Mutations?

[Mr Shrike]

Bear in mind that ginger hair is a mutation...

 

[Zacharine]

Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?

Not sure if it has been said before, but the lack of Lactose Intolerance is a beneficial mutation.

You see, just 20 000 (or so, roughly, approx) years ago all humans were lactose intolerant. Then we domesticated various animals that produced milk we could drink.

Unprocessed milk is a wonderful source of nutrition and fat, so understandably a mutation that allowed one to digest lactose, and thus use milk as a foodsource without getting diarrhea was quite beneficial. Hence, majority of humans today are not lactose intolerant: those with the genes that allow lactose to be broken down fared better and thus had more children.

Also, there is no Micro or Macro evolution, only evolution.

Those who say: it's just adaptation, not evolution, obviously have slept trough their basic biology as evolution is nothing but adaptation, in a population, over successive generations.

 

[TrilbyUK]

Seeing as this is a pretty intelligent topic, I have a question to ask about Eye colours and genes. Someone mentioned earlier that the gene for Brown eye colour is Dominant (B), while Blue is recessive (b).

Right, my eyes are both blue AND brown. Not one of each colour, but my mainly blue eyes have brown parts, which are visibly brown.

So, escapists, am I a mutant ??

Possibly, but not necessarily. Any individual's physiology is a product of their genes and the environment they are exposed to*. Your unusual eye maybe the result of (an) unusual circumstance(s) that prevented the accumulation of the brown pigment in certain parts of your iris. On the other hand, you may carry a mutation. If you do, it may not be unique to you -- if neither of your parents or other ancestors had this trait, it still could have existed for some time by being recessive and hidden by other genes for generations. Do you have any siblings with this trait? If it is genetic and recessive, then both your parents would have to carry the gene and the chances of any one of their children having the blue and brown eye combo would be 1 in 4.
Also, technically, everyone is a mutant (but especially Ninja-Turtles).



(*eg your height is affected by both your genes and the quality of your diet)

 

[supermariner]

animals in the wild that develop mutations tend to die
they get picked off my predators or can't function properly
because the mutation is usually a defect not an improvement
but in human society we have huge advances in modern medicine meaning that not only would a mutated human be more likely to survive, but we'd be less likely to experience any human mutations
so the issue kind of takes care of itself

EDIT: by mutation i'm largely referring to errors in the genetic code rather than adaptions

 

[Mechsoap]

lets think fallout for a second, you can get a mutation which makes your broken bones restored in seconds, while having to have radiation at the same time it would be greatly beneficial.

else i cant think of any ''actual'' mutation on us

 

[Baron Khaine]

I was born with the peice of skin on the bottom of my tongue leading all the way up to the tip, means I can't swallow my tongue, beneficial? yes. Mutation? dunno.

 

[HK_01]

That's not evolution. Will it is but its Micro evolution. That's adapting.

You don't get a new breed, just a better animal.

No single mutation will ever make a new breed. You have a fundamental problem in your understanding of evolution if you think that from one generation to the next a new species is created. It takes hundreds of generations, and there is no point along the evolutionary chain when parent and offspring will be of different species, but maybe when compared to the same evolutionary line 100 generations ago they will be a different species.

And a beneficial human mutation: Skin color - or rather pigments- adapted to the environment. I'm not talking about getting a tan, but rather about actual hereditary skin color that's anchored in the genes.

 

[Zacharine]

animals in the wild that develop mutations tend to die
they get picked off my predators or can't function properly
because the mutation is usually a defect not an improvement
but in human society we have huge advances in modern medicine meaning that not only would a mutated human be more likely to survive, but we'd be less likely to experience any human mutations
so the issue kind of takes care of itself

EDIT: by mutation i'm largely referring to errors in the genetic code rather than adaptions

The adaptations ARE errors. After all, are they not a deviation from the genetic code of the parent?

It's a good thing you clarified you strange definition for the word mutation, because otherwise I would have straight out called BS.

 

[Megalodon]

At least your not throwing time into the equation.

So modern medicine plays no part in the healing of the sick?

