Balancing out.

[Jet Black]

If you aren't field biologist and don't have the mathematical skills, then either sit back and watch and see if something comes of this. Or dismiss me as a liar (afterall I am a Creationist and a Hunter, so its a safe assumption on your part) and just ignore me.

I for one won't ignore you, I find this rather fascinating what you are doing ... on to your reply to me now

I don't know much about the mating habits of foxes, I only hunt them and shoot them.

well it may well be important to the issue. Sexual selection rears it's ugly head right from very stupid organisms such as fruit fly and springtails (watch these little blighters go) and if this isn't being accounted for, then you are fighting against at least one unquantified element.

I don't think any of these species specialize. They eat everything from insects to the largest thing they can take.

well that is interesting then, because it would suggest to me that a larger fox would still try to push out a small fox, because the smaller ones are taking their resources. Given that the stomach contents consist fairly equally of larger and smaller prey (I've been researching) it seems that they will eat anything within their ranges, which typically cover an area of a few square kilometers. Limitation to a certain type of prey could limit their options, as I will cover later.

Gray fox are only at the extreme ends of there size range, none of intermediate size exist.

I thought you said that gray fox are about the same size as kit fox when they live together.

Same for coyotes. Your proposed experiment would be illegal for me to try but would be interesting.

well I suppose you could always try it with some competitor species that can coexist to a degree. I am trying to think of some invertebrates that don't immediately slaughter one another when they encounter each other. ants would be no good for example.

My nature is to question everything and try every detail. But this is outside my training and I'm certain I've missed some issues.

quite possibly, but then that is what research is all about isn't it? hunting down what you have missed.

Just out of interest, what are the night time temperatures of the areas in which these foxes live. That can be quite an issue when considering size. Both Kit Foxes and Grey Foxes are primarily nocturnal, though grey foxes less so. (I am sure you are aware that they are omnivorous and in late summer to autumn, sometimes the largest part of scat and stomach contents of grey foxes can consist of acorns and seeds.) and so if the night temperatures drop very low, then a small size would be a disadvantage to them.

To what degree have the stomach contents of the foxes under the different scenarios been compared and at different times of the year? Do the stomach contents remain similar in cases where they do and do not compete? It might be that the stomach contents vary and in their feeding habits there is some specialisation, but the sizes of the foxes are controlled by other issues.

What are the relative abundances of the various prey types at certain times of the year? For example, if the diet consists of insects and small mammals, are there more small mammals found in their diet at certain times of the year, and more insects at others? This would suggest variation in the amounts of their prey, which would be difficult to overcome, since those individuals within a breeding group that specialised in one prey type would be at a disadvantage to the rest of the breeding group at the times when that food was not so abundant, but not nescessarily at an advantage at the rest of the time.

 

[JohnR7]

Next: We'll ask you for examples of this legendary "evidence".

Sometimes there are people that grasp complex concepts but they have trouble with the easy ones. That is why the Bible says that we must become as a child, to enter into understand God. So, first of all, we assume that we do indeed exist and that we are a part of creation. Something had to create creation. Evolutionists believe that the evolutionary process was the creator. IDers believe that God is the Creator and that He works through the evolutionary process. Then we have to decide is evolution intelligent or stupid. Most evolutionists for some reason seem to think that evolution is stupid. Actually, creationists tend to agree with them that it is a stupid theory, but I think they are talking about something different when it comes to intelligent evolution and stupid evolution.

 

[vipertaja]

Sometimes there are people that grasp complex concepts but they have trouble with the easy ones. That is why the Bible says that we must become as a child, to enter into understand God. So, first of all, we assume that we do indeed exist and that we are a part of creation. Something had to create creation. Evolutionists believe that the evolutionary process was the creator. IDers believe that God is the Creator and that He works through the evolutionary process. Then we have to decide is evolution intelligent or stupid. Most evolutionists for some reason seem to think that evolution is stupid. Actually, creationists tend to agree with them that it is a stupid theory, but I think they are talking about something different when it comes to intelligent evolution and stupid evolution.

Care to contribute to the topic then...according to the rules of the thread?
Maybe you should not become as a child in this case and instead more akin to Mathematician here.

