Does it matter when the mutation occurs as long as it is recorded in the DNA?
"Trait" is a word and can mean whatever we define it to mean. As far as evolution is concerned, what survives and reproduces propagates, etc. If one finds a way to explain better chances of survival and reproduction in terms of traits, fine. But it's the survival and reproduction that matter not how we explain them. But I'm sure you already know that. -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM, glen e. p. ropella < [email protected]> wrote: > > I was trolling the net trying to figure out if I actually understand > evolution as well as I think I do (there's evidence that the incompetent > tend to overestimate their competence and that the competent > overestimate the competence of their fellows ... so I can't trust my own > judgment and I can't trust the judgment of the competent people around > me either ;-) and I came upon this paper: > > http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807x22/fulltext.html > > Table 3, under the "Intuitive (incorrect) interpretation" of "Origins of > New Traits" says: > > "Offspring may exhibit new beneficial traits even if the parents did not > possess them." > > -------------------------------- > > Now, I have to admit that I (do and did) believe that offspring can > exhibit "new" beneficial (or detrimental) traits even if the parents did > not possess them. Naively, I'm thinking extra fingers and autism. > > This is like one of those many trick questions on tests back in college, > right? There is a _particular_ intuitive (incorrect) interpretation the > authors are referring to, here, right? I assume(d) a "new" trait might > arise via: > > A) Crossover; hence, the child would exhibit it when the parents did not. > > B) A mutation captured in the sperm or egg, perhaps brought about by > some genetic change in the parent, too local for the parent to exhibit a > trait from it but pervasive enough in the offspring for it to exhibit > the trait (whatever it may be). > > C) A mutation that happens after conception but before/during > differentiation. > > D) A radical change in the environment such that prior to the change, > some trait was not apparent (if a tree falls in the forest -- semantics > of "trait" and "possess") in the parent but, due to the new environment, > the trait is apparent in the offspring. > > Having made these 3 assumptive paths explicit, I now have some questions > that haven't yet succumbed to a google search: > > 1) When and where do the mutations that are relevant to species > evolution occur? Is it in the ontogeny of the parent prior to > conception? Is it at conception? Just after conception during the > offspring's ontogeny? > > 2) Is "trait" assumed, by evolutionary biologists, to encompass both the > phenotype and the genotype, the phenomena plus the mechanism? Or is > "trait" purely phenomenal and even if the same trait can be achieved > with multiple mechanisms, we still say the individuals exhibit the > _same_ trait? > > Thanks for any clues.... and don't ridicule me too much ... I'm > sensitive. [grin] > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
