∑₭o Đ∆Żə
USMB: Troll Central
- Sep 17, 2010
- 65
- 5
- 6
Several posters seem to have posited that the correct definition for a 'mutation' is any variant within the genome for a given species. This is not what Darwin had in mind. When I originally introduced the term, I was referring to what most of us think of regarding the term -- a significant feature or features which deviate from the taxonomy of the species, e.g.; a person born with three arms, no fingers on one hand, etc. There does seem to be a gray area here with contemporay thought on this subject, but I think we need to nail down our definitions. This has inspired me to reenter the discussion.
A human being who is susceptible to say, cholera, or any other disease should not be considered a "mutant" any more that a person born with a gene in their DNA sequence which gives them an advantage over such dieases. This is the realm Darwin was speaking in when he discussed the normal variants within a classified species, and which nature tends to either select for survival, or non-survival.
Taken to it's extremes, a notion like the one I just mentioned would mean that there is one single genome type with a 'perfect' sequence, and all others are a mutation of it -- not true. Therefore, if Frank has a hooked-nose, and Carl has more of ball-shaped nose, one or possibly both are a mutation of the perfect specimen.
We do see billions upon billions of variations within given species, and who's to say who the 'mutant' is, and who is not? Clearly, this is not what the term should be taken to mean.
All of this should and does fall into the category of Natural Selection, and while minor variants do help individuals to cope and flourish in ever-changing conditions, we still see no significant changes to the taxonomy of species that come anywhere near to puting them into a new classification.
A human being who is susceptible to say, cholera, or any other disease should not be considered a "mutant" any more that a person born with a gene in their DNA sequence which gives them an advantage over such dieases. This is the realm Darwin was speaking in when he discussed the normal variants within a classified species, and which nature tends to either select for survival, or non-survival.
Taken to it's extremes, a notion like the one I just mentioned would mean that there is one single genome type with a 'perfect' sequence, and all others are a mutation of it -- not true. Therefore, if Frank has a hooked-nose, and Carl has more of ball-shaped nose, one or possibly both are a mutation of the perfect specimen.
We do see billions upon billions of variations within given species, and who's to say who the 'mutant' is, and who is not? Clearly, this is not what the term should be taken to mean.
All of this should and does fall into the category of Natural Selection, and while minor variants do help individuals to cope and flourish in ever-changing conditions, we still see no significant changes to the taxonomy of species that come anywhere near to puting them into a new classification.
Last edited: