- May 25, 2010
- Reaction score
There has been no introduction of any new information in the plants. Therefore, this is not macroevolution. There is a huge leap from being naturally resistant to an herbicide to gaining the information necessary to produce thorns, flowers, fruit, pine cones, or whatever else you see in their future.
Look at the super-bacteria in hospitals. They become resistant (overall as a population) to certain drugs. This is not that they are evolving. Rather, some had a natural resistance, so they yield more that also have it. The ones that don't have it die. Guess what they tell people when they are stuck in a hospital for a long time and now have infections they cannot fight with the drugs available at the hospital. They tell them to go spend some time outside where the bacteria aren't exposed to the same drugs over and over again developing resistance. Then, the populations go back to normal and the people get better. It's not evolution, it's small-scale adaptations that leave the bacteria as the same exact bacteria. You could work in your family to yield children with blue eyes by only breeding with people with blue eyes. That's not exactly going anywhere species-wise. In a million years, it wouldn't make a new type of creature. You would have simply been selecting preexisting genes (hence no new information).
This is not macroevolution.
A failure I smell....
It is evolution as it is possible that a weed mutated from one generation to another and that mutation proved beneficial against round up.
Like you said... the information is there. This 'information' can only be there if the plant has mutated from the wild type genotype. If the information was 'always' at the disposal of the plant then all those plants would have been immune to round out.
Again with the bacteria example. These bacterial strains that are now immune to antibiotics had mutated from the wild type. When introduced to the antibiotics, they survive and proliferated. The 'natural resistance' you speak of is a mutation different from the wild type which proved beneficial. The mutation would have occurred before the application of the antibiotics. The bacterial population, as you can have several populations of the same bacterial species in one location since each population spawns from one parent cell through cell division as a reproductive means, with the beneficial mutation will have a slight advantage to the other populations and maybe a handful of them will survive the antibiotic. Over generations, and when talking about bacteria, generations time can occur in matter of minutes to hours, additional mutations may occur on the gene where the initial beneficial mutation occurred and or elsewhere. Over generational time, you will eventually get Antibiotic resistant bacteria to even more powerful forms of antibiotics through selection and eventually form a super bug. This does not always happen though because each mutation needs to be just the right one or set to allow survival. That is why SuperBugs are not widespread and occur in select places. Also there are different different genetic variations of superbugs, as differences arise from the fact they would have started from different populations.
Adaptations occur through MUTATIONS.
As for the children you are making a huge mistake. Because mutations would occur through gene transfer during meiosis.
During DNA replication, errors to our genetic code (ATAAGCGATACG for example) occur around once in a while, including nonsense mutations, deletion and wrong nucleotide base pair. Except cells have a whole system of checks to make sure that these errors are corrected if they occur.
Once in a while these errors will not be corrected which may lead to the cell being killed off or not working. When the DNA of the daughter cell is not the same as the DNA of the parent cell then this is called a MUTATION. Some mutations can be deemed beneficial and amplify over time to lead to changes in a species. Other times a mutation can lead to problem in a cell preventing it from causing apoptosis (programed cell death) which will eventually lead to cancer. Actually in our bodies we have several pre-cancerous cells appearing from time to time which our white blood cells will devour to prevent full blown cancer.
Getting back to the children issue. Gene transfer during meiosis will lead to a new person, though the genetic background will be essentially the same. Once in a while there will either be a deletion or an incorrect transfer of genes between two chromatids (sister chromosomes during mitosis/meiosis) which 99% of the time cause cell death, mentally challenged offspring, offspring with deformation, etc. It is after meiosis and the formation of the zygote that it can be considered a genetically different species. Mutations that occur after you are formed (sperm and egg fuse) are considered localized mutations unless they occur in the gamete. Nevertheless, 1% of the time, relatively, there may yield a mutation that may not be detrimental to the offspring but lead to a change in species if the gene can spread through reproduction and or it is also beneficial adaptation which allows the creature to reproduce more successfully. It may be those who do not have said mutation die off while he stays alive and keeps reproducing, ie bacteria, or maybe his gene makes him more attractive or better pheromones, so he has more sex with more females and fathering more children, who then go on to do the same thing and over take males who cannot compete the same way.
Example: Birds with elaborate feathers to attract mates.
If you keep breeding people with blue eyes, and only the ones who come out with blue eyes, as eye color is dependent on recessive/ dominant genes, you will yield blue eyed people but over time these blue eyed people will have some genetic variation which will differ them from wild type humans.
I could keep going on, but my point is:
You are confusing the concept of adaptation, which is a part of evolution, as something separate from the process of evolution. Adaptations occur through mutations to the genetic code of a species, and each mutations can be hardly noticed for the most part. The majority of the time a mutation will cause the cell or creature to die before it can even do much harm/ change in the/ its environment. Many times you will not be able to distinguish a mutation as useful for adaptation, not only due to the small changes, but because adaptation requires an event to prove the mutation beneficial. This can take long periods of time and or for the mutation to keep mutating, for lack of a better word, which will lead to a new species.
Ive majored in this crap and studied it for many years now.... What I wrote is just the gist of the biological process which in ways is similar and dissimilar between eukaryotic plant cells and eukaryotic animal cells, and also prokaryotes (bacterial cells for example).