 

[JohnR7]

Care to contribute to the topic then...according to the rules of the thread?
Maybe you should not become as a child in this case and instead more akin to Mathematician here.

Math for what? To get your checks to balance? I have some math for you. Begin with a chess board and a bag of rice. On the first square put one grain of rice. On the second square double that and put two grains of rice. On the third square double that and put four grains. Now, as you fill up the chess board this way, would you rather have the rice or $100,000?

I will give you the answer, by the time you got to square 64, it would take more then all of the rice in the world that is produced in one year. For all of you non rice eaters, you may not realize just how much rice the rice eating world consumes. But it is quite a bit. Six billion people can consume a lot of rice in a years time.

This helps us to understand time and the expansion rate of the universe. Man begins as one cell that doubles and becomes two cells. It takes the same amount of time for two cells to double as it takes for one cell to double and you get twice the results in the same amount of time. By the time you get up to millions and billions, it doubles just as fast as the single did in the beginning. That is why people use to get rich off of compound interest.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Math for what? To get your checks to balance? I have some math for you. Begin with a chess board and a bag of rice. On the first square put one grain of rice. On the second square double that and put two grains of rice. On the third square double that and put four grains. Now, as you fill up the chess board this way, would you rather have the rice or $100,000?

I will give you the answer, by the time you got to square 64, it would take more then all of the rice in the world that is produced in one year. For all of you non rice eaters, you may not realize just how much rice the rice eating world consumes. But it is quite a bit. Six billion people can consume a lot of rice in a years time.

This helps us to understand time and the expansion rate of the universe. Man begins as one cell that doubles and becomes two cells. It takes the same amount of time for two cells to double as it takes for one cell to double and you get twice the results in the same amount of time. By the time you get up to millions and billions, it doubles just as fast as the single did in the beginning. That is why people use to get rich off of compound interest.

I'm REALLY struggling to see the relevance of this post to....well, anything.

 

[vipertaja]

Math for what? To get your checks to balance? I have some math for you. Begin with a chess board and a bag of rice. On the first square put one grain of rice. On the second square double that and put two grains of rice. On the third square double that and put four grains. Now, as you fill up the chess board this way, would you rather have the rice or $100,000?

I will give you the answer, by the time you got to square 64, it would take more then all of the rice in the world that is produced in one year. For all of you non rice eaters, you may not realize just how much rice the rice eating world consumes. But it is quite a bit. Six billion people can consume a lot of rice in a years time.

This helps us to understand time and the expansion rate of the universe. Man begins as one cell that doubles and becomes two cells. It takes the same amount of time for two cells to double as it takes for one cell to double and you get twice the results in the same amount of time. By the time you get up to millions and billions, it doubles just as fast as the single did in the beginning. That is why people use to get rich off of compound interest.

Um....yes...that's a step in the right direction. I don't really see how this is
on topic, but might I assume it will be expanded upon in a second post that
delivers the goods?

Man begins as one cell that doubles and becomes two cells.

Assuming this "cell" is the combination of an egg cell and a sperm cell.

 

[Mathematician]

Jet,

... Sexual selection rears it's ugly head ... and if this isn't being accounted for, then you are fighting against at least one unquantified element.

[snipped comments on food in the interest of space]

I thought you said that gray fox are about the same size as kit fox when they live together.

well I suppose you could always try it with some competitor species that can coexist to a degree. I am trying to think of some invertebrates that don't immediately slaughter one another when they encounter each other. ants would be no good for example.

Sexual selection is something someone else will have to look into.

Most hunters don't examine stomach contents. The methods we use to hunt tend to select hungry animals and most assume they are dealing with an empty stomach. Like domestic dogs, I believe these animals are always hungry and would literally gorge themselves until they couldn't run.

Those who do and who hunt in Arizona, claim that desert kit foxes and gray foxes taken on the same trip tend to have similar content but that the content changes from trip to trip. One hunter told me of a trip years ago on a hot September weekend where grasshoopers were everywhere. He got a kit fox and two gray foxes bloated with grasshoppers. (All three were middle to late morning.) About 40 miles away he got a coyote bloated with grasshoppers. (Middle of the afternoon.) These animals were seen feasting in daylight, ignored the hunter and ignored the calls.

