Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 259 (771084)
10-19-2015 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
10-18-2015 10:11 AM


Re: Scientists Find More Evidence for Ear Evolution
So the confusion would appear to come from calling the common ancestors "reptiles" (as opposed to "reptile-like" or properly as "amniote") ... hence the usage of "non-mamalian amniote" above and in other discussions, something I will now be even more careful about.
I have a question. Why would it be that the fossil record never contains this common ancestor such as between humans and apes, or in this case between reptiles and mammals. I mean supposedly there were multiplied millions of years between each layer of fossils, you’d think that common ancestor would show up somewhere wouldn’t you? Not to mention of course that each of those layers oddly seem to contain exactly the same version of the creature instead of a range of transitionals. Why would that be if it’s all random what died in the layer and there must have been transitionals galore and ancestors galore all roaming around in the same time period or close enough in time to fall into a ditch and get fossilized in the near vicinity. Ya know? I mean why the PARTICULARITY of the fossil record, not to mention the long time gaps between when multiplied millions of creatures in various stages of evolution and various degrees of relatedness to the ones that got fossilized, must also have lived and died, but only these particular ones got preserved, each a particular species apparently, and the pattern is so, you know, the same, from one epoch to another up the strata. That is, we have a layer of a particular kind of sediment containing a particular kind of dead organisms, which is all that represents a particular time period of multiplied millions of years, followed by another layer of a particular kind of sediment containing another very particular kind of dead organisms, and so on up the strata. Ya know?
This divergent evolution of the ear is also good evidence of not using the same "design" over even when all the parts are there, readily available, and fully functional.
Sometimes y’all complain that the same design IS used, which supposedly shows that the Creator isn’t very creative; but here you seem to complain that He IS original. One way or another I guess you get to put yourselves above the God who made you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2015 10:11 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taq, posted 10-19-2015 8:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2015 10:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 259 (771094)
10-20-2015 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by herebedragons
10-19-2015 11:42 PM


Re: Some "intelligent" questions
Since you think thousands of plant species disproves my argument, you DON'T understand it, as I said, since all that would mean is great genetic diversity in plants. I gave that as my evidence you don't understand it; you don't need to accuse me of making it up so I can win the debate.
OK, thanks for confirming plant genetics work the same. But surely the huge numbers of species shows a huge amount of genetic diversity. And what about the polyploidy? Is that a common phenomenon in plants?
As I believe I said I have to assume that the overall genetic situation is similar enough that if I’m right then plants too will lose genetic diversity with each new population split,
Data please. Support these kinds of statements with data.
As I think I made very clear in that post, there is no data, there is only the logic of the argument. If the genetics works the same the processes should be the same and the results should be the same. The examples I gave are meant to illustrate the rule. If you object to them then give your reasoning. Neither of us has data on these things. As you said, there is no way to measure loss of genetic diversity. [I see by the end of your post that you think I was asking for some measure that is impossible, but that's not true. I've said I'd look for fixed loci in the last population of a series such as a ring species. Your charts supposedly do something of the sort, but I'm not exactly sure what they are counting or how sure the line of descent is in each case. Please do make that clear. (see my ABE at bottom)]
I believe I discovered a rule about how the processes of evolution work, the selective or subtractive processes. If that is the case it should apply across the board wherever those processes are operating.
That does not appear to be the case. I pointed out some examples where it doesn't appear to apply. So should it apply "across the board," or not?
I thought I answered all your examples as not affecting my argument. If you think I didn't please explain.
As I also said about dog breeding, the fact that fixed loci has been used as the indicator of a pure breed is my evidence for loss of genetic diversity. It's absolutely logical.
Please HBD, don't give me bright white charts which are hard to read. Please just explain the point you think they make. Explain the numbers in your own words please.
As for the claim that recent breeds have a higher number of alleles, that could reflect the change in breeding practices from the severe selection methods they used to practice to the more careful attention to keeping the genetic diversity high enough to protect the animals' health. (in any case the idea that the actual line of descent is known is questionable. See ABE at bottom)
I can't read either of your charts and your list doesn't help matters. Please don't leave it to me to figure out what the numbers mean. You need to put it ALL in your own words what you are illustrating.
Again, I made it very clear that your examples in the earlier post do not challenge my argument. They don't. Stop accusing me of things. {Since you or Percy may think I'm wrong to say you are accusing me, here's what you said: "Of course we don't understand it, because if we did we would certainly abandon the ToE in favor of your much more well thought out approach." No, I said how I know you don't understand and you are imputing something else to me here.}
Now if there's anything in this post you insist does challenge it please break it down in your own words.
Thank you.
ABE: I looked up Golden Retriever since on your chart it is said to have been bred from the Labrador, and that is not what Wikipedia says:
Consequently, the best water spaniels were crossed with the existing retrievers, resulting in the establishment of the breed today known as the Golden Retriever.[30] The Golden Retriever was first developed near Glen Affric in Scotland, at "Guisachan", the highland estate of Dudley Marjoribanks, 1st Baron Tweedmouth.[31] For many years, what breeds were originally crossed was disputed, but in 1952, the publication of Marjoribanks' breeding records from 1835 to 1890 dispelled the myth concerning the purchase of a whole troupe of Russian tracker sheepdogs from a visiting circus, instead it details a careful line-breeding program.[27] Commonly, the breed is said to have originated from the Russian tracker.[32]
...The original cross was of a yellow-coloured retriever, 'Nous', with a Tweed Water Spaniel female dog, 'Belle'.[34] The Tweed Water Spaniel is now extinct, but was then common in the border country. Marjoribanks had purchased Nous in 1865 from an unregistered litter of otherwise black wavy-coated retriever pups. In 1868, this cross produced a litter that included four pups; these four became the basis of a breeding program which included the Irish Setter, the sandy-coloured Bloodhound, the St. John's water dog of Newfoundland, and two more wavy-coated black retrievers. The bloodline was also inbred and selected for trueness to Marjoribanks' idea of the ultimate hunting dog.
