Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 436 of 908 (817310)
08-16-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by DOCJ
08-16-2017 1:30 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
DOCJ writes:
Exactly what is written in 2 tim 4 3-4.
Writing stuff in books doesn't change reality. You need to address the facts of reality.
FYI science changes like the wind. However, you do make it sound like scientists only believe in evolution. Lol.
People changing their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence is what they should do. Why do you think dogma is better than having an open mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 1:30 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 8:39 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 437 of 908 (817311)
08-16-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Stile
08-16-2017 1:22 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Faith writes:
I'm saying that such specific mutations as described above are highly improbable.
I see.
So you don't think it's impossible, just improbable.
Well, but to an astronomical degree when you are talking about such a specific mutation.
Faith writes:
My guess is that it would in fact be impossible and that even if you got a slightly longer haired pup it would take many generations before it got long enough to be what you have in mind by simply multiplying the effect of that one gene. And I don't even know if that's possible. The odds are seriously against you.
But I was talking about my lineage doing the selecting. My lineage is very good at identifying long hairs vs. short hairs. They look at the hairs and the longer one wins.
Yes, but after so many generations of breeding for short hairs you may very well have the condition of homozygosity across all the genes that affect hair length, in which case picking out the slightly longer haired one won't have the necessary genetic foundation and you won't be able to breed for the long hair. Again if you still have some genetic material for longer hair you can exploit that when it turns up in your litters but I'm not sure how far you can go with that either after so many generations of breeding for short hair.
And many generations of dogs aren't a problem either... we're already going many generations of humans (my lineage) so for dogs it shouldn't be an issue at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your human lineage hasn't been subjected to methodical selection for particular traits has it? Have you all been isolated on a desert island for hundreds of years? Are you maybe Amish? (They are having genetic problems now because of inbreeding over many generations).
You've been breeding for certain characteristics in your dogs; you haven't said anything about breeding for certain characteristics in your family.
Seems like the odds are somewhat better than being "seriously against me."
Well not to judge by anything you've said so far. The odds are against you if the circumstances are as I've described them.
But, that doesn't matter. As long as you accept that such random mutations can happen, I think you're being reasonable.
Oh good.
Please ponder what I've written about this above about the odds against getting a particular mutation in the right place to be passed on etc etc etc. It's all a matter of getting a particular DNA sequence that codes for a particular protein in the germ cell. Consider the odds.
I understand that this would be more rare for a specific gene in my specific breeding example.
But now let's go back to the wild with this information.
Now we're not looking for any specific gene. In fact, in order for random mutations to increase the genetic variety... they don't have to be for any specific gene or any benefit or any negative thing at all. All they have to do is occur. As long as random mutations are occurring (especially neutral ones), and the population is still reproducing and growing... then the genetic variety is going to increase.
Yes, it will increase in the sense of mutations popping up in individuals here and there in the population, but most of the mutations won't be making a phenotypic difference because they are neutral; those that are deleterious will supposedly eventually disappear, taking their hosts with them; and the extremely rare beneficial ones probably aren't going to show up for a hundred years, or in the germ cell where they can get passed on, for a thousand, but let's say they do show up: what you are getting is a scattering of mutations within a population, not a new variety, just a few scattered mutations that pop up in different individuals here and there. A beneficial mutation has to be selected to bring about an increase in the phenotype that could become the basis for a new variety, species, race, etc.
If random mutation do not occur and this increase in genetic information doesn't happen before the next speciation event... and the next, and the next and the next... then I agree with you. Eventually the species will die off, like the cheetah... because of population bottlenecks.
This doesn't compute. There's no reason for a species to die off for lack of mutations. The cheetah hasn't died off and it has an extremely depleted genetic situation. It's endangered but is still living and reproducing.
However, if the next speciation event doesn't happen for, say... hundreds of thousands of years... That's plenty of time to build the genetic variety as well as the population up so that the next possible loss in a speciation event doesn't hurt the population as a whole.
The thing is, ANY time you get a new variety or species, meaning the formation of a population characterized by traits that differ from that of the parent population, you HAVE TO lose the genetic material for all the other traits that could occur in the population. Over ten thousand years of building up the population and accumulating mutations, in order to get a new species you still have to lose the traits that aren't contributing to the new species. Maybe the new species will start with the migration to a new location of twenty individuals. They would have a very different set of gene frequencies from the parent population, more of one trait, less of another. Whatever their particular collection, the higher gene frequencies would start to show up phenotypically and become dominant in the population over some number of generations. If they are different enough from the traits in the parent population the new population will start to look different from that population. The low frequency alleles will eventually drop out altogether.
Over enough generations you will probably get homozygosity for all the main traits, which means the absolute loss of all the other possible traits that could have existed. You may get this situation in quite a short time from only twenty founding individuals. But the point is that you HAVE to lose genetic diversity to get a population of new traits. The traits may be different than those ten thousand years ago if they were all formed by mutation, but they are going to be variations on existing genes so merely variations in whatever those genes govern, and all the other possible traits will not be present, or will be present in such rare occurrences they won't contribute to the overall new look. Only if something happens to select them would that happen and then as they became numerous the OTHER traits would have to be lost anyway. The point is you HAVE to lose some in the process of bringing others to expression. So you can have all the mutations you can dream up, they still have to be selected to bring about a new variety or species and selection reduces genetic diversity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Stile, posted 08-16-2017 1:22 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 3:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 441 by Stile, posted 08-16-2017 3:42 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 438 of 908 (817315)
08-16-2017 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
08-16-2017 2:58 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Faith writes:
Well, but to an astronomical degree when you are talking about such a specific mutation.
Let's see your math.
Yes, but after so many generations of breeding for short hairs you may very well have the condition of homozygosity across all the genes that affect hair length, in which case picking out the slightly longer haired one won't have the necessary genetic foundation and you won't be able to breed for the long hair.
You will be able to breed for long hair if there is a mutation that produces long hair.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your human lineage hasn't been subjected to methodical selection for particular traits has it? Have you all been isolated on a desert island for hundreds of years? Are you maybe Amish? (They are having genetic problems now because of inbreeding over many generations).
According to you, all humans should be homozygous at every gene, and we should all have the same alleles. Otherwise, we would not be species with set characteristics. This is how ridiculous your position is.
Well not to judge by anything you've said so far. The odds are against you if the circumstances are as I've described them.
Again, show us your math. Assertions are worth nothing.
and the extremely rare beneficial ones probably aren't going to show up for a hundred years, or in the germ cell where they can get passed on, for a thousand, but let's say they do show up: what you are getting is a scattering of mutations within a population, not a new variety, just a few scattered mutations that pop up in different individuals here and there.
The reason that humans and chimps are different species is because of mutations scattered through their genomes.
The thing is, ANY time you get a new variety or species, meaning the formation of a population characterized by traits that differ from that of the parent population, you HAVE TO lose the genetic material for all the other traits that could occur in the population.
And new genetic material is produced by new mutations.
You might as well say that a car can only travel 400 miles because it only has enough gas to travel 400 miles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 8:14 PM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 439 of 908 (817317)
08-16-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Faith
08-16-2017 12:40 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Well, consider the odds. Not only does your mutation have to occur at the gene locus for the long haired trait, it has to be a particular sequence that would code for the protein for that trait, it also has to be dominant and able to be expressed even if ten other genes also code for hair length and they are all homozygous for short hair, and it has to occur in a sex cell in order to be passed on. Then if it gets passed on and shows up in half the pups in that litter it will probably only be a LITTLE longer than the short haired type anyway, but you could start your new breed from there. But again, consider the odds.
. . .
The odds are seriously against you.
. . .
I'm saying that such specific mutations as described above are highly improbable.
. . .
I think the odds are astronomically against it.
. . .
Please ponder what I've written about this above about the odds against getting a particular mutation in the right place to be passed on etc etc etc. It's all a matter of getting a particular DNA sequence that codes for a particular protein in the germ cell. Consider the odds.
Yes, let's consider the odds! Instead of all this hand-waving, give us some actual probabilities that we can start crunching so that we can see what the final probability actually would be.
So just what are the odds? You don't need to be exact. Within a few orders of magnitude should suffice and would at least give us something to work with besides your hand-waving.
New Cat's Eye wants to know (Message 423). Taq wants to know (Message 429 and Message 435 and Message 438) . Stiles wants to know (Message 431). I want to know too.
So what are the probabilities? If you don't know (in which case you've been blowing smoke), then I'm sure there are sources that would provide them. There's a long history of animal and plant breeding which I'm certain has a sizable body of literature, so I would assume that the information is there. Other forum members might know or know where to find the information.
Or we could start with a SWAG figure assigning a low probability for a particular pup get the mutation (analogous to figuring out a specific person's chances of winning the lottery). That would allow us to figure out the probability of any pup getting the mutation (analogous to figuring out the odds of anybody winning the lottery). We could expand that to a range of SWAG values so that we can arrive at upper and lower bounds on the outcome.
So, enough with the hand-waving and let's start crunching numbers!

Regarding hand-waving, as we were watching a video of Al and Leon doing their version of the Shim Sham, our Lindy instructor pointed out Leon's use of jazz hands to draw the audience's attention away from how he was messing up his footwork.
There is a time and place for hand-waving, but eventually we must actually do the math.
Edited by dwise1, : Added Taq's newest message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 12:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 440 of 908 (817319)
08-16-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by DOCJ
08-16-2017 1:30 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
DOCJ writes:
Exactly what is written in 2 tim 4 3-4.
quote:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Yup, sounds exactly like creationism: turning away from the truth and toward fables.
DOCJ writes:
FYI science changes like the wind.
Science is self-correcting. How is that a bad thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 1:30 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 4:56 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 441 of 908 (817320)
08-16-2017 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
08-16-2017 2:58 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
The thing is, ANY time you get a new variety or species, meaning the formation of a population characterized by traits that differ from that of the parent population, you HAVE TO lose the genetic material for all the other traits that could occur in the population.
...
So you can have all the mutations you can dream up, they still have to be selected to bring about a new variety or species and selection reduces genetic diversity.
You do understand that not all traits have to be selected when a selection occurs, right?
It's quite possible for dog breeders to select for hair length while not selecting nail growth or teeth hardness or ability-to-smell or length of legs or pupil size or...
Therefore, if you select for one thing, you don't have to lose "all" others... you only have to lose all others-that-have-to-do-with-that-one-specific-thing.
Therefore, if the mutations that occur are for all sorts of things... and the speciation event is only on one particular trait... then the vast majority of the mutations will remain and still count as an increase in genetic variety.
Here is an example with specifics:
Say we have a dog population with the following:
Hair - all the same
Eye colour - all the same
Nail length - all the same
Ability to smell - all the same
Length of legs - all the same
Now, 2000 years goes by and, due to random mutations we have a dog population like this:
Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - some dark, some light
Nail length - some short, some long
Ability to smell - some strong, some weak
Length of legs - some short, some long
There are dogs of every combination of all these possible traits.
The genetic variety has increased a lot.
Now, we have a speciation event - Only dogs with a strong ability to smell are selected, the rest are killed off 'cause they can't find food.
So, we no longer have strong smellers and weak smellers, we have only strong smellers.
We reduced the genetic variety.
But, we still have a dog population like this:
Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - some dark, some light
Nail length - some short, some long
Ability to smell - all the same (strong, not weak)
Length of legs - some short, some long
Which still has a lot more variation than the original population 2000 years ago.
Wouldn't you agree?
If not, which part of this scenario do you find impossible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 2:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 9:29 PM Stile has replied
 Message 453 by Percy, posted 08-17-2017 8:27 AM Stile has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 442 of 908 (817336)
08-16-2017 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by ringo
08-16-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
It can be a bad thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by ringo, posted 08-16-2017 3:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2017 5:03 PM DOCJ has replied
 Message 464 by ringo, posted 08-17-2017 11:59 AM DOCJ has replied

