How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

You are describing too different things. Tanning would be an example of developmental flexibility, though popularly referred to as adapting to the environment. It is not a genetic adaptation in response to selection. As you note with reference to albinism, the ability already exists in many people to do this. Evolution does not occur with the individual in an individuals lifespan. Tanning does not involve a change in genotype, as the genetic basis must already exist to some degree.

Adaptation referred to in evolution is genetic variation driven by selection. The change from dark pigmentation in our ancestors to lighter pigmentation in populations (that moved into colder climates, like that of Europe, is a genetic adaptation. Tanning is a flexible response by existing systems within existing people. It is slower than physiological versatility seen in octopus or flat fish species where pigmentation change is pretty quick.

The other response was evidently talking about the possibility of 'white' people living in a hot sunny climate where they produce more melatonin than if they were not living in a hot, sunny climate. It is of course, speculation, but that which embraces 'science,' such as the idea of more melatonin having a beneficial (?) effect on the subjects and then passed on to progeny by nature? "natural selection"? "survival of the fittest" via genetic alteration due to greater production of melatonin? Nooo I just don't think so. lol. Anyway, genetic passage by let's say, color change, does not equal evolution, as far as *I* am concerned. OK, now I'm going to have to learn more about species and (sigh) taxonomic categories. (sigh!!) darn. lol. But no matter, I still don't believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection -- and/or another concept -- survival of the fittest. In fact, I believe God has set limits. Yes, I'll try to do more reading and studying about the posits that scientists bring out.

 

[We Never Know]

You are describing two different things. Tanning would be an example of developmental flexibility, though popularly referred to as adapting to the environment. It is not a genetic adaptation in response to selection. As you note with reference to albinism, the ability already exists in many people to do this. Evolution does not occur with the individual in an individuals lifespan. Tanning does not involve a change in genotype, as the genetic basis must already exist to some degree.

Adaptation referred to in evolution is genetic variation driven by selection. The change from dark pigmentation in our ancestors to lighter pigmentation in populations that moved into colder climates, like that of Europe, is a genetic adaptation. Tanning is a flexible response by existing systems within existing people. It is slower than physiological versatility seen in octopus or flat fish species where pigmentation change is pretty quick.

How much so you think sun light damaging DNA has effected evolution?

"For the first time, scientists have measured the different types of genomic DNA changes that occur in skin cells, finding that mutations from ultraviolet (UV) light is especially common, but Black individuals have lower levels of UV damage compared to white people"


Even skin shielded from the sun accumulates genomic DNA changes from UV light: Study of skin cell mutations shows Black people have less damage from UV light than white people

 

[YoursTrue]

Macromutations like polycephaly are not usually the mutations we have been discussing here. They arise as the result of problems with developmental conditions and not from a change in genes. Though, it sounds like the tendency to this may have a genetic basis.

What that has to do with the evolution of macromolecules and DNA I have no idea.

Because it is all involved.

I have seen frogs with macromutations expressed as multiple legs and one instance of a toad with it eyes positioned inside its mouth. Functional eyes, but useless when its mouth was closed. They don't lend themselves to being very advantageous and often limit or end the lives of those with them.
I hope and pray that God will allow us to continue to use science to learn and help others including those that suffer from limiting and deleterious macromutations.

Mankind has learned much from observing. And I feel there is no doubt we as a human race will continue learning. But applying what we learn is another story, isn't it? (I also feel that cars, for example, even though I have one and use motor vehicles, are destructive to the atmosphere.)
Just so you know though, upon consideration, I have determined that everlasting life in a perfect world will not come about by man's inventions or discoveries, but by God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The other response was evidently talking about the possibility of 'white' people living in a hot sunny climate where they produce more melatonin than if they were not living in a hot, sunny climate. It is of course, speculation, but that which embraces 'science,' such as the idea of more melatonin having a beneficial (?) effect on the subjects and then passed on to progeny by nature? "natural selection"? "survival of the fittest" via genetic alteration due to greater production of melatonin? Nooo I just don't think so. lol. Anyway, genetic passage by let's say, color change, does not equal evolution, as far as *I* am concerned. OK, now I'm going to have to learn more about species and (sigh) taxonomic categories. (sigh!!) darn. lol. But no matter, I still don't believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection -- and/or another concept -- survival of the fittest. In fact, I believe God has set limits. Yes, I'll try to do more reading and studying about the posits that scientists bring out.

How is it that you accept the existence of genetics that produces albinism, but find that genetic change is barred from a population over time? I see no sense in holding that conclusion. One of the more frequent genetic adaptations (evolution) to life entirely in caves is the loss or highly reduced pigmentation, since energy required to maintain pigmentation is wasted in that environment. Mutations that result in reduced pigmentation are selected for in that environment.

Do you really mean melatonin or is this an error where melanin is what you mean?

Hedging your bets I see. If pigmentation is genetic, and it is, then change in a populations pigmentation still can't be evolution for unspecified reasons I do note.

