Difference Between Evolution and Mutation?

[Law]

Hi im new here and i just have a stupid question, whats the difference between evolution and mutation if they both have to do with the body changing someway? Im slow LOL so just walk me through it.

[YT2095]

evolution uses sucessful mutants/mutations and the unsucessful ones usualy perish by deselection as they don`t reproduce as frequently or other factors kill them off.

yeah, it`s a simple answer, but workable and true :)

[Sayonara³]

Broadly speaking, mutation takes place in a single individual, but evolution takes place throughout a population over time.

Mutations in the DNA of individuals may contribute to evolutionary pressure for the species.

[aommaster]

also, isn't a mutation something quite sudden and different in ONE organism in a population, whereas evolution happens over millions of years, and is something very gradual?

[swansont]

also, isn't a mutation something quite sudden and different in ONE organism in a population, whereas evolution happens over millions of years, and is something very gradual?

Evolution doesn't have to be gradual to that extent. A mutation that proves to be beneficial will tend to spread through a population and this will take time, but not necessarily millions of years. (Keep in mind that it's really the number of generations that matter, and many organisms have shorter life cycle times than humans do.)

[dave]

I'd say generally that was the case.

[aommaster]

well, what about... let's say giraffes, the ones with the longer necks survived. So, that's an example of an overtime evolution, can u give me an example of one that is instant?

[dave]

The only thing I can think of is something like bacteria or some other small, fast-replicating organism. After all, some bacteria strains are now resistant to the weaker anti-biotics, and that's only after about 50 years of using them.

[Skye]

Bacteria have plasmids which allows anti-biotic resistance to spread faster too, as plasmids are able to be transfered between individuals, as well as through division.

I'd answer the original question this way, a mutation is an instantaneous change in an individuals genetic material, whewreas evolution is the change in the sum genetic material of a population over time.

[dave]

Moved to Evolution/Morphology because it's a much better home for this thread.

[aommaster]

The only thing I can think of is something like bacteria or some other small, fast-replicating organism. After all, some bacteria strains are now resistant to the weaker anti-biotics, and that's only after about 50 years of using them.


anything faster than this would be like a mutation right? OR are there faster organisms that can evolve?

[iglak]

well, what about... let's say giraffes, the ones with the longer necks survived. So, that's an example of an overtime evolution, can u give me an example of one that is instant?
the most common example would be the peppered moths in some forest somewhere (i forgot where, but it doesn't matter).
they used to be mostly white, because the trees were white, and all of the dark ones would be eaten by birds. then big factories came in, releasing a lot of soot, covering the trees. the trees are now all dark, but most of the moths are light. the light ones are now eaten by the birds, but there was enough dark mutations to keep the species alive, forcing most of the next generation to be dark.

that's only one generation's time (maybe 2).

[iglak]

mutation = a change in DNA/RNA in one organizm.
evolution = change in DNA/RNA of the norm of a species.

[aommaster]

is evolution linked with 'survival of the fittest'? Cause the moths example that u gave me seems to lie in that category

[Sayonara³]

anything faster than this would be like a mutation right? OR are there faster organisms that can evolve?
Whether or not a change is mutation or evolution does not depend on the "speed".

A mutation occurs in one individual when damage to their DNA by any agent (chemical, radioactive, random changes) causes expression of unexpected protein/s.

Evolution is a collective term for a large number of agents, causes and effects that see a population adapting over several generations.

A mutation may be beneficial to an individual and increase the chances of them surviving and mating - this would make the individual more evolutionarily fit and could well be selected into future generations. But there's no point where mutation 'becomes' evolution because one is just a cause, and the other is the effect of lots of causes.

[aommaster]

oh ok. Thanx alot

[Sayonara³]

is evolution linked with 'survival of the fittest'? Cause the moths example that u gave me seems to lie in that category
Yes, natural selection is a major driving force behind evolution.

The moths example is thought to show natural selection quite well. The Galapagos Finches and dog breeding also do.