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


Message 443 of 908 (817337)
08-16-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by DOCJ
08-16-2017 4:56 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Would you rather that science not correct errors?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 4:56 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 7:02 PM Coyote has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 444 of 908 (817341)
08-16-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Taq
08-16-2017 10:54 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Do you have any science to back up this assertion?
Yes.
In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" the chapter entitled "Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations" looks at the likelihood of gain-of-function and loss-of-function mutations occurring in a given population and finds loss-of-function mutations to be more probable in general, both in theory and in practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 10:54 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Percy, posted 08-17-2017 8:37 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 459 by Taq, posted 08-17-2017 10:42 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 445 of 908 (817342)
08-16-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Taq
08-16-2017 10:53 AM


Re: This is NOT macroevolution, the product of non-stop microevolution
"Now when the isolated populations merge ..."
Maybe they won't interbreed, maybe they can't, but probably they can and will.
You can tell your story, I'll tell mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 10:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Taq, posted 08-17-2017 10:44 AM CRR has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 446 of 908 (817346)
08-16-2017 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Coyote
08-16-2017 5:03 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
I think it is important to realize Science is a tool that does provide a way to interpret data. I also think there are more tools in the tool box that provide a better way to interpret the same data and/or data of a different type. Sometimes coupling the tools used to interpret data is best for the job. And there are issues today that Science is unable to resolve even a little bit when you would think it should be able to provde the best answers. The error correction within the Scientific method also exists within other methods of interpretation. People see issues, research, imagine, draw ideas, repeat. And of course it's important to note i'm refering to interpreting the origin of all things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2017 5:03 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2017 9:23 PM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 447 of 908 (817353)
08-16-2017 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Taq
08-16-2017 3:23 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Ok. In DNA there is plenty of room for information to be stored, no need to think it was lost. And most of the time mutations lead to death, or the mutation is destroyed within the creature causing abortion. This idea that mutations lead to new species and then to new kinds so to speak, over billions of years is hypothetical with exception to simple life forms such as plants. Which is writtin in scipture to have been produced by the earth. IT IS absolutely astonishing Moses was aware of plant evolution. You don't need to break up the evolutionary idea into micro and macro. You can explain it away reasonably with the above info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 3:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Taq, posted 08-17-2017 10:48 AM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 448 of 908 (817354)
08-16-2017 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Taq
08-16-2017 2:55 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
You meant books. The bible is filled with several books.
Books actually do change reality though. A reality with books or 1 without books. Very big difference. Further what is real is being interpreted. You can't know what you think is truth, instead you believe it, you interpret it. Which does lead to a type of knowledge and this knowledge can and will be debated, corrected, and etc.
I'm not arguing that it is unhealthy to change your mind persay, quite the opposite. I'm arguing 1 it can be unhealthy and 2 Science changes like the wind. That should help you draw a better conclusion (i.e to change your mind) about the process of Science and the related flaws.
Science is a tool. Not a religon. Millions use it supporting creation such as the reasons to believe entity. And others use it to suggest evolution such as hawking.
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err
Edited by DOCJ, : Err