Being out during the heat is certainly atypical, but once the weather turns cool, they are active all the time. And once the weather turns cold, they seem to prefer hunting in the sunlight. (But this observation might really be hunters putting their temperature preference on their game.) The temperature typically varies 40 degrees or more from high to low.

You would expect higher altitude animals to be larger because the summer daytime heat is less intense and the winter night cold is more so. This is what you find with gray fox. Coyote shows the opposite.

In California, small gray fox west of the Preserve tend to have similar stomach contents to the large coyotes in the lower elevations of the preserve, except that coyotes are more likely to scavenge (more opportunity) and more likely to eat prickley pear fruit. We've seen deer, domestic sheep, and calves that were probably killed by coyotes but no one has reported killing a coyote with real meat in it's stomach.

Large gray fox and small coyote also tend to have similar stomach contents. Again coyotes are more likely to eat prickly pear fruit.

We've seen little evidence that desert foxes or coyotes routinely eat seeds or acorns. Stomach contents across species differ little each trip (except as a function of altitude). Stomach contents trip to trip vary greatly. There's not enough consistency or detail in the data to make out any general seasonal trends.

Small gray fox live among and compete with kit fox. Large gray fox live elsewhere. I've never seen an intermediate size gray fox except for obvious juveniles. Apparently I misunderstood your previous comment about intermediate sized fox.

I would like to see this hypothesis applied to other species. In areas where ground squirrels and tree squirrels coexist, are the ground squirrels larger than typical and/or the tree squirrels smaller than typical?

 

[Jet Black]

Small gray fox live among and compete with kit fox. Large gray fox live elsewhere. I've never seen an intermediate size gray fox except for obvious juveniles. Apparently I misunderstood your previous comment about intermediate sized fox.

thanks for the detail there. I think there is alot of stuff missing from the study then, and I will go over that a bit more when time allows. I thought I would just reply to this point though so we make sure we are talking about the same thing. I was thinking of the initial hypothesis that competition would push the foxes into two different niches, with say one fox large and the other small - say one is 10kg and the other 3kg (smaller than they get at the moment) whereas in reality what you get is two intermediate 6kgs. I think you were referring to my intermediates as small, since all that exists at the moment is 10kg and 6kg, making one large and one small.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Agnostic,

I've said nothing about the populations varying genetically. I've assumed that these changes occur completely within the genetic limits of each species. And yes the changes take just a few generations. They demonstrate an extreme amount of "pressure" from something in the environment to cause them to conform. This same pressure would also be brought to bear on any mutations (if they occurred).

Math, please take what I’m about to say as an honest opinion and not an attack. If you are going to start putting forth your hypothesis:

To the extent evolution is possible, everything converges towards the same traits and properties.

as something the world should take seriouslythen you’re going to have to be prepared for the world to try and poke holes in your work. If you want your conclusion to have merit and be able to stand up to scrutiny then you are going to have to really lock down every variable during the research. What you are doing here is very similar to a guy that did research on polonium halos. I suggest you read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html You see, when you do research without doing your best to poke holes in it yourself then someone else is going to do it for you and that’s a big stain on your future assertions.

You seem to be only collecting observational data that supports the conclusion you want to find. Meanwhile, there are a whole slew of other factors that may cause the same effect you are observing. If these animals aren’t even varying genetically then there is no convergence happening in the first place. Even if they are converging in certain traits genetically you have to eliminate the factors that the Theory of Evolution already uses to predict this. If you want to show that this apparent convergence of traits is in some way counter to what the ToE says should happen then you must eliminate those factors.

I applaud your scientific curiosity but I’m afraid your methodology is going to fall far short of substantiating your hypothesis.

Any oversimplifications here are only to help get a very complicated idea across. What's a PRATT?

A “PRATT” is a Point Refuted A Thousand Times”. The po-halos is a prime example. Young earth creationists have taken this guys research and use it over and over and over as evidence of a young earth even though his research was shown to be faulty and his point refuted.

