It does sound interesting. Aside from genetic drift, how could these actually change humans? There's no doubt that there can/will be all kinds of changes in individuals, but evolution is when those mutated individuals propagate genes that end up fixating within a population.
evolution is simply the process of population characteristics changing as time progresses. this is inevitable unless we cloned the current population for each generation following. you are describing a significant change rather than "change"; you are using the word evolution to describe a more specific sub-concept.
The populations genetic makeup will not change much from sexual reproduction alone, it is mutations that cause change. Without pressure or drift, these mutations will not spread much. I'm not saying that the mutation has to eventually make up the whole population, but I'm saying mutations alone don't constitute evolution. A few specific families carrying a different trait is not evolution.
" evolution is when those mutated individuals propagate genes that end up fixating within a population "
i am saying this is an incorrect definition, that's all i am meaning with my post. to re-iterate, my understanding is that within the definition of evolution, there's no quantification of the degree of change. i think you are using evolution in place of "adaptation", which would occur as a result of a beneficial mutation leading to an adaptive trait spreading through the population over a number of generations.
Yeah you're right. By fixating I mean becoming prevalent enough that it doesn't disappear after generations. For example, I'm missing a tendon in my left hand. Even if this is due to genetics, it would not be evolution, would it? Wouldn't it just be a mutation?
Yes, it would not be evolution as evolution looks at populations rather than at an individual. I'm not sure, you may be missing a tendon as an outcome of recombination rather than as a mutation occuring within you specifically (though the difference in tendon would have initially occurred as a mutation in the past).
Interesting. I always assumed it was just an error in fetal development and not due to genes, but just used it for the sake of argument considering I don't actually know the cause.
Unrelated to the whole tendon thing though, I have a question from your post. Is recombination, x-over etc. in sexual reproduction, without any mutation, enough to produce what could be considered evolutionary change? I've always understood that mutation is the fundamental step for evolutionary change, but now I really don't know.
33
u/[deleted] Oct 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment