Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 196 of 331 (475609)
07-16-2008 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid
07-16-2008 11:25 PM


Re: Let's dance on it!
In fact I challenge you to cite a human, dog, or horse mutation that has been identified as "beneficial" and is morphological. Note the term morphological. This is what can be seen in the fossil record.
That's easy. Going way back, the opposable thumb.
More recently the tall narrow nasal structure of Europeans as opposed to the wide short nasal structure of Africans.
Upright posture with striding/running gait in early Homo groups, used for adapting to the grasslands as opposed to the forests. Foot, knee, and hip morphology all come into play there as well.
Various adaptations in hyoid bone morphology and placement which allowed fully human speech.
You do realize that all of these mutations have to be judged as beneficial only in relation to their local environments, don't you? What works for the Watutsi does not work for the Pygmy, and they don't live that far apart. And both differ from the Bushmen. Each has mutations which are beneficial in relation to the environment in which they live.
But if you debate like many other creationists I have encountered, you'll probably deny all of this, and try to just wave it away. (Perhaps you'll surprise me!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 11:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 AM Coyote has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 197 of 331 (475632)
07-17-2008 5:45 AM


Canidae prone to rapid evolution
Dogs (and wild canids) have evolved a tendency to evolve, and have a high capacity for morphological change.
This is very interesting, and sort of ties in to the topic.
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/esm017v1
Creationist AOkid asked for advantageous mutations in dogs that related to morphology. The canids have received advantageous mutations which enable them to make morphological changes far more easily than almost all other mammals, and therefore can adapt rapidly to changes in circumstances. They are a morphologically flexible family, partially due to "a genome-wide increase in the basal germ-line slippage mutation rate."
This is the reason, presumably, that we've been able to produce much more variety in them than in any other domestic animals.
Note, AOkid, that this means a higher tendency to mutate along the germline, and therefore an increase in diversity which both extends and changes their collective genetic capacity.
Edited by bluegenes, : grammar

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:44 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 198 of 331 (475643)
07-17-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid
07-16-2008 11:25 PM


Re: Let's dance on it!
In fact I challenge you to cite a human, dog, or horse mutation that has been identified as "beneficial" and is morphological. Note the term morphological. This is what can be seen in the fossil record.
That is the type of evidence you need to convince me that this type of evolution is possible. Without this evidence you just have your imagination.
Quite so. Now, why do you suppose that the people who are most intimately familiar with the evidence, i.e. scientists, are so overwhelmingly pro-evolution?
Supplementary question. You are obviously completely unfamiliar with the evidence. You are a creationist. Might there be a connection between these two facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 11:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 199 of 331 (475747)
07-18-2008 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by AlphaOmegakid
07-16-2008 11:25 PM


