RE: Radiation Hormesis -- or not

["Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>]

Why would a genetic mutation favor a negative effect?  Because there are lots more ways to "do it wrong" than there are to "do it different but right".  Change as little as one peptide in insulin, for example, and you don't survive to breed without medical support.



To use your example, proto-primates which could grip better (within natural variation) could climb better, and therefore  could escape danger easier and survive to breed, and also had easier access to food (either pick-a-fruit or grab-a-bug) and therefore bred more frequently, more successfully and longer.  



As stated, the uniformity of the effect indicates the nature of the effect: a mutational effect, which changes random genes, would produce random phenotypes, not uniformly superior phenotypes.



Dave Neil  

B.A. Zoology, University of South Florida





-----Original Message-----

From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:17 PM

To: Neil, David M; Carl Speer; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: Radiation Hormesis -- or not





Why would a genetic mutation favor a negative effect? 

After all, evolution shows that genetic effects are

positive since they allow the organism to adapt. 

Primates did not get opposed thumbs by willing it to

happen.  It was genetics.



Again, my statement was that it should have been

checked to see if it was a genetic mutation by

following the growth pattern of the off-spring. 



<SNIP>

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/