And those arbitrary labels, which don’t fit the way any other animal is labeled, still designate them all as the same species. I have no complaints at all if you wish to label them correctly as different subspecies instead of breeds. Or in the case of humans subspecies instead of races. But hey why classify things correctly when it comes to these two.
This is why I'm trying to get away from labels. Whether things are labelled as species, subspecies, races, breeds, whatever, those are all artificial categorizations for things.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we call them. All we are talking about are populations of organisms with their own individual genotypes that make up a particular gene pool.
And those finch genotypes are so mixed from interbreeding, the physical characteristics of beaks is your only designation. Are you claiming mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient a reason to designate them as separate species?
I don't know enough about finches and the ALX1 gene to have an opinion on the matter.
Because the genome once had all racial characteristics within, and through selective breeding our genetic variability has been reduced. Which is why Asians remain Asian despite generations of mutations.........
This is where I'm going to call "citation needed". Do you have anything to support this assertion?
And will never change an Asian into any other race, let alone a species. You have observed thousands of generations of mutations and yet the Asian remains Asian and no new race appears until they mate with another race. Your mutations lack any credible observational data.
This is again where the obsession with labels is misleading. First all, you'll never be able to truly define a specific set of physical characteristics that can classify a population of humans as being "Asian" without at least some overlap between other populations. As I said, actual physical traits in humans show much more gradation as opposed to hard, defined cut-off points.
Second, mutations are observed and do occur. You've probably got a few dozen yourself. And this can and has led to new species over time. It's well documented.
Yet you expect me to believe that despite mutations not even being able to cross the race border, they magically cross the species border?
I still don't know what "cross the race border" is supposed to mean. I'm not even sure what a "race border" is.
Regardless, mutations occur within populations and can result in changes to phenotypes. For example, here's a case whereby a mutation resulted in blond hair appearing in populations on the Solomon Islands:
The Origin of Blond Afros in Melanesia
What's especially interesting is that this particular mutation hasn't been found anywhere else. It appears unique to this particular population, yet results in blonde hair, a trait typically associated with Nordic populations.
Oh most have quite obvious affects, we call them birth defects.......
Most mutations have no effect. As I said, you probably have at least a few dozen novel mutations yourself. Of the mutations that do cause effects, harmful mutations are more likely, but not exclusive. Beneficial mutations can and do occur and have been documented in various experiments and observations in nature. Particularly when it comes to things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria or pesticide resistance in plants.
Make up your mind, did we interbreed and reduce the genetic variation from the original which contained more genetic variation, or did we not?
In cases where breeding populations were sub-selected from a larger population, and especially in cases of inbreeding, then yes, variation would be reduced.
My point though is that that is simply a result of artificial selection. If a population was allowed to grow and diversify, then genetic variation would naturally return through normal processes of reproduction and mutation.
Fixed as in reduction of genetic variation? Of course the Asian genes are fixed in that population, that’s why they remain Asian despite you trying to convince yourself they can become something other than Asian.
By 'fixed' I mean that when an allele becomes the dominant allele in the population (i.e. all members of the population now posses that allele).
Antibiotic resistant bacteria are a good example of this. Say I had a population of bacteria where 5% of the population has a particular allele (mutated gene) that conveys them resistance to a particular antibiotic. If I apply an antibiotic to the population and kill off the other 95% of the bacteria, all that will be left will be the 5% with that particular allele. Consequently, 100% of the population now has that particular gene conveying antibiotic resistance; that allele is "fixed" in the population.
Of course, that is an extreme example. Alleles can become fixed in populations in other ways, including random genetic drift, founder effects, and so on.
Oh no, I agree on how it works. I agree that through selective breeding between the same strain genetic variation is lost, never gained.
Mutations introduce new variation. That's where novel alleles come from; mutated genes.
That only when selectively breeding with a different genetic strain is more variability introduced.
Genetic recombination from an outside population is one way of introducing variation into a population. Naturally occurring mutations within a population is another.
You know, Asian remains Asian and African remains African, and only when those two mate is a new variant observed?
I suggest Googling pictures of peoples from various African and Asian countries. You're going to find a considerable variety of individual physical traits amongst those populations. As I've repeatedly said, there is more of a continuum in the human species than fixed, defined traits for any individual "race".
If I asked you to specifically define traits specific to any so-called 'race', invariably you're going to find overlap.
