A Big Experiment

[Davin]

We already have Ring Species, so I don't see this kind of test as necessary.

And a good short video.

[Tank]

Quite familiar with Ken Miller's fused chromosome explanation.  What I'm positing in this thread is that it would be quite cool to actually observe one animal's chromosomal mutation become a species and how that actually happens.

What about the ring species then?

[bandit4god]

We already have Ring Species, so I don't see this kind of test as necessary.

This article was incredibly helpful--I learned many new things!  Thanks!!

Above all, I came away with the impression (as stated in the article) that the salamanders and warblers are still capable of interbreeding.  The point of this thread is to imagine an experiment that traces one species and discovers the point at which they are two species NOT capable of interbreeding (humans and apes).  Would there come a point at which the distinct salamander species and warbler species are such different animals that they can no longer interbreed?  THAT would be macroevolution.

[Tank]

We already have Ring Species, so I don't see this kind of test as necessary.

This article was incredibly helpful--I learned many new things!  Thanks!!

Above all, I came away with the impression (as stated in the article) that the salamanders and warblers are still capable of interbreeding.  The point of this thread is to imagine an experiment that traces one species and discovers the point at which they are two species NOT capable of interbreeding (humans and apes).  Would there come a point at which the distinct salamander species and warbler species are such different animals that they can no longer interbreed?  THAT would be macroevolution.

Then just consider a line and not a ring and bingo there you go speciation! Simple isn't it.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Thanks, Recusant!  I gave you and a couple of others a "warm hello" in my other post today--I missed you guys.    

You'll have to remind me which one I left dangling... Folks were getting a bit snarky, so I took a break for a spell.  

Reason I brought up this question was an article I read that (from an atheist's perspective) argues religion will always be among us.  Got me thinking what it would take to convince broad swaths of people to recant, and seeing a recorded history of new species emerge over a few millenia might do it.  Why should the pursuit of science be restricted by the tiny lifespans of humans?

I'll almost surely get a raft of snarky responses that the fossil record does it for us, but are there not questions about species transition that could be answered by such an experiment?  And given video recording technology, do we really need to doom future scientists to digging in the dirt anymore?

At the end of the day, nothing would stop you and your ilk believing in god. If macroevolution was observed, you'd just say that god caused it, and that he designed it that way. Adam and Eve would just become a metaphor for humankind evolving rather than a case of just appearing fully formed, literally. And god would still be behind it.

[bandit4god]

Then just consider a line and not a ring and bingo there you go speciation! Simple isn't it.

For a big evolutionary jump (chromosome fusion or creation) from one generation to the next that successfully self-replicates, wouldn't a male and female need to mutate simultaneously and thereafter procreate?  Any articles on this you'd recommend?

[Norfolk And Chance]

See you didn't answer my point. Why are you even bothering with this exercise because you already know the final conclusion that you'll make.

[bandit4god]

See you didn't answer my point. Why are you even bothering with this exercise because you already know the final conclusion that you'll make.

You're point, as far as I can tell, is that I'm not influencable.  I was 100% genuine in my previous post asking for articles on simultaneous, big, beneficial mutations of a co-located male and female vertebrate.  In what other ways can I prove influencability than my being on this forum and asking polite, well-informed questions?

[Tank]

See you didn't answer my point. Why are you even bothering with this exercise because you already know the final conclusion that you'll make.

You're point, as far as I can tell, is that I'm not influencable.  I was 100% genuine in my previous post asking for articles on simultaneous, big, beneficial mutations of a co-located male and female vertebrate.  In what other ways can I prove influencability than my being on this forum and asking polite, well-informed questions?

Don't worry an answer will be forthcoming.

However the highlighted text looks a little like (but only a little like) the creationists statements along he lines of 'Why don't we see cats giving birth to dogs?'. It's a statement that raises expectations that there should be examples of 'simultaneous, big, beneficial mutations of a co-located male and female vertebrate.', where evolution doesn't (in fact can't) do that sort of thing. Evolution is not a grasshopper, it's slug. It progresses on a continuum and thus the mutation of chromosome 2 was undoubtedly neutral in its initial form and thus spread through the population while having no effect, thus there would be no issue with its spread. But it may have laid the foundation for upon which other mutations built, or may have remaind neutral throughout its existance.

So the request to see 'simultaneous, big, beneficial mutations of a co-located male and female vertebrate.' is unintentionally fundamentally flawed.

[bandit4god]

Evolution is not a grasshopper, it's slug. It progresses on a continuum and thus the mutation of chromosome 2 was undoubtedly neutral in its initial form and thus spread through the population while having no effect, thus there would be no issue with its spread. But it may have laid the foundation for upon which other mutations built, or may have remaind neutral throughout its existance.

So the request to see 'simultaneous, big, beneficial mutations of a co-located male and female vertebrate.' is unintentionally fundamentally flawed.

I see that it's a continuum, but if we zoom in far enough, there must be a point at which interbreeding between two species was possible in generation A, and not possible in generation B.  The salamanders and warblers aren't there yet, so we've never seen it happen.  Can you point me to articles that describe when and how interbreeding is left behind?

