Evolution: Change, Mutations, and Leaps

 

     Organisms change. They may be living or a business but they do change. The word "evolution" has a rocky history and is certainly not approved by all people. But I don't know of a better word which encapsulates the process of continuous change to fit the environment. So, evolution it is.

     Since the period of time that Charles Darwin took his journey in the Beagle and Gregor Mendel worked with his peas (and others unrecognized before, and after, them), people have noticed that things change. Not just geological change with volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, and other changes to the earth -- but changes to life. Moths change color to adapt to pollution in the air. Birds change their migration paths due to changes in the Gulf Stream current or whether El Niño is in effect. Foxes start having white fur when their range is pushed up into colder, snowier, territories.

     Changes in life take place at the genetic level. With the Human Genome Project, CRISPR, and other continued understanding, and manipulation, of the genetic code, exploring the mysteries gives us more answers. (Although, like almost every other area of knowledge, each answer generates multiple new questions.) One thing that has been found is that the genetic code has duplications, or redundancies, that appear to each facilitate the same growth process (often protein creation). Another thing found is that there are dormant sections that don't appear to do anything. How both of those work, and why they exist, are part of the continuing set of new questions.

     We recognize change when it affects behavior, or appearance, or some other quality that we can notice. Before it reaches that stage there are probably changes to the genetic code that are NOT observable. The only thing we can really say about such changes is that they are not immediately fatal. If the changes were fatal, then they would not propagate to the next generations. Once these non-fatal changes accumulate to the point of being noticeable, then the next step of winnowing is how it affects survival in the environment.

     Note that human technology has changed, and continues to change, how this survival mechanism works. We have more people needing glasses, or other physical aids, because we now have the technology that allows people to use their other attributes and still survive with their challenges of birth. Being severely myopic in the 16th century while living in the forest was likely soon fatal. It isn't a big thing in modern society.

     Each change in the genetic code is an aspect of mutation -- having something appear which was not there before. We also have changes in the individual genetic pools due to haploid combinations -- receiving different genetic material from the female and from the male and combining the material.

     When changes accumulated to start showing blue eyes rather than brown, they were noticeable. But sometimes the changes are VERY noticeable and these are leaps -- or quantum jumps in evolution. The changes were proceeding under the surface but now they surface. Although it is rarely (if ever) as dramatic as those presented within the "X-Men", once noticeable it can be considered a small change or a large leap.

     As a parent of two children on the autistic spectrum, I have read a lot of the (often) contradictory information that exists. One thing that appears to be (often) true is a change in the neurological configuration of the brain. Some groups call this, and the behavioral challenges often associated with it, a "disease" but I don't look at it that way at all. It might be an evolutionary jump -- such as suggested in the books "Darwin's Radio" and "Darwin's Children" by Greg Bear. Certainly, advances pushed forward by people of history who are thought (perhaps erroneously) to be on the autistic spectrum lend weight to that theory. These are people such as Albert Einstein, Anthony Hopkins, Isaac Newton, and Nikola Tesla.

     As for business. Changes can be deliberately encouraged or the result of smaller changes under the surface. Just as in genetics, smaller changes (which are non-fatal) can accumulate until something very different shows up.

What's the fuss about GMOs?

There has been a lot of flurry about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the press and Internet. What is a GMO and what are the concerns about it? GMOs are actually the tail end of a sequence of food modifications -- the process is the least "natural" and the most uncertain as to long-term consequences. The series begins with natural hybridization, leads through human hybridization, and continues to GMOs.

• Natural hybridization. Plants and animals change over time. Through a process of "natural selection" and "spontaneous mutation", life changes to adapt to best survive in a particular environment. Sometimes this combination of processes is called "evolution". A "spontaneous mutation" isn't anything menacing or bad -- it just means that the "child" is significantly different from the "parent". If the change brings advantages then the "child" is more likely to survive. If the change brings disadvantages then the "child is less likely to survive. This is "natural selection" and it applies to all plants and animals.
  
  
• Human-directed hybridization. Plants and animals are naturally diverse. They have slightly different characteristics from each other. By choosing life that has attributes that are "desirable" to propagate to the next generation -- mixing and choosing -- new combinations of attributes will emerge within the offspring.
  
  The difference between this and natural hybridization is that the new attributes are not normally chosen based on the plant surviving without human intervention. In fact, the opposite is often true. Human hybridized life often requires ongoing human intervention. This may include more water than is naturally available within the region. It may require special weeding and chemical support. If left alone, without human support, it will often "revert" back to the varieties that best survive.
  
  
• A GMO takes this choice one (considerable) step further. The actual seeds, or eggs, are manipulated to add or remove genetic material from one form of life and integrated together. The goal is to make the genetic change inheritable from one generation to the next. One can look at it as "non-spontaneous" mutation. Desired attributes may include "better" flavor, easier transportation, longer lasting after harvest ("shelf life"), faster or greater growth, or greater production (more fruit or milk produced, for example).
  
  There is nothing specifically bad about this -- it is just hurrying nature along. However, many of these changes are highly unlikely to ever occur spontaneously. Some genetic material from animals may be added to plants or vice versa.
  
  The primary warning, or fear, from GMOs is that, by introducing life that would probably never occur naturally, there is little knowledge of what the long term interactions within the ecosystem, or between producers and consumers, will be. There may be little difference between the genetics of a nutritious plant and that of a slow-acting poison. Studies of new organisms rarely are long-term, checking effects through the generations.
  
  Another problem is that GMOs may be patented. The courts sometimes take a contrary view of this by applying existing patent logic. Existing patent logic is based on the idea that patented ideas/materials can spread only by being "taken" or specifically reproduced. Thus, plants that contain the patented genes have "stolen" the new material. While this follows existing patent logic it does not apply properly to living material that can naturally spread. It should be treated as "invasive" or an "infection" where the GMO is actually "attacking" the non-modified life. Patent law needs to be updated to existing realities.

GMOs are not inherently bad. They are inherently a change and changes take a while to determine benefits or risks. GMOs already are in wide use within human food. Some countries require GMOs to be labeled as such, feeling like the public should be aware they are part of a long-term study of effects. However, due to the widespread use of GMOs, food producers often fight against this notification. Specifically, corn is often a GMO plant and, in the U.S., corn syrup is used in many food products. Most food (including sweetened carbonated beverages) would need GMO labeling because the product includes GMOs.