Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 301 (346030)
09-02-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
09-02-2006 12:18 AM


Re: On predictions and tests.
I just want to say - I'm not following where Faith is substantively wrong, either.
Here's the contention, as I see it - imagine a population and a gene with 20 different alleles in that population, which we'll use to measure diversity. We'll say that population has a diversity of 20.
Imagine then that the population is divided by some speciating process. What was one contiguous gene pool has become two, and from simple statistics we might imagine that all the individuals with one of the alleles went in the first population, and all the individuals with another of the alleles went to the second population.
So, where we had one population with 20 alleles, now we have two populations, and each of them has 19 alleles for that gene.
No alleles have actually disappeared, but some of them have become inaccessable to members of each population, so to those individuals, they might as well not exist at all.
I see that as a reduction, however slight, in diversity for each of those subpopulations. That's the claim I see Faith making. Where am I going wrong? Obviously, you could count both populations together and see the same amount of diversity you had before, but that seems incoherent. I wouldn't count the alleles found in the African elephant when trying to assess the diversity of the human species, so why would I count both of these populations together if they're already permanently seperated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 09-02-2006 12:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 09-02-2006 1:43 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 09-02-2006 2:00 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 114 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2006 2:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 107 of 301 (346041)
09-02-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-02-2006 1:08 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
IMHO that is wrong because it is just a snapshot at one moment of a dynamic process. The availability of a alleles is not something set in stone but rather something that changes dynamically and constantly. While a division might reduce the population to 19 alleles, over time new ones will occur. This is particularly true in cases where a species has multiple copies of the same gene, for example MGC8902. Having multiple copies of the same gene allows critters to continue whatever the function of that gene might be while other copies might get modified to bring about some new trait.
Please remember that you are just talking to a dumb layman here so it might be better to be asking folk like Quetzal or others than me, but here is my take for what it is worth.
One of the big things that seems to come up quite often is the perceived difference between man and our closest cousins, the other primates.
At some time in the distant past there was a split similar to what you describe. It looks like one population got a whole bunch of copies of MGC8902 and very likely did not get a copy of some other gene so there was very likely a temporary reduction in diversity. However, over time, there was an increase in diversity as some of those copies of MGC8902 were available to be modified to perform new functions.
Like I said, it would probably better for you to be asking folk like Quetzal or even your wife than someone like me.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 1:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 7:59 PM jar has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 108 of 301 (346051)
09-02-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
09-02-2006 12:28 AM


Re: On predictions and tests.
I don't think this is what we are claiming. We are talking about alleles being lost, which wouldn't affect the size of the genome which contains the genes the alleles take turns occupying as it were.
I'm aware that this is your contention, but MJ was quite clear that he believes entire genes are lost during speciation. I pointed out the differences between your stance and his in the post to which you are responding. Of course, you have yet to provide any example which indicates that what you are suggesting actually occurs. Now would be a good time. Find me an example in a living population where this has ocurred.
However, if our notion is true that a bigger original genome is implied to explain how all life could descend from an original pair, then this wouldn't happen with each "speciation" event but over greater swaths of time along the lines jar is suggesting -- something we would see over millennia, not generations. I don't know how this would work genetically of course but genes themselves would have to die, not just lose allelic contenders.
And you have an example of the genes dying or whatever? I have given you examples of increasing genetic diversity in sister populations, which would tend to disconfirm your hypothesis. You need at this point to provide an actual counter-example. Otherwise, your argument stands refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 12:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 10:15 PM Quetzal has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 109 of 301 (346052)
09-02-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-02-2006 1:08 PM


Where is the error...
I'm not following where Faith is substantively wrong, either.
If you take the definition of "reduced diversity" in the way that you describe then the statement that diversity may be reduced by allopatric(geographic) speciation is true. But that is meaningless. "So what?" is the only thing that seems to come to mind.
The total diversity of the organism has not reduced at all when the split first occurs and, at first, they are still one species.
Faith makes some big deal about allele reshuffling being able to force the speciation and I don't know (and she doesn't either) if that is possible or not. I suspect it can but again "So what?" it just helps allow for speciation even in the absence of mutations.
