A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Yes I do. Nope.I may get to Percy's many posts eventually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't define species as you do, and breeds do fine as the domestic version of species.

No it's actually the way the word is frequently used, but when it is defined it's something else.

You aren't going to see much of anything with one gene, it's the mixture of new frequencies of hundreds, thousands of genes, that brings out the new phenotypic picture. And there's no need to assume complete loss of any particular allele, just reduction, which probably gets more reduced as the generations pass. Although you could get a new population with nothing but, say, changed striping, say in a raccoon population that split off from another population, in large populations with lots of genetic diversity, like the wildebeests, more than one characteristic is going to change: blue hide, smaller stature, different antlers. The alleles for all those characteristics are in the larger population but they don't get expressed until a new set of gene frequencies allows them to be expressed in the new population.Edited by Admin, : Rerender after changing the regular expressions in Faith's disallowed word list to be less inclusive. For example, she can now use the word "like", which became disallowed as part of the regular expressions for "lie". That regular expression used to be "l\S?i\S?e\S?", now it's "l\W?i\W?e\W?". Also fix a typo.Edited by Admin, : In the above edit comment I forgot that "lie" would be filtered out, so the "***" above should be "lie".

So I guess I can't call these "species" can I? They are the result of breeding pigeons for the same trait generation to generation. I don't know what the genetic principle is here and I don't recall anyone's discussing it here, but getting an exaggerated trait llke this seems to be what happens when a basically normal but slightly enlarged version of the trait gets selected over and over and over. (Llke the "I love you" eyes of the dogs mentioned on another thread perhaps.)The idea then is that it starts out fairly subtle, perhaps just noticeable, but if selected and bred from generation to generation it gets more and more exaggerated.That is what I think must have happened with the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Five pairs of very ordinary lizards were released onto an isolated island where they reproduced for thirty years in that isolation and the result was that after those thirty years the whole population had developed very large heads and jaws, and a different digestive system to cope with the tougher foods it was now eating. It wasn't that their usual food before they were isolated wasn't present on the island, it was that genetically their new gene frequencies had a slight emphasis on larger head and jaw and that over generations of reproduction those traits got exaggerated, very much llke Darwin's pigeons. This probably would only happen when the founding population is very small, probably not in a larger population, because there would be more opportunity for the same trait to get selected in each generation in the smaller population. Or....maybe it's just that it was the greatest gene frequency among the founders?Anyway this is a phenomenon that I think needs some explanation. Mutations don't seem to be involved, or ecological pressure etc., just the genetics intensely selected. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know I'm responding too impulsively and I'll probably have to come back and clean it up, but really HBD....really.... Well I guess you believe this but no no no no no. Wildebeests all look alike --- low phenotypic diversity --- but I'm sure they have very high genetic diversity. And again all I can do is point out that to get any kind of domestic breed REQUIRES losing the genetic stuff for all other breeds. Sigh. I honestly do not know what you think you are observing, but I am very very sure it is not what you think it is, or what you think *I* think it is or whatever. You must have some completely different phenomena you are observing than what I'm talking about. Sorry sorry sorry, you are not responding to anything *I* am arguing.NO I AM NOT ENGAGING IN A *STRATEGY* ---I don't know what you are talking about NOW either!Yes I am very convinced.And please do NOT give your genomic perspective. You are wrong that I'm ever talking from the genomic perspective -- we must be using words differently or something -- and no I don't want to try to cope with your illustration of changing allele frequencies. Please.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think in terms of "advantage." That's a ToE concept that I don't think carries much weight. I think the lizards developed their larger heads and jaws AND the changed digestive tract without any regard whatever to the food available on the island. The changed digestive tract suggests a principle of parts working together that I have to suppose is built into the design of all creatures, yeah yeah yeah here comes God. I don't usually have to invoke God in these discussions but for something llke this it can't be avoided. ANYWAY, the genetic changes came first and then the lizards gravitated to the tougher kind of food they could now digest easily. Both the softer and the tougher foods had to have been available both before and after their isolation. No selection pressure, none of that. That's all ToE stuff and I've come to be convinced it plays no part in actual microevolutionary change.They didn't NEED to change at all PK, to cope with the environment that is, they changed because of the gene frequencies possessed by the original ten founder lizards which brought out the new characteristics over generations. Yes this is *MY* krazy wakko model, it is definitely NOT the ToE which I think simply does not explain reality. Reality. REALITY. Some evidence of an indirect sort is that if natural selection by environmental pressure was the cause there simply wouldn't be time for them to develop the new characteristics. Mutations aren't going to arrive on schedule for that purpose, the genetic capacity has to have been there from the beginning. Certainly a whole new digestic tract isn't going to show up on demand. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes of course the phenotype, all the phenotypes, are already in the breeding pool, but I'm going to have to come back to discuss this later.

So what? You define it all to suit yourself.

I'm guessing about the high genetic diversity of the wildebeests but my evidence is that they rarely form new populations, they remain an enormous homogeneous population, but when they do form a new population, such as the bluish ones, they are distinctively different, showing plenty of genetic stuff to work with.Oh yes changing gene/allele frequencies is quite sufficient.I'm getting into a bad mood. Time to exit for a while.

Including genetics in my post isn't the same thing as arguing from the genomic perspective, I'm always arguing from how you produce new phenotypes. That's by reducing genetic diversity but I don't get into the genomic stuff that others here are getting into, I just point out that to get new breeds in breeding same as to get new species you have to lose the genetic material for the other breeds or species. I don't get into Mendelian squares or strings of codons. I figure everybody knows that breeds are created by losing the genetic stuff for other breeds. You choose not to mate with animals that don't have the traits you want. That is NOT arguing from genomics. I don't get into what's going on with the alleles etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I"M USING HOMOGENEOUS TO DESCRIBE THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF A POPULATIONL, AND IK THOUGHT I WAS PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT IT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CLONES, I'M TALKING ABOUT A POINT WHEN THE DIFFERENT PHENOTYPIC TRAITS THAT ARISE GET BLENDED INTO A GENERAL APPEARANCE OF HOMOGENITY AND YHOU NEED TO QJUOTE ME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SAID. IN THE MAINJ POPULATION OF WILDEBEESTS THEY ARE ALL GENERALLY BROWN IN APPEARANCE, DESPITE THEIR GENETIC DIVERSITY. I'VE OFTEN WONDERED WHAT IT IS GENETICALLY THAT CREATES THAT SITUATION. I THINK NOW IT'S THAT ALL THE SEPARATE TRAITS ARE AT A NONDRAMATIC LEVEL, LIKE THE TRAITS THAT ORIGINALLY GET PICKED FOR THE EXAGGERATED FEATURES OF THE PIGEONS IN THE PICTURES. YOU HAVE TO ISOLATE THEM AND BREED THEM IN ISOLATION TO GET THOSE FEATURES, BUT IN THE HERD THEY ALL JUST BLEND IN.

I DON'T THINK ANY ALLELES EVER NEED TO BE PRODUCED BY MUTATIONS. I ASSUME SOME ARE BECAUSE YOU SAY THEY ARE, BUT THEY JUST DO MOSTLY WHAT I FIGURE THE BUILT IN ALLELES DO ANYWAY.

THE HUMAN POPULATION HAS HIGHER GENETIC AND PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY, BUT IF YOU ISOLATE ANY GROUP OF HUMANS FOR A LONG TIME YOU'LL GET SOMETHING FAR MORE HOMOGENEOUS JUST AS YOU DO WITH ANY ANIMALS. YOU'LL GET A RACE.wHY DON'T YOU JUST READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN INSTEAD OF MAKING IT ALL UP?IT'S A SIMPLE OBSERVATION. THE MAIN HERD OF WILDEBEESTS ALL LOOK ALIKE. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I'VE WONDERED HOW THAT CAN BE THAT ORIGINAL POPULATIONS WITH HIGH GENETIC DIVERISTY SEEM TO LOOK SO MUCH ALIKE. I SUPPOSE THAT IF YOU ISOLATE SOME BUFFALO OUT OF THAT HOMOGENEOUS HERD THEY WILL SOON DEVELOP A NEW LOOK TOO. THAT'S GOT TO BE HOW THE MANY DIFFERENT BREEDS OF CATTLE DEVELOPED. A PRETTY HOMOGENEOUS MAIN HERD FROM WHICH SMALL NUMBERS WERE TAKEN INTO DOMESTICATION, EACH DEVELOPING ITS OWN PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS WHICH THEN GOT CULTIVATED INTO MANY SPECIAL AND FAMOUS BREEDS.GEOGRAPHIC ISOLATION IS WELL KNOWN TO BE HOW DIFFERENT APPEARANCES DEVELOP IN WILD ANIMALS. RING SPECIES ARE A SERIES OF SUCH ISOLATED POPULATIONS EACH WITH ITS OWN LOOK. ALL IT TAKES IS THE PHYSICAL ISOLATION OVER TIME.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the same processes, the same mechanisms, the same genetics that produce both breeds and species. Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line.I had a reason for posting the pigeons. I am interested in the question of how the same trait is increased by being selected over generations. I assume it is the same gene or genes that underlie the trait. The exaggerated size of the lizards' head and jaw on Pod Mrcaru suggests the same kind of genetic situation.I really don't care about being precise about the meaning of "homogeneity." I was interested in THAT question for a similar reason: what is it genetically that allows for the overall appearance of homogeneity when there is high genetic diversity in the population? I've had that question in mind for a very long time but only got around to bringing it up now. In the scenario I lay out for how a new population becomes a species I see it through stages from some set of individuals that leave the parent population looking just like all the others in that population -- another case of appearance of homogeneity with unknown levels of genetic diversity, and again no I'm not interested in getting precise about it, it's not relevant to anything I'm saying.

• That's stage one, founding population that looks like parent population. This could be the all-one-color of a herd animal or it could be a raccoon population with distinctive markings. Since this new population will have a new set of gene frequencies I'm expecting them to produce a new look in the new population over some number of generations of breeding only within the population.
• Stage two is where breeding within the new population begins. The offspring may or may not have observably different characteristics from the parents, but by
• Stage three new characteristics should start to emerge from the new combinations of alleles, including a new pattern of markings on an animal like a raccoon.
• And reproductive stages beyond that should bring out even more new characteristics, again all from recombination of the new gene frequencies.
• The end result should be that the whole population will have blended together to form a new appeaerance of homogeneity that is distinct from the original population and from all other populations of the same species. A completely new pattern of markings would probably identify the new raccoon population.

Yes I'm imagining how this would play out in my model. But the lab experiment I've described is for the purpose of proving it.I expect my opponents to describe their own completely different scenario with the mutations and the ecological selection pressure and so on, and even be adamant that it's the correct scenario based on the ToE, but I strongly object to telling me I'm wrong because I don't share that scenario. No, if that's going to be the attitude, sorry, YOU are wrong. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.