Yes, Let's dance on it and not around it.
Thanks AlphaOmegaKid,
We do not see dog evolution change the number of rib bones multiple times. We do not see dog evolution changing the numer of vertebrae multiple times.
This would be critical if dogs weren't selected, particularly the breeds, to be dogs, and "abnormal" ones with different numbers of toes, say, actively selected out of the gene pool. Such mutations that cause +/- numbers of repeated items do occur, but three toed dogs will not be chosen "best of breed" eh?
This article about a dog missing toes on it's feet show that such mutations do occur occasionally in dogs. Also google "dog polydactyly" to see examples of extra toes. It happens.
We do see size changes. ... And we see substantial changes in skull shapes. What we see in dog evolution is variation in gene alleles.
Yes, what we see in evolution is evolution, curious fact eh?
We do not see specialized features from new genes.
It is curious that you say we see "substantial changes in skull shapes" and then contradict this with "we do not see specialized features ..." when the shape of the skull is a specialized feature: the shape of the bulldog face compared to that of a greyhound, for example, is specialized for that particular breed and is distinctive morphological change. These skull shapes are hereditary (or they would not be particular to the breed) and we do not see such skull differences within the variation of wolves, so they are de facto due to hereditary change since divergence from wolves.
Changing the number of repetitions of various parts is not necessary to show morphological change. It is one type of change that usually gets classified as a species difference when it is across the population, but it is not necessary for speciation.
Changing of shapes of bones is a morphological change that would show up in the fossil record, and is another type of change that can be used to differentiate species when it is across the population, but is not necessary for speciation.
Changing the proportions of lengths of different bones compared to other bones in the same organism is a morphological change that would show up in the fossil record, and is another type of change that can be used to differentiate species when it is across the population, but is not necessary for speciation.
Change in overall size is a morphological change that would show up in the fossil record, and is another type of change that can be used to differentiate species when it is across the population, but is not necessary for speciation.
What we see in dogs compared to humans is irrelevant to the topic.
In fact I challenge you to cite a human, dog, or horse mutation that has been identified as "beneficial" and is morphological. Note the term morphological. This is what can be seen in the fossil record.
Irrelevant. Every fossil of every organism shows beneficial hereditary traits: they lived. Every fossil of every organism that shows morphological differences from other fossils therefore meets your criteria. Every living organism shows beneficial hereditary traits: they live. Every living organism that shows morphological differences from other living organism therefore meets your criteria.
That is the type of evidence you need to convince me that this type of evolution is possible. Without this evidence you just have your imagination.
Personally I don't care one tiny hoot whether you are convinced or not, because your opinion is irrelevant to what the evidence shows. If you believed that the earth is flat, this would not suddenly be true.
We do not see dog evolution changing from "toes" to hooves.
But we do see a horse ancestor that has "paws" similar to modern dogs, both in numbers of toes and in the particular stance of these animals on the toes, and we do see horse evolution from toes to hooves over a period of 55 million years, a period of time rather significantly longer than the time that dogs breeds have existed distinct from wolves.
Now I hope you agree this addresses your main thesis.
Not really. You are still dancing around the issue.
Dogs in their variety and breeds define a range of variations. The question is whether this range of variations is more or less than the difference between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus.
Is the difference in skulls of Hyracotherium and Mesohippus more or less than the variation seen in dogs?
Is the difference in size of Hyracotherium and Mesohippus more or less than the variation seen in dogs?
Is the difference in proportions of different bones of Hyracotherium and Mesohippus more or less than the variation seen in dogs?
Yes or no?
Enjoy.
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 195 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 11:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2008 2:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 200 of 331 (475750)
07-18-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
07-18-2008 1:06 AM


Re: Yes, Let's dance on it and not around it.
RAZD writes:
AOkid writes:
In fact I challenge you to cite a human, dog, or horse mutation that has been identified as "beneficial" and is morphological. Note the term morphological. This is what can be seen in the fossil record.
Irrelevant.
An interesting line on this is that for a mutation to be beneficial in domestic dogs, all it has to do is produce (or contribute to) a characteristic which pleases the species with which it has a symbiotic relationship. So every non-wolf-like breed we like and select for has advantageous "morphological" mutations, by definition, including toy dogs that wouldn't have a hope in hell in the wild.
So the same point goes for domestic species that you've made for wild ones. The existence and survival of anything distinct is automatic proof of "beneficial" mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2008 1:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2008 7:30 AM bluegenes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 201 of 331 (475767)
07-18-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by bluegenes
07-18-2008 2:37 AM


Re: Yes, Let's dance on topic and not around it.
An interesting line on this is that for a mutation to be beneficial ...
Is still irrelevant to the thesis that variations in dogs is more than the variation between species on ancestor horses, specifically hyracotherium (eohippus) and mesohippus.
Enjoy.
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 200 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2008 2:37 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 07-18-2008 1:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 202 of 331 (475811)
07-18-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by AlphaOmegakid
07-16-2008 4:05 PM


Re: Anyone want to talk about the topic?
quote:
First off your cat didn't develop a new feature like a hoof. It had a mutation that effected an existing feature...the toe.
Oh well now you are moving the goalposts then, huh? No one in this thread has claimed that any creature we are comparing has made such an enormous jump without smaller transitional changes inbetween.
In the original message I replied to, this is what was said.
quote:
For instance with dogs, you don't see one dog being born with two toes or one toe/hoof and it being beneficial. If we did, then I might agree with you
My reply was to illustrate that mutations occur and spread throughout populations regardless of whether or not they are beneficial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 4:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:33 AM rueh has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 203 of 331 (475817)
07-18-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
07-18-2008 7:30 AM


Re: Yes, Let's dance on topic and not around it.
RAZD writes:
Is still irrelevant to the thesis that variations in dogs is more than the variation between species on ancestor horses, specifically hyracotherium (eohippus) and mesohippus.
Is it relevant that there's more variation in morphology between Andaman Islanders and Dutch people than there is between lions and tigers?
If I were a YEC, I'd use the dog variety as an excuse for putting as much as possible in one Kind, to help solve the overcrowded Ark problem. Therefore, all horse ancestor/ancestor-relatives are one kind. Pick a feasible intermediate as being representative of the Ark pair, then there are two lines of micro-evolutionary descent. The now extinct line, decreasing in size and increasing in digits, culminating in hyracotherium, and the other, leading to the modern horse.
Problem solved. Easy for a Young Earth Paleontologist.*
*{ABE}An academic post at Oxymoron University.
Edited by bluegenes, : ***

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2008 7:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:33 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 204 of 331 (476120)
07-21-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Coyote
07-16-2008 11:45 PM


Can you see my hands waiving?
Coyote writes:
That's easy. Going way back, the opposable thumb.
More recently the tall narrow nasal structure of Europeans as opposed to the wide short nasal structure of Africans.
Upright posture with striding/running gait in early Homo groups, used for adapting to the grasslands as opposed to the forests. Foot, knee, and hip morphology all come into play there as well.
Various adaptations in hyoid bone morphology and placement which allowed fully human speech.
You do realize that all of these mutations have to be judged as beneficial only in relation to their local environments, don't you? What works for the Watutsi does not work for the Pygmy, and they don't live that far apart. And both differ from the Bushmen. Each has mutations which are beneficial in relation to the environment in which they live.
You talk as if beneficial mutations are all around us. Please note that the "easy" challenge was to show mutations identified as being "beneficial" and "morphological".
Let me clarify for you and every one else!
All of you can go to your pet websites and retrieve just HUGE lists of identified beneficial mutations. By HUGE lists I mean there are thousands of them, right?????
Now I agree that in some cases beneficial mutations have been identified. Not in all. Because to be a mutation in the first place, the allele couldn't have existed in the population. I f this evidence is presented, and evidence that a new allele has mutated in the population, and evidence that the new mutation yields a reproductive advantage, then I think we can justifiably show that that mutation is beneficial.
Now the second criterion is that this "beneficial" mutation yield a morphology that can be detected in the fossil record. A1-Mulano for instance would not show in the fossil record.
So the challenge is to show scientific evidence that identifies a mutation as being "benefical" and "morphoogical".
If you can do this then I think we have a reasonable argument for looking at all the morphological changes in the fossil record and assuming that they are indeed evolutionary changes.
Now let me also make sure that you understand the logical fallacy that the interpretation of evidence is not evidence. So you are going to have a hard time with me using the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence. I will let you use the bones and dating of the bones as evidence, but the interpretation of that evidence is not evidence. (otherwise you have circular reasoning which I'm sure no evoists use, right???)
So if I look at the evidence you presented, it appears to me that you presented a string of interpretations of evidence as evidence. That may work for you, but it doesn't for a logician.
Now to the contrary or the opposite of my request. I can show you many examples of negative mutations that are identified as such and are indeed morphological. (frogs with one leg longer than the other, tortoises with two heads ect.) These mutations could show up in the fossil record if they were fossilized. I also can show you many neutral mutations that are morphological. (dog evolution for example....micro evolution)
But what I want to see is "beneficial" morhological changes that nature would select for. Are there any? Don't use the fossil record, then interpret it as your evidence. Use an observable repeatable experiment, or show an allele that is new and has been selected in recent years in the population. There are some "beneficial" mutations that fit this criteria. The only problem is do they fit the second criteria as being morphological?
Have fun researching!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2008 11:45 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2008 11:12 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 208 by Coyote, posted 07-21-2008 12:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 209 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2008 12:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 205 of 331 (476123)
07-21-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by bluegenes
07-17-2008 5:45 AM


