the_red_scimitar
the_red_scimitar t1_irnxnfn wrote
Reply to comment by Shadpool in What lifeform has the shortest genetic sequence? by teafuck
I think one could say all of those things match the changes in habitats themselves, which are constantly evolving changing etc. As for adaptation, if you mean mutations and changes that make something more compatible in its environment, then we're exiting the field of evolution, since there is no purpose for it. Organisms don't change in order to survive better. They simply change, and sometimes, those changes result in an organism that is better able to reproduce and produce viable offspring - or at least not worse at it than organisms without that change.. Adaptation is a anthropomorphized interpretation of a completely non-human-centric phenomenon.
the_red_scimitar t1_irny5bj wrote
Reply to comment by Ksradrik in What lifeform has the shortest genetic sequence? by teafuck
Well, unfortunately that approach, without limits, could disqualify bacteria, viruses, and everything made out of cells of any kind, because every cell is actually changing, growing, and making whatever affects it has on its surroundings, due to other structures inside of them, and some of these are genetically produced by DNA that was acquired, often through a viral infection. What you have in organelles is basically functional units. And I'm sure those functional units, at least in some cases, have other functional units which are responsible for any effect they have. So where does it end? Atomic phenomena? Quantum phenomena? Where's the prime mover here.