I am aware of this and appreciate you citing this. I agree mice see these type of deviations within their populations. We need to be mindful that they generate very large populations due to very short generation times. They also have very short life spans of about 2 years.
If mice with generation time of ___ weeks and a population of ___ can produce chromosomal variation of 22-40 over ___ years, deer with a generation time of ___ weeks and population of ___ would take ___ years to produce chromosomal variation of __ - __.
Fill in the gaps, Bill. Only then will you have shown that deer chromosomal variation is problematic.
1 Like
The generation times for mice are weeks. The life span is two years.
The other issue is variation inside populations vs fixed mutations. If we knew the variation inside white-tailed deer or other deer species that would be interesting.
Fixed.
But I notice you haven’t attempted to fill in the rest of the numbers. So there’s not yet a problem.
1 Like
To fill in the numbers you need the mutation rate for chromosome abnormalities in dear populations.
There is still a question. Do all deer share a common ancestor?
So go find them.
You’ve provided no reason to think they don’t.
1 Like
Isn’t that the generation time in the lab? Do you have numbers for the wild? I’d be willing to bet that the average generation time is longer than that and the average lifespan shorter.
1 Like
You have yet to give a valid reason why they wouldn’t, and we have mountains and mountains of evidence that they do share a common ancestor. Chromosomal differences are obviously not an issue.
1 Like
That would make it more difficult for putatively deleterious mutations to rise to high frequencies in the population, Bill. Selection would be stronger against chromosomal fusions that have negative fitness effects.
The generation time and life-span of mice is irrelevant to whether chromosomal fusions can rise in frequency in the population. Bill shouldn’t the mice with 22 chromosomes be dead? I mean how could they possibly live with all these supposed birth-defects and stuff you think chromosome fusions cause?
But they don’t seem to have this effect at all. Researchers went as far as deliberately creating chromosomal fusions to see what effect they have, in mice. And found they have none they could detect.
Bill is it possible you’ve just had a wrong assumption all along?
1 Like
They are dead after 2 years.
I don’t know what the overall answer is here but it is certainly possible the axiom of common descent is wrong. The high speed sequencing data will hopefully lead us to clarity.
What is your opinion of the mouse, bovine and human gene Venn posted earlier?
I sincerely hope this is Bill’s attempt at humour. Otherwise, it betrays a level of stupidity I would not have expected even of him.
3 Likes
I am without words. I love it. I absolutely love it. I can just show this thread to someone and say “this is what creationism does to a mf.”
1 Like
Everybody else, even creationists, already has clarity. What further data would convince you that chromosomal variation can arise in nature?
1 Like
Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest “Do all house mice Mus musculus share a common ancestor?”. Baby steps.
4 Likes
I agree chromosomal variation can arise in nature. Variation arising in nature and becoming fixed in a population is different.
Why, would you say, is the existence of high-frequency chromosomal polymorphisms within a species, such as Mus musculus not evidence for that? Do all house mice share a common ancestor or not?
2 Likes
It seems to me that your own posts pretty much explain this, though you don’t get it.
So a chromosome change can be deleterious, but it isn’t always deleterious. A non-deleterious chromosome change only has to happen occasionally to explain the evidence that we see. And, as you have yourself indicated, it can provide reproductive isolation. That pretty much guarantees that it will be fixed in that reproductively isolated population. As long as there are occasions where that isolated population doesn’t die out, you will get what we see.
Where’s the problem?
2 Likes
Are you denying that the mouse variations have both arisen in nature and become fixed? If not, what’s the problem? EXACTLY; no word salad, please.
I have to disagree with that. If it provides reproductive isolation, it won’t become fixed in the population, as heterozygote mutants will be unable to breed with “wild type” and homozygotes, if any somehow arise, will be unable to breed with homozygotes having a different count. Of course multiple, sequential chromosomal mutations may confer isolation as long they don’t do so individually.
One possible approach to your scenario would be if reproduction of heterozygotes is only partially hindered so as to be nearly neutral in a small population. The mutation might then become fixed. But selection favoring reproductive isolation between populations only occurs in sympatry and only when hybrids have lesser fitness than either parental population.
1 Like
@Joel_Duff just issued a YouTube featuring the muntjac deer karyotype phylogeny under question.
The target is the YEC, ark theme park position that one pair, solitary male and female, descended off the gangplank to an empty world in 2348 BC, and from these two, at that date, the entire populations of all species of deer have descended.
This video assumes common ancestry of the deer family, as @colewd is free to stand alone in his insistence that chromosome variation can never fix. If the time allowed is compressed from tens of millions of years to a few thousand, what numbers are required there? I would love to see Bill take this up with Jeanson.
2 Likes