It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Theory of 'radiation induced' evolution.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagrimas
At Fukushima there has been some mutations already, which appear to be non detrimental.


Could you please state your facts and sources? Thank you




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
@lagrimas

Mutations, regardless how they occur, are only significant when they are inheritable. Ionizing radiation can certainly cause mutations - but are they inheritable? Will those mutations be passed on to succeeding generations? If the organism inherits a mutation, does the organism adapt or die? Ionizing radiation is really no different than any other force that can cause a mutation. The organism adapts or disappears - the natural selection process.

I'm sure that ionizing radiation has been a factor in evolution simply because the ozone layer on this planet has varied over billions of years - and may do so again.

It's a good subject to discuss though because in the future, we'll be manipulating those mutations to cure diseases and even create the perfect human (in someone's opinion anyway).

Here's a great YouTube - The Wolves of Chernobyl. It really brings home the idea that survival depends on the selection process and adaptability. It's evolution in a nutshell.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Micro vs macro.

It's all really just micro, but when a group of organisms gets divided from the main group they can change in different ways. Given enough time, they can change in such drastically different ways that if you brought back subjects from each lineage, they would no longer have enough matching strands to be able to reproduce offspring. This why we have to catalog them as dif species. Given enough time and drastically different enviroments or even food sources, these two lineages will begin to no longer look similar either. Then they are refered to as dif genus. But really these classifications are falling apart as we realise that there is really only one kind of life on this planet. We are just that diverse. a reply to: Lagrimas



my problem with this normal environmental 'evolution' is that an animal is more likely to migrate than suffer in a cold place until it has fur. So long-term change seems unlikely to alter a species to a different genus. IMO.

Look at birds of paradise... No predators. SO the huge environmental factor for them was breeding, the female birds are under no pressure to mate because of the easy life...
So the males had to evolve a lot and become very beautiful etc in order to show their worthiness... Huge amounts of micro evolution, no change in genus... Just a more beautiful bird... Staggering amounts of evolution, no really important changes...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: blkcwbyhat
a reply to: Lagrimas
interesting thought,but highly unlikely,IMHO. A genetic mutation in 1 generation would be detrimental theoretically.A bird born with 4 wings would not fly twice as fast,if it could fly.A one eyed cat would lose depth perception.A true valuable,or enhancing mutation,would take many generations to develop,and be inheritable thru them.A one time effect like radiation may not be passable thru the bloodlines,and even if it were,would it be a benefit,or could it cause extinction?


You just said that genetic mutation is likely detrimental in the first generation, but most natural mutations are also detrimental! In fact they are commonly known as birth defects.

My point is that radiation accelerated genetic mutation adds more to the theory, a real possibility of a trigger for neutral/silent or positive aspect mutations... ie, more chances of luck happening...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Radiation, by causing greater than average percentiles of mutations... Of which the majority are detrimental, some are neutral and a very very few lucky cases have a positive mutation... Leads to more evolution, than a world where no radiation is occurring.

For this reason we can see this as a trigger for accelerated evolution.

Cosmic radiation might be kinder and better than the radiation we create in nuclear reactors? And could be a better evolution accelerator? Perhaps the centre of the milk way, or when stars go nova, we get bombarded by evolution speeding process radiation?

This to me, would seem to be of great interest to evolutionary biology!



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Lagrimas
My theory then, builds on evolution instead of trying to completely negate it, but tries to find a trigger to the effect of evolution, which I suppose to be radiation.


Without any observation and testing to come to this idea, it is still a hypothesis.

sorry but im a real scientist and a stickler for words.

So far you are on to an actual tenet of biology. Radiation does cause mutations, if you think of your dna structure as like bowling pins set up in a line from here to somewhere thousands of miles away and then thousands of bowling balls taking out everything in its way and knocking holes through this line. That is what radiation does to your body all the time. Even if you sat in a lead box ten feet thick, something would still be hitting you all the time.

Our DNA can repair itself though. We have even found the auto correcting parts of our DNA and it is similar to code written for computer languages.

Cosmic radiation like the sun and other stars, and even more local sources like; X-ray machines, MRI, CAT scans, even Granite countertops give off radioactive particles, (think bacon in a hot pan, or i like to to imagine radiation as tiny little molecular scaled bullets flying at you at nearly the speed of light. Shredding your skin.


At Fukushima there has been some mutations already, which appear to be non detrimental.