[admiral_ju00]

The only thing I can think of is something like bacteria or some other small, fast-replicating organism. After all, some bacteria strains are now resistant to the weaker anti-biotics, and that's only after about 50 years of using them.

another good example of evolution at work is the effect of pesticides on insect population. while pesticides will kill most of the insects, there will be some that show resistance to it. take it over time(several generation's ahead) survivors reproduce and you will end up with a pesticide-immune population.



[QUOTE]"the most common example would be the peppered moths in some forest somewhere (i forgot where, but it doesn't matter)."

that would be England and Industrial revolution was the agent that initiated environmental change that made the white moths unfit for their environment. so the dark gene which was previously detremental to the organism was now the norm and the means to survive.

[Radical Edward]

Evolution is a process in which species change and diversify as a result of mutations and natural selection. mutations are largely random events which occur in the germ line of an organism. They are not evolution, merely change. They are an element of the process of evolution.

[admiral_ju00]

Evolution is a process in which species change and diversify as a result of mutations and natural selection.mutations are largely random events which occur in the germ line of an organism.

That's Darwin talking.

On the other hand, realistically speaking,
Mutations are far too rare and unpredictable to be a reliable source driving the evolutionary process.
As we all know, most mutations are neutral as they have no visible affect on either the Genotype or the Phenotype of an organism.
The bad random mutations are almost always dealt with by the natural selection for against the survival of the organism or at least against it's fitness.

The Good Random mutations are extremely rare and just because there was a 'good' random mutation in a genome of one organism, it does not automatically mean that this mutation will be passed on to the offspring. Maybe it has a chance if there are several mutations in a row or affecting and upholding the more or less same alleles, then this mutation may be implemented as part of the norm within the genome of the future generations.

However, this is extremely time consuming, extremely rare and statistically can be near impossible to have several 'good' random mutations in a row, one after the other, after the other. As one of the example I was given by many books and of my professors: How many coin tosses will it require to produce 100 consecutive Heads? The answer is quite a large number.

Here's a quote from Gordon Rattray Taylor:
"........That these sequences of coordinated reactions - and there are literally thousands of them in the human body - should all have arisen by random mutations of single genes is in the highest degree unlikely......."

They are not evolution, merely change. They are an element of the process of evolution.

Assuming that the Darwin's theory is correct and the evolution is a process or is driven by Random Mutations and Natural Selection, then it is evolution. Certainly an accumulation of these 'good' mutations and their implementation is evolution. It does not and should not matter if this random mutation cause a single organism to better adapt to it's surroundings or the entire species.

[Radical Edward]

That's Darwin talking.

On the other hand, realistically speaking,
Mutations are far too rare and unpredictable to be a reliable source driving the evolutionary process.
As we all know, most mutations are neutral as they have no visible affect on either the Genotype or the Phenotype or an organism.
The bad random]/B] mutations are almost always dealt with by the natural selection for [B]against the survival of the organism or at least against it's fitness.

The Good Random mutations are extremely rare and just because there was a 'good' random mutation in a genome of one organism, it does not automatically mean that this mutation will be passed on to the offspring. Maybe it has a chance if there are several mutations in a row or affecting and upholding the more or less same alleles, then this mutation may be implemented as part of the norm within the genome of the future generations.

However, this is extremely time consuming, extremely rare and statistically can be near impossible to have several 'good' random mutations in a row, one after the other, after the other. As one of the example I was given by many books and of my professors: How many coin tosses will it require to produce 100 consecutive Heads? The answer is quite a large number.

Here's a quote from Gordon Rattray Taylor:
"........That these sequences of coordinated reactions - and there are literally thousands of them in the human body - should all have arisen by random mutations of single genes is in the highest degree unlikely......."


this is where things like sex and plasmid transfer help. It stops one from requiring sequential mutations, at least once the basics of respiration are up and running. Then of course there is the evolution of evolvability itself. In the long term, embryological processes which are open to novel changes are probably more likely to survive, since they will be able to tolerate a greater range of conditions. For example the mammalian embryology includes possibilities such as neoteny (humans are a great example of ape neoteny) and the loss of whale limbs.

