Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human speciation due to geographic separation
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4866 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 5 of 16 (219661)
06-26-2005 2:37 AM


It's a very interesting question, but I don't think anybody can even come close to answering it right now.
Most speciation scenerios involve a large amount of genetic drift. The initial form of genetic drift would be sampling error. If a small population were to be isolated from a larger one, possibly by a geographic barrier, what are the chances that the allelic frequencies of the smaller population would be representative of the larger one? This is called "the founder effect", and could be considered "instant evolution."
This isn't even close to speciation, though. Next, random mutations would accumulate in the small population, further changing the allelic frequency of the new population. When the new population increases (a genetic bottleneck), it will have an allelic frequency dependent of the founder effect and these newer mutations. These new mutations may or may not have phenotypic effects. In order for speciation to occur, there needs to be some prezygotic or postzygotic mating barrier that would prevent inbreeding with the parent population. This can result from the random mutations, but a timeframe would be hard to pin down.
Natural selection may also play a large role in speciation. This will cause the new population to become adapted to new environmental conditions. After time, through pleiotropic effects, this may result in reproductive incompatibility with the parent population. Again, a timefrime would be hard to put down.
The situation you describe will be very different from the classical view of speciation I described above (allopatric). For instance, I'd imagine that a 100,000 person sample would include much of the genetic diversity of the parent population, essentially eliminating the "founder effect." Also, random mutations in the new populations aren't likely to effect the overall allelic frequency because the bottleneck effect is dependent on their being a small initial population. Next, humans are such a technologically innovative species that I think we would alter the environment to suit are needs before any serious effects of natural selection could take place.
This message has been edited by JustinC, 06-26-2005 02:39 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-26-2005 3:02 AM JustinC has not replied
 Message 7 by clpMINI, posted 06-27-2005 10:35 AM JustinC has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4866 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 12 of 16 (220214)
06-27-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by pink sasquatch
06-27-2005 2:30 PM


Re: a small clarification
quote:
I'm not sure that I've explained this well, and it is a bit complicated with bits of chromosomes jumping about - it may be helpful to search out "Robertsonian translocations" on the web or pubmed if you are interested in the subject. "Robertsonian translocations" are such rearrangments in mice, and have been fairly well-studied, including at the level of their role in speciation.
A quick question about Robertsonian translocations. Are both of of the original centromeres of the telocentric chromosomes present in the the new metacentric chromosomes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-27-2005 2:30 PM pink sasquatch 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