Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 11:22 PM
431 online now:
Coyote (1 member, 430 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,135 Year: 6,741/21,208 Month: 2,502/2,634 Week: 165/525 Day: 80/60 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood
Faith
Member
Posts: 23987
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 91 of 140 (720866)
02-28-2014 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
02-27-2014 10:32 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2014 10:32 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2014 11:56 PM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4416
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 92 of 140 (720873)
02-28-2014 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
02-27-2014 10:32 PM


Sure, rabbits were commonly carried on the immigrant ships for food. But they were very valuable so unlikely to be allowed to escape regularly. It's also the case that most escapees would just die, very small numbers of animals are not expected to succeed, they need sufficient breeding pairs of the right age and the perfect environment to flourish.

Having said that, the story of the original founder population is quite interesting - it was a deliberate release with the intent of forming a wild breeding colony.

The current infestation appears to have originated with the release of 24 wild rabbits[4] by Thomas Austin for hunting purposes in October 1859, on his property, Barwon Park, near Winchelsea, Victoria. While living in England, Austin had been an avid hunter, regularly dedicating his weekends to rabbit shooting. Upon arriving in Australia, which had no native rabbit population, Austin asked his nephew William Austin in England to send him twelve grey rabbits, five hares, seventy-two partridges and some sparrows so he could continue his hobby in Australia by creating a local population of the species. William could not source enough grey rabbits to meet his uncle's order, so he topped it up by buying domestic rabbits. One theory as to why the Barwon park rabbits adapted so well to Australia is that the hybrid rabbits that resulted from the interbreeding of the two distinct types were particularly hardy and vigorous.

This remark is particularly interesting.

Many other farms released their rabbits into the wild after Austin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2014 10:32 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 93 of 140 (720894)
02-28-2014 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
02-27-2014 10:32 PM


rabbit review
This article from CSIRO ...

So 24 wild european rabbits were introduced, not 13 (a big difference when dealing with loss of allelic diversity)

Not only that, but this article by an Australian pest control service ...

So six offspring 4 times a year is 24 offspring per year, and the probability that all the alleles in the founding population are passed on is extremely high -- there should be no further loss of allelic diversity than the stochastic loss of alleles that were not carried by the founding population.

Not only that, but this article by an Australian pest control service ...

And we have "immigration" from feral domestic rabbits that have different alleles from the wild population, thus increasing the overall mix of alleles.

So full revitalization of the allelic diversity is not really a big surprise.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2014 10:32 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 94 of 140 (720896)
02-28-2014 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:15 AM


How evolution works ... again ...
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.

You are making the post hoc ergo propter hoc error of assuming that the lava field somehow requires mice to evolve black fur.

Yes mutations are random, but changes to fur color can be caused by a number of different factors and mutations in many locations, some that affect the DNA directly and some that affect the fetal development (see silver foxes experiment).

... 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.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

Now all we need is a random mutation that causes dark fur to occur randomly in an area where there are lava fields, and when it does then that mouse can take advantage of that opportunity to populate a lava field. It can still breed with the tan mice along the boundary, and new black mice can move further into the lava field as their subpopulation grows and the gene become fixed.

That is how evolution works.

It's not "just in time" or a "normally recurring allele" or ALL lava fields would be populated by black mice.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 95 of 140 (720902)
02-28-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:15 AM


Re: Frankie Mouse to the Rescue!
Let alone one that turns out to be beneficial right when it's needed,

This isn't required, as we have shown you multiple times already.

at the very gene where it is needed,

There are 80 genes that affect coat color in mice. Those are all candidates for mutations for black fur, and there is the possibility for many mutations in each gene producing black fur.

and it isn't a "neutral" mutation and so on and so forth.

Of course it isn't a neutral mutation. It affects fitness. Why is that a problem?

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.

You figured? As if that somehow adds credence to your argument?

The black allele is selected against and is removed from the population when there is no black lava field. Since it is dominant, it can not escape selection in heterozygotes like recessive alleles can. Your figuring is refuted by the evidence.

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.

It recurs because of mutations, not because it was there from the very start.

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.

That is an empty assertion since you have not produced the calculations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 96 of 140 (720903)
02-28-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:30 AM


AND mutations are STILL accidents, most of them ARE neutral or deleterious,

Some are beneficial. You keep ignoring that.

and didn't you say the light colored population is absolutely devoid of the dark allele,

They were unable to find a single dark mouse in the areas that were 100's of kilometers from the black lava fields despite free interbreeding between the dark and light mice at the lava fields. The dark allele is incapable of spreading into the light colored desert despite interbreeding.

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.

There is no guarantee that it will be dominant for every single mutation, but it is dominant in the two populations that they looked at.

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.

False. The D allele would be removed from the population by selection in the absence of a dark lava field. We have shown you this multiple times now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 97 of 140 (720927)
02-28-2014 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:15 AM


Re: Frankie Mouse to the Rescue!
Why should any particular mutation be expected, AZPaul?