If the chart got that wrong perhaps it got other things wrong too. If you breed different animals together you get a hybrid and the allele count should go up of course. Also the article suggests that the actual line of descent of many breeds is not known.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by herebedragons, posted 10-19-2015 11:42 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 10-20-2015 9:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 191 by Admin, posted 10-20-2015 1:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 180 of 259 (771099)
10-20-2015 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
10-19-2015 4:54 PM


Re: Adding alleles prevents evolution from occurring
It's exactly the same situation as having your golden retriever puppy show up mottled gray or your Freisian colt chocolate brown. They violate the breed and can't be sold.
To give a more detailed reply to this nonsense.
Firstly there is no way of "violating the breed". As I pointed out long ago, species are not artificially selected breeds.
Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm using the breeding situation as an example of the principle involved. Just as you wouldn't maintain your breed if you allowed alien alleles into it, nature wouldn't be producing the neat clearcut examples of species that it in fact does. You know, lions that ALL look amazingly just like lions and so on.
There is no set of required or forbidden traits, only those which the species actually has or does not have. And if a new trait should arise within the species, then the species includes that trait as one of the many variations.
Yeah, if, but in fact it doesn't happen much if at all and if it happened to any appreciable extent it WOULD change the look of a species. Let's not quibble over small degrees of change, just as in breeding you don't want to violate the breed, nature seems to be conservative about hoiding on to her "breeds" too.
Species are not homogenous because they are breeds. Breeds are artificially maintained. Dogs are a "hotch-potch" only by human efforts to create and maintain that state. Given the opportunity to interbreed the distinctive breeds would be lost. That is what real species are like.
Doesn't really seem to be the case though, does it? We force the mating of lions and tigers to get "ligers," but in nature it doesn't happen.
In truth species are not always homogenous.
Seems pretty safe to say the vast majority are.
Consider the peppered moth. The dark form is obviously distinct from the white, but both are the same species. Or another example, the yellow wagtail has a number of distinct variants, which freely interbreed.
Yes and you can add the light and dark pocket mice. But I think at least the moths and the mice are a special situation where there is strong selective pressure. I don't know anything about the wagtail bird.
And, of course, mutations need not be obvious at all. The genes governing the immune system display a lot of variation - as you may remember there are many distinct alleles in humans - many more than the maximum of four allowed by your Biblical literalism. Yet they are not at all visible to visual inspection.
Yes, that has to entail some legit form of mutation, but the vast majority of mutations that occur aren't in sex cells anyway, and most are not beneficial either so why keep talking about them as if there was some sort of equation mutation=allele? You don't know that, you aren't offering evidence either, you are just stating the party line as usual.
So, no. it is not even true that all mutations would be rejected by breeders - even breeds have some variations and species have more.
Modern breeders aren't as picky as oldtime breeders were. But most of what are called mutations aren't mutations, they're just rare alleles getting expressed, and most mutations aren't desirable anyway so again, what's with this mutation=allele equation?
But it wouldn't matter if breeders would reject every single one. Species are not artificially defined breeds - they are what they are and if that conflicts with any human ideas of what they "should" be then it is the human ideas that are wrong. The whole idea of "violating the breed" is simply not applicable and to say otherwise is a major error.
Oh just make some kind of simple effort to get what I mean instead of blasting away with your silly straw man exaggeration. I meant what I said above: species in the wild DO appear to maintain homogeneity. That's how we know a lion from a kittycat.
BUT GO BACK TO THE TITLE OF THIS POST: If you add a bunch of mutations after a species has formed you WILL lose the species. If you add as much as you all WANT to add for fear I'm right that otherwise it's the end of evolution, then you WILL destroy any species that has formed. Please get these things in CONTEXT.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 10-19-2015 4:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2015 3:50 AM Faith has replied
 Message 188 by Pressie, posted 10-20-2015 8:17 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2015 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 182 of 259 (771104)
10-20-2015 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
10-20-2015 3:50 AM


Re: Adding alleles prevents evolution from occurring
The same way that wolves ALL look amazingly like wolves, despite having the genetic variation to produce so many different breeds of dog. Seriously Faith, the homogeneity of species is not due to the same lack of variation found in breeds of dog.
True, not always, and you are right about wolves. But at the point where a species has just formed or been forming you would not get homogeneity, you'd get scattered phenotypes from the introduction of enough mutations to correct the loss of genetic diversity which is what you are of course trying to do.
I'll have to come back to the rest of this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2015 3:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2015 4:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 192 by Admin, posted 10-20-2015 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 184 of 259 (771106)
10-20-2015 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by PaulK
10-20-2015 4:08 AM


Re: Adding alleles prevents evolution from occurring
And your "scattered phenotypes" assertion is still wrong for the reasons I have already given.
I've been told I'm not allowed to say I've already answered something so you need to give those reasons again.
But I've probably answered them anyway, since it just has to be the case that when you have a homogeneous species and start getting gene flow of any kind into that species, whether from mutations or something else, you are at first going to get scattered new phenotypes. Why you would argue with that is beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2015 4:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2015 5:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 259 (771175)
10-21-2015 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by herebedragons
10-20-2015 9:03 AM


Your "falsifications" are falsified
Since you think thousands of plant species disproves my argument, you DON'T understand it, as I said, since all that would mean is great genetic diversity in plants.