[admiral_ju00]

this is where things like sex and plasmid transfer help. It stops one from requiring sequential mutations, at least once the basics of respiration are up and running. Then of course there is the evolution of evolvability itself. In the long term, embryological processes which are open to novel changes are probably more likely to survive, since they will be able to tolerate a greater range of conditions. For example the mammalian embryology includes possibilities such as neoteny (humans are a great example of ape neoteny) and the loss of whale limbs.


oh by the way, just between the 2 of us, way to go for keeping this as simple as possible, eh? rofl. :rolleyes:

[Radical Edward]

well I'm only a beginner at this biology lark... still you've given me a good idea for the mods forum. a glossary :)

[admiral_ju00]

what is your major?

[Radical Edward]

physics. but I am going to start an open university degree in biology soon (a distance learning thing one can do in the UK). Just got to scrape together the pennies.

[Skye]

Plasmids are pretty simple. Little circle of DNA that can be passed between single celled organisms. The often carry genes that help the organism, this is a problem if it's for say, penicillin resistance. They are very useful for genetics research though, since you can use them to put genes inside bacteria or yeast.

[Radical Edward]

what happens if you stick a plasmid in a eukaryotic cell?

[Skye]

A bacterial plasmid won't be transcribed because the promoter and iniation sites aren't recognised by eukaryotes. So it would eventually get broken down and used for something else. Yeast (a monocellular eukaryote) have naturally occurring plasmids, like the 2-micron plasmid. Plants sort of have naturally occurring plasmids, it occurs in a bacteria, Agrobacteria, which infects the plant cell, and the plasmid is transferred into the plant, integrates into the nucleus. It has a promoter the plant recognises, which leads to the expression of the it's genes. This causes a tumor to form, and the production of opines, which are food for the bacteria.

The other alternative is simply to build something like a plasmid with eukaryotic promoters and put it into a plant or animal cell. There are a few ways of getting it into the nucleus, for animals usually mixing the DNA with calcium phosphate, precipitating out the calcium phophate, and inside the crystals are some DNA. These will diffuse through cell membranes and carry the DNA into the nucleus. For plants, where the agrobacteria aren't effective (i.e. for monocots) the most fun idea is coating pellets with the DNA and firing it into the cell.

[Radical Edward]

interesting stuff. Is there no way that the engineered plasmids would work outside the nucleus? not that I can think of any advantage to this, I was just wondering about mtDNA and how that works. Could engineering these plasmids be a possible method of genetic engineering?

[Skye]

Mitochondria are similar in some ways to bacteria, they don't have introns/exons for example, so you would run into some problems.

[Radical Edward]

sorry, I'm not too sure what you are refferring to there. Mitochondria are more related to the archaea than bacteria though :) I forget the name of the scientist (a woman if I recall) who proposed that modern eukaryotes are colonies of archaea and primitive bacteria.

[Skye]

Lynn Margulis was the woman. As far as I remember, by sequence comparisons mitochondria seem closely related to the small parasitic bacteria. I think the nucleus, and maybe some other organelles, have alot in common with the archaea though.

Anyway I meant that the differences between mitochondrial protein synthesis and eukaryotic synthesis would make it difficult to use plasmids carrying eukaryotic genes. Not impossible I guess, but probably not worth the trouble. Mitochondria are membrane bound, and access is about as well controlled as the nucleus. And mitochondria aren't really protein synthesis powerhouses, they only have a couple of dozen genes I think. Probably most illustrative is that I don't think any viruses utilise mitochondria.

[lucaspa]

The other alternative is simply to build something like a plasmid with eukaryotic promoters and put it into a plant or animal cell. There are a few ways of getting it into the nucleus, for animals usually mixing the DNA with calcium phosphate, precipitating out the calcium phophate, and inside the crystals are some DNA. These will diffuse through cell membranes and carry the DNA into the nucleus. For plants, where the agrobacteria aren't effective (i.e. for monocots) the most fun idea is coating pellets with the DNA and firing it into the cell.
The most common method is electroporation.