Speciation

ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Speciation

I find it odd that Richard Dawkins talks about some lizards that were let out on an island and evolved new organs I find this kinda riduclous because dogs have been around forever and most breeds can still mate I would like to think dawkins is mistaken about this theres no way we can witness new organs being formed in the body with even several lifetimes.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I find

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
I find it odd that Richard Dawkins talks about some lizards that were let out on an island and evolved new organs I find this kinda riduclous because dogs have been around forever and most breeds can still mate

Can you quote exactly what he said? I can't evaluate his claim with only that he said lizards evolved new organs.

Speciation doesn't always occur at the same rate. One organism may be subjected to a new environment and undergo drastic changes within a few hundred years. Another organism may be adapted well to a fairly stable environment and not change much for tens of thousands of years.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Nothing particularly odd

Nothing particularly odd about that scenario.

If an established group is exposed to a significantly different environment from what they have been long adapted to, there will very likely be some selection pressure to adapt to it.

I too would like to know the exact reference, but it could well be that something about the new environment could have opened an opportunity for a useful mutation.

A small sub-group finding itself in a new environment is exactly one of the classic scenarios that makes speciation more likely, so I am not surprised Dawkins said something like that. Whereas dogs around us are in the same basic environment they have evolved for, and are in a large breeding group, so are unlikely to evolve some new bodily feature. The small group makes it easier for mutations to spread across the group and not be diluted by all the un-mutated individuals around.

Put some of them on an isolated island and wait.

Of course small lizards would most like have shorter generation time than dogs as well, so evolution will happen faster.

It was observation of the differences he saw between small birds (finches) of basically the same group on different islands in the Galapagos which got Darwin thinking about why that would be.

So rather than being something strange, this is a well-known basic speciation scenario. Others are groups separated in different deep valleys in mountainous regions.

Hope this helps.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Check the youtube video I

Check the youtube video I just posted at 14 minutes in it shows dawkins talking about what im asking.

Yeah that does help some but im saying if youve seen those videos on evolution where it shows a fish slowing changing into an amphibian it took 20 million years just to notice a decent difference.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Check

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Check the youtube video I just posted at 14 minutes in it shows dawkins talking about what im asking.

Yeah that does help some but im saying if youve seen those videos on evolution where it shows a fish slowing changing into an amphibian it took 20 million years just to notice a decent difference.

Dawkins did not say they developed a new organ, just that their existing organs changed in ways better suited to a vegetarian diet than the insect diet they had available where they come from.

The closet he gets to describing a new organ is when he describes their gut developing 'valves' to help regulate the much greater flow of material involved in a vegetarian diet. That sort of thing can easily develop from some existing feature of the gut that had atrophied with an insect diet, but became useful again, so enhanced versions of it were selected for.

That is a far lesser thing than a whole new organ.

The intestines (the 'gut') already have rings of muscle all along their length to pump the contents thru, by contracting in waves, so it would not require any major physical change for more specialized rings of muscle at several points along the gut to be able to contract separately from the main sequence and so act as 'valves'.

EDIT:

I hope you listened more closely to the description he gave shortly after that about all the examples of what would be extremely poor design on the part of a 'conscious designer', but are easily explicable for the blind process of evolution. IOW, strong evidence FOR evolution.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
So are you saying they

So are you saying they already had the means to handle their new diet because of some already existing feature that had no use until that point.

Also I know evolution is true its just details like this I dont understand and would like clarification.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:So are

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

So are you saying they already had the means to handle their new diet because of some already existing feature that had no use until that point.

Also I know evolution is true its just details like this I dont understand and would like clarification.

No, an adjustment to an existing feature, the muscles that contract to constrict the gut as part of the process of forcing the contents along it.

They may well have had some spots already having some ability to act independently as valves, inherited from an ancestor that did use them for a vegetarian diet, just needing to be re-activated, so to speak.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:So are

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

So are you saying they already had the means to handle their new diet because of some already existing feature that had no use until that point.

Also I know evolution is true its just details like this I dont understand and would like clarification.

Get with the program dude. God did it, and that is all you need to know. And for the love of Thor, don't listen to Bob Spence. His country has animals with pouches and they stole our Constitution. And how the hell do you pee when you are standing on the ceiling?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
STFU, Brian...This is a

STFU, Brian...

This is a "serious" discussion....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
What would be a good example

What would be a good example of how tigers and lions branched off from each other?

And what was their most recent ancestor?


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:What

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

What would be a good example of how tigers and lions branched off from each other?

And what was their most recent ancestor?

 

Tigers and Lions are not too far diverged from each other, see Liger and Tiglion for how they can interbreed and produce some fertile offspring. So depending on your definition of species, they may or may not be different species. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger#Fertility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera#Evolution


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
The reason I am asking these

The reason I am asking these questions is because some aspects of evolution seem silly and rather unbelievable.

Cells not copying each other perfectly and natural selection make sense but when you actually look at the animals in the world you see inconsistence like the fact that dogs can reproduce with each other and even some wolves and zebras with horses but we cant reproduce with any other primate. It kinda puts a damper on the whole thing.Like a religious person could say well of course we cant because we arent related and god made it that way.All dogs are preety much the same just different hair color,length. and quantity. Bigger or smaller silk or rough looking.same kind of behaviors though. Humans and Chimps are very different behavior wise and chimps look dangerous.

Its hard to look at Chimps and think we are related to them in a such a way as to say we are closer realted to them than horses are to zebras.

What did the chimps and our ancestor look like and do we have the fossils.

How come chimps dont feel a connection with us and vice versa.