I could agree if you said that the disease caused a MUTATION inside the person infected causing them to die off....

A much better example would be bacterial resistance to antibiotics. If you don't think Sickle Cell can be a positive mutation you're wrong. You're thinking in black and white terms. Environments are dynamic and may vary widely. The negative health effects of Sickle-Cell in heterozygous form are negligible, and this is actively selected for as evidenced by its prevalence. Hemoglobin wasn't "designed", your wording shows a clear lack of understanding.

your avatar
it hypnotizes me @.@

someone help me clarify if there was ever a use for tonsils?

while someone is at it. How about your appendix, since i got mine removed last year, and it doesnt do anything.

The appendix is a useless vestigal organ for humans, but it used to have a role in the digestion of cellulose (Fibre), and still perfroms this function in herbivores.

Seeing as this is a pretty intelligent topic, I have a question to ask about Eye colours and genes. Someone mentioned earlier that the gene for Brown eye colour is Dominant (B), while Blue is recessive (b).

Right, my eyes are both blue AND brown. Not one of each colour, but my mainly blue eyes have brown parts, which are visibly brown.

So, escapists, am I a mutant ??

Yes, technically every human is, we all have a couple of thousand alterations in our genomes thanks to the meiosis that produces sperm and egg cells.

To address the original point of this thread, read this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mutants-Form-Varieties-Errors-Human/dp/0006531644/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285691306&sr=1-1
It's a really good read on this subject that is accessible to the layman.

 

[sidhe3141]

So, you want beneficial mutations within the human population. How about:
*The ability to age gracefully. Aging likely has genetic components, and as we begin to no longer die from disease or accident at age 40, the genetic capacity to live to 100 or past starts becoming more frequently expressed, because it allows individuals to pass on greater amounts of knowledge to their children.
*Enhanced social intelligence. Thanks to the Internet, we now need to be able to pull emotional cues out of plaintext rather than face-to-face conversation. Some people are visibly better-able to do this, which may have a genetic component.
*Technical and mathematical intelligence. There is visible and possibly-genetic variation in this area, those with better ability to understand these things tend to be more wealthy, and (thanks to various bits of evolutionary psychology that I don't feel like getting into right now) wealthy people tend to attract more and fitter mates.

 

[Corvuus]

The modern evolutionary theory relies on a number of processes including mutation, random genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection.

A quick question about mutations however. It seems that the general definition of mutation is; "It?s important to remember that mutations are random; they do not occur in response to an organism?s need. Mutations can have neutral, harmful or beneficial effects. "

I believe others have pointed this out. But the above definition is more accurate since it is a MAJOR misconception that people have in thinking that:

If being a fast predator makes you a better predator then given millions of years, they will continually get faster and faster. I.e. lions with speed of cheetah, dolphins with lasers, given enough time it "should" happen because they 'need' it to happen.

This is false. Giraffes didnt get longer necks since they 'needed' to. They just happened to via some amount of random mutation and environmental pressure selected them for it. The definition given by wiki is just more of a statement of what a mutation is caused by, which if read alone, could lead people to include many erroneous things.

Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?

Although I hate citing wiki, their definition seems more accurate.

"Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication."

Nothing I've seen or read has lead me to believe that mutations are beneficial to evolution.

If this is true, then it's a big problem to the theory as a whole.

Without positive variation at a genetic level, change from generation to generation would be unlikely(impossible).

In terms of science and statistical evidence for non-human species: There is evidence for and supporting natural selection and 'evolution'/adaptation within a species.

I believe the only real potential question left is evolution in the sense of differentiation of species, i.e. sure it is 'easy' to say that one butterfly is the original 'ancestor' of all butterflies but how did you get all the species variations plus the (i forget the right term for it) but species can not reproduce with other species even with some amount of similarity. It 'should' have happened but i'm not currently aware of a 100% proven example of a species being created or differentiated from an existing one.

Of course, others can debate that it is possible to get a new species differentiated from an old one, but how did you get the original, etc. That is a can of worms i'll avoid though. .

