Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution?
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 137 of 157 (302571)
04-09-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by U can call me Cookie
04-04-2006 4:03 AM


I've not read all the replies yet so I may be redundant.
First of all, I'd equate natural selection and domestic selection, or, better phrasing, I'd say that domestic selection is a subcategory of natural selection. Does not matter that the results of both are somewhat different, there are a few analogues to domestic selection, such as ants farming aphids, which probable led to some degree of selection of aphids that might not be so well adapted for living without the protection of ants.
Then there’s a little issue of what is macroevolution. It could possible have two different meanings: speciation, and the accumulation of a greater level of differences usually found within a single species. I will not argue to which one would be the "true" definition, I think it does not matter.
For the first possible meaning of macroevolution, DS could probably generate it, even though I do not know for sure about that happening. Maybe because it would not have a crucial application in anything, but basically could probably be achieved by selection for two lineages to-be-species lineages whose hybrid offspring would be infertile. It could be more easily achieved if the breeders could search for Robertsonian translocations and a viable population only with this translocation.
But that would result in two different species that can not generate fertile offspring, but are barely distinguishable. Then creationist would say that they’re just mutually sterile lineages, not different kinds.
I think that it would not be any more expected in DS than as a result of NS. There’s first the point that NS disposed of much more time, and yet, tigers and lions can interbreed generating partially fertile offspring (apparently females are fertile, or so I've read), despite of the fact that jaguars, leopards and lions are more closely related with themselves than lions and tigers. Also, could be that eventually the physiological speciation is adaptative, so both populations diverging adaptatively are selected for mutual sterility, which I don’t know if was ever tried in breeds. Also, could be that physiological speciation has barely nothing to do with NS (thus with DS), happening prior to that and then the reproductive barrier "suddenly" formed then forces the just-formed species to diverge adaptatively to different niches in order to not become extinct. That would probably not occur with DS because the variations with increasing or sudden infertility in relation with other lineages would more likely be discarded by the breeders.
The other sense of speciation, which is a bit more meaningful, which would be of creating something more different, closer of being of other "kind", can also be done, the better example is dog breeds. But then they’re usually rejected as macroevolution despite of these lineages differing morphologically with each other at a level that I think (and I guess I've read this stated somewhere) that could be enough to the classification of them in different genera or maybe even families, if they were extinct and we did not know that they would generate fertile offspring.
I say that it would be more meaningful in the context of this debate, not that the term "macroevolution" should be regarded as so. Since it shows that the same species, dogs, can change into this skull, of a Shar Pei, and other one, of a Chihuahua. And didn’t take millions of years. If such degree of change is possible, why not would be possible then to a wolf-like animal evolve in a otter-like animal, and then progressively become more and more aquatic, losing its legs in a manner that is no fundamentally different than the morpholigical changes between these skulls? Then sum it with the fact that whales which do not have bakc limbs have the limb buds in their embryos, which disappear in the further development. And that their flippers have much of the anatomy of the front limbs of terrestrial mammals. When none of these clues for a fake biological relatedness needed to exist without biological relatedness, only regarding the specific functions.
And etc. There are no biological real arguments setting which are the independently originated "kinds". In fact, I've read something in the sense of a admission that it's totally impossible to test, since one could argue that as god created from nothing the first populations or couples of each kind, those would had evidence for biological relatedness since they were all of the same species, even though they haed never born, so were not really related at all.
And "coincidently", none organism which would disprove evolution was created, despite of the range of possibilities of organisms incompatible with evolution is incalculable wider than those that are possible with the restrictions imposed by descent.
This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-09-2006 03:43 AM

"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-04-2006 4:03 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:22 PM extremophile has replied

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 155 of 157 (454477)
02-07-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by randman
02-03-2008 1:22 PM


This is a very interesting fact on it's own. Can you speculate more on why they can interbreed despite being less related to jaguars and leopards, or maybe they can interbreed with leopards and jaguars too, but no one has tried to do that....maybe they would fight too much or something?
I think you may have get the relatedness a bit wrong, but I'm not sure if you did, so I'll restate, just in case. Lions are more closely related with leopards, then with jaguars I think, and only then with tigers. Nevertheless, hybridization is more successful with lions and tigers, more specifically, with lions and tigresses, and not so much with tigers and lionesses.
It's reported that lions can indeed generate hybrids with leopards (and perhaps with jaguars), but it's just far more rare by some reasons, first of all, species tend to mate with members their own species, obviously, so it would hinder natural occurrences*. Secondly, in captivity, they'd presumably be more often kept separated than lions and tigers due to the larger size difference, so leopards would be safer and under less stress. Thirdly, and perhaps the more meaningful here, possibly there are more relevant differences in the embryological development of leopards and lions than there are between lions and tigers, of similar size.
To illustrate, I'll briefly explain why hybrids between lions and tigresses are more viable than the hybrids of tigers and lionesses: in the production of the gametes, there is one process called methylation, in which the expression of certain genes is hindered by a "chemical lock". Males and females will sometimes "compete" with each other using these chemical locks. Males can have more multiple sexual partners than females, often at a considerably lower cost (as the females are the ones who get pregnant and often do most of the nurturing of the offspring). They can have fitter offspring if they could have gametes that would instruct the growing embryo to develop as much as possible, to suck up the resources of the mother as much as it does not backfires (she must be healthy enough to giver birth to the offspring and nurture it effectively). It is actually done by the males with these "chemical locks" on the gametes.
For females, in the other hand, they would benefit if they have gametes that would counter act that, instructing the embryo to take easier on her, so they could recover more easily and have better chances to eventually have more offspring with another mate, or at least be healthy enough to nurture better the current offspring itself.
When a males have access to multiple females, and the females are related and social, as in the lion's pride, the strategy can be driven to an extreme. The lion's gametes will instruct the development to exploit the female to the maximum, as the threshold of viability is stretched; the bodily resources of each female can be more exploited. Even if a female is exhausted and weak after giving birth, her sisters, older and younger ones, which hadn't gave birth exactly at the same time, will help taking care of the young.
With tigers, that does not happen. So the sperm does not instruct the "cheat" the embryo to grow the most. The ovum also does not counter act this "cheating", so the offspring will be a healthy tiger cub. But if a tiger sperm fecundates the egg of a lioness, then the embryo has no much emphasis on growth from the sperm, and many growth restrictions imposed from the lioness' egg. Then the result will be a weak "tigon" cub, which if survives the whole development and reaches adulthood (which is rare; apparently they often die on the development itself or short after birth), will have a smaller body size and shorter lifespan. In the other hand, when you get the sperm of a lion, with plenty of instructions to develop as much as possible, and the egg of a tigress, without the counter measures for such exploitation, if the pregnancy is successful (not as uncommon with tigons, I think), she will giver birth to a "liger", which, if reaches adulthood, will be bigger than both parents (the biggest cats alive today are ligers, even though some are overfeed in order to exaggerate their weight), and may even live longer, I think.
A similar process may restrict even more drastically the success of hybrids between lions and leopards, but perhaps driven by "real" genetic differences (not just epigenetic/methylation). The gametes of each species may have growth instructions that don't fit conjointly, and also perhaps there is different gestation times for each species which would only make the whole thing even messier. But perhaps would not be so troublesome with tigers and leopards or jaguars, but I don't know of any case of hybrids between these, while there are at least one allegedly case of hybrid between lions and leopards.
One could test the idea by impregnating them under medication....but cruel, but still, it would be interesting to see?
I don't quite get which medication you have in mind. Anyway, perhaps it's not done because scientists actually know better what's going on and don't have anything interesting to learn from that. And perhaps a similar principle could be tested with, say, mice and rats, or some fish species, something more suited to the lab, with less ethical implications due to the rarity of the species and all these things.

