Help with a genetics claim...

[tas8831]

The following exchange took place over here. I will re-create only the relevant parts, with emphasis and formatting for clarity as needed. I will then provide my interpretation.

CREATIONIST: No new races have ever formed in the history of mankind from mutation.

ME:
Races? No. Alleles? Obviously - the Grant paper you probably now regret ever finding says so:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
​

That is, the newly introduced allele was shaped by MUTATION.

CREATIONIST REPLIES:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."​

In other words a genome in which deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation. Therefore the new allele is not the mutated allele, all mutations have been deleted or fixed already.​

Am I correct to conclude that the creationist is saying that because the new allele has already undergone selection after having experienced mutations that mutation did not play a role and thus is not really mutated?

And if my conclusion correct, does the creationist have a clue?

 

[Fish14]

The following exchange took place over here. I will re-create only the relevant parts, with emphasis and formatting for clarity as needed. I will then provide my interpretation.

CREATIONIST: No new races have ever formed in the history of mankind from mutation.

ME:
Races? No. Alleles? Obviously - the Grant paper you probably now regret ever finding says so:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
​

That is, the newly introduced allele was shaped by MUTATION.

CREATIONIST REPLIES:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."​

In other words a genome in which deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation. Therefore the new allele is not the mutated allele, all mutations have been deleted or fixed already.​

Am I correct to conclude that the creationist is saying that because the new allele has already undergone selection after having experienced mutations that mutation did not play a role and thus is not really mutated?

And if my conclusion correct, does the creationist have a clue?

What? I didn't understand the creationist's point completely. He sounds unclear, like a strawman "creationist".

• However, my view on this is that yes, mutations do happen and make mutated alleles.
• In the animal kingdom, new species are formed, but not between two different baramins created in the beginning.
• Human "races" are not really races: the difference in DNA between two dog races is much greater than between human "races".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The following exchange took place over here. I will re-create only the relevant parts, with emphasis and formatting for clarity as needed. I will then provide my interpretation.

CREATIONIST: No new races have ever formed in the history of mankind from mutation.

ME:
Races? No. Alleles? Obviously - the Grant paper you probably now regret ever finding says so:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
​

That is, the newly introduced allele was shaped by MUTATION.

CREATIONIST REPLIES:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."​

In other words a genome in which deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation. Therefore the new allele is not the mutated allele, all mutations have been deleted or fixed already.​

Am I correct to conclude that the creationist is saying that because the new allele has already undergone selection after having experienced mutations that mutation did not play a role and thus is not really mutated?

And if my conclusion correct, does the creationist have a clue?

Oh by all means he has a clue. We will reiterate....

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

They are discussing two different ways of allele introduction, one by mutation, the other by hybridization. It is introduced into a differentiated genome where deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations fixed. Unlike mutations which are not shaped by natural selection (being altered randomly - which they clearly told you) it is a direct result of natural selection due to such selection pressures being the cause of mating......

Think about it, there would be no reason to differentiate between the two if both alleles were introduced randomly by mutation. It's a forgone conclusion that evolutionists will simply refuse to recognize, even if your high priests are telling you just that..... The subject of the statement is alleles, not mutations. They are clearly differentiating between an allele introduced randomly by mutation and an allele introduced through natural selection by mating.....

And as they then went on to tell you, mating was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variations than mutations. Which should have told you they were not discussing two forms of mutations as well..... or both variations would be caused by mutation and their statement that hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation THAN mutations would make no contextual sense at all.....

Give it up Tas, it is a battle you lost from the getgo....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The following exchange took place over here. I will re-create only the relevant parts, with emphasis and formatting for clarity as needed. I will then provide my interpretation.

CREATIONIST: No new races have ever formed in the history of mankind from mutation.

ME:
Races? No. Alleles? Obviously - the Grant paper you probably now regret ever finding says so:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."
​

That is, the newly introduced allele was shaped by MUTATION.

CREATIONIST REPLIES:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."​

In other words a genome in which deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation. Therefore the new allele is not the mutated allele, all mutations have been deleted or fixed already.​

Am I correct to conclude that the creationist is saying that because the new allele has already undergone selection after having experienced mutations that mutation did not play a role and thus is not really mutated?

And if my conclusion correct, does the creationist have a clue?

You're correct in saying the variety of alleles of a gene arises through mutation. Whether an individual receives them via its parents or de-novo, they're still the product of mutation.

But if the creationist's point is that a race has never been produced by novel mutation(s) in a single individual, that seems entirely reasonable - a race is a population and a single individual is not a population. If the idea is to deny that two individuals (a racial Adam & Eve) could parent a race through de-novo mutations in each, that too seems extremely unlikely.

I'm not sure what his/her point is...

 

[Tanj]

And if my conclusion correct, does the creationist have a clue?

