|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I never said anything like "a rare allele hung around for thousands of years." Rare COMBINATIONS is what I'm talking about, and since there should be millions of possible combinations of traits from just about any genome -- except the severely genetically depleted ones -- you should certainly be able to get rare ones.
However, there is such a thing as an allele being rare in a population but favored in a subpopulation and the example of the pocket mice is an example of that. Also the peppered moths. It's amazing that you all can maintain your faith in mutations which are not known to produce anything but
Really touching such a degree of faith. ABE: There ARE no "observed increases in genetic diversity." Sorry, that's some kind of illusion. /ABE Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I already showed how the odds against that render it basically impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh I showed it all right, showed all the impossible situations involved. Some people are blind of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess you didn't read my well reasoned detailed argument that SHOWS that mutation could not possibly have been the source of the allele for black pocket mice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, Tanypteryx. ONE mutation for black fur in a population absolutely devoid of that allele must
must show up just in time for when it's needed, against astronomical odds ABE: Must show up at one of the genes for fur color Must not be one of those "neutral" mutations that don't do anything at all /ABE must show up in a germ cell, against astronomical odds and that one germ cell has to somehow get selected for parenthood, against astronomical odds and the two black furred babies out of four that are born must somehow survive the predator that has kept the population light colored forever, against astronomical odds and survive to adulthood, against astronomical odds and then just in time venture onto the black lava which will protect them, against astronomical odds. There is no answer to this logic. So sorry you seem to have a problem understanding it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why should any particular mutation be expected, AZPaul? They ARE random "accidents" aren't they? Let alone one that turns out to be beneficial right when it's needed, at the very gene where it is needed, and it isn't a "neutral" mutation and so on and so forth. And if it DOES recur then that gives credence to my own theory of a recurring normal allele anyway.
It was Taq, not I, who claimed the population was devoid of this allele and that I had to be wrong that it was a normally recurring allele, because it's dominant. I figured and I still figure that it IS a normally recurring allele, but that most of the dark furred mousies that result from its occasional expression get eaten by the owl that likes them so much, because this occurs on the light colored sand among millions of his light-colored mousie brethren. Since it recurs from time to time, when the light mousies ventured onto the lava, its occasional appearance was selected, the light mousies all expired due to the owl's taste for them and the black mousies proliferated. Now on the lava field I would expect that the allele for the light mousie occurs rarely just as the allele for the black one does on the sand, the owl gets his light colored mousie meal there just as he gets his dark colored mousie meal on the sand. Taq however told me this couldn't be the case, that the black fur allele couldn't be a recurring allele because it's dominant; therefore it was a one-time mutation; to which I replied that the odds are simply astronomically against such an event. There are supposedly other indicators. I wonder if they also describe the rare light fur allele on the lava. So you are welcome to run your theory by Taq. I've given my own. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I missed this post and it IS very interesting. Many opportunities to get a dark mousie. Or a light one for that matter. Perhaps even other colors with that many opportunities unless those alleles no longer occur for some reason.
AND mutations are STILL accidents, most of them ARE neutral or deleterious, and didn't you say the light colored population is absolutely devoid of the dark allele, so that if the dark allele is dominant in all 80 genes you still have to wait around for it to occur at the right time in the right place kind of out of the blue as it were. Granted there are many more opportunities than were first presented, but this new information simply makes it a lot more likely that we're talking about normally occurring dominant "D" alleles scattered through the population and not mutations. ABE: You know what I'd also guess with that many genes for fur color? That there are many shades of fur possible, it isn't only dark and light. /ABE Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not sure what post you are answering but I'm interested in the point you are making and wish you'd make it more clearly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was actually making two points: 1.Australia's rabbits may not have descended from a tiny founder population, after all. This might explain why they don't seem to have experienced a genetic bottleneck. 2.Your original question here was regarding the phenotypic makeup of the Australian rabbit population, to which you never actually got an answer. We don't know the phenotypic makeup of the rabbit population, but there is some indication that there is some phenotypic diversity there. Thanks for the clarification. 1) would explain why their genetic diversity is so high, although I still don't understand the method that was used to assess it; and 2) is of course what I would expect so I hope it may eventually be confirmed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
most of them ARE neutral or deleterious
Don't emphasize the "are" when you don't actually know. Well, this is what I've gleaned from many online presumably science-based discussions of the information. THEY say this, I get it from THEM. The vast majority are neutral, many others are deleterious, but even if that weren't said it's clear from the fact that there are thousands of known genetic diseases. You can find lists of them online.
And the dark fur mutation is an excellent example of a deleterious mutation. It is clearly very deleterious and, being dominant, subject to strong selection pressure. That is why it is constantly stripped out of the populations. You give no hint why you regard this as a "deleterious" mutation, and how can it be if it does nothing damaging to the creature? And of course it's subject to strong selection pressure, as I've said a number of times. But you seem to be implying that it recurs when you say it is "constantly" stripped out of the population. There are sometimes hints that people here believe mutations do recur, on what basis I don't know, and nobody so far has defended the idea, and neither do you. But of course if they DO recur, then what's to distinguish them from alleles built into the genome of the population? What makes them "mutations" at all, or mistakes in the replication process?
That is, deleterious until there is a nearby dark lava field. Then suddenly it is extremely beneficial. That is not what the term "deleterious" normally means. I haven't heard the light moth described as "deleterious" in the environment of the soot covered tree trunks, nor the dark moth when the situation is reversed. That is not how the term is used.
normally occurring dominant "D" alleles scattered through the population and not mutations.
and by what magic did one of them appear on one lava field and a different one on another but not both on the same field? Why would magic be involved? Neither is more favorable than the other on a lava field, and it's a good thing for the mouse that there is more than one way a dark fur can come about. What's magic is the idea that a mutation, an accident, a mistake, remember, simply showed up on either lava field, at either gene. Since most mutations are neutral the odds are strongly against such an occurrence at all. You need an allele that changes the code from light to dark, not a neutral mutation that would change nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, Nosy, that is not how the terms are used. A neutral mutation is one that doesn't change what the allele would have done anyway. It's not related to the level of selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have not heard it used that way, and in any case in this discussion it's only being used in the sense I gave it. It confuses the issues to give it another meaning. The point I was making was that a neutral mutation would not produce an allele for dark fur in a light colored population, and most of the mutations are neutral in that sense, as I've learned from the experts here and on the internet. So let's not change the definition midstream.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can't just decide what the words mean after I've been using them in another sense. You even acknowledged I'm using it correctly but now you want to insist on another meaning I'm not using.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point is that I was using the word in a particular sense, which Tanypteryx agreed was correct in itself, so that of course one CAN come along and totally miss my point by using it in another sense but that would only serve to muddle things. If that is your aim, then of course go right ahead and create the great muddle you desire. I'll just go away, which is perhaps the whole point anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So there is always a change in the phenotype as a result of ANY mutation? That is certainly not what I've understood from many an encounter with the concepts, but if that is the case then I stand corrected.
ABE That is the only point that has mattered in how I've used the term. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024