 


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
You know what a cognitice

You know what a cognitice dissonance is im not sure what that means exactly but I think thats what im going through concerning evolution. On this evoultion forum there is this creanitsts thrnatural selection doesnt make since and instead of answering his rebutals there just talking about how stupid he is. Its quite pathetic Im not saying creantionism is true it obvioulsy isnt but im so frustrated cause I want to know that evolution is true but there are just so many things that dont make sense about it. Does anyone have any advice on how to overcome this its like when I first learnned about it natural selection it was awesome and I was convinced but since the excitement from it has died down and I starte having questions about stuff I didnt understand its like I dont really know anything.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Its really a matter of this

Its really a matter of this significant degree of randomness that happens in evolution.

Some changes don't have any real benefit to our reproduction, they just may be more stable chemically, and so tend to spread once they happen. This is called 'genetic drift', small changes which have only a very small, if any benefit to reproduction.

The thing is, some of these changes can significantly reduce the ability to interbreed with other closely related lines of descent, such as a the fusion of two separate chromosomes into what is now human chromosome 2. Whereas this simply didn't happen in the other primates, for some reason.

I guess you are now going to ask why would it happen in us but not in the other apes....

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:The

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

The reason I am asking these questions is because some aspects of evolution seem silly and rather unbelievable.

Cells not copying each other perfectly and natural selection make sense but when you actually look at the animals in the world you see inconsistence like the fact that dogs can reproduce with each other and even some wolves and zebras with horses but we cant reproduce with any other primate. It kinda puts a damper on the whole thing.Like a religious person could say well of course we cant because we arent related and god made it that way.All dogs are preety much the same just different hair color,length. and quantity. Bigger or smaller silk or rough looking.same kind of behaviors though. Humans and Chimps are very different behavior wise and chimps look dangerous.

Its hard to look at Chimps and think we are related to them in a such a way as to say we are closer realted to them than horses are to zebras.

What did the chimps and our ancestor look like and do we have the fossils.

How come chimps dont feel a connection with us and vice versa.

 

I see what you mean but most of those 'dilemmas' come from not understanding the concept clearly.  Also the majority of your questions seem to come from intuition, but there are very good scientifically backed answers for them.  Some answers require a high degree of specialization, and you and I, as layman, wouldn't understand the details without a good amount of time spent studying.  The difference between what I described and how a creationist approaches the subject is that a creationists cannot admit that they do not know.  All of their arguments are born from ignorance and arrogance.  Evolution is not an abstract philosophical concept like the cosmological argument or solipsism, it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which differs from the definition of THEORY. It best describes the empirical data that we currently have.  It is backed by all the new data that we continually improve with better instruments.  In fact, if there were exceptions such as you describe, that we could not scientifically explain, then it would fail as a scientific theory.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:You know

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

You know what a cognitice dissonance is im not sure what that means exactly but I think thats what im going through concerning evolution. On this evoultion forum there is this creanitsts thrnatural selection doesnt make since and instead of answering his rebutals there just talking about how stupid he is. Its quite pathetic Im not saying creantionism is true it obvioulsy isnt but im so frustrated cause I want to know that evolution is true but there are just so many things that dont make sense about it. Does anyone have any advice on how to overcome this its like when I first learnned about it natural selection it was awesome and I was convinced but since the excitement from it has died down and I starte having questions about stuff I didnt understand its like I dont really know anything.

I'm quite guilty of that reaction.  I automatically jump to ridicule which makes me look like an asshole if I'm right, and an idiot if I'm wrong.  The truth is, in established... I'm going to say 'debates' for lack of a better word, such as evolution versus creation, the only reasonable reaction is to ridicule.  And you can't answer 'rebuttals' that are just naked assertions born from ignorance, it's like speaking different languages.  The person making rebuttals is not using logic, so trying to explain the fallacies logically is futile.  After a while you grow desensitized, and stop carrying about other peoples feelings.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote: The

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

The reason I am asking these questions is because some aspects of evolution seem silly and rather unbelievable.

Cells not copying each other perfectly and natural selection make sense but when you actually look at the animals in the world you see inconsistence like the fact that dogs can reproduce with each other and even some wolves and zebras with horses but we cant reproduce with any other primate. It kinda puts a damper on the whole thing.Like a religious person could say well of course we cant because we arent related and god made it that way.All dogs are preety much the same just different hair color,length. and quantity. Bigger or smaller silk or rough looking.same kind of behaviors though. Humans and Chimps are very different behavior wise and chimps look dangerous.

Its hard to look at Chimps and think we are related to them in a such a way as to say we are closer realted to them than horses are to zebras.

What did the chimps and our ancestor look like and do we have the fossils.

How come chimps dont feel a connection with us and vice versa.

 

Seriously, get a library card.  READ

1.  Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution by Douglas Futuyma

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Trial-Evolution-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878931848/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297789595&sr=1-3

Also available on Kindle.

2.  Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297789653&sr=1-1

Not on Kindle - but my library had it so I got to read it for FREE.

3. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock

http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babel-Evidence-against-Creationism/dp/0262661659/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297789762&sr=1-3

Also on Kindle.

4. Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds by John Long and Peter Schouten

http://www.amazon.com/Feathered-Dinosaurs-Origin-John-Long/dp/0195372662/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297789859&sr=1-4

Not on Kindle.  Kind of expensive, but the library came through again and I read it for free.

5. Science, Evolution, and Creationism ed. The National Academy of Sciences

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Evolution-Creationism-National-Sciences/dp/0309105862/ref=pd_sim_b_3

Also on Kindle.

 

You can best help yourself by educating yourself.  None of these books require a college degree to read and understand them.  If you can follow along on this forum, you can understand these books.  Yeah, it will take awhile - but if you don't get yourself educated, no one will do it for you.

As to why most people don't like sex with chimps - or sheep, or horses, or dogs -- it is probably a combination of instinct and culture.  Instinct because sex with another species will usually not produce fertile offspring.  Cultural because most cultures consider bestiality deviant, encourage children to believe the same, and penalize people who do.  There was a recent case up here where a guy was jailed for animal abuse for having sex with his female dog.  The dog (or any other animal) can not consent - neither legally nor cognitively, so it is considered animal abuse.  And the guy who did it is considered sick and will be getting counseling. 

If people and chimps could have fertile offspring, there would probably be a few chimp x humans around as there are people who would run the experiment often enough to have offspring. 

It's a whole new yo' mama joke - "Yo' mama is so ugly, yo' daddy was arrested for animal abuse for having sex with her."  Just think how much more insulting that would be if chimp x human children actually existed.

And yes, we have many fossils of human ancestors, just searched on Yahoo for "human fossil pictures".  You know, searching the internet is wonderful and so much easier than trying to go to all these museums.  For example, since I'm in Oregon, going to the Smithsonian is not a simple trip for me.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/photogalleries/100408-australopithecus-sediba-human-species-fossil-pictures/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295460

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/ardi_fossilized_skeleton.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote: Humans

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

 Humans and Chimps are very different behavior wise and chimps look dangerous.

 

Actually, human's and chimps do display similar behavior. for example: Chimps form raiding parties and will murder chimps from other tribes, will perform border patrol of their own zone, etc. So, we aren't all too different from chimps behavior-wise, we are merely restricted by laws.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:The

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

The reason I am asking these questions is because some aspects of evolution seem silly and rather unbelievable.

They are silly and unbelievable because they don't happen. Evolution is a very ambiguous term so when talking about evolution you need to be more specific. Micro-evolution = change within a species. This happens! Macro-evolution = change from one species into a totally different species or body type. This doesn't happen. There is a constant shell game being played in the scientific field with the word evolution and what it means. Don't let em' (atheism-secular humanism) fool you.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:ymalmsteen887

Lee2216 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

The reason I am asking these questions is because some aspects of evolution seem silly and rather unbelievable.

They are silly and unbelievable because they don't happen. Evolution is a very ambiguous term so when talking about evolution you need to be more specific. Micro-evolution = change within a species. This happens! Macro-evolution = change from one species into a totally different species or body type. This doesn't happen. There is a constant shell game being played in the scientific field with the word evolution and what it means. Don't let em' (atheism-secular humanism) fool you.

 

Your line between 'micro' and 'macro' is totally artificial, based on the whim of your preconceptions about what is possible.  There is no invisible line that shall not be crossed.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:They are silly

Lee2216 wrote:
They are silly and unbelievable because they don't happen. Evolution is a very ambiguous term so when talking about evolution you need to be more specific. Micro-evolution = change within a species. This happens! Macro-evolution = change from one species into a totally different species or body type. This doesn't happen. There is a constant shell game being played in the scientific field with the word evolution and what it means. Don't let em' (atheism-secular humanism) fool you.

Well, I'm impressed that you actually used the word "species" instead of the inept bullshit word "kind." Unfortunately, since you can't ad hoc with "species" like you can with "kind," we can comfortably say that we have many known instances of macro-evolution. So sorry. Try again. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Is it probable that the

Is it probable that the fusion of chromosone #2 was a key to human evolution? This prevented breeding with other primates and enabled humans to rapidy develop traits different than other primates.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
How did the different races

How did the different races of humans develop. I mean look at caucasian peoples faces compared to african american faces and our skin how did that develop and asian people and there eyes and lack of colored hair?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:How did

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

How did the different races of humans develop. I mean look at caucasian peoples faces compared to african american faces and our skin how did that develop and asian people and there eyes and lack of colored hair?

 

Repeat - there are NO races.  There is no significant genetic differences between you and any one else.

Here - http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7442.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

The change in skin and hair color is a mutation - yeah, all paler skinned people are mutants.  It is how melanin is expressed in utero.   Melanin is the protein that gives your skin and hair color.  The actual color is a different gene. 

As for the other physical characteristics, it is just a matter of population separation.  If you look at African populations, all of the genetic expressions of eye shape, body type and size, etc are there.  When humans left Africa, they became - temporarily in evolutionary time spans - separated.  And so you have the "founder" effect.  The peoples who settled in one area did not interbreed with Africans or other populations not within about a days walk - with the exception of Ghengis Khan who apparently screwed half the females in eastern Europe as well as Mongolia and all points in between.  They have identified a genetic marker that demonstrates this as well as historical accounts that corroborate his - um - fecundity.

Until transportation improved - better boats, horses trained to carry a rider and so on - people didn't move around much if they didn't have to.  And so groups of people interbred, fixing certain characteristics in their population.  Sort of like - all the women in my family strongly resemble one another.  If you know one of us, and you meet another of us on the street, you know we are related.  If we were the founding mothers of some small town, it wouldn't take too long for some people to start classifying us as a "race".

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Can somone explain to me

Can somone explain to me what it would look like to see a beneficial color change to an animal take place?

Like say a rabbit has brown fur and it lives in a snowy enviroment and white would be more beneficial. If one rabbit happen to born with pure white fur(not sure this is possible just saying hypotheticly) this doesnt seem to help because he can only mate with other rabbits that have brown fur and the offspring are likely to have brown fur so how does a benefecial mutation propogate?


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Can

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Can somone explain to me what it would look like to see a beneficial color change to an animal take place?

Like say a rabbit has brown fur and it lives in a snowy enviroment and white would be more beneficial. If one rabbit happen to born with pure white fur(not sure this is possible just saying hypotheticly) this doesnt seem to help because he can only mate with other rabbits that have brown fur and the offspring are likely to have brown fur so how does a benefecial mutation propogate?

 

Within the "brown rabbit" species, there is likely a wide variation of brown fur.  The rabbits with the fur that is the darkest will serve as the easiest targets to hunters.  Within the same species, there will be rabbits with a more subdued brown fur.  It can be the slightest difference, but these rabbits would have a better chance at survival due to their slightly duller fur.  If most of the dark colored rabbits are eaten, then the rabbits that survive and mate will overall have a lighter pigment to their fur on average than the generation before them.

This cycle will continue, where the rabbits that have the darkest fur will be more easily hunted.  Therefore, the lightest colored rabbits will have a higher chance at reproduction.  This will continue until the possible spectrum of fur colors is decreased (only rabbits with a lighter-colored fur gene would mate).  The animals that depend on the rabbit for food will continue to hunt, and the darkest fur out of this new generation of lighter-furred bunnies will be be the easiest to find.  Therefore, the lightest furred rabbits out of generation 2 will have the highest likelihood of surviving and mating again.  When the 3rd generation is born, the lightest furred out of the bunch will have the greatest chance at propagation.  This cycle will continue throughout hundreds of generations of rabbits.  

 

I hope this makes a little bit of sense...

 

 


 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Can

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Can somone explain to me what it would look like to see a beneficial color change to an animal take place?

Like say a rabbit has brown fur and it lives in a snowy enviroment and white would be more beneficial. If one rabbit happen to born with pure white fur(not sure this is possible just saying hypotheticly) this doesnt seem to help because he can only mate with other rabbits that have brown fur and the offspring are likely to have brown fur so how does a benefecial mutation propogate?

You should read up on genetics. Also read up on how plants, dogs and other animals are bred to have desirable traits. It doesn't happen in the entire species in one generation. If a mutation is highly desirable and successful in passing on, these genes will increase in likelihood of occurring in each generation, until it's near 100%.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
rdklep8 wrote:ymalmsteen887

rdklep8 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Can somone explain to me what it would look like to see a beneficial color change to an animal take place?

Like say a rabbit has brown fur and it lives in a snowy enviroment and white would be more beneficial. If one rabbit happen to born with pure white fur(not sure this is possible just saying hypotheticly) this doesnt seem to help because he can only mate with other rabbits that have brown fur and the offspring are likely to have brown fur so how does a benefecial mutation propogate?

 

Within the "brown rabbit" species, there is likely a wide variation of brown fur.  The rabbits with the fur that is the darkest will serve as the easiest targets to hunters.  Within the same species, there will be rabbits with a more subdued brown fur.  It can be the slightest difference, but these rabbits would have a better chance at survival due to their slightly duller fur.  If most of the dark colored rabbits are eaten, then the rabbits that survive and mate will overall have a lighter pigment to their fur on average than the generation before them.

This cycle will continue, where the rabbits that have the darkest fur will be more easily hunted.  Therefore, the lightest colored rabbits will have a higher chance at reproduction.  This will continue until the possible spectrum of fur colors is decreased (only rabbits with a lighter-colored fur gene would mate).  The animals that depend on the rabbit for food will continue to hunt, and the darkest fur out of this new generation of lighter-furred bunnies will be be the easiest to find.  Therefore, the lightest furred rabbits out of generation 2 will have the highest likelihood of surviving and mating again.  When the 3rd generation is born, the lightest furred out of the bunch will have the greatest chance at propagation.  This cycle will continue throughout hundreds of generations of rabbits.  

 

I hope this makes a little bit of sense...

 

Just to add a little.  There are fewer brown rabbits to mate with as the darkest brown ones are all eaten up. So your tan colored rabbit is mating with other tan rabbits.  And in their offspring, some will be even lighter colored who mate with lighter colored rabbits, because all the tan ones got eaten up.  And so on.  Rabbits are easy to track as they have lots of babies two-three times a year.  And the change won't happen in two generations, but over some amount of time depending on the kind and number of predators and just how many dark rabbits are eaten in proportion to lighter colored rabbits.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You should read up

EXC wrote:

You should read up on genetics. Also read up on how plants, dogs and other animals are bred to have desirable traits. It doesn't happen in the entire species in one generation. If a mutation is highly desirable and successful in passing on, these genes will increase in likelihood of occurring in each generation, until it's near 100%.

 

Ah, breeding.  Man is a predator.  And our desire for a certain body shape or fur color can quickly change how a breed looks.  Check out some of the portraits of dogs from the 1800s.  Very different from what you see at Westminster these days.

Darwin based some of his work on the pigeons he bred as a hobby.  And orchids - did he have the orchids or was it some he saw?  Don't remember.  CRS strikes again.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ymalmsteen887

EXC wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Can somone explain to me what it would look like to see a beneficial color change to an animal take place?

Like say a rabbit has brown fur and it lives in a snowy enviroment and white would be more beneficial. If one rabbit happen to born with pure white fur(not sure this is possible just saying hypotheticly) this doesnt seem to help because he can only mate with other rabbits that have brown fur and the offspring are likely to have brown fur so how does a benefecial mutation propogate?

You should read up on genetics. Also read up on how plants, dogs and other animals are bred to have desirable traits. It doesn't happen in the entire species in one generation. If a mutation is highly desirable and successful in passing on, these genes will increase in likelihood of occurring in each generation, until it's near 100%.

that makes it even worse if it happens that gradualy then there is no reason for it to stay on that path cause the genes are random and how come rabbits arent now invincible from prey and if they werent being hunted anymore than the genes wouldnt know that this was beneficial so wouldnt they drift away from that beneficial mutation.

When someone doesnt understand how evolution works and then someone says natural selection and they are like of course it all makes since now. I wish I could believe its all true just like that but I just cant comprhend it and everyone else is like natural selection and goes about there day.

 


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:rdklep8

cj wrote:

rdklep8 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Can somone explain to me what it would look like to see a beneficial color change to an animal take place?

Like say a rabbit has brown fur and it lives in a snowy enviroment and white would be more beneficial. If one rabbit happen to born with pure white fur(not sure this is possible just saying hypotheticly) this doesnt seem to help because he can only mate with other rabbits that have brown fur and the offspring are likely to have brown fur so how does a benefecial mutation propogate?

 

Within the "brown rabbit" species, there is likely a wide variation of brown fur.  The rabbits with the fur that is the darkest will serve as the easiest targets to hunters.  Within the same species, there will be rabbits with a more subdued brown fur.  It can be the slightest difference, but these rabbits would have a better chance at survival due to their slightly duller fur.  If most of the dark colored rabbits are eaten, then the rabbits that survive and mate will overall have a lighter pigment to their fur on average than the generation before them.

This cycle will continue, where the rabbits that have the darkest fur will be more easily hunted.  Therefore, the lightest colored rabbits will have a higher chance at reproduction.  This will continue until the possible spectrum of fur colors is decreased (only rabbits with a lighter-colored fur gene would mate).  The animals that depend on the rabbit for food will continue to hunt, and the darkest fur out of this new generation of lighter-furred bunnies will be be the easiest to find.  Therefore, the lightest furred rabbits out of generation 2 will have the highest likelihood of surviving and mating again.  When the 3rd generation is born, the lightest furred out of the bunch will have the greatest chance at propagation.  This cycle will continue throughout hundreds of generations of rabbits.  

 

I hope this makes a little bit of sense...

 

Just to add a little.  There are fewer brown rabbits to mate with as the darkest brown ones are all eaten up. So your tan colored rabbit is mating with other tan rabbits.  And in their offspring, some will be even lighter colored who mate with lighter colored rabbits, because all the tan ones got eaten up.  And so on.  Rabbits are easy to track as they have lots of babies two-three times a year.  And the change won't happen in two generations, but over some amount of time depending on the kind and number of predators and just how many dark rabbits are eaten in proportion to lighter colored rabbits.

 

About the having mulitple offspring at once, then how do you explain beneficial mutations from animals that only have one at a time?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote: that

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

that makes it even worse if it happens that gradualy then there is no reason for it to stay on that path cause the genes are random and how come rabbits arent now invincible from prey and if they werent being hunted anymore than the genes wouldnt know that this was beneficial so wouldnt they drift away from that beneficial mutation.

When someone doesnt understand how evolution works and then someone says natural selection and they are like of course it all makes since now. I wish I could believe its all true just like that but I just cant comprhend it and everyone else is like natural selection and goes about there day.

 

There is discussion amongst evolutionary scientists about how fast evolution can happen.  If there is enough environmental pressure, species can evolve very quickly or they can go extinct just as quickly. 

Those rabbits that don't live to reproduce, don't have their genes in the population.  Those that live long enough to reproduce are the ones whose genes are in the population.  The genes don't "know" anything.  They just are.  A mutation is just a mis-copy of a gene.  And we all have mis-copies of genes in our cells.  All throughout our body.  These mutations only get into the general population of that species only if they are in the reproductive cells.

And the mutations generally don't affect the critter - even humans.  Rarely - and it is very rare - one of these random mutations may become cancerous.  But otherwise, we don't even realize it has happened. 

The environmental pressure for - say - lighter colored rabbits has to persist a long time before the change becomes enough for a new species to develop.  Rabbits can not interbreed with hares and cottontails, though they are in the same family.

 

http://www.rabbitweb.net/myths.asp wrote:

Myth #10
Domestic rabbits can interbreed with hares and cottontails
--Fluff 'N Stuff Rabbitry (est 1987)

The Truth: Hares (Lepus) have 24 pairs of chromosomes while the domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus) has 22 and the cottontail (Sylvilagus) has 21 pair. While mating is possible between the different species, the resulting embryos will die after a few cell divisions because of the differences in the number of chromosome pairs.

 

It takes time, pressure on the population from predators or environment changes, and it takes some isolation from other populations for a new species to evolve.  How much isolation varies with the species.  For some, growing on top of the hill is separated enough from the valley between hills to form a new species.  Obviously, for humans, we don't have enough separation in the entire world.

 

So, why do rabbits (and cats and dogs and ... ) have litters and people (and horses and chimps and llamas and cows and ... ) have fewer offspring at once?  Please note, it is possible for all of these critters have an unusual number of offspring at once.  I know of cats and dogs that have had one puppy or kitten at a time, not 4 or 6 or 12.  And we all have heard of people who have twins, triplets and so on without taking fertility drugs.  Nothing is cast in stone.

Why a species may have litters is usually determined by their size and evolutionary strategy.  More babies means they can lose some to predators yet still have survivors to grow to adulthood.  Rabbits survive because if there were no predators, we would soon be up to our eyebrows in rabbits.  See Australia.

Why a species may have only one or two offspring is usually determined  by their size and evolutionary strategy.  Human babies are not self sufficient until after a good 10 years or more.  Horses, sheep and cattle and similar animals have only one or two because that offspring must be more fully developed when born.  A young horse is on its feet in minutes, walking and running in hours.  It has to in order to survive.

Enough.  My hands are starting to ache.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ymalmsteen887

cj wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

that makes it even worse if it happens that gradualy then there is no reason for it to stay on that path cause the genes are random and how come rabbits arent now invincible from prey and if they werent being hunted anymore than the genes wouldnt know that this was beneficial so wouldnt they drift away from that beneficial mutation.

When someone doesnt understand how evolution works and then someone says natural selection and they are like of course it all makes since now. I wish I could believe its all true just like that but I just cant comprhend it and everyone else is like natural selection and goes about there day.

 

There is discussion amongst evolutionary scientists about how fast evolution can happen.  If there is enough environmental pressure, species can evolve very quickly or they can go extinct just as quickly. 

Those rabbits that don't live to reproduce, don't have their genes in the population.  Those that live long enough to reproduce are the ones whose genes are in the population.  The genes don't "know" anything.  They just are.  A mutation is just a mis-copy of a gene.  And we all have mis-copies of genes in our cells.  All throughout our body.  These mutations only get into the general population of that species only if they are in the reproductive cells.

And the mutations generally don't affect the critter - even humans.  Rarely - and it is very rare - one of these random mutations may become cancerous.  But otherwise, we don't even realize it has happened. 

The environmental pressure for - say - lighter colored rabbits has to persist a long time before the change becomes enough for a new species to develop.  Rabbits can not interbreed with hares and cottontails, though they are in the same family.

 

http://www.rabbitweb.net/myths.asp wrote:

Myth #10
Domestic rabbits can interbreed with hares and cottontails
--Fluff 'N Stuff Rabbitry (est 1987)

The Truth: Hares (Lepus) have 24 pairs of chromosomes while the domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus) has 22 and the cottontail (Sylvilagus) has 21 pair. While mating is possible between the different species, the resulting embryos will die after a few cell divisions because of the differences in the number of chromosome pairs.

 

It takes time, pressure on the population from predators or environment changes, and it takes some isolation from other populations for a new species to evolve.  How much isolation varies with the species.  For some, growing on top of the hill is separated enough from the valley between hills to form a new species.  Obviously, for humans, we don't have enough separation in the entire world.

 

So, why do rabbits (and cats and dogs and ... ) have litters and people (and horses and chimps and llamas and cows and ... ) have fewer offspring at once?  Please note, it is possible for all of these critters have an unusual number of offspring at once.  I know of cats and dogs that have had one puppy or kitten at a time, not 4 or 6 or 12.  And we all have heard of people who have twins, triplets and so on without taking fertility drugs.  Nothing is cast in stone.

Why a species may have litters is usually determined by their size and evolutionary strategy.  More babies means they can lose some to predators yet still have survivors to grow to adulthood.  Rabbits survive because if there were no predators, we would soon be up to our eyebrows in rabbits.  See Australia.

Why a species may have only one or two offspring is usually determined  by their size and evolutionary strategy.  Human babies are not self sufficient until after a good 10 years or more.  Horses, sheep and cattle and similar animals have only one or two because that offspring must be more fully developed when born.  A young horse is on its feet in minutes, walking and running in hours.  It has to in order to survive.

Enough.  My hands are starting to ache.

 

I still dont understand but I will try are you saying that if I wanted my genes to propogate through the population I could make everyone look more like me because all i am doing is reproducing but i am reproducing with other people so their genes will mix with mine i would have to eliminate the offspring that didnt look like me and have the ones that looked like me reproduce(say I could live this long)


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah, natural selection is the

Ah, natural selection is the most important thing to understand. Even Lee accepts natural selection, sort of; he probably calls it adaptation.

Let's try making some progress with questions. What is your understanding of why some people have lighter skin and some people have darker skin?

Quote:
About the having mulitple offspring at once, then how do you explain beneficial mutations from animals that only have one at a time?

Why wouldn't beneficial mutations occur from animals that have one offspring at a time?

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Ah,

butterbattle wrote:

Ah, natural selection is the most important thing to understand. Even Lee accepts natural selection, sort of; he probably calls it adaptation.

Let's try making some progress with questions. What is your understanding of why some people have lighter skin and some people have darker skin?

Quote:
About the having mulitple offspring at once, then how do you explain beneficial mutations from animals that only have one at a time?

Why wouldn't beneficial mutations occur from animals that have one offspring at a time?

 

 

I know nothing of why the skin is lighter in scientific terms but I know that pigmentation changes under the sun but this doesnt explain why your offspring would have darker skin thats like saying if you cut off a dogs tail its offspring will so i know thats not the reason for lighter and darker people.

To the second question because this is only one individual and would not be enough to get a domino effect going cause he is competing with every other individual, if you have mulitple offspring they can all go and reproduce with mulitple individuals and propogate faster,


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I know

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
I know nothing of why the skin is lighter in scientific terms but I know that pigmentation changes under the sun but this doesnt explain why your offspring would have darker skin thats like saying if you cut off a dogs tail its offspring will so i know thats not the reason for lighter and darker people.

Right. People with lighter skin give birth to people with lighter skin. People with darker skin give birth to people with darker skin. Now, what do you suppose might happen if something killed all of the people with lighter skin? Then, the survivors would have darker skin, correct?  

ymalmsteen87 wrote:
To the second question because this is only one individual and would not be enough to get a domino effect going cause he is competing with every other individual, if you have mulitple offspring they can all go and reproduce with mulitple individuals and propogate faster,

Isn't your criticism, then, that one individual wouldn't be able to effectively propagate its genes?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
I know nothing of why the skin is lighter in scientific terms but I know that pigmentation changes under the sun but this doesnt explain why your offspring would have darker skin thats like saying if you cut off a dogs tail its offspring will so i know thats not the reason for lighter and darker people.

Right. People with lighter skin give birth to people with lighter skin. People with darker skin give birth to people with darker skin. Now, what do you suppose might happen if something killed all of the people with lighter skin? Then, the survivors would have darker skin, correct?  

ymalmsteen87 wrote:
To the second question because this is only one individual and would not be enough to get a domino effect going cause he is competing with every other individual, if you have mulitple offspring they can all go and reproduce with mulitple individuals and propogate faster,

Isn't your criticism, then, that one individual wouldn't be able to effectively propagate its genes?

 

Wait so where did the darker or lighter skin people come from if you kill all the lighter colored skin then the species could no longer reproduce.

Yes that is my criticism.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is a factor that

There is a factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned.

This is that genes may be 'dominant' or 'recessive'.

A dominant gene will determine the associated characteristic even if the offspring only inherits one copy of it, ie from one parent.

A recessive gene requires a copy from each parent before it becomes effective.

This is why breeding with close relatives increases the chances of birth defects.

Because recessive genes don't always have any effect, they are  likely to come into effect, they can become, by mutation, copying errors, etc, harmful, without being selected out. Closely related mating increases the possibility of the child getting two copies of a bad recessive gene, if both parents have similar genes.

But a rabbit getting, by mutation, a dominate gene for whiteness, will produce, on average, 50% white offspring.The offspring will be either fully white, or completely the 'default' color.

Genes for different characteristics don't always produce a blend of those associated with each gene, the results are often due to either one or the other parent.

Sometimes a pair of different genes produce an effect where each gene of the pair is expressed in some parts of the body and the other in the rest. This can even produce a 'piebald' skin color pattern with patches of color corresponding to each gene.

If the offspring was always a blend of each character of the parents, then, just as you say, a single mutation would just get diluted away before it could spread.

The fact that one gene of the inherited pair normally dominates is what allows evolution to really work, and this was not known until the work of the monk Gregor Mendel, much of whose work was with cross breeding varieties of pea plants in the monastery garden, looking at which ones produced peas which were wrinkled or smooth, for example. His work was done around the 1860's, after the publication of Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859. Initially it was rejected, and only accepted when it was rediscovered in the early Twentieth Century, when it was combined with Darwin's ideas to produce what became known as "The Modern Synthesis" of evolutionary biology, around 1920.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is a

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is a factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned.

This is that genes may be 'dominant' or 'recessive'.

A dominant gene will determine the associated characteristic even if the offspring only inherits one copy of it, ie from one parent.

A recessive gene requires a copy from each parent before it becomes effective.

This is why breeding with close relatives increases the chances of birth defects.

Because recessive genes don't always have any effect, they are  likely to come into effect, they can become, by mutation, copying errors, etc, harmful, without being selected out. Closely related mating increases the possibility of the child getting two copies of a bad recessive gene, if both parents have similar genes.

But a rabbit getting, by mutation, a dominate gene for whiteness, will produce, on average, 50% white offspring.The offspring will be either fully white, or completely the 'default' color.

Genes for different characteristics don't always produce a blend of those associated with each gene, the results are often due to either one or the other parent.

Sometimes a pair of different genes produce an effect where each gene of the pair is expressed in some parts of the body and the other in the rest. This can even produce a 'piebald' skin color pattern with patches of color corresponding to each gene.

If the offspring was always a blend of each character of the parents, then, just as you say, a single mutation would just get diluted away before it could spread.

The fact that one gene of the inherited pair normally dominates is what allows evolution to really work, and this was not known until the work of the monk Gregor Mendel, much of whose work was with cross breeding varieties of pea plants in the monastery garden, looking at which ones produced peas which were wrinkled or smooth, for example. His work was done around the 1860's, after the publication of Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859. Initially it was rejected, and only accepted when it was rediscovered in the early Twentieth Century, when it was combined with Darwin's ideas to produce what became known as "The Modern Synthesis" of evolutionary biology, around 1920.

 

thats really interesting but the part where you say" If the offspring was always a blend of each character of the parents, then, just as you say, a single mutation would just get diluted away before it could spread." I didnt understand whats a laymans way of showing how a trait like white fur can propogate through a roughly brown fur population?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
About my previous post on

About my previous post on speciation, it doesn't require total physical separation, just something that significantly reduces the likelihood of interbreeding and successful reproduction.

It can even be some minor characteristic which most members of the opposite sex not sharing that variation don't find appealing.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:About my

BobSpence1 wrote:

About my previous post on speciation, it doesn't require total physical separation, just something that reduces the likelihood of interbreeding and successful reproduction.

It can even be some minor characteristic which most members of the opposite sex not sharing that variation don't find appealing.

Thats what I was saying I doubt there would be any real seperation within our lifetime or many lifetimes. So youre saying those species can still breed theve jsut developed to where they dont want to because of certain behaviors?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

About my previous post on speciation, it doesn't require total physical separation, just something that reduces the likelihood of interbreeding and successful reproduction.

It can even be some minor characteristic which most members of the opposite sex not sharing that variation don't find appealing.

Thats what I was saying I doubt there would be any real seperation within our lifetime or many lifetimes. So youre saying those species can still breed theve jsut developed to where they dont want to because of certain behaviors?

It can be.

And it doesn't have to be many of our lifetimes, it is a matter of a number of generations of the species we are looking at. Generations are less than a lifetime.

We have seen this sort of thing happen in butterflies, within decades.

For humans/primates, that fusion of genes would have been a big factor in keeping us separate, even if some of us drifted back into the same environment as the chimps.

Any difference in behaviour which gets entrenched in one group, ie it persists for a long time, can allow drifting apart.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:thats

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

thats really interesting but the part where you say" If the offspring was always a blend of each character of the parents, then, just as you say, a single mutation would just get diluted away before it could spread." I didnt understand whats a laymans way of showing how a trait like white fur can propogate through a roughly brown fur population?

 

I don't mean to put words in Bob Spence's mouth (and he can correct me if I am not on the same wavelength) but he may be implying that an offspring is NOT always a blend of its parents.  In the simplest form of procreation, each parent carries a set of genes, each of these genes has the property of being recessive or dominant.  Lets say mother has a slightly lighter color of fur, and her fur gene (F) is dominant.  Father's slightly darker fur is coded by the gene (f), and  it is recessive.  When the two mate, there is a much higher chance that the (F) gene will be expressed over the (f) gene. The child of this family will carry the F gene and pass it on to its offspring.  Over time, if the F gene helps the population survive (it is allows for the rabbit to blend in more efficiently, etc), it will become a trait that the entire population in that area will aquire.

 

I just found this website: http://www.suite101.com/content/understanding-dominant-and-recessive-traits-a163668

 

 

It is important to note that dominant and recessive isn't the only way genes will interact with each other.  In certain instances, the genes will blend and the child will express part of each gene.  The thing to remember is that this is uniform- meaning that certain genes coding for certain things  will ALWAYS be either recessive or dominant.  Other characteristics may be a blend of both genes.  

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/19037/heredity.html

- This is a pretty basic discussion I've found that explains the foundation for heredity well.  I just breezed it over, but it seems like it was directed toward people who are just starting to gather information on heredity, so it is user-friendly language.

 

EDIT: I cross posted- Bob Spence beat me to it.  I'll leave this up though.. maybe it will provide some clarity.

 


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:You know

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

You know what a cognitice dissonance is im not sure what that means exactly but I think thats what im going through concerning evolution. On this evoultion forum there is this creanitsts thrnatural selection doesnt make since and instead of answering his rebutals there just talking about how stupid he is. Its quite pathetic Im not saying creantionism is true it obvioulsy isnt but im so frustrated cause I want to know that evolution is true but there are just so many things that dont make sense about it. Does anyone have any advice on how to overcome this its like when I first learnned about it natural selection it was awesome and I was convinced but since the excitement from it has died down and I starte having questions about stuff I didnt understand its like I dont really know anything.

 

I'd suggest giving "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins a read.  It was written some time ago, but it is all still pretty relevant. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Wait so

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
Wait so where did the darker or lighter skin people come from if you kill all the lighter colored skin then the species could no longer reproduce.

Well, the remaining dark skinned people can still reproduce with each other. But, how did they get there in the first place, right? According to evolution, if you started with a group of dark skinned people and put them in an environment that was better for people with lighter skin colors, given enough generations, you could see people that had lighter skin than any of the people you started with. Since people only give birth to people with the same skin color, how is this possible?

That is your question, correct?


 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
Wait so where did the darker or lighter skin people come from if you kill all the lighter colored skin then the species could no longer reproduce.

Well, the remaining dark skinned people can still reproduce with each other. But, how did they get there in the first place, right? According to evolution, if you started with a group of dark skinned people and put them in an environment that was better for people with lighter skin colors, given enough generations, you could see people that had lighter skin than any of the people you started with. Since people only give birth to people with the same skin color, how is this possible?

That is your question, correct?


 

 

yes


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
yes

Right. The same question could be asked in almost any example. How did the giraffe get such a long neck if it started with a short one since every giraffe produces a giraffe with the same neck? How can indigenous populations living at high altitudes be more adapted to the conditions if there wasn't someone with those traits to begin with?

But, do people always give birth to kids that have exactly the same skin color? Are asexually reproducing organisms always identical, generation after generation?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
Wait so where did the darker or lighter skin people come from if you kill all the lighter colored skin then the species could no longer reproduce.

Well, the remaining dark skinned people can still reproduce with each other. But, how did they get there in the first place, right? According to evolution, if you started with a group of dark skinned people and put them in an environment that was better for people with lighter skin colors, given enough generations, you could see people that had lighter skin than any of the people you started with. Since people only give birth to people with the same skin color, how is this possible?

That is your question, correct?


 

 

yes

 

As in the rabbit example, it is gradual.  Take 500 'black' people from one physical location.  There will be some variation in skin color, right?  They are not all exactly the same skin tone.  Do you agree?

 

If so, say there is a 1% chance that the people on the lighter end of the spectrum have an extra kid.  Doesn't matter why.  Now say there is a 1% chance the people on the darkest side have no kids.  Doesn't matter why.  With me so far?

 

So, this goes on for ten thousand years.  Over time that small percentage means more lighter skinned people have children than darker skinned people.  The original village had a range of color from 4-6...4 being the lightest, 6 being the darkest.  Now ten thousand years later the village has skin tones from 3-5 because lighter skinned people are a bit more likely to pass those genes on and darker skinned people are a bit less likely.  Still with me?

 

Fast forward a hundred thousand years and skin tone variation might be 1-2, like in Norway.

 

Is there a specific part of that where you get lost?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
yes

Right. The same question could be asked in almost any example. How did the giraffe get such a long neck if it started with a short one since every giraffe produces a giraffe with the same neck? How can indigenous populations living at high altitudes be more adapted to the conditions if there wasn't someone with those traits to begin with?

But, do people always give birth to kids that have exactly the same skin color? Are asexually reproducing organisms always identical, generation after generation?

For example, both my wife and I are caucasians with blue eyes, and all of our children have dark skin black eyes.  My wife assures me that her great-great-great grandfather was black so I believe her.  Also my best friend, which is of African decent and my wife's gym trainer, assures me that this is very likely.  My children coincidentally all look like him.  So thank GOD! I understand how evolution works, else I would think something completely unchristian was going on.  I pray each night that Jesus has given me a true friend like him Smiling thank the LORD!

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

About my previous post on speciation, it doesn't require total physical separation, just something that reduces the likelihood of interbreeding and successful reproduction.

It can even be some minor characteristic which most members of the opposite sex not sharing that variation don't find appealing.

Thats what I was saying I doubt there would be any real seperation within our lifetime or many lifetimes. So youre saying those species can still breed theve jsut developed to where they dont want to because of certain behaviors?

Yes.

It can be anything which makes them less likely to interbreed, from some difference in behaviour or innate preference, to finding their way into a valley in the mountains which makes casually meeting someone in the next valley much less likely than someone already in the same valley. There has to be something like this to allow groups to drift apart, or even be driven apart more actively by selection pressure if the environments are significantly different in some way, like having a different range of potential food plants or animals.

Even in the same environment, if some individuals develop a taste for a different food, such as sea-food rather than small furry critters, and they tend to hang out together rather than with the furry animal eaters, then it is possible, given a dozen or more generations, perhaps, for them to be so unlikely to interbreed that we could justifiably call them separate species, even if they still look pretty similar.

With short-generation-time species like many insects, we could see, and occasionally have seen, this within our own life-time. With bacteria, we can see this in decades or less.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology