetic instructions that affect mutation rate).
1. Point mutations. Clearly you've heard of this--this is what you are colloquially referring to as "mutation". This is gain, loss or replacement of a single base. Due to the degenerate nature of the triplet code, most replacement point mutations that occur within a gene are effectively silent, not causing any change in the resulting protein. Of course, many more happen outside the coding regions of genes and typically do nothing. When the point mutation causes a change to the amino acid sequence, the protein still might not be affected. If the amino acid substitution of the same type (e.g., both hydrophobic or both acidic) the protein function might be unaltered. Or it might be impreceptibly altered. This creates very important variety in proteins that allows an individual in changing circumstances to adapt. Of course, sometimes, and maybe most often, the protein performs worse. If it's bad enough, that mutation is removed from the gene pool along with the individual possessing it.
Insertion and deletion of a single base is very similar to the next category, so I'll discuss them there.
2. Insertion and deletion of 1 or more bases. This is a real problem for genes. If the insertion or deletion is a multiple of 3, then there's a chance nothing will happen but 1 amino acid will be gained or lost, but potentially not affecting the function of the protein. But there's also a good chance the protein will be severely altered, because from the mutation onward, the frame of 3-bases per amino acid will be off, and now you'll end up with a completely different string of amino acids. Chances are they'll do nothing, but sometimes they do something. If the protein is lost completely, then there may or may not be a problem to the organism. You've got two copies of most genes, and the second copy might be able to compensate for the bad protein. If so, this becomes what people call a recessive mutation, meaning if you've only got 1 "bad" allele, you're all right, but if both alleles are "bad" you suffer. Sometimes the truncated protein is worse than missing, though. Sometimes the shortened form works well enough to go through all the motions of being a protein (going where needed, binding to its partners, etc.) but then fails to carry out its job and at the same time interferes with the "normal" copy. This becomes what we call a dominant mutation and it's really bad news. Insertions or deletions are fairly common in certain types of sequences but for the most part, the quality control machinery can catch them and fix or destroy the aberrant cell.
3. Translocation and duplication events. This is a specialized type of insertion, in which a whole section of DNA is either extracted and inserted elsewhere, or copied and the copy is inserted elsewhere. Extraction-insertion is not necessarily a problem, since you've got a net gain of 0 new sequence. The gene is still present and probably still functions normally, it just lives in a different location now. Sometimes this is a problem, if it is translocated without its regulatory machinery, so that now it doesn't activate at the right time or make the proper dose of protein. Sometimes the regulation is only slightly tweaked, again allowing for a slight variation of the protein function in an organism, which can be useful when the population is facing novel or changing conditions. Sometimes this causes cancer.
With duplication, evolution is most free to act in a good way. This is the wholesale copying and inserting of the copy in a new place. Often the new copy is put next to the original, but not always. With two fully functioning copies of the same gene, a rendundancy is built in, superior to the one created by having two alleles (one on each chromosome). Later
TATA might be more accurate than AGTCA for "hello". the "TATA" box is largely recognized as an indicator that gene transcription it about to start.
as for "world"? hm, it would probably be everything else in the genome:)
You should think of it as supporting artists who don't support the RIAA. Artists that do, should think about switching labels to ones that let you enjoy the music you bought how you like.
I posted this interview 3 times.
The second time I posted it I didn't believe the first post had been deleted--I thought I must have messed up.
The third time I posted it, I added comments that implied that I believe mere technical glitches to be responsible for the missing threads, since you're not supposed to mention deleted threads on the forum there.
The third posting got a couple responses saying that all threads discussing the interview were being deleted--so now I knew for sure.
After it was deleted, I was irritated, so I posted a wholly innocuous thread about cereal and explicitly stated that this thread was not about any interview on another discussion board (I hoped that by not putting any names down the thread could splip through). Alas, it was caught and deleted.
So I had a plan to post something that truly was innocent (on an entierly different subject) and discovered I'd been banned. I don't really care about posting to the forum there, but it just irritated me to no end. (Well, at least until later tonight when I forget all about it.)
If a company is going to bother putting forth a lackluster response to an interview with little overall importance, then why would they also want to censor it? Unless they realized their mistake--that the interview sucked and those responding lacked reading skills?
*sigh*/rant
Plants do have an inborn performance monitoring system: it's called the plant itself, its ability to produce seeds, grow tall, etc.
"Harmful" genes impede the plant's fitness and "helpful" genes promote it.
A plant with deleterious mutations "knows" it by not competing as well. What it doesn't know is a priori whether a gene will help or hurt. What it also (except somehow in the case in question) is what alternative configuration of an allele that's not present would be better than the one currently in use.
Ftr, this doesn't change much in terms of evolutionary theory. Plants alreay do all sorts of whack things that we humans find incredible (because we couldn't do that). Evolution still happens and is still happening whether mutations are acquired rapidly or more slowly. 5 billion years is still a very long time, especially to things that operate in the millisecond world.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop right there. You couldn't even make it half-way through the first sentence without being wrong about something, impressive... Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is the concept that organisms change over time due to external forces/stimuli (be they natural or artificial). It has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever, period, end of story.
I'll say you're wrong.