All I mean by oversimplified is that you are failing to take into account, and possibly ignoring, many factors that can explain your observations without genetic convergence. These factors are what will undermine the validity of your assertions if they are not accounted for.

 

[Mathematician]

Agnostic,

Math, please take what I’m about to say as an honest opinion and not an attack. If you are going to start putting forth your hypothesis: [/i][/i]as something the world should take seriouslythen you’re going to have to be prepared for the world to try and poke holes in your work. If you want your conclusion to have merit and be able to stand up to scrutiny then you are going to have to really lock down every variable during the research. What you are doing here is very similar to a guy that did research on polonium halos. ...

You seem to be only collecting observational data that supports the conclusion you want to find. Meanwhile, there are a whole slew of other factors that may cause the same effect you are observing. If these animals aren’t even varying genetically then there is no convergence happening in the first place. Even if they are converging in certain traits genetically you have to eliminate the factors that the Theory of Evolution already uses to predict this. If you want to show that this apparent convergence of traits is in some way counter to what the ToE says should happen then you must eliminate those factors.

I applaud your scientific curiosity but I’m afraid your methodology is going to fall far short of substantiating your hypothesis.

All I mean by oversimplified is that you are failing to take into account, and possibly ignoring, many factors that can explain your observations without genetic convergence. These factors are what will undermine the validity of your assertions if they are not accounted for.

"Genotype determines phenotype." I found this quote. Is this acceptable to everyone? Can we assume that it is a given?

"Phenotype is the constellation of observable traits." I found this one too. Is this acceptable to everyone? Can we assume that it is a given?

"Nature" can only choose between observable traits. This is my synopsis of "Survival of the Fittest." Is this an acceptable statement?

What I am hypothesizing is: "Nature" causes the observable traits of similar species to converge.

If this is true, then a mutation, a change in genotype, will only be selected if it allows the observable traits to converge more closely.

This implies two things. 1) Diversity within a population can not lead to speciation, that is, a population can not split into two species. 2) If two separate populations of a species diverge because of environmental differences, when they are brought back together, nature will force them to converge at the highest rate possible. That is, they shall become one species faster than they differentiated.

I believe the first is not controversial. The second is extremely controversial. It futher implies, that since we see limits to the convergence, the species do not have a common naturalistic origin. I believe the two implications are mathematically equivalent in a dynamic environment.

Gentry was considered the expert in halos. He had the ability to lock down every variable. He couldn't be ignored. When he refused to do so, it destroyed his creditability in his field. This is different. I have an observation in a field outside my expertise. I don't harp on it much. I've never tried to force my way into biology proceedings and make them listen. I published a couple math papers and a dissertation on the general subject, then quit. (Peer reviewed in real journals.) I'm easy to ignore. My primary interests are elsewhere.

I've avoided discussing this with YEC's. They wouldn't accept it anyway. It does more harm to their notion of "kind" than it does to evolution. I've tried to discuss it with some big name Old Earth Creationists, but they can't be bothered. At worst, I'll just be the guy who once had a crackpot idea about species convergence. I haven't even discussed the hypothesis with most of my hunting buddies I've gathered information from. (I don't want them to let it color there field work. Either that or I don't want to let them in on my little secret to success.)

Before this latest attempt, I've had very poor luck even getting the concept across to others. It's too difficult (or I'm too difficult). What I would like is to find someone who understands what I'm saying, who is capable of putting it to the test, and will do so. If only to help me be more successful in hunting.

I'm not collecting observational data that merely supports my hypothesis. I'm collecting observational data that is easy for a hunter to collect. It might be biased in that direction, but I have no way to know that, nor the resources to study it.

I've looked for data supporting the principle of the ecological niche. I can't really find any. It's always presented as something self evident.

One good observation is enough to destroy a hypothesis or theory. I have an observation, that as far as I know, only predator hunters have made. No one has ever discussed this issue in print. If this is a good observation, the ecological niche is in trouble.

From this observation, I've made a falsifiable hypothesis. I believe my hypothesis goes to the heart of evolution. My son and I are going squirrel hunting tomorrow to test it. I welcome attempts to falsify it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I’ll do my best to sort through this but, since I’m not biology guru, I’m going to rely on the others here to correct me where I’m wrong.

"Genotype determines phenotype." I found this quote. Is this acceptable to everyone? Can we assume that it is a given?

I don’t see a problem with this statement as long as we’re not asserting that it’s the only determining factor.

Genotype "Phenotype is the constellation of observable traits." I found this one too. Is this acceptable to everyone? Can we assume that it is a given?

I don’t see a problem with this but I’d like to point out that it’s genetic and environmental (not just determined by genetics)

"Nature" can only choose between observable traits. This is my synopsis of "Survival of the Fittest." Is this an acceptable statement?

I believe so.

What I am hypothesizing is: "Nature" causes the observable traits of similar species to converge.

I think you are correct in this assertion but you may be failing to take into account that some of these observable traits are not genetic.

If this is true, then a mutation, a change in genotype, will only be selected if it allows the observable traits to converge more closely.

This is where you lose me. I don’t see any reason why convergence is required or even favored without getting into the specific selection pressure at work and even if there is a selection pressure causing certain traits to become similar you’ll have to explain to me why the ToE doesn’t already predict this.

This implies two things. 1) Diversity within a population can not lead to speciation, that is, a population can not split into two species.

Right, since the population will continue to interbreed.

2) If two separate populations of a species diverge because of environmental differences, when they are brought back together, nature will force them to converge at the highest rate possible. That is, they shall become one species faster than they differentiated.

This is not possible because if the populations have become separate species then they can not interbreed any more. I guess this is where the god factor comes in since there would have to be some invisible force but I’ve never heard of any account where separate species can merge again. I think this is impossible no matter how similar they may look.

I believe the first is not controversial. The second is extremely controversial. It futher implies, that since we see limits to the convergence, the species do not have a common naturalistic origin. I believe the two implications are mathematically equivalent in a dynamic environment.

The problem is that these implications are based on some pretty heavy assumptions at this point. We have to go back and address the above concerns first I think.

Gentry was considered the expert in halos. He had the ability to lock down every variable. He couldn't be ignored. When he refused to do so, it destroyed his creditability in his field. This is different. I have an observation in a field outside my expertise. I don't harp on it much. I've never tried to force my way into biology proceedings and make them listen. I published a couple math papers and a dissertation on the general subject, then quit. (Peer reviewed in real journals.) I'm easy to ignore. My primary interests are elsewhere.

I think Jet is working to try and nail down what some of the reasons the ToE would predict whatyou have observed without necessitating convergence. I think you’ve made a good observation and I’m sure your math is accurate, but I think you’ve based it on an incorrect assumption at this point.

I've avoided discussing this with YEC's. They wouldn't accept it anyway. It does more harm to their notion of "kind" than it does to evolution. I've tried to discuss it with some big name Old Earth Creationists, but they can't be bothered. At worst, I'll just be the guy who once had a crackpot idea about species convergence. I haven't even discussed the hypothesis with most of my hunting buddies I've gathered information from. (I don't want them to let it color there field work. Either that or I don't want to let them in on my little secret to success.)

Before this latest attempt, I've had very poor luck even getting the concept across to others. It's too difficult (or I'm too difficult). What I would like is to find someone who understands what I'm saying, who is capable of putting it to the test, and will do so. If only to help me be more successful in hunting.

I think you’ll find some extremely bright and knowledgeable people around here that will help hash this out with you and show you where your observations have other possible explanations. I, for one, appreciate that you’ve come up with something fresh to mull over though.

I'm not collecting observational data that merely supports my hypothesis. I'm collecting observational data that is easy for a hunter to collect. It might be biased in that direction, but I have no way to know that, nor the resources to study it.

I've looked for data supporting the principle of the ecological niche. I can't really find any. It's always presented as something self evident.

One good observation is enough to destroy a hypothesis or theory. I have an observation, that as far as I know, only predator hunters have made. No one has ever discussed this issue in print. If this is a good observation, the ecological niche is in trouble.