Once the geographic separation has occured new mutations will not be spread through the entirety of the populations of the organism (either by drift or selection). New mutations DO occur.
By the time speciation has actually occured the two populations will not only not have a lesser sum total diversity they will have a greater.
To try to pick a very specific case where one of the populations happens (perhaps because it is small) to have less "diversity" than the total population did before isn't wrong it is just a stupid red herring in the discussion and utterly meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 1:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 301 (346056)
09-02-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
09-02-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Increased phenotypic diversity by changing allele frequencies?
Yes, nothing needed for the change in phenotype except "vastly different distribution of alleles" working their way through the new populations in subsequent generations.
Almost certainly true in some cases. On the other hand, as the second article I referenced quite clearly explains, there are ways of determining the relative amount of time that different populations have been separated. In these cases, it's not a matter of frequency distribution, but rather novel alleles that are quite distinct between the two populations - and thus had to "appear" after the split.
Unique alleles are most likely simply alleles that occurred in low frequency in the previous combined population that now have an opportunity to be expressed in the normal pattern of sexual recombination.
Sure, and that's one of the things that the researcher's look for. They're examining the genetics of both populations. If it were simply a matter of unexpressed alleles, that would be obvious from the molecular data. Since that isn't the case, then the new alleles must have appeared de novo in the two populations. It's not a question of expression, it's a question of novelty. Recombination simply doesn't account for the divergeance.
OK, fine, here you're saying what I'm saying. I should have read on. But I'll leave my statement that emphasizes this. Yes, all it takes is isolation.
I probably wasn't clear. Isolation - from whatever cause, but in the specific example of the Ensatina complex it's natural selection operating against the hybrids in the contact zone - is what prevents gene flow from mixing the genetic material between populations. It is indeed what is required for speciation, but is not sufficient to explain novelty in and of itself. If you believe otherwise, you need to explain, preferably with actual living examples, how this can occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 8:23 AM Faith has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 111 of 301 (346057)
09-02-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
09-02-2006 9:11 AM


Re: What is macroevolution / answering fallacycop
n fact microevolution IS speciation.
NO it is NOT! The biological definition of micro and macro was around long before creationists tried to pick it up.
In the beginning they agreed with the biological definition. When it was shown the speciation (and even higher levels) events occur they have tried to change the definition.
If you want to use defined biological terms then you will have to stick to the biological definitions. If you don't like what they mean then invent new words.
here is no need to assume mutation in any of this.
There may be no need but it is there. Complex organisms (animals) like we are discussing don't reproduce without mutations in there.
I also don't know what you mean by "smoothed out" or "can accumulate."All of the accumulated differences ARE microevolution, and while mutation keeps being mentioned it's kind of like a third thumb, it has no role in any of this. Ordinary sexual recombination of different frequencies of alleles in isolated populations is all it takes to bring about new phenotypes and even speciation.
At the speciation level it may or may not be that mutations have an immediate effect.
However, once speciation has occured it is a new ball game. You now have to separated populations that may well be (in fact are almost certainly) subject to slightly different selective pressures. In addition, there are verly likely going to be mutations that occur in one population but not the other. In fact so likely that it is close enough to guarenteed.
Now you have two populations whose genetic changes AND selective pressures are different. Over time they diverge. Over time they may each undergo further speciation events themselves. Over time those populations diverge. Now you have macroevolution no matter WHAT level you want to put it at.
Does this actually occur? Look at the genetics of various branches of the taxonomic tree. The genetics are just as the above scenario suggests they should be. The differences in genetics are ALL accountable for by the various mutation types we know occur.
As I've been trying to show, there is a point at which further change in the ordinary processes of speciation becomes impossible, and this is the barrier to macroevolution and provides the means to define the Kind.
Of course you are. That is why you don't want mutations discussed and why you don't want to discuss what we would expect to see when we examine the genetics in detail. That is why you want to focus on the short term (and only occasional) case where one of the populations doesn't, by chance, pick up all the alleles of the orginal larger popultion. The blinkers you want to wear are not worn by others.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 9:11 AM Faith has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 112 of 301 (346058)
09-02-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
09-02-2006 9:11 AM


Re: What is macroevolution / answering fallacycop
Ben is the only one who answered fallacycop with a fair representation of what I'm arguing, in his Message 85. Quetzal, in Message 83 is claiming all kinds of things are wrong with my argument and MJFloresta's but he is very far from having demonstrated any such thing. His examples have all tended to support our argument, and he has not made any kind of case whatever for mutation in any of the processes we have discussed.
Actually, I have been demonstrating specifically what's wrong with your arguments. I've even used specific examples from actual populations that show you are very wrong in what you are stating. I am not making up stuff - I'm giving you what has actually been observed. Now it's your turn - show your examples and stop claiming you haven't been provided with the information you requested. You are certainly free to show where I'm wrong in my interpretation, but to simply hand-wave away the discussion by claiming I haven't responded is not going to be conducive to a productive discussion. Time to respond substantively, Faith: What data from the Ensatina studies actually supports your contention?
As I've been trying to show, there is a point at which further change in the ordinary processes of speciation becomes impossible, and this is the barrier to macroevolution and provides the means to define the Kind.
No, you haven't actually shown it, merely asserted it over and over. You are at least trying (with the idea about allelic and - in MJ's case, genomic - reduction), which is why I'm willing to continue this discussion in spite of your demeaning rhetoric. Your task now is to show this reduction actually occurs, using specific real-world populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 9:11 AM Faith has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 113 of 301 (346059)
09-02-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
09-02-2006 10:54 AM


Re: allozymes and other stuff
Don't bother on my account unless you are prepared to offer substantive rebuttal to the observations I've outlined, or alternatively a valid counter-example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 11:00 PM Quetzal has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 114 of 301 (346061)
09-02-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-02-2006 1:08 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
Imagine then that the population is divided by some speciating process. What was one contiguous gene pool has become two, and from simple statistics we might imagine that all the individuals with one of the alleles went in the first population, and all the individuals with another of the alleles went to the second population.
So, where we had one population with 20 alleles, now we have two populations, and each of them has 19 alleles for that gene.
It doesn't usually work that way. It CAN so happen that an exceptionally rare allele is either retained in the parent population or makes it's way exclusively to the daughter population. However, what normally happens is a distribution of existing alleles to both populations. In other words, unless we're talking about a unique individual organism with a unique set of alleles that becomes a founder all by itself, both populations are going to have a random sampling of all the existing alleles. Statistically, there could be a skewed frequency distribution simply by sampling error. It depends on how big the source population is, how big the daughter population is, how much gene flow exists between the two, and how many rare alleles there are in the source population. Among other things. Bottom line: speciation does NOT NECESSARILY lead to loss of genetic or allelic diversity, all other things being equal.
Added by edit:
I wouldn't count the alleles found in the African elephant when trying to assess the diversity of the human species, so why would I count both of these populations together if they're already permanently seperated?
Nor would anyone else. On the other hand, Faith's argument doesn't refer to comparing elephant and human genetic diversity. It revolves around her claim that two adjacent populations of the same species will ALWAYS lose genetic diversity as they differentiate to the point they become separate species. This is where her argument falls flat. Doesn't happen that way. If anything, genetic diversity INCREASES due to speciation and the processes leading up to it.
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 1:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by EZscience, posted 09-02-2006 7:41 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 8:06 PM Quetzal has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 115 of 301 (346117)
09-02-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Quetzal
09-02-2006 2:39 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
Q writes:
Doesn't happen that way. If anything, genetic diversity INCREASES due to speciation and the processes leading up to it.
Absolutely. Diversity at the level of organisms is what is meaningful and interesting. Allelic diversity is just one factor underlying organismal divsersity. Faith seems convinced that the loss of particular alleles on a statistical level is somehow indicative of a loss of 'diversity' when such is not the case. Organismal diversity is more a function of genetic organization patterns than it is simple allele frequencies, and virtually all alleles 'lost' in bottleneck events can potentially be re-created via mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2006 2:39 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 8:33 PM EZscience has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 301 (346118)
09-02-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
09-02-2006 1:43 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
IMHO that is wrong because it is just a snapshot at one moment of a dynamic process.
