Inbreeding VS Evolution

Hi, on another forum I was on, someone tried to show me that the variety of dogs was a clear indication of evolution.Seeing as dogs however have been believed to be domesticated from wolves around 20 000 - 30 000 years ago, I find it interesting that they would have shown such tremendous evolutionary change ? From what I gathered, pretty much all dogs in theory can impregnate other dogs, meaning they are the same specie (excuse my leyman!), but if its possibly for dogs to vary so greatly (in such a short period of time) , from great dane to sausage dog (without mutation/evolution), does that not imply that mutation is not neccesary for fossils to vary greatly ?I mean you could compare the fossils from sausage dogs progressively up to great danes and to the naked eye, it would seem like some sort of evolution has happened ?Any ideas ?thanks

I have no evidence, merely that I would have assumed it would not be too difficult to detect mutation. I know forinstance that it doesn't take too many generations of cats to produce a cat with certain features (eg: persian cats with flat faces) and I dont think this has anything to do with mutation. For instance, when breeding persians, quite often you find a cat with a longer face, which is often given away for free instead of being sold.The only reason I asked was that if there really has been no mutations to seperate a St Bernhard from a Pit bull from a Corgie, then it seems to be the same could have happened in other animals forinstace, explaining the differences in fossils. I know this is increased due to inbreeding, however surely with other animals this could have happened, say during a period of famine, a small population of a particular species had to resort to inbreeding, eventually resulting in a different looking species ?I'm going to take the fruitfly example in comparison here. From what I understand mutations and especially beneficial mutations are excessively rare . Somewhere on this site I read that there have not been any fruitflies that have shown any beneficial mutations. Am I correct is saying it usually renders the organism sterile ? I would have assumed that for so many different types of dogs to be around there would have had to be quite a few mutations ? Yes I realise that an owner would see an unusual looking puppy and might have decided to keep it for asthetic reasons, however usually dogs were bred for a purpose and any dog that didn't fit the mould would have been drowned/killed, or atleast have been prevented from breeding ?Can anyone tell me, I mean theoretically speaking how many mutations would have occured since dogs were domesticated from wolves ?thanks for your time.

Well yeah. I mean assuming that essentially all dogs would have been domesticated from wolves, inbreeding would explain why there were so many variations in dogs, but not in wolves. Unless ofcourse the differences in dogs were as a result of mutations in the last 30 000 years ? Thats why I want to know how frequently mutations occur in nature and how frequently they are successfull.

Hi, I actually replied to this last night, alas something must have gone wrong. Hehe , in simpler terms yes. More specifically how often does a mutation occur that provides a specific advantage to the 'phenotype'.

No, I was trying to find out why there is such diversity amongst dogs, when they are only 30 000 years old as compared to wolves that are well significantly older ? I would still have assumed there would be a great deal of inbreeding in wolves too, but perhaps not as significantly as dogs. Why such diversity in dogs though ? I remember reading that man apparently almost came to extinction some 60 000 years ago, thus there had to be a substantial amount of inbreeding. Would man just have had less genetic variation in its ancestors ? Well this is why I asked how likely it would be that the dog population (as opposed to the wolf) has such diversity. Would it not more likely have been due to significant mutations in the last 30 000 years ? So most likely inbreeding would be the most probable cause of species actually getting significant mutations, well enough to cause a significant change to improve its chances of survival ?[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-15-2003][This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-15-2003][This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-15-2003]

Hi, firstly I know inbreeding doesn't LEAD to mutations, sorry I phrased myself badly. I wanted to know if inbreeding would increase the 'visible' diversication of a species.Try just to see it from a leyman point of view (PS: that is someone that doesn't know what 'homozygosity' mean ) I realise that (from the ToE viewpoint), which I stated in my previous response , my question was not whether inbreeding would increase the genetic variation of animals, but the actuall diversification of animals. eg: labrador vs jack russel.I would like to know the opinion here of why a species (canine) shows such diversity, considering it has only been around for 30 000 years (when compared to wolves)If your answer is 'artificial breeding' by man, then I would be curious if this is possible using any other animal or species ? Simply put, would we be able to selectively breed elephants to the extent that they have virtually no trunk for example ? For example we could say that a great dane is litterally 7 times the size of a sausage dog, so in theory could we produce the same result with elephants , given the timespan ? IE: Elephants the size of a great dane ?[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-15-2003]

Well, having a look at animals that are forced to inbreed forinstance (famine, isolation etc), I cant help but think it would be entirely possible for them to change physical characteristics (bone structure for one) based on the effects of inbreeding. By that I mean I might have in me the genetic material (call it mutated genes)for example to produce hairy or not hairy offspring. Should hairy offspring be beneficial and much more likely to reproduce (say its cold) through natural selection, it really wouldn't take long before my offspring are all hairy. This however would only rely on have to rely on past 'mutations', not any new mutations. Well, I'm trying to understanda)How we can depend on fossils as clear examples of 'evolution' or mutation (I always associate evolution with mutation btw.. sorry), when we could produce the results by selective breeding. By this I take the example of an ape man mutating. There wouldn't actually have to be an 'active' mutation for the one to transform into the next.b) I'm trying to see how an evolutionist would be able to disagree with the creationist view (or the one I heard). By this I mean in theory, should we believe that a God created a variety of species with diverse genes, it would be possible for animals to change characteristics based not on mutation, but selective breeding (especialy inbreeding). This goes especially if we believe that every gene in a organism is essentially a 'mutation' from another gene ?Assume that a we placed every creature (with a diverse selection of genes) on Mars forinstance (or an Earth replica), then it would not actually be neccesary for any of the animals to mutate to facilitate a visible change in characteristics, it would merely take natural selection surely ?thanks for your input.

Man I love having to reply to 3 posts at once! I'm Not saying there wouldn't be new mutations, only that it wouldn't be neccesary for new mutations to occur for more different offspring to appear. Genetic diversification would not be neccesary to continue different bone structure for instance. Hypothetical.. a Labrador (from a wolf) is the result of natural selection by 'human' interferance , and then from that labrador we produce a dalmation ect ect. There doesn't have to be an actual mutation, merely a dormant gene from the wolf ancestor. Well, I thought the process of evolution is dependant on an actual gene mutation resulting directly in an organism to obtain an immediate benefit and in doing so passing its genetic material onto its offspring, which will also gain this advantage, hence survival of the fittest ?I'm not saying the breeding process invalidates 'mutation evolution' merely that if we could achieve similar structural changed in an organism by selective breeding, it would really negate the need for an active mutation to change the shape of a species.

Hi, I'm not really arguing the creationist stance, since I dont really even know or understand it fully! From the little I understand, I believed that each creature was endowed with a sufficient diversity of gene's to produce different looking children.
I dont know, thats why I wanted to know how many significant mutations there have been in the human history over the last 60 000 years. From what I recall hearing , there was suppose to be a bottleneck about 60 000 years ago, so I am curious as to how great a role mutations play.home time! cheers