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Taq, posted 08-16-2017 2:55 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-17-2017 9:16 AM DOCJ has replied
 Message 462 by Taq, posted 08-17-2017 10:51 AM DOCJ has replied

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


Message 449 of 908 (817355)
08-16-2017 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by DOCJ
08-16-2017 7:02 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
I think it is important to realize Science is a tool that does provide a way to interpret data. I also think there are more tools in the tool box that provide a better way to interpret the same data and/or data of a different type. Sometimes coupling the tools used to interpret data is best for the job.
But not all ways of interpreting data are of equal value. So far religion, philosophy and similar ways of interpreting real-world data have been immense failures. Science, while not perfect, is finding out things, correcting errors, and producing very useful results.
And of course it's important to note i'm refering to interpreting the origin of all things.
Science has some ideas on this subject, but is still working on it. On the other hand, there are some 40,000 world religions, each with a slightly different or vastly different explanation for origins, and in lot of cases the explanations are mutually exclusive or contradicted by real-world evidence. I don't consider that a very good track record, nor something to be emulated.
Preachers are always complaining that scientists are playing God, but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist--The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 7:02 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by DOCJ, posted 08-17-2017 9:21 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 450 of 908 (817356)
08-16-2017 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Stile
08-16-2017 3:42 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
You do understand that not all traits have to be selected when a selection occurs, right?
It's quite possible for dog breeders to select for hair length while not selecting nail growth or teeth hardness or ability-to-smell or length of legs or pupil size or...
Therefore, if you select for one thing, you don't have to lose "all" others... you only have to lose all others-that-have-to-do-with-that-one-specific-thing.
Yes of course, sorry if that wasn't clear. What you are losing is alleles for other versions of the chosen traits.
But it also has to be recognized that when you select for a trait you are selecting a whole genome of a whole animal so you are also in a sense selecting whatever is in that genome which could have all kinds of interesting peculiarities. Of course if you keep on selecting for your chosen trait among many individuals those other traits won't also be selected unless somehow they are otherwise genetically tied to your chosen trait. (This is really a side issue though so you can ignore it).
Therefore, if the mutations that occur are for all sorts of things... and the speciation event is only on one particular trait... then the vast majority of the mutations will remain and still count as an increase in genetic variety.
Depends on how large the founding population of your new species was. Most of the scattered mutations would stay behind in the parent population if the founding population was fairly small. And those that got included in the founding population would probably just drop out, being single mutations, as the new population inbreeds over the next however-many generations.
But just as a definition yes that's an increase in genetic diversity, but as I keep trying to get across it isn't contributing to the formation of new species/varieties etc unless it's getting selected, spreading through the population and so on. And then, as with the selection of any alleles, you start losing the alleles for the traits being displaced anyway. You can't avoid loss when selection is happening. If selection isn't happening you can have lots of genetic diversity in the sense of mutations in individuals scattered through the population but that sort of genetic diversity just sits there until some part of it is selected.
This idea that any increase in genetic diversity counters the loss from selection is just wrong as I keep trying to say. In order to contribute to evolution, meaning the formation of new species or varieties etc., the mutation has to be selected so that it will proliferate in the population or in the new population, and again, when that happens it displaces the alleles for other traits, which eventually may be lost completely from a newly forming daughter population.
But, we still have a dog population like this:
Hair - some short, some long
Eye colour - some dark, some light
Nail length - some short, some long
Ability to smell - all the same (strong, not weak)
Length of legs - some short, some long
Which still has a lot more variation than the original population 2000 years ago.
Wouldn't you agree?
If not, which part of this scenario do you find impossible?
I don't find it impossible, just another case of increasing diversity to no evolutionary purpose as it were. In this case your mutations destroyed what was a homogeneous dog breed, sharing all the same traits, this destruction being what I keep saying has to happen if you introduce mutations into an established breed: you go from a breed to a mutt. You've reversed the effect of selection which had homogenized the breed. It's selection that does that, it's selection that turns a motley collection of traits into a recognizable breed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Stile, posted 08-16-2017 3:42 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Stile, posted 08-17-2017 9:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024