But that's assuming the conclusion, Faith. I pointed this out previously.
It is NOT assuming the conclusion for pete’s sake, it’s merely stating that it does not contradict my argument as you seem to think it does. Good grief man.
The chart shows a trend of increasing heterozygosity and % of the total number of alleles as the breeds become more recent. If the "rule" was that breeds LOSE genetic variability the trend line should be decreasing. Newer breeds should, on average, have less heterozygosity than older breeds.
The chart shows breeds according to WHEN THEY WERE REGISTERED AS BREEDS. Genetically that means absolutely nothing and it’s hard to fathom why anyone would even do such a study or think you could find out anything about the genetics of the breeds from it. I’ve read up on all those you chose from the chart to prove me wrong and I’ll put that information at the bottom.
As for the claim that recent breeds have a higher number of alleles,
That is not a "claim," it is what the data shows.
Not if the breeds are listed according to when they were registered and not when they were developed
that could reflect the change in breeding practices from the severe selection methods they used to practice to the more careful attention to keeping the genetic diversity high enough to protect the animals' health.
Even so, the diversity is not just remaining high, but increasing. You claim breeding REDUCES genetic diversity.
Those dogs aren't even related to each other so that supposed increase in genetic diversity has nothing to do with my argument.
Also I don’t claim CROSS BREEDING reduces genetic diversity and some of those breeds were formed by cross breeding. I’m only talking about SELECTIVE* BREEDING, where you only breed from one line for a particular trait. You may start with cross breeds but if selective breeding doesn't then take over it has nothing to do with my argument.
In the end that chart is such a hodgepodge of unrelated things the supposed increase in genetic diversity is just incomprehensible. The whole study is so bizarre how can any of it be trusted? The recent ones are not recently BRED, just recently registered, and unless you study each one individually there is no way to know if cross breeding or selective breeding was involved.
I looked up Golden Retriever since on your chart it is said to have been bred from the Labrador,
I should have changed the Lab example like I did the others because "bred from" is not exactly the correct term I should have used. The Labrador was developed earlier and the Golden was developed later (in the same line of descent).
Not according to the Wikipedia article it’s not the same line of descent. If you want to disprove my argument you have to use examples that I’m talking about and for that a dog would indeed have to be bred from a previous dog BY SELECTIVE BREEDING ALONE, that is by selecting from the earlier breed the desired traits and mating only within the breed that possesses those traits.
Did you even read the quote from Wikipedia?
Marjoribanks had purchased Nous in 1865 from an unregistered litter of otherwise black wavy-coated retriever pups.
Yes I did and I quoted the part about how the Golden Retriever was the result of a CROSS (see Message 179), and the Labrador is nowhere even in the line of descent, it isn’t even mentioned. But again only SELECTIVE breeding is what I’m talking about. Cross breeding ADDS ALLELES, it’s a completely different form of breeding. My whole focus is on what happens genetically due to SELECTION AND ISOLATION. I specifically mention hybrids from time to time to say that’s NOT what I’m talking about.
If the chart got that wrong perhaps it got other things wrong too. If you breed different animals together you get a hybrid and the allele count should go up of course. Also the article suggests that the actual line of descent of many breeds is not known.
Breeding is clearly not a straightforward process and does not produce true tree-like branching. A true breeding phylogeny would be a network consisting of hybrids all over the place. This tree shows mitochondrial DNA inheritance I believe, would show maternal descent. The Wikipedia article does say that the Golden retriever was descended from the a retriever and then hybridized with another breed.
Which means it can’t possibly disprove my argument. SELECTIVE breeding is what I’m always talking about. You have to have breeds that were developed that way, where you know the beginning of the selection process and can trace the genetic diversity from there.
There are lots of retrievers, you can’t assume the Labrador was even in the mix, especially when you go to the article about the Labrador: Labrador Retriever and find that it was bred from the St. John’s water dog in Newfoundland, whereas the Golden Retriever was bred in Scotland as a cross between a water spaniel and a retriever. Reading about the St. John’s water dog, I find that it was the direct source of the Labrador, and that it was exported to England where it was bred with other dogs to get their retrievers. This is later than the Golden Retriever according to the other article, but it is said in this article to be descended from the St. John’s. So the Lab and the Golden are related but are not in a direct line. To prove anything about my argument they would have to be in a direct line of descent by selective breeding only. That chart that arranges them by when they were registered as breeds says absolutely nothing about them genetically.
Besides, reading up a little on the history of the breeds in the retriever group (Newfoundland, Labrador, Golden, and Flat-coated) the chart seems fairly accurate to me. The interbreeding is definitely a lot more complicated that the tree shows, which as you say would introduce alleles into a breed and increase diversity.
But if that is how breeding works, you don't have a case anyway. Breeding isn't just simple population splits and subsequent reduction in diversity.
Depends on the breed but my argument is only about selective breeding. You lose genetic diversity with selective breeding. That’s all I’m ever talking about. It’s SELECTION that reduces genetic diversity.
The study I linked shows that diversity of dog breeds has increased over time, not decreased as you say it should have. I don't know what else to say about it.
Well you should have recognized that when a dog was registered says nothing about it genetically, and that brings the study itself into question. To say anything about my argument you’d have to have dogs in a direct line of descent. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the dogs on this chart. Why should more recently registered dogs have higher genetic diversity? The only reason I can think of is what I said earlier, that they may not have been as severely selectively bred as earlier breeds. However, so far it doesn’t look like the earlier breeds were particularly heavily selectively bred either so who knows? In any case that chart makes no sense.
