If lifespan and equipment degradation were not an issue, what experiment could be conducted over time to observe macroevolution take place? For example, could a consortium scientists design a multi-millenial experiment observing a wide array of species on an island set apart for that very purpose?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 12:25:53 AM
If lifespan and equipment degradation were not an issue, what experiment could be conducted over time to observe macroevolution take place? For example, could a consortium scientists design a multi-millenial experiment observing a wide array of species on an island set apart for that very purpose?
Why would one need to set asside an island when the Earth would do?
As this is exactly what nature did on the Galapagos Islands and Madagaskar, to name a few: yes; such an undertaking could be done, if the consept of macroevolution was an open question within the serious scientific community.
Since it is not, we should probably call it possible, but unneccesary.
Might be cool, though... ;)
I agree with Tank; I think that mere observation over a long period of time would show evolution in action. I find the constant harping on "micro" vs "macro" evolution by those who deny the reality of evolution to be a lame argument. It's not as if scientists haven't already been able to observe speciation, after all.
By the way, welcome back to HAF, bandit4god. You kind of left our last conversation dangling. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)
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?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:02:49 AMThanks, 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. ;)
I guess I could have used a more neutral wording and said, "Thank you for letting me have the last word." (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2) I think that the one I was enjoying the most was your "P-inductive argument for God's existence" thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6316.0). I don't blame you for walking away when you did, though; it's true that there were issues with snarkiness in that thread and others. Some people tend to rely on that tone a bit too heavily, in my opinion. When they do it here, however, they generally get called on it. No need to necro that thread, unless you really want to carry on with it. Many of the participants are no longer active members of this forum, and it might be more trouble than it's worth. I'm sure there's enough going on to sink your teeth into, or alternatively, maybe you've come up with a new and improved version of your OP.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:02:49 AMReason 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?
Since there are many who follow a religion who also have no trouble accepting the reality of evolution, I don't see how stronger evidence in favor of it would convince more than a small minority to "recant." Those who accept it wouldn't change, and those who don't accept it would probably continue with their denial of reality, or adopt the position of theists who don't see any necessary conflict.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:02:49 AMI'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?
Some scientists like digging in the dirt! Not only that, but practically no scientist these days is merely trying to provide further fossil evidence for evolution by finding more fossils; they know that such evidence is unnecessary. They are more motivated by discovering previously unknown species, and learning more about the species already known. I think very few, if any of them care about what the Creationists think.
What are you calling macroevolution here exactly?
The best organisms would be bacteria, because they reproduce so quickly, and change such as the acquired ability to digest nylon (which is man made, and not found naturally) evolved.
Selective breeding is a good way of seeing changes occur over a period of time. The differences between all the dog breeds and their wolf ancestor is a good example. Another example I like is the Domesticated silver fox experiement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox) because a chain of changes such as droopy ears, changed fur color followed from simply selecting silver foxes for their tameness. They started barking also. It isn't too much of a stretch to see that it's probably what happened to dogs as well, though in a much shorter time span.
Here's a video clip from BBC Horizon on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw)
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:02:49 AM
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.
There are numerous religious people who accept evolution as the valid science that it is...I think the only place where the small majority believe in creation is the USA. So, I don't see what it has to do with religion not existing in the future...not to mention that religion itself evolves to fit the beliefs of the people.
Not to mention that speciation has been recorded and the line at which it becomes what creationists call macroevolution is very wide and gray.
Would bacteria becoming resistant to medicine like penicillin be a product of evolution?
Cerainly it seems to me that having living organisms suited to their environment points to evolution. Especially when you consider the earth's environment changes a lot of the years e.g. Ice Age.
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:35:44 AM
Would bacteria becoming resistant to medicine like penicillin be a product of evolution?
Yes, penicillin kills off bacteria that are can't survive it and selects those that can. Those in turn at the ones that continue reproducing and having resistant offspring. Drug resistant bugs are going to be a huge problem soon enough, especially since the other side of the arms race, medicine, can probably only evolve so far before it starts to really harm our own cells too, which defeats the purpose.
Keep watching, keep documenting.
We've only known about Darwinian evolution for the tiniest sliver of recorded history, let alone human history, let alone the history of the planet. Macroevolution (actually, just evolution) is the wonderful process of gradual change, and so we'll have to document it just as gradually. Fortunately, we've already seen real, honest to goodness examples of evolution on the macro scale, such as in the change in the beaks of Galapagos finches. I can just picture the Beagle docked, Charles Darwin taking down the basic information on the finches that would eventually lead to proof positive of evolution. It's very cool stuff.
QuoteFortunately, we've already seen real, honest to goodness examples of evolution on the macro scale, such as in the change in the beaks of Galapagos finches
Will, Whitney, and Tank are moderators... more proof that selection is real! :)
I hear what you guys are saying concerning selection having been observed within a given species to reflect selection pressures. What's much more interesting to me is scientists observing a population of one species, day-in-day-out, year-in-year-out, and waking up one day to say... whoa mama, we've got another species here! Expansion in the number of chromosomes would probably be the test for macroevolution in my book.
I'd even be interested in such an experiment if scientists helped it along a bit. Lets say they noticed a finch one day (or engineered one) with a very distinctive mutation. They could segregate that finch into a separate population (with a few girlfriends) and watch how the mutation lives/manifests down through the generations. Would help answer the following questions for my great (x 50) grandchildren:
- How does a mutation, even a dramatic one, not get "squashed" or "diluted" by the rest of the gene pool?
- How do chromosome chains lengthen from one generation to the next?
- What is the probability that an extremely dramatic mutation (e.g., a child having more chromosomes, etc.) would be timed with a facilitating segregation event (e.g., enough separation to allow the mutation and a few girl/boyfriends) to have a critical mass of children and earn a "place at the table" as a new species?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 03:10:25 PM
QuoteFortunately, we've already seen real, honest to goodness examples of evolution on the macro scale, such as in the change in the beaks of Galapagos finches
Will, Whitney, and Tank are moderators... more proof that selection is real! :)
I hear what you guys are saying concerning selection having been observed within a given species to reflect selection pressures. What's much more interesting to me is scientists observing a population of one species, day-in-day-out, year-in-year-out, and waking up one day to say... whoa mama, we've got another species here! Expansion in the number of chromosomes would probably be the test for macroevolution in my book.
I'd even be interested in such an experiment if scientists helped it along a bit. Lets say they noticed a finch one day (or engineered one) with a very distinctive mutation. They could segregate that finch into a separate population (with a few girlfriends) and watch how the mutation lives/manifests down through the generations. Would help answer the following questions for my great (x 50) grandchildren:
- How does a mutation, even a dramatic one, not get "squashed" or "diluted" by the rest of the gene pool?
- How do chromosome chains lengthen from one generation to the next?
- What is the probability that an extremely dramatic mutation (e.g., a child having more chromosomes, etc.) would be timed with a facilitating segregation event (e.g., enough separation to allow the mutation and a few girl/boyfriends) to have a critical mass of children and earn a "place at the table" as a new species?
And so would the reduction in the number of chromasomes, as observed in the great apes.
Ken Miller on Human Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk)
Ken Miller explains this very well and was one of the expert witnesses in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) where his testomony went unchallenged and helped to ensure that mythology was kept out of the science class room.
Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html)
QuoteRing species provide a unique glimpse into how some species came to be.
A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
At one location in the ring, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding.
Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one species change gradually through intermediate populations into the second species' traits.
[/size]
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.
We already have Ring Species (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html), so I don't see this kind of test as necessary.
And a good short video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI).
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 03:47:30 PM
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?
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 04:47:10 PM
We already have Ring Species (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html), 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.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:43:16 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 04:47:10 PM
We already have Ring Species (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html), 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.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 01:02:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Tank on October 14, 2011, 07:46:55 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 01:04:47 PM
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?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 06:52:59 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 01:04:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 07:20:40 PM
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?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 07:20:40 PM
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.
Nice explanation, Tank. The halftone image illustration is especially good! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 10:06:24 PM
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?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 03:42:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 10:06:24 PM
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?
Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 11:45:46 PM
Nice explanation, Tank. The halftone image illustration is especially good! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)
Thank you sir! ;D
I moved this thread out of science as I expected it to take a creationist turn, but as this has not happened I have moved it back to Science.
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 08:41:55 AM
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.
I'm asking a different question. At some point in natural history, perhaps it was a Tuesday, the first 46C child was born of 48C parents. (Would be very interesting to explore the scientific observability ofthis, by the way, but perhaps another time).
Walk me through how that child became what you seem to take for granted in your earlier post, a "population" of 46C creatures.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 08:41:55 AM
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.
I'm asking a different question. At some point in natural history, perhaps it was a Tuesday, the first 46C child was born of 48C parents. (Would be very interesting to explore the scientific observability ofthis, by the way, but perhaps another time).
Walk me through how that child became what you seem to take for granted in your earlier post, a "population" of 46C creatures.
No problem. I don't take it for granted by the way. :)
This will take a while as I'm going to have to find the explaination that I have read. I'm not sure I can recall the process in detail from memory.
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 08:41:55 AM
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.
I'm asking a different question. At some point in natural history, perhaps it was a Tuesday, the first 46C child was born of 48C parents. (Would be very interesting to explore the scientific observability ofthis, by the way, but perhaps another time).
Walk me through how that child became what you seem to take for granted in your earlier post, a "population" of 46C creatures.
No problem. I don't take it for granted by the way. :)
This will take a while as I'm going to have to find the explaination that I have read. I'm not sure I can recall the process in detail from memory.
Super, thanks! In the meantime, I invite others to provide their articulations as well!
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 06:15:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 08:41:55 AM
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.
I'm asking a different question. At some point in natural history, perhaps it was a Tuesday, the first 46C child was born of 48C parents. (Would be very interesting to explore the scientific observability ofthis, by the way, but perhaps another time).
Walk me through how that child became what you seem to take for granted in your earlier post, a "population" of 46C creatures.
No problem. I don't take it for granted by the way. :)
This will take a while as I'm going to have to find the explaination that I have read. I'm not sure I can recall the process in detail from memory.
Super, thanks! In the meantime, I invite others to provide their articulations as well!
This is really annoying, but I took part in a thread about gene flow and genetic drift and somebody linked to a brilliant explaination. Can I find it again? Can I ****! >:(
I'll keep looking.
Parenthetically, I'm somewhat concerned that such questions and their answers are so obscure and difficult to find. in Darwin's time, they imagined the changes as truly analog from generation to generation, and positioned the narrative as gradual change over nearly incomprehensible spans of time. That language persists when we explain these things to 5th graders. But when chromosomes, genetics, and the science of the thing was shown to necessitate discrete jumps (e.g., from 2C to 4C, or 48C to 46C), some scientist must have been wringing his hands wondering about the same fateful Tuesday I did.
The first Tuesday when a sole 46C child was born to 48C parents.
Found the following article that helped me understand the theory behind it, very well written!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
Is this the theory you had in mind, Tank and others?
Fixation of mutations appears to be related to the degree of advantage the mutation confers (the greater the advantage the better), the size of the breeding population the mutation first appears in (the smaller the population the more likely fixation is to occur) and the duration over which the breeding population remains isolated (the longer the better). So there you go ;D