----

In terms of humans. Ironically, humans appear to be the least changed in comparison to ancient civilization humans. Yes, we have adaptations for diseases, yes, there are statistical height differences, strength, and various other polymorphisms.

However, in terms of our emotion, mind, will, soul, brain, etc. from the point at which someone 'invented' tools, language, 'culture', humans have not intrinsically changed. Poems, writing, thoughts, feelings, love, etc. are the same from thousand years ago to today, which is fairly verifiable since the fables, morals, etc. and other written records show this.

As another poster pointed out, it is true that technology has kind of replaced 'evolution' in a sense. To be more accurate, natural selection works via external environmental pressure. I.e. adapt or die. Humans are, to our knowledge, the only species that doesn't have to say 'ok' and adapt to brutal uncaring environment. We make our environment adapt to us. By using tools, technology, etc. we 'break' the relationship such that there is no 'natural selection' or environmental pressure that would cause a large intrinsic change within us.

I.e. yes, we mutate, yes we are still 'evolving' but our 'human-ness' has not changed and most likely will not change unless certain drastic things happen. (like environment catastrophe that technology can not deal with, plus lots of time + mutations). Of course, humans have not been around 'that' long in terms of the larger grand scheme of things. i.e. thousands of years compared to millions.

----

There are beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations. The harmful mutations can vary but if you look up any ophan diseases or even more 'mainstream ones' they exist and are really quite unfortunate with many killing the child with the mutation at a very early age.

In terms of beneficial or neutral mutations, for the most part, it doesn't really matter since there isn't a insanely huge advantage in terms of living and reproduction.

Extreme version (which may get me hated):
It is verifiable that taller and more beautiful people get paid more at equivalent jobs. It is a fact. However, ugly people still get paid, live, and reproduce. There is no environment or 'evolutionary pressure' that weeds out ugly people. So while it is presumably more desirable to be tall/beautiful, it doesn't matter if you are or aren't in terms of human evolution. polymorphisms such as eye color, (one poster said he had different pigment, multiple colors?) shouldn't matter.

According to some biotech company (illumina or invitrogen or something, i think they changed their name), they can sequence an individual's genes (the 'important' ones in determining how you are affected by specific diseases, predisposition, etc.) and the cost is supposed to be coming down to something like a thousand dollars or so for you to sequence a subset of your own personal genome just to know your predisposition to more common health problems. There is gene therapy and other 'sci-fi' futuristic possibilities where we could make humans 'smart' with no major health problems/predisposition, etc. Good mutations (some are just more natural resistant to diseases or certain ones) could be included but, again, it isn't that likely of a situation to occur or be selected against.

Of course, if zombies rise up and start killing people and you are immune to zombism, then that could be a nice trait to pass on if you survive the feeding frenzy .


Corvuus
P.S. short version: human external evolution (i count immunity, polymorphisms, etc. as 'external' since it doesn't affect us as a species). -> yes. Human intrinsic evolution (what makes us human) -> no.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

The sickle cell thing's been mentioned over and over, but here's another beneficial human mutation found after an arduous thirty seconds of googling:

"Certain [human] populations have inherited the Delta 32 mutation resulting in the deletion of a portion of the CCR5 gene. Homozygous carriers of this mutation are resistant to HIV-1 infection."

 

[Brandon237]

Well, the hammerhead is a good example of a beneficial mutation. A mutation that caused the head to be shaped in a unique manner. The gene for the strange head was successful and was passed on to more and more offspring. Until we reach the present day in which we have the hammerhead species.
Also, Natural selection doesn't work using mutations. Just whichever ones survive pass on their genes. So, the genes that pass into the gene pools get more and more specialized and differentiate from the species that once was. This is the fundamental method of evolutionary change that occurs and causes genes (and thus DNA) to change slowly over millions of years.

Animal mutation, not human. Furthermore, mutations work against Natural Selection. It's why the green beetle gets eaten more often the the brown one. The brown beetle had a mutation that caused its shell to turn green.

Humans are animals, we are just the most mentally advanced animals on the planet.

Animal one gets a random mutation at some point. This mutation happens to be helpful. This means that animal one survives where two and three die. Animal 55343 also happens to have this mutation, it also survives, partly because of the mutation, by chance they meet and mate, this is a rather random encounter, but it happens many times over millions of years. So the mutation gets passed on. After only the mutated animals are still alive, the whole species has evolved, or if both the non-mutated and mutated variants still live, then you have a whole new species. And this'll happen with many different mutations over many years. Hence, over billions of years, we get complete evolution. A billion years is a long time, and many generations.

If the mutation is harmful, the animal is more likely to die and thus the mutation will probably not stay in the gene pool for more than a few generations.

 

[Vildleder]

Seeing as this is a pretty intelligent topic, I have a question to ask about Eye colours and genes. Someone mentioned earlier that the gene for Brown eye colour is Dominant (B), while Blue is recessive (b).

Right, my eyes are both blue AND brown. Not one of each colour, but my mainly blue eyes have brown parts, which are visibly brown.

So, escapists, am I a mutant ??

Possibly, but not necessarily. Any individual's physiology is a product of their genes and the environment they are exposed to*. Your unusual eye maybe the result of (an) unusual circumstance(s) that prevented the accumulation of the brown pigment in certain parts of your iris. On the other hand, you may carry a mutation. If you do, it may not be unique to you -- if neither of your parents or other ancestors had this trait, it still could have existed for some time by being recessive and hidden by other genes for generations. Do you have any siblings with this trait? If it is genetic and recessive, then both your parents would have to carry the gene and the chances of any one of their children having the blue and brown eye combo would be 1 in 4.
Also, technically, everyone is a mutant (but especially Ninja-Turtles).



(*eg your height is affected by both your genes and the quality of your diet)

None of my siblings have it, and I'm pretty sure no-one in my family whom I know of have ever had it. I'd guess the gene would be recessive and just hidden for a long time. Or a mutation which has occurred in thus generation. I guess we'll never know

I wouldn't mind some children with this type of eye configuration, I think it's pretty cool
And red hair would be good. Not ginger kind of red, flaming dark red. I wonder if that's actually possible.

Considering that, and the fact that mutations have spawned brown, blonde and reddish hair (assuming black hair was the original, unmodified gene), where would the limit be? Would it be possible to end up with green hair, if we could produce the pigment for it?

At least your not throwing time into the equation.

So modern medicine plays no part in the healing of the sick?

I could agree if you said that the disease caused a MUTATION inside the person infected causing them to die off....

A much better example would be bacterial resistance to antibiotics. If you don't think Sickle Cell can be a positive mutation you're wrong. You're thinking in black and white terms. Environments are dynamic and may vary widely. The negative health effects of Sickle-Cell in heterozygous form are negligible, and this is actively selected for as evidenced by its prevalence. Hemoglobin wasn't "designed", your wording shows a clear lack of understanding.

your avatar
it hypnotizes me @.@

someone help me clarify if there was ever a use for tonsils?

while someone is at it. How about your appendix, since i got mine removed last year, and it doesnt do anything.

The appendix is a useless vestigal organ for humans, but it used to have a role in the digestion of cellulose (Fibre), and still perfroms this function in herbivores.

Seeing as this is a pretty intelligent topic, I have a question to ask about Eye colours and genes. Someone mentioned earlier that the gene for Brown eye colour is Dominant (B), while Blue is recessive (b).

Right, my eyes are both blue AND brown. Not one of each colour, but my mainly blue eyes have brown parts, which are visibly brown.

So, escapists, am I a mutant ??

Yes, technically every human is, we all have a couple of thousand alterations in our genomes thanks to the meiosis that produces sperm and egg cells.

To address the original point of this thread, read this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mutants-Form-Varieties-Errors-Human/dp/0006531644/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285691306&sr=1-1
It's a really good read on this subject that is accessible to the layman.

Thanks, I'll definitely look into it. The only reason I asked the original question was because I have never seen anyone else with this eye configuration, and being much more noticeable than your average run-of-the-mill mutation. It could technically also be a helpful, human mutation, since the whole double coloured business attracts good female attention (on a small scale of course)

 

[TrilbyUK]

Would it be possible to end up with green hair, if we could produce the pigment for it?