It seems like it's more like before and after, to me.
I get that it's not as simple as I portray, and that indeed, it's a fallacy to imply that you can say "at this one point, they were one species, and now at this next moment, they are two."
It looks like one population got a whole bunch of copies of MGC8902 and very likely did not get a copy of some other gene so there was very likely a temporary reduction in diversity. However, over time, there was an increase in diversity as some of those copies of MGC8902 were available to be modified to perform new functions.
Obviously, I don't mean to contend that genetic diversity can never rise. Clearly mutation has that effect.
But assuming there's an indentifiable instant of speciation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assert that genetic diversity is equal or lower in each subpopulation than in the whole population. I don't see how it can go up, except subsequently, due to mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 09-02-2006 1:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 09-02-2006 8:47 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 120 by jar, posted 09-02-2006 8:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 117 of 301 (346120)
09-02-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Quetzal
09-02-2006 2:39 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
Imagine then that the population is divided by some speciating process. What was one contiguous gene pool has become two, and from simple statistics we might imagine that all the individuals with one of the alleles went in the first population, and all the individuals with another of the alleles went to the second population.
So, where we had one population with 20 alleles, now we have two populations, and each of them has 19 alleles for that gene.
It doesn't usually work that way. It CAN so happen that an exceptionally rare allele is either retained in the parent population or makes it's way exclusively to the daughter population. However, what normally happens is a distribution of existing alleles to both populations. In other words, unless we're talking about a unique individual organism with a unique set of alleles that becomes a founder all by itself, both populations are going to have a random sampling of all the existing alleles. Statistically, there could be a skewed frequency distribution simply by sampling error. It depends on how big the source population is, how big the daughter population is, how much gene flow exists between the two, and how many rare alleles there are in the source population. Among other things. Bottom line: speciation does NOT NECESSARILY lead to loss of genetic or allelic diversity, all other things being equal.
I've acknowledged that it does not NECESSARILY require loss, Quetzal. Speciation CAN come about slowly through gene drift or gene flow between separated populations or hybridization, which will also change the phenotype, but the kinds of speciation that lead to anything in the direction of evolution would seem to require population splitting or selection, which ultimately tend toward genetic reduction, and reduction of genetic diversity, the way it happens in domestic breeding. After all, evolutionists commonly define evolution in terms that require natural selection, but this is a process that either severely reduces some alleles in a population or eliminates them altogether while others that are selected as more adaptive are expressed.
Added by edit:
I wouldn't count the alleles found in the African elephant when trying to assess the diversity of the human species, so why would I count both of these populations together if they're already permanently seperated?
Nor would anyone else. On the other hand, Faith's argument doesn't refer to comparing elephant and human genetic diversity. It revolves around her claim that two adjacent populations of the same species will ALWAYS lose genetic diversity as they differentiate to the point they become separate species.
I've tried to avoid saying *always,* because I'm aware that in many cases ALL the alleles from the original population are likely to be split between the two new populations and that only the frequencies of each will be different, and perhaps this is the typical case. I'm trying to focus on a trend that occurs over time, and that is only dramatically seen in a shorter time period when a very small population is isolated, in which case not merely frequencies of alleles will change but some alleles are likely to be lost to it altogether. It is also most likely going to happen when there are a number of speciation events that split populations as in a ring species, such that the last new population is taking only a few alleles from the previous population which also had fewer of some alleles from previous populations. It can also take more of some and then the previous population will have fewer.
However, the fact of divergence which you have noted many times, and which is what makes a ring species a ring species, there being as many phenotypes as there are separated populations, suggests that at least frequency change is to be expected, and mutation is not needed for this to happen, merely different proportions of pre-existing alleles, recessives coming more frequently to expression and that sort of thing.
