Mutation

Is it true that biological mutations often enough form out of isolation?

Have you done a google science search?

That statement is not merely wrong, but in order for it to even have been expressed there is a whole lot more wrong.

So we’ll start with biology 101: mutations happen.

Period.

Type a long post, how many errors did you make? Minor typos, sure. Many of them were even spotted by you and corrected. But a few slip through. Usually the overall meaning you are trying to express isn’t seriously altered by those minor errors. But occasionally, the meaning is changed. Oftentimes for the worse, but occasionally for the better.

The process of natural selection weeds out the former while favoring the latter.

Given that information, reformulate your question.

The reason I ask is because the word mutant along with the word mutation defines that which isn’t common and for somthing to occur apart from the uncommon one would think it would have started from a isolative occurence.

Xunzian is right on this one.

Also, the word “mutation” simply means change or alteration, usually (but not always) in DNA sequencing patterns due to a biological or environmental stressor, or in some cases to genetic “typos” passed on accidentally. Mutation is a common occurrence, and drives evolution through the process of natural selection.

I’m guessing by “isolation”, he meant “from a singular occurrence”.

I took it to mean physical isolation… Galapogos islands type thing. Species gets stuck far away from its natural habitat and has to mutate to be able to survive in its new surroundings…? But not exactly the same.

Isolated areas tend to have either open niches, or niches which are not optimally occupied due to a lack of competition. That provides an opening for mutations to have a selective advantage when a new player is introduced.

But it works the same way if there is a major shift in the environment. Look at the Cambrian explosion. The accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere opened up a huge number of niches and life reacted quickly and creatively (if I may anthropomorphize) to fill them.

That’s a great example.

Can you describe singular occurence and it’s meaning?

That’s exactly what I was thinking. Does mutation occur more frequently in isolation?

That statement is not merely wrong, but in order for it to even have been expressed there is a whole lot more wrong.

So we’ll start with biology 101: mutations happen.

Period.

Type a long post, how many errors did you make? Minor typos, sure. Many of them were even spotted by you and corrected. But a few slip through. Usually the overall meaning you are trying to express isn’t seriously altered by those minor errors. But occasionally, the meaning is changed. Oftentimes for the worse, but occasionally for the better.

The process of natural selection weeds out the former while favoring the latter.

Given that information, reformulate your question.

Is it always a mistake?

In some mutated species the mutant has a higher ability to survive and tends to be more adaptable than the former.

Isn’t evolution where one organism overtime goes through a metamorphosis if it survives by mutating into another?

I suppose that is where I’m trying to go with this thread.

I was an atheist as a child before I knew how evolution worked.

But churro is right. Wiki evolution… I’m sure it’s kosher.

I know how evolution functions but there are many interpretations of evolution out there where some differ from the other.

Isn’t evolution filled with mutations?

like churro said, this isn’t the place, and like I said, google or wiki it, or both

This isn’t the place? :-k

aww, Churro… you’re so nice