Evolution question

Even losing saliva would be considered a _major_ mutation. And a deleterious one at that. Saliva plays a role in digestion.

As I said, we're all micro-mutants. And, of course, all DNA does is code for proteins. So a mutation would first be expressed as a different protein. Or maybe not. There's a certain amount of redundancy in the genetic code. A couple of different triplets can code for the same protein. That would be a difficult mutation to detect without a full genetic analysis of you AND your parents.
But can it occur _during_ your lifetime? No.

>all DNA does is code for proteins. So a mutation would first be expressed as a different protein
Have you even heard of gene switch?
Many of the visible mutations are caused by mutation in gene switches, not protein coding genes.

but if you expose yourself to mutagenic agents don't they fuck with the structure of the DNA causing to slightly change throught your lifetime until it accumulates too many erros in the chain to the point it causes cancer thus the cancer being considered a mutation

so its not possible to happen to me in my lifetime?

No, a great number of the cells in your salivary glands would each have to independently develop the mutation for not producing saliva. The odds of this happening, let alone the odds of this happening with no additional deleterious mutations is effectively 0. At best you could wait for DNA modifying technology to develop further and use it then.

Not by a change in your genetics. Your salivary glands _could_ fail. Disease or accident. Similarly, type 1 Diabetes is failure of the pancreas.

FPBP

Contrary to popular belief, your genetics do change quite a bit after you're born, even if certain cells tend to retain the original blueprint, they aren't exactly 'referenced', and certain conditions are indeed the result of such changes. Sadly, they are almost universally negative conditions. You, of course, also have rather extreme changes that are largely hormonal driven - your DNA designs cells that alter themselves according to those changes, but external factors dictate their nature quite a bit. As for salivary glands specifically, they can get infected or overdevelop or have their nutrients reduce and shrink, and the reasons for that may in no way be genetic, but environmental.

Similarly, DNA damage can lead to mutation, but almost universally said mutation is negative, and most of the time, comes in the form of cancer.

It's also entirely possible to suffer the sort of brain damage that radically changes your personality and performance abilities instantly (once in a blue moon for the better) - and of course, both will change over time naturally, similarly, for better or worse, but with better odds for the former.

DNA is just a very strong potential and drive towards a certain direction - the world the organism is in may have other plans. You are what you eat, etc.

...and then there's CRISPR. You can fundamentally change the DNA of an organism artificially, and those changes will slowly alter their organs in turn. Even at this stage, we can give color blind animals color vision (grow retinal cones in addition to rods), and in time, their brains adapt to use them. Those changes will be passed to their children.

That's very interesting, show some sources pls

Yes. Thats why you should have children AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE BEFORE TELOMERES SHORTEN REEEE

More important for women.

study molecular biology especially cell division

OK. Some genes build "structural proteins" to make hair and nails, blood and bone. Others cause concentration-gradients which determine where your fingers form and how long they get.
And the gene switches turn _other_ genes on and off at the right times. Slight changes in them (we're only 2% different from chimps insofar as the _number_ of genes goes) have major effects.

But one-gene-controlling-another must be through some "chemical messenger" intermediary. Wouldn't _those_ be proteins as well?

Interesting question. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

I don't have enough brainlet pics to post for you my man

Poodles have very curly fur.
Collies have straight hair.
Both came from wolves which differ considerably from current dogs in many ways.
The man/chimp common ancestor _had_ features of both; Front facing eyes, ability to walk on hind legs alone, reasonably dexterous hands, bone for bone correspondence, quite a bit of the same DNA.

The only difference is that the proto-dog (or something close) is still around and the proto-hominid is extinct.
If you're _genuinely_ confused (and not a brainlet or a wiseacre) learn something about evolution. "The Ancestor's Tale" (Richard Dawkins) or "Evolution, the whole story" (Steve Parker) are good, clearly explained, places to begin.

Christ in a hot pink bikini...so much failure. What the hell are you doing on /sci? Is the rest of your kindergarten class taking a nap?

>is it possible for evolution/mutation to happen to someone during their lifetime?
Yes, it's an idiotic question, since you clearly don't understand the relationship between evolution and mutation. Read a textbook and learn the basics - you're not going to gain any real understanding from a misguided question on /sci.

No, though your DNA changes a lot. Traits like saliva production are extremely complex. They don't change that easily, not for you or your great-great-grandchildren.

Well they change quite easily - just not normally due to genetic alteration.

You can lose something if you don't use it too much.
As I can see, you use your salivary glands to lick shit and suck dick, so your kids won't lose their salivary glands, if this is what you're asking.

*can't, dam kb

On a long enough lifespan, the natural replication of your cells would lead to mutation, yes. But these mutations are largely maladaptive and you'd probably just get cancer and die.

Is this copy pasta? I dont visit Veeky Forums often but I already remember similar or same post before.

Evolution acts on individuals but effects populations. For a trait to rise to fixation, there needs to be enough of a fitness benefits.
There exist HIV resistant alleles out there, but since medical treatment allows AIDS patients to live to a post reproductive age, it likely won't become wild type.

That reminds me...

newscientist.com/article/dn14658-universal-childhood-virus-is-inherited-in-dna/

So I suppose that a virus could infect you in such a way to alter DNA and the alteration could be heritable. I guess that's technically evolution, of a sort. ...and yeah, all the epigenetic stuff.

Yeah, epigenetics are definitely influential. Research on them have actually changed general perspective of Lamarck's theory of evolution since it seems epigenetic trait are heritable and sometimes formed through use and disuse

nigger

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

I can't think of any serious scientists in the field of biology (have their papers cited by other researchers, graduated from anywhere but Oral Roberts university) who don't believe in evolution. Everything we know about heredity, biology, and DNA backs it up.
The "antis" mostly have to handwave without explicitly citing religion because there just aren't any reasonable alternatives.

BTW: That's Charles Darwin, not Richard. You're probably confusing him in your mind with Dawkins.