Now I want to go back to your earlier post (Message 178) because I did do some reading up on the dogs you chose to prove me wrong, where you conclude: Awww Snap. It doesn't look good for the theory of genetic depletion.:
HBD writes:
So lets look at a couple of examples and compare their heterozygosity:
HBD writes:
Labrador retrievers earliest then Golden retrievers: Prediction: Labrador > Golden
Data: Golden - .657; Labrador - .641 Conclusion: Falsified
Your falsification is falsified above in this case where I show that the Golden is not descended from the Labrador.
HBD writes:
Pomeranian earliest then Papillon then Pug. Prediction: Pomeranian > Papillon > Pug
Data: Pomeranian - .705; Papillon - .698; Pug - .566 Conclusion: Supports
Even though it supports my argument I wanted to see if these animals are related according to your claim.
  • Pomeranian = Spitz type; Central Europe (No. Poland) ; toy dog, popular with Queen Victoria Origin working dogs from Arctic regions. Considered to be descended from the German Spitz. Written mentions in 1700s
  • Papillon =Toy SPANIEL (not Spitz} On your phylogenetic chart Spaniels and Spitzes aren’t related at all. Earliest in Italy paintings around 1500
  • Pug Brought from China to Europe in 16th century. Later popularity mentioned but nothing more about its ancestry. There doesn’t appear to be even a remote relatedness between the three.
Though you say this group "supports" my claim, it can't either support or falsify it because they aren't related to each other.
HBD writes:
Borzoi earliest then Greyhound. Prediction: Borzoi > Greyhound
Data: Borzoi - .605; Greyhound - .648 Conclusion: Falsified
  • Borzoi Ancient breeds from Afghan area 9th, 10th centuries. Later crossed with western sighthounds
  • Greyhound No mention of relatedness to Borzoi. "While similar in appearance to Saluki (Persian Greyhound) or Sloughi (tombs at Beni Hassan c. 2000 BCE), analyses of DNA reported in 2004 suggest that the Greyhound may not be closely related to these breeds, but is a close relative to herding dogs.[49][50] Historical literature on the first sighthound in Europe (Arrian), the vertragus, the probable antecedent of the Greyhound, suggests that the origin is with the ancient Celts from Eastern Europe or Eurasia."
Conclusion: Falsification is falsified. There is no relation between the two breeds.
HBD writes:
Pembroke corgi earliest then Border collie then Australian sheep dog. Prediction: Pembroke > Border collie > Ausi sheep
Data: Pembroke - .630; collie - .669; Ausi - .696 Conclusion: Falsified
  • Pembroke Welsh Corgi They descend from the line that is the northern spitz-type dog (examples include that of the Siberian Husky). Lineage has been traced back as far as 1107 AD. Pembroke Welsh Corgis are closely related to Schipperkes, Keeshonds, Pomeranians, Samoyeds, Chow Chows, Norwegian Elkhounds and Finnish Spitz But interestingly, NOT related to Border collie or Australian sheep dog.
  • Border collie developed in the Anglo-Scottish border region for herding livestock 19th cent.
  • Australian sheep dog Not Australian at all, bred in the western USA, early as 1800s. They have a similar look to the popular English Shepherd and Border Collie breeds. A similar LOOK, apparently not related. Some think it might have Basque ancestry.
Conclusion: Your falsification is falsified. There is no relation between the three breeds.
Sorry, I know it made you very happy to think you’d falsified my claims.
=======================
* SELECTIVE breeding comes up in this post quite a bit and since I've been asked to make it clear, at least I can give two references from the dog links above that may do that:
From the Pembroke Corgi link,
Both groups have worked hard to ensure the appearance and type of breed are standardized through careful selective breeding
From the Australian sheep dog link:
Selective breeding for many generations focused on aspects of the dog that enabled it to function as an effective stockdog in the American west. ...
While the Mini size can be attained through selective breeding of small Australian Shepherds, the Toy size is typically a result of cross breeding with other toy breeds.
From Wikipedia, Selective Breeding:
There are two approaches or types of artificial selection, or selective breeding. First is the traditional "breeder’s approach" in which the breeder or experimenter applies "a known amount of selection to a single phenotypic trait" by examining the chosen trait and choosing to breed only those that exhibit higher or "extreme values" of that trait.
The way I've been using the idea, it means traits either naturally selected or randomly selected from a population to form a new population. In breeding the drastic version of it is breeding only those individuals that possess the chosen traits from each generation. It subtracts those without the traits from the gene pool, which is the opposite of cross breeding, which adds to the gene pool a selected type expected to add desirable traits or enhance the existing traits.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 10-20-2015 9:03 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2015 3:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 210 by herebedragons, posted 10-25-2015 8:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 259 (771249)
10-22-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
10-22-2015 3:53 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
I do want to get back to earlier posts but I'm up to my ears in a really messy furniture moving project that has disrupted my whole computer area. Thanks to the internet guy who says I have to get to a phone jack I haven't seen in ten years because it's behind a heavy bookcase with a lot of stuff in front of it. I've made progress but it's going to take help at some point.
I knew you wanted to know all that.
But to answer your question,
The main problem is that I try not to be so flat-out certain at each stage. I'd more often say this CAN happen than that it WILL happen, because it depends on completely random events. It's more or less accurate with that proviso, I think (I'm too tired to know anything right now).
ALso I've never said, as far as I recall, that "the domination of the new type" drives alleles. From what I've read, very low-frequency alleles tend to drop out of a population eventually and I think that's all I've said.
