07 Feb 19
@ponderable saidIt can be inferred, based on the fact that it exists, that the coat color mutation occurred naturally. So it is irrelevant that it was there before the experiment. The "change in color" refers to the population, not the individual. The allelic frequency of the coat color gene mutation was shifted. Shifts in allelic frequency of trait-linked genes and phenotypic evolution (of a population) are hallmarks of evolution by natural selection. The authors demonstrate natural selection, which results in evolutionary change. I apologize shortening it for the thread title.
The Point is that genetics determine colour for the rodents in the paper originally posted with the sensational Headline. There is no Change of colour in adult animals here (chameleons are different in that respect as are some other specialist species).
The whole Point is that the experimenters made a Connection between different genetic set-ups resulting in different c ...[text shortened]... ws an Advantage and is actually distributed in the gene pool, thus adding infromation to the System.
Here is the direct quote from the authors.
Our experimental design mimics the replicated and reciprocal colonization of divergent habitats by populations carrying sequence variants that cause functional changes in a locally adapted phenotype. We demonstrate that when appropriate standing genetic variation is available, natural selection can result in evolutionary change on ecological time scales. Changes in both our focal trait (dorsal brightness) and components of its underlying genetic architecture (the ΔSer mutation) were predictable from transgenic and biochemical assays as well as patterns of existing phenotypic and genotypic variation across habitat types. Together, these results suggest that knowledge about the functional connections between genotype, phenotype, and fitness could help predict future evolution under defined ecological conditions.
08 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidBut the domesticated fox experiments prove you do not have to select for color change to get color change. Color change in itself does not prove anything.
It can be inferred, based on the fact that it exists, that the coat color mutation occurred naturally. So it is irrelevant that it was there before the experiment. The "change in color" refers to the population, not the individual. The allelic frequency of the coat color gene mutation was shifted. Shifts in allelic frequency of trait-linked genes and phenotypic evolution (o ...[text shortened]... notype, and fitness could help predict future evolution under defined ecological conditions.[/quote]
The foxes were selectively bred to be docile and color change resulted. They were not even selected for color!
08 Feb 19
@metal-brain saidIn this case the change in allelic frequency occurred at a gene that is known to confer coat color.
But the domesticated fox experiments prove you do not have to select for color change to get color change. Color change in itself does not prove anything.
The foxes were selectively bred to be docile and color change resulted. They were not even selected for color!
Certainly, there are genetic linkages to other genes and traits as well. Since they sequenced a 185kb region of each mouse's genomes, the possibility that coat color was genetically linked to another genetic determinant of survival is highly unlikely.
08 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidI have one better
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6426/499
Three months' time in a dark-sand vs. light-sand environment and the allelic frequency of in the population of mice with light or dark fur was significantly changed.
Only 2 weeks in a bureaucracy causes people to forget how to function in a free economy.
09 Feb 19
1 edit
@wildgrass saidSure, but why do you think that is significant? There are White German Shepherds and Black German Shepherds. That may be artificial selection, but the result is the same as natural selection.
In this case the change in allelic frequency occurred at a gene that is known to confer coat color.
Certainly, there are genetic linkages to other genes and traits as well. Since they sequenced a 185kb region of each mouse's genomes, the possibility that coat color was genetically linked to another genetic determinant of survival is highly unlikely.
Antibiotic resistant STDs and alcohol tolerant strains of yeast are evolution in real time. Isn't that just as cool? I don't see why you are making a big deal out of color change.
09 Feb 19
@metal-brain said
Sure, but why do you think that is significant? There are White German Shepherds and Black German Shepherds. That may be artificial selection, but the result is the same as natural selection.
Antibiotic resistant STDs and alcohol tolerant strains of yeast are evolution in real time. Isn't that just as cool? I don't see why you are making a big deal out of color change.
That may be artificial selection, but the result is the same as natural selection.
It's not the same.
Antibiotic resistant STDs and alcohol tolerant strains of yeast are evolution in real time. Isn't that just as cool?
