/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2938767
Under your understanding of the term, no.

Amongst other places.

yes, even though it's just a theory (a geuss)

>>2938774
If the fetus sort of, learns, from within the womb of the mother, then surely, if the mother was living in an environment that required different needs, would the fetus 'learn' this and adapt differently, genetically?

>evolution
>inside an individual

i have no face and i must palm

>>2938794
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

>>2938804

>2011
>not knowing about bacteria living inside your body

>>2938817
>implying bacteria are part of an individual and not free-thinking individuals of their own
i need a face

so i can palm

>>2938794
The fetus adapts to stimuli, whatever they may be and as long as they aren't fatal. Hoewever, this adaptation is not evolution because the genetic code of the fetus does not change, while the holder of the genetic information does.

>>2938826
>implying bacteria have no evolution

here is a quick primer on evolution

evolution does not require mutation.


is your brother/sister different from you because they mutated?


are twins different because of mutations?
genetic variations that "evolve" differences from cellular to macroscopic are not mutations.


THIS is the source of evolution.
if all siblings were essentially just clones of one another, and mom and dads sperm/eggs were each identical to one another...


then yes, mutation would be a requisite of evolution.


because sperm and eggs slightly differ from one to another, and because the overall process of gestation and offspring growth/development are inherently chaotic processes (governed by extremely complicated, coupled, nonlinear differential equations at the macroscopic and microscopic levels)...


people end up looking, sounding, and thinking differently.

those differences have microscopic differences... more of one protein (even slightly more), thicker musculature, whatever.

the differences can be so miniscule and so diverse (eg: small difference applied throughout the entire body), that they cannot be tracked between 1 generation and another...


but those differences, multipled by 100 generations result in things like:


apes have thick hair all over their bodies... humans do not...

apes have thick frontal skulls, humans do not...

>>2938833
That's not what he is saying, or ever said. Stop being an asshat.

>>2938828
Got you, how dramatic can this 'adaptation' be?

>>2938767
Yeah, pretty much. It may be spurred on by something else but the changes are in the womb.

>>2938837
Please shut your face until you educate yourself in biology.

>>2938826
>bacteria
>thinking

>>2938833
>implying the genetic information of the foetal cells changes and also interpreting changes in unrelated individuals as evolution of the host body

oh wow i must be evolving all the time because some colon bacterium strain just became resistant to the shit you are spewing

>>2938840

What was he saying then?
Didn't you read his posts?

>>2938833
>implying evolution have no bacteria
>implying individuals evolve bacteria
>implying free-thinking evolution
>ohshitniggerwhatareyoudoing.exe

wow this is retarded, even for /sci/. Adaptation by means of external stimuli isn't evolution. At all. Ever.

>>2938847

>>2938854
He replied clearly to the proposition than an individual human does not "evolve". This is in no way a claim about the bacteria which inhabit the human body. They are unrelated for the purposes of his original claim, and the discussion at large.

aether is back!

Please get butthurt, you faggots.

>>2938847
this has made me want to fap to nicki minaj porn.

>8888

OP...the word you are looking for is EPIGENETICS..

Most kids even as an undergrad never will encounter this...academia doesn't want to confuse you so it just keep the emphasis on sexual selection

look it up....it is quite interesting

>>2938869

OP's question was about evolution inside the womb. The womb contains bacteria which of course take part in an evolution. This is one part of the ongoing discussion in this thread and is to be separated from the discussion about evolution in the ontogenesis of a human individual.

tl;dr: learn to read, faggot

>>2938888

someone answer this
>>2938842

How dramatic can the alteration be??

>>2938849


mutation is a process by which genetic information is lost or added.


alkylation, dimerization, and transferases do this (among other less widely taught examples).


the DNA of 2 twins (not identical twins, the other kind) is NOT identical.

indeed, identical twins do not share identical DNA (though simple gel electrophoresis is not sensitive enough to tell between them, but various chromatographic methods can show it).


siblings certainly carry different DNA.
this is NOT due to mutation.
mutations result in massive changes. Evolution does not depend on massive changes.


evolution BENEFITS from massive changes...


the aerobic catastrophe is an example where mutation was necessary for the continuation of species.


but the change from Homo Habilis to Homo Sapien Sapien was a gradual change that did not require mutation to affect.

>>2938897


epigenetics is a required class in the biochem BS program at the UC I attend.

Let's edit the wikipedia entry on evolution.

>>2938897
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

>Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[36][37]

>>2938905
Sorry, forgot to answer. Sometimes they can be subtle, like having a preference to spicy food at a young age, or the alterations could greatly deform them; there is a wide variety of alterations that can occur.

>>2938905
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

>talking about evolution
>a theory
>a geuss
>the answer is GOD

>>2938928
>spamming Larmackism
saged, hidden, reported

Yes it does. Evolution works in all stages of life from embryo to adolescence. Although it works much slower than outside the womb. Studying the embryo of an animal is probably the best way to determine it's true origin because it will keep "most" features of it's parent species.

I really cbf explaining how it works but;

There is always individual variance.

If any trait of an embryo leads to its successful birth (hence survival) it will be maintained. Those who have shit traits will die or what ever.

Embryo will also have to evolve slightly to reflect its constantly evolved adolescent state.

>>2938914
Thanks. So there is a sort of 'genetic-evolution' in the womb, but it's not dramatic enough to be epi-evolution, perhaps? Would this 'genetic-evolution' effect experience, attitude, behavior and so on? Would evolution then, or 'epi-evolution' for purposes of example, be completely dependent on the environment? Of course, if this wasn't just gibberish, the genetic + epic evolutions are synonymous, I would imagine, a kind of equilibrium.

Does my knife take place in Aether's arteries?

The answer is yes.

>>2938944
More tritely put, what we're talking about here is nature versus nurture I assume. I can say with certainty that there is no one single factor in the development of an individual; a slight change in the chemistry of the womb can be a natural stimuli for change while the genetic code of the individual determines how it changes. You could call it an equilibrium, but it's a bit more of a synergy or feedback system, where a change somewhere causes a change elsewhere which in turn changes the original change.

>>2938992
The discussion is evolution, not the effects of environment vs genetic on an individual's development. Evolution is AFAIK almost all genetic, and nothing else.

In the normal sense of the term, evolution does not occur in the womb, because after the fusion of the sperm and ovum, the genome of the embryo is set for life.

It is possible, but very unlikely, that one of the pluripotent cells in the early embryo could undergo spontaneous mutation and that mutated cell could then differentiate into the foetus' germ cells, thus allowing the mutation to pass on and evolution to occur. This would be the exception rather than the rule however.

Epigenetic changes are are not inherited, as they do not involve changes to nucleotide sequence, although there is some evidence that DNA methylation states are inherited.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (Conseil International de l'Exploration de la Mer (CIEM) in French) is the world’s oldest intergovernmental science organization. ICES is headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark, where its multinational Secretariat staff of 51 provide scientific, administrative and secretarial support to the ICES community. It was established on July 22, 1902 in Copenhagen.

>mfw we are all participating in evolution before conception to after brain death

your understanding of scientific terms is ludicrously underdeveloped, OP

sage

Better question

Could you say that every single species in the universe is in a hivemind with each other due to the fact that we ALL evolve to survive? SO not collective consciousness, but collective... unconsciousness? With every living thing in the universe?