Also want to answer your statement somewhere that I must have dropped my idea that extinction is what ends evolution. That has NEVER been the idea. I may have said that this trend is toward ultimate extinction but it's not inevitable, and it's the running out of genetic diversity that brings the evolutionary processes to an end. The organism could conceivably go on at that point for a long time without extinction, but also there are likely to be other populations of the same species in a healthier state anyway.
Also, this is from the other thread where I am suspended at the moment, could petition to be reinstated but really this is all I want to say: you answered one of my usual statements that I think random "selection" is more common than natural selection in forming adaptations, as if I'd said it's the only way it happens, but I've said that natural selection of the sort that changes the beak to suit the environment CAN happen, I don't deny it as a possibility, just that it's probably not as common as the other way around. Mostly because it's costly for the bird to change the beak, there are no guarantees a particular adaptation is even available to be selected in some cases so a change in the environment could simply be lethal.
I hope I've answered your questions.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2015 3:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 10:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 203 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 11:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 259 (771281)
10-23-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by RAZD
10-23-2015 10:20 AM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Just have to say this: No it is not "waffling" to use tentative words. There is no way to know how a new set of gene frequencies is going to play out, it depends on how different they are from the original population's, how large the founding population is and so on. The argument isn't tentative though, there's always a TREND to reduced genetic diversity, that may take more or less time to become apparent depending on those variables.
It's DSL, and the previous was DSL. Or so I thought. I don't understand why I have to get to the phone jack. He says I have to remove the white cord and stick it in the back of the new modem.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 10:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by JonF, posted 10-23-2015 1:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 1:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 204 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 12:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 259 (771285)
10-23-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
10-23-2015 1:58 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
I'm saying neither. I'm saying that X always causes Y but sometimes at an undetectable rate. That's why I tend to prefer extreme examples like low founding numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2015 1:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Admin, posted 10-24-2015 12:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2015 3:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 259 (771345)
10-24-2015 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
10-24-2015 3:22 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
So the CORE hypothesis(*) of your argument is that population divisions\splits have a tendency (trend) to have some loss of genetic diversity in the daughter population?
Is that not saying the same thing as the first statement I listed on Thread Name Not Available:
Every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.
Hard to know from the way you've worded it. "ALL the frequency of alleles" doesn't convey anything to me. There would be DIFFERENT frequencies of alleles just because the split was random. It's possible for all the alleles to be in all the populations but at different frequencies. It's even possible that the frequencies will be pretty much the same, for instance all of them having the greatest frequency of the same alleles, and all having roughly the same distribution of frequencies of the others down to the lowest. It's possible, not very probable with a random split but possible.
The loss of genetic diversity may not show up for a few generations in the daughter population either, although eventually it would.
Would you agree that theses statements follow from that initial CORE statement:
2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.
I'd say that's the probable situation, as above: different frequencies from each other.
THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.
In the founding generation? No, I figure they'll all look like the members of the parent population at that point. Their different frequencies of genotypes wouldn't produce new phenotypes that really APPEAR as phenotypes until after a few generations of recombination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2015 3:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2015 12:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 259 (771719)
10-28-2015 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by herebedragons
10-25-2015 8:38 PM


Re: Your "falsifications" are falsified
I'd like to try to answer this briefly if I can, hoping not to lose the sense of it, rather than taking it point by point. Maybe I'll have to do a second mop-up post to cover all the issues.
You are right that I've overemphasized selective breeding as the main method, and that cross breeding is just as common and that there are lots of byways involved in any breeding program. (At least with dogs. I think maybe with cattle and horses there may be more selective breeding, but that's a guess. The Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle remain good examples I think. Selection not of individuals but of small numbers from larger populations.)
However, it remains true that I have been speaking only of selective breeding as the cause of reduced genetic diversity. Yes you remind me that you did agree with this basic idea. I don't know how it got from there back to the usual messy debate, but maybe more from others who didn't agree with you than from your own posts.
This idea originally came from the Wikipedia page on Speciation where the isolation of a portion of a population is presented as the only path to Speciation. Many versions of it are given ("allopatric" etc) but still it's the same basic process of forming a daughter population on the way to Speciation. Loss of genetic diversity through that process is what I've been emphasizing although I don't think it's even mentioned on that page, as it normally isn't in any discussion of these things.
Speciation itself isn't my focus, but the way they depict getting to it certainly must require a reduction in genetic diversity, and that's what I took hold of. I've tried to be careful to differentiate it from all the other ways populations behave, from healthy stasis or stability to keeping up gene flow between them, to forming hybrid zones, even rejoining an earlier population, because all that ADDS genetic diversity and is in the opposite direction from Speciation. Again, speciation isn't my focus but is one logical outcome I'd expect from the formation of daughter populations and the necessary reduction of genetic diversity from one to another. They don't depict more than one population split on that page but I extended the idea to ring species where I think the processes are even clearer. Again making clear that the retention of gene flow and hybrid zones and all that are working in the opposite direction from what I'm trying to keep in mind.
Since you've agreed that genetic diversity is reduced by selection, then the question that is left is whether the additive processes such as cross breeding, hybridization etc., lead to speciation, or to evolution in a certain sense at all, any sense that could foster evolution from species to species which is what this is ultimately all about. I've been claiming they don't and I believe they don't but I'm going to have to try to make the case better eventually, if not in this post.
But that selective breeding reduces genetic diversity is NOT the whole of your argument is it? You have said that selective breeding is the ONLY way to create new breeds, species, varieties, or whatever. You have said that selective breeding is a DIRECT comparison to natural selection and therefore, evolution is wrong.