This is where her argument falls flat. Doesn't happen that way. If anything, genetic diversity INCREASES due to speciation and the processes leading up to it.
You have not shown this, merely asserted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2006 2:39 PM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 118 of 301 (346124)
09-02-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by EZscience
09-02-2006 7:41 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
Doesn't happen that way. If anything, genetic diversity INCREASES due to speciation and the processes leading up to it.
Absolutely. Diversity at the level of organisms is what is meaningful and interesting.
You are apparently talking about diversity of phenotypes when you say "at the level of organisms" but I have been talking about diversity in terms of available alleles only. Alleles don't HAVE to be reduced to produce new phenotypes, this can happen within a population with gene drift or unknown selection of some over others that changes the phenotype over time.
But we happen to be talking not about this kind of situation but about ring species, which are defined by the fact that they create new phenotypes that typify each new population that splits from a former population. And this comes about by a change in the proportions of the alleles from that in the former combined population. It does the same thing that selection may do, but it does it in a mechanical way.
There is NO INCREASE anywhere in this process, ONLY a change in frequencies of the same alleles, which MAY involve but not NECESSARILY involve, the loss of some alleles altogether.
Allelic diversity is just one factor underlying organismal divsersity. Faith seems convinced that the loss of particular alleles on a statistical level is somehow indicative of a loss of 'diversity' when such is not the case.
No, I am not. I am saying the opposite. I am saying that phenotypic divergence, which means NEW phenotypes, is produced by reduced GENETIC diversity. If anything this could be more phenotypic diversity because of less genetic diversity, though I don't usually talk about phenotypic "diversity" -- organismal diversity as you put it -- but merely the production of new phenotypes. But I am never talking about a LOSS of phenotypic diversity, though this seems to be what you are saying above.
Again I think you are confusing diversity of genetic possibilities with diversity of phenotypic expression. Again, I'm ONLY talking about diversity of genetic possibilities, which is determined by numbers of alleles or availablility of alleles within a population, and this brings about NEW phenotypes which is certainly not a loss of diversity there.
And I don't know what you mean by "on a statistical level."
Organismal diversity is more a function of genetic organization patterns than it is simple allele frequencies,
Could be but what changes genetically when populations split is allele frequencies, and this is all it takes to produce the new organismal forms. Perhaps this comes about by the creation of new "genetic organization patterns," as you put it, but it's the new allelic frequencies that are doing all of it in any case.
and virtually all alleles 'lost' in bottleneck events can potentially be re-created via mutation.
And back we go to mutation, and again it's only a hypothetical and not a known. Hey, I'd love to see that this is really possible, that mutation, or at least some form of mutation, really does do this, really does recreate viable alleles that have been lost through such things as a bottleneck event. I've thought many times that this COULD be possible since after all we are talking about chemicals, the making of proteins from chemical codes, but so far I've only seen this asserted as you do above, as a potentiality.
And there again is the cheetah, still getting along on one allele per locus over many loci without the benefits such a re-creation process would bestow on it.
And again, the usual processes of allelic sorting and recombining are enough in themselves to produce new phenotypes; mutation is simply not needed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by EZscience, posted 09-02-2006 7:41 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by EZscience, posted 09-03-2006 8:09 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 119 of 301 (346126)
09-02-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
09-02-2006 7:59 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
But assuming there's an indentifiable instant of speciation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assert that genetic diversity is equal or lower in each subpopulation than in the whole population. I don't see how it can go up, except subsequently, due to mutation.
Dang, Crash, I may love you after all, mutation notwithstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 7:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2006 10:56 AM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 301 (346127)
09-02-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
09-02-2006 7:59 PM


Re: On predictions and tests.
But assuming there's an indentifiable instant of speciation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assert that genetic diversity is equal or lower in each subpopulation than in the whole population.
But the condition afterward is neither fixed nor permanent. Life goes on. Yesterday I had $40.00 in my pocket, today I have $20.00, tomorrow I may well have $40.00 again.
To say that there is a decrease in either genes or alleles related to some separation is simply trying to describe one stop on the trip as the whole journey.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 7:59 PM crashfrog 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