Well, you found one that can spell "allele" and almost use it in a sentence...that's a step up.

 

[That Guy 11200]

In other words a genome in which deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation. Therefore the new allele is not the mutated allele, all mutations have been deleted or fixed already.​

I'm wondering if the creationist has misunderstood the word 'fixation'. It seems like they believe it means the mutation has been 'fixed' in the sense of it being repaired, therefore, in their mind, there is no mutation anymore.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm wondering if the creationist has misunderstood the word 'fixation'. It seems like they believe it means the mutation has been 'fixed' in the sense of it being repaired, therefore, in their mind, there is no mutation anymore.

I'm wondering if the evolutionist's can just admit that there are two alleles being discussed, not two mutations. One is introduced by mutation (which as they state is random - as mutations are not a product of natural selection), and the other allele was introduced through mating, which is a product of natural selection.

Hence their later informing us that new genetic variation introduced through mating was two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutations...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

"Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches on the small Galapagos island of Daphne Major in the inclusive years 1976 to 1992. Geospiza fortis bred with G. scandens and G. fuliginosa. Although interbreeding was always rare (< 5%), sufficient samples of measurements of hybrids and backcrosses were accumulated for analysis. Five beak and body dimensions and mass were measured, and from these two synthetic (principal-component) traits were constructed. All traits were heritable in two of the interbreeding species (G. fuliginosa were too rare to be analyzed) and in the combined samples of F-1 hybrids and backcrosses to G. fortis. In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction.

Cited for this reason....

". In short, they argue that hybridization may act as a possibly more abundant source of adaptive genetic variation than mutation because mutations are rare and hybridization common. They cite Grant & Grant (1994) who estimated that the amount of new, additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that introduced by mutation in Darwin's finches."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234156635_The_unpredictable_impact_of_hybridization

.. During this non-equilibrium phase, inter-individual variation in traits affecting dispersal becomes spatially assorted because, at each generation, the best dispersers aggregate at the expanding front, seeding new populations. Notably, inter-individual variation is an inherent property of all natural populations, with profound implications for non-equilibrium processes such as range expansion and hybridization that have long been neglected, most often for the sake of simplicity [19]. As the expansion wave advances, the process of spatial sorting can promote rapid directional evolution of traits favoring dispersal, thus further accelerating the establishment of populations in newly colonized areas."

Mainly because most evolutionists hold views contrary to the reality when it comes to cross-breeding, as was even shown in plants...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation

"This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate phenotypes, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presentation, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations."

Offspring are not simply intermediate phenotypes of the parents. It depends on the particulars of which mate....

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation."



But the outcome is wholly dependent upon the genetic details of each population.. The allometric relations may weaken or tend to strengthen genetic correlations, depending on if they are similar or different... leading to new variation and differences in form....

"... This means that in a hybridization event it will matter which individuals from each population actually are involved in the hybridization. In Darwin's finches, it has been shown that when allometric relations differ between populations, genetic correlations tend to weaken, whereas when allometries are similar, genetic correlations tend to strengthen (Grant & Grant, 1994). Thus, the outcome is dependent on the genetic details of each population. ..."

Or as the Grants put it:

"The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction."

Tas just doesn't want to accept that his beloved mutations take second seat to plain ole mating in creating genetic variation and adaptation, leading to new species (although I contest that conclusion - leading to new "sub-species" is the proper terminology and classification).

 

[pitabread]

Tas just doesn't want to accept that his beloved mutations take second seat to plain ole mating in creating genetic variation and adaptation, leading to new species (although I contest that conclusion - leading to new "sub-species" is the proper terminology and classification).

Alleles are ultimately still a result of mutations though. You seem to be conflating two different mechanisms.

Mutations create new alleles. Genetic recombination via sexual reproduction allows for the mixing of alleles in offspring.

In the case where hybridization occurs (i.e. an individual from one population mates with an individual from another), that can lead to further distribution of alleles in populations and thus greater genetic variation. But alleles themselves aren't created by redistribution; they are still created via mutation.

 

[pitabread]

Am I correct to conclude that the creationist is saying that because the new allele has already undergone selection after having experienced mutations that mutation did not play a role and thus is not really mutated?

And if my conclusion correct, does the creationist have a clue?

I'm not sure if the creationist in question understands what "introduced" means in that context. They may be taking that to mean the allele was actually created via hybridization. When in fact, all we're talking about is introducing an allele from one population into another population. But the allele in the original population would still have been the result of a mutation.

 

[tas8831]

What? I didn't understand the creationist's point completely. He sounds unclear, like a strawman "creationist".

Doesn't he? But nope, he is the real deal.

• However, my view on this is that yes, mutations do happen and make mutated alleles.

• Good!

  [*]In the animal kingdom, new species are formed, but not between two different baramins created in the beginning.

  Don't know what that means.

  [*]Human "races" are not really races: the difference in DNA between two dog races is much greater than between human "races".

I was using the creationist's verbiage. Do you have a reference re: the dog genetic distances?

 

[tas8831]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is so strong in so many of these folks...

Oh by all means he has a clue. We will reiterate....

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

They are discussing two different ways of allele introduction, one by mutation, the other by hybridization.

Amazing...

Since you seem to like pretty colors, allow me:



"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele [i.e., the one in the population in question] has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

I literally cannot explain this in a way that the one so invincibly ignorant on the topic will allow himself to understand.

 

[tas8831]

You're correct in saying the variety of alleles of a gene arises through mutation. Whether an individual receives them via its parents or de-novo, they're still the product of mutation.

But if the creationist's point is that a race has never been produced by novel mutation(s) in a single individual, that seems entirely reasonable - a race is a population and a single individual is not a population. If the idea is to deny that two individuals (a racial Adam & Eve) could parent a race through de-novo mutations in each, that too seems extremely unlikely.

I'm not sure what his/her point is...

He doesn't have one - except to be a contrarian to anything that can be construed to undermine his naive 'folk genetics' notions.

In the broader scheme of this months-long 'argument', he is claiming that human 'races' (and by extension, ALL varieties of living things within a Kind) are produced via hybridization, not mutation in any form.

He believes that since an allele introduced into a population via hybridization/interbreeding has already been shaped by selection acting on mutations (as indicated in the quote supplied) that this is NOT the introduction of a 'mutant' allele.

He has latched on to the Grant paper as it indicates a larger impact on phenotypic variation from interbreeding (i.e., the introduction of 'new' alleles from other population) than via mutation within the population in question, totally ignoring that the 'new' alleles, as the Grant paper makes clear, are themselves the product of mutation.

It is maddening, to say the least. I can only compare it to a 3 or 4 year old insisting that they like a food that you know they do not, and upon giving them this food that they do not like yet insist they do, gagging it down between dry heaves of repulsion rather than admit that they do not, in fact, like this food....

 

[tas8831]

I'm wondering if the creationist has misunderstood the word 'fixation'. It seems like they believe it means the mutation has been 'fixed' in the sense of it being repaired, therefore, in their mind, there is no mutation anymore.

I hadn't thought about that - given the creationist's demonstrable ignorance of even basic genetics concepts and terms, that may well be the case. He has, for example, argued that "continuous variation" is variation that is permanent (in so many words)...

 

[tas8831]

I'm wondering if the evolutionist's can just admit that there are two alleles being discussed, not two mutations. One is introduced by mutation (which as they state is random - as mutations are not a product of natural selection), and the other allele was introduced through mating, which is a product of natural selection.

I forgot - this one thinks that the act of mating produces 'mutations.' Or something.

Sorry dude - you simply do not even understand how out of the loop you are.

I strongly suggest you look up the DEFINITIONS of those words you use, in biology, and stop your keyword searches for the purposes of vindication.

Because nothing you have written on any topic biological has done so, in fact, the opposite..

 

[tas8831]

I'm not sure if the creationist in question understands what "introduced" means in that context. They may be taking that to mean the allele was actually created via hybridization. When in fact, all we're talking about is introducing an allele from one population into another population. But the allele in the original population would still have been the result of a mutation.

That is the intelligent, educated, sane answer. I invite you to read the other posts in this thread in defense of himself.

Suffice it to say that I have archived this thread for a great example of how creationists argue - via abject, profound ignorance bolstered by sadly rampant Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Fish14]

• Good!Don't know what that means.

I was using the creationist's verbiage. Do you have a reference re: the dog genetic distances?

Remember that you can't take one creationist and generalize their opinions to all creationists. Every creationist must have a chance to try falsifying your claims.

Sorry, I couldn't find studies on dogs' genetic distances, only ones proving that only a couple genes cause big differences in their appearance. I am not really sure about human races vs. dog breeds. Races appear to be only a social construct, because dogs are bred through natural selection while humans are not.

In creation science baramins are the original types of animals, plants, fungi etc. God created in the beginning. These had potential for great genetic variation. Before the Fall, evolution couldn't happen because there was no death and thus no natural selection. But after it, these baramins began to differ into the species we know today (and some extinct). As an example, all big cats such as tigers and lions, and domestic cats, have their evolutionary roots in a single kind of cat-baramin.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Alleles are ultimately still a result of mutations though. You seem to be conflating two different mechanisms.

Mutations create new alleles. Genetic recombination via sexual reproduction allows for the mixing of alleles in offspring.

In the case where hybridization occurs (i.e. an individual from one population mates with an individual from another), that can lead to further distribution of alleles in populations and thus greater genetic variation. But alleles themselves aren't created by redistribution; they are still created via mutation.

No, that is your false assumption that only mutation leads to alleles. Not supported by any evidence as their had to be alleles to begin with before any mutation could ever change them.....

It is the mixing of individuals with non-similar allometries.

""The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction.""

Quit ignoring the actual science and preaching PR...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is so strong in so many of these folks...

Amazing...

Since you seem to like pretty colors, allow me:



"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele [i.e., the one in the population in question] has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

I literally cannot explain this in a way that the one so invincibly ignorant on the topic will allow himself to understand.

Exactly, let's look at your pretty colors.

Deleterious mutations have been purged.....

And any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation.....

And no, the mutated allele is not the one in question, as made clear by the "whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization".....

The allele introduced by hybridization is NOT the randomly mutated allele, or no distinction between alleles would be made.

Man, you people will try any kind of double-talk to avoid the truth, won't you.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Remember that you can't take one creationist and generalize their opinions to all creationists. Every creationist must have a chance to try falsifying your claims.

Solid point.

Sorry, I couldn't find studies on dogs' genetic distances, only ones proving that only a couple genes cause big differences in their appearance.

The Russian fox-taming experiment might be relevant - they found significant changes in appearance accompanied selection for tameness over remarkably few generations - differences that mirrored the changes apparent in domestic dogs vs their wild ancestors. See Animal Evolution During Domestication: the domesticated fox as a model.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Solid point.

The Russian fox-taming experiment might be relevant - they found significant changes in appearance accompanied selection for tameness over remarkably few generations - differences that mirrored the changes apparent in domestic dogs vs their wild ancestors. See Animal Evolution During Domestication: the domesticated fox as a model.

Exactly, and the only mutation found was one affecting coat color (Star depigmentation), while the changes in snout, ears, legs and tail was simply due to breeding for tameability.....

"It seems unlikely that these similar trends of morphological and physiological transformation of different domestic animals depend on homologous independent mutations of structural homologous genes. The Russian evolutionary biologist Belyaev has suggested more than 50 years ago that domestication might involve other mechanisms contributing to phenotypic variation, mainly regulatory changes in gene activity during development."

"The rigorous selection of the silver fox solely for tameability brought about correlated changes in certain features of behavior, physiology and morphology."

But it isn't just breeding for tamability, but just being in a position where they are amendable to domestication....

"In the domesticated foxes, morphological aberrations such as floppy ears and curly tails occurred in addition to changes in standard coat colour. These morphological traits are also characteristic of many domesticates, mainly dogs (Fig. 4 F-J). At the more advanced steps of selection, changes in the parameters of the skeletal system began to arise. They included shortened legs, tail, snout, upper jaw and widened skull (Fig. 4).

Some of the phenotypic changes appeared not only in the domesticated foxes, but also in those of the farm-bred populations, not subjected to selection for tameability (Table 2). The above observations suggest a relation between selection for tameability and the appearance of a subset of phenotypic changes marking domestic animals. The appearance of some phenotypic changes in the foxes of the nonselected populations is not at variance with this suggestion. These populations have been bred in captivity for about a hundred years, during which period they have been inevitably subjected to selection for adaptation to captivity or amenability to domestication."

However the same morphological changes ocuurred regardless of what species is used or even the biological order...... So I really hope "random mutation" isn't suggested in this thread by the die-hard mutation supporters.....


"However, domestication of different populations of one species, different species, or even orders as well as selection of foxes for tameability is consistently associated with the same morphological and physiological changes. This remarkable parallelism can be hardly regarded as usual correlated responses to selection for any quantitative character. In addition, the reproductive performance of all animals under domestication improved, in contrast to what happened in the case of the correlated responses in terms of traditional quantitative genetics."

And hence their conclusion:

"Finally, it is difficult to interpret the changes in the domesticated foxes as a result of randomly arisen new mutations. Thus, in the same litter of phenotypically standard parents, even in the same offspring of such parents, referred, as a rule, to the tame elite, there appeared several different changes in the standard phenotype (Fig. 5A). This is incompatible with the mutational nature of their appearance. The results of the genetic analysis of morphological changes are also incompatible with the view that each phenotypic alteration is due to a single independent gene; the offspring of parents with one or another morphological alteration, contrary to expectation, showed quite different morphological changes. Only the Star depigmentation phenotype showed an independent genetic basis. The results of genetic analysis of the other phenotypic changes demonstrated that a common genetic basis may underlie the set of different morphological aberrations. All this strongly suggests that the phenotypic variation in the domesticated fox population may result from changes caused by selection for tameability in the regulation of development by the key genes."

There is not a single biologist that believes the morphological changes observed where the results of independently random mutations across species and orders, but were instead brought about by regulatory changes in the genes through breeding for tameability...