It's hard to believe I've been that totalistic about it since I'm certainly aware of cross breeding, and of migration and other additive genetic processes in nature. Selection IS my focus, but breeding is only one way of trying to make the point that selection reduces genetic diversity. Your charts have made it clear that selection isn't the dominant method I thought it was, but you are also wrong to claim that a mixture of cross breeding and selection could show that reduced genetic diversity doesn't occur as I've been claiming. It CAN'T occur if you include additive processes and I do think I've been very clear about that.
No, when breeds were developed and when they were registered does not correlate perfectly. But since breeds don't have a "made on" date attached to them and instead were developed over periods of time, registration seems to be a valid surrogate.
No. Not for establishing genetic relationships. Some of the earliest breeds to be registered had been in existence hundreds of years; even some of the later ones for that matter. As I found out when I read up on the ones you had chosen there is NO genetic relationship between them that could say anything about genetic diversity. The only remotely related group is the retrievers:
Also, a breed can only be registered when they have a suitable sized breeding population, so when a breed is actually "developed" is kinda vague, instead registration is when they were officially recognized as a breed.
So, the Labrador, the Golden retriever, Flat-coated retriever and Newfoundland all share a common ancestor.
Sharing a common ancestor would only be a fair response to my argument if the derivation was purely selective and without any cross breeding. But that is not the case.
The Newfoundland was derived from this ancestral stock first. The St. John's water dog (now extinct) was developed from the Newfoundland. The Labrador, Golden and Flat-coated all began from bedding stock that had it's beginnings in the St. John's water dog.
In what I read there is no mention of cross breeding in the development of the Labrador, implying that it was a direct descendant of the St. John's water dog. That could mean pure selection or it could involve cross breeding with other water dogs, but not with other breeds. For my point to be made requires only selection. The Golden retriever was a mix of the St. John's with that particular retriever in England. You cannot compare that genetically with the Labrador because they are not in the same path of descent despite having a common ancestor. They are cousins at best. Even if they had both been selectively developed directly from the St. John's without outbreeding of any kind, although they should have genetic diversity reduced from the St. John's, there would be no necessary relation between them as to genetic diversity.
Thus this cladogram matches reasonably well with what is known about the history of the retriever group.
But it says nothing about my argument about genetic diversity.
In your Message 178 where you first present the charts, it is at least very clear that the various breeds have fewer alleles than the total of all the breeds, which may be merely obvious, but it does demonstrate that when you split off a portion of the population you reduce the genetic diversity, which is after all the main thing I've been saying.
It was also of interest to determine if the number of alleles per breed differed relative to the totality of alleles observed in all breeds, ... The total number of alleles observed for all breeds and loci was 1,780. Within each breed, a range of 399 to 805 alleles per breed was found, with an overall average of 605 alleles (Table 1). The number of alleles per breed mirrored the level of heterozygosity (Figures 1 and 2). ...
So the overall number was 1780 and the breeds varied between 400 and 800. THIS should be broken down and studied among other things, if it's possible from those charts to find any actual genetic lines of descent that could be pursued for the purpose. The number of alleles is what we need to be looking for, but only where you know the line of descent and it's all selective. Even with cross breeding the numbers in that study show an obvious reduction from the parent population, whatever it was in each case.
And yes, of course it should mirror the level of heterozygosity. So far so good for my argument.
Of course, Figure 2 uses time since registration, not time since the breed split off from a parent breed. So let's look at this phylogeny of dog breeds.
There is no need to do that once I've presented the data from Wikipedia on each breed (in Message 194) showing the utter lack of genetic relatedness. If a Wikipedia article written presumably by people familiar with that particular breed doesn't have the exact genetic history, how can we be sure that phylogenetic chart has it all right? And again, any cross breeding undoes any claim to falsify loss of genetic diversity from any particular lineage. What I demonstrated is that there is no way to tell anything about genetic diversity from the given genetic information, but that your claim that you've falsified my argument is totally misbegotten. You can't have proved any such thing from the available information.
To prove anything about my argument they would have to be in a direct line of descent by selective breeding only.
That is an unrealistic expectation considering the complexity of breeding programs. Do you have any examples of breeds, varieties, species that are the direct result of the type of "selective only" breeding programs you are describing? If so, present them and we can try to see if we can find any diversity studies on those organisms.
Well, but you've already conceded that selection reduces genetic diversity so what would be the point? What's left to sort out is what all this has to do with the ToE.
As for demonstrating the trend to reduced genetic diversity what is needed is a series of populations that are known to have been derived one from another in a series WITHOUT any gene flow between them, no hybrid zones etc. I've figured it might be possible to do this with known ring species, but not if it's not known whether or not a given population in the ring was formed in complete reproductive isolation or not. That's where my idea of a laboratory experiment came in, where you take some kind of small animal, say maybe twenty individuals, and let them breed freely, then take out a number of individuals from the resultant population into another cage or area and let them also breed freely and keep doing that as long as you are getting new phenomes. When you aren't I would assume you've reached genetic depletion. You could make more splits than these but you'd have to keep very careful track of each population, each individual, DNA counts and so on. One thing that is particularly interesting from the study you posted is that clearly it IS possible to estimate allele counts, heterozygosity etc. But since you've conceded that this process should lead to reduced genetic diversity I guess we don't need to do this study for you anyway. Maybe it would be helpful for the diehard believers that mutation will always come along and increase genetic diversity.
If nothing else, this should demonstrate that evolution (even evolution by artificial selection) is not a straight forward process, but is messy and includes many diverse processes besides just selection.
Yes, of course, which I've said half a billion times myself in one way or another, but nevertheless the point I'm making is ONLY about selection, and what I've been claiming is that that is the only direction of evolution that really IS evolution, that could conceivably lead from species to species. HOWEVER, it IS messy and I DO have to figure out how to say more clearly why the additive processes couldn't. I know they couldn't but that's not very convincing.
