Questions arisinng about evolution model based on domestication experiment.

I n the recent study by Russian biologists by Trut et al. (2009)Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model - PMC. "Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model" we read:
"It seems unlikely that these similar trends of morphological and physiological transformation of different domestic animals depend on homologous independent mutations of structural homologous genes. The Russian evolutionary biologist Belyaev has suggested more than 50 years ago that domestication might involve other mechanisms contributing to phenotypic variation, mainly regulatory changes in gene activity during development.lAlso:"According to Belyaev, the crucial selective factor during early|" domestication was the new social environment, the first encounter of a wild species with humans. This extremely stressful setting rendered behavior — tolerance, docility toward human and the correlated stress resistance — the main target of selection. In his opinion, the genes that control behavioral variation play a key regulatory role during development. Belyaev therefore suggested that behavioral variation was the causative variation under domestication. "In my opinion his views directly endorse my theory theses (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) and in any case cast doupts about the current theory evolution paradigm. I would like to have your comments.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Can you describe the congruency between your views and Trut or Belyaev?Also, can you provide links for the source of your quotes?

.(10,11)" In contrast, the activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the key hormonal regulator of stress and adaptation, became attenuated in the very few domesticates studied in this respect.(12-14) ""According to Belyaev, the crucial selective factor during early domestication was the new social environment, the first encounter of a wild species with humans. This extremely stressful setting rendered behavior — tolerance, docility toward human and the correlated stress resistance — the main target of selection."...(16-19)"It was shown that retardation of the development (proliferation and migration from the neural crest) of the embryonic precursors of melanocytes, or primary melanoblasts, is the mechanism underlying depigmentation.(34) "". The maturation of the neurophysiological substrate of the fear response makes socialization difficult""GCR gene expression in the hippocampus, a brain structure modulating the regulation of behavior and activity of the HPA axis and in the frontal cortex is higher in the domestic animals.(57)""Domestication also affects the developmental neurotransmitter systems. "Fom all above neural involvement in evolution process is shown to be more than sure.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Hi Zi Ko,Would you be willing to take another swing at this? The requests were:

• Can you describe the congruency between your views and Trut or Belyaev?
  ​
• Also, can you provide links for the source of your quotes?

1. See message 3.2. By Trut et all (2009) Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model - PMC
I had already given it in message 1 by editting.Sorry i din't mentioned it beforeEdited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Thanks for the link. Can you describe what you see in the views of Trut and Belyaev that seems in agreement with your own?

One of the two new concepts that my hypothesis about evolution introduces is neural's system involvement in the process of evolution, the other one was empathic transfer of information by neural system having impact on DNA.For not being able to bring evidence for this involvement i was fiercely criticised in this forum, in one of my previous threads (new evolution theory between Creationism and evolution).
The quotes from this study show unmistakenly the neural system involvement .

Neural systems are subject to selection pressures and evolve. No one disputes that.But you believe that acquired changes to neural systems can influence evolution. You need to describe where you see any support for this in the work of Trut and Belyaev.

Trut says:
"We assign the causative role in evolutionary transformation of domestic animals to selection for behavior and to the neurospecific regulatory genes it affects."
So selected behavior affect these genes which in turn have regulatory action on development and evolution."The presence of SSR,or SINE elements in the genes of the hormonal and neurotransmitter systems may have important consequences. Changes in their expression may be implicated in changes in the expression of many genes under their control
presumably noncoding simple sequence repeats "It is quite clear that: neurotransmitter systems affect the expression of many genes.

You have misunderstood Trut, who could have expressed himself more clearly and I understand how you could be led to believe he's saying that selection causes changes in "neurospecific regulatory genes", but selection can only influence which genes make it to the next generation, and Trut knows this. No doubt they do, but do they drive evolutionary change? That's what you're trying to demonstrate that Trut and Belyaev are saying, but you'll have a hard time doing that, because to anyone who understands English they're not saying that. I'm not going to promote a thread that from its outset will just be an argument about what scientists are really saying.Why don't you present the evidence you believe supports your view, instead of the quotes you believe support it.AbE: Be aware that the paper you're citing (Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model) is a translation. This appears at the end: "Authors thank Anna Fadeeva for translation of the manuscript from Russian into English and Yekaterina Omelchenko for technical assistance."So you're not interpreting English written by Trut, but English translated from the Russion by a translator whose expertise and familiarity with the subject matter is unknown. That some portions are not expressed very clearly is unsurprising.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

Percy,
your try to avoid discussion on the issue is evident. Your excuses about language translation from Russian is about ridiculus. You may disagree with my views. It is your right, but you just happen to forget (?) to comment on the first and main issue of what Trut and Belayef believe (and prove) about transformation of animals not depending on homologous independent mutations of structural homologous genes. They clearly say (and you can't misunderstand them):
"It seems unlikely that these similar trends of morphological and physiological transformation of different domestic animals depend on homologous independent mutations of structural homologous genes. The Russian evolutionary biologist Belyaev has suggested more than 50 years ago that domestication might involve other mechanisms contributing to phenotypic variation, mainly regulatory changes in gene activity during development." It is obvious. You don't want to discuss the matter. It hurts!

As I said, I'm not going to promote another thread where the basis for your position is a misinterpretation of English.If you'd like to present evidence instead of quotes I'd be glad to take a look.

Percy
you seem to forget (?) the main issue of my OP was Trut's and Belyaef's opinion that ""It seems unlikely that these similar trends of morphological and physiological transformation of different domestic animals depend on homologous independent mutations of structural homologous genes. The Russian evolutionary biologist Belyaev has suggested more than 50 years ago that domestication might involve other mechanisms contributing to phenotypic variation, mainly regulatory changes in gene activity during development" and it seems there is not any case of misunderstanding(!)Obviously you don't like this issue to be discussed and not my theory.

If you have evidence for your position then I'd be glad to take a look. That's what we're here for, to discuss the evidence.