Is your position that all deer share a common ancestor?
My position is that fixation of fusions along with fixation of new genes is a difficult problem not that it is impossible.
Is it not time given this data to start to question historic models?
I think most people could agree.
But here’s the point: it only has to be “successful” on infrequent occasions to explain the evidence.
1 Like
Even with trout.
If by “difficult”, you mean “improbable” or “exceptional”, that is consistent with common descent.
1 Like
What do you mean by “difficult problem”? Do you mean difficult to explain or difficult to do? If the former, that’s not a reason to doubt that it happens, given all the other evidence. If it’s difficult to do, whether that’s a problem depends on just how difficult. The evidence suggests that it’s not difficult enough to prevent, e.g., 40 chromosomal races of Mus musculus, and unless you’re willing to declare that house mice populations are separately created, you must accept that it can’t be a barrier to acceptance of muntjac relationships either. It’s one or the other: either house mice populations are separately created or muntjace species are not. Choose one.
2 Likes
Thank you for posting this it was quite interesting.
You and the YECs are committed to different models yet there is some real problematic data here for either model to be verified with the genetic differences in deer.
What Joel did not establish is if old earth evolutionary times were sufficient given reasonable assumptions.
You have it backwards. What we see here (and vast amounts we could add to that) is that these things did happen. You can then determine whether assumptions are reasonable depending on whether they allow for the events we know happened. Worst case: we don’t have a model that can explain how it happened. But that’s a reason to reject the model, not the event.
Suppose we have a model of gravity, that the gravitational constant is (as seems reasonable to us) only half what physicists think it is. That model can’t explain the moon’s orbital velocity. Therefore, according to you, we refuse to accept that the moon orbits the earth. Right?
1 Like
Variation within species is not fixation.
Mice reproduction rates are much faster than deer and the survival time is much shorter. Why is wild type of Mus musculus still 2n=40?
What deer have that Mus musculus don’t have is gene arrangement variation: see post 42.
It is however a first step, especially if that variation, as with the mice, is mostly between populations.
It isn’t. What you call “wild type” is just one of the many karyotypes, and all those karyotypes are in wild populations.
What makes you think Mus musculus don’t have gene arrangement variation? And isn’t this a change of subject? Karyotype having failed you, you now resort to other differences? Incidentally, “gene arrangement” doesn’t mean what you seem to think, though in fact it’s not a term I’ve seen used in real biology.
Note that you haven’t answered the question: are all house mice descended from a common ancestor? If so, karyotype variation is not a problem. That you now flee to another supposed problem is perhaps a tacit admission. But I’d like you to be explicit.
1 Like
The standard chromosome count 2n=40.
Do you believe there is gene arrangement variation?
No one has explained the deer chromosome arrangement other then to show the chromosome variation can exist between species.This is not new information.
Sure in all the way humans share a common ancestor. Human populations also have karyotype variation. Why do you think they may have less variation then mice?
This is not a meaningful claim relatively to deer. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Mice are not deer in size, population sizes, reproduction rates and life span.
Another bald assertion to go with the only explanation for the “nested hierarchy” is common descent.
Not at all. All evidence to this question “Do all deer share a common ancestor” should be discussed.
What you call “standard” is just one of the many karyotypes. What was your purpose in making that remark?
Hard to say, because it isn’t clear what you mean by “gene arrangement”.
Once again I ask you to stop misspelling “than”. We know about chromosome fusion and fission. We know what it looks like. And we know that all deer are related by common descent. Now just put those facts together.
At least you finally answer the question. But anyway, mice are also not deer in the time available for the changes, so that all balances out. At any rate your claim was that such things are too rare, and their fixation too rare, to be credible. The mice show that not to be true.
Once again, you haven’t come up with any, and nobody else has either. Even Ewert’s claim, if it even made sense, would only apply to presence/absence data for genes, a minor piece of the phylogenetic data. Nor is it a bald assertion; it follows directly from the data.
Then you should consider the DNA sequence data, as that’s the bulk of it. How do you explain that?
1 Like
It’s refreshing to find something to agree on.
They have variants. They aren’t races as the mice are.
I predict that “race” is yet another term you’ll throw around for months while lacking a basic understanding of its meaning.
That’s obvious. Can’t you figure that out?
We’re talking about evidence, not claims. All you’ve got left is a desperate conflating of them.
No, that metaphor is absurd, as mice and deer are far more closely related than apples and oranges.
Correct, but they are mammals, races within a species, that vary in karyotype, something you’ve been pretending is impossible.
No, it’s evidence that you don’t like. You’re the only one making bald, ridiculous assertions. The rest of us use evidence.
Very much.
Have you considered examining evidence before digging deeper with your incoherent discussion?
1 Like
It’s interesting that Bill tried to use the same falsehood when he was touting @gpuccio’s silly notion of complexity, so that he could completely ignore the massive polymorphism of some human genes.
Bill, can you please come up with some new stuff? This is tedious.
Based on your assumptions true. The evidence however points differently to 2n=40 being the pervasive number and the other variants being mutations in mice sub populations.
The arrangements we see in the Venn diagrams such as post 42.
Mice are not a good example due to their very large populations and short generation times.
Is there a phylogenetic tree based on whole genome sequencing that agrees with the chromosome tree that Rum posted?
I ask again: what was your purpose in making that remark? If true, how does it affect the argument?
Those aren’t arrangements in any reasonable sense of the word. And since you cite nothing and don’t even post the figure legend, we don’t actually know what the numbers represent. Try harder.
Large population size would actually hinder fixation, not increase its likelihood (assuming variants are slightly deleterious in heterozygotes). And the length of time available counters the short generation time. Try again.
Rum didn’t post a chromosome tree. He posted a tree from other data on which the chromosomal changes are mapped. And if you bother to look at the actual paper (always a good idea) you will see that the tree is based on genomic sequencing.
So nothing you have said here is either true or relevant. Do you consciously avoid thinking about the issues or about what other people post? Do you consciously avoid looking at the actual science?
2 Likes
I was simply correcting your comment that there were 3 distinct karyotypes. Your paradigm is that this mutational event can be extrapolated to deer and I disagree.
I think you are dismissing contradictory data.
We are not observing fixation. We are observing subpopulations with chromosomal mutations.
Any length of time?
I took another look at the paper and see that now. Do you see that based on the tree in one case 5 chromosomal changes occurs in 1.2 million years?
I am sure since you know common descent of deer is a fact this has no real interest to you.
I never claimed there were 3 distinct karyotypes. In fact there are many more. Let me ask for the third time: what was your purpose in making those various remarks?
What data? Why do you persist in responding with pointless, content-free one-liners? Please cite the damn paper so I can look at the data.
Fixations in some of the sub-populations, right? And this goes against your claim that chromosomal mutations are so deleterious that they prevent interbreeding or fixation.
No, the particular length of time in deer compared to that in the mice.
You keep changing the subject to distract from the point. But which case?
What interest is it to you? What if anything does it show? And when I provide the evidence you ask for, why do you ignore it in favor of changing the subject?
2 Likes
What evidence?
So you don’t want to discuss the evidence itself. Got it.
If we compare the phylogenetic tree to the Venn diagram for white-tailed deer and musk deer we get a different result.
White-tailed deer share more genes with humans and cattle than they do with musk deer however the tree shows a closer relationship between musk deer and cattle. Also goats share the same chromosome counts with cattle (60) yet the phylogenetic model shows goats and sheep are more closely related then cattle and goats.
Sheep (54) musk deer (58) and white tailed deer (70) have different chromosome counts.
How would a population genetics model reconcile all this?
Once again I ask you for a citation to your source, and once again you ignore that. Why? I don’t know, so far, what the numbers represent. Do you? I also note that you have ignored the advice to consider DNA sequence data.
What’s to reconcile? Are you assuming that a population genetics model must assume equal amounts of evolution for all characters in all taxa?
It’s really time for you to start thinking more before posting.
1 Like