Re: Canidae prone to rapid evolution
bluegenes writes:
Creationist AOkid asked for advantageous mutations in dogs that related to morphology.
No, I asked for "beneficial" mutations that were morphological and could show in the fossil record. Advantageous mutations are not necesarrily "beneficial". You need beneficial mutations to get from bacteria to man. Try and concentrate, all of you, on this criteria.
bluegenes writes:
The canids have received advantageous mutations which enable them to make morphological changes far more easily than almost all other mammals, and therefore can adapt rapidly to changes in circumstances.
This is an interesting statement, although factually unsupported. Your cited study certainly doesn't suggest this.
bluegenes writes:
They are a morphologically flexible family, partially due to "a genome-wide increase in the basal germ-line slippage mutation rate."
This your study says, and I probably agree with. However, it doesn't address my challenge.
bluegenes writes:
This is the reason, presumably, that we've been able to produce much more variety in them than in any other domestic animals.
Yes, and this natural process is called intelligent design. It is not natural selection. Even Darwin distinguished the differences.
And No, there are many animals that we breed that have just as much morphological variety as dogs. Horses and cattle for example. Even humans have as much variety.(giants to dwarfs, all kinds of colors shapes and hairyness) Some with big noses and some with small.
bluegenes writes:
Note, AOkid, that this means a higher tendency to mutate along the germline, and therefore an increase in diversity which both extends and changes their collective genetic capacity.
Dogs ability to mutate along the germline does not extend and change their collective genetic capacity. In fact it diminishes it. That's why breeders breed male and female from the same breed. They do this, because the results are that the offspring are from the same breed. Otherwise they would go out of business. The genetic capacity has been reduced relative to the parent capacity of the wolf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by bluegenes, posted 07-17-2008 5:45 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2008 10:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 210 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2008 12:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 219 by bluescat48, posted 07-21-2008 8:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 206 of 331 (476125)
07-21-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 10:44 AM


