Evolution question

The Coffee Shop
21

And yes. If evolution were not true then selective breeding would be impossible. We would never have new breeds. Its human directed selection, not natural selection but its essentially the same thing in a broad dummed down sense.

I think this is misleading. Both evolution and selective breeding rely on gentics, but selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species. You eliminate or cultivate a particular occurance of a trait, like friendly foxes. This is done in a limited population. Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly, you have not changed the gene pool of the species. You only changed it a small population. Other foxes are still agressive and the species still have the same genetic options of Friendly or mean.

To change the species you have to have a mutation (or many over a long time) that get selected and eventually that could result in different species.

Breeding is not evolution. Both rely on genetics.

22

but selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species.

Did you miss the part where examples of speciation through selective breeding were provided? scan upwards.

Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly, you have not changed the gene pool of the species. You only changed it a small population.

So then logically it would follow that if I bred a population of friendly foxes that can NOT interbreed with normal foxes, I have not created a new species.

but if I then go and kill all the normal foxes, suddenly the friendly foxes are a new species?

does that make any sense?

If birds evolve from bacteria over a billion years, but bacteria still exist, does that mean they are still the same species?

To change the species you have to have a mutation (or many over a long time) that get selected and eventually that could result in different species.

Breeding is not evolution. Both rely on genetics.

mutations occur in breeding too.

23

Of course the Liger is different! They are the most magical of animals! :slight_smile:

That’s right! except that the males have extremely low sperm counts, and last I look, no make liger had successfully bred. The females can and have reproduced with lions and tigers. I this way they are like mules. You can make them, but the species will not be able to propagate. In the wild, this “species” would just die off. Nature’s way of saying “thanks, but no thanks.”

24

I think this is misleading. Both evolution and selective breeding rely on gentics, but selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species. You eliminate or cultivate a particular occurance of a trait, like friendly foxes. This is done in a limited population. Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly, you have not changed the gene pool of the species.

You do not need to eliminate the other populations, just separate them. Look at the various species of giraffe.
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/12/giraffe_species.php
All these species existed together at one point, were later separated by geographical barriers. Selective breeding (breeding within the confined population) resulted in a new species.

The only problem I have with the fix example is that they are breeding for a behavioral characteristic, not a physical trait (except maybe brain chemistry, and that is questionable.)

25

Of course the Liger is different! They are the most magical of animals! :slight_smile:

That’s right! except that the males have extremely low sperm counts, and last I look, no make liger had successfully bred. The females can and have reproduced with lions and tigers. I this way they are like mules. You can make them, but the species will not be able to propagate. In the wild, this “species” would just die off. Nature’s way of saying “thanks, but no thanks.”

Ah! I had thought I had heard ligers were infertile. I guess the show I was watching was semi-accurate.

26

I lost track of the conversation, I guess it was meant for MJuric. I am thinking that the people who are against evolution aren’t necessarily against short term evolution.

At least you are putting the quotes above your responses now :slight_smile:

27

I was watching a show last night called “Decoding dogs”. In that show they discussed an experiment that has been taking place for the last 50 years in Russia. The experiment took wild foxes and bred them. Each successive generation was filtered for either aggressiveness or passiveness towards humans. I think the number was around 1% of the population showed these traits either way.

This has been done for ~50 generations.

What they noticed was not only was these traits altered, but also much of the physical traits also changed thru this breeding.

My question is, at what point, what scientific term/value, dictates when something becomes a “New species”? Is it at such a point where the new generation can no longer procreate with the prior generation or some other marker?

Finally would that be considered evolution, although clearly not “Natural” evolution?

~Matt

I’m assuming you were watching the same “Nature” show I did last week and recorded part 2 last night.

Part of what it showed is how quickly they were able to produce a friendly strain of foxes (from memory I was thinking they saw huge changes in under 10 years). Which means proto-dog probably came about very quickly.

And it all depends on what you mean by species. That definition has changed over time. And there is frequently still debate over whether some groups should eb a new species or just a sub-species. No very clear line.

And the experiment didn’t start as an experiment. The fox farms just got tired of being attacked by the sub-adult fur coats. So they wanted friendly foxes to care for.

28

I lost track of the conversation, I guess it was meant for MJuric. I am thinking that the people who are against evolution aren’t necessarily against short term evolution.

At least you are putting the quotes above your responses now :slight_smile:

I never can remember where the quotes are supposed to go. Both ways make sense to me =)

if short term evolution works, so does long term.

but the big bang is not evolution

29

I think this is misleading. Both evolution and selective breeding rely on gentics, but selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species. You eliminate or cultivate a particular occurance of a trait, like friendly foxes. This is done in a limited population. Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly, you have not changed the gene pool of the species.

You do not need to eliminate the other populations, just separate them. Look at the various species of giraffe.
http://scienceblogs.com/.../giraffe_species.php
All these species existed together at one point, were later separated by geographical barriers. Selective breeding (breeding within the confined population) resulted in a new species.

The only problem I have with the fix example is that they are breeding for a behavioral characteristic, not a physical trait (except maybe brain chemistry, and that is questionable.)

If you read that article, you will find they can interbreed but choose not to. They are only species in that some people have decided to changed their the definition of species.

Are obese and thin people seperate species. they rarely interbreed and look quite different.

30

Are obese and thin people seperate species. they rarely interbreed and look quite different.

The same examples exist for animals which can no longer interbreed.