Since I was saying quite the opposite I fail to see where this came from. The point is that specific mutations cannot ever be expected.

But, do not take this to mean that variation as a result of mutation(s) is not expected because it most definitely is expected. As you well know all populations exhibit quite wide variations in almost every attribute present from fur color to digestive efficiency to dick and boob size. What you don't believe is that these variations are initiated as a result of mutation(s) in a single individual giving rise to new alleles, new genetic variation. But that is your own religious hangup that has no relation to reality so you have to live with that, not us.

Keep in mind that a darker-fur attribute in a population as large as the pocket moosies will (infrequently) occur. Further, it will occur a few times in each generation and, most probably, NOT be the result of the same mutation(s) in each such individual.

Taq is correct. Any specific mutation occurs first in one specific individual. Your misinterpretation of this to insistence that dark fur could occurred only once by only the one mutation and then only when it would be beneficial is bogus. Taq's mutation causing dark fur may be (and in a population the size of the pocket mieces, most probably is) just one of many different ways to accomplish the same thing: dark fur. And each different way to make that attribute starts, as Taq said, with mutation(s) to one initial individual. How far that specific trait spreads in the total population is dependent upon the totality of the selective pressures on the population.

So when the dark lava arrives this same process continues and you then have it right:

quote:
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.

So Taq is right. New alleles mutate into a population through one specific individual. But you take it too damn far with your faulty interpretation of what he said and the bogus probability assessment that this only happened once in one way and only just in time. That IS NOT what Taq said.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8751
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 98 of 140 (720928)
02-28-2014 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:30 AM


Deleterious
most of them ARE neutral or deleterious

Don't emphasize the "are" when you don't actually know.

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.

That is, deleterious until there is a nearby dark lava field. Then suddenly it is extremely beneficial.

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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-04-2014 8:51 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 99 of 140 (720934)
02-28-2014 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
02-28-2014 1:49 AM


Hi, Faith.

Faith writes:

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.

The epitome of irony is requesting clarity without specifying what it is you want clarified.

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.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 02-28-2014 1:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-01-2014 12:26 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 03-04-2014 8:39 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1325
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 100 of 140 (720935)
03-01-2014 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Blue Jay
02-28-2014 11:56 PM


Hi Blue Jay,

Good to see you here again.

Congratulations on completing your Ph.D.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2014 11:56 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2849
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 101 of 140 (721075)
03-03-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
02-27-2014 3:33 PM


Re: revitalized
RAZD writes:

Good point. Perhaps "revitalized" would be better terminology -- it has the connotations of reviving a species from decline without implying return to previous diversity.

Works for me.
Thanks for the information, I was also wondering if I was understanding the concept correctly in the first place.

Are you referring to a specific metric that measures this, or just making up numbers?

The metrics I've seen seem to be normalized to numbers between zero (all genes have the same alleles throughout the population) and 1 (all genes have different alleles)

At least this applies to allelic diversity.

I was attempting to refer to the normalized numbers between zero and one... from memory... and I goofed.
I'm not so good at biological concepts...

RAZD writes:

Stile writes:

This should be rather simple to prove out as well by comparing the genetic information from before and after... if it's different, then new genetic information was obviously created. If the genetic information is exactly the same... then my idea is falsified.

There isn't a large record of before to work from at this time. With the current work on genomes this should not be as much of a problem for future studies.

Quite understandable.
Also, I doubt it's high on the priority list to test as well. Such a thing may be prominent in the EvC debate... but hardly something that requires a smoking gun in the actual science... where the smoking gun's been there for many, many years already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2014 3:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23987
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 102 of 140 (721192)
03-04-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Blue Jay
02-28-2014 11:56 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2014 11:56 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23987
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 103 of 140 (721193)
03-04-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NosyNed
02-28-2014 3:19 PM


Re: Deleterious
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 02-28-2014 3:19 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2014 9:46 PM Faith has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8751
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(2)
Message 104 of 140 (721194)
03-04-2014 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
03-04-2014 8:51 PM


Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
The point is that a mutation (or any combination of genetic material from whatever source) that produces a specific body form is not any of neutral, deleterious or beneficial in and of itself. (this excludes ones that produce a non viable embryo and such like of course)

Dark fur is a phenotype and so is light fur. If there were no hawks flying around the both of them would be neutral.

Any genetics that causes a dark furred phenotype is very deleterious in the light sandy areas and very beneficial in the dark lave areas.

So if a mutation does cause a genetic change to dark or light it isn't by itself either bad or good. It depends and that is true of many different genomes.

The question of whether is it a mutation or not has much evidence suggesting that it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-04-2014 8:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 03-04-2014 11:09 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23987
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 105 of 140 (721197)
03-04-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by NosyNed
03-04-2014 9:46 PM


Re: Neutral, deleterious or beneficial
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2014 9:46 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-04-2014 11:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2014 9:06 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 03-05-2014 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017