Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution

It amazes me the extent you go to in order to insist on being wrong. And which ACTUALLY occurs from ordinary sexual recombination PLUS mutations.You deny ignoring mutations and yet here you are denying mutations. They are an observed and documented part of the equation. Ignoring them makes you reach false conclusions.It's like you want to count to 100 using only odd numbers, ... which makes it difficult to get 100. Which is due to mutations. And altered by new mutations.Failure to consider mutations leads you to false conclusions. Correct: genetic variation with mutations plus selection for survival and breeding occur in every generation of every population -- that is evolution.Notice that this contradicts earlier statements you made about selection (Message 113): "... I've only said I think it is far less a factor than it is reputed to be. ... I just don't think it happens as much as you all think it does, that evolution is going to occur just as well without it."Allele frequencies are always in flux, even in fairly stable populations. Larger variations can be caused by ecological change or by moving into a different ecology. The change in frequencies is caused by the selection response to the ecological changes or variation. The different allele frequencies are caused by ordinary sexual recombination PLUS mutations PLUS selection. In different ecologies selection will be different due to different challenges and opportunities posed by the ecology. Selection is the process that determines the mix of alleles that is favored for survival and growth of the population. Selection occurs in response to the ecology. Nope. False. Wrong. Incorrect. Invalid. Without mutation you don't get new species.The introduction of new traits due to mutations is necessary for the new species to diverge from the parent population: it is what makes them different. But not to the degree that can occur with mutations included in the mix. And that would make you wrong again. Only because you say so and because you refuse to include mutations in your thinking and this leads you to false conclusions.Fortunately, for life on earth, mutations do occur, mutations do cause genetic change, mutations do provide beneficial traits, mutations do enable speciation to occur.Enjoy.

I am reminded of watching WWE wrestling matches. The bad guy pulls brass knuckles out of his skin-tight tights, and everybody in the arena sees it. Well everyone except the referee who is cartooningly oblivious. And according, to you, we cannot then have any mutations because we would 'lose the species'. That is a remarkably obtuse thing to say. We originally start out allowing a species to have a large amount of diversity. But once we have a distinct species, you claim that any new changes are disallowed.Then you claim that just having a curly ear is not enough to claim a new breed. If so, then why can we not add a curly ear to your new distinct species without 'losing it'.Note that we can point out exactly where your thinking goes wrong, but you in contrast can only wring your hands about nobody, in general understanding you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This could not possibly be what Faith actually means. Allelle frequencies are simply the proportions or ratios at which given genetic traits appear in a population. She surely means to make new combinations of the alleles themselves and not just their relative appearances.Still wrong, but at least such a thing is not a gross misunderstanding of terminology.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, Faith it is important to know that populations in static ecologies are constantly evolving to remain near optimum for fitness to the ecology, that significant changes are resisted by selection when there is no pressure to change.Climate changes from year to year mean that the frequencies of traits in the populations change in response. This was observed by the Grants many times.It is also critical because a developed population that fills their habitat to the carrying capacity will push less viable individuals into marginal surrounding ecologies and this is particularly applicable when new traits that arise in the developed population enable individuals to move into and take advantage of neighboring ecologies.The dark mice were able to take advantage of the lava beds. Because of mutations and continued selection to meet the opportunities and challenges of the different ecology. Except that it is ACTIVELY evolving to remain fit for the ecology, and selection is continuous in every generation, still removing traits that are less viable for survival and breeding. ACTIVE evolution is occurring in ALL breeding populations. That active evolution includes active production of variations in hereditary traits by recombination and mutation, and it involves active selection of the traits best suited for the ecology, ... whether that ecology is different or not.Every new generation is different from the parent generation. What survives and reproduces depends on the selection response to the challenges and opportunities of the ecology, whether that ecology changes by normal climate variations or by the population moving into a new ecosystem or by other species evolving around them.

IIRC Faith's main article of faith is that all possible alleles are present in the parent population but certain combinations can only flower in the absence of the dominant mixture seen in the parent population.Thus a group that goes off by itself becomes susceptible to producing these repressed variants as they lose the oppressive traits.Which can then become reproductively incompatible with the parent population ... ?

In the first place, you seem to have missed the bit where I wrote: "an allele A* arises in the new population and replaces A." Please write a new post the stupidity of which relies entirely on your ignorance of genetics and not on your inability to comprehend simple sentences written in the English language. Thank you.

I understand that error on Faith's part. But I don't believe even that concept is well expressed as "mixing of new allele frequencies". All that's actually happening is that the allele frequencies have been changed.

I think words like 'optimum' and 'best suited' over state the case in an otherwise excellent description. One reason is because of the focus on individual traits versus fitness of the overall organism. Optimization of particular survival strategies like hawk-like eye sight and extreme running speed just don't play much of a role in civilized society.I don't think there is any question that things like myopia are sub-optimal, but there might even be at least some survival potential in being able to detect parts of the light spectrum that are damaging to our bodies using or eyes or other senses.Humans can actually fit into a wide variety of environmental niches without making any changes because of the intelligence and tool using ability that separates us from all other primates and indeed all other land animals (at the very least).The other issue is that the only thing that is important with regard to selection is survival to breed/sire and raise offspring to adulthood. Surviving to ages older than necessary, memorizing long strings of dates, and being a great backgammon player are not going to be naturally selected for because those things don't play a role in propagating (ignoring the odd mating partner who values those things).Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A fair point, and I do have some reluctance to focus on top picks when any individual that succeeds in surviving to breed just once does pass on genes (albeit a lower frequency than those more successful).The point, I guess, is that in a large population with a predominantly stable ecology there is a "trendency" towards an optimal combination/s of available traits and that those that are better fit\suited to survive and breed can do so at the expense of those less fit\suited. In a social species memorizing things can help the group survive which then ensures that descendants survive.

I read it as replacing A in the individual. Your whole scenario was hard to follow, sorry if I got that wrong.

No. A^* and B^* replace A and B (respectively) throughout the population by either genetic drift or natural selection, it doesn't matter which.Now, if B^* and A are incompatible, producing inviable zygotes, then the A^*, B^* population cannot interbreed with the A, B population, and so we have a new species. And yet none of the events described lead to a net loss of genetic diversity in either group.