I’m not so sure at this point. I think you have a good observation but I think it has a viable explanation that coincides with the ToE. I don’t think what you’ve observed breaks any rules of the theory. Actually, I don’t even think what you’ve observed involves genetic variation. These animals may be converging in phenotype determined by environment and not genetics at all.

From this observation, I've made a falsifiable hypothesis. I believe my hypothesis goes to the heart of evolution. My son and I are going squirrel hunting tomorrow to test it. I welcome attempts to falsify it.

We have to support it first ;-)

 

[Mathematician]

Agnostic,

It appears that you and I understand phenotype differently. If someone can clearly define it for us, I'll correct what I've said as appropriately as I'm capable.

My understanding is a particular gene can express itself a number ways. The whole of these is the phenotype. One of these expressions is a trait. That is, the phenotype is the set of all possible traits that a particular gene will allow.

Anybody,

Is this correct? Can someone give us an example to demostrate the principle?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I think you meant to insert the word "creation" there somewhere.

oop's.

 

[Jet Black]

"Genotype determines phenotype." I found this quote. Is this acceptable to everyone? Can we assume that it is a given?

with a couple of small caveats, which I will bring up if they become a problem. Environment can also influence development, the most trivial example I can think of is temperature determining sex in some reptiles.

"Phenotype is the constellation of observable traits." I found this one too. Is this acceptable to everyone? Can we assume that it is a given?

yes

"Nature" can only choose between observable traits. This is my synopsis of "Survival of the Fittest." Is this an acceptable statement?

That rather depends on how we define "observable".

What I am hypothesizing is: "Nature" causes the observable traits of similar species to converge.

If this is true, then a mutation, a change in genotype, will only be selected if it allows the observable traits to converge more closely.

converge on what? what would a single species placed in an environment converge on?

This implies two things. 1) Diversity within a population can not lead to speciation, that is, a population can not split into two species.

unfortunately this kind of thing has already been observed. There are a number of interesting cases of this, for example the faroe island mice were introduced to the islands some 200 years ago by sailors, and have seen rapid diversification on the islands, occupying a number of different niches. This initially would have been just one breeding population that has torn itself into a number of non interbreeding populations. Inbetween the initial population and the final separated populations will be a lot of grey areas.

2) If two separate populations of a species diverge because of environmental differences, when they are brought back together, nature will force them to converge at the highest rate possible. That is, they shall become one species faster than they differentiated.

again, this is not observed in ring species such as the black backed gull in which divergence occurs in a band encircling the world, and where the two species meet, they remain differentiated. The salamanders around california also suffer this issue that they do not converge either.

I believe the first is not controversial. The second is extremely controversial. It futher implies, that since we see limits to the convergence, the species do not have a common naturalistic origin. I believe the two implications are mathematically equivalent in a dynamic environment.

but they are contradicted by observation. Ensatina eschscholtzii are the salamanders I referred to earlier. In California there are two distinct groups differing strongly in their coloration. however they exist as a species in a band stretching from California round the Sierra Nevada mountains and costal mountains, varying slowly along the way. where the two ends meet up, the salamanders look totally different and do not interbreed. The same issues occur for the Greenish Warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides around the Tibetan Plateau and the Gobi Desert. Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus meet in the UK and cannot breed, however they can breed with other Larus gulls forming a ring around the north pole

Gentry was considered the expert in halos. He had the ability to lock down every variable. He couldn't be ignored. When he refused to do so, it destroyed his creditability in his field. This is different. I have an observation in a field outside my expertise. I don't harp on it much. I've never tried to force my way into biology proceedings and make them listen. I published a couple math papers and a dissertation on the general subject, then quit. (Peer reviewed in real journals.) I'm easy to ignore. My primary interests are elsewhere.

I think what you have is probably quite valuable, however what I also feel is that you are applying the conclusions to generally.

I've avoided discussing this with YEC's. They wouldn't accept it anyway. It does more harm to their notion of "kind" than it does to evolution.

yes it's a shame that most of them won't actually discuss things. They have made their conclusions and are afraid of being seen to be incorrect about almost anything.