I have already spent way more time here than I should have, so I need to wrap this up now.
Take your time. I need to take my time too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : add message reference

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by herebedragons, posted 10-25-2015 8:38 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 10-29-2015 9:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 215 by herebedragons, posted 10-29-2015 11:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 259 (771722)
10-29-2015 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
10-25-2015 12:24 PM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Faith, I feel like I'm trying to nail down jello ...
I'm sorry, I'm trying to be accurate. I'm afraid of letting a statement stand that is only partially accurate that can later cause problems.
Hard to know from the way you've worded it. "ALL the frequency of alleles" doesn't convey anything to me ...
Let me see if I can parse it differently for you
... (doesn't have all) (the frequency of alleles) ...
ie -- some would be different frequencies, some could be the same, for all the different alleles of all the different genes.
OK, that's clear but the other phrasing wasn't.
... It's possible for all the alleles to be in all the populations but at different frequencies. It's even possible that the frequencies will be pretty much the same, for instance all of them having the greatest frequency of the same alleles, and all having roughly the same distribution of frequencies of the others down to the lowest. It's possible, not very probable with a random split but possible.
I think we are saying the same thing here. Yes?
Seems so, yes.
I'd say that's the probable situation, as above: different frequencies from each other.
So we agree at this stage that this is your argument. Yes?
Um, this isn't my argument, it's merely an observation on which I base my argument.
Moving on:
RAZD writes:
THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.
In the founding generation? No, I figure they'll all look like the members of the parent population at that point. Their different frequencies of genotypes wouldn't produce new phenotypes that really APPEAR as phenotypes until after a few generations of recombination.
The parent population is not cookie-cutter homogeneous, but a mixture of varieties. These varieties may not be extremely different, just slightly different as the different alleles\traits are distributed in bell curves for each gene.
The thing is, it seems clear that you can have a very homogeneous population as far as general appearance goes, that nevertheless has high genetic diversity. They can't be "cookie cutter" homogeneous but nevertheless the overall appearance is remarkably homogeneous. I think of huge herd populations mainly. A million wildebeests look just about identical to each other, and yet there's every reason to think they have enough genetic diversity so that if a small number of them became reproductively isolated and formed a new subspecies they would look very different after a few generations. In fact there could be enough genetic diversity to form many such daughter populations out of the same larger population and each would end up differing from both the parent population and the other populations. All due to their different gene frequencies and their reduced genetic diversity from the original population. The thing I find hardest to explain is how there could be such apparent homogeneity with so much genetic diversity but it seems to be the case. Agree or disagree?
So this is a consequence of having different allele frequencies in the founding\first population, that the mixture of these slight varieties would be different from what was found in the parent population. These would not be new phenotypes, just a different selection of phenotypes that existed in the parent population.
OK, yes.
For instance you could have a higher % of blue eyes than in the parent population, and a lower % of curly hair than in the parent population.
Yes.
Faith writes:
... Their different frequencies of genotypes wouldn't produce new phenotypes that really APPEAR as phenotypes until after a few generations of recombination.
RAZD writes:
Which is essentially what I was saying in 3 and 4 and the conclusion that followed them:
3. this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation (1st set of offspring), due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Parent Population.
4. over time (several generations) this process would continue and more new phenotype trait mixes would be generated.
THEREFORE over time (after many generations) a new phenotype trait mix becomes the dominate "Type" of the Daughter Population, one that is distinctly different from the Parent Population dominant "Type" (the characteristic phenotype mix that is used to define the population -- not identical individuals, but appearing similar on the majority of traits).
Do you agree with that being an accurate representation of your argument?
Accurate representations of things I've said, but all these points aren't my argument, they are observations that contribute to my argument. Undergirding as it were. Support. Or context. Sorry if this seems a nitpick but to me it's not. The argument is that these processes require reduced genetic diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2015 12:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2015 4:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 214 of 259 (771781)
10-29-2015 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Admin
10-29-2015 9:31 AM


Re: Moderator Clarification and Requests for Same
By "this" I meant HBD's post as a whole.
In other words, the Wikipedia page on speciation does *not* say that "isolation of a portion of a population is...the only path to speciation," at least not if you by "isolation" you mean geographic isolation. It says there can be a wide range in the degree of geographic isolation, from completely separate and isolated all the way to located in the exact same place.
The illustrations of the four different modes show the separation of a portion of a population. All four of them. I NEVER mean only geographic isolation, I ALWAYS mean reproductive isolation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 10-29-2015 9:31 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by herebedragons, posted 10-29-2015 11:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 259 (771800)
10-30-2015 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by herebedragons
10-29-2015 11:20 PM


Re: Moderator Clarification and Requests for Same
Please explain how you can get reproductive isolation without geographic isolation.
I've understood it can be purely random, such as in the case of genetic drift. Or it could be sexual selection. Or it could be some kind of natural selection but I'm not sure how that would work.
But I don't care about these specifics myself. The only thing that matters IS reproductive isolation, however that occurs. and if physical geographic isolation is the only way -- certainly it's the most certain way in any case -- that's fine with me. It's the principle of isolation that counts to keep the lines of descent clear.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by herebedragons, posted 10-29-2015 11:20 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 218 of 259 (771802)
10-30-2015 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by herebedragons
10-29-2015 11:07 PM


Re: Your "falsifications" are falsified
Your charts have made it clear that selection isn't the dominant method I thought it was, but you are also wrong to claim that a mixture of cross breeding and selection could show that reduced genetic diversity doesn't occur as I've been claiming. It CAN'T occur if you include additive processes and I do think I've been very clear about that.