Evolution comes into play even before there are biological organisms. Galaxies evolve, solar systems evolve, the chemical composition of the primordial soup evolves. At some point, that soup evolved complex molecules, which in turn gave rise to the single-celled organisms from which we all evolved. The evolution of long molecules in the soup allows for some molecules to endure their environment while others fall apart too rapidly. When some molecules are able to self-replicate, they endure even better. That's all evolution, in the general sense, and fitness-based evolution in the specific sense.
nonsense back to you.
genetic mutation comes in several forms, some are more common than others and sometimes the sequence being mutated can affect the rate of its own mutation (and even this can happen either biochemically or by following genetic instructions that affect mutation rate).
1. Point mutations.
Clearly you've heard of this--this is what you are colloquially referring to as "mutation". This is gain, loss or replacement of a single base. Due to the degenerate nature of the triplet code, most replacement point mutations that occur within a gene are effectively silent, not causing any change in the resulting protein. Of course, many more happen outside the coding regions of genes and typically do nothing. When the point mutation causes a change to the amino acid sequence, the protein still might not be affected. If the amino acid substitution of the same type (e.g., both hydrophobic or both acidic) the protein function might be unaltered. Or it might be impreceptibly altered. This creates very important variety in proteins that allows an individual in changing circumstances to adapt. Of course, sometimes, and maybe most often, the protein performs worse. If it's bad enough, that mutation is removed from the gene pool along with the individual possessing it.
Insertion and deletion of a single base is very similar to the next category, so I'll discuss them there.
2. Insertion and deletion of 1 or more bases.
This is a real problem for genes. If the insertion or deletion is a multiple of 3, then there's a chance nothing will happen but 1 amino acid will be gained or lost, but potentially not affecting the function of the protein. But there's also a good chance the protein will be severely altered, because from the mutation onward, the frame of 3-bases per amino acid will be off, and now you'll end up with a completely different string of amino acids. Chances are they'll do nothing, but sometimes they do something. If the protein is lost completely, then there may or may not be a problem to the organism. You've got two copies of most genes, and the second copy might be able to compensate for the bad protein. If so, this becomes what people call a recessive mutation, meaning if you've only got 1 "bad" allele, you're all right, but if both alleles are "bad" you suffer. Sometimes the truncated protein is worse than missing, though. Sometimes the shortened form works well enough to go through all the motions of being a protein (going where needed, binding to its partners, etc.) but then fails to carry out its job and at the same time interferes with the "normal" copy. This becomes what we call a dominant mutation and it's really bad news. Insertions or deletions are fairly common in certain types of sequences but for the most part, the quality control machinery can catch them and fix or destroy the aberrant cell.
3. Translocation and duplication events.
This is a specialized type of insertion, in which a whole section of DNA is either extracted and inserted elsewhere, or copied and the copy is inserted elsewhere. Extraction-insertion is not necessarily a problem, since you've got a net gain of 0 new sequence. The gene is still present and probably still functions normally, it just lives in a different location now. Sometimes this is a problem, if it is translocated without its regulatory machinery, so that now it doesn't activate at the right time or make the proper dose of protein. Sometimes the regulation is only slightly tweaked, again allowing for a slight variation of the protein function in an organism, which can be useful when the population is facing novel or changing conditions. Sometimes this causes cancer.
With duplication, evolution is most free to act in a good way. This is the wholesale copying and inserting of the copy in a new place. Often the new copy is put next to the original, but not always. With two fully functioning copies of the same gene, a rendundancy is built in, superior to the one created by having two alleles (one on each chromosome). Later
TATA might be more accurate than AGTCA for "hello". the "TATA" box is largely recognized as an indicator that gene transcription it about to start. as for "world"? hm, it would probably be everything else in the genome :)
Of course it's spaghetti code. It is the marinara fingerprint of our Pasta Lord and Creator in the skies.
You should think of it as supporting artists who don't support the RIAA. Artists that do, should think about switching labels to ones that let you enjoy the music you bought how you like.
I posted this interview 3 times. The second time I posted it I didn't believe the first post had been deleted--I thought I must have messed up. The third time I posted it, I added comments that implied that I believe mere technical glitches to be responsible for the missing threads, since you're not supposed to mention deleted threads on the forum there. The third posting got a couple responses saying that all threads discussing the interview were being deleted--so now I knew for sure. After it was deleted, I was irritated, so I posted a wholly innocuous thread about cereal and explicitly stated that this thread was not about any interview on another discussion board (I hoped that by not putting any names down the thread could splip through). Alas, it was caught and deleted. So I had a plan to post something that truly was innocent (on an entierly different subject) and discovered I'd been banned. I don't really care about posting to the forum there, but it just irritated me to no end. (Well, at least until later tonight when I forget all about it.) If a company is going to bother putting forth a lackluster response to an interview with little overall importance, then why would they also want to censor it? Unless they realized their mistake--that the interview sucked and those responding lacked reading skills? *sigh* /rant
Plants do have an inborn performance monitoring system: it's called the plant itself, its ability to produce seeds, grow tall, etc.
"Harmful" genes impede the plant's fitness and "helpful" genes promote it.
A plant with deleterious mutations "knows" it by not competing as well. What it doesn't know is a priori whether a gene will help or hurt. What it also (except somehow in the case in question) is what alternative configuration of an allele that's not present would be better than the one currently in use.
Ftr, this doesn't change much in terms of evolutionary theory. Plants alreay do all sorts of whack things that we humans find incredible (because we couldn't do that). Evolution still happens and is still happening whether mutations are acquired rapidly or more slowly. 5 billion years is still a very long time, especially to things that operate in the millisecond world.