Pigmentation has a genetic basis. That mutations exist is even recognized by you with your reference to albinism. The ability to tan has a genetic basis, though the actual tanning does not indicate a genetic change.

 

[YoursTrue]

How much so you think sun light damaging DNA has effected evolution?


"For the first time, scientists have measured the different types of genomic DNA changes that occur in skin cells, finding that mutations from ultraviolet (UV) light is especially common, but Black individuals have lower levels of UV damage compared to white people"


Even skin shielded from the sun accumulates genomic DNA changes from UV light: Study of skin cell mutations shows Black people have less damage from UV light than white people

No. The point I was making when quoting that article is that it was that author's idea about the possibility of skin coloration and evolution. So taking a step further, skin color of gorillas and their hair -- again -- I don't see how a "Common Ancestor" evolved to gorillas, bonobos, etc. and of course, what is called homo erectus. Nope, not at all. I don't care how much a gorilla's face may resemble a human face, and a bird's face does not. With all that in mind, I guess it's time for me to say good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

How is it that you accept the existence of genetics that produces albinism, but find that genetic change is barred from a population over time? I see no sense in holding that conclusion. One of the more frequent genetic adaptations (evolution) to life entirely in caves is the loss or highly reduced pigmentation, since energy required to maintain pigmentation is wasted in that environment. Mutations that result in reduced pigmentation are selected for in that environment.

Do you really mean melatonin or is this an error where melanin is what you mean?

Hedging your bets I see. If pigmentation is genetic, and it is, then change in a populations pigmentation still can't be evolution for unspecified reasons I do note.

Pigmentation has a genetic basis. That mutations exist is even recognized by you with your reference to albinism. The ability to tan has a genetic basis, though the actual tanning does not indicate a genetic change.

Ah, I said goodnight but your first question caught me. Because -- humans stay humans so far -- and birds stay birds. And fish stay fish. And snakes stay snakes. Cars stay cars. OK -- goodnight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How much so you think sun light damaging DNA has effected evolution?

"For the first time, scientists have measured the different types of genomic DNA changes that occur in skin cells, finding that mutations from ultraviolet (UV) light is especially common, but Black individuals have lower levels of UV damage compared to white people"


Even skin shielded from the sun accumulates genomic DNA changes from UV light: Study of skin cell mutations shows Black people have less damage from UV light than white people

Skin damage would only be a problem when it came to cancer. Your testes are behind a wall of flesh and are also going to be "in the shade" quite a bit of the time. I doubt if the DNA in the sperm would get too much in the way of mutations. Skin mutations are not passed on to offspring. Only mutations in one's gametes are passed on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it is all involved.

Mankind has learned much from observing. And I feel there is no doubt we as a human race will continue learning. But applying what we learn is another story, isn't it? (I also feel that cars, for example, even though I have one and use motor vehicles, are destructive to the atmosphere.)
Just so you know though, upon consideration, I have determined that everlasting life in a perfect world will not come about by man's inventions or discoveries, but by God.

We are not talking about religious views here, but on explanations for the natural world based on established and valid principles, logic, reason and evidence. I cannot test my beliefs to demonstrate them to others anymore than you can. But we can all look at evidence, theories and the internal and external logic applied to them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, I said goodnight but your first question caught me. Because -- humans stay humans so far -- and birds stay birds. And fish stay fish. And snakes stay snakes. Cars stay cars. OK -- goodnight.

No one is or has contended that humans, fish, snakes or birds will suddenly change into completely different creatures. As has been explained many times, that is not a claim, prediction or explanation from the theory of evolution.

Lots of cars have been melted down and turned into different items from their base materials.

 

[We Never Know]

Skin damage would only be a problem when it came to cancer. Your testes are behind a wall of flesh and are also going to be "in the shade" quite a bit of the time. I doubt if the DNA in the sperm would get too much in the way of mutations. Skin mutations are not passed on to offspring. Only mutations in one's gametes are passed on.

"In some cases, however, skin cancers are hereditary and an increased risk of developing the disease can be passed from parent to child. It is estimated that roughly five to ten percent of melanoma cases are hereditary and caused by a pathogenic gene variant, or change in a gene sequence"

Is Skin Cancer Hereditary? | Kailos Genetics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"In some cases, however, skin cancers are hereditary and an increased risk of developing the disease can be passed from parent to child. It is estimated that roughly five to ten percent of melanoma cases are hereditary and caused by a pathogenic gene variant, or change in a gene sequence"

Is Skin Cancer Hereditary? | Kailos Genetics.

That appears to be the case, but once again, the mutation that started that would have occurred in the gametes, whether male or female. It would not have gone from the skin to the offspring.

 

[We Never Know]

That appears to be the case, but once again, the mutation that started that would have occurred in the gametes, whether male or female. It would not have gone from the skin to the offspring.