This is a confusing point. What the charts showed was what DOES occur; "additive process" plus "selective processes" tended to INCREASE diversity.
But that is perfectly nonsensical, since, as I showed, there is no line of genetic descent there at all to show what is the cause of the increase in a particular case. If they aren't even related by descent, then differences in genetic diversity are meaningless.
I am not trying to show that selection CANNOT reduce diversity, I already agreed that it can (although I have previously shown ways that selection can INCREASE diversity as well).
That's impossible as we've been using the term here, so I have to ask you to repeat that supposed proof that selection can increase ... not just "diversity" please, but genetic diversity...
But what we observe happening in both breeding populations and natural populations over time is a TENDENCY to increase genetic diversity - because there is always "additive processes" at work.
This might be the case with additive processes being always at work, but that chart is absolutely no evidence for it, being based not on lines of descent but the artificial event of registration. But again all I'm talking about is SELECTION, not addition.
And if necessary I'll just take it back to the situation of daughter populations splitting from parent populations, where the concept may be clearest.
The chart shows that the general trend in dog breeds has been an increase in genetic diversity (as measured by heterozygosity).
Which is just plain weird since there is no way to determine the genetic relationship, if any, between any of them.
So the overall number was 1780 and the breeds varied between 400 and 800. THIS should be broken down and studied among other things, if it's possible from those charts to find any actual genetic lines of descent that could be pursued for the purpose. The number of alleles is what we need to be looking for, but only where you know the line of descent and it's all selective. Even with cross breeding the numbers in that study show an obvious reduction from the parent population, whatever it was in each case.
This is based on the assumption that the parent population (ancestral wolf) had all 1780 alleles,
That's not how I read it. I thought they were comparing the total number of alleles in the combined breeds with the number in each separate breed. There would be overlap of many of the alleles, so it isn't a straight addition.
this is not necessarily the case. In fact, this study only looked at 100 markers
I really don't know what this means. I provisionally accept the accuracy of the numbers of alleles given, although I don't know how they arrived at them.
so, in the original ark population of 2 individuals there could only be 400 alleles maximum at those markers (2 alleles per loci x 100 loci x 2 individuals). So... where did the additional 980 alleles come from??
This is too confusing for me to figure out. For starters I didn't think they were talking about the supposed original wolf population. Beyond that I don't know if the dogs on the ark all looked like wolves or what they looked like. And I also don't know how you get back to the ark with any of this information anyway. Even the oldest breeds can't be traced anywhere near that far back.
There is no need to do that once I've presented the data from Wikipedia on each breed (in Message 194) showing the utter lack of genetic relatedness. If a Wikipedia article written presumably by people familiar with that particular breed doesn't have the exact genetic history, how can we be sure that phylogenetic chart has it all right?
The phylogenetic chart was built as an representation of the relationship between the genes, so it specifically addresses the genetic relationships. No, it's not certain that it is 100% accurate, but it does give significant insight into the genetic history of dog breeds.
Maybe, maybe not, how would you know? I haven't spent much time tracing the lineages depicted there but I don't have any reason to pay much attention to it after reading up on the individual breeds you claimed were related to each other in such a way as to falsify my argument, which turned out not to be the case.
We have come a long way in developing statistical models that give us high confidence in the phylogenetic hypotheses we develop from studies like this.
Well I can't just take your word for these things you know, not being an insider myself and finding so much to object to in the usual presentations of evolutionary theory that are so taken for granted, that I know shouldn't be.
That's where my idea of a laboratory experiment came in, where you take some kind of small animal, say maybe twenty individuals, and let them breed freely, then take out a number of individuals from the resultant population into another cage or area and let them also breed freely and keep doing that as long as you are getting new phenomes. When you aren't I would assume you've reached genetic depletion.
I don't get why you equate stability of a phenotype with depletion of genetic diversity...
ABE: I didn't get what you meant here though I wrote the following paragraph not getting what you meant and I'll leave it as is anyway. Now I guess you are saying why wait for the phenome to emerge anyway? I suppose I should have said when you aren't getting any new PHENOTYPES AT ALL, that's when genetic depletion has been reached. The phenome isn't going to change in that case anyway. The next paragraph may be completely obsolete now, not sure. /ABE.
Oh you mean where I'm describing how the phenome develops from some generations of recombination so that it forms a fairly homogeneous appearance? It took me a bit to figure out this must be what you meant. If so I don't particularly "equate" these things, it's just that I think this is what happens when you have an actual new subspecies, and it should be the best representative of the processes I'm talking about. There should be a reduction in genetic diversity in the daughter population from the original at any stage in its working through to that point of homogeneity or "stability" though, it's just that's where you get the clearest portrait of the formation of a subspecies, when it actually LOOKS like a subspecies. Such as with the Pod Mrcaru lizards. They ALL had the big heads and digestive system changes after thirty years of inbreeding in reproductive isolation. All the Galapagos turtles looked alike, all the big-beaked finches looked alike, etc etc etc. I just want the diversity to be measured at the point where we actually have a new phenome, new subspecies, and that also to be the point where a new random set of individuals are sent off to start their own isolated population.
Hardy-Weinberg. Allele frequency will come to equilibrium rather quickly, although in a small population drift will may a significant role. However, drift won't make the entire population homozygous.
Not sure what your point is here.
The rest of your post gets closer to the main issues so I'm going to leave that for the next post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by herebedragons, posted 10-29-2015 11:07 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by herebedragons, posted 10-30-2015 8:42 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024