Green hair would take quite a significant mutation since, like skin tone, all hair colours seen in the human populations are merely variation in the concentration of melanin. I suppose it is possible that a mutation could produce this effect but I would point out there aren't any animals with natural green fur/hair -- even though this would be beneficial for camouflage. Of course, we could always do like some slothes and move so slowly that we end up with moss growing in our hair.

 

[Megalodon]

Would it be possible to end up with green hair, if we could produce the pigment for it?

Green hair would take quite a significant mutation since, like skin tone, all hair colours seen in the human populations are merely variation in the concentration of melanin. I suppose it is possible that a mutation could produce this effect but I would point out there aren't any animals with natural green fur/hair -- even though this would be beneficial for camouflage. Of course, we could always do like some slothes and move so slowly that we end up with moss growing in our hair.

It may not be "natural", but give Science time, we've already done it with skin
Don't know how to imbed pictures, so have a link
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060828_green_rats_02.jpg&cap=Rat+offspring+from+a+mouse+recipient+that+received+cryopreserved+rat+testis+cell+transplantation.+Green+fluorescent+protein+expression+is+seen+in+the+offspring.+Credit%3A+Takashi+Shinohara,+Kyoto+University/PNAS
Don't know how to imbed pictures, so have a link

 

[TrilbyUK]

Would it be possible to end up with green hair, if we could produce the pigment for it?

Green hair would take quite a significant mutation since, like skin tone, all hair colours seen in the human populations are merely variation in the concentration of melanin. I suppose it is possible that a mutation could produce this effect but I would point out there aren't any animals with natural green fur/hair -- even though this would be beneficial for camouflage. Of course, we could always do like some slothes and move so slowly that we end up with moss growing in our hair.

It may not be "natural", but give Science time, we've already done it with skin
Don't know how to imbed pictures, so have a link
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060828_green_rats_02.jpg∩=Rat+offspring+from+a+mouse+recipient+that+received+cryopreserved+rat+testis+cell+transplantation.+Green+fluorescent+protein+expression+is+seen+in+the+offspring.+Credit%3A+Takashi+Shinohara,+Kyoto+University/PNAS
Don't know how to imbed pictures, so have a link

I never said it couldn't happen -- it probably can. I just pointed out that is hasn't yet* and that it would take a more significant mutation or mutations to do it.

*GM mice with jellyfish glow-in-the-dark genes don't count. They don't reflect green light -- they produce it. EDIT: And this is not a mutation as such, just the translation of genes from one animal's genome to another's.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

snipity

My apologies, I did not mean dominant in the genetic sense. I meant that the phenotype created by the new mutation becomes the one most often observed in the population.

 

[silver wolf009]

I should have specified. HUMAN mutation.

Sickle cell is a mutation. It gives a natural resistance to malaria, ergo beneficial.

So is albanism (being albino), isnt it? Im not sure but I think thats true.

Also sickle cell also has some negative effect to. Apperantly it really hurts when a blood cell gets caught on a turn.

 

[sheic99]

I should have specified. HUMAN mutation.

Sickle cell is a mutation. It gives a natural resistance to malaria, ergo beneficial.

So is albanism (being albino), isnt it? Im not sure but I think thats true.

Also sickle cell also has some negative effect to. Apperantly it really hurts when a blood cell gets caught on a turn.

Perhaps I should be a tad more specific about what I mean by beneficial. What I mean by that is simply, heterozygous individuals are less likely to develop malaria and die, which in turn increases the chance of reproduction. In terms of natural selection, anything that increases the likely hood that an organism, be it plant, animal or otherwise, will reproduce can be viewed as beneficial.

On the topic of albinism, I don't know much about it, but according to wiki there doesn't seem to be any positive effect, so no probably not.

Edit: Forget to answer one part, yes I am aware of the negative effects of sickle cell anemia, which generally goes unnoticed in carriers.