* Not so much as the natural occurrence of lion-tiger hybrids is hindered, as they almost never coexist in the same habitat, lions are mainly african, and tigers are mainly asian. They do met in India, even though I think that lions still inhabit savannas there while tigers live in the jungle. But species are probably rare there, if not extinct already anyway)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:22 PM randman has not replied

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 156 of 157 (454490)
02-07-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by randman
02-03-2008 3:54 PM


Re: not following you
Let's just see the studies showing higher beneficial mutation rates exceeding the rates of genetic decrease through isolation.
That's not a requirement at all, for either NS or speciation by NS (including AS).
An important point that I don't know if has been made already: there are different concepts of species, implying in different requirements for each sort of speciation.
There are species (eco-species) that differ adaptively but can can fully interbreed (such as finch species of the genus Geospiza), and these are more less analogous to dog breeds and probably less important to the whole thing, as are generally more accepted by creationists, which would only say that it's enough. It's mostly this that is driven by NS, adaptive differences, not reproductive isolation. Unless strong, reproductive isolation by hybrid inability is itself highly adaptive in some times, which I'm not aware of.
I think that most of the time the would-be "hybrids" (the ones on the forming "adaptive valley") will just be selected against when a species is splitting by NS, and there would be just too many individuals of the same recently-split population to mate with each other, keeping the adaptation, that eventual mutants with the beginnings of an adaptation for selective infertility wouldn't have enough advantage with that.
Perhaps even a tremendous disadvantage, as it could also result in speciation from its own eco-species, which is bad in two ways: diminishes the size of the total population (as it wouldn't not be able to mate with the original new eco-species, only with a few new members of the brand new bio-species), at the same time that it will have to compete with a more populous species (the species it came from) for the same niche, likely in the same habitat. Unless this bio-speciation happened to occur conjointly with some huge advantage, it's far more likely that the recently split bio-species will go extinct, and there will be only eco-species.
Furthermore, the isolation between the eco-species can be achieved behaviorally, by "imprint" of the phenotypical traits of its own species; that is, the individuals "learn" with whom they're supposed to mate. That happens even with some spiders. That would avoid the cost of eventual unfit hybrids, but the species would be still able to produce fertile hybrids for a long time (perhaps almost indefinitely, if the situation hypothetically remains the same indefinitely).
More "real" bio-speciation will happen in basically two ways: after a long accumulation of adaptive differences, gradually hindering the viability (and fertility) of hybrids, that's the "adaptionist/selectionist"* pathway; or, by the accumulations of a certain key-mutations that are not really adaptively important, but just happen to hinder the viability of hybrids ("neutralist-mutationist"* pathway), which would presumably, eventually be followed by divergence by natural selection, either by differences for each habitat, or selection for character displacement, if the two related species eventually met again in the same habitat. The former I think was proposed mostly by Ernst Mayr, and the latter by George Romanes, a less known contemporary of Charles Darwin. It can also be somewhat mixed; the key-mutations that cause speciation being related with adaptations for different niches.
The latter is pretty hard to be "induced" by NS, it is totally accidental. The former, perhaps already happened to some degree with dog breeds. Would the hybrids of a great dane and a chihuahua by viable? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if not. Perhaps scientists could breed some strains of some thing for speciation, for some reason, if that's really interesting. Other line of research would be to compare closely related species and with actually makes induces the biological barrier to hybridization. Then, if it's a heritable and variable trait, it's eventually changeable by natural or artificial selection.
It may be interesting to mention that there's a bacteria, Wolbachia, which causes a sort of speciation on its hosts. I think that Robertsonian translocation also has already been witnessed in other species (some rodent, I think) in a way that may be satisfactory to many creationists also.


* - I'm almost making up these composed terms. Perhaps just one of each is more adequate/enough, or maybe another terms entirely. But I think anyone gets the idea.
Edited by extremophile, : No reason given.
Edited by extremophile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 3:54 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2008 11:11 AM extremophile has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024