Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
No, what happens is there is already genetic diversity and natural selection will take its course (assuming we leave out the four other variables for microevolution).
For viruses for example, lets assume that there are four different types of virus A: AA, AB, AC, and AD. Lets say there are 1,000 virus strains and 950 are AA, 20 are AB, 20 are AC, and 10 are AD. When we add an antibody to kill the virus, we find out that the type AB is already immune to the antibody. So after we add the antibody, the number of virus strains go down from 1,000 of 4 different kinds to 20 just AB making it seem like the virus is gone but then the AB virus will grow again and in a week or so we will have 950 AB viruses, 20 AA, 20, AE, and 10 AF. We add the antibody again but since AB is immune to it, 950 virus strains will remain and it will seem that the virus has mutated in response to the antibody when in reality, the conditions changed and the virus strains that were already immune to the antibody were the only ones that survived (microevolution).
Mutations are random, natural section is not.
|
Dude, you need to read a lot more about viruses and how they adapt and how we adapt to them.
Every flu you have can produce 1000 strains of itself just within you. Some can do it every time it reproduces in
each cell.
Antigen shift is what you are talking about and it happens all the time and we actually, and other species, adapt to it all the time.
There is not ONE recognized biologist that uses the term macro or micro evolution.
Evolution is evolution.
A mutation that is adopted by a species is natural selection.
There are many adaptations that are in response to threats, environmental, predatory, etc.... making that specific to DNA is a very odd way of looking at it, but I guess you could.