Re: Canidae prone to rapid evolution
Advantageous mutations are not necesarrily "beneficial".
Hello ... earth to creationist?
Hello ...
Dogs ability to mutate along the germline does not extend and change their collective genetic capacity. In fact it diminishes it. That's why breeders breed male and female from the same breed. They do this, because the results are that the offspring are from the same breed. Otherwise they would go out of business. The genetic capacity has been reduced relative to the parent capacity of the wolf.
What do you think you're talking about, and is there any evidence for it?
How, for example, does one measure the "genetic capacity" of an organism? You seem to think that this refers to a single quantitative measure of something (whereas I think it is a phrase that usually only makes sense in front of the words "for" or "to": e.g.: "I have the genetic capacity to learn Chinese").
But you seem to think it is a single quantity an organism has which therefore admits of quantitative comparison between organisms.
So, please tell us how you measure it, and when this has been done in the case of dogs and wolves.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 207 of 331 (476128)
07-21-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Can you see my hands waiving?
So, to summarise: you want evidence of evolution that would show up in the fossil record, but will reject all the evidence that does show up in the fossil record.
Presumably your hope is that since experiments on evolution have only been ongoing for a few decades, rather than millions of years, and have involved mostly single-celled organisms, which don't show much in the way of morphology, no such example will be forthcoming.
In short, you hope you have set us a challenge which we will not presently be able to meet however true the theory of evolution is.
An interesting, indeed revealing, manoeuvre. But doomed to failure.
I give you, for example, the evolution of Chlorella vulgaris from a single-celled form to an eight-celled form, as a response to predation by Ochromonas vallescia. The benefit is that such forms are too big for O. vallescia to eat (will you admit that not being eaten is a benefit?) and of course such morphological changes would (and do) show up in the fossil record.
So the challenge is to show scientific evidence that identifies a mutation as being "benefical" and "morphoogical".
If you can do this then I think we have a reasonable argument for looking at all the morphological changes in the fossil record and assuming that they are indeed evolutionary changes.
Splendid. I look forward to our future discussions with interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 1:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 208 of 331 (476133)
07-21-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Nonsense
Now let me also make sure that you understand the logical fallacy that the interpretation of evidence is not evidence. So you are going to have a hard time with me using the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence. I will let you use the bones and dating of the bones as evidence, but the interpretation of that evidence is not evidence. (otherwise you have circular reasoning which I'm sure no evoists use, right???)
Check into the scientific method, and how it actually works, and get back to us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:35 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 209 of 331 (476135)
07-21-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Can you see my hands waiving?
Please note that the "easy" challenge was to show mutations identified as being "beneficial" and "morphological".
I refer you again, AOK, to post 185 of this thread. At least a part of the reason that people with hemoglobin C don't suffer symptoms of malaria, even when infected with Plasmodium parasites, is a matter of morphology. If you have Plasmodium in your red blood cells and have hemoglobin A, the blood cells grow "knobs" and get "sticky" - they gum up in capillaries and cause blockages in your circulation that can kill you. If you have hemoglobin C, you get very few "knobs" and don't get blockages. So you have a better chance to live past infancy and have kids that do, too.
Morphology. Beneficial.
Nature, v435, pp1117-1121, (2005)
.....countdown begins to "well, that's not really morphological, 'cause it's not a femur or a skull..."
Edited by Coragyps, : typo

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:35 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 210 of 331 (476136)
07-21-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 10:44 AM


Re: Canidae prone to rapid evolution
AOkid writes:
No, I asked for "beneficial" mutations that were morphological and could show in the fossil record.
A high tendency to mutate would show increased variation in morphology in the fossil record.
AOkid writes:
Advantageous mutations are not necesarrily "beneficial".
AOkid writes:
bluegenes writes:
The canids have received advantageous mutations which enable them to make morphological changes far more easily than almost all other mammals, and therefore can adapt rapidly to changes in circumstances.
This is an interesting statement, although factually unsupported. Your cited study certainly doesn't suggest this.
From the study:
quote:
The correlation of enhanced slippage rates with major evolutionary radiations suggests that the possession of a "slippery" genome may bestow on some taxa greater potential for rapid evolutionary change.
AOkid writes:
bluegenes writes:
They are a morphologically flexible family, partially due to "a genome-wide increase in the basal germ-line slippage mutation rate."
This your study says, and I probably agree with. However, it doesn't address my challenge.
Try reading that paper very carefully, and you might find some others that it refers to interesting as well. You're looking for mutations that confer benefits on the phenotype, right? Benefits that could show in the fossil record?
As I said, read carefully.
AOkid writes:
Dogs ability to mutate along the germline does not extend and change their collective genetic capacity. In fact it diminishes it. That's why breeders breed male and female from the same breed. They do this, because the results are that the offspring are from the same breed. Otherwise they would go out of business. The genetic capacity has been reduced relative to the parent capacity of the wolf.
Are you using "capacity" to mean diversity? Do feel free to point to anything in the literature that supports your views. Germline mutations contribute to increased diversity, wouldn't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 10:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2008 7:35 AM bluegenes 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