If you tattoo every baby that is born in the entire world with a small dot on the hand never missing a single one. Would evoloution, over the years make it so all humans are born with a dot on their hand?
2006-11-14 18:32:29 · 16 answers · asked by choeft11 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
It would not be part of the genetic code and therefore would not involve evolution.
2006-11-14 18:36:00 · answer #1 · answered by knightofsappho 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, its impossible to say whether or not humans would eventually have a dot on their hand, but it is true that whether or not the dot exists it will have nothing to do with your having dotted everyone. This is the case for several reasons.
1. The tattoo never makes it into the genetic code. Since evolution works on the genetic level, and because a tatoo on the hand has no known way of affecting DNA in the ovaries and testes of people, this would be similar to expecting dogs to all grow collars eventually because we make every dog wear a collar.
2. Your problem is that you're tattooing everyone. If everyone in the gene pool has the same marking, then there's no reason for any one to live longer or shorter because of it. However, it might be interesting to imagine that you gave half the population a tattoo, and it did something wonderful for the wearer. For instance, only people with the tattoo could mate and have babies. Then anyone in the untattooed group that happened to have a genetically derrived mark on their hand might be able to fake having a tattoo and have babies. Then if any of these babies grow up to have the mark, they'll he able to have babies of their own. In this way it could come to pass that all people would have a tattoo-like mark on their hand.
2006-11-15 03:00:19 · answer #2 · answered by chipdoggy 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question.
Yes, it may. :)
Let's say children without dots on their hand (who are accidentally not marked) are thought of as monsters and killed. It becomes a tradition, and NO baby will ever miss dotting. So: over the years, all humans will be marked when they are born - practically they will be born with it.
This would be a form of evolution, albeit not biological. Our race doesn't seem to be affected by biological evolution nowadays, but cultural, sociological selection processes still work. :))
2006-11-15 04:31:56 · answer #3 · answered by Krumplee 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, in order for something physical to be passed from generation to generation, it must be genetically coded for. Thats why if a mother looses a finger, her children are still born with all 5 fingers.
2006-11-15 02:54:57 · answer #4 · answered by cero143_326 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Among the evolutionary theories from "back in the day" which are false:
Inheritance of acquired characteristics
Use and disuse
Your quest falls into the inheritance of acquired characteristics category.
2006-11-15 08:50:36 · answer #5 · answered by John V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really hope that you aren't asking this in all seriousness; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and won't insult you with an answer.
2006-11-15 02:36:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the tattoo is not a genetic aberration, thus there is no information to pass on from generation to generation.
2006-11-15 02:41:49 · answer #7 · answered by jbgot2bfree 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no. tatoos change somatic cells (regular cells in your body)...for a mutation to be added to all the following generations, the change would have to get into the germ cells (sperm and eggs).
2006-11-15 03:16:38 · answer #8 · answered by Joey H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes,but only if this is an evolution signal instilled in the embryo threw reaction to the ink.
2006-11-15 03:55:32 · answer #9 · answered by stratoframe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. It is outside of our genetic code and would not be hereditary.
2006-11-15 02:45:10 · answer #10 · answered by pscassidy100 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