New species of fruit fly have been selectively bred in the lab hundreds of times, that are unable to reproduce with normal fruit flies.

And you do not have to go kill off all the other fruit flies on earth to call them a new species.

31

but selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species.

Did you miss the part where examples of speciation through selective breeding were provided? scan upwards.

Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly, you have not changed the gene pool of the species. You only changed it a small population.

So then logically it would follow that if I bred a population of friendly foxes that can NOT interbreed with normal foxes, I have not created a new species.

but if I then go and kill all the normal foxes, suddenly the friendly foxes are a new species?

does that make any sense?

If birds evolve from bacteria over a billion years, but bacteria still exist, does that mean they are still the same species?

To change the species you have to have a mutation (or many over a long time) that get selected and eventually that could result in different species.

Breeding is not evolution. Both rely on genetics.

mutations occur in breeding too.

Jack, I’ve seen your posts, you obviously have no education in science. You’ve never had to pass a gentics course. Go take a course in genetics before you continue to waste our time. It is obvious you are only hear to aurgue anything.

32

Fair enough pat, could you please use your science and genetics background to indicate exactly where I misspoke in this thread?

Am I wrong that mutations occur in selective breeding?

What is your genetics background. Mine is simply highl level high school and college courses, but my major is largely unrelated. The rest would be self taught. Thanks.

Jack, I’ve seen your posts, you obviously have no education in science. You’ve never had to pass a gentics course. Go take a course in genetics before you continue to waste our time. It is obvious you are only hear to aurgue anything.

33

Throwing stones in glass houses! Let he without sin cast the first stone…Your posts have not demonstrated a significantly greater grasp of the material at hand!

Are obese and thin people seperate species. they rarely interbreed and look quite different.

34

but selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species.

Did you miss the part where examples of speciation through selective breeding were provided? scan upwards.

Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly, you have not changed the gene pool of the species. You only changed it a small population.

So then logically it would follow that if I bred a population of friendly foxes that can NOT interbreed with normal foxes, I have not created a new species.

but if I then go and kill all the normal foxes, suddenly the friendly foxes are a new species?

does that make any sense?

If birds evolve from bacteria over a billion years, but bacteria still exist, does that mean they are still the same species?

To change the species you have to have a mutation (or many over a long time) that get selected and eventually that could result in different species.

Breeding is not evolution. Both rely on genetics.

mutations occur in breeding too.

Jack, I’ve seen your posts, you obviously have no education in science. You’ve never had to pass a gentics course. Go take a course in genetics before you continue to waste our time. It is obvious you are only hear to aurgue anything.

I have quite a lot of education in science and have had to pass a number of genetics and evolution classes. I would not copy off your paper in any of those classes.

“selective breeding does not make new species. Selective breeding does not change the species” NO

“Unless you have control and breed all foxes worldwide” NO

“and eliminate foxes of all other types of foxes that are not friendly,” ABSOLUTELY NO - come on, with this logic there would be one species in the world unless more sprung from the ground like Athena from Zeus’ head.

“you have not changed the gene pool of the species. You only changed it a small population” - NO - are you trying to say that species can only arise in large populations, nearly always a new species arises from a small isolated population - kind of like if you kept some foxes in cages

"To change the species you have to have a mutation " NO - it is thought that some macro evolution is the result of mutation - but more often a new species is differentiated when a population get s isolated - think finches in the Galapagos. One of the big knocks that religious folk trot out is that we have not actually witnessed any instances of macro-evolution caused by mutations (the X-Men notwithstanding). But we have seen a large number of instances where we can see how a new species evolved without mutations.

35

the mutation vs not mutation argument is kind of difficult.

every single mammal that is born has some mutations. ( i think for humans it is ~60 base pairs on average that are mutated)

but I imagine he is thinking some large scale new feature suddenly arising out of nowhere. which rarely happens of course. he would have to chime in with his genetics expertise though, perhaps we are misinterpreting him.

36

google the phrase “descent with modification”
as with http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...01/IIIADescent.shtml

in other words, will these ‘traits’ quickly disappear if/when the foxes are returned to the wild.

37

If you read that article, you will find they can interbreed but choose not to. They are only species in that some people have decided to changed their the definition of species.

From the article:
"A biological species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. However, because this is a very imprecise definition, there are other, more precise, species concepts. With the advent of modern technologies, more precise definitions have been formulated based on similarities in DNA, morphology or song, or some combination of these. "
And
“However, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nuclear microsatellite loci DNA analyses of six of the nine subspecies reveal that these populations are more distinct than previously thought”…“This amount of genetic differentiation is unique in large-bodied and highly mobile African mammals, whose different populations are likely to meet in the wild.”

Are obese and thin people seperate species. they rarely interbreed and look quite different.

Outward appearance alone has no bearing on the justification for separate species. Note the DNA differences between the species. My obese neighbor’s DNA is almost identical to mine, she just eats too much, hence the outward appearance. Even if you want to bring up the human races, the differences are much, much smaller than the article is suggesting for giraffe.

There is also more differences between them: height and weight of both male and females vary among the species.

38

in other words, will these ‘traits’ quickly disappear if/when the foxes are returned to the wild.

usually. those traits were selected by people. it is unlikely that any given wild would select for the same ones.

39

Shut it jackmott…you’re just here to argue!

I love that line and now I’m going use it all the time.

~Matt

40

Shut it jackmott…you’re just here to argue!

I love that line and now I’m going use it all the time.

~Matt

he wasn’t entirely wrong was he?