Which is why I said "sun light damaging DNA"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is why I said "sun light damaging DNA"

But sunlight is not going to get that deep. Almost every single cell in your body has DNA in it. I don't think blood cells do. Might be wrong. The article is taking about the DNA in the skin getting damaged. UV penetrates about 4 to 5 millimeters. Our reproductive organs are in a lot deeper than that:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Light-penetration-into-skin-illustrating-the-depth-to-which-wavelengths-penetrate-human_fig1_319652066#:~:text=Red light is extinguished some,1 mm into tissue [8]&text=Penetration depth of ultraviolet, visible,not previously been adequately measured.

Trust me, they are talking about the DNA in skin cells. If enough of the DNA in skin cells is damaged skin cancer can be a common result.

EDIT: I forgot a decimal point. It is even worse for your claim. UV penetrates only 0.4- 0.5 mm.

 

[We Never Know]

But sunlight is not going to get that deep. Almost every single cell in your body has DNA in it. I don't think blood cells do. Might be wrong. The article is taking about the DNA in the skin getting damaged. UV penetrates about 4 to 5 millimeters. Our reproductive organs are in a lot deeper than that:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Light-penetration-into-skin-illustrating-the-depth-to-which-wavelengths-penetrate-human_fig1_319652066#:~:text=Red light is extinguished some,1 mm into tissue [8]&text=Penetration depth of ultraviolet, visible,not previously been adequately measured.

Trust me, they are talking about the DNA in skin cells. If enough of the DNA in skin cells is damaged skin cancer can be a common result.

And can be/is hereditary

 

[Subduction Zone]

And can be/is hereditary

Yes, but that is not from the sunlight. You are conflating two different causes of cancer. The change in DNA that is inherited did not come from sunlight.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, but that is not from the sunlight. You are conflating two different causes of cancer. The change in DNA that is inherited did not come from sunlight.

Thats not I understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats not I understand it.

You misunderstood your article. Some melanomas come from the Sun. Some can be hereitatry:

In some cases, however, skin cancers are hereditary and an increased risk of developing the disease can be passed from parent to child. It is estimated that roughly five to ten percent of melanoma cases are hereditary and caused by a pathogenic gene variant, or change in a gene sequence.1 Several hereditary syndromes are also associated with the development of nonmelanoma skin cancers.2

There is nothing there about the Sun causing the initial mutation. There is no reason to think that the Sun caused that particular mutation. You are conflating two different types of mutations. Skin is a somatic cell. It sill has DNA. Damage the DNA in the skin and you can get melanoma. That is a sun generated melanoma. The other kind of melanoma is hereditary. That is not from the Sun. Once again, the article that I linked showed that it only penetrates 0.5 mm. That is literally skin deep. The cells that hold the gametes are far far deeper than that. Mutations do not travel cell to cell.

 

[We Never Know]

You misunderstood your article. Some melanomas come from the Sun. Some can be hereitatry:

In some cases, however, skin cancers are hereditary and an increased risk of developing the disease can be passed from parent to child. It is estimated that roughly five to ten percent of melanoma cases are hereditary and caused by a pathogenic gene variant, or change in a gene sequence.1 Several hereditary syndromes are also associated with the development of nonmelanoma skin cancers.2

There is nothing there about the Sun causing the initial mutation. There is no reason to think that the Sun caused that particular mutation. You are conflating two different types of mutations. Skin is a somatic cell. It sill has DNA. Damage the DNA in the skin and you can get melanoma. That is a sun generated melanoma. The other kind of melanoma is hereditary. That is not from the Sun. Once again, the article that I linked showed that it only penetrates 0.5 mm. That is literally skin deep. The cells that hold the gametes are far far deeper than that. Mutations do not travel cell to cell.

Hereditary Disorders with Defective Repair of UV-Induced DNA Damage

 

[sun rise]

How do we know or not whether a species is new to us or new to the world?

In spite of, sigh, a serious digression, the question is interesting because we keep discovering new species at a reasonable rate but presume they've been around for quite some time.

Another point is inbreeding. A species is contrasted with another species because they can't produce fully viable offspring. And that takes geological time to happen. We do have cases such as mules where offspring can be produced but they can't in turn have offspring.

The vast majority of your DNA is "junk" DNA. More properly known as noncoding DNA.

But noncoding DNA still serves purposes so mutations in those areas could have negative (or positive) consequences. What is noncoding DNA?: MedlinePlus Genetics

 

[Subduction Zone]

In spite of, sigh, a serious digression, the question is interesting because we keep discovering new species at a reasonable rate but presume they've been around for quite some time.

Another point is inbreeding. A species is contrasted with another species because they can't produce fully viable offspring. And that takes geological time to happen. We do have cases such as mules where offspring can be produced but they can't in turn have offspring.



But noncoding DNA still serves purposes so mutations in those areas could have negative (or positive) consequences. What is noncoding DNA?: MedlinePlus Genetics

Yes, perhaps 10% of noncoding DNA has some sort of function. But it is pretty much just a repository of change. Do you know what is probably the source for most noncoding DNA?