I like your use of the term non detrimental. Meaning it doesn't due harm to the organism. Most mutations are neutral, they bring no help or harm. and some happen in strands that aren't being used. (There are a lot of those. Remind me later. )

In an area like Fukushima, there is a dangerous amount of particles spewing out of there. (Think of that bullets analogy but on the scale of niagara falls) our auto correct can only do so much at a time. anything that tries to reproduce in that environment will have a high likelihood of
Passing on bad genetic information.

Haha, OK yes, my hypothesis of radiation induced evolution, that we defo should test. Lol



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Hi lagrimas.

I have pondered this before with cosmic radiation, and also in the sense that it can perhaps effect consciousness.

The symbolism seems to fit.





Interesting that a cosmic ray often takes a indirect route from its point of origination, so theoretically if you could create/witness one and work out its destination and take a direct route, you could get there in time to feel its effects.


edit on 28-5-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains
Hi lagrimas.

I have pondered this before with cosmic radiation, and also in the sense that it can perhaps effect consciousness.

The symbolism seems to fit.





Interesting that a cosmic ray often takes a indirect route from its point of origination, so theoretically if you could create/witness one and work out its destination and take a direct route, you could get there in time to feel its effects.



Thank you for your fantastic contribution!
Yes your examples of a esoteric nature do seem in keeping with the idea of a hidden knowledge in relation to a cosmic contribution to apotheosis, if not evolution too!
Brilliant!



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lagrimas

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Micro vs macro.

It's all really just micro, but when a group of organisms gets divided from the main group they can change in different ways. Given enough time, they can change in such drastically different ways that if you brought back subjects from each lineage, they would no longer have enough matching strands to be able to reproduce offspring. This why we have to catalog them as dif species. Given enough time and drastically different enviroments or even food sources, these two lineages will begin to no longer look similar either. Then they are refered to as dif genus. But really these classifications are falling apart as we realise that there is really only one kind of life on this planet. We are just that diverse. a reply to: Lagrimas



my problem with this normal environmental 'evolution' is that an animal is more likely to migrate than suffer in a cold place until it has fur. So long-term change seems unlikely to alter a species to a different genus. IMO.

Look at birds of paradise... No predators. SO the huge environmental factor for them was breeding, the female birds are under no pressure to mate because of the easy life...
So the males had to evolve a lot and become very beautiful etc in order to show their worthiness... Huge amounts of micro evolution, no change in genus... Just a more beautiful bird... Staggering amounts of evolution, no really important changes...


Well, what i think your referring to as "normal environmental evolution" includes mutations from simple cell myosis (normal cell reproduction), radiation, breeding, natural selection, all of these things should be considered. It is a very complex set of events that have gotten us this far. To rule out any or to favor one over the other is a common mistake made by newbies.

As far as the birds of paradise. You said yourself there are no predators, no shortage of food, no harsh weather variations. Therefor no pressure to change. Except for breeding prowess. (The bright colors) it has recently been observed that some birds see in the ultraviolet frequencies. The bright colors would look like a star exploding in this light.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I would think that over a long period of time mutations caused by radiation could bring better adapted species to the forefront, while others die off. So maybe some of the current mutations in Japan will die off relatively soon in evolutionary terms, while any who had positive or helpful mutations will survive. So theoretically these mutated animals could replace traditional animals, the ones we are familiar with, in the future.

I understand evolution to be hit and miss. I think of it as random mutations occurring here and there, and then those who got the better end of the deal survive and pass on their genes, while the others eventually die off due to their inability to compete. If they can still compete then they too might survive, and even breed with the others.

I never thought of evolution as meaning an animal adapts to its environment genetically through mutations because those adaptations would be beneficial. To my knowledge it doesn't work that way, but I guess I could be wrong.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I would think that over a long period of time mutations caused by radiation could bring better adapted species to the forefront, while others die off. So maybe some of the current mutations in Japan will die off relatively soon in evolutionary terms, while any who had positive or helpful mutations will survive. So theoretically these mutated animals could replace traditional animals, the ones we are familiar with, in the future.

I understand evolution to be hit and miss. I think of it as random mutations occurring here and there, and then those who got the better end of the deal survive and pass on their genes, while the others eventually die off due to their inability to compete. If they can still compete then they too might survive, and even breed with the others.

I never thought of evolution as meaning an animal adapts to its environment genetically through mutations because those adaptations would be beneficial. To my knowledge it doesn't work that way, but I guess I could be wrong.
Your first paragraph is viable. But in the second you mention "mutations here an there". Mutations are happening every time a cell copies itself. No cell copies itself perfectly. They are all mutations of the parent cell. The OP keeps saying that most mutations are bad but it's simply not true. Most mutations are neutral. You have to understand that mutations occur all the time in your body.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join