A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

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

That was obvious. This is a confusion of multiple errors. There are estimated to be 1.5 million Wildebeest in Africa, and even if you postulate huge herds of 10,000 individuals, that would still mean 150 herds. That's a huge number of populations."High genetic diversity" and "homogenous population" are opposing terms. Taq speculated that you don't know what those terms mean, but it's also possible that you just haven't thought through the implications of what you're saying.Also, there are two species of wildebeest, black and blue. They can interbreed, but the offspring frequently have significant abnormalities. For creating breeds? Sure. For creating species? No. Yes, that's what you usually do after driving yourself into a blind alley.--Percy

Have you looked at the human population? Have you ever surveyed phenotypic diversity among wildebeests? I'm guessing you haven't.

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

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

What happened to, "Time to exit for a while"?I see you're back to all caps again, always a sign of confusion and unintelligibility. Did you just look at some pictures of wildebeest and judge them homogeneous? Would you be open to considering the possibility that closer study is required that would reveal the true variability of things like coat color and consistency, coat texture, height, length, weight, horn size and shape, etc., etc., etc. Please tell me you're not judging genetic diversity on the basis of a single trait? I think you're a victim of your own imagination. If you do a Google Image search for wildebeest you'll find that both black and blue wildebeest come in a variety of shades of black and brown. Everyone would agree that the strong (and capricious in the case of pigeons) selection of breeding can produce extreme phenotypes that would be very unlikely to occur in the wild. But breeding still just produces breeds, not species.--Percy

(fixed)What is most likely is that it is sexual selection for the more average phenotype traits -- leading to apparent stasis in such populations. In this way large stable populations in static ecological environments would select for stasis.In humans, tests have shown that perceptions of beauty/handsomeness are actually for average phenotypes.This is logical because the more average the trait the more likely they are good for fitness (for survival and reproduction) in a static (or near static) ecological environment.See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution for more.Enjoy

That's not what I asked. I asked for you to point to a single genetic difference between alleles that could not be produced by mutations. You claim that alleles can not be produced this way, so back up your claim. Point to a change that mutations can't produce and explain why.

You will also get new mutations because each and every generation has new mutations. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

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

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

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

You think dogs are able to mate with catfish? Why can't new characteristics emerge due to mutations? You don't get humans by mixing and matching different chimp alleles.

I still haven't figured out where you get your very strange readings of what I'm saying, such as dogs breeding with catfish and humans having anything to do with chimps at all. Nothing you say about these things makes any sense to me at all.I'm sure new characteristics COULD emerge due to mutations but in my scenario they aren't needed so I don't include them. And in any case the mutations aren't going to be brand new are they? I'm guessing they would have developed in the parent population and now act like any other allele.

quote:

---

It's the same processes, the same mechanisms, the same genetics that produce both breeds and species.

---

Then why is breeding so bad at producing new species of animal ?

quote:

---

Most species in the wild are probably able to breed with other populations but just don't. A physical inability to interbreed is an artificial dividing line.

---

The inability to interbreed seems to be an obviously natural dividing line. Especially when it is an inability to produce fertile offspring even when mating occurs.

quote:

---

I had a reason for posting the pigeons. I am interested in the question of how the same trait is increased by being selected over generations. I assume it is the same gene or genes that underlie the trait. The exaggerated size of the lizards' head and jaw on Pod Mrcaru suggests the same kind of genetic situation.

---

Not really. In fact the speed of the change suggests to me that it isn’t based on unobserved alleles becoming fixed in the population. The more so if we believe your claim that there was no selective pressure.

quote:

---

I was interested in THAT question for a similar reason: what is it genetically that allows for the overall appearance of homogeneity when there is high genetic diversity in the population?

---

In part it’s just you not noticing the differences - which is normal. The rest can be worked out by considering the differences between dogs and wolves - or the pigeons. Selective breeding concentrates variations which would otherwise be spread through the population. There is a lot of variation but but each individual has less variation from the norm than a dachshund is different from an Old English Sheepdog

quote:

---

I expect my opponents to describe their own completely different scenario with the mutations and the ecological selection pressure and so on, but I strongly object to telling me I'm wrong because I don't share that scenario. No, if that's going to be the attitude, sorry, YOU are wrong.

---

Funny how we’d be wrong if we did the same as you. Why couldn’t it be that you are wrong. But we don’t do the same - we point to evidence, while you just dismiss it. So I guess if anyone is wrong it pretty much has to be you.

I'm "ignoring" mutations because I don't believe they have anything to do with what I'm talking about. Remember, I'm describing MY model which is entirely different from yours. At the absolute most I figure a mutation here and there could become part of the scenario but there's no point in making an issue of that. That's YOUR model and you are free to describe it as you will.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You persist in your weird illusion that you argue from evidence and I don't.