I've tried to discuss it with some big name Old Earth Creationists, but they can't be bothered. At worst, I'll just be the guy who once had a crackpot idea about species convergence. I haven't even discussed the hypothesis with most of my hunting buddies I've gathered information from. (I don't want them to let it color there field work. Either that or I don't want to let them in on my little secret to success.)

Before this latest attempt, I've had very poor luck even getting the concept across to others. It's too difficult (or I'm too difficult). What I would like is to find someone who understands what I'm saying, who is capable of putting it to the test, and will do so. If only to help me be more successful in hunting.

I'm not collecting observational data that merely supports my hypothesis. I'm collecting observational data that is easy for a hunter to collect. It might be biased in that direction, but I have no way to know that, nor the resources to study it.

I've looked for data supporting the principle of the ecological niche. I can't really find any. It's always presented as something self evident.

One good observation is enough to destroy a hypothesis or theory. I have an observation, that as far as I know, only predator hunters have made. No one has ever discussed this issue in print. If this is a good observation, the ecological niche is in trouble.

From this observation, I've made a falsifiable hypothesis. I believe my hypothesis goes to the heart of evolution. My son and I are going squirrel hunting tomorrow to test it. I welcome attempts to falsify it.

well I hope you don'T catch too much, I like animals

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Agnostic,

It appears that you and I understand phenotype differently. If someone can clearly define it for us, I'll correct what I've said as appropriately as I'm capable.

My understanding is a particular gene can express itself a number ways. The whole of these is the phenotype. One of these expressions is a trait. That is, the phenotype is the set of all possible traits that a particular gene will allow.

Anybody,

Is this correct? Can someone give us an example to demostrate the principle?

This is what I have in my dictionary:

phe·no·type ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f n -t p )
n.

1. 1. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
   2. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.

Here is a page on Environmental Effects on the Phenotype

 

[Mathematician]

Agnostic,

The dictionary definition of phenotype appears (to me) to be different than the one biologists use today.

Jet,

I'll have to look at those examples.

We never saw any "shade tails." So no comparative data. My son wants to know if bushy-tail leather makes good gloves.

Don't worry about shooting too many. A more likely problem is they'll get out of control, destroy everything and either die out from disease or starvation. Besides, it's hard to compete with the "wastefulness" of nature. Any idea what percentage starve to death in a good winter?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The dictionary definition of phenotype appears (to me) to be different than the one biologists use today.

This would be news to me. Any biologists in the house that can confirm of deny this?

 

[Loudmouth]

This would be news to me. Any biologists in the house that can confirm of deny this?

The definition of phenotype looks good to me. I have a BS in Zoology if that helps.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I am hypothesizing is: "Nature" causes the observable traits of similar species to converge.

If this is true, then a mutation, a change in genotype, will only be selected if it allows the observable traits to converge more closely.

Firstly, there are numerous examples of divergence. One especially well documented case was the Grants' work with Darwin's finches. In their study, they observed the divergence of two interbreeding populations into two separate, non-interbreeding populations that specialized on different seed types. Along with specialization of seed types, beak size also fluctuated away from each other when the two populations were compared.

Another general example is the lemurs of Madagascar. There is strong evidence that the different species of lemurs on Madagascar evolved from a single population. Over time, lemurs have moved into several different and distinct niches, everything from general fruit eater to highly specialized insectivores which have adapted characteristics such as an elongated finger and hypersensitive hearing.

This implies two things. 1) Diversity within a population can not lead to speciation, that is, a population can not split into two species.

Speciation and specilization have been observed. Divergence has also been observed.

2) If two separate populations of a species diverge because of environmental differences, when they are brought back together, nature will force them to converge at the highest rate possible. That is, they shall become one species faster than they differentiated.

What is stopping them from specializing and avoiding competition? Here in the NW, there are coyotes, foxes, and wolves all in one environment. They continue to differ in size just as they differed when man first moved into this environment.

 

[Mathematician]

Agnostic,

Your dictionary definition implies that phenotype = trait. My understanding was that it was all possible traits allowed by genes, not a specific trait.

Thank-you, and thank-you also to Jet and Loud. I now see that at minimum, I have a lot of work to do.