[Tank]

Evolution is not a grasshopper, it's slug. It progresses on a continuum and thus the mutation of chromosome 2 was undoubtedly neutral in its initial form and thus spread through the population while having no effect, thus there would be no issue with its spread. But it may have laid the foundation for upon which other mutations built, or may have remaind neutral throughout its existance.

So the request to see 'simultaneous, big, beneficial mutations of a co-located male and female vertebrate.' is unintentionally fundamentally flawed.

I see that it's a continuum, but if we zoom in far enough, there must be a point at which interbreeding between two species was possible in generation A, and not possible in generation B.  The salamanders and warblers aren't there yet, so we've never seen it happen.  Can you point me to articles that describe when and how interbreeding is left behind?

Bingo! I can see your problem. Nature doesn't have a clue about species. The term species is (as far as nature is concerned) an entirely abstract human concept. Organisms care not one jot about their species. All an organism 'cares' about is reproducing, nothing more and nothing less. This is the basis of the 'selfish gene' concept. Individual organisms are not the unit that evolves, it's the gene pool that is the evolutionary unit and the critical thing here is that there is variation within the gene pool. Look at the variation in the human gene pool for example.

As long as genes can mix within a gene pool and there is no significant selection pressure at work on the gene pool one gets a sort of genetic dynamic equilibrium. This is why we get so-called 'living fossils' that have exploited a stable environment at the effective exclusion of encroaching species for long period of time.

Speciation happens when a gene pool is split and the two resultant pools are subjected to different selection pressures. Each gene pool evolves until the physical and/or genetic differences have reached a point that if two members of the different gene pools mate they can no longer produce an offspring that can reproduce. An example would be donkeys and horses. They are physically and generically capable of mating but the Mule offspring is sterile.

There is no generational evolution as you posit it above. There is no generational jump between A and B, there is a progressive genetic movement that may create B & C from A or A may remain and spawn B or any number of other variations such as the Galapagos finches.

So to answer your zooming in point. Consider a black and white newsprint picture. If you zoom in too far all you can see are the individual dots with maybe slight variations in shape and size. When you zoom in too far you lose sight of the big picture, the individual dots make no sense. If you consider a single organisms in the case of evolution you have exactly the same problem, you lose sight of the big picture and in this case natural selection chooses the size and placement of dots and the big picture is the evolutionary result of those ever-changing dots.

[Recusant]

Nice explanation, Tank. The halftone image illustration is especially good!

[bandit4god]

There is no generational evolution as you posit it above. There is no generational jump between A and B, there is a progressive genetic movement that may create B & C from A or A may remain and spawn B or any number of other variations such as the Galapagos finches.

So to answer your zooming in point. Consider a black and white newsprint picture. If you zoom in too far all you can see are the individual dots with maybe slight variations in shape and size. When you zoom in too far you lose sight of the big picture, the individual dots make no sense. If you consider a single organisms in the case of evolution you have exactly the same problem, you lose sight of the big picture and in this case natural selection chooses the size and placement of dots and the big picture is the evolutionary result of those ever-changing dots.

So are you saying there is no first day in the conceivable history of earth when the first creature with 46 chromosomes was born?  If so, how is this possible?  If not, how did this special mutant procreate more?

[Tank]

There is no generational evolution as you posit it above. There is no generational jump between A and B, there is a progressive genetic movement that may create B & C from A or A may remain and spawn B or any number of other variations such as the Galapagos finches.

So to answer your zooming in point. Consider a black and white newsprint picture. If you zoom in too far all you can see are the individual dots with maybe slight variations in shape and size. When you zoom in too far you lose sight of the big picture, the individual dots make no sense. If you consider a single organisms in the case of evolution you have exactly the same problem, you lose sight of the big picture and in this case natural selection chooses the size and placement of dots and the big picture is the evolutionary result of those ever-changing dots.

So are you saying there is no first day in the conceivable history of earth when the first creature with 46 chromosomes was born?  If so, how is this possible?  If not, how did this special mutant procreate more?

Good question. Mutations fall into 3 categories, detrimental, neutral and advantageous and the boundaries between these categories can be blurry. The vast majority of mutations are detrimental and the organism is fatally flawed and at best survives but fails to reproduce or at worst is spontaneously aborted, still-born or dies soon after birth.

Ken Miller explained the evidence for the mutation of C2. For the mutation to have survived in the gene pool the 48C and 46C versions of our ancestor had to be able to interbreed and produce viable (reproducing) offspring. If that were not the case the C2 mutation would have been reproductively detrimental and died out.

Now as all humans are now 46C configuration it is reasonable to think that within the mixed 48C/46C population the 46C configuration conferred some evolutionary advantage in a particular environment that was different from the ideal for the 48C configuration. Thus the gene pool evolved and the 48C remained and continued to evolve into the other great apes while the 46C population evolved into the 'Homo' line of which we are the only remaining example.

Does that help?

[Tank]

Nice explanation, Tank. The halftone image illustration is especially good!

Thank you sir!