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,
How so? The black lava fields could have been around for 1 million years before a mutation happened to produce the population we see today. The black lava fields themselves are more than a million years old. Per the topic, the sequence variation for the black fur allele is quite low which would point to a more recent emergence of the dark allele as part of a founder-flush model.
must show up in a germ cell, against astronomical odds
The first thing you need to do is identify every sequence change, both in the translated protein and promoter regions, that would result in dark fur in those 80 genes. Second, you need to include the mutation rate in mice, their population numbers, and the odds of one of those mutations occuring in a mouse close to the lava fields.
Since you claim that the odds are way too high, surely you have already done these calculations, right?
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
First, what do you mean just in time? The lave fields are over 1 million years old. If the mice had just 1 generation per year that would be one black mutation in a million generations.
That could hardly be described as "just in time for when it's needed."
We already know you would never be able to calculate the odds for anything, so it is obvious you are just making it up. The clue is you using "astronomical". Astronomical is not a number. It has no meaning in this context.
must show up in a germ cell, against astronomical odds
Once again, you are just making it up. You have no idea what the odds are. And again with the meaningless "astronomical odds."
and that one germ cell has to somehow get selected for parenthood, against astronomical odds
Still more made up delusions with un-calculated, incalculable 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
Again, un-calculated odds.
and survive to adulthood, against astronomical odds
Still more delusional odds.
and then just in time venture onto the black lava which will protect them, against astronomical odds.
And more fantasy odds.
There is no answer to this logic. So sorry you seem to have a problem understanding it.
There is no logic involved in anything you have said. It is pure delusional fantasy.
You just make stuff up, but you never back it up with facts or a well reasoned argument, ever.
I am wondering just how much "astronomical" is and what units do you use to measure it?
Get real Faith. Your ignorance of probabilities and genetics is glaringly obvious to anyone reading this thread. You have convinced me of one thing. The probability of you ever demonstrating an understanding of genetics or any other science is approaching zero.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
After seeing a result like this, the obvious question to ask is, “How certain are we that the Australian rabbits actually descended from only 13 original ancestors?”
This article from CSIRO (the Australian federal science agency) states that rabbits were brought to Australia on the First Fleet in 1788, more than 70 years before they were supposed to have been introduced into the wild, and that rabbits had been kept in captivity continuously from then until now.
Furthermore, the Europeans seem to have commonly kept rabbits on their ships while sailing across the globe, and they seem to have been planted in many places this way. And, a lot of those ships went to Australia (some of my ancestors actually came through Australia). So, I find it hard to believe that there was never any other influx of rabbits, aside from one original handful.
Not only that, but this article by an Australian pest control service asserts that different populations of rabbits in Australia show differences in coat patterns. I can't verify that information, so it could be wrong. But, perhaps there have been too many assumptions made in this discussion.
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.
Really? What makes you think this mutation hadn't happened some thousands of generations past? Or only once? Or one mutation instead of 3 or 4 in multiple sets of mousie fur color genes? Can you honestly say that this dark fur mutation(s) hadn't popped up before ... in a population of hundreds of thousands ... with a sprinkling of a few here and there every generation for many, many generations involving multiple different genes in multiple different ways? Why do you assume that evolution all of a sudden, one time, went ... POOF! You're black, Mouse! ... and that it happened at "just the right time"?
Might it be that dark fur conveyed no survival/reproductive advantage in the lighter environs, thus did not become a significant attribute of the population? Might it be that once the black lava fields arrived these very few expressions of dark fur now conveyed that survival/reproductive advantage and thus has now, a few hundred generations later, become a dominate feature of the population?
Can you guarantee that, today, a linage of dark furred mousies cannot have a mutated lighter furred oddball in the family, and that maybe, over a population of hundreds of thousands, this happens some small number of times in each generation? What do you think would happen to the population if, say, the Magratheans layered a permanent light saddle-brown spray paint over the area? Maybe the light saddle-brown micies would have the advantage and become the dominate attribute in, let's say, 200 generations or so?
Of course not. That's ridiculous. The Maratheans don't have spray paints!
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.
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