Those things are cool too.
09 Feb 19
@deepthought said
The creationists accept microevolution, of which this is an instance, they do not accept speciation, which this does not demonstrate.
This was observed in Britain in a species of moth in response to the Clean Air Act.
The creationists... do not accept speciation
This is news to me, I just naturally assumed creationists did accept speciation. How else could a small number of animals on Noahs ark account for all know species of animal life seen today?
09 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidThe result is the same.That may be artificial selection, but the result is the same as natural selection.
It's not the same.Antibiotic resistant STDs and alcohol tolerant strains of yeast are evolution in real time. Isn't that just as cool?
Those things are cool too.
09 Feb 19
@metal-brain saidCool isn't the adjective that first comes to mind with regard to multiple drug resistant syphilis.
Sure, but why do you think that is significant? There are White German Shepherds and Black German Shepherds. That may be artificial selection, but the result is the same as natural selection.
Antibiotic resistant STDs and alcohol tolerant strains of yeast are evolution in real time. Isn't that just as cool? I don't see why you are making a big deal out of color change.
10 Feb 19
@deepthought saidLOL!
Cool isn't the adjective that first comes to mind with regard to multiple drug resistant syphilis.
Yeah, I thought that after I wrote it. Should have said interesting.
😆
@lemon-lime
Because those idiots think some god or other personally directs the speciation of all life forms on Earth.
Which is odd in itself considering they think this same god killed all land animals on Earth to get rid of some nasty human tribe when the same all powerful god could have just as easily gone ZAP, no more nasty tribe.
And totally ignoring the genetic implications of such a godly thing to do, like the whole animal kingdom and mankind restarting from at most a dozen humans and some PAIRS of animals? Now it is shown HUMANS have the least genetic diversity of the entire animal kingdom and the genetic diversity of animals are going along just fine, never was a time they were culled down to one reproducing pair.
The whole thing is a sick joke.
@sonhouse saidGod obviously knew that mice would need different coat colors depending on environment. He set the physical constants, the popped off the big bang. Evolution and god coexist.
@lemon-lime
Because those idiots think some god or other personally directs the speciation of all life forms on Earth.
Which is odd in itself considering they think this same god killed all land animals on Earth to get rid of some nasty human tribe when the same all powerful god could have just as easily gone ZAP, no more nasty tribe.
And totally ignoring the genetic imp ...[text shortened]... e, never was a time they were culled down to one reproducing pair.
The whole thing is a sick joke.
Obviously.
15 Feb 19
@sonhouse saidRapid evolution (punctuated equilibrium) is regarded as a valid explanation as to why evidence of intermediary species seemingly vanished from the fossil record. But apparently rapid speciation is not acceptable. Why is that? I was under the impression speciation was a valid form of evolution.
@lemon-lime
Because those idiots think some god or other personally directs the speciation of all life forms on Earth.
Which is odd in itself considering they think this same god killed all land animals on Earth to get rid of some nasty human tribe when the same all powerful god could have just as easily gone ZAP, no more nasty tribe.
And totally ignoring the genetic imp ...[text shortened]... e, never was a time they were culled down to one reproducing pair.
The whole thing is a sick joke.
It would be naive to assume that the animals (reptiles, birds, mammals) on Noah's ark looked like any animal that exists today. Before the discovery of DNA it would be impossible to squeeze every known species of land animal into Noah's little ark. Bible contradictionists today still point to this fact, as though DNA and genetic diversity haven't yet been discovered.
@lemon-lime saidWho said/implied this?
But apparently rapid speciation is not acceptable.
I have never heard of anyone saying/implying this let alone it being a general attitude.
16 Feb 19
@humy saidI suspect you'll be answering your own question before too long.
Who said/implied this?
I have never heard of anyone saying/implying this let alone it being a general attitude.
So, who doesn't think speciation could account for a relatively small number of life forms reacting to intense and variable (post flood) environmental pressures, thereby rapidly filling the